[The Next President is...]

1 hour ago, Breckey said:

In fairness that is most likely due to the republican state leadership refusing to expand Medicare and trying and obstruct the ACA at every juncture. Other states like Washington have seen rates decrease. 

Right. First off, they're expanding Medicaid, not Medicare. Medicare is for old folks. Medicaid is for poor people. However, I digress. 

You do realize that the states bear a significant burden by expanding it, right? I can't tell you how many times I heard Democratic lawmakers in my state say "but it's free money". Bullshit, there's no such thing. The Federal Government pays 100% of the expansion for the first year and then it tapers off, putting significant costs on the state in the long run. Kentucky and Ohio are great examples, the poor bastards agreed to do it and budgeted the costs out to 2022. Then, miraculously their costs more than doubled. Illinois? Their Medicaid costs are now four times the original predictions. 

It's classic bait and switch, a year of costs covered for a lifetime of debts. In my state, thank God we had the sense to say "fvck off" and put that money in a rainy day fund. After the hurricane this year, that wisdom saved lives and homes. Literally.

[NFL Ratings are Way Down]

1 hour ago, ThatGuy said:

Bottom line, what elderly NFL fan, college student, or someone on a lower income can afford $360 for football? You want to watch games on the go you need the NFL Sunday Ticket app which blows unless you have a lot of bandwidth or you need to be on Verizon. The NFL has lost touch. Money is their bottom line.

This is the same NFL that was a 501(c)6 non-profit for forever, raking in revenue without paying taxes. 

In order to keep their non-profit status, all 501(c) groups have to file a Form 990 every year. That form requires that you list the revenue, expenses and the income/holdings of all executive staff and personnel. In 2015 (the final full year of the NFL's Non-Profit Status) they made $619,557,237 in revenue (after paying players). Not a dime paid in taxes. How about ol' Roger Goodell? He made $34 million in 2015 (after public outrage that he made $44 million in 2014). 

In fairness, they did stop being a non-profit in 2015. Why would they do that? Sure, they'll pay taxes... but they won't have to report those numbers anymore. Lord only knows what Goodell is making now. 

Here's their final 990 form: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/131/131922622/131922622_201503_990O.pdf

News article on N-P status: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2015/04/28/the-nfl-is-dropping-its-tax-exempt-status-why-that-ends-up-helping-them-out/

TL;DR... When you turn a sport into nothing but another money-hungry corporation, the quality suffers. I can't watch the NFL, Formula 1 or NBA anymore. That leaves the MLB Playoffs, PGA Tour and... College Sports?

[Gun Talk]

8 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

it's for a piston upper.

Busdriver is right, basically the weight/spring is used to affect cyclic rate.

I've always used H2 buffers in my AR's... but with a piston I'd call and ask the manufacturer what weight they recommend.

[Role of the military in a Civil War?]

As for @Clark Griswold's budget idea? I'll have to admit, that's incredibly clever. Trust me though, they'd find a way to game that. Whether that means inflating the first budget knowing that they could handle a cut on the backend... or even if the two parties agreed on a date to pass a budget that wouldn't cut/raise taxes past a certain amount. Working in politics has made me somewhat cynical, but I'm telling you... There's not much distinguishing a majority of the two parties once they all sit in a chamber together.

How about we change your idea slightly. The budget text cannot exceed 150 pages, 2-sided with no less than 10pt font. That passed budget has to be mailed to every citizen with a packet of information from the Congressional Budget Office about what their member of Congress and their staff makes in salaries and benefits, how the budget directly affects you/the nation and what the # is to speak to your representative.

Now we're talking about some fun. I have enough ammo and popcorn I think. Have to check on the ammo though. 
 

[Role of the military in a Civil War?]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Agreed - the crazies from both sides would come out of the woodwork with the probability of unforeseen forays into lunacy high

I would like to see reform but without the Constitution put at risk, for all its quirks and problems it is still the best house of cards to keep a large and diverse nation together.

Right there with you. Speaking of amendments, the 17th is one that I'd like to see removed. But, good luck telling people that they can't elect their senators. 

You know, having Congress do their job for once would be a good start towards reform.

[Role of the military in a Civil War?]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Such an amendment won't happen.  Too many people are supportive of the Second and too many are apathetic so the large-scale support needed won't happen.

And such an act opens a very large can of worms as to what other Rights need 'fixing.'

Yep. This is my rationale as to why we shouldn't pursue an Article 5 convention. Once you open that up... It's a pandora's box. There's nothing to stop random and punitive amendments from being created.

[Role of the military in a Civil War?]

46 minutes ago, daynightindicator said:

I guess the big-picture hypothetical question is, since our oath is to the constitution (whatever it may be amended to read, not just as we like it), at what point would changes to said document reach a tipping point where those who took the oath refuse to continue to support and defend? Obviously it's probably at different points for different folks, but it's an interesting question.

Good question. But, would that tipping point ultimately mean treason? Is the oath of office meant to be a suicide pact to ride the Constitution (in whatever form it does take) to the very bottom? Heavy questions all around. A fun intellectual exercise though. Helps keep things in perspective.

8 minutes ago, magnetfreezer said:

Interesting for sure. As a counterpoint, the Bill of Rights was originally opposed by many of the Founders - they believed that rights were inherent to citizens (natural law) and thought enumerating a bill of rights would restrict those which were not enumerated. In fact, US vs Cruickshank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank) ruled that the right to bear arms was independent of the Constitution.

True. A typical Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist argument. In hindsight, I'd rather have the Bill of Rights than not. I think it helps hold the gov accountable by telling people what they are entitled to, vs. natural law which could change everything thanks to the whims of society. After all, it's kind of hard to know that you've lost something when it was never put down on a single piece of paper. (See U.K.'s deference to Parliament in all matters thanks to an "uncodified" constitution)

[Role of the military in a Civil War?]

9 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

I used to think about "lawful" orders back in the day when sitting ICBM alert.

Since the chain runs POTUS-SECDEF-me, I did sometime wonder about it.

We all think about a key-turn being based upon a retaliation for an incoming nuclear strike.

What if it wasn't?  Was it legal for me to nuke someone due to a sensor failure/computer glitch?

Or if the target was not the then-USSR but, say, Alberta?  I notionally received a valid execute order.  Was it legal?

It got pretty weird under North Dakota at 0300.  Turn the capsule lights off and only have the status indicators shining, cranks some Pink Floyd in the headphones and, "The Horror, the horror..."

The thread was a "what if."  I tried to give a "what if" that would involve the military and each serving member had to make a choice. No standing on the sideline.

I did not advocate a position although my political bias did come out with the "liberal POTUS."  Could just as easily be a arch-right winger as well giving an unlawful order.

I honestly never thought about the ICBM forces dealing with that, but it makes perfect sense. You could easily find yourself in a real-life Crimson Tide (minus the dialogue about horses and the infighting). It's one thing to refuse to roll a few M1 Abrams into a crowded "insurrection"... but completely another to pull the trigger on a weapon that decimates millions. I've got nothing but respect for you guys in the silos... I could never do it. 

Like you said though, better be on the winning side.

43 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

The scenario is not to far fetched and I could see a constitutional / insurrection crisis coming from the Federal government's selective enforcement of laws of late, most notably immigration laws.  If a Red State chose to press-to-test and began mass immigration law enforcement with arrest/incarceration/deportment (at least out of state) of known illegal immigrants, particularly when discovered via contact with LE, we could find ourselves living in interesting times.

The state could argue self-defense via the presence of illegal aliens (legitimately when said illegal alien is arrested from the commission of another crime).  The Federal Government would argue immigration is a Federal issue (rightly) but the state(s) could argue (rightly) to do your job with a subjective argument made that the manner in which the Federal government is currently performing it is in inadequate.  To the Supreme Court for resolution or to a gunfight for resolution?  My preference the former but  America has a tendency every oh 75 years or so to have some major internal fights / family feuds, a show down may be inevitable or even necessary to decide it conclusively by one side of the argument literally vanquished.

Very true. However, you also have a third option that wasn't listed. An Article 5 convention of the states. Sadly, that idea seems to be largely parroted by the alt-right and Tea Party types anymore. Under that convention, you could easily handle any/all issues (pretty much) without bloodshed.

In reading a few articles after posting this, there's the assumption that any "civil war" would break along the old Mason-Dixon line. I completely disagree. Back then, it was a dividing line in culture, from the plantations of the south to the factories of the north. Today, that divide is between the city and the country in any given state. Look up an electoral map in past years for a state, and generally you'll see a sea of red with pockets of blue around the major cities. 

[Role of the military in a Civil War?]

The oath to the constitution is a great example. That oath however, is there to ensure that you are bound not to a single person (president) but a way of life/national structure. If POTUS goes off the rails, declares martial law and abuses his powers, a case could be made that by the military standing by silently or refusing those orders... That you were upholding that oath. I guess it all depends on the circumstances.

I took a class years ago that briefly talked about this very subject. A legal scholar told us that in his opinion, the original 13 colonies retained the right to secede, because they were foreign entities first and states second. Other states however, were created by the US government buying the land they exist on, and as a result, could not. Course, that leaves Tejas in an interesting spot, because they were their own entity for a while. 

Regardless, I think you'd see the nation break up into little kingdoms (states) in a large scale civil war. The national guard in those states could refuse their activations to Title 10 and serve the state instead if they chose. Talk about chaos. It would be like Turkey x10000.

Side note, there was talk a few months back about refusing to follow orders if the President demanded the military waterboard or torture prisoners. I guess the fundamental question is... at what point can the military say no?

[Role of the military in a Civil War?]

Honestly, Business Insider isn't good for much else than clickbait "news" articles. However, this article piqued my interest. In a scenario like they outlined? I'd say they're right. But a full-on insurrection across the entire US? I think it would be a fractured mess. In the wake of the Turkey coup, such a scenario is just interesting to think about. To be clear, I am in no way advocating any action... Just a fun mental exercise. Any thoughts?

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-armed-rebellion-2016-8

[Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)]

32 minutes ago, ned1 said:

These shenanigans will continue unless TRUMP is put in office to stop the shady uniparty tactics. My friends we must vote not just complain and speculate

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Ned, however much the Trump campaign is paying you to copy/paste your tea party emails... I'll double it, if you promise to never post about politics again. We've got issues that go far beyond any politician/candidate, whether they're wearing a chairman Mao pantsuit or a terrible hairpiece and a Rolex.