US Government Shutdown- It's Over!... For Now

[San Lumen]

Yeah I have and he isnt going to Sacramento to plot ways to screw with your county.

Its not falsehoods. You said you want to keep the government closed including your state government

And she has plenty of great things to say you just would refuse to listen to her. She can tell you all about how wonderful anarchy is as she is from Somalia.

My county?

And a non-existent government results in unpaid workers how?

She probably has about as many great things to say as Richard Spencer.

Well you seem to have this notion everyone is out to get you.

And non existent government leads to terrible things. Ask a Somali refugee how great it is.

That last response proves your not only not listening nor would you listen to anything she has to say your just pulling random things out of a hat.

[San Lumen]

It most certainly is not. Laws have force due to having a group dedicated to enforcing them, not simply because people like being told what to do. The consequences of getting caught, as well as the perceived likelihood of getting caught, acts as a deterrent. That deterrent works even when the would-be victim isn't physically strong or skilled enough to stop the crime him or herself. Without a strong government in place, this deterrent goes away and it's every man for himself. Without people who everyone (or at least the vast majority) agrees have the authority to make and enforce laws, there is no central guiding principle. In olden times, it was the men of the village acting under direction of an elder, or city guards under the authority of a mayor/council, or an army under the authority of the Crown/Church. These were still governments. A government isn't just a bunch of old men in a fancy building. A town elder and the people who support and enforce said elder's will are a government. A group of citizens who the majority agree are in charge of the society are a government. What you're arguing, that there should be no-one in charge, is a situation that will *never* result in order or peace.

Yes I am aware of what constitutes a government, the problem with your 'order and peace' is it is in no way the result of a government. A bad government can be much worse than an anarchy, I'd much rather deal with some skinhead rabble than the Einsatzgruppen.

Go move to Mogadishu then.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Eh, if your good at managing your life youd deal with renewing right away, so you dont have to worry about the government shutdowns affecting it. 9 days isn't much of a concern yet. 3 week long maybe...

Of course if you have a permanent shutdown, you can't deal with it at any time, that's the point...

A permanent shutdown is near impossible, as this shutdown is only temporary until the all sides meet a agreement. A side will cave in

[San Lumen]

Of course if you have a permanent shutdown, you can't deal with it at any time, that's the point...

A permnament shutdown is near impossible, as this shutdown is only temporary until the all sides meet a agreement.

Its not going to be permanent but its not going to end anytime soon. The wall is not happening though

[Telconi]

My county?

And a non-existent government results in unpaid workers how?

She probably has about as many great things to say as Richard Spencer.

'Probably'.

Shorthand for saying you've never heard a word she's ever said and are just pulling nonsense.

There's no rabbit in that hat son, sorry.

Or, I have heard what she has said, and little of it has been "great" and a decent amount of it has been horrifying.

[The South Falls]

Of course if you have a permanent shutdown, you can't deal with it at any time, that's the point...

A permanent shutdown is near impossible, as this shutdown is only temporary until the all sides meet a agreement. A side will cave in

Yea, itll be a few months before that happens.

[Holy Tedalonia]

A permnament shutdown is near impossible, as this shutdown is only temporary until the all sides meet a agreement.

Its not going to be permanent but its not going to end anytime soon. The wall is not happening though

The wall will happen if the dems cave in. As I said, this is a battle of resolve. If the dems aint got the resolve to push their mantra through, then they aint going to stop that wall.

[Telconi]

My county?

And a non-existent government results in unpaid workers how?

She probably has about as many great things to say as Richard Spencer.

Well you seem to have this notion everyone is out to get you.

And non existent government leads to terrible things. Ask a Somali refugee how great it is.

That last response proves your not only not listening nor would you listen to anything she has to say your just pulling random things out of a hat.

Specifically? No. in a general sense, yes.

The currently existant government leads to terrible things, so do you have a point?

Or, maybe, just maybe, people disagree with you?

[Holy Tedalonia]

A permanent shutdown is near impossible, as this shutdown is only temporary until the all sides meet a agreement. A side will cave in

Yea, itll be a few months before that happens.

I could see 2 months at most. Although im a optimist, so that may affect my opinion a tad.

[San Lumen]

Well you seem to have this notion everyone is out to get you.

And non existent government leads to terrible things. Ask a Somali refugee how great it is.

That last response proves your not only not listening nor would you listen to anything she has to say your just pulling random things out of a hat.

Specifically? No. in a general sense, yes.

The currently existant government leads to terrible things, so do you have a point?

Or, maybe, just maybe, people disagree with you?

That doenst mean you shut it down indefinitely. ATC are currently working without pay put they dont matter right? They only direct air traffic.

Did I ever say everyone agreed with me and one was not allowed to disagree?

[Telconi]

Specifically? No. in a general sense, yes.

The currently existant government leads to terrible things, so do you have a point?

Or, maybe, just maybe, people disagree with you?

That doenst mean you shut it down indefinitely. ATC are currently working without pay put they dont matter right? They only direct air traffic.

Did I ever say everyone agreed with me and one was not allowed to disagree?

ATC aren't state employees.

You seem to have difficulty with the concept, since you seem to belief disagreement is by definition the product of ignorance.

[The South Falls]

Yea, itll be a few months before that happens.

I could see 2 months at most. Although im a optimist, so that may affect my opinion a tad.

Yea... the president being too stubborn, and the Democrats wanting to do other things...

[San Lumen]

That doenst mean you shut it down indefinitely. ATC are currently working without pay put they dont matter right? They only direct air traffic.

Did I ever say everyone agreed with me and one was not allowed to disagree?

ATC aren't state employees.

You seem to have difficulty with the concept, since you seem to belief disagreement is by definition the product of ignorance.

I am aware but if your support shutting down your state government you obviously have no issue with the current government shutdown, Clearly you have no problem with the Coast Guard, Secret Service, Park Rangers and ATC not getting paid. They are all not needed right?

[Jebslund]

It most certainly is not. Laws have force due to having a group dedicated to enforcing them, not simply because people like being told what to do. The consequences of getting caught, as well as the perceived likelihood of getting caught, acts as a deterrent. That deterrent works even when the would-be victim isn't physically strong or skilled enough to stop the crime him or herself. Without a strong government in place, this deterrent goes away and it's every man for himself. Without people who everyone (or at least the vast majority) agrees have the authority to make and enforce laws, there is no central guiding principle. In olden times, it was the men of the village acting under direction of an elder, or city guards under the authority of a mayor/council, or an army under the authority of the Crown/Church. These were still governments. A government isn't just a bunch of old men in a fancy building. A town elder and the people who support and enforce said elder's will are a government. A group of citizens who the majority agree are in charge of the society are a government. What you're arguing, that there should be no-one in charge, is a situation that will *never* result in order or peace.

Yes I am aware of what constitutes a government, the problem with your 'order and peace' is it is in no way the result of a government.^{[citation needed]} A bad government can be much worse than an anarchy, I'd much rather deal with some skinhead rabble than the Einsatzgruppen.

A bad government is not an argument that order and peace are not the result of a good one. That's like saying malpractice is why a longer-lived populace is in no way the result of modern medicine, or that Hitler is why desegregation was in no way the result of laws prohibiting segregation.

As for those skinheads, they'd be a lot more dangerous (and more likely to *become* those Einsatzgruppen) without anyone keeping order to stop them. The problem with stopping those sorts is that, without a powerful group keeping them in check (such as a police force), no one will want to bell the cat, so to speak, because very few will be willing to put their lives on the line to do it without being paid or ordered to. Most people, especially in this day and age, are not fighters.

Hell, look at the KKK. They didn't really see their power wane until their crimes started being punished more and more often. Same with the mob: Until the police started competently cracking down on them (and until the government got its collective heads out of it's collective asses and went back to regulating, rather than outright banning, alcohol), they were the ones with the real power. You didn't speak out against The Family. You didn't defy The Family. You didn't rat out The Family. Because the people who did had a way of winding up dead. And those are the people who can and will seize power in an anarchy.

[Zex]

Police are the absolute filth beneath my feet, as by law and Supreme Court ruling it is not the responsibility of the police to protect you- me- or anyone.^{[citation needed]} They can quite literally guide the penis of the rapist into you so-long-as they arrest the man afterwards.^{[citation needed]} They are not just welfare sponges which suck up taxes, they are also given the force and authority to rob people when it's not enough.^{[citation needed]} If a policeman ever helps you, or dies for you, you better thank them... Because it's not their job to do so.^{[citation needed]}

Quite the load of tripe you just dumped into the thread. Leaving aside laws/constitutional provisions regarding due process, there are laws and rules in place which require police to stop (or at least attempt to stop) any crimes in progress they witness and can reasonably stop/attempt to stop.

Allow me to banish the ignorance you have succumb to on this topic as you are horrendously forgetting about the "when" part of your own haphazard rebuttable.
The case law in question, feel free to look up the actual ruling yourself (this is not the only one, you can also lookup the others yourself)
This is the result of such case law from our most august supreme court

For those who can't read
For those who can't read and love cartoons (shorter "theatrical" version)
Unless the police directly tell you that they will help you or you are under their custody, it is not their responsibility to protect you.
You better double check your state law, because if it is not codified (which it's not btw) you are on your own; fact.
Although they do have a duty to stop crimes/suspects, WHEN they get involved is up to them; you're welcome.

Because paying people to work for you is *totally* welfare...
There's also the fact that, if the cop in your rape example were to do that, the arrest would constitute entrapment.

It is and it would; though I'm being overly facetious in that last part, so as to drive home the point that it is not the duty of the police to protect and serve in any way- shape- or form.

[Jebslund]

Its not going to be permanent but its not going to end anytime soon. The wall is not happening though

The wall will happen if the dems cave in. As I said, this is a battle of resolve. If the dems aint got the resolve to push their mantra through, then they aint going to stop that wall.

The Dems won't have a majority in any branch of government until January. It's a Republican show right now. That should tell you something about the GOP's desire for a wall.

[San Lumen]

Quite the load of tripe you just dumped into the thread. Leaving aside laws/constitutional provisions regarding due process, there are laws and rules in place which require police to stop (or at least attempt to stop) any crimes in progress they witness and can reasonably stop/attempt to stop.

Allow me to banish the ignorance you have succumb to on this topic as you are horrendously forgetting about the "when" part of your own haphazard rebuttable.
The case law in question, feel free to look up the actual ruling yourself (this is not the only one, you can also lookup the others yourself)
This is the result of such case law from our most august supreme court

For those who can't read
For those who can't read and love cartoons (shorter "theatrical" version)
Unless the police directly tell you that they will help you or you are under their custody, it is not their responsibility to protect you.
You better double check your state law, because if it is not codified (which it's not btw) you are on your own; fact.
Although they do have a duty to stop crimes/suspects, WHEN they get involved is up to them; you're welcome.

Because paying people to work for you is *totally* welfare...
There's also the fact that, if the cop in your rape example were to do that, the arrest would constitute entrapment.

It is and it would; though I'm being over facetious in that last part, so as to drive home the point that it is not the duty of the police to protect and serve in any way- shape- or form.

So your totally fine with ATC, the Coast Guard, and Secret Service working without pay and might not be able to afford rent or feed their kids?

The same goes for those furloughed

[Telconi]

ATC aren't state employees.

You seem to have difficulty with the concept, since you seem to belief disagreement is by definition the product of ignorance.

I am aware but if your support shutting down your state government you obviously have no issue with the current government shutdown, Clearly you have no problem with the Coast Guard, Secret Service, Park Rangers and ATC not getting paid. They are all not needed right?

Your conclusion is incorrect. Don't assume things, it just leads to you arriving at foolish conclusions.

[Jebslund]

Allow me to banish the ignorance you have succumb to on this topic as you are horrendously forgetting about the "when" part of your own haphazard rebuttable.
The case law in question, feel free to look up the actual ruling yourself (this is not the only one, you can also lookup the others yourself)
This is the result of such case law from our most august supreme court

For those who can't read
For those who can't read and love cartoons (shorter "theatrical" version)
Unless the police directly tell you that they will help you or you are under their custody, it is not their responsibility to protect you.
You better double check your state law, because if it is not codified (which it's not btw) you are on your own; fact.
Although they do have a duty to stop crimes/suspects, WHEN they get involved is up to them; you're welcome.

Because paying people to work for you is *totally* welfare...
There's also the fact that, if the cop in your rape example were to do that, the arrest would constitute entrapment.

It is and it would; though I'm being overly facetious in that last part, so as to drive home the point that it is not the duty of the police to protect and serve in any way- shape- or form.

That second link was not a Supreme Court ruling, actually. In any case, I'd be interested to see more sources, as the restraining order was ruled on as the order itself being a process, not something governed by due process, not whether or not law enforcement has a duty to stop crimes in progress that they witness and can reasonably stop, and a single federal court ruling does not, a solid argument, make, as the ruling of a single judge is the opinion of one fallible person.

[Telconi]

Yes I am aware of what constitutes a government, the problem with your 'order and peace' is it is in no way the result of a government.^{[citation needed]} A bad government can be much worse than an anarchy, I'd much rather deal with some skinhead rabble than the Einsatzgruppen.

A bad government is not an argument that order and peace are not the result of a good one. That's like saying malpractice is why a longer-lived populace is in no way the result of modern medicine, or that Hitler is why desegregation was in no way the result of laws prohibiting segregation.

As for those skinheads, they'd be a lot more dangerous (and more likely to *become* those Einsatzgruppen) without anyone keeping order to stop them. The problem with stopping those sorts is that, without a powerful group keeping them in check (such as a police force), no one will want to bell the cat, so to speak, because very few will be willing to put their lives on the line to do it without being paid or ordered to. Most people, especially in this day and age, are not fighters.

Hell, look at the KKK. They didn't really see their power wane until their crimes started being punished more and more often. Same with the mob: Until the police started competently cracking down on them (and until the government got its collective heads out of it's collective asses and went back to regulating, rather than outright banning, alcohol), they were the ones with the real power. You didn't speak out against The Family. You didn't defy The Family. You didn't rat out The Family. Because the people who did had a way of winding up dead. And those are the people who can and will seize power in an anarchy.

The fact good governments can exist is in no way an argument to support any given government.

[Holy Tedalonia]

The wall will happen if the dems cave in. As I said, this is a battle of resolve. If the dems aint got the resolve to push their mantra through, then they aint going to stop that wall.

The Dems won't have a majority in any branch of government until January. It's a Republican show right now. That should tell you something about the GOP's desire for a wall.

Few care to rival trump in the GOP. If they can get a wall in their eyes, then theyll get a wall to appease trump. The only ones who'll really need to cave in is the dems.

[Jebslund]

The Dems won't have a majority in any branch of government until January. It's a Republican show right now. That should tell you something about the GOP's desire for a wall.

Few care to rival trump in the GOP. If they can get a wall in their eyes, then theyll get a wall to appease trump. The only ones who'll really need to cave in is the dems.

If that was true, the government would not be shut down right now. The GOP would already have approved the funding. They've had a solid majority since Trump was elected, and won't lose that majority until January, and only in one of the houses.

[Jebslund]

A bad government is not an argument that order and peace are not the result of a good one. That's like saying malpractice is why a longer-lived populace is in no way the result of modern medicine, or that Hitler is why desegregation was in no way the result of laws prohibiting segregation.

As for those skinheads, they'd be a lot more dangerous (and more likely to *become* those Einsatzgruppen) without anyone keeping order to stop them. The problem with stopping those sorts is that, without a powerful group keeping them in check (such as a police force), no one will want to bell the cat, so to speak, because very few will be willing to put their lives on the line to do it without being paid or ordered to. Most people, especially in this day and age, are not fighters.

Hell, look at the KKK. They didn't really see their power wane until their crimes started being punished more and more often. Same with the mob: Until the police started competently cracking down on them (and until the government got its collective heads out of it's collective asses and went back to regulating, rather than outright banning, alcohol), they were the ones with the real power. You didn't speak out against The Family. You didn't defy The Family. You didn't rat out The Family. Because the people who did had a way of winding up dead. And those are the people who can and will seize power in an anarchy.

The fact good governments can exist is in no way an argument to support any given government.

Running out of actual arguments, I take it? You're advocating anarchy, not advocating against one specific government. Nice try, though.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Few care to rival trump in the GOP. If they can get a wall in their eyes, then theyll get a wall to appease trump. The only ones who'll really need to cave in is the dems.

If that was true, the government would not be shut down right now. The GOP would already have approved the funding. They've had a solid majority since Trump was elected, and won't lose that majority until January, and only in one of the houses.

I mean thats certainly true, but again, those resistant to trumps mantra is a slim amount of republicans who dont really care for the wall. Theyll change their tune if it ends the shutdown. Dems will need longer time to cave in though.

[Kowani]

I feel like someone should tell the MAGA crowd to stop demanding the wall, because it’s not getting built.