• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 02:07
CEST 08:07
KST 15:07
  • 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
[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Holy Diver4[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Rough Waters10[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Siren's Call8[ASL22] Ro24 Preview: Summer's End9Serral wins HomeStory Cup 2915
Community News
StarCraft open world shooter announced at BlizzCon84Weekly Cups (Aug 30-Sep 7): herO thrives amid growing schism10Official StarCraft website teases new content ahead of BlizzCon?174Stellar Fest TWO the Moon (Dec 16-20)9Weekly Cups (August 24-30): Patches' balance mod takes over3
StarCraft 2
General
How do you feel about the StarCraft shooter announcement at BlizzCon 2026? StarCraft open world shooter announced at BlizzCon Blizzard Classic Cup @ BlizzCon 2026 - $100k prize pool Balance hotfix patch 5.0.16b (July 16) Team Liquid Map Contest #22: Results and Winners
Tourneys
RSL Revival: Season 6 - Qualifiers and Main Event SC2 AI Tournament 2026 Fall RSL goes to London! 2026 Offline Finals Nov 21-22 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament KSL Week #92
Strategy
[G] Having the right mentality to improve
Custom Maps
Nexus Wars 2021 GUIDE [M] (2) Industrial Park
External Content
Mutation # 543 Enhanced Defenses The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 542 The Ascended Mutation # 541 Binary Choice
Brood War
General
[D] Brainstorming a balance patch for Brood war [ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Holy Diver BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Official StarCraft website teases new content ahead of BlizzCon? ASL22 General Discussion
Tourneys
[ASL22] Ro16 Group C [ASL22] Ro16 Group B [ASL22] Ro16 Group A Escore Tournament - Season 3
Strategy
Replay Review Process - What do you do? Simple Questions, Simple Answers Odyssey Mineral Stack Saturation Game Theory for Starcraft
Other Games
General Games
Diablo IV Nintendo Switch Thread EVE Corporation [Maplestory Hardcore] Let's Play~!! General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
[TL LoL EUW IHs] Teemo shall perish
Heroes of the Storm
Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Trading/Investing Thread
Fan Clubs
MarineLorD Fan Club The Creator Fan Club The ShoWTimE Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Diablo Animated Series on Netflix
Sports
Football (Soccer) Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Northern Ireland Global Starcraft
Blogs
Virtual Romance, Real-Life C…
TrAiDoS
Regacy Esports:Our Goa…
regacyesports
Dreaming of BW patches (mod…
c3rberUs
LOCKPICKING NOOB
LUCKY_NOOB
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 5687 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 States15743 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
Austria8760 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.
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before the fall.
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
Netherlands22567 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 States24342 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 States18869 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 3h 53m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
NeuroSwarm 174
ProTech134
Nina 88
StarCraft: Brood War
GuemChi 1946
Hyuk 452
Bale 152
Aegong 43
Noble 11
Icarus 7
League of Legends
JimRising 661
Other Games
summit1g15346
Mew2King51
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1131
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH361
• practicex 27
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2108
League of Legends
• Lourlo1242
• Stunt350
Upcoming Events
Afreeca Starleague
3h 53m
Light vs JyJ
Soulkey vs hero
WardiTV Weekly
4h 53m
Monday Night Weeklies
9h 53m
Afreeca Starleague
1d 3h
Snow vs Shinee
Shine vs EffOrt
GSL
1d 4h
PiGosaur Cup
1d 17h
The PondCast
2 days
Kung Fu Cup
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
KCM Race Survival
3 days
[ Show More ]
IntoTheTV X SOOP
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
IntoTheTV X SOOP
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
GSL
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
GSL
6 days
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
6 days
Spirit vs Mixu
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
Big Dog Cup 2026 Div 1

Ongoing

KCM Race Survival 2026 Season 3
K-JUNGMAN
ASL Season 22
Super Anchor Qualifying S3
CSL 2026 AUTUMN (S22)
Acropolis #5
Calamity Invitational
FISSURE Playground #3
BLAST Open Fall 2026
Esports World Cup 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer Qual
Stake Ranked Episode 3
XSE Pro League 2026

Upcoming

Acropolis #5 - GSA
Acropolis #5 - GSB
Acropolis #5 - GSC
SC4ALL II: Brood War
HSC XXX
Stellar Fest 2: Lunar Cup
SC4ALL II: StarCraft II
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
RSL Offline Finals
PGL Major Singapore 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 6
BLAST Rivals Fall 2026
IEM Beijing 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 5
PGL Masters Bucharest 2026
1win Private Club #2
Thunderpick World Champ. '26
ESL Pro League Season 24
Stake Ranked Episode 4
1win Private Club #1
Logitech G Play Connect 2026
SL StarSeries Fall 2026
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 © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.