Politics 2017 part V

[HoonDing]

who cares about card counting

 

just put 10 points in luck and win teh blackjacks and slots

[Hurlshort]

Casinos are pretty clear about the fact that they hold the edge. They bank on the fact that over time, they will always come out ahead. Not quite sure how you can expect anything else, those glittery lightbulbs don't come for free. It's very much a business, and even when it was run by mobsters, it was still just a matter of odds and numbers. Some games may allow you to minimize loss with a decent strategy, but even those are still going to be stacked against you.

[Volourn]

Also, I should point out, i don't feel sorry for gambolholics anymore than i do alocoholics.  Grow up, and tgake eprsonal responsibility. But, elt's also not pretend that the casinos are running a 'fair' operation because they aren't. They are there to make money and if that means they get to 'cheat'  and stack the rules to hevaily favor themsleves and use bully tatics to get what they want they absolutely well. And, the law allows them to do so.

[Hurlshort]

It's not even really cheating, you can go up to any table in Vegas and ask for a list of the odds that tells you exactly what your chances of winning are. The entertainment value is not too bad though, and even though the odds are against you, if you gamble regularly you will have some lucky streaks. It's only an issue when you see it as more than that. 

[Azdeus]

It's not even really cheating, you can go up to any table in Vegas and ask for a list of the odds that tells you exactly what your chances of winning are. The entertainment value is not too bad though, and even though the odds are against you, if you gamble regularly you will have some lucky streaks. It's only an issue when you see it as more than that. 

 

Which is a problem when it comes to people being mathematically illiterate, which these companies exploit without hesitation and remorse. Especially when relatively poor people that couldn't afford proper education get caught up in it.

 

Edit; Spelling

Edited April 30, 2017 by Azdeus

[Bartimaeus]

Math literacy is such a weird thing. There are so many people that I know that struggle understanding basic stuff like ratios. If you're getting a chocolate milkshake, which is more price efficient, $4 for 8oz, or $5.50 for 12oz? A lot of people either don't know how to figure that out besides just making a guess on "what they feel is right", or they don't want to expend the energy/thought to it...or don't think they'll be successful if they do try. So yeah, I can see that definitely being an education problem.

 

(e): Holy awful writing, Batman - fixed this terrible post a little.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[ShadySands]

I only gamble for the free drinks. I might have a problem... getting to the next casino

[Hurlshort]

Math literacy is such a weird thing. There are so many people that I know that struggle understanding basic stuff like ratios. If you're getting a chocolate milkshake, which is more price efficient, $4 for 8oz, or $5.50 for 12oz? A lot of people either don't know how to figure that out besides just making a guess on "what they feel is right", or they don't want to expend the energy/thought to it...or don't think they'll be successful if they do try. So yeah, I can see that definitely being an education problem.

 

(e): Holy awful writing, Batman - fixed this terrible post a little.

 

Heh, with the milkshake I tend to think whether I can handle that extra 4 oz first.

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, that's how they get you. The smaller ones are ridiculously overpriced for what you're getting, but if you try to tip the scales a little more in your favor, you'll just get sick drinking a larger one. That's why it's better to just have someone to share it with.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Gfted1]

Having just been to Vegas in January, a few observations:

 

1) Odds fella's, everything has odds. For example, your odds of winning a roulette spin are 37:1, which happen to be the best odds in the casino iirc.

2) The free drinks you get while gambling are of the lowest quality alcohols and are so small you are done in 3 sips. Drinks at a bar inside the casino are pretty expensive now so we would set up shop at one of the bars on the Vegas Strip and get our drunk on for cheap.

3) I won ~$300 on the crap table and then ran like a bandit. "Know when to hold em, know when to fold em" isn't just a catchy tune. I watched almost all my friends win a little cash, then get all ballsy and decide to make it rain, then ultimately walk away from the table having lost money.

[Lexx]

Yeah, that's how they get you. The smaller ones are ridiculously overpriced for what you're getting, but if you try to tip the scales a little more in your favor, you'll just get sick drinking a larger one. That's why it's better to just have someone to share it with.

 

Sharing? What is this communist propaganda in here.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Lexx

[Ben No.3]

 

Yeah, that's how they get you. The smaller ones are ridiculously overpriced for what you're getting, but if you try to tip the scales a little more in your favor, you'll just get sick drinking a larger one. That's why it's better to just have someone to share it with.

Sharing? What is this communist propaganda in here.

Everyone gets free ice cream

 

[Guard Dog]

So it looks like Peruta v California is likely to find itself on the Supreme Court docket next year.  This excerpt from the article describes the meat of the issue:

 

 

At issue in Peruta v. California is a state law that says conceal-carry permits will only be issued to those persons who have demonstrated to the satisfaction of their local county sheriff that they have a "good cause" for carrying a concealed firearm in public. What counts as a "good cause?" In the words of one San Diego official, "one's personal safety is not considered good cause." In effect, the local sheriff has vast discretion to pick and choose who gets a permit and who doesn't. Because the guidelines are unclear there is a severe risk of arbitrary enforcement. As one previous court ruling on the matter observed, "in California the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table."

 

This is a little different than the previous two gun control cases. In those the issue was complete prohibition of ownership in the home. In those cases the justices (the good ones at least) remembered what "shall not be infringed" means. This is about the issuance of concealed carry permits which has always been at the pleasure of the State. Even in DC v Heller Scalia reaffirmed the latitude on the part of the government for "reasonable restrictions" in the same paragraph he said prohibition is not reasonable.

 

I have to admit to being somewhat torn by this one. On one hand I am very much in favor of allowing citizens in good standing to carry firearms so long as it is done in compliance with the laws of their state. California's oppressive attitude on this issue does not make a lot of sense to me. But on the other hand I VERY much believe it is up to the citizens, voters, and legislators of California to determine how California conducts it's business. The Federal Government and the citizens of other states should mind their own business IMO. 

 

So what it comes down to is does the 2nd Amendment which reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." permit carrying arms in public? It has never been interpreted that way before to my knowledge. So for my part I'm going to say no. The Constitution is the supreme law of the US and what it does not specifically cover is reserved for the State (and lower) governments. And California has made it's position of this clear. If you don't like it the remedy should be sought in Sacramento, not on 1st Street in Washington DC. 

 

This is an interesting case because folks who are pro-gun rights are also usually pro-states rights and its rare to see those two priorities turned in opposition to each other.

 

One more onion to toss in this stew is the Trump administration is considering a bill to insist on unlimited reciprocity of concealed carry permits in all states. But I'm sure that will mean all states the issue them. I'm actually against this too for the same reasons. Mine is issued in my home state but is honored in every other state in the south except Kentucky. Kentucky has a slightly different standard for issuance. But some states have caliber restrictions and other nuances that differentiate them. Carrying a weapon is a responsibility. It should be incumbent upon the permit holder to research the laws for any state they plan on traveling to. When I was working in Louisville the pistol was under the seat and ammunition locked in the glove compartment. That was the law.

 

Here is the article. This one will be interesting to watch I think. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/25/is-this-the-supreme-courts-next-big-seco

[Volourn]

"one's personal safety is not considered good cause."

 

L0L That's insane.

[Valsuelm]

 

So what it comes down to is does the 2nd Amendment which reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." permit carrying arms in public? It has never been interpreted that way before to my knowledge.

 

It has in fact, always been interpreted that way, by anyone who can read and understand plain English.

 

I suggest you learn yourself what 'bear' means.

 

There are few clearer passages in the U.S. Constitution than the 2nd amendment. That it's even debated is testimony to just how mislead and lost the populace at large is. Though at this point there are oodles of other more glaring examples of that....

 

The U.S. Constitution is deader than Bernie was on that famed weekend, and it doesn't prop up quite so nice. I look forward to the day that you realize that. I give you enough credit to think that day it is coming, even if you do not.

[Hurlshort]

So what about the well-regulated militia part?

 

I feel like Val is oversimplifying a very complex issue. I'm pro-2nd Amendment. My wife competes in skeet-shooting competitions and I consider it an intrinsic aspect of American culture. But what are the limits here? Do we have the right to keep and bear all types of arms? If the purpose is to keep the government honest, then why should we allow any limits? Should every home have a mini-nuke just to keep the government honest? I know that is a silly idea, but the fact is we are woefully outmatched versus the government. I'm not saying I have a solution here, but the idea that we are restoring the 2nd amendment by carrying small caliber guns around in public also seems a bit off.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Hurlshot

[Volourn]

Dude, it is not just about 'outgunning' the gov't. You do realzie that eveyr anti gov't revolution in history were 'outgunned' right? You seem to forget the people in the army are people and are connected to the public... they can only be pushed so far before THEY rebel. Afterall, if the gov't tells you as a soldier to shoot your family youa re gonna hesitate.

[Malcador]

"one's personal safety is not considered good cause."

 

L0L That's insane.

Maybe they are thinking of good on a social level. Or some specific legal definition of "good cause"

[Hurlshort]

Dude, it is not just about 'outgunning' the gov't. You do realzie that eveyr anti gov't revolution in history were 'outgunned' right? You seem to forget the people in the army are people and are connected to the public... they can only be pushed so far before THEY rebel. Afterall, if the gov't tells you as a soldier to shoot your family youa re gonna hesitate.

 

That is an entirely different argument that has little to do with the 2nd Amendment or open carry laws. I agree completely with your point, though. 

[Chilloutman]

Hilarious:

 

[Guard Dog]

It looks like Val might be right. I did some reading and in 2009 Moore v Madigan the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a decision by the Federal Court Southern Illinois and found that a blanket refusal to allow legal carry is unconstitutional. No hearing with the SCOTUS was ever sought apparently so that appears to be that. How that will affect what the Court does with Peruta (assuming they even hear the case) remains to be seen.  

 

Gromnir or Enoch might correct me on this but it's been my observations the SCOTUS does not want to take cases where the solution is clear. But in this instance one Federal appellate court decided on way and the second another on similar cases. That seems like the kind of thing that will put it to the front of the line.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Azdeus]

The Russians were also outgunned by the Germans but they defeated them by sheer numbers.

A million people with sticks can defeat any army if they are in the same country.

 

Provided you have machineguns pointed at their backs atleast.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Gun control: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/04/19/venezuelan-president-giving-400000-guns-to-supporters-to-silence-opposition/

 

It's always not about having guns, it's who gets to have them.

[Chilloutman]

its getting more crazy here in EU than one might think:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxrSYO9N7AY

 

(president of Austria)

[Volourn]

L0L So.. to prove that islam is cool... he wants to force all women to wear headscarves.. proving the point of all people who ar eanti muslim/anti headscarves. hahaha! wHAT A NAZI!