Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
WE'RE GONNA PARTY LIKE IT'S THREAD 1999!
27 percent OK on U.S. direction
And this an uptick in satisfaction.
edited 18th Feb '13 2:37:12 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Going by your description, I have to say that I agree that lenders have to have flexability. Trying to determine the exact amount that any given person has to put down to own a given house must be a complicated process and trying to make a formual that covers all the bases would be difficult to say the least.
Though I also belive that there are certain minimum amounts that can be agreed on. Like, a person has to put down at least XX% of the value of the house.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!![]()
The thing with the NOAA is that they're not using the money that the GOP is looking to put to the Cops in Schools fund.
It's along the same issues that put the Postal Service into the problems that they're facing now.
As soon as there is a surplus or an unspent amount in one program, politicians are frothing at the mouth to divert the money that could go to a project somewhere else.
edited 18th Feb '13 3:30:54 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!After 148 years, Mississippi finally ratifies 13th Amendment, which banned slavery
I'm sure the slaves are overjoyed.
edited 18th Feb '13 3:44:24 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016The great state of Mississippi is happy to let you force your shorter funny-coloured people to work demeaning jobs for less than minimal pay.
Oh wait, we're not talking about Mexican migrant labour? Never mind.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.The state government officially ratified it back then, they just never actually told the federal government.
And concerning the NOAA thing, yes, the shootings were bad, but far more damage was done to New York City, and a ton of damage is done every year to places that tend to get hit by natural disasters. I'd think funding the group that can save tons of lives, including the lives of the politicians is completely worth it. Just slash the military budget for their bizarre and insane experiments and you have enough for the NOAA and NASA to work with.
Arkansas Senate passes bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks
Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953 34th president of US 1953-1961 (1890 - 1969)
What I wouldn't give to have those guys back.
re: Mississippi ratifies the 13th Amendment a hundred years later - Alright! Next up the Mississippi Board of Education is going to admit the Earth is round.
It was an honorSo, the GOP wants to put police in schools by taking money away from NOAA. Are they still going for that "cartoonishly evil" award?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Unless the NOAA does something with that money, people are going to cut it and spend it somewhere else. No such thing as "profit" or "surplus" here.
What do you have to do to justify having extra cash, when it could be put to use somewhere else?
They're not cutting the NOAA, they're cutting the surplus the NOAA has.
edited 18th Feb '13 6:10:41 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!And this is why you have a lot of government waste. Because if a department doesn’t spend every penny, if it doesn’t use up every last bit of cash it's given, then it loses it. It doesn’t just lose it for the year that they came in under budget, but it loses it for all future years. Let's assume you're right and this is NOAA's surplus, it's effectively being punished for coming in under budget. For not wasting government money it's having its funding cut, how is that right?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I opposed the Iraq war because if was none of our damn business what was going on in Iraq. That the casus belli was, as stated above, a transparent lie also rather helped with that decision.
Do you know how underfunded NOAA already was? I seem to recall the head of NOAA saying something to the effect of that if they had NASA's (rather paltry) budget, they could afford to map the entire ocean floor in a decade. Trying to fund ANYTHING by taking the money from NOAA is like squeezing blood from a rock.