|
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. |
American history being lost rapidly, in the South no less.
Louisiana is losing its coast at a rapid rate because of rising sea levels, development and sinking marshland. Officials are trying to rebuild those marshes and the wetlands, but much of the coast can't be saved. This makes Louisiana's history an unwitting victim. As land disappears and the water creeps inland, ancient archaeology sites are washing away, too.
Richie Blink was born and raised in Plaquemines Parish, La. — way down south of New Orleans along the Mississippi River. Now he works for the National Wildlife Federation.
When he was a kid, his dad showed him a special place in Adams Bay, where they'd go fishing.
"We would come out of the floodgates and my dad would say 'Head for the Lemon Trees!'" Blink says.
What's locally known as the "Lemon Trees" is a stand of weathered old trees on a grassy tuft of land. It's a well-known landmark for fishermen, but Blink says they would rarely stop there to hunt or fish because it's a sacred Native American site.
"The legend goes that you were always to bring some kind of sacrifice, so somebody left some lemons for the ancestors," Blink says.
And those grew into big trees with grapefruit-sized lemons. But as land was lost to the Gulf of Mexico, saltwater made its way into the freshwater marsh, killing off the trees and other plants.
The trees stand like skeletons on the edge of this scrappy, wind-beaten island. Waves beat against the dirt, washing it away, exposing shards of ancient pottery.
"You can see, it's just everywhere ... there's just shards of it all over the place," Blink says. "This is earthen pottery made by natives. This site is in the process of being destroyed. It only has a few more years left."
This ancient Native American site is an important archaeological find. It's one of many historic sites being forever lost to the Gulf as rising seas and saltwater intrusion eat away at Louisiana's fragile marshes. Two sites like this are lost each year.
Source
|
On January 05 2017 09:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I honestly think the quickest way China could punish Trump is fuck him over economically. What would China do that wouldn't fuck themselves over even worse at this point?
|
On January 05 2017 09:07 Doodsmack wrote: Trump now planning to revamp the CIA and other intelligence agencies? Siding with Assange over them? Any doubts that he was going to let his vanity influence policy should be long gone lol. I don't really have a problem with cleaning house at the same intelligence agencies that purposefully carried Obama's water on any number of issues (particularly those concerning the Middle East) for purely political reasons.
|
On January 05 2017 09:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 09:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I honestly think the quickest way China could punish Trump is fuck him over economically. What would China do that wouldn't fuck themselves over even worse at this point?
Push Asia into the RCEP and the US out of the region which is very possible now that Trump has ditched TPP.
|
On January 05 2017 09:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 09:07 Doodsmack wrote: Trump now planning to revamp the CIA and other intelligence agencies? Siding with Assange over them? Any doubts that he was going to let his vanity influence policy should be long gone lol. I don't really have a problem with cleaning house at the same intelligence agencies that purposefully carried Obama's water on any number of issues (particularly those concerning the Middle East) for purely political reasons.
If nothing else it doesn't seem like it has much of an end goal in mind. Other than that they'll be especially suck-uppy to trump.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Hopefully he'll get them to actually release proof when they think that a foreign country wanted to influence the election.
|
On January 05 2017 09:31 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 09:15 xDaunt wrote:On January 05 2017 09:07 Doodsmack wrote: Trump now planning to revamp the CIA and other intelligence agencies? Siding with Assange over them? Any doubts that he was going to let his vanity influence policy should be long gone lol. I don't really have a problem with cleaning house at the same intelligence agencies that purposefully carried Obama's water on any number of issues (particularly those concerning the Middle East) for purely political reasons. If nothing else it doesn't seem like it has much of an end goal in mind. Other than that they'll be especially suck-uppy to trump. As far as I am concerned, the worst case scenario is that we will get the same politicized intelligence that we had under Obama. There really isn't much to lose.
|
This is super messed up but it's going to be huge politically.
Chicago police currently have four people in custody over a Facebook Live video that showed a group of people holding a man hostage and torturing him.
Police were made aware of the video on Tuesday afternoon. The video, shot by a young black woman, shows four people kicking, hitting and cutting a young white man while he was tied up.
During the beating, you could hear the attackers yelling “f*** Donald Trump! F*** white people!” along with other racial slurs.
The victim is now being treated at the hospital for his injuries. Meanwhile, no charges have yet been filed.
We will update this story as more comes in.
Watch the video above, via FOX 32.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/f-donald-trump-f-white-people-4-in-custody-for-torturing-man-live-on-facebook/
(CBS) — Four people are in custody after a disturbing live-streamed video of a duct-taped man allegedly being tortured on Chicago’s West Side.
In the video, the victim’s clothes were cut, he was peppered with cigarette ashes, and then his hair cut with a knife until his scalp bled.
Several people can be seen laughing and eating as the attack is going on.
The incident took place Tuesday in an apartment on the 3400 block of West Lexington on Chicago’s West Side, a police spokesperson said.
The victim, who has special needs, was a high-risk missing person from northwest suburban Crystal Lake, police say.
Police say he traveled to Carol Stream to meet a friend. They ended up in a stolen car, driven to the West Side, where the attack took place.
Four people are now in custody. The victim was treated and released, police said. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/01/04/four-people-in-custody-after-alleged-kidnapping-torture-is-live-streamed/
|
On January 05 2017 08:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:28 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:16 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2017 07:02 LegalLord wrote: Next time around the Democrats should push universal healthcare rather than an ultimately short-sighted slop of compromise. They didn't have enough democrats supportive of universal healthcare last time, but hopefully we see a somewhat Bernie'esque rebirth so the party can get away from the era of Clinton. Not if Kwiz/Mag has anything to say about it. I'm telling you, Clinton's running in 2020 if her health holds up. I'm fairly certain neither Kwiz nor Me have argued for Clinton to run again. Us asking you for evidence when you make wild claims and accusations doesn't really count as us suggesting Clinton run again. No, you haven't directly, but you both have defended her wing of the party's positions. I don't remember which, but I vaguely remember one of you making the case that universal healthcare wasn't stopped by Democrats or whatever. I've defended not making demagogic pie in the sky promises founded on faulty analyses and populist slogans, and not displaying a glaring lack of knowledge and a general incompetence on matters essential to the president's job, if that's what you're referring to. Also, saying "universal healthcare was stopped by Democrats" removes all context, namely that projects for a universal healthcare system were pushed by Democrats, including HRC, and failed to garner enough votes because of some conservative Democrats and because of complete opposition by the GOP. The truth is there were enough Democrats to pass whatever they wanted, but not enough Democrats (elected officials anyway) actually wanted it. 73% of Democrats/leaners want the ACA replaced with a federal plan. That's what I just said. Yeah, so shouldn't they have fallen in line? I obviously wish those Democrats who defected had supported it, yes, like I've said throughout the years. What are you arguing exactly? I think he's doing a sort of tu quoque on centrist Democrats not supporting universal healthcare as a justification for more extreme liberals not supporting Hillary Clinton. It doesn't really land here though, since you'd probably criticize both groups for not falling in line with the party consensus, which is a perfectly consistent position.
|
On January 05 2017 09:46 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 08:38 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:28 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:16 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote: [quote]
They didn't have enough democrats supportive of universal healthcare last time, but hopefully we see a somewhat Bernie'esque rebirth so the party can get away from the era of Clinton. Not if Kwiz/Mag has anything to say about it. I'm telling you, Clinton's running in 2020 if her health holds up. I'm fairly certain neither Kwiz nor Me have argued for Clinton to run again. Us asking you for evidence when you make wild claims and accusations doesn't really count as us suggesting Clinton run again. No, you haven't directly, but you both have defended her wing of the party's positions. I don't remember which, but I vaguely remember one of you making the case that universal healthcare wasn't stopped by Democrats or whatever. I've defended not making demagogic pie in the sky promises founded on faulty analyses and populist slogans, and not displaying a glaring lack of knowledge and a general incompetence on matters essential to the president's job, if that's what you're referring to. Also, saying "universal healthcare was stopped by Democrats" removes all context, namely that projects for a universal healthcare system were pushed by Democrats, including HRC, and failed to garner enough votes because of some conservative Democrats and because of complete opposition by the GOP. The truth is there were enough Democrats to pass whatever they wanted, but not enough Democrats (elected officials anyway) actually wanted it. 73% of Democrats/leaners want the ACA replaced with a federal plan. That's what I just said. Yeah, so shouldn't they have fallen in line? I obviously wish those Democrats who defected had supported it, yes, like I've said throughout the years. What are you arguing exactly? I think he's doing a sort of tu quoque on centrist Democrats not supporting universal healthcare as a justification for more extreme liberals not supporting Hillary Clinton. It doesn't really land here though, since you'd probably criticize both groups for not falling in line with the party consensus, which is a perfectly consistent position.
It was Mag I was thinking of, which is why it didn't ring any bells for Kwiz. Mag thinks Bernie was the bad guy during the ACA for not wanting to cave into centrists holding healthcare hostage.
|
I'm not sure there's an argument that intelligence was more politicized under Obama. And I personally don't want intelligence agencies feeling the need to prove anything to the general public. But I guess Trump wants a compliant CIA.
|
The only congress person that actually really actively tried for single payer was Kucinich, who promptly had his district evaporated even after he caved when it turned out principles were in short supply while insurance industry cash was in extremely high supply.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I on the other hand feel that matters of public interest require some improved degree of transparency from organizations not known for honesty.
|
On January 05 2017 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 09:46 ChristianS wrote:On January 05 2017 08:38 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:28 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:16 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Not if Kwiz/Mag has anything to say about it. I'm telling you, Clinton's running in 2020 if her health holds up. I'm fairly certain neither Kwiz nor Me have argued for Clinton to run again. Us asking you for evidence when you make wild claims and accusations doesn't really count as us suggesting Clinton run again. No, you haven't directly, but you both have defended her wing of the party's positions. I don't remember which, but I vaguely remember one of you making the case that universal healthcare wasn't stopped by Democrats or whatever. I've defended not making demagogic pie in the sky promises founded on faulty analyses and populist slogans, and not displaying a glaring lack of knowledge and a general incompetence on matters essential to the president's job, if that's what you're referring to. Also, saying "universal healthcare was stopped by Democrats" removes all context, namely that projects for a universal healthcare system were pushed by Democrats, including HRC, and failed to garner enough votes because of some conservative Democrats and because of complete opposition by the GOP. The truth is there were enough Democrats to pass whatever they wanted, but not enough Democrats (elected officials anyway) actually wanted it. 73% of Democrats/leaners want the ACA replaced with a federal plan. That's what I just said. Yeah, so shouldn't they have fallen in line? I obviously wish those Democrats who defected had supported it, yes, like I've said throughout the years. What are you arguing exactly? I think he's doing a sort of tu quoque on centrist Democrats not supporting universal healthcare as a justification for more extreme liberals not supporting Hillary Clinton. It doesn't really land here though, since you'd probably criticize both groups for not falling in line with the party consensus, which is a perfectly consistent position. It was Mag I was thinking of, which is why it didn't ring any bells for Kwiz. Mag thinks Bernie was the bad guy during the ACA for not wanting to cave into centrists holding healthcare hostage. I'm not sure how strong the comparison is anyway, though, considering that deciding on the next national policy for healthcare and campaigning against Donald Trump for president are not very similar things. There's a reasonable discussion to be had about what circumstances warrant more caving to the party's demands versus standing up for what you as an individual believe in. Policy discussions seem like a strong case for somewhere where you can be your own individual. Supporting the party's presidential nominee seems like just about the clearest case for a situation where you fall in line and support the party, especially with such a uniquely terrible opponent as Trump.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Trump is uniquely terrible as a candidate perhaps, but what is also true is that to both those on the left and right, so is Hillary.
The response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful" isn't "let's prop up the least popular candidate who could possibly be matched up against said opponent."
|
On January 05 2017 10:09 LegalLord wrote: Trump is uniquely terrible as a candidate perhaps, but what is also true is that to both those on the left and right, so is Hillary.
The response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful" isn't "let's prop up the least popular candidate who could possibly be matched up against said opponent."
that some fools think hillary is uniquely terrible, rather than ordinarily terrible, is on the fools. especially since hillary remains many many times more fit for the office than trump, and sadly many people aren't able to vote that intelligently.
also, you still hating on hillary sooo much, seriously, what's up with that?
sure we all would've liked a better candidate, and a wider field with more options, but we don't get what we want sometimes, and we should fix that too. but why not point to something constructive for that instead of harping on hillary so much?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 05 2017 10:21 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 10:09 LegalLord wrote: Trump is uniquely terrible as a candidate perhaps, but what is also true is that to both those on the left and right, so is Hillary.
The response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful" isn't "let's prop up the least popular candidate who could possibly be matched up against said opponent." that some fools think hillary is uniquely terrible, rather than ordinarily terrible, is on the fools. especially since hillary remains many many times more fit for the office than trump, and sadly many people aren't able to vote that intelligently. also, you still hating on hillary sooo much, seriously, what's up with that? sure we all would've liked a better candidate, and a wider field with more options, but we don't get what we want sometimes, and we should fix that too. but why not point to something constructive for that instead of harping on hillary so much? Your "you just hate Hillary so much" cliche is getting tiresome. It's a pointless ad hominem deflection and you know it.
It just so happens to be directly relevant to Trump winning that his opponent was highly unpopular. Not even as a matter of my opinion but as a matter of fact.
|
|
On January 05 2017 10:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 10:21 zlefin wrote:On January 05 2017 10:09 LegalLord wrote: Trump is uniquely terrible as a candidate perhaps, but what is also true is that to both those on the left and right, so is Hillary.
The response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful" isn't "let's prop up the least popular candidate who could possibly be matched up against said opponent." that some fools think hillary is uniquely terrible, rather than ordinarily terrible, is on the fools. especially since hillary remains many many times more fit for the office than trump, and sadly many people aren't able to vote that intelligently. also, you still hating on hillary sooo much, seriously, what's up with that? sure we all would've liked a better candidate, and a wider field with more options, but we don't get what we want sometimes, and we should fix that too. but why not point to something constructive for that instead of harping on hillary so much? Your "you just hate Hillary so much" cliche is getting tiresome. It's a pointless ad hominem deflection and you know it. It just so happens to be directly relevant to Trump winning that his opponent was highly unpopular. Not even as a matter of my opinion but as a matter of fact. it's not a pointless ad hominem deflection. it's a pointful ad hominem. the point is i'm asking you to please stop it. as have others in the thread. it's not helpful or productive in the slightest. and it's not a deflection cuz it's on topic.
we know. WE KNOW already. you repeating it ad nauseam doesn't help. you're being like CNN when they cover the same event 24/7 for 6 months repeating the same stuff over and over.
why not try discussing solutions instead of harping on it over and over? or at least harp on it less often, like no more than once a day. why do you insist on repeating it so much? anger? disgust at the situation?
|
On January 05 2017 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 05 2017 09:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I honestly think the quickest way China could punish Trump is fuck him over economically. What would China do that wouldn't fuck themselves over even worse at this point? Push Asia into the RCEP and the US out of the region which is very possible now that Trump has ditched TPP. Very silly and ignorant idea considering the decades of Chinese agression over the SSC. Expecially considering the fragility of the Chinese economy and the competition the rest of the region is benefiting from. Not to mention the historical and religious problems other nations in the reason have.
Dali lama is gona die some day.
|
|
|
|