91–100 of 155 posts
In Indian temples line-sitters are very common. Many queues are 5+ hours long.
Fascinating. Is there something specific about those temples that draws the crowds, like something akin to a famous cathedral? Must worship take place in a temple? I don't know how the religion works but did get to visit a local temple once with some coworkers and enjoyed the atmosphere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made no claim as to party, it's just how it was done. If anything it was the Republicans who are the majority. I wanted to clarify that it was by unanimous consent, not a recorded vote.
Fair enough. But I do still have to push back on the notion that it was just 5 people there. If that were the case, you could have expected one of the more lucid members to have done a quorum call.
In Indian temples line-sitters are very common. Many queues are 5+ hours long.
Fascinating. Is there something specific about those temples that draws the crowds, like something akin to a famous cathedral? Must worship take place in a temple? I don't know how the religion works but did get to visit a local temple once with some coworkers and enjoyed the atmosphere.
Every family has a "kuladeivam" which is basically a temple for that (patrilineal) lineage. Every family has one. Every temple has few families.
Then it's special for people in the same town as the temple. Modern migration makes this a different set from the one above.
Then each temple has special events on specific days/week/month/year.
And then on top of that some few hundred temples are special in general and are crowded 365 days of the year with people from all over.
Adds up.
> Must worship take place in a temple?
Just my understanding. You can worship anywhere even in your head, but temples are one thing which improve "quality" of worship by a lot. The logic roughly goes - since most people aren't capable of high (enuf) quality worship in their head or at home, temples help them. More of a magnitude thing rather than a binary thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me of when Steve Job's had his ninja throwing stars confiscated by (airport security) getting on his private jet. Edited to clarify NOT TSA
The danger of Steve Jobs hijacking his own private plane was obviously quite high! We can only thank the dutiful TSA officers for their brave service. I’m sure they risked their lives averting this danger. Have they been awarded any medals yet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough. But I do still have to push back on the notion that it was just 5 people there. If that were the case, you could have expected one of the more lucid members to have done a quorum call.
Fair point. My understanding is that the Senate "assumes" a quorum unless someone suggests there is not. Since it was AFAIK around 2am... my guess is not and they all just wanted to get the heck out of there. Since no recorded vote we may never know. So I stand corrected on the number.
The session has to start with a quorum and it's assumed that there is still a quorum since nobody has done a quorum call.
I have to assume that if someone actually objected to this, they would have done a quorum call before leaving the session. That or the few objectors simply left early not thinking this would go to 2am. Though, they could have always came back. They almost certainly would have had staffers there who'd inform them that something like this was coming up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why are you even participating in the discussion? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Don’t enter a ring if you can’t take a punch.
So if you want to derail the discussion it's "Don’t enter a ring if you can’t take a punch", but when I do it, it's "... instead of embarking on a side quest"?
To ask why Republicans won’t participate in passing these reforms is not “derailing” the conversation. It speaks to the very heart of the problem, because if they would, we wouldn’t be in this quagmire. The public has made it pretty clear that they don’t like the status quo about how ICE has been operating lately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should private plane passengers be subject to TSA? TSA (paid for by you and me by the way, not for free) exists to protect the public from harm, on public flights by common carriers. It used to be contracted by airlines themselves. Unless you are the most extreme of pro-seatbelt law people, it would make little sense for TSA to screen anyone on a private plane manifest unless the client asked them to.
No, the TSA exists because 19 people hijacked 4 flights and succeeded in crashing 3 of them into various important buildings in the US on 9/11/2001. Private planes are just as capable of crashing into buildings as commercial jets. The TSA has picked up some ancillary public safety functions over the years, but their raison d'etre is to prevent hijackings.
Little planes, like this one [1] just don't do damage on the same scale as airliners.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack
It seems that SFO's policy of having an intermediate company that buffers salaries is working well because I flew through there to Taipei after this whole situation and there was no wait.
I _just_ went though the line. It wasn't too bad (5-10min, despite having bio ID), but it was by far the worst I've encountered at SFO in the decade I've been flying out of there.
I don’t even understand why this is an issue, because TSA screening is funded through user fees. There’s a line item of $5.60 per one-way ticket for exactly this that’s separate from airfare and other fees. ( https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/security-fees ) If this is so, why does Congress have to fund the program? Why not pass the funds through directly to the agency?
The question itself feels like it calls for "Schoolhouse Rock" level basics about how the federal government works. The federal government does not work like a private escrow account where a fee collected for X automatically goes to Y. Tax revenue comes in to the Treasury, and Congress decides what agencies are allowed to spend. So even if TSA screening is funded in part by a per-ticket user fee, TSA still does not g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should private plane passengers be subject to TSA? TSA (paid for by you and me by the way, not for free) exists to protect the public from harm, on public flights by common carriers. It used to be contracted by airlines themselves. Unless you are the most extreme of pro-seatbelt law people, it would make little sense for TSA to screen anyone on a private plane manifest unless the client asked them to.
No, the TSA exists because 19 people hijacked 4 flights and succeeded in crashing 3 of them into various important buildings in the US on 9/11/2001. Private planes are just as capable of crashing into buildings as commercial jets. The TSA has picked up some ancillary public safety functions over the years, but their raison d'etre is to prevent hijackings.