• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 10:52
CEST 16:52
KST 23:52
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL47
Community News
BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13Weekly Cups (May 27-June 1): ByuN goes back-to-back0
StarCraft 2
General
The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Official Replay Pack BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Ro8 - Group B [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Ro8 - Group A RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu BW General Discussion StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans?
Tourneys
[ASL19] Grand Finals [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET NA Team League 6/8/2025 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Beyond All Reason What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 28236 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1644

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

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.
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
February 14 2015 04:59 GMT
#32861
On February 14 2015 13:26 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 14 2015 12:54 coverpunch wrote:
Some of you guys have been insisting this is a distinct issue from net neutrality but I wouldn't be so sure. President Obama urges cooperation for information sharing from tech companies:

Declaring that the Internet has become the “Wild Wild West” with consumers and industries as top targets, President Obama on Friday called for a new era of cooperation between the government and the private sector to defeat a range of fast-evolving online threats.

Mr. Obama signed an executive order urging companies to join information-sharing hubs to exchange data on online threats — and, in some cases, to receive classified information from the government. But the order stopped short of exempting the companies from liability if the data they collected and shared led to legal action.

Only legislation, which Mr. Obama has tried and failed to get through Congress for three years, can exempt the companies from such liability. Many companies outside the financial industry have been reluctant to share data without such a law in place.

Mr. Obama’s intelligence and law enforcement aides would like to preserve access to all digital communication with a court order. The companies say that would create a breach that China and Russia, among others, would exploit...

Not mentioned at the event was the issue that has most roiled companies in Silicon Valley. Disclosures by Mr. Snowden showed that intelligence agencies were surreptitiously siphoning off customer data from companies like Google and Yahoo as it flowed internally between their data centers.

That information created an atmosphere of distrust that executives say will make information-sharing much more difficult.


I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.

I have mixed feelings on the issue, but it's basically President Obama signing an executive order urging tech companies to help the US government protect them from cyberattacks by building mandatory backdoors in their products.

I just added a facetious comment in the beginning.
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15513 Posts
February 14 2015 05:08 GMT
#32862
On February 14 2015 13:59 coverpunch wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 14 2015 13:26 Mohdoo wrote:
On February 14 2015 12:54 coverpunch wrote:
Some of you guys have been insisting this is a distinct issue from net neutrality but I wouldn't be so sure. President Obama urges cooperation for information sharing from tech companies:

Declaring that the Internet has become the “Wild Wild West” with consumers and industries as top targets, President Obama on Friday called for a new era of cooperation between the government and the private sector to defeat a range of fast-evolving online threats.

Mr. Obama signed an executive order urging companies to join information-sharing hubs to exchange data on online threats — and, in some cases, to receive classified information from the government. But the order stopped short of exempting the companies from liability if the data they collected and shared led to legal action.

Only legislation, which Mr. Obama has tried and failed to get through Congress for three years, can exempt the companies from such liability. Many companies outside the financial industry have been reluctant to share data without such a law in place.

Mr. Obama’s intelligence and law enforcement aides would like to preserve access to all digital communication with a court order. The companies say that would create a breach that China and Russia, among others, would exploit...

Not mentioned at the event was the issue that has most roiled companies in Silicon Valley. Disclosures by Mr. Snowden showed that intelligence agencies were surreptitiously siphoning off customer data from companies like Google and Yahoo as it flowed internally between their data centers.

That information created an atmosphere of distrust that executives say will make information-sharing much more difficult.


I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.

I have mixed feelings on the issue, but it's basically President Obama signing an executive order urging tech companies to help the US government protect them from cyberattacks by building mandatory backdoors in their products.

I just added a facetious comment in the beginning.


My take on it was this:

"There is stuff we can do that you can't do. There is stuff that you can do that we can't do. Let's be like China and combine forces so that we have the same fighting power that they do."

Doublemint
Profile Joined July 2011
Austria8474 Posts
February 14 2015 05:26 GMT
#32863
On February 14 2015 14:08 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 14 2015 13:59 coverpunch wrote:
On February 14 2015 13:26 Mohdoo wrote:
On February 14 2015 12:54 coverpunch wrote:
Some of you guys have been insisting this is a distinct issue from net neutrality but I wouldn't be so sure. President Obama urges cooperation for information sharing from tech companies:

Declaring that the Internet has become the “Wild Wild West” with consumers and industries as top targets, President Obama on Friday called for a new era of cooperation between the government and the private sector to defeat a range of fast-evolving online threats.

Mr. Obama signed an executive order urging companies to join information-sharing hubs to exchange data on online threats — and, in some cases, to receive classified information from the government. But the order stopped short of exempting the companies from liability if the data they collected and shared led to legal action.

Only legislation, which Mr. Obama has tried and failed to get through Congress for three years, can exempt the companies from such liability. Many companies outside the financial industry have been reluctant to share data without such a law in place.

Mr. Obama’s intelligence and law enforcement aides would like to preserve access to all digital communication with a court order. The companies say that would create a breach that China and Russia, among others, would exploit...

Not mentioned at the event was the issue that has most roiled companies in Silicon Valley. Disclosures by Mr. Snowden showed that intelligence agencies were surreptitiously siphoning off customer data from companies like Google and Yahoo as it flowed internally between their data centers.

That information created an atmosphere of distrust that executives say will make information-sharing much more difficult.


I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.

I have mixed feelings on the issue, but it's basically President Obama signing an executive order urging tech companies to help the US government protect them from cyberattacks by building mandatory backdoors in their products.

I just added a facetious comment in the beginning.


My take on it was this:

"There is stuff we can do that you can't do. There is stuff that you can do that we can't do. Let's be like China and combine forces so that we have the same fighting power that they do."



*and in the process try not to become china.

he basically asks for permission and a legal framework for actions the NSA et al have done so in the past already. illegally. or under some anti terror/national security bullshit.

that's why people need to be extra vigilant with highly sensitive issues like this one.
coverpunch
Profile Joined December 2011
United States2093 Posts
February 14 2015 05:27 GMT
#32864
On February 14 2015 14:08 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 14 2015 13:59 coverpunch wrote:
On February 14 2015 13:26 Mohdoo wrote:
On February 14 2015 12:54 coverpunch wrote:
Some of you guys have been insisting this is a distinct issue from net neutrality but I wouldn't be so sure. President Obama urges cooperation for information sharing from tech companies:

Declaring that the Internet has become the “Wild Wild West” with consumers and industries as top targets, President Obama on Friday called for a new era of cooperation between the government and the private sector to defeat a range of fast-evolving online threats.

Mr. Obama signed an executive order urging companies to join information-sharing hubs to exchange data on online threats — and, in some cases, to receive classified information from the government. But the order stopped short of exempting the companies from liability if the data they collected and shared led to legal action.

Only legislation, which Mr. Obama has tried and failed to get through Congress for three years, can exempt the companies from such liability. Many companies outside the financial industry have been reluctant to share data without such a law in place.

Mr. Obama’s intelligence and law enforcement aides would like to preserve access to all digital communication with a court order. The companies say that would create a breach that China and Russia, among others, would exploit...

Not mentioned at the event was the issue that has most roiled companies in Silicon Valley. Disclosures by Mr. Snowden showed that intelligence agencies were surreptitiously siphoning off customer data from companies like Google and Yahoo as it flowed internally between their data centers.

That information created an atmosphere of distrust that executives say will make information-sharing much more difficult.


I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.

I have mixed feelings on the issue, but it's basically President Obama signing an executive order urging tech companies to help the US government protect them from cyberattacks by building mandatory backdoors in their products.

I just added a facetious comment in the beginning.


My take on it was this:

"There is stuff we can do that you can't do. There is stuff that you can do that we can't do. Let's be like China and combine forces so that we have the same fighting power that they do."


Interesting. I read it as "We need to form a neighborhood watch. First, all of you give me a copy of the keys to your house."

I'd be MUCH more nervous if the rationale behind this is using the internet like China does.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
February 14 2015 17:03 GMT
#32865
McConnell, after his no-shutdowns pledge, quickly finds himself boxed in
Less than six weeks on his powerful Capitol Hill perch, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is on the verge of watching one of his most important promises — to never again shut down the government — go up in smoke.

Lawmakers on Friday began a 10-day hiatus, leaving them just four days when they return to pass funding for the Department of Homeland Security to avoid the shutdown of a key federal agency. The DHS budget fight follows an effort among GOP conservatives to roll back President Obama’s recent executive orders on immigration.

Conservatives are adamant that the security agency should be funded only if the legislation also overrules Obama’s orders, which prevent the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. But Senate Democrats, even the few who oppose Obama’s moves, have blocked the House-passed legislation with repeated filibusters.

That has left McConnell trapped inside a legislative box that he had vowed to avoid — and one that for the previous four years his close ally, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), frequently wandered into without an exit strategy.
WaPo
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21587 Posts
February 14 2015 17:18 GMT
#32866
On February 15 2015 02:03 Danglars wrote:
McConnell, after his no-shutdowns pledge, quickly finds himself boxed in
Show nested quote +
Less than six weeks on his powerful Capitol Hill perch, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is on the verge of watching one of his most important promises — to never again shut down the government — go up in smoke.

Lawmakers on Friday began a 10-day hiatus, leaving them just four days when they return to pass funding for the Department of Homeland Security to avoid the shutdown of a key federal agency. The DHS budget fight follows an effort among GOP conservatives to roll back President Obama’s recent executive orders on immigration.

Conservatives are adamant that the security agency should be funded only if the legislation also overrules Obama’s orders, which prevent the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. But Senate Democrats, even the few who oppose Obama’s moves, have blocked the House-passed legislation with repeated filibusters.

That has left McConnell trapped inside a legislative box that he had vowed to avoid — and one that for the previous four years his close ally, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), frequently wandered into without an exit strategy.
WaPo

Ah the wonderful tactic of "if we cant pass X we just wont pass anything. fuck governing"
Its made all the more hilarious now that the Republicans are threatening this while controlling both the House and Senate :p
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23078 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-02-14 22:21:52
February 14 2015 18:49 GMT
#32867
EDIT: New video. What is with shooting people and then handcuffing them and standing around/doing nothing to try to aid them?

Can we at least change that procedure?




A homeless man who was shot and killed by officers at a busy intersection had thrown multiple rocks, hitting two officers, and had refused to put down other stones, authorities said Wednesday.

Officers used a stun gun on the man, but it had no effect, Pasco Police Chief Bob Metzger said at a news conference. Because of his "threatening" behavior, officers fired their guns, he said.

Metzger said he did not know whether a weapon was found.

The man killed was 35-year-old Antonio Zambrano-Montes, whose last address was a Pasco homeless shelter, said Franklin County Coroner Dan Blasdel.

Witnesses say the man was running away when he was shot. They told the Tri-City Herald ( http://goo.gl/vm1Aln ) the man had run about half a block when he was killed about 5 p.m. Tuesday near the Fiesta Foods store.

The shooting occurred after officers responded to a report of a man throwing rocks at cars at a busy intersection near a grocery store.

Dario Infante, 21, of Pasco, recorded video from a vehicle about 50 feet away as the scene unfolded. In an email interview, he said he decided to start recording when he saw an officer trying to use a stun gun on the man. Infante said he saw the man throw a few rocks at police officers but he didn't see him hit any officers. Five "pops" are audible shortly after the video begins, and the man can be seen running away, across a street and down a sidewalk, pursued by three officers.

As the officers draw closer to the running man, he stops, turns around and faces them. Multiple "pops" are heard and the man falls to the ground.

"He didn't throw any rocks after he started running," Infante said.

Several dozen people gathered at Pasco City Hall on Wednesday afternoon to raise concerns about the shooting.

The ACLU of Washington also issued a statement, calling the incident "very disturbing."

"Fleeing from police and not following an officer's command should not be sufficient for a person to get shot," the group's executive director, Kathleen Taylor. Deadly force should be used only as a last resort, she said.

Witness Ben Patrick told the newspaper police fired at the man as his back was turned.

"I really thought they were just going walk up and tackle or tase him," he said. "But they opened fire. His back was turned."

Tuesday's case was the fourth fatal shooting involving a Tri-City police officer in Pasco in the last six months. Officers have been cleared of any wrongdoing in all three of the previous cases.


Source

Apparently the $100,000 fine didn't teach them how to deal with confrontation.

PASCO, Wash. - A police officer involved in a deadly shooting in Washington state was a defendant in a federal civil-rights lawsuit the city of Pasco settled in 2013 for $100,000.

The Seattle Times reports the lawsuit claimed Pasco officers were inadequately trained in the use of force and how to respond to street confrontations, according to court records.


Source
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
February 14 2015 23:31 GMT
#32868
On February 14 2015 06:08 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 14 2015 05:08 Danglars wrote:
On February 13 2015 15:47 Mohdoo wrote:
A question I have been pondering lately: At what point does opposition to gay marriage simply become obstruction? We're at what, 37 states at this point? Is there any doubt it'll be nationally legal in less than 10 years?

You wouldn't be the first to allege opponents have no case and should just die or give up already. We're only 7 years after California, home to San Francisco and Santa Monica, majority voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. In another sense, perhaps I can't fully understand how your mind pictures those two words one timeline apart.


I think "Only 7 years" is a silly argument to make when you look at how many states legalized it between now and then. This is clearly an extremely different landscape. Progress is happening a lot faster than it ever did. I think that's a big reason a lot of anti-gay marriage people have been comfortable making their positions public on social media etc. They assumed that it would be a long time before it was nationally recognized, which essentially puts them in the same position as people who were in favor of segregation shortly before that was overturned. They are going to become the people we read about in textbooks and I think a lot of people against gay marriage assumed that label would come much later, if at all (likely not at all) because they didn't expect this to happen so fast.

You're twisting two very different threads in your response. In nearly every case where the question was put to the people, it didn't come out legalized. It was the states in the sense of a small group of robed justices legalizing it, sometimes using the cut and paste language the supremes inserted into Windsor. I do understand all the rest of the jabbering. You feel myself and others are on the wrong side of history and we're too blind to see the obvious. I suppose that's all well and good conversing with the 'in' crowd of social progress. I don't really know how different the landscape is nowadays.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-02-15 00:55:07
February 15 2015 00:54 GMT
#32869
On February 15 2015 08:31 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 14 2015 06:08 Mohdoo wrote:
On February 14 2015 05:08 Danglars wrote:
On February 13 2015 15:47 Mohdoo wrote:
A question I have been pondering lately: At what point does opposition to gay marriage simply become obstruction? We're at what, 37 states at this point? Is there any doubt it'll be nationally legal in less than 10 years?

You wouldn't be the first to allege opponents have no case and should just die or give up already. We're only 7 years after California, home to San Francisco and Santa Monica, majority voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. In another sense, perhaps I can't fully understand how your mind pictures those two words one timeline apart.


I think "Only 7 years" is a silly argument to make when you look at how many states legalized it between now and then. This is clearly an extremely different landscape. Progress is happening a lot faster than it ever did. I think that's a big reason a lot of anti-gay marriage people have been comfortable making their positions public on social media etc. They assumed that it would be a long time before it was nationally recognized, which essentially puts them in the same position as people who were in favor of segregation shortly before that was overturned. They are going to become the people we read about in textbooks and I think a lot of people against gay marriage assumed that label would come much later, if at all (likely not at all) because they didn't expect this to happen so fast.

You're twisting two very different threads in your response. In nearly every case where the question was put to the people, it didn't come out legalized. It was the states in the sense of a small group of robed justices legalizing it, sometimes using the cut and paste language the supremes inserted into Windsor. I do understand all the rest of the jabbering. You feel myself and others are on the wrong side of history and we're too blind to see the obvious. I suppose that's all well and good conversing with the 'in' crowd of social progress. I don't really know how different the landscape is nowadays.


Actually, 12 out of 37 states/districts have legalized it by the legislative process, and several of them (e.g. Minnesota, Washington state) did it via a public referendum.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
February 15 2015 02:06 GMT
#32870
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) isn't interested in talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially as it relates to his brother, former President George W. Bush.

"I won't talk about the past," Bush said on Friday when a reporter asked him about an upcoming foreign policy speech in Chicago, according to Bloomberg Politics. "I'll talk about the future. If I'm in the process of considering the possibility of running, it's not about re-litigating anything in the past. It's about trying to create a set of ideas and principles that will help us move forward."

The former Florida governor said that if he decides to run for president in 2016, his campaign would focus on a positive vision of the future rather than focus on the past.

Bush also refused to answer a question about fighting the Islamic State, only saying that he would get into foreign policy during his speech on Wednesday at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
February 15 2015 02:53 GMT
#32871
On February 15 2015 09:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 15 2015 08:31 Danglars wrote:
On February 14 2015 06:08 Mohdoo wrote:
On February 14 2015 05:08 Danglars wrote:
On February 13 2015 15:47 Mohdoo wrote:
A question I have been pondering lately: At what point does opposition to gay marriage simply become obstruction? We're at what, 37 states at this point? Is there any doubt it'll be nationally legal in less than 10 years?

You wouldn't be the first to allege opponents have no case and should just die or give up already. We're only 7 years after California, home to San Francisco and Santa Monica, majority voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. In another sense, perhaps I can't fully understand how your mind pictures those two words one timeline apart.


I think "Only 7 years" is a silly argument to make when you look at how many states legalized it between now and then. This is clearly an extremely different landscape. Progress is happening a lot faster than it ever did. I think that's a big reason a lot of anti-gay marriage people have been comfortable making their positions public on social media etc. They assumed that it would be a long time before it was nationally recognized, which essentially puts them in the same position as people who were in favor of segregation shortly before that was overturned. They are going to become the people we read about in textbooks and I think a lot of people against gay marriage assumed that label would come much later, if at all (likely not at all) because they didn't expect this to happen so fast.

You're twisting two very different threads in your response. In nearly every case where the question was put to the people, it didn't come out legalized. It was the states in the sense of a small group of robed justices legalizing it, sometimes using the cut and paste language the supremes inserted into Windsor. I do understand all the rest of the jabbering. You feel myself and others are on the wrong side of history and we're too blind to see the obvious. I suppose that's all well and good conversing with the 'in' crowd of social progress. I don't really know how different the landscape is nowadays.


Actually, 12 out of 37 states/districts have legalized it by the legislative process, and several of them (e.g. Minnesota, Washington state) did it via a public referendum.

While that's not "nearly every case", its still certainly not great odds for the idea that the people are pushing for gay marriage. 12/37 is just under a third. And even then the argument could be made that the ones that did it through legislative action and not referendum were not following what the people wanted.
Who called in the fleet?
Mindcrime
Profile Joined July 2004
United States6899 Posts
February 15 2015 03:04 GMT
#32872
Quick, how many states approved the Constitution by referendum.
That wasn't any act of God. That was an act of pure human fuckery.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-02-15 03:19:40
February 15 2015 03:18 GMT
#32873
Legal marijuana was a $700 million dollar industry in Colorado last year, according to a Washington Post analysis of recently-released tax data from the state's Department of Revenue. In 2014, Colorado retailers sold $386 million of medical marijuana and $313 million for purely recreational purposes. The two segments of the market generated $63 million in tax revenue, with an additional $13 million collected in licenses and fees.

+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]


The total economic impact of the state's marijuana industry is likely greater, as these figures don't include retail sales of products related to marijuana, like pipes and bongs, and they don't account for increased tourist spending in other segments of Colorado's economy, like hotels and restaurants.

With a full year of data to work with, the state has a clearer picture of what to expect from its marijuana market going forward. Total marijuana tax revenues are now expected to climb to $94 million annually by 2016, according to the latest projections. This would equate to a $1 billion dollar retail market.

The revenue figures are high enough that Colorado now finds itself in the enviable situation of having to figure out what to do with all that money. And it's catching the attention of other states, like Vermont, now considering legalization.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
February 15 2015 04:18 GMT
#32874
On February 15 2015 12:04 Mindcrime wrote:
Quick, how many states approved the Constitution by referendum.

None. Not that there's much evidence on exactly how much popular support the Constitution had either way.
Who called in the fleet?
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-02-16 03:07:24
February 15 2015 08:27 GMT
#32875
On February 15 2015 09:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 15 2015 08:31 Danglars wrote:
On February 14 2015 06:08 Mohdoo wrote:
On February 14 2015 05:08 Danglars wrote:
On February 13 2015 15:47 Mohdoo wrote:
A question I have been pondering lately: At what point does opposition to gay marriage simply become obstruction? We're at what, 37 states at this point? Is there any doubt it'll be nationally legal in less than 10 years?

You wouldn't be the first to allege opponents have no case and should just die or give up already. We're only 7 years after California, home to San Francisco and Santa Monica, majority voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. In another sense, perhaps I can't fully understand how your mind pictures those two words one timeline apart.


I think "Only 7 years" is a silly argument to make when you look at how many states legalized it between now and then. This is clearly an extremely different landscape. Progress is happening a lot faster than it ever did. I think that's a big reason a lot of anti-gay marriage people have been comfortable making their positions public on social media etc. They assumed that it would be a long time before it was nationally recognized, which essentially puts them in the same position as people who were in favor of segregation shortly before that was overturned. They are going to become the people we read about in textbooks and I think a lot of people against gay marriage assumed that label would come much later, if at all (likely not at all) because they didn't expect this to happen so fast.

You're twisting two very different threads in your response. In nearly every case where the question was put to the people, it didn't come out legalized. It was the states in the sense of a small group of robed justices legalizing it, sometimes using the cut and paste language the supremes inserted into Windsor. I do understand all the rest of the jabbering. You feel myself and others are on the wrong side of history and we're too blind to see the obvious. I suppose that's all well and good conversing with the 'in' crowd of social progress. I don't really know how different the landscape is nowadays.


Actually, 12 out of 37 states/districts have legalized it by the legislative process, and several of them (e.g. Minnesota, Washington state) did it via a public referendum.

31 States have voted to define marriage as between man and woman. When it's put to the people, state by state, more mark it a bad idea than think otherwise. Luckily for the movement, when states voted to ratify the 14th amendment, they were actually voting to redefine marriage. Who'd have thunk?
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]
Just a quick grab source, if you'd like others. Mid 2014 legislative outlook
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
February 15 2015 08:37 GMT
#32876
As Congress mulls America's war with the Islamic State terror group, more than 4,000 Fort Carson soldiers prepared Thursday to leave for Kuwait, where they will take over as America's largest ground force in the troubled region.

The 3rd Brigade Combat Team bid farewell to the post in a ceremony and soon will serve as U.S. Central Command's Reserve force in the Middle East - the first soldiers into battle if a major combat force is used to battle Islamic State fighters.

The unit is Fort Carson's heaviest force, armed with tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Many of its soldiers are veterans of one or more of the brigade's four combat tours in Iraq.

"We're no strangers to deployment," the brigade's commander, Col. Greg Sierra, told a crowd gathered for the ceremony.

Sierra's soldiers have trained for more than a year for the Kuwait mission. They practiced skills that atrophied over more than a decade of counterinsurgency fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, relearning the armored combat skills last used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"We are absolutely ready for this mission," Sierra said.

President Barack Obama on Wednesday asked Congress to authorize long-term combat efforts against the Islamic State, but reinforced his pledge to not use the Army's big combat units in the fight.

Gazette

Related: Trials / Tribulations of Obama's new authorization
UN Ambassador says troops needed, but somehow it's gonna be everybody else sans the US ground troops.

The coalition of other boots on the ground. This ISIS response keeps sounding better and better.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-02-15 14:48:58
February 15 2015 14:47 GMT
#32877
On February 15 2015 17:27 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 15 2015 09:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On February 15 2015 08:31 Danglars wrote:
On February 14 2015 06:08 Mohdoo wrote:
On February 14 2015 05:08 Danglars wrote:
On February 13 2015 15:47 Mohdoo wrote:
A question I have been pondering lately: At what point does opposition to gay marriage simply become obstruction? We're at what, 37 states at this point? Is there any doubt it'll be nationally legal in less than 10 years?

You wouldn't be the first to allege opponents have no case and should just die or give up already. We're only 7 years after California, home to San Francisco and Santa Monica, majority voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. In another sense, perhaps I can't fully understand how your mind pictures those two words one timeline apart.


I think "Only 7 years" is a silly argument to make when you look at how many states legalized it between now and then. This is clearly an extremely different landscape. Progress is happening a lot faster than it ever did. I think that's a big reason a lot of anti-gay marriage people have been comfortable making their positions public on social media etc. They assumed that it would be a long time before it was nationally recognized, which essentially puts them in the same position as people who were in favor of segregation shortly before that was overturned. They are going to become the people we read about in textbooks and I think a lot of people against gay marriage assumed that label would come much later, if at all (likely not at all) because they didn't expect this to happen so fast.

You're twisting two very different threads in your response. In nearly every case where the question was put to the people, it didn't come out legalized. It was the states in the sense of a small group of robed justices legalizing it, sometimes using the cut and paste language the supremes inserted into Windsor. I do understand all the rest of the jabbering. You feel myself and others are on the wrong side of history and we're too blind to see the obvious. I suppose that's all well and good conversing with the 'in' crowd of social progress. I don't really know how different the landscape is nowadays.


Actually, 12 out of 37 states/districts have legalized it by the legislative process, and several of them (e.g. Minnesota, Washington state) did it via a public referendum.

31 States have voted to define marriage as between man and woman. When it's put to the people, state by state, more mark it a bad idea than think otherwise. Luckily for the movement, when states voted to ratify the 14th amendment, they were actually voting to redefine marriage. Who'd have thunk?
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]

Just a quick grab source, if you'd like others. Mid 2014 legislative outlook


And yet the majority of Americans support gay marriage, according to plenty of polls. Population disparity between various states causes this.

Not only this, but who gives a shit if "the people" want gay marriage or not? On an issue like this, I sure as hell don't care what the majority thinks. The majority tend to simply oppress and hurt others purely because of the fact that they're different.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18821 Posts
February 15 2015 15:04 GMT
#32878
Just let Danglars pretend that the majority of Americans are as bigoted as his party is. It isn't as though he'd actually recognize the dissonance present in state electoral initiatives, as doing so would necessarily conflict with the "state's rights" mantra.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
February 15 2015 15:56 GMT
#32879
On February 16 2015 00:04 farvacola wrote:
Just let Danglars pretend that the majority of Americans are as bigoted as his party is. It isn't as though he'd actually recognize the dissonance present in state electoral initiatives, as doing so would necessarily conflict with the "state's rights" mantra.


I've never really gotten this "States' Rights" argument, mostly because it's always been "States over the Federal government, ALWAYS!".

Yea, as a general rule, you don't want an institution that has no direct involvement in your life running everything in your state. I wouldn't be a fan of a bunch of clueless people in another state dictating things in Minnesota.

However, it's not like a state government is any better than a federal government. In fact, a state government is probably even more susceptible to corruption and small-party influences. Furthermore, plenty of state governments (particularly in the South) have shown us that they just really can't get anything right, so why should we automatically trust them to get things right when they consistently show us that they can't?
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
February 15 2015 18:34 GMT
#32880
it's this "we are always about (southern) sovereignty even though we use federalism as the argument" thing. when dem mexicans overrun their own states they'll move onto something else.
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
Prev 1 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 6h 8m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Harstem 307
Hui .264
trigger 214
ProTech79
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 10587
Sea 3601
Hyuk 2591
Snow 529
Light 415
Stork 279
Soulkey 190
Zeus 129
PianO 122
TY 61
[ Show more ]
Sea.KH 57
Rush 47
ToSsGirL 46
sorry 40
hero 37
Nal_rA 22
scan(afreeca) 16
Noble 16
Terrorterran 16
IntoTheRainbow 10
HiyA 8
zelot 8
Dota 2
Gorgc5928
qojqva3389
syndereN403
Fuzer 252
League of Legends
Dendi991
Counter-Strike
fl0m1596
olofmeister1253
Foxcn240
rGuardiaN22
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor125
Other Games
singsing2888
B2W.Neo1487
FrodaN743
C9.Mang0623
crisheroes430
Beastyqt356
DeMusliM323
Mlord231
ArmadaUGS150
Mew2King112
XaKoH 105
elazer98
KnowMe47
Trikslyr11
Organizations
StarCraft 2
WardiTV672
Other Games
BasetradeTV15
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 10
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• poizon28 29
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 3496
• lizZardDota240
League of Legends
• TFBlade1009
Upcoming Events
OSC
6h 8m
ArT vs ReBellioN
HonMonO vs Ziomek
Shameless vs LunaSea
MilkiCow vs GgMaChine
Moja vs HiGhDrA
Jumy vs TBD
Demi vs NightPhoenix
Solar vs Cham
Replay Cast
9h 8m
OSC
9h 8m
WardiTV Invitational
20h 8m
OSC
22h 8m
Korean StarCraft League
1d 12h
SOOP
1d 18h
sOs vs Percival
CranKy Ducklings
1d 19h
WardiTV Invitational
1d 20h
Cheesadelphia
2 days
[ Show More ]
CSO Cup
2 days
GSL Code S
2 days
Rogue vs herO
Classic vs GuMiho
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Wardi Open
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
RSL Revival
5 days
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
6 days
The PondCast
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Serral vs SHIN
Solar vs Cham
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.