|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 21 2016 01:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 21 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 21 2016 01:00 Plansix wrote:
He has to make it to November. He hasn’t even been officially nominated yet and this entire thing is already a tire fire. It would be fun to watch if we didn’t have so many real issues that should be the center of attention. I'm starting to worry he won't actually be the nominee  There is a very real chance he can’t work with the GOP. He ran on the Republican ticket and won, but that doesn’t mean the entire party has to follow him into the tire fire. But that could destroy the party as we know it and no one is willing to pull that trigger yet. Personally, I think we would be better off with the GOP imploding and a less socially conservative party rising out of that. My thought/hope is that Lewandowski's firing is a sign of at least trying to be mildly cohesive. I think the GOP is better off losing badly than upending the whole party. So they had a really bad year, oh well. You know what the GOP needed? Superdelegates.
What they needed is a viable party-approved alternative to Trump. Instead they gave a bunch of unlikable establishment choices that got slaughtered by their own weakness.
|
On June 21 2016 01:27 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2016 00:45 heliusx wrote:
Nah the main problems with meth is first its neurotoxicity. Secondly it's addiction potential, meth heads spend all their money buying meth. When they run out of money they begin stealing shit and breaking into cars, homes and businesses. Simplifying the problems with meth as "u get paranoid because you stay awake" is ignorant AF. Addiction isn't as clear as you think, Alcohol can actually kill you if you stop using it and are addicted enough, meth doesn't share that level of addiction. The issues around stealing are more a result of the "feeling like a super hero (or villian)" than addiction alone, addicts steal (doesn't matter the substance), meth happens to make people feel invincible quite often and results in more brazen crimes. Meth users who sleep regularly generally aren't problematic (at least any more than their non-user counterparts), you probably don't even know they are meth users. Hell a good portion of this site are probably meth users, they just take it in a lower dosage or use an analog. I may not have been clear, but you're not going to tell me anything about meth or the problems it causes that I don't already know having spent a lot of time in what was once the meth capital of the country and losing several close friends to meth addiction. The main point being legalizing drugs is not as absurd as the criminalizing of them (for some parts of society) has been. Nicotine has proven to be harder to break the addiction than heroin has. Also, people respond to drugs differently, that is why i think uniform or blanket rules do not make sense. Many "heavy" drug users only use for the experience and recreation. The problem begins when people see it as a supplementation for their life. I think you have to be a very mature and self-aware person to do drugs responsibly. Unfortunately, many people are impulsive and give into instant gratification quite easily. But not more dangerous if i am not mistaken.
And yeah, it's totally different from person to person. Leaving tobacco for me was a nightmare with cold sweat every day, anxiety, nausea, etc for a month. And people who smoked more per day, and for far longer time, in one week were done with it.
|
On June 21 2016 01:30 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2016 00:45 heliusx wrote:
Nah the main problems with meth is first its neurotoxicity. Secondly it's addiction potential, meth heads spend all their money buying meth. When they run out of money they begin stealing shit and breaking into cars, homes and businesses. Simplifying the problems with meth as "u get paranoid because you stay awake" is ignorant AF. Addiction isn't as clear as you think, Alcohol can actually kill you if you stop using it and are addicted enough, meth doesn't share that level of addiction. The issues around stealing are more a result of the "feeling like a super hero (or villian)" than addiction alone, addicts steal (doesn't matter the substance), meth happens to make people feel invincible quite often and results in more brazen crimes. Meth users who sleep regularly generally aren't problematic (at least any more than their non-user counterparts), you probably don't even know they are meth users. Hell a good portion of this site are probably meth users, they just take it in a lower dosage or use an analog. I may not have been clear, but you're not going to tell me anything about meth or the problems it causes that I don't already know having spent a lot of time in what was once the meth capital of the country and losing several close friends to meth addiction. The main point being legalizing drugs is not as absurd as the criminalizing of them (for some parts of society) has been. I can only respond to what you say and what you said was completely bs. "it's main problem is keeping people up for days (which leads to hallucinations, paranoia, etc). " That's not even close to being meths main problem.
Most brain damage would occur in addicts who continually redose and that is when neurotoxicity becomes s problem. Brain damage can also occur with prolonged periods of no sleep, nutrition or water.
|
On June 21 2016 01:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 21 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 21 2016 01:00 Plansix wrote:
He has to make it to November. He hasn’t even been officially nominated yet and this entire thing is already a tire fire. It would be fun to watch if we didn’t have so many real issues that should be the center of attention. I'm starting to worry he won't actually be the nominee There is a very real chance he can’t work with the GOP. He ran on the Republican ticket and won, but that doesn’t mean the entire party has to follow him into the tire fire. But that could destroy the party as we know it and no one is willing to pull that trigger yet. Personally, I think we would be better off with the GOP imploding and a less socially conservative party rising out of that. My thought/hope is that Lewandowski's firing is a sign of at least trying to be mildly cohesive. I think the GOP is better off losing badly than upending the whole party. So they had a really bad year, oh well. You know what the GOP needed? Superdelegates.
Nah, GOP just needed proportional delegate allocation rules.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On June 21 2016 01:37 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 01:27 Mohdoo wrote:On June 21 2016 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 21 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 21 2016 01:00 Plansix wrote:
He has to make it to November. He hasn’t even been officially nominated yet and this entire thing is already a tire fire. It would be fun to watch if we didn’t have so many real issues that should be the center of attention. I'm starting to worry he won't actually be the nominee There is a very real chance he can’t work with the GOP. He ran on the Republican ticket and won, but that doesn’t mean the entire party has to follow him into the tire fire. But that could destroy the party as we know it and no one is willing to pull that trigger yet. Personally, I think we would be better off with the GOP imploding and a less socially conservative party rising out of that. My thought/hope is that Lewandowski's firing is a sign of at least trying to be mildly cohesive. I think the GOP is better off losing badly than upending the whole party. So they had a really bad year, oh well. You know what the GOP needed? Superdelegates. What they needed is a viable party-approved alternative to Trump. Instead they gave a bunch of unlikable establishment choices that got slaughtered by their own weakness.
Pre-Bridge scandal that possibly could have been Chris Christie as he was known as a straight shooter. But come primaries, he showed up like the reincarnation of Rudy "9/11" Giuliani. Don't know what happened to the old Chris, but he didn't bring the thunder this year.
|
On June 21 2016 02:13 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 01:37 LegalLord wrote:On June 21 2016 01:27 Mohdoo wrote:On June 21 2016 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 21 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 21 2016 01:00 Plansix wrote:
He has to make it to November. He hasn’t even been officially nominated yet and this entire thing is already a tire fire. It would be fun to watch if we didn’t have so many real issues that should be the center of attention. I'm starting to worry he won't actually be the nominee There is a very real chance he can’t work with the GOP. He ran on the Republican ticket and won, but that doesn’t mean the entire party has to follow him into the tire fire. But that could destroy the party as we know it and no one is willing to pull that trigger yet. Personally, I think we would be better off with the GOP imploding and a less socially conservative party rising out of that. My thought/hope is that Lewandowski's firing is a sign of at least trying to be mildly cohesive. I think the GOP is better off losing badly than upending the whole party. So they had a really bad year, oh well. You know what the GOP needed? Superdelegates. What they needed is a viable party-approved alternative to Trump. Instead they gave a bunch of unlikable establishment choices that got slaughtered by their own weakness. Pre-Bridge scandal that possibly could have been Chris Christie as he was known as a straight shooter. But come primaries, he showed up like the reincarnation of Rudy "9/11" Giuliani. Don't know what happened to the old Chris, but he didn't bring the thunder this year.
Ended up just being a Rubio killer and nothing else.
|
“It’s too bad some of the people killed over the weekend didn’t have guns attached to their hips, where bullets could have thrown in the opposite direction,” Trump said on Howie Carr’s conservative syndicated radio show the day after the shootings. “Had people been able to fire back, it would have been a much different outcome.”
- Donald Trump, 6/13/16
“If the bullets were going in the other direction, aimed at this guy who was just in open target practice, you would have had a situation, folks, which would have been horrible but nothing like the carnage that we all, as a people, suffered this weekend,”
- Donald Trump, 6/15/16
"When I said that if, within the Orlando club, you had some people with guns, I was obviously talking about additional guards or employees"
- Donald Trump, 6/20/16
LOL at this clown
|
I'm starting to believe oneofthem's conspiracy theory that he's a HIllary plant lol, he honestly can't be serious at this point. Just like with the Brexit campaign I feel like we've finally reached some ceiling of obscenity at which all the bullshitting is starting to backfire. I didn't actually think that it was possible.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well i'm just having fun. not seriously believing in the conspiracy
|
Trump can't remember what he said night, let alone over an entire week.
|
On June 21 2016 01:04 amazingxkcd wrote:
Im expecting Paul Manafort to replace Corey's role as Campaign manager.
The whole trump campaign started to go downhill from the moment Manafort joined them.
He should have been the professional who would steer the campaign towards the general election but nothing of that. Think he is doing a pretty bad job,trump should sack him.
|
Could be talking about absurd Orlando transcript. Instead talking about chaos in Trump campaign.
Thr firing is maybe a signal that Trump is more serious. Maybe. But it's the wrong day. 10/10.
|
The CIA reported that the guy has no ISIS connections and was likely self radicalized. They edited the transcript so his declarations to ISIS would be removed, since he wanted them published.
It’s not really that shocking. It’s the justice department’s record and they don’t want to release what they see as propaganda. It will get out there at some point, but why release it at the height of attention and give the killer exactly what he wanted?
And I understand the argument that is shows how toxic Islam is, even if I don’t agree. I just think it’s really stupid to play right into their hands by building up the fear and anger when this person clearly wants that. And ISIS wants it to.
|
FEDGOV (DOD) is in a shooting war with ISIS. FEDGOV (FBI) has no obligation to catapult the propaganda of a deluded wannabe with no provable connections to ISIS. What is sadly not surprising is that the Republicans would have the FEDGOV (FBI) do the propaganda work for ISIS if it can get them even 1 news cycle of good talking points against Obama.
|
I don't follow. Official at bank likes guaranteed income and what happened? Modi is still in charge right? India still having problems looking for pools of extranational, low organic composition labor to feed them surplus value so they can move up the tech ladder? Seems like it.
edit: oh wait there's Modi's return salvo. FDI caps
raised to new heights. long live crony capitalism.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
rajan was pushed out by some nationalists with big business connections. it's a classic case of populism not always serving the people.
rajan's call for reform in the handling of nonperforming loans from quasi-state connected large businesses was the reason for the attacks on him. google npa rajan crackdown for some info.
not every business is a crony capitalism situation. the very idea of having a qualifier before capitalism is to distinguish different forms of capitalism. it's utterly lost on the left though
|
On drugs: there's certainl ya lot of room for trying alternate systems that culd work better.
I'd be disinclined to allow some of the really dangerous ones to be legal at all. If they were to be legal, I'd say they can only be done in a hospital with medical supervision. There could be some system which allows some sort of party to happen, but it'd still be done at a hospital where there's staff to monitor people (given how much people spend on illegal drugs, it should be affordable even considering the high prices on medical care)
Given how government lottery's have worked out; it makes me less inclined to try systems where the gov't is in charge of the dnagerous things and tries to allow them but manage them to minimize the damage. It feels like they oversell lotteries hurting the poor people who spend piles of money on them.
On Trump: I doubt they'l draft a replacement, he'd have to go far more off the rails for that. And nobody who still has a future wants the job, because the backlash would be horrible for them, so you'd have to take someone without a future.
PS. I was able to fix the problems tl had due to ads; but the fix left me unable to open spoilers/see videos and some other stuff.
|
On June 20 2016 21:16 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 17:31 Surth wrote:
Would you like to have a serious discussion about drug legislation oneofthem (or anyone else)? Because I'm totally up for it. Or did you just want to take a one-line potshot at supporters of Bernie in the hopes that everybody would share your opinion? are you seriously not seeing the political cost of having this thing on the platform? besides, the lack of nuance is incredible.
I was going to respond to this in more detail, but notice that nettles and solar are in favor of drug legalization despite the fact that i almost constantly disagree with them, whereas plansix seems to be in agreement with you despite the fact that he and i probably align a lot more closely in general. My point was merely to show that almost everything that is argued to be "totally obvious man, open your eyes, how could anyone argue against this!" in this thread is not, in fact, very obvious. Since the others have already inadvertently taken care of that, let me only add that you are decrying the "lack of nuance" of a MOTHERFUCKING TWEET, LOL.
I think there are some drugs that are absolutely terrible (mostly heroin and, funnily enough, cannabis, that drug which most people find harmless) and quite a few drugs that are relatively harmless (e.g. speed, ritalin, lsd). But "relatively harmless" barely says anything because the underlying consumptions habits are what is critical. I will only say this: I think if we finally came to terms with what Milner and Olds have told us in the 60s (and what philosophers have said for millenia), then we could maybe re-orient our society to not care so much about happiness anymore. Which is difficult, to be sure, since, as Milner and Olds have shown, we are naturally predisposed to care very much about happiness. But then, culture can do wonders.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 21 2016 04:29 Surth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 21:16 oneofthem wrote:On June 20 2016 17:31 Surth wrote:
Would you like to have a serious discussion about drug legislation oneofthem (or anyone else)? Because I'm totally up for it. Or did you just want to take a one-line potshot at supporters of Bernie in the hopes that everybody would share your opinion? are you seriously not seeing the political cost of having this thing on the platform? besides, the lack of nuance is incredible. I was going to respond to this in more detail, but notice that nettles and solar are in favor of drug legalization despite the fact that i almost constantly disagree with them, whereas plansix seems to be in agreement with you despite the fact that he and i probably align a lot more closely in general. My point was merely to show that almost everything that is argued to be "totally obvious man, open your eyes, how could anyone argue against this!" in this thread is not, in fact, very obvious. Since the others have already inadvertently taken care of that, let me only add that you are decrying the "lack of nuance" of a MOTHERFUCKING TWEET, LOL. I think there are some drugs that are absolutely terrible (mostly heroin and, funnily enough, cannabis, that drug which most people find harmless) and quite a few drugs that are relatively harmless (e.g. speed, ritalin, lsd). But "relatively harmless" barely says anything because the underlying consumptions habits are what is critical. I will only say this: I think if we finally came to terms with what Milner and Olds have told us in the 60s (and what philosophers have said for millenia), then we could maybe re-orient our society to not care so much about happiness anymore. Which is difficult, to be sure, since, as Milner and Olds have shown, we are naturally predisposed to care very much about happiness. But then, culture can do wonders.
the tweet was reporting on the iowa dem platform. don't see why the link is from twitter is relevant.
|
On June 21 2016 03:58 oneofthem wrote:
rajan was pushed out by some nationalists with big business connections. it's a classic case of populism not always serving the people.
rajan's call for reform in the handling of nonperforming loans from quasi-state connected large businesses was the reason for the attacks on him. google npa rajan crackdown for some info.
not every business is a crony capitalism situation. the very idea of having a qualifier before capitalism is to distinguish different forms of capitalism. it's utterly lost on the left though
i guess i just still don't get your comments. what does modi's nationalism have to do with socialist revolution or the speech you linked?
crony capitalists are kind of like bernieorbusters. they want monopolies and are willing to burn everything down to get them.
crony capitalism is an ironic redundancy bro everyone knows that. liberalizing india lets really existing capitalism flourish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
