• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!

Recommended Posts

Once again working around 0300 Eastern when I look up and the waning crescent moon, partially obstructed by clouds, again looks too much like the disembodied grin of the Cheshire Cat.

No more doubt.  Ceiling Cat is LAUGHING at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only think that this was written to fail.

A referendumb on the Florida ballot called for prohibiting vaping indoors AND a ban on offshore drilling.

Honestly, I would be glad to see those annoying e-cigs prohibited.

But as for off shore drilling?  There should MUST be tougher controls, and tougher enforcement of existing controls.  And there needs to be more development in fuel conservation and alternative / renewable energy sources.  But an outright ban on offshore drilling in state waters is not going to solve those problems.  And a sympathetic court (State or Federal) is almost certain to give big petroleum a way around the state ban anyway.

There are people who would permit e-cigs and ban drilling.

And there are people who would permit both.

But I find it difficult to believe that the number of voters in Florida opposed to both, or who are so strongly opposed to one or the other that they would be willing to ban both, could form a majority.  Not even in a mid-term election.

I would suggest a referendum to prohibit combining unrelated issues as a single vote on future ballot referenda.  But they would probably combine that with a proposed ban on buttercream frosting which would force me to vote against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

I can only think that this was written to fail.

A referendumb on the Florida ballot called for prohibiting vaping indoors AND a ban on offshore drilling.

Honestly, I would be glad to see those annoying e-cigs prohibited.

But as for off shore drilling?  There should MUST be tougher controls, and tougher enforcement of existing controls.  And there needs to be more development in fuel conservation and alternative / renewable energy sources.  But an outright ban on offshore drilling in state waters is not going to solve those problems.  And a sympathetic court (State or Federal) is almost certain to give big petroleum a way around the state ban anyway.

There are people who would permit e-cigs and ban drilling.

And there are people who would permit both.

But I find it difficult to believe that the number of voters in Florida opposed to both, or who are so strongly opposed to one or the other that they would be willing to ban both, could form a majority.  Not even in a mid-term election.

I would suggest a referendum to prohibit combining unrelated issues as a single vote on future ballot referenda.  But they would probably combine that with a proposed ban on buttercream frosting which would force me to vote against it.

Sounds like a tactic to prevent a majority vote banning drilling. Through in something that would make people think "but I gotta give this up in order to make something happen?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the gyro on your phone is too sensitive. Have it in portrait and tilt it two degrees, and it goes to landscape.

When the gyro on your phone is not sensitive enough. Have it in landscape and tilt it fully vertical, it stays that way until you shake it or something.

Both of these really make watching YouTube videos or reading comments on YouTube videos difficult sometimes.

 

Also, when the headphone jack on your phone won't keep the headphones in unless you actively hold them there. And the slightest twitch pops it loose, either lowering the volume or pausing the video entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Facebook, Amazon, Youtube and Google news.

Yes, I bought an electric bike and yes I spent some time looking for info on various brands of ebikes.   This does not mean I need to have ebike forced into my feed and/or news daily.

Thanks!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone applied for life insurance and left my phone number for the contact number.  I've gotten 5 calls and one text about it so far.  I am really less than gruntled by this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This car outside my window that's had it's alarm going off for the past half hour or so, either the owner has a kid that won't stop playing with the keys and pushing the panic button, or the owner is being an idiot.....well if the own keeps letting their kid get their hands on the keys, they're an idiot anyway....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems I was lied to. They are going to work on my roof today, not wait until Monday. I am less than 100% gruntled by this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2018 at 6:39 PM, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

I would suggest a referendum to prohibit combining unrelated issues as a single vote on future ballot referenda.  But they would probably combine that with a proposed ban on buttercream frosting which would force me to vote against it.

A majority of US states have provisions in their state constitutions doing that - for all legislation. So not only can they not combine issues on ballot referenda, they cannot combine issues in acts of the state legislature. Also, typically, the subject of the legislation must be stated in the title of the bill.

It can be taken oddly though. The Washington state supreme court ruled that cutting three taxes and limiting the legislature's ability to raise taxes was more than one issue. The people who sponsored that initiative (which had passed by a wide margin) then sponsored another initiative that just cut two taxes, which (after it also passed by a wide margin) was ruled to be two separate issues and not adequately described as "an initiative to cut taxes". So then they sponsored a third initiative which changed one word of state law...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a mildly related note I am reminded of the town council of Gould, Arkansas which in 2011 banned all organisations and assemblies of three or more people that did not have the approval of the council. When the city attorney warned them that there might be a problem with this law, they attempted to fire him because they could certainly not see that there was anything at all wrong with their law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that the council of Gould did not realize that their law would mean that they would have to approve all schools, churches, and places of business without exception. If they extended this definition to include family units, then they were really courting lawsuits. How long did it take for them to drop this ban?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

On a mildly related note I am reminded of the town council of Gould, Arkansas which in 2011 banned all organisations and assemblies of three or more people that did not have the approval of the council. When the city attorney warned them that there might be a problem with this law, they attempted to fire him because they could certainly not see that there was anything at all wrong with their law.

Alternatively, the Council of Goa'uld would just enslave everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ijuin said:

It appears that the council of Gould did not realize that their law would mean that they would have to approve all schools, churches, and places of business without exception. If they extended this definition to include family units, then they were really courting lawsuits. How long did it take for them to drop this ban?

They also did not realise that their law was in obvious and clear violation of the First Amendment, which protects the right to freely assemble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have long suspected certain politicians pushing through legislation that they know will not survive a veto (or court challenge or is somehow unenforceable) simply to say that they have done all they can and that the system is rigged against them.  Then they claim that if you reelect them, they will put that legislation through again, and this time it will stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 11:55 AM, The Old Hack said:

On a mildly related note I am reminded of the town council of Gould, Arkansas which in 2011 banned all organisations and assemblies of three or more people that did not have the approval of the council. When the city attorney warned them that there might be a problem with this law, they attempted to fire him because they could certainly not see that there was anything at all wrong with their law.

Someone read Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and decided that Dolores Umbridge would be a perfect role model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now