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.
I still don't understand why this is such a revelation to people. I mean, I've always been confused by the "cops are heroes" etc narratives, and as an attorney this is exactly what I would have expected to see from them. Its just amazing, in my experience, whenever a person has a positive experience with them.
My pro bono clients get BS tickets or "warnings" all the time when Designated Driving (none hold up), in the courtroom I've beaten dozens of cellphone/seatbelt tickets where the cop initially claimed to have some sort of superhuman eyesight, when called for burglaries they typically show up and act like they are doing people a favor, and then they will seemingly gleefully carry out the complaints of ornery neighbors when you have too many cars parked on the street, or your dog barked at them or was off leash when you were getting your mail.
The #1 qualification we should look for in cops, is a distaste for cops, and that the person has no desire at all to be a cop.
On April 07 2015 09:47 cLutZ wrote: I still don't understand why this is such a revelation to people. I mean, I've always been confused by the "cops are heroes" etc narratives, and as an attorney this is exactly what I would have expected to see from them. Its just amazing, in my experience, whenever a person has a positive experience with them.
My pro bono clients get BS tickets or "warnings" all the time when Designated Driving (none hold up), in the courtroom I've beaten dozens of cellphone/seatbelt tickets where the cop initially claimed to have some sort of superhuman eyesight, when called for burglaries they typically show up and act like they are doing people a favor, and then they will seemingly gleefully carry out the complaints of ornery neighbors when you have too many cars parked on the street, or your dog barked at them or was off leash when you were getting your mail.
The #1 qualification we should look for in cops, is a distaste for cops, and that the person has no desire at all to be a cop.
Whoa... Ann Coulter on Hannity saying she agrees (at least in part) with Warren on Wall Street, and her complaint is that Warren talks tough then cuddles up with Wall Street...
Not sure where that anti Wall Street streak is in the republican party but I'm terribly curious which of Warren's positions on Wall Street she agrees with? Any ideas from the conservatives?
ARVIN, California – Californians who grumble about not being able to water their lawns everyday during the fourth year of a historic drought should swing by this small town in southern Kern County.
Drought or no drought, residents of this rural community can’t drink water from the tap and can’t even use it for cooking because high levels of arsenic — known to cause cancer — become even more concentrated when water is boiled.
“They worry about little things,” said Salvador Partida, president of the Committee for a Better Arvin, of the rest of the state. “We’re worried about not being able to drink the water.”
Last week Gov. Jerry Brown ordered the State Water Resources Control Board to enact mandatory cuts in water use by 25 percent. But more than 1 million California residents who live in mostly rural areas have unreliable access to safe drinking water, according to the Community Water Center, a non-profit group that advocates affordable and clean water for all Californians. For them, the ongoing drought that is ravaging the state's water supply is merely a sideshow.
Tap water that comes mostly from wells in these communities violated maximum contaminant level standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency at least once in 2012 – the most recent annual compliance report by the state’s drinking water program.
The number of violations with potential direct public health impact may affect even more people because of insufficient regulation and under-reporting, especially in areas served by small systems, said Heather Lukacs, project director at the Community Water Center.
More than 100 areas with fewer than 10,000 people had arsenic violations. Most are small, poor communities with a predominantly Hispanic population, some of whom are forced to spend up to 10 percent of household income on bottled water.
As of February of this year, the state reports that approximately 255,000 people served by 341 systems got water that was not potable. Almost half of the residents affected were getting water that exceeded the acceptable level of arsenic. The number is expected to rise over the entire year as more violations are reported.
ARVIN, California – Californians who grumble about not being able to water their lawns everyday during the fourth year of a historic drought should swing by this small town in southern Kern County.
Drought or no drought, residents of this rural community can’t drink water from the tap and can’t even use it for cooking because high levels of arsenic — known to cause cancer — become even more concentrated when water is boiled.
“They worry about little things,” said Salvador Partida, president of the Committee for a Better Arvin, of the rest of the state. “We’re worried about not being able to drink the water.”
Last week Gov. Jerry Brown ordered the State Water Resources Control Board to enact mandatory cuts in water use by 25 percent. But more than 1 million California residents who live in mostly rural areas have unreliable access to safe drinking water, according to the Community Water Center, a non-profit group that advocates affordable and clean water for all Californians. For them, the ongoing drought that is ravaging the state's water supply is merely a sideshow.
Tap water that comes mostly from wells in these communities violated maximum contaminant level standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency at least once in 2012 – the most recent annual compliance report by the state’s drinking water program.
The number of violations with potential direct public health impact may affect even more people because of insufficient regulation and under-reporting, especially in areas served by small systems, said Heather Lukacs, project director at the Community Water Center.
More than 100 areas with fewer than 10,000 people had arsenic violations. Most are small, poor communities with a predominantly Hispanic population, some of whom are forced to spend up to 10 percent of household income on bottled water.
As of February of this year, the state reports that approximately 255,000 people served by 341 systems got water that was not potable. Almost half of the residents affected were getting water that exceeded the acceptable level of arsenic. The number is expected to rise over the entire year as more violations are reported.
On April 07 2015 11:47 GreenHorizons wrote: Whoa... Ann Coulter on Hannity saying she agrees (at least in part) with Warren on Wall Street, and her complaint is that Warren talks tough then cuddles up with Wall Street...
Not sure where that anti Wall Street streak is in the republican party but I'm terribly curious which of Warren's positions on Wall Street she agrees with? Any ideas from the conservatives?
Basically 95% of Conservatives who are not currently elected to Congress agree that Wall Street and Washington are working together to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of America.
The fundamental split with Warren is that her plan is to regulate the banks such that they are essentially wards of the state (like the modern healthcare industry). Conservatives believe that that doesn't work (and will point that banks are already very tightly regulated), that regulators are always a step behind, and that the superior plan is to cut them off. Then they would ride the boom-bust cycle instead of what they believe is the consistent stagnation of the Warren plan.
Edit:
Also they think she is disingenuous and just wants more control over the economy.
On April 07 2015 11:47 GreenHorizons wrote: Whoa... Ann Coulter on Hannity saying she agrees (at least in part) with Warren on Wall Street, and her complaint is that Warren talks tough then cuddles up with Wall Street...
Not sure where that anti Wall Street streak is in the republican party but I'm terribly curious which of Warren's positions on Wall Street she agrees with? Any ideas from the conservatives?
This is an interesting perspective. During the tight election cycles, you always have several posters in here complaining that the parties aren't all that different from each other in the US.
I think if we speak in broad generalities, you can find huge overlap between the two parties. They're unhappy with many practices of foreign trade competition, unhappy with environmental abuses, unhappy about tax policy, unhappy with the defraying of American leadership globally, and unhappy about Wall Street and various aspects of the economy.
And this is why in theory, Congress should be able to make compromises that address specific concerns from dissenting members to bring them in to a large coalition of bipartisan support. For instance, we see that building now with the attempts to force the president to present an Iran deal for Congressional ratification. American politics is not meant to be a game where one party builds enough electoral support to trample the other side and override their ability to slow legislative processes. Unfortunately, it's turning out that way because partisanship and creating outrage is great for fund-raising.
On April 07 2015 06:33 JinDesu wrote: To be fair, the Senate that Yoda had to deal with wasn't anywhere as bad.
Heh.
Obama is literally Palpatine.
(meta) Also, I find myself a little confused that Millitron seems to be on the same page as a lot of other people regarding intervention in the Middle East. Huh.
On April 07 2015 11:47 GreenHorizons wrote: Whoa... Ann Coulter on Hannity saying she agrees (at least in part) with Warren on Wall Street, and her complaint is that Warren talks tough then cuddles up with Wall Street...
Not sure where that anti Wall Street streak is in the republican party but I'm terribly curious which of Warren's positions on Wall Street she agrees with? Any ideas from the conservatives?
Basically 95% of Conservatives who are not currently elected to Congress agree that Wall Street and Washington are working together to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of America.
The fundamental split with Warren is that her plan is to regulate the banks such that they are essentially wards of the state (like the modern healthcare industry). Conservatives believe that that doesn't work (and will point that banks are already very tightly regulated), that regulators are always a step behind, and that the superior plan is to cut them off. Then they would ride the boom-bust cycle instead of what they believe is the consistent stagnation of the Warren plan.
Edit:
Also they think she is disingenuous and just wants more control over the economy.
As someone who works for banks in the legal fiend and has to assist cleaning up their messes, they need the regulation. Not because they are evil, but because they lack all common sense and adequately trained staff. The number of people that I answer to on a weekly basis that cannot perform a simple task like “send a check” or “wire funds” is mind numbing. Even the most hard line fiscal republicans at my firm agree with Warren that lending practices and large, nationwide banks need some tough love.
Around the office, we coined the phrase “They are not to big to fail. They are to big to function,” because it is more accurate to what is wrong with banking in the US right now.
On April 07 2015 09:47 cLutZ wrote: I still don't understand why this is such a revelation to people. I mean, I've always been confused by the "cops are heroes" etc narratives, and as an attorney this is exactly what I would have expected to see from them. Its just amazing, in my experience, whenever a person has a positive experience with them.
My pro bono clients get BS tickets or "warnings" all the time when Designated Driving (none hold up), in the courtroom I've beaten dozens of cellphone/seatbelt tickets where the cop initially claimed to have some sort of superhuman eyesight, when called for burglaries they typically show up and act like they are doing people a favor, and then they will seemingly gleefully carry out the complaints of ornery neighbors when you have too many cars parked on the street, or your dog barked at them or was off leash when you were getting your mail.
The #1 qualification we should look for in cops, is a distaste for cops, and that the person has no desire at all to be a cop.
True. That's how it should be with lawyers too.
Not with lawyers given given how rough of a job it can be. It definitely should be the case with politicians, however.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) is throwing his support behind a religious freedom bill that's broader in many ways than the controversial one in Indiana that Gov. Mike Pence (R) was forced to clarify after a national uproar.
"Yes, we support the bill," Jindal spokeswoman Shannon Bates Dirmann said according to The New Orleans Times-Picayune. "This is a common sense bill that provides necessary protections for individuals to prevent adverse treatment from the state based on religious beliefs regarding marriage."
The bill, introduced by Louisiana state Rep. Mike Johnson, allows businesses to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. It also would allow a private company to not offer benefits to same-sex married couples based on religious objections.
Jindal's support for this bill falls in line with him backing the Indiana bill and similar legislation in Arkansas, which Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) sent back to the state legislature to better reflect a federal religious freedom law passed in 1993.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) is throwing his support behind a religious freedom bill that's broader in many ways than the controversial one in Indiana that Gov. Mike Pence (R) was forced to clarify after a national uproar.
"Yes, we support the bill," Jindal spokeswoman Shannon Bates Dirmann said according to The New Orleans Times-Picayune. "This is a common sense bill that provides necessary protections for individuals to prevent adverse treatment from the state based on religious beliefs regarding marriage."
The bill, introduced by Louisiana state Rep. Mike Johnson, allows businesses to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. It also would allow a private company to not offer benefits to same-sex married couples based on religious objections.
Jindal's support for this bill falls in line with him backing the Indiana bill and similar legislation in Arkansas, which Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) sent back to the state legislature to better reflect a federal religious freedom law passed in 1993.
Bobby Jindal makes me so sad. I remember when he was first elected-- bright eyed, young and smart as hell. Thought he was a actual, sensible conservative. Even now, I think he's a smart guy. He's just chosen a series of absolute shit positions of the sake of popularity (though that hasn't worked out so well) and is unable to let go.
Paul faces what is likely to be a crowded Republican field for 2016. Although Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, his colleague in the Senate, is the only other Republican to have announced his intention to run for president, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, as well as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, are expected to join the fray.
Polls show Paul in a three-way tie for third place in the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Bush and Walker lead the most recent average of polls.
Paul, the son of longtime libertarian Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010 in the Tea Party wave. An ophthalmologist by training, Paul is pitching himself as a "different kind of Republican." When he was first elected, he was seen as candidate whose libertarian ideas, in the words of The Washington Post, "could make him the most unusual and intriguing voice among the major contenders in the 2016 field.
I like John Oliver. I didn't much like that particular segment. Felt a bit contrived. I'm also not very fond of the liberal romanticizing of Edward Snowden, who while unveiling a well-deserved truth simultaneously and indiscriminately released thousands of pages of classified intelligence he didn't even bother to read. He's not a hero. He's not a villain, but he's definitely not some benevolent, highly-intelligent technocrat like some people believe him to be.
Government surveillance is really just like any other controversial issue lacking real substance, substituted by conjecture and fueled by speculation. It's a glimpse into a larger picture, but misses the underlying problem. I don't have a problem with my government sifting through data to thwart terrorism, which has found new strength in contemporary technology and the rapid spread of information it allows. I do have a problem with my government acting with complete impunity, enacting laws which strengthen its legal capacity while simultaneously diminishing its accountability. Law enforcement in the United States is in an incredibly precarious state, and without radical reformation will lead inevitably to further conflict with the American people. Ferguson, Staten Island, Cleveland- these are the case studies we should be investigating, demanding answers and implementing radical changes. Edward Snowden is just a distraction.
On April 08 2015 01:29 Wolfstan wrote: Rand Paul throwing his hat in officially now. Best candidate IMO.
That is unless they can find another economic conservative and social liberal.
he is not economic conservative in any real sense of those words... he is a revisionist wanting to bring back the golden (in his mind) age of america from 1880 to 1913
EPT
