
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 11, 2025, 01:32:05 PMThat'll do it then.
Sticking it our for the Dems (or the GOP) was soon going to get much harder. Most of the federal workers can probably survive a month without a pay...but getting into 2-3 months starts having real consequences (evictions, etc). If Trump hadn't covered the military paychecks, I would content that most of those folks are likely to be poorer and really living paycheck-to-paycheck than other federal employees.
It's easy to say "this is for the greater good" when you're livelihood is not directly affected. The blame for that may still split both ways, but we shouldn't be cavalier about it.
QuoteIf enacted and signed into law, the hemp provision would mean hundreds of now-legal THC products — most commonly sold as Delta-8 or Delta-9 — would no longer be legal to sell. It is currently federally legal to sell hemp-derived THC products as long as they contain no more than 0.3% THC by dry weight. The language in the new legislation imposes a total THC limit of 0.4 milligrams and would effectively ban those products for personal or household use.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2025, 12:35:41 PMYour remaining point is I'm tarring with an unfairly wide brush when I talked about Yuros. I was mirroring Joan's language. I understood what he meant, he understood what I meant, and it saved us both a shitload of keystrokes.
But to clear up any further misunderstanding, to the 31 or 32 members who did what they promised, you are all fine upstanding members of the community of honest, dependable countries in my opinion.
As to the last part, that does dismiss the charge of broken promises against the citizenry of the eight welching countries, but not the charge against the individual who made the promise. It's a theoretical possibility that the actual language of the 2014 pledge was something like I will make my best efforts but can't promise results. In which case my beef would be with the press for bad reporting in calling it a pledge.
Quote from: NATO
- Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so.
- Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
- halt any decline in defence expenditure;
- aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
- aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
- Allies who currently spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on major new equipment, including related Research & Development, will aim, within a decade, to increase their annual investments to 20% or more of total defence expenditures.
- All Allies will:
- ensure that their land, air and maritime forces meet NATO agreed guidelines for deployability and sustainability and other agreed output metrics;
- ensure that their armed forces can operate together effectively, including through the implementation of agreed NATO standards and doctrines.
Page created in 0.041 seconds with 16 queries.