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