|
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 July 24 2013 04:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 04:39 Klondikebar wrote:
What a fucking bigot piece of trash. Yeah, everyone who comes to America just wants to smuggle in drugs. It has nothing to do with the job opportunities or escaping the drug violence in their own country. I fail to see where he said that everyone who comes to America just wants to smuggle in drugs. Perhaps he was speaking in some kind of racist code that, oddly, you were able to decipher immediately...
"For everyone who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert,” he continued. “Those people would be legalized with the same act."
Are you kidding me? First of all, wtf is up with that physical description of mexican drug mules? Second...yeah he didn't literally mean valedictorian. He meant well adjusted kid who does well in school. But even if I grant you that he actually meant valedictorian, that ratio is obscene. 100 drug mules for every hispanic valedictorian in the country? He's painting an obscenely racist picture of an entire population that's only coming here to sell us drugs. The overwhelming number of immigrants aren't going to be valedictorians, but they are going to be hard workers who just want a better life for their families. The fact that he's framing his argument entirely in terms of people who are "130 pounds with calves the size of canteloupes" is blatantly dishonest about immigration and, at best, implicitly racist...although it's mostly overtly racist.
You can pick at the minutia of the language all you want to try to get around this. It won't work. The spirit of what he's saying is painfully clear.
|
On July 24 2013 04:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +He said (paraphrasing) that for every one regular person, there's a hundred people who smuggle in drugs.... He said valedictorian. Valedictorian and "regular person" are not synonyms fellas. Try again, this time set reading comprehension to On. Show nested quote +One can argue that he LITERALLY meant for every valedictorian there's a 100 smugglers, but using that argument would acknowledge that he's being deceptive in his statement. How so? I'd bet that for every valedictorian there are dozens if not 100 people smuggling drugs in from Mexico. Valedictorians are rather rare, one a year for a school, hundreds if not thousands of people are smuggling drugs in from Mexico daily. Seems like simply making shit up to call a Republican racist or dishonest is still a very acceptable form of argument.
When did I call a Republican racist or dishonest? Do not put words in my mouth and do not call me "fella" or insult me.
Yes, I'm sure if we had perfect information it turns out that there are more than 100 smugglers per valedictorian
My argument here is that his statement is extremely deceptive. He makes it sound like the only people trying to cross the border are smugglers and that only <1% are not.
|
Wait, is the point of your long spiel that enlightened progressives are the real racists for racistly claiming mexican weed is crap? Because they're assuming mexicans can't grow weed because they're not as good as Americans? And absolutely not due to any other factors besides race of those growing the weed?
|
On July 24 2013 05:01 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 04:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:He said (paraphrasing) that for every one regular person, there's a hundred people who smuggle in drugs.... He said valedictorian. Valedictorian and "regular person" are not synonyms fellas. Try again, this time set reading comprehension to On. One can argue that he LITERALLY meant for every valedictorian there's a 100 smugglers, but using that argument would acknowledge that he's being deceptive in his statement. How so? I'd bet that for every valedictorian there are dozens if not 100 people smuggling drugs in from Mexico. Valedictorians are rather rare, one a year for a school, hundreds if not thousands of people are smuggling drugs in from Mexico daily. Seems like simply making shit up to call a Republican racist or dishonest is still a very acceptable form of argument. When did I call a Republican racist or dishonest? Do not put words in my mouth and do not call me "fella" or insult me. Yes, I'm sure if we had perfect information it turns out that there are more than 100 smugglers per valedictorian My argument here is that his statement is extremely deceptive. He makes it sound like the only people trying to cross the border are smugglers and that only <1% are not.
Deceptive is not dishonest?
Two people before you called him a racist, if you don't like being lumped in with some fellas you have larger problems, and don't whine that you're being insulted when you're not. Unless fella is now an insult in which case the entire city of New York does nothing but throw out insults all day. Wait that sounds about right dammit I'm sorry I shouldn't have called you a fella. Damn New Yorkers.
How is his statement extremely deceptive if you are sure, as you say, that it is actually true? o_O
Fail to see how he makes it sound as if the only people trying to cross the border are drug smugglers... Requires telepathy, a crystal ball, or plain old making shit up to badmouth a Republican to say that.
Wait, is the point of your long spiel that enlightened progressives are the real racists for racistly claiming mexican weed is crap? Because they're assuming mexicans can't grow weed because they're not as good as Americans? And absolutely not due to any other factors besides race of those growing the weed?
Someone is mad that 1%er racially ignorant perspectives are being exposed...
Who buys Mexican weed? No one does unless they have to hardee har harr. How insensitive.
|
On July 24 2013 04:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On July 24 2013 04:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:He said (paraphrasing) that for every one regular person, there's a hundred people who smuggle in drugs.... He said valedictorian. Valedictorian and "regular person" are not synonyms fellas. Try again, this time set reading comprehension to On. One can argue that he LITERALLY meant for every valedictorian there's a 100 smugglers, but using that argument would acknowledge that he's being deceptive in his statement. How so? I'd bet that for every valedictorian there are dozens if not 100 people smuggling drugs in from Mexico. Valedictorians are rather rare, one a year for a school, hundreds if not thousands of people are smuggling drugs in from Mexico daily. Seems like simply making shit up to call a Republican racist or dishonest is still a very acceptable form of argument. On July 24 2013 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
That and who the hell buys Mexican weed? California dank. and the Eastern hydroponic empire are way better. It'd be nice if you 1%ers would realize that not everyone can afford to buy name-brand head-grade. Especially in poor minority communities. It's almost as if there's some kind of massive racial ignorance and contempt going on... Who the hell buys Mexican weed? Poor black people. Guess who else does? Rich white boys, because a large amount of "Mexican weed" is name-brand head-grade grown in Southern and Central California by cartel employees. Not middies or some schwaggy schwag. Never thought I'd see such enlightened progressives mocking the colored poor as an insensitive side effect of their deep need to rage at Republicans. WTF. nobody voluntarily buys Mexican weed, at least not by choice. Cartels ship weed by volume not only because the high turnover rates but also because it's extremely cheap and very poor quality. After all that is is still cheaper to domestic grown marijuana than from Latin America. Hell the Cartels actually smuggle in American grown drugs because they can go for a higher rate domestically than their own! Well it's obvious you know very little about the current state of marijuana cultivation in 2013. Mexican cartels put an emphasis on high quality outdoor grows 5+ years ago, which is why it is a risky proposition to go hiking in some parts of some California state parks and forests now. And I've smoked "Mexican weed" that puts most of the shit coming out of Humboldt to shame, we're seeing that unconscious privilege rearing its head again. Ask Klondike if you don't understand, he'll gladly explain how secretly you are racist as hell and the secret is kept by your subconscious even from you. Brown people can grow weed just as well as white people. The marijuana world does not look like Johnny Depp flying a plane to somewhere in Chihuahua province and buying bulk middies from some farmer anymore.
!.) I have yet to bring up anything about race, anywhere in my posts which begs the question why when I say "Mexican weed" you automatically associate the term with poor black people.
2.) The Sierra Nevada region isn't exactly a drug haven full of growers, are there spots of course. but you won't see armed guards doing patrols as they would be spotted immediately by hikers, and yes even aircraft. Never mind the fact that the growers aren't being supplied by Mexican cartels and their cash crops in fact they are being supplied, usually, by American suppliers working for the Cartels. So we could be arguing over what side of the border the seed originated from.
3.) I have no doubt there is a high quality Mexican grown weed but still doesn't change the fact you will rarely come across it as the risk would be not only great, customs etc. But the Cartels generally don't move such things without a known client, destination.
|
"First, there are the elitists," King begins. "Elitists see that they should have access to cheap labor to clean their homes, mow their lawns, and take care of their gardens. The second group is Democratic power brokers. They see a tremendous advantage to the Democratic Party that turns us into a one-party system if they do what they're trying to do with the Gang of Eight bill in the Senate.
"And the third group is those employers of illegals who benefit from cheap labor at the expense of the taxpayers who are subsidizing them through welfare programs. If you want to support the elitists or Democratic powerbrokers or employers of illegal labor, then support of the Gang of Eight, listen to Grover, listen to Karl Rove," King says, referring to the GOP strategist, who also supports immigration reform.
"If you want to defend the Constitution, the rule of law, and preserve a better destiny for the United States of America — where individuals can make a living with their hands, their backs, their minds, standing on their own two feet — then stand with me."
It's nice to know that these are the only three categories anyone who doesn't want to take a hard-line stance against illegal immigration is allowed to fall in. I especially like the bit about the American Dream at the end. I think more people should start saying things like
"If you want to defend the Constitution, the rule of law, and preserve a better destiny for the United States of America — where individuals can make a living with their hands, their backs, their minds, standing on their own two feet — then stand with me."
It would be like a really easy way to filter out ideologues.
Fail to see how he makes it sound as if the only people trying to cross the border are drug smugglers... Requires telepathy, a crystal ball, or plain old making shit up to badmouth a Republican to say that.
His dialogue makes no sense if you imagine that he's not really trying to say that basically everyone coming across the border are drug smugglers. It's not a coincidence that the people he names as not awful are those brought across the border by their parents. The fact that he goes on immediately after that to compare people who weren't brought over by their parents (i.e. everyone trying to cross the border) and who are in the drug trade makes it pretty clear (at least to me) that he's trying to say that, as far as illegals who are deliberately trying to cross the border go, there are a shitload of criminals among them, and that this is horrible, I guess.
I dunno, seemed like pretty standard political rhetoric to me: make a sweeping statement about how some group is basically deplorable, then temper it by referring to some minority group within that initial group as being worthy of sympathy. Finally, now that it has been firmly established that you are not, in fact, a gigantic douchebag with an axe to grind, you can continue rolling out whatever sensationalist and hyperbolic legislation you want to put through/resist. I mean, it's possible that the guy in this case didn't intend to use this rhetorical style (despite it being ridiculously common among politicians) but I can see why people would think he did intend to.
I wish there was a name for this type of argument. Actually, there probably is, but I just don't know about it. It really reminds me of those people who are like "oh, I think interracial marriages destroy the family, but don't worry, tonnes of my friends are black people. Now that that's out of the way, back to talking about how much of a destructive force blacks marrying whites is." It's like some sort of weird, basically irrelevant statement that people sometimes slip into their positions to stop people from calling them out on being pretty bigoted. Again, I don't know if this guy is actually doing that, but it certainly sounded like he was doing something (admittedly less severe) similar. I could be wrong though, so I'm not going to jump down his throat for that, especially when there are so many hilarious other things he said.
|
On July 24 2013 05:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 05:01 Clarity_nl wrote:On July 24 2013 04:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:He said (paraphrasing) that for every one regular person, there's a hundred people who smuggle in drugs.... He said valedictorian. Valedictorian and "regular person" are not synonyms fellas. Try again, this time set reading comprehension to On. One can argue that he LITERALLY meant for every valedictorian there's a 100 smugglers, but using that argument would acknowledge that he's being deceptive in his statement. How so? I'd bet that for every valedictorian there are dozens if not 100 people smuggling drugs in from Mexico. Valedictorians are rather rare, one a year for a school, hundreds if not thousands of people are smuggling drugs in from Mexico daily. Seems like simply making shit up to call a Republican racist or dishonest is still a very acceptable form of argument. When did I call a Republican racist or dishonest? Do not put words in my mouth and do not call me "fella" or insult me. Yes, I'm sure if we had perfect information it turns out that there are more than 100 smugglers per valedictorian My argument here is that his statement is extremely deceptive. He makes it sound like the only people trying to cross the border are smugglers and that only <1% are not. Deceptive is not dishonest? Two people before you called him a racist, if you don't like being lumped in with some fellas you have larger problems, and don't whine that you're being insulted when you're not. Unless fella is now an insult in which case the entire city of New York does nothing but throw out insults all day. Wait that sounds about right dammit I'm sorry I shouldn't have called you a fella. Damn New Yorkers. How is his statement extremely deceptive if you are sure, as you say, that it is actually true? o_O Fail to see how he makes it sound as if the only people trying to cross the border are drug smugglers... Requires telepathy, a crystal ball, or plain old making shit up to badmouth a Republican to say that.
One can be completely honest and still deceptive, so no, deceptive is not dishonest.
Yes, I don't like being lumped with others when I am not making the same arguments as they are. If you lump people together like that perhaps you "have larger problems."
Steve King said something that is possibly factually correct, but the way he phrases it is deceptive. Surely you see this?
I said the exact same thing in my last post but you manage to ignore it.
|
On July 24 2013 05:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +
Wait, is the point of your long spiel that enlightened progressives are the real racists for racistly claiming mexican weed is crap? Because they're assuming mexicans can't grow weed because they're not as good as Americans? And absolutely not due to any other factors besides race of those growing the weed?
Someone is mad that 1%er racially ignorant perspectives are being exposed... Who buys Mexican weed? No one does unless they have to hardee har harr. How insensitive.
I don't smoke, I have no idea what Mexican weed is or why it potentially sucks, I just had a hard time grasping wtf your argument was. Does that mean I'm racist for not trusting food made in China? Or pointing out that Chinese people don't purchase Chinese made food unless they have to?
|
On July 24 2013 05:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 04:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 24 2013 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On July 24 2013 04:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:He said (paraphrasing) that for every one regular person, there's a hundred people who smuggle in drugs.... He said valedictorian. Valedictorian and "regular person" are not synonyms fellas. Try again, this time set reading comprehension to On. One can argue that he LITERALLY meant for every valedictorian there's a 100 smugglers, but using that argument would acknowledge that he's being deceptive in his statement. How so? I'd bet that for every valedictorian there are dozens if not 100 people smuggling drugs in from Mexico. Valedictorians are rather rare, one a year for a school, hundreds if not thousands of people are smuggling drugs in from Mexico daily. Seems like simply making shit up to call a Republican racist or dishonest is still a very acceptable form of argument. On July 24 2013 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
That and who the hell buys Mexican weed? California dank. and the Eastern hydroponic empire are way better. It'd be nice if you 1%ers would realize that not everyone can afford to buy name-brand head-grade. Especially in poor minority communities. It's almost as if there's some kind of massive racial ignorance and contempt going on... Who the hell buys Mexican weed? Poor black people. Guess who else does? Rich white boys, because a large amount of "Mexican weed" is name-brand head-grade grown in Southern and Central California by cartel employees. Not middies or some schwaggy schwag. Never thought I'd see such enlightened progressives mocking the colored poor as an insensitive side effect of their deep need to rage at Republicans. WTF. nobody voluntarily buys Mexican weed, at least not by choice. Cartels ship weed by volume not only because the high turnover rates but also because it's extremely cheap and very poor quality. After all that is is still cheaper to domestic grown marijuana than from Latin America. Hell the Cartels actually smuggle in American grown drugs because they can go for a higher rate domestically than their own! Well it's obvious you know very little about the current state of marijuana cultivation in 2013. Mexican cartels put an emphasis on high quality outdoor grows 5+ years ago, which is why it is a risky proposition to go hiking in some parts of some California state parks and forests now. And I've smoked "Mexican weed" that puts most of the shit coming out of Humboldt to shame, we're seeing that unconscious privilege rearing its head again. Ask Klondike if you don't understand, he'll gladly explain how secretly you are racist as hell and the secret is kept by your subconscious even from you. Brown people can grow weed just as well as white people. The marijuana world does not look like Johnny Depp flying a plane to somewhere in Chihuahua province and buying bulk middies from some farmer anymore. !.) I have yet to bring up anything about race, anywhere in my posts which begs the question why when I say "Mexican weed" you automatically associate the term with poor black people. 2.) The Sierra Nevada region isn't exactly a drug haven full of growers, are there spots of course. but you won't see armed guards doing patrols as they would be spotted immediately by hikers, and yes even aircraft. Never mind the fact that the growers aren't being supplied by Mexican cartels and their cash crops in fact they are being supplied, usually, by American suppliers working for the Cartels. So we could be arguing over what side of the border the seed originated from. 3.) I have no doubt there is a high quality Mexican grown weed but still doesn't change the fact you will rarely come across it as the risk would be not only great, customs etc. But the Cartels generally don't move such things without a known client, destination.
1) You ignorance is now an excuse? Why would you ask, in a derisive manner, why anyone would buy a product predominantly grown by non-whites and predominantly consumed by non-whites. Rather racially insensitive, isn't it? Didn't you immediately jump on the "King is a bigot" bandwagon? Stones, glass houses, etc.
2) The Sierra Nevada is not the only place or even the main place where growers in S. and C. California put their grows. That soil isn't the best. They do it in the forests below the foothills of the mountains.
The situation you describe might have been the case 5 years ago, again. But the cartels are more into direct oversight with cartel members being the growers and the guards, not contracted out to local semi-independent drug traffickers anymore.
3) The same way high quality medical weed in Cali or Colorado or Oregon is not shipped east without a known client and destination?
I would bet that one quarter to one third of head-grade dank smuggled from out West into the Eastern states is being grown directly by the cartels these days.
So maybe when accusing others of racism you shouldn't make racially insensitive mocking comments.
Or maybe don't accuse others of racism as a cheap political attack and get super-defensive when it's thrown back at you.
One can be completely honest and still deceptive, so no, deceptive is not dishonest.
I am skeptical of this.
Yes, I don't like being lumped with others when I am not making the same arguments as they are. If you lump people together like that perhaps you "have larger problems."
You are quite right lucky for me I already said so.
Steve King said something that is possibly factually correct, but the way he phrases it is deceptive. Surely you see this?
I said the exact same thing in my last post but you manage to ignore it.
How is the way he phrased it deceptive?
I didn't ignore it, I disagreed with it. The two words do not mean the same thing.
His dialogue makes no sense if you imagine that he's not really trying to say that basically everyone coming across the border are drug smugglers. It's not a coincidence that the people he names as not awful are those brought across the border by their parents. The fact that he goes on immediately after that to compare people who weren't brought over by their parents (i.e. everyone trying to cross the border) and who are in the drug trade makes it pretty clear (at least to me) that he's trying to say that, as far as illegals who are deliberately trying to cross the border go, there are a shitload of criminals among them, and that this is horrible, I guess.
Now that makes no sense because you contradict yourself.
First sentence, he's trying to say that basically everyone coming across the border is a drug smuggler. Next sentence, he didn't mean those who were brought here as children. That means "basically everyone" cannot be a drug smuggler in his mind. Next sentence, now it's just "there are a shitload of criminals among them [illegal immigrants]."
Well, which is it? You've got King saying three different things that contradict each other to varying degrees, which of them do you believe he actually said, or is it more of a "fake, but accurate" argument going on?
I dunno, seemed like pretty standard political rhetoric to me: make a sweeping statement about how some group is basically deplorable, then temper it by referring to some minority group within that initial group as being worthy of sympathy. Finally, now that it has been firmly established that you are not, in fact, a gigantic douchebag with an axe to grind, you can continue rolling out whatever sensationalist and hyperbolic legislation you want to put through/resist. I mean, it's possible that the guy in this case didn't intend to use this rhetorical style (despite it being ridiculously common among politicians) but I can see why people would think he did intend to.
How can one make an incomplete sweeping statement? Where did King say that drug smugglers outnumber kids brought by their parents? Valedictorians to drug smugglers was being compared. The minority group was the valedictorians, not children of illegal immigrants.
A far more realistic explanation is that 1. Republican makes statement opposing illegal immigration 2. He is accused of racism because being against illegal immigration is inherently racist and being a Republican also means you are inherently racist 3. You don't have to actually support with evidence that the statement was racist, various (100% opinion) theories of interpretation of what he was really saying are fine. Unless the theory is that his statement wasn't racist, that is just completely unpossible.
I wish there was a name for this type of argument. Actually, there probably is, but I just don't know about it. It really reminds me of those people who are like "oh, I think interracial marriages destroy the family, but don't worry, tonnes of my friends are black people. Now that that's out of the way, back to talking about how much of a destructive force blacks marrying whites is." It's like some sort of weird, basically irrelevant statement that people sometimes slip into their positions to stop people from calling them out on being pretty bigoted. Again, I don't know if this guy is actually doing that, but it certainly sounded like he was doing something (admittedly less severe) similar. I could be wrong though, so I'm not going to jump down his throat for that, especially when there are so many hilarious other things he said.
I don't think your analogy is apt. I don't think there is an argument to be made that being against drug smuggling from Mexico is actually a wrong position to take the way that being against interracial marriage is obviously prejudicial.
For every valedictorian says he there are 100 drug smugglers, so maybe allowing whoever wants to come in come in with little to no oversight is a bad idea.
Yes there are many better statements of Steve King to make fun of, he's a brash New Yorker that's who he is. Like him talking about running for President hahahaha please Rep. King just keep yourself in the House where you belong.
|
On July 24 2013 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 05:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On July 24 2013 04:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 24 2013 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On July 24 2013 04:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:He said (paraphrasing) that for every one regular person, there's a hundred people who smuggle in drugs.... He said valedictorian. Valedictorian and "regular person" are not synonyms fellas. Try again, this time set reading comprehension to On. One can argue that he LITERALLY meant for every valedictorian there's a 100 smugglers, but using that argument would acknowledge that he's being deceptive in his statement. How so? I'd bet that for every valedictorian there are dozens if not 100 people smuggling drugs in from Mexico. Valedictorians are rather rare, one a year for a school, hundreds if not thousands of people are smuggling drugs in from Mexico daily. Seems like simply making shit up to call a Republican racist or dishonest is still a very acceptable form of argument. On July 24 2013 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
That and who the hell buys Mexican weed? California dank. and the Eastern hydroponic empire are way better. It'd be nice if you 1%ers would realize that not everyone can afford to buy name-brand head-grade. Especially in poor minority communities. It's almost as if there's some kind of massive racial ignorance and contempt going on... Who the hell buys Mexican weed? Poor black people. Guess who else does? Rich white boys, because a large amount of "Mexican weed" is name-brand head-grade grown in Southern and Central California by cartel employees. Not middies or some schwaggy schwag. Never thought I'd see such enlightened progressives mocking the colored poor as an insensitive side effect of their deep need to rage at Republicans. WTF. nobody voluntarily buys Mexican weed, at least not by choice. Cartels ship weed by volume not only because the high turnover rates but also because it's extremely cheap and very poor quality. After all that is is still cheaper to domestic grown marijuana than from Latin America. Hell the Cartels actually smuggle in American grown drugs because they can go for a higher rate domestically than their own! Well it's obvious you know very little about the current state of marijuana cultivation in 2013. Mexican cartels put an emphasis on high quality outdoor grows 5+ years ago, which is why it is a risky proposition to go hiking in some parts of some California state parks and forests now. And I've smoked "Mexican weed" that puts most of the shit coming out of Humboldt to shame, we're seeing that unconscious privilege rearing its head again. Ask Klondike if you don't understand, he'll gladly explain how secretly you are racist as hell and the secret is kept by your subconscious even from you. Brown people can grow weed just as well as white people. The marijuana world does not look like Johnny Depp flying a plane to somewhere in Chihuahua province and buying bulk middies from some farmer anymore. !.) I have yet to bring up anything about race, anywhere in my posts which begs the question why when I say "Mexican weed" you automatically associate the term with poor black people. 2.) The Sierra Nevada region isn't exactly a drug haven full of growers, are there spots of course. but you won't see armed guards doing patrols as they would be spotted immediately by hikers, and yes even aircraft. Never mind the fact that the growers aren't being supplied by Mexican cartels and their cash crops in fact they are being supplied, usually, by American suppliers working for the Cartels. So we could be arguing over what side of the border the seed originated from. 3.) I have no doubt there is a high quality Mexican grown weed but still doesn't change the fact you will rarely come across it as the risk would be not only great, customs etc. But the Cartels generally don't move such things without a known client, destination. 1) You ignorance is now an excuse? Why would you ask, in a derisive manner, why anyone would buy a product predominantly grown by non-whites and predominantly consumed by non-whites. Rather racially insensitive, isn't it? Didn't you immediately jump on the "King is a bigot" bandwagon? Stones, glass houses, etc. 2) The Sierra Nevada is not the only place or even the main place where growers in S. and C. California put their grows. That soil isn't the best. They do it in the forests below the foothills of the mountains. The situation you describe might have been the case 5 years ago, again. But the cartels are more into direct oversight with cartel members being the growers and the guards, not contracted out to local semi-independent drug traffickers anymore. 3) The same way high quality medical weed in Cali or Colorado or Oregon is not shipped east without a known client and destination? I would bet that one quarter to one third of head-grade dank smuggled from out West into the Eastern states is being grown directly by the cartels these days. So maybe when accusing others of racism you shouldn't make racially insensitive mocking comments. Or maybe don't accuse others of racism as a cheap political attack and get super-defensive when it's thrown back at you.
Wait a minute, do you think Mexican is a race?
|
On July 24 2013 05:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 24 2013 05:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On July 24 2013 04:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 24 2013 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On July 24 2013 04:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:He said (paraphrasing) that for every one regular person, there's a hundred people who smuggle in drugs.... He said valedictorian. Valedictorian and "regular person" are not synonyms fellas. Try again, this time set reading comprehension to On. One can argue that he LITERALLY meant for every valedictorian there's a 100 smugglers, but using that argument would acknowledge that he's being deceptive in his statement. How so? I'd bet that for every valedictorian there are dozens if not 100 people smuggling drugs in from Mexico. Valedictorians are rather rare, one a year for a school, hundreds if not thousands of people are smuggling drugs in from Mexico daily. Seems like simply making shit up to call a Republican racist or dishonest is still a very acceptable form of argument. On July 24 2013 04:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
That and who the hell buys Mexican weed? California dank. and the Eastern hydroponic empire are way better. It'd be nice if you 1%ers would realize that not everyone can afford to buy name-brand head-grade. Especially in poor minority communities. It's almost as if there's some kind of massive racial ignorance and contempt going on... Who the hell buys Mexican weed? Poor black people. Guess who else does? Rich white boys, because a large amount of "Mexican weed" is name-brand head-grade grown in Southern and Central California by cartel employees. Not middies or some schwaggy schwag. Never thought I'd see such enlightened progressives mocking the colored poor as an insensitive side effect of their deep need to rage at Republicans. WTF. nobody voluntarily buys Mexican weed, at least not by choice. Cartels ship weed by volume not only because the high turnover rates but also because it's extremely cheap and very poor quality. After all that is is still cheaper to domestic grown marijuana than from Latin America. Hell the Cartels actually smuggle in American grown drugs because they can go for a higher rate domestically than their own! Well it's obvious you know very little about the current state of marijuana cultivation in 2013. Mexican cartels put an emphasis on high quality outdoor grows 5+ years ago, which is why it is a risky proposition to go hiking in some parts of some California state parks and forests now. And I've smoked "Mexican weed" that puts most of the shit coming out of Humboldt to shame, we're seeing that unconscious privilege rearing its head again. Ask Klondike if you don't understand, he'll gladly explain how secretly you are racist as hell and the secret is kept by your subconscious even from you. Brown people can grow weed just as well as white people. The marijuana world does not look like Johnny Depp flying a plane to somewhere in Chihuahua province and buying bulk middies from some farmer anymore. !.) I have yet to bring up anything about race, anywhere in my posts which begs the question why when I say "Mexican weed" you automatically associate the term with poor black people. 2.) The Sierra Nevada region isn't exactly a drug haven full of growers, are there spots of course. but you won't see armed guards doing patrols as they would be spotted immediately by hikers, and yes even aircraft. Never mind the fact that the growers aren't being supplied by Mexican cartels and their cash crops in fact they are being supplied, usually, by American suppliers working for the Cartels. So we could be arguing over what side of the border the seed originated from. 3.) I have no doubt there is a high quality Mexican grown weed but still doesn't change the fact you will rarely come across it as the risk would be not only great, customs etc. But the Cartels generally don't move such things without a known client, destination. 1) You ignorance is now an excuse? Why would you ask, in a derisive manner, why anyone would buy a product predominantly grown by non-whites and predominantly consumed by non-whites. Rather racially insensitive, isn't it? Didn't you immediately jump on the "King is a bigot" bandwagon? Stones, glass houses, etc. 2) The Sierra Nevada is not the only place or even the main place where growers in S. and C. California put their grows. That soil isn't the best. They do it in the forests below the foothills of the mountains. The situation you describe might have been the case 5 years ago, again. But the cartels are more into direct oversight with cartel members being the growers and the guards, not contracted out to local semi-independent drug traffickers anymore. 3) The same way high quality medical weed in Cali or Colorado or Oregon is not shipped east without a known client and destination? I would bet that one quarter to one third of head-grade dank smuggled from out West into the Eastern states is being grown directly by the cartels these days. So maybe when accusing others of racism you shouldn't make racially insensitive mocking comments. Or maybe don't accuse others of racism as a cheap political attack and get super-defensive when it's thrown back at you. Wait a minute, do you think Mexican is a race?
Wait a minute, do you think that an infantile racial red herring is going to work here? Hispanics are clearly not the same race as whites according to society unless you are George Zimmerman, so what exactly are you asking here?
You mocked "Mexican weed" and those who buy it, most of whom are not white. So why you making fun of poor not-white people? Isn't that not very progressive? Does your progressive card have a I get to make jokes with a racial angle and it's okay sticker on it? Or is it okay because 'Mexicans aren't a race'? Or is it okay because you didn't mean it that way? So how do you know Steve King meant what he said in a racial way? Just because you know, or what?
|
How does the DREAM act allow for naturalization of drug runners?
|
Your argument appears to be:
1) Snooty hypocrite liberals mock Mexican weed.
2) Mexican weed is produced most likely by hispanic people
3) Mocking mexican weed ACTUALLY means snooty hypocrite liberals are actually racistly mocking hispanic people for their inability to produce high grade weed because liberals are actually racist against hispanic people.
Yeah, if you can't see how far you're reaching I don't know what to say. I think you should think your thoughts through before you reach your chosen conclusion of "those who call other people racists are the real racists!"
Also wtf? No one brought up the race of those who buy Mexican weed besides you. Stating no one buys a low quality product unless they have to is apparently racist now?
|
Anthony Weiner the gift that keeps on giving.
|
On July 24 2013 06:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Anthony Weiner the gift that keeps on giving.
It's been two years why can't we give it a rest.
|
On July 24 2013 06:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Anthony Weiner the gift that keeps on giving.
I was amused at how easily forgiving people were of him...
http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/23/anthony-weiner-admits-to-more-lewd-photos/
(NEW YORK) — New York City mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner admitted on Tuesday to sending additional explicit photos and texts to a woman he met online — correspondence she says began months after he resigned from Congress for similar behavior.
The allegation could severely test voters’ willingness to forgive Weiner, who has said he spent the two years since the scandal trying to make things right with his wife and earn redemption.
Still would like to know the answer to my previous question - how does the DREAM act allow for 100 drug runners to be legalized for every 1 valedictorian.
|
On July 24 2013 05:44 JinDesu wrote:
How does the DREAM act allow for naturalization of drug runners?
I don't think it does. I think the argument is that it, or any amnesty program, will create an incentive for more illegal migrations or allow for legal immigration of less than desirable types (family preference).
|
On July 24 2013 06:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 05:44 JinDesu wrote:
How does the DREAM act allow for naturalization of drug runners? I don't think it does. I think the argument is that it, or any amnesty program, will create an incentive for more illegal migrations or allow for legal immigration of less than desirable types (family preference).
Understood. While I don't agree with that argument (the incentive for illegal migrations), I understand that people view it that way.
It does, however, make Rep. King's comments a bit misleading or incorrect.
|
On July 24 2013 06:20 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 06:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 24 2013 05:44 JinDesu wrote:
How does the DREAM act allow for naturalization of drug runners? I don't think it does. I think the argument is that it, or any amnesty program, will create an incentive for more illegal migrations or allow for legal immigration of less than desirable types (family preference). Understood. While I don't agree with that argument (the incentive for illegal migrations), I understand that people view it that way. It does, however, make Rep. King's comments a bit misleading or incorrect.
Par for the course in DC 
|
On July 24 2013 02:54 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2013 00:28 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2013 15:43 Danglars wrote:In General From fiscal year 2003 (FY 2003) through FY 2012, Federal agencies published 37,786 final rules in the Federal Register. OMB reviewed 3,203 of these final rules under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Of these OMB-reviewed rules, 536 are considered major rules, primarily as a result of their anticipated impact on the economy (i.e., an impact of $100 million in at least one year). It is important to emphasize that many major rules are budgetary transfer rules, and may not impose significant regulatory costs on the private sector. So absurd on its face. In a free democracy, why do you have to implement 37,786 rules in a year from agencies appointed by the executive? Operating as the fourth branch of government for how many years now? Unless I'm reading this sentence wrong, it says the 37,768 rules were published from 2003 through 2012, no in one year. And the agencies in question are part of the executive branch, which is the third branch of government, so I'm not sure what your second question is all about. On July 23 2013 15:43 Danglars wrote:
In the case of the EPA rules reported here, however, a substantial portion of the uncertainty is similar across several rules, including (1) the uncertainty in the reduction of premature deaths associated with reduction in particulate matter and (2) the uncertainty in the monetary value of reducing mortality risk.
Yep. Let's just make assumptions that agree with our ends. They are, after all, working for the man that may hire or fire people in this positions. Wonder if the CBO will be commissioned to do a cost analysis of EPA/Fed Agency rules implementations for the last fiscal year. Did you search for "uncertainty" in the document just to make a point? The report addresses this uncertainty notably by providing ranges of estimates, and the bottom estimate for the benefits still far outweighs the top estimate for the costs. With regards to your objection, it's a bit too easy to declare the study can't be trusted simply because it comes from executive - it's true that it's important to know who wrote it, but if you're going to discard it your position should at least be founded on objections you have with regards to the content itself (errors in measurement, poor methodology, etc.). The link I provided you with also mentions other studies, not done by the executive branch, which corroborate the findings. On July 23 2013 16:00 cLutZ wrote:On July 23 2013 14:20 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2013 09:57 kmillz wrote:On July 23 2013 09:17 kwizach wrote:On July 23 2013 08:52 Danglars wrote:On July 23 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:
“In addition,” Rogers said, defending the enormous cuts to the EPA, “by holding back overly zealous and unnecessary environmental regulations, this bill can have a positive effect on our economy and will help encourage job growth.”
I love the underpants gnome theory at work here.
1. Slash budgets for departments that we don't like.
2. ?????
3. JOBS YALL!
And I'm also tired of the assumption that jobs are this end all be all of economics. They aren't. Improved standard of living is. If we just wanted everyone to be employed we could easily have full employment paying everyone to dig ditches. But we wouldn't cheer for a great economy then.
I guess I don't so much care about the cuts themselves. I am just getting really sick of every bit of legislation being rubber stamped cause somehow it magically creates jobs. The overly zealous and unnecessary regulations are exactly how it works to kill jobs. They seem to believe that the federal government is simply better than individuals at keeping their energy costs low, implementing energy standards and picking for them where to improve efficiency. People on the right have been documenting these things for ages. You don't need to go far to find specific areas that the EPA limits growth and adds costs unnecessarily for little or no gain. Heck, improving the standard of living is hardly the goal here. Lately, you have to question whether the preservation of this or that environmental sector is done for the sake of the environment itself and not people. Health and safety be damned for people, we see this regulation doing this and that for the "environment." Not to mention myriad environmental activist groups sue the EPA (e.g. under CAA and CWA) to then settle the lawsuit for the regulations, taxpayers getting billed for the legal fees and regulation implementation fees, and then companies given unreasonable compliance time-frames. I'm all for vastly cutting their budget to limit the harm. I'll just leave this here... New Study: The Economic Benefits of EPA Regulations Massively Outweigh The Costs
[A] new study from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget [...] found that the benefits EPA regulations bring to the economy far outweigh the costs.
The way this works is pretty straight-forward. Environmental regulations do impose compliance costs on businesses, and can raise prices, which hurt economic growth. But they also create jobs by requiring pollution clean-up and prevention efforts. And perhaps even more importantly, they save the economy billions by avoiding pollution’s deleterious health effects. Particles from smoke stacks, for example, are implicated in respiratory diseases, heart attacks, infections and a host of other ailments, all of which require billions in health care costs per year to treat. Preventing those particles from going into the air means healthier and more productive citizens, who can go spend that money on something other than making themselves well again. [...]
The OMB found that a decade’s worth of major federal rules had produced annual benefits to the U.S. economy of between $193 billion and $800 billion and impose aggregate costs of $57 billion to $84 billion. “These ranges are reported in 2001 dollars and reflect the uncertain benefits and costs of each rule,” the report noted. Source $193-800 billion added to the economy through creating pollution clean-up/prevention jobs and avoiding diseases through regulation? Is there a source for how they got these figures? Yes, the study itself. On July 23 2013 10:24 Danglars wrote:
I love that they include the make-work jobs they create in there. Take money from some people, give jobs to government workers and contractors, net jobs! I'd like to see next their proposals to pay a group of workers to dig a ditch and another to fill it in, because that's creating jobs and should be added to net benefits. Of course they can label their pollution and prescribe how it is cleaned up and when it's cleaned up enough. They mention job creation in the private sector as well as in the public sector. Also, from the original article: t’s worth pointing out that similar findings have been regularly dug up by other researchers. In 2011, an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that job loss due to increased energy prices from MATS would be swamped by new jobs in pollution abatement and control. It also found that for each major EPA rule finalized by the Obama Administration at the time, annual benefits exceeded costs by $10 to $95 billion a piece. EPI even returned to the question in 2012, and found net job gains from MATS would reach 117,000 to 135,000 in 2015. [...]
Surveys of small businesses routinely fail to find compelling evidence that firms view taxes and regulations as a major impediment to hiring, an EPA-mandated clean-up of the Chesapeake BAY is anticipated to create 35 times as many jobs as the proposed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and jobs in the coal industry actually increased by 10 percent after the EPA cracked down on mountaintop-removal mining in 2009. On July 23 2013 10:24 Danglars wrote:
Save the country billions in health care costs through regulation? You can cut their budget in half and still gain the best health care benefits. Citation needed. On July 23 2013 10:24 Danglars wrote:
It's the difference between light handed regulation and heavy handed regulation that I'm talking about. Strip down the unnecessary stuff on top of basic environmental regulations, cut the cozy relationship between environmental activists, their lawyers, and the EPA, and let individuals be more responsible for their own energy costs rather than imposing federal will on companies. Letting individuals be more responsible for their own energy costs is the baseline. The study clearly shows the economy benefits from doing more than that - in addition to the environment obviously benefiting from it. OMB doesn't use dynamic scoring... From their own report... Jorgenson and Wilcoxen modeled dynamic simulations with and without environmental regulation on long-term growth in the U.S. to assess the effects and reported that the long-term cost of regulation is a 2.59% reduction in Gross National Product. Did you read that paper? Here's the relevant paragraph they put in their introduction: We have not attempted to assess the benefits resulting from a cleaner environment. We have not accounted for consumption benefits resulting from environmental cleanup or production benefits associated with pollution abatement. The conclusions of this study cannot be taken to imply that pollution control is too burdensome or, for that matter, insufficiently restrictive. Your other quote is another cherry-pick among several studies in the literature review that show differing results and do not focus on the overall impact at the US level. I could give you another such example in Berman, Eli and Linda T.M. Bui. “Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence from the South Coast Air Basin.”, Journal of Public Economics, 2001, 79: pp. 265-295, which state: Our estimates of zero employment effects contradict the conventional wisdom of employers (mostly outside of refining) that environmental regulation ‘costs jobs’ (Goodstein, 1996) so a comment is in order. Beyond posturing in public debate, employers may honestly overestimate the job loss induced by a pervasive regulation by confusing the firm’s product demand curve with that of the industry. The former is more price elastic due to competition from other firms. If all firms in the industry are faced with the same cost-increasing regulatory change and product demand is inelastic, the output of individual firms may be only slightly reduced. In that case, the negative effect on employment through the output elasticity of labor demand may well be dominated by a positive effect through the marginal rate of technical substitution between PACE and labor, leading to a net increases in employment as a result of regulation
[...]
Though the public debate has centered around employment effects, a full accounting of the costs of regulation should properly focus on the effects of regulation on productivity and the benefits in health and other outcomes. Related research on South Coast refineries (Berman and Bui, 1998) has found productivity gains between 1987–92, in contrast to declining productivity in comparison regions. A symmetric analysis of the benefits of the South Coast regulations in improved air quality and health outcomes of residents would form the basis for a much more complete economic evaluation of this important and unprecedented episode in air quality regulation. On July 23 2013 16:00 cLutZ wrote:Even the "positive" citations are tepid I.E.: Kahn examines census and state data and finds that better educated, wealthier populations experienced cleaner air, but that poorer, less educated populations experienced a greater overall improvement in air quality between 1980 and 1998 in California. During this time period, the exposure of the Hispanic population to pollution also fell sharply along with exposure differentials between richer and poorer people. The author concludes that, “[g]iven the overall trend in improvements for certain demographic groups, it appears that regulation under the Clean Air Act has helped, and not economically harmed, the ‘have nots.’" Translated: We cannot be sure that regulation has helped people, instead of just the overall trend towards improved living standards over the years, but if it has, its only helped one segment of the populace (without taking into account costs for other segments). That's not what it says at all. Are you being dishonest on purpose or are you simply incapable of reading the paragraph you quoted yourself? On July 23 2013 16:00 cLutZ wrote:
In other words, your own study fails to support the conclusions that you assert from it. In other words, it doesn't. On July 23 2013 16:00 cLutZ wrote:Plus, even if accepted, the benefits are probably no more of a correlation, much like the correlation between OSHA and the reduction in workplace accidents SEE: + Show Spoiler + I'll be waiting for you to show us that they are. The main quote you cited to rebut my argument: Show nested quote + We have not attempted to assess the benefits resulting from a cleaner environment. We have not accounted for consumption benefits resulting from environmental cleanup or production benefits associated with pollution abatement. The conclusions of this study cannot be taken to imply that pollution control is too burdensome or, for that matter, insufficiently restrictive. Goes against the conclusions you presented.
No, that quote was from the study you referenced in your first quote, namely the Jorgenson and Wilcoxen paper. And in the introduction of that paper which you referenced to argue that the costs were 2.6 pc of GDP, the authors say they're looking at the costs and not the benefits. The report I initially linked to, meanwhile, looks at both the costs and the benefits.
On July 24 2013 02:54 cLutZ wrote:
The report, by its own design does not stand for the propositions you say it does.
My proposition is that the benefits outweigh the costs. The entire report is a demonstration for this.
They use ranges of estimates to account for uncertainty. If you have any comments/concerns with regards to specific numbers, go ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://s11.postimg.org/genyoqcab/osha.png)
