|
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. |
On March 07 2015 06:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:30 zlefin wrote:
Maybe people are just busy, there's a lot of stuff to do after all.
When is the event anyways? The link didnt' seem clear on when the event was. Well it's a 50 year anniversary so it's not like it snuck up on them. If they are busy, it's with something they thought was more important to attend. I'm not sure that's the road they want to go down in explaining their absence. On March 07 2015 06:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 05:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source Must be a Jersey thing lol. I'd bet politicians commit crimes at a higher rate than the rest of the population but face incarceration at a significantly lower one. Political corruption would be another area where Republicans could put their money where their mouth is and gain wide support. On March 07 2015 05:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Republicans are going to Selma, just not the ephemeral "leadership".
National lawmakers can mainly huff, puff and do little about Ferguson. To the extent that the Federal government can intervene, the DOJ has the authority. So it's in Obama's court and so far he's done nothing that I couldn't do in an hour (demonstrate disparate impact). Kudos to the Republicans bucking leadership and showing up! As for people like Scalise, this isn't helping his defense of intentionally appealing to white supremacists. I didn't read anything that suggested they bucked the leadership. What explanation are you imagining for why so few Republicans are showing up and leadership isn't? I'm not imagining anything. So you are completely clueless? Meaning you have no idea why? I do not have psychic powers, if that's what you're asking. Yes jonny obviously I'm asking if you have psychic powers.... Or maybe I'm asking why you think leadership isn't going, but a couple dozen republicans are? What's the point of speculating why? They obviously decided they had other things to do. The DHS shutdown as averted just the other day and going is little more than symbolic. The majority of people from Congress, both D's and R's aren't going. Why is this even a big deal? I can't recall you harping on the importance of this event before Politico decided to make it a talking point. How was I supposed to know they weren't going until it was reported? "They obviously decided they had other things to do" is the whole point. "Why is this a big deal?" I don't know Jonny... Why is the 4th of July a big deal? + Show Spoiler +On March 07 2015 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Glorious small government! Glorious small government! fixed that for you.
The majority of Congress decided it had better things to do, as did the majority of people in the country and on the planet. You only care that some R's aren't going, and have arbitrarily assigned special meaning to it.
If my local representatives don't show up to my local 4th of July fireworks show, I'm not going to accuse them of being communist traitors or think that all Democrats hate 'Murica.
Edit: there's probably no point in continuing this discussion. I don't think you can see beyond your bias.
|
Yeah, but it's a major misplay to not go. If you don't like political ceremony, don't become a politician.
How about everyone who received one and didn't report it?
On March 07 2015 04:31 always_winter wrote:
Libertarianism is the most reasonable sect of the GOP because it's the most moderate. Bill Maher said not too long ago, "Over the past ten years the Democrats have moved to the center, and the Republicans have moved into a mental asylum (paraphrasing)" which of course is hyperbolic but nonetheless a fairly accurate representation of the extreme right.
Except this is actually true. I mean, the bit about Republicans is generally true. Main problem I have with them. Some moderation on a few issues from the rise of the libertarians, but broadly Republicans are way more conservative.
But have Democrats shifted to the center? Hardly. Obama is way farther left than Clinton ever was, and get incessant shit from the left for not being farther out. Hillary was always farther left than Bill, and is now much farther left than she used to be. And SHE constantly gets shit from the Elizabeth Warren wing who say she isn't sufficiently redistributionist.
For some numbers (yay numbers!) try http://www.voteview.com/political_polarization.asp
|
On March 07 2015 07:00 Danglars wrote:We haven't even had the first leftist suggest states be made to pay x dollars for y injury. Let's wait for that fellow and his idea of legislative or fiat power affecting workers compensation claims. I haven't even seen a public opinion poll of Alabama residents on the issue.
This cuts pretty much to the core of it: it is the main issue of a federated system. I think it would work great if local governments were competent, but as is illustrated by the article in question, they often aren't. There does not seem to be much rational reason (although there may very well be, and it is simply more complex than that article shows) for someone in Georgia to receive about 20x more for the same injury as someone in Alabama.
For one, my first experience living in a federated nation similar to the US is since moving to Brazil and I know that here there are some mindblowingly stupid issues related to state autonomy.
|
Ohhh man the republicans still aren't letting Benghazi die. Can't they find a new scandal to run into the ground?
|
On March 07 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 06:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:30 zlefin wrote:
Maybe people are just busy, there's a lot of stuff to do after all.
When is the event anyways? The link didnt' seem clear on when the event was. Well it's a 50 year anniversary so it's not like it snuck up on them. If they are busy, it's with something they thought was more important to attend. I'm not sure that's the road they want to go down in explaining their absence. On March 07 2015 06:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Must be a Jersey thing lol. I'd bet politicians commit crimes at a higher rate than the rest of the population but face incarceration at a significantly lower one.
Political corruption would be another area where Republicans could put their money where their mouth is and gain wide support.
[quote]
Kudos to the Republicans bucking leadership and showing up! As for people like Scalise, this isn't helping his defense of intentionally appealing to white supremacists.
I didn't read anything that suggested they bucked the leadership. What explanation are you imagining for why so few Republicans are showing up and leadership isn't? I'm not imagining anything. So you are completely clueless? Meaning you have no idea why? I do not have psychic powers, if that's what you're asking. Yes jonny obviously I'm asking if you have psychic powers.... Or maybe I'm asking why you think leadership isn't going, but a couple dozen republicans are? What's the point of speculating why? They obviously decided they had other things to do. The DHS shutdown as averted just the other day and going is little more than symbolic. The majority of people from Congress, both D's and R's aren't going. Why is this even a big deal? I can't recall you harping on the importance of this event before Politico decided to make it a talking point. How was I supposed to know they weren't going until it was reported? "They obviously decided they had other things to do" is the whole point. "Why is this a big deal?" I don't know Jonny... Why is the 4th of July a big deal? + Show Spoiler +On March 07 2015 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Glorious small government! Glorious small government! fixed that for you. The majority of Congress decided it had better things to do, as did the majority of people in the country and on the planet. You only care that some R's aren't going, and have arbitrarily assigned special meaning to it. If my local representatives don't show up to my local 4th of July fireworks show, I'm not going to accuse them of being communist traitors or think that all Democrats hate 'Murica.
I care that D's aren't going too. Particularly the ones with a history of missing events like this or attending ones that are questionable in nature (Comparable to Scalise). Also the ones that aren't honoring the people in some other way (as Boehner said he is in the capital) make me skeptical about their inclinations.
But you're right that those D stories are harder to find. Both as a result of media bias and a general lack of content. But you should know that I don't excuse them either where they exist.
If republicans had anything to address the specific issues minorities face (that white men don't [at least at the same frequency]) I wouldn't be so inclined to be so skeptical that they really do care, they were just busy.
If Republicans didn't take every opportunity to put themselves on the opposite side of racial minorities on specific racial minority related issues I also wouldn't be so skeptical.
Congress has been limited to almost exclusively symbolic actions over the last bit of time. That they saw so much more value in wasting time and money on symbolic actions to attempt to remove peoples benefits/healthcare and so little value in the "symbolic action" of attending Selma is the "blue and black" you guys can't see. No mater how many times you are shown differently.
|
On March 07 2015 06:34 farvacola wrote:
States' rights! States' rights!
Definitely should be a state issue. Why is it the first inclination to get big papa Fed involved when there is a sob story about states using their freedom to do things differently. Did we take away the ability for the ability for state citizens to change things or the employee to move across state lines or responsibility to refuse unsafe work? "Geographic lottery" just makes me /facepalm.
|
On March 07 2015 06:35 zlefin wrote:
It's a commemoration, lots of pretty speeches, not so much forward looking work to be done though. While I agree it might have been poltically useful to show up, it's hardly necessary.
It could actually be seen as a waste of taxpayer dollars and I would be fine if they framed it that they respect taxpayer's money. For example, our former premier(governor) in Alberta was forced to resign when the tab to attend Nelson Mandela's funeral came due.
|
On March 07 2015 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:30 zlefin wrote:
Maybe people are just busy, there's a lot of stuff to do after all.
When is the event anyways? The link didnt' seem clear on when the event was. Well it's a 50 year anniversary so it's not like it snuck up on them. If they are busy, it's with something they thought was more important to attend. I'm not sure that's the road they want to go down in explaining their absence. On March 07 2015 06:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I didn't read anything that suggested they bucked the leadership. What explanation are you imagining for why so few Republicans are showing up and leadership isn't? I'm not imagining anything. So you are completely clueless? Meaning you have no idea why? I do not have psychic powers, if that's what you're asking. Yes jonny obviously I'm asking if you have psychic powers.... Or maybe I'm asking why you think leadership isn't going, but a couple dozen republicans are? What's the point of speculating why? They obviously decided they had other things to do. The DHS shutdown as averted just the other day and going is little more than symbolic. The majority of people from Congress, both D's and R's aren't going. Why is this even a big deal? I can't recall you harping on the importance of this event before Politico decided to make it a talking point. How was I supposed to know they weren't going until it was reported? "They obviously decided they had other things to do" is the whole point. "Why is this a big deal?" I don't know Jonny... Why is the 4th of July a big deal? + Show Spoiler +On March 07 2015 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Glorious small government! Glorious small government! fixed that for you. The majority of Congress decided it had better things to do, as did the majority of people in the country and on the planet. You only care that some R's aren't going, and have arbitrarily assigned special meaning to it. If my local representatives don't show up to my local 4th of July fireworks show, I'm not going to accuse them of being communist traitors or think that all Democrats hate 'Murica. + Show Spoiler +I care that D's aren't going too. Particularly the ones with a history of missing events like this or attending ones that are questionable in nature (Comparable to Scalise). Also the ones that aren't honoring the people in some other way (as Boehner said he is in the capital) make me skeptical about their inclinations.
But you're right that those D stories are harder to find. Both as a result of media bias and a general lack of content. But you should know that I don't excuse them either where they exist.
If republicans had anything to address the specific issues minorities face (that white men don't [at least at the same frequency]) I wouldn't be so inclined to be so skeptical that they really do care, they were just busy. If Republicans didn't take every opportunity to put themselves on the opposite side of racial minorities on specific racial minority related issues I also wouldn't be so skeptical. + Show Spoiler +Congress has been limited to almost exclusively symbolic actions over the last bit of time. That they saw so much more value in wasting time and money on symbolic actions to attempt to remove peoples benefits/healthcare and so little value in the "symbolic action" of attending Selma is the "blue and black" you guys can't see. No mater how many times you are shown differently.
They don't, you bigot.
Edit: GH, you've said in this little discussion that if R's support black candidates and propose legislation to help minorities that they're engaging in 'black face' and you will basically see them as racists. On the other hand, if they don't do that you'll see them as racists. So no matter what, you're going to see them as racists. I don't know how to describe someone who behaves like that other than simply calling them for what they are - a bigot. You are intolerant to other people's ideas to the point where it has become farcical.
|
Legally married spouses in same-sex couples soon will be able to take unpaid time off to care for a spouse or sick family members even if they live in a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage.
The final rule issued by the Department of Labor takes effect March 27. It revises the definition of "spouse" in the Family and Medical Leave Act to recognize legally married same-sex couples regardless of where they live. Prior to that, only couples that lived in a state that recognized same-sex marriage could take advantage of the act's benefits.
Currently, 37 states plus the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriages.
"We're really excited about it," says Robin Maril, senior legislative counsel at the Human Rights Campaign, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group, of the final rule. The old interpretation "wasn't fair for employees. It meant they had different federal benefits based on their zip code."
The new rule was prompted by President Barack Obama's instructions to federal agencies to review federal statutes following the 2013 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor. That decision struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act that said that a marriage must be between a man and a woman.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 07 2015 07:42 Wolfstan wrote:Definitely should be a state issue. Why is it the first inclination to get big papa Fed involved when there is a sob story about states using their freedom to do things differently. Did we take away the ability for the ability for state citizens to change things or the employee to move across state lines or responsibility to refuse unsafe work? "Geographic lottery" just makes me /facepalm.
states are historical relics that should be turned into administrative districts only. this particular policy is an obvious negative.
|
It's not an obvious negative. States should be able to compete on this. You should write your local Alabama legislator if you feel that compensation payouts and premiums are too low, not your Federal rep.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you seem unfamiliar with the commerce clause, particularly discussion of inter-state competition. but the scheme of inter-state competition is itself not much justification, because it could simply empower existing powers or give rise to collective action problems that simply lead to failure.
the significant issue here is the rights of people, and states is a particularly arbitrary unit for giving people different rights. the actual u.s. states are also full of parochial and customary bullshit that just shouldn't exist.
i don't particularly care if you think you are a texan or whatever state/local level identity, but this should not be given any significance to the level of restricting other people's rights.
|
commerce clause is horribly overused. They need to put some amendments in so stuff can be alright without overstretching the commerce clause so far past reasonable.
|
In the meantime, commerce clause directives are what we've got, and I'm not nearly as comfortable as some Canadian when it comes to condemning people based on the state they had the misfortune of being born in.
Hypothesising that folks who don't like it can just move or vote someone else in is, quite frankly, stupid as hell, and that it comes from a foreigner is even better!
|
On March 07 2015 10:43 oneofthem wrote:
you seem unfamiliar with the commerce clause, particularly discussion of inter-state competition. but the scheme of inter-state competition is itself not much justification, because it could simply empower existing powers or give rise to collective action problems that simply lead to failure.
the significant issue here is the rights of people, and states is a particularly arbitrary unit for giving people different rights. the actual u.s. states are also full of parochial and customary bullshit that just shouldn't exist.
i don't particularly care if you think you are a texan or whatever state/local level identity, but this should not be given any significance to the level of restricting other people's rights.
Maybe we don't define rights the same way. I define a right as something the government can't take away from you, social safety is something that the government will give you, insurance is a transaction between two parties. You post like citizens are unable to participate in the state legislative process or are unable to move out if you don't like bad policies.
|
On March 07 2015 11:09 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 10:43 oneofthem wrote:
you seem unfamiliar with the commerce clause, particularly discussion of inter-state competition. but the scheme of inter-state competition is itself not much justification, because it could simply empower existing powers or give rise to collective action problems that simply lead to failure.
the significant issue here is the rights of people, and states is a particularly arbitrary unit for giving people different rights. the actual u.s. states are also full of parochial and customary bullshit that just shouldn't exist.
i don't particularly care if you think you are a texan or whatever state/local level identity, but this should not be given any significance to the level of restricting other people's rights. Maybe we don't define rights the same way. I define a right as something the government can't take away from you, social safety is something that the government will give you, insurance is a transaction between two parties. You post like citizens are unable to participate in the state legislative process or are unable to move out if you don't like bad policies.
You do realize that you are espousing the very same views voiced in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1965?
Those views did not prevail then, and they don't prevail now.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 07 2015 11:09 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 10:43 oneofthem wrote:
you seem unfamiliar with the commerce clause, particularly discussion of inter-state competition. but the scheme of inter-state competition is itself not much justification, because it could simply empower existing powers or give rise to collective action problems that simply lead to failure.
the significant issue here is the rights of people, and states is a particularly arbitrary unit for giving people different rights. the actual u.s. states are also full of parochial and customary bullshit that just shouldn't exist.
i don't particularly care if you think you are a texan or whatever state/local level identity, but this should not be given any significance to the level of restricting other people's rights. Maybe we don't define rights the same way. I define a right as something the government can't take away from you, social safety is something that the government will give you, insurance is a transaction between two parties. You post like citizens are unable to participate in the state legislative process or are unable to move out if you don't like bad policies.
this negative rights bluh doesn't really matter here. all rights are positive rights when we are talking about what the law should do. the legal recognition of your rights grounds them, and in the case of states with different rights we are simply talking about states that act as grounding for different laws and the resulting rights.
some rights are more critical than others obviously, and i could see some sort of regionalism prevailing when taking into account existing facts like local traditions on the favorite local holiday. but really anything substantively impacting people's lives is only justified in as wide of a universal scheme as practicable. (talking about national level borders)
and really the worker comp system is not even establishing new rights, just a negotiation structure. unless you don't think people have rights to limb and life whcih is certainly possible.
|
On March 07 2015 11:18 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 11:09 Wolfstan wrote:On March 07 2015 10:43 oneofthem wrote:
you seem unfamiliar with the commerce clause, particularly discussion of inter-state competition. but the scheme of inter-state competition is itself not much justification, because it could simply empower existing powers or give rise to collective action problems that simply lead to failure.
the significant issue here is the rights of people, and states is a particularly arbitrary unit for giving people different rights. the actual u.s. states are also full of parochial and customary bullshit that just shouldn't exist.
i don't particularly care if you think you are a texan or whatever state/local level identity, but this should not be given any significance to the level of restricting other people's rights. Maybe we don't define rights the same way. I define a right as something the government can't take away from you, social safety is something that the government will give you, insurance is a transaction between two parties. You post like citizens are unable to participate in the state legislative process or are unable to move out if you don't like bad policies. this negative rights bluh doesn't really matter here. all rights are positive rights when we are talking about what the law should do. the legal recognition of your rights grounds them, and in the case of states with different rights we are simply talking about states that act as grounding for different laws and the resulting rights. some rights are more critical than others obviously, and i could see some sort of regionalism prevailing when taking into account existing facts like local traditions on the favorite local holiday. but really anything substantively impacting people's lives is only justified in as wide of a universal scheme as practicable. (talking about national level borders) and really the worker comp system is not even establishing new rights, just a negotiation structure. unless you don't think people have rights to limb and life whcih is certainly possible.
I agree with you that WCB is a negotiation issue. Alabama guy took home double the pay but had a smaller payout for limb loss. The amputee payout was less than a rotater injury too. His "rights" had nothing to do with that negotiation.
|
WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Friday the Justice Department would use its full authority to demand police reforms in Ferguson, Missouri, including possibly going so far as dismantling the department accused of racial bias.
"We are prepared to use all the power that we have ... to ensure that the situation changes there," Holder told reporters.
Asked if that included dismantling the Ferguson Police Department, Holder said, "If that's what's necessary, we're prepared to do that."
Civil rights lawyers have previously said the county could absorb the functions of the Ferguson Police Department.
The Justice Department issued a report this week that found that police in Ferguson overwhelmingly arrested and issued traffic citations to black residents, creating a "toxic" environment with its policing practices.
That culture of distrust erupted in August, when white Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was black and unarmed. The incident triggered months of protest and a national debate about race and police behavior.
Holder also said President Barack Obama's task force on policing will issue guidelines to address jailing citizens who owe money to the city, a practice used in Ferguson. But he noted that the federal government does not have the authority to demand such a change of local governments.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 07 2015 12:33 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 11:18 oneofthem wrote:On March 07 2015 11:09 Wolfstan wrote:On March 07 2015 10:43 oneofthem wrote:
you seem unfamiliar with the commerce clause, particularly discussion of inter-state competition. but the scheme of inter-state competition is itself not much justification, because it could simply empower existing powers or give rise to collective action problems that simply lead to failure.
the significant issue here is the rights of people, and states is a particularly arbitrary unit for giving people different rights. the actual u.s. states are also full of parochial and customary bullshit that just shouldn't exist.
i don't particularly care if you think you are a texan or whatever state/local level identity, but this should not be given any significance to the level of restricting other people's rights. Maybe we don't define rights the same way. I define a right as something the government can't take away from you, social safety is something that the government will give you, insurance is a transaction between two parties. You post like citizens are unable to participate in the state legislative process or are unable to move out if you don't like bad policies. this negative rights bluh doesn't really matter here. all rights are positive rights when we are talking about what the law should do. the legal recognition of your rights grounds them, and in the case of states with different rights we are simply talking about states that act as grounding for different laws and the resulting rights. some rights are more critical than others obviously, and i could see some sort of regionalism prevailing when taking into account existing facts like local traditions on the favorite local holiday. but really anything substantively impacting people's lives is only justified in as wide of a universal scheme as practicable. (talking about national level borders) and really the worker comp system is not even establishing new rights, just a negotiation structure. unless you don't think people have rights to limb and life whcih is certainly possible. I agree with you that WCB is a negotiation issue. Alabama guy took home double the pay but had a smaller payout for limb loss. The amputee payout was less than a rotater injury too. His "rights" had nothing to do with that negotiation.
that outcome is determined by law, so it is about extent of legal rights. you are correct that there may be trade-offs and i'm not saying they need to follow the same risk preference. but states do have different levels of worker comp taking into account the risk tradeoff, and other legal rights as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
