EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 280
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
So, yeah, I feel safe and free.  + Show Spoiler + Whether I agree with TSA policies and whatnot is a different story though. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On June 08 2013 07:03 Souma wrote: Not a single thing you mentioned has hindered my freedom. Maybe someone else's, but not mine. So, yeah, I feel safe and free. + Show Spoiler + Whether I agree with TSA policies and whatnot is a different story though. Of course it has. Freedom isn't about doing what you like, it's about choice and lack of authority. While that may overlap sometimes, other times it may not. Ever wondered what it would be like to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Too bad. Ever wondered what it would be like on LSD? Too bad. Want to emigrate from the country? Too bad. On and on and on, and that says nothing of the economic liberties we've lost. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On June 08 2013 07:02 aksfjh wrote: I feel quite free right now, actually. I also look outside my window and see all kinds of free people going on with their daily lives. I must be missing something... The concept of freedom perhaps? If all you liked to do was sleep, would you be free in a cage? By your definition, you would be, but to any sane person that person would definitely not be free, because his choice to do with himself as he wishes has been restricted. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
dem goal posts. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On June 08 2013 07:07 Wegandi wrote: Of course it has. Freedom isn't about doing what you like, it's about choice and lack of authority. While that may overlap sometimes, other times it may not. Ever wondered what it would be like to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Too bad. Ever wondered what it would be like on LSD? Too bad. Want to emigrate from the country? Too bad. On and on and on, and that says nothing of the economic liberties we've lost. Even if it amounts to a brand of manufactured consent, the vast majority of citizens are ok with forgoing their freedom to ride motorcycles on LSD without a helmet in pursuit of public safety. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 08 2013 05:55 Danglars wrote:I don't know how correct Rand Paul would be on "This bill restores our Constitutional Rights" considering its a bill and not a constitutional amendment. If no action is taken on supposed violations of constitutional rights, how would a bill be any different? The bill can make illegal many federal (and state) practices that are otherwise allowable by the Constitution. Narrowing the authority of the government under the Constitution is easy. Expanding it is hard. | ||
|
renoB
United States170 Posts
On June 08 2013 07:12 farvacola wrote: Even if it amounts to a brand of manufactured consent, the vast majority of citizens are ok with forgoing their freedom to ride motorcycles on LSD without a helmet in pursuit of public safety. Whether or not I drop acid or choose to not wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle doesn't affect public safety, though, only my own. Seems to me like more of an illusion of safety. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
As energy companies seek to plumb vast reserves of underground oil in California through the controversial drilling technique known as fracking, voters are concerned about its safety and uneasy with the state's lack of oversight, according to a new poll. More than half of voters — 58% — say they favor a moratorium on the process of injecting chemicals deep into the ground to tap oil and natural gas deposits embedded in rock until an independent commission has studied its environmental effects. More than seven in 10 say they either want the process banned outright or more heavily regulated, according to the poll by the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and the Los Angeles Times. Voters' concern about the environmental and safety implications of fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, surfaced repeatedly. Almost three in five voters said fracking should be prohibited in areas immediately surrounding sources of groundwater. And by a 15-point margin, a majority of voters backed tax incentives for companies with a record of operating safely. Source | ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On June 08 2013 08:07 renoB wrote: Whether or not I drop acid or choose to not wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle doesn't affect public safety, though, only my own. Seems to me like more of an illusion of safety. Lol, LSD has rather dramatic effects on hand eye coordination as well as decision making and reaction time. On public roads, it's use while operating a motor vehicle absolutely affects public safety. Helmets are slightly different, but still add to the general safety of roadways through reductions in blunt force trauma related fatalities. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On June 08 2013 07:02 aksfjh wrote: I feel quite free right now, actually. I also look outside my window and see all kinds of free people going on with their daily lives. I must be missing something... You have been following these threads long enough(can I call you Romney4sure?) that you should have become somewhat aware of which direction the line on the graph of civil liberties and personal freedom is going. Nothing to see here? I suppose we'll have to wait on someone like DeepElemBlues to roll thru and give real argument on behalf of the state. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Seems reasonable, but well behind the curve. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14146 Posts
Also don't joke about bath salts I've known people who've died from people useing them. They're just Bad LSD a few molecules from LSD. Its good that the government shuts down the places that sell them. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 08 2013 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Seems reasonable, but well behind the curve. I really like the idea of incentives for operating safely. I'm not opposed to fracking for the most part. I worry that there may be some lapse in judgement in developing wells if we relax on the regulation and scrutiny of the projects, but the technology is relatively safe and sound when done right. | ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
On June 08 2013 08:07 renoB wrote: Whether or not I drop acid or choose to not wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle doesn't affect public safety, though, only my own. Seems to me like more of an illusion of safety. There are a couple of counter-arguments to this. Firstly, if you crack your head open in a motorbike accident because you weren't wearing a helmet then it is not only you who is affected, it is also your family and your friends. Perhaps you could think of this as protecting them too. Also, a lot of money was spent educating and training you and part of the deal there is that you are expected to contribute back to society when you are older. Dying in a motorbike accident as a young adult before you were able to contribute back to society means all that money was wasted. Finally, I could imagine that there is a lot of peer pressure on young adults to not wear a helmet. Someone should not have to be considered uncool just because they don't want to unnecessarily risk their life. It would be better to change the culture in this case but forcing everyone to wear a helmet removes that peer pressure problem. How many young people do stupid stuff that they regret (and possibly didn't want to do at the time) because of peer pressure? Very few things are as simple as "It only affects me". | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14146 Posts
It puts a really heavy strain on the social structure when people are selfish and don't think about the bigger picture. That was one of the bigger reasons behind the seat belt enforcement campaign and the helmet campaign. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
TRENTON, N.J. -- Newark Mayor Cory Booker is officially a candidate for U.S. Senate in New Jersey. The 44-year-old Democrat made his candidacy official at a news conference Saturday in New Jersey's largest city. Booker was joined by former U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley, a former pro basketball player who for 18 years held the seat Booker is seeking. Booker is also holding an event in South Jersey later Saturday. The seat became vacant with the death of the country's oldest senator, Frank Lautenberg, on Monday. Reps. Frank Pallone and Rush Holt are also planning to enter the Democratic primary, which will be held in August. Booker is considered the early front-runner. Candidates have until Monday afternoon to enter the race to fill the seat for the rest of the term, which ends in 2014. Source | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
Transportation Woes Keep US Oil Prices High ... some observers point a finger at inefficiencies in the U.S. transportation system, which forces oil companies to rely heavily on heavy transport to move crude supplies. Crude pipelines – such as the hotly debated Keystone XL that's now mired in Washington politics – could transport fuel more rapidly and at lower cost, some argue. Better methods of transportation are needed "to move the commodities from where they are to where they aren't," said Joe Petrowski, Gulf Oil's CEO, in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" this week. ... "We're still relying too much on rail to move crude," the CEO said. "For example, we're moving crude 2,600 miles from the Bakken [in North Dakota] to the Canadian refinery in St. John's where we buy a lot of our product," he said. "It's just a much more expensive movement than if we were to move by water or by pipe." Link Why don't we just let companies build more rail and pipelines? Just make sure everything is safe, has modern pollution controls and then give the go ahead. More taxes, well paid blue collar jobs and lower prices. From an economic standpoint it's a good deal all around. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 09 2013 03:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Link Why don't we just let companies build more rail and pipelines? Just make sure everything is safe, has modern pollution controls and then give the go ahead. More taxes, well paid blue collar jobs and lower prices. From an economic standpoint it's a good deal all around. It's a large investment in what is a very rapidly developing sector/region, so there needs to be caution in that regard. We should probably avoid a strong oil-boom economy, but there does need to be some updating of pipeline networks. I personally have conflicting worries in a microeconomic sense. These huge fields we're finding are generally in areas of the U.S. we need development in, like the Dakotas. As long as the oil can't move far without costs skyrocketing, the workers, businesses, and cities will benefit quite a bit from decreased cost of living/business, good pay, and reinvestment of infrastructure in the area. If you ship the oil away at cheaper costs to higher paying areas, you won't get the drastic local rewards that the region needs. There is the benefit of greatly reducing the need for drilling in populated areas (like NY, Appalachians, and North Texas), so there's that as well. I'm fairly certain the building of pipelines to decrease the cost of transportation would boost the economy as a whole right now, but the minor benefit to many might not balance out the huge benefit of the few. | ||
| ||
