In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
The effects of human-induced climate change are being felt in every corner of the United States, scientists reported Tuesday, with water growing scarcer in dry regions, torrential rains increasing in wet regions, heat waves becoming more common and more severe, wildfires growing worse, and forests dying under assault from heat-loving insects.
Such sweeping changes have been caused by an average warming of less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over most land areas of the country in the past century, the scientists found. If greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane continue to escalate at a rapid pace, they said, the warming could conceivably exceed 10 degrees by the end of this century.
The effects of human-induced climate change are being felt in every corner of the United States, scientists reported Tuesday, with water growing scarcer in dry regions, torrential rains increasing in wet regions, heat waves becoming more common and more severe, wildfires growing worse, and forests dying under assault from heat-loving insects.
Such sweeping changes have been caused by an average warming of less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over most land areas of the country in the past century, the scientists found. If greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane continue to escalate at a rapid pace, they said, the warming could conceivably exceed 10 degrees by the end of this century.
I'm not convinced this is necessarily a case of climate change. It's not like we've never had droughts or forest fires of this magnitude before, it's just outside our normal experience.
I wholly believe that climate change does pose a significant threat in the future, but these disasters/weather patterns being linked to climate change is far-fetched. Much of the drier conditions are appearing in the West and South West. If I understand the climate science of events like El Nino and La Nina correctly, this coincides with dominant La Nina conditions that we've experienced over the past 8 years. This is being predicted to change, which will bring much needed drought relief to those portions of the US.
I don't understand why people think that the political parties should be left out of a discussion on US Politics.... But that seems to be a universal opinion of conservatives here. I get that people here may not align perfectly with a party as I disagree with democrats about plenty, but we shouldn't just forget that the parties are the ones who have the control.
So for something like drug policy reform, it's not like there haven't been Democrats who supported stupid legislation or perpetuated cannabis myths it's just when you look at the parties in totality, it's clear which party is more often on the side of responsible reform.
It pisses me off even more when someone like Obama stands by and lets things like this happen
plea deals offered by the prosecuting attorneys that would have reduced their maximum sentences to just three years behind bars. Without the plea deal, their maximum sentences range from up to 40 years to life in federal prison.
For growing f'ing cannabis... This is total insanity.
If mentioning party isn't supposed to be part of this thread could we put it in the OP or if mentioning parties ('political pot shots') is how a normal discussion about US politics is supposed to go, than could people please stop whining about it?
it's just an unproductive target of animus. yea the fact is parties exist and their workings are important, but as far as ideas and actions go, it is better to discuss the content without the who.
i mean, democrats are clearly superior, and more serious and receptive maybe. but they are not faultless. to frame debates in terms of dem vs rep is just going to get in the way of actually interesting discussion on policy content
On May 07 2014 02:34 oneofthem wrote: it's just an unproductive target of animus. yea the fact is parties exist and their workings are important, but as far as ideas and actions go, it is better to discuss the content without the who.
i mean, democrats are clearly superior, and more serious and receptive maybe. but they are not faultless. to frame debates in terms of dem vs rep is just going to get in the way of actually interesting discussion on policy content
I think that makes sense. I would avoid calling democrats 'superior' but I suppose that also depends on what exactly you mean. If you just mean that they (particularly of recent) have shown a greater proclivity to want to actually accomplish something and are more likely to accept an opponents idea in the interest of compromise than yes.
But there is a reason things like sensible drug law reform languish in policy discussions instead of being actions of days past.
Also when we look at the current state or debate on something like sensible drug laws or background checks, previous policies and the parties that supported them become increasingly relevant (although there are Democrats who bare a significant amount of the responsibility too). It's just harder to find quotes and clips of them.
party affiliation of the voting record may exist, but it may not be relevant for discussion. let's suppose 100% of republicans hate marijuana and has a destructive view of punitive drug law. what now. the proper anger should be directed at the bad policy. this 'keeping score' by party thing is just a distinct and independent activity you may choose to partake in, but with no impact on the actual policy evaluation.
the correlation may make you like republicans less, or have some judgement on their way of htinking etc. but it doesn't make party affiliation a productive framing of the issue.
Well the guys coming up for election in the senate come from the 2008 election which was a particularly strong wave year for democrats.
Assuming that republicans don't get unlucky with their candidates this cycle they should have a decent chance at retaking the senate. God knows how fast rape fest 2014 can get started up. In nate silver we trust I guess.
On May 07 2014 03:05 oneofthem wrote: party affiliation of the voting record may exist, but it may not be relevant for discussion. let's suppose 100% of republicans hate marijuana and has a destructive view of punitive drug law. what now. the proper anger should be directed at the bad policy.
the correlation may make you like republicans less, or have some judgement on their way of htinking etc. but it doesn't make party affiliation a productive framing of the issue.
The issue of whether there are more sensible drug policies is as settled as it can be. The issue is that nothing is being done by certain members of our government or when something is done they flail and rant about it. Or in Sen. Orrin Hatch's (-Utah) case say Obama should be waiting for a congress who has shown time and again not to be able to look at the issue through a scientifically or data driven lens, or pass much if any any sensible reform to save lives and return decent peoples freedoms. + Show Spoiler +
”The President has authority to grant clemency to certain individuals who are no longer dangerous to the community. But I hope President Obama is not seeking to change sentencing policy unilaterally,” Hatch said. “Congress, not the President, has authority to make sentencing policy. He should continue to work with Congress rather than once again going it alone..."
The debate on the basic reforms of policy are settled enough to have done plenty so far, the issue at hand is why it hasn't been done and that has nothing to do with the policy itself. Source
As for the races it looks like Conservatives/Republicans might be shooting themselves in the foot in Colorado with their 'Personhood initiative Amendment'.
2. Definitions. In the interest of the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn children from criminal offenses and neglect and wrongful acts, the words "person" and "child" in the Colorado Criminal Code and the Colorado Wrongful Death Act must include unborn human beings.
Republicans will probably have a bit of a hard time explaining voting against the pretty sensible Democratically supported alternative too.
The bill creates a new article for offenses against pregnant women. The new offenses are unlawful termination of a pregnancy in the first degree, unlawful termination of a pregnancy in the second degree, unlawful termination of a pregnancy in the third degree, unlawful termination of a pregnancy in the fourth degree, vehicular unlawful termination of a pregnancy, aggravated vehicular unlawful termination of a pregnancy, and careless driving resulting in unlawful termination of a pregnancy. The bill makes it clear that a court can impose consecutive sentences for a violation of this act and other associated convictions. The bill excludes from prosecution medical care for which the mother provided consent. The bill does not confer the status of "person" upon a human embryo, fetus, or unborn child at any stage of development prior to live birth.
again, you can discuss parties but not in a scorekeeping way. saying republicans voted badly on drugs is not a drug policy argument, it is an argument on whcih party is better.
does it help with changing drug policy? seems like a very crude argument just to say "get rid of republicans," because that's what your party discussion amounts to when it comes to highlighting what needs to be done to change drug policy.
On May 07 2014 03:36 oneofthem wrote: again, you can discuss parties but not in a scorekeeping way. saying republicans voted badly on drugs is not a drug policy argument, it is an argument on whcih party is better.
does it help with changing drug policy? seems like a very crude argument just to say "get rid of republicans," because that's what your party discussion amounts to when it comes to highlighting what needs to be done to change drug policy.
Get rid of people standing in the way, doesn't matter which party.
That would go a long way to move the issue forward. Much further than trying to convince willfully ignorant or just plain stubborn people to change their minds.
On May 07 2014 03:36 oneofthem wrote: again, you can discuss parties but not in a scorekeeping way. saying republicans voted badly on drugs is not a drug policy argument, it is an argument on whcih party is better.
does it help with changing drug policy? seems like a very crude argument just to say "get rid of republicans," because that's what your party discussion amounts to when it comes to highlighting what needs to be done to change drug policy.
Get rid of people standing in the way, doesn't matter which party.
That would go a long way to move the issue forward. Much further than trying to convince willfully ignorant or just plain stubborn people to change their minds.
The best way for this drug debate to end is having the old guard die off and have both sides gather data points from places like Colorado where drug reforms are implemented on the state level.
North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-NC), the frontrunner in the North Carolina GOP Senate primary, told a crowd two and half years ago that we must "divide and conquer" people on government assistance. Tillis proposed pitting those who are legitimately in need against those who made bad choices.
Tillis made the comments in October 2011 in Asheville, North Carolina. They were reported by local press at the time and are being circulated now by the campaign of Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) whom Tillis is vying to unseat. They were highlighted on MSNBC"s Hardball Monday.
"What we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance," Tillis said. "We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice, in her condition, that needs help and that we should help. And we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government and say at some point, ‘You’re on your own. We may end up taking care of those babies, but we’re not going to take care of you.’ And we’ve got to start having that serious discussion."
Tillis went on to say that discussion wouldn't happen until at least 2013.
"It won’t happen next year. Wrong time, ‘cause it’s going to be politically charged," Tillis said. "One of the reasons why I may never run for another elected office is that some of these things may just get me railroaded out of town. But in 2013, I honestly believe that we have to do that."
Tillis's comments were clipped by the North Carolina Justice Center's Health Access Coalition.
I know most of the people in this thread will call this guy the evil spawn of satan, but does he not have a good point? Should the woman (outside of proven rape, as that is out of their control) who chooses to have unprotected sex, who then chooses not to take a morning after pill, chooses not to get an abortion, and chooses not to put the child up for adoption, who has that kid knowing full well she can't afford to support it, deserve to get free money from the government for that illogical and not smart choice? Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to pay for those who have kids knowing they can't take care of them?
Or what about drug addicts? Is anyone forced into drug addiction? I don't believe that with the information that is available now anyone is forced into using the addictive drugs until they become addicted. Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to supporting people's drug habbits? There is a very big difference between someone who needs assistance because of a medical condition they can't control, and someone who needs assistance because they chose to do drugs, or chose to have unprotected sex, or chose to make blatantly bad life choices.
I completely believe there should be a government safety net for those who legitimately screw up and try their best to crawl their way up into a better situation. But there as many who screw up knowingly, make stupid decisions knowingly, and then sit on that government help without trying to get out. Those I fully believe need to be cut off, and this guy makes a good point in that regard, even if I will agree the way it's said he is being umm what's the word, mischievous? A dick? About it?
this whole idea depends on the assumption that having a kid is a bad choice and that having a medical condition is just bad luck. That whole idea depends on a concept of individual free will that was already outdated 200 years ago.
People don't choose to do drugs. They do drugs because their environment and their genetics make it more likely for them to do drugs, both of which they didn't choose in the first place.
On May 07 2014 09:29 hunts wrote: I know most of the people in this thread will call this guy the evil spawn of satan, but does he not have a good point? Should the woman (outside of proven rape, as that is out of their control) who chooses to have unprotected sex, who then chooses not to take a morning after pill, chooses not to get an abortion, and chooses not to put the child up for adoption, who has that kid knowing full well she can't afford to support it, deserve to get free money from the government for that illogical and not smart choice? Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to pay for those who have kids knowing they can't take care of them?
Or what about drug addicts? Is anyone forced into drug addiction? I don't believe that with the information that is available now anyone is forced into using the addictive drugs until they become addicted. Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to supporting people's drug habbits? There is a very big difference between someone who needs assistance because of a medical condition they can't control, and someone who needs assistance because they chose to do drugs, or chose to have unprotected sex, or chose to make blatantly bad life choices.
I completely believe there should be a government safety net for those who legitimately screw up and try their best to crawl their way up into a better situation. But there as many who screw up knowingly, make stupid decisions knowingly, and then sit on that government help without trying to get out. Those I fully believe need to be cut off, and this guy makes a good point in that regard, even if I will agree the way it's said he is being umm what's the word, mischievous? A dick? About it?
Yeah, fuck people who fall down wells. They fell down a well. How stupid could they be. We should just leave them there, if they can't pull up their own bootstraps, man up, and crawl out on their own they deserve to die.
I don't think the guy understands basic military strategy. In divide and conquer, you split up the enemy, then conquer both groups one at a time. If he intends to only get rid of one group, but support the other, it's not divide and conquer. It's also a mere assertion he makes that the two groups are united in the first place. It's not at all clear to me that those who truly need assistance are all in league with those of questionable need.
He should learn the terminology and techniques if he's going to try to invoke them.
Hunts, your assertion about how many people are of each kind is also unfounded, and probably quite incorrect.
Another reason people tend to cast aspersion on those like that republican; is that people like that often rail against the costs of those children on welfare from bad parental choices, but then refuse to support easy access to contraception and sex education programs that are proven to cut down on those costs by helping people make better choices.
Now a constructive system would be to use a merge sort; establish better rules about who is and is not eligible, and perhaps use swiss pairings (in the game sense) to rank the degree to which people should qualify. Or to just do a better job of helping people not make bad choices in the first place. Keep in mind, a lot of people are idiots, and the people who get in trouble tend to be bigger idiots. There's a difference between knowingly making a bad choice and being an idiot (in the foolishness sense).
On May 07 2014 09:29 hunts wrote: I know most of the people in this thread will call this guy the evil spawn of satan, but does he not have a good point? Should the woman (outside of proven rape, as that is out of their control) who chooses to have unprotected sex, who then chooses not to take a morning after pill, chooses not to get an abortion, and chooses not to put the child up for adoption, who has that kid knowing full well she can't afford to support it, deserve to get free money from the government for that illogical and not smart choice? Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to pay for those who have kids knowing they can't take care of them?
Or what about drug addicts? Is anyone forced into drug addiction? I don't believe that with the information that is available now anyone is forced into using the addictive drugs until they become addicted. Should the people be forced to have their tax money go to supporting people's drug habbits? There is a very big difference between someone who needs assistance because of a medical condition they can't control, and someone who needs assistance because they chose to do drugs, or chose to have unprotected sex, or chose to make blatantly bad life choices.
I completely believe there should be a government safety net for those who legitimately screw up and try their best to crawl their way up into a better situation. But there as many who screw up knowingly, make stupid decisions knowingly, and then sit on that government help without trying to get out. Those I fully believe need to be cut off, and this guy makes a good point in that regard, even if I will agree the way it's said he is being umm what's the word, mischievous? A dick? About it?
You were born. If you were born to a mother without money would you be ok with being left on a mountain to die? Would you prefer adoption because your mother is a high school drop out with no money or do you feel like maybe the woman who gave birth to you should raise you? Are you for forced adoptions?
EPT
