|
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 January 05 2017 13:47 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 13:32 LegalLord wrote:On January 05 2017 13:28 ChristianS 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 seems like a response to someone saying "Trump is awful, so you should vote Hillary in the primary." No one here was saying that. The discussion was about whether you stand on principle and support a third party, or support the party and vote for the nominee, even if you liked someone else better. Choosing the latter is absolutely a reasonable response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful." I didn't cast a third party vote - though I don't blame people like GH for doing otherwise. Sometimes you have to stand on principle in an "inconvenient" time. I have never heard of an election that was advertised as "this election isn't really a big deal, this is a good time to cast a protest vote." You forego the natural conclusion, which is that you've never heard of an election in which a protest vote was a good idea. iirc, a lot of people chose this election as a time for a protest vote at the presidential level IF they lived in an ultra-safe state. where the result was a foregone conclusion.
|
On January 05 2017 13:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 13:28 ChristianS 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 seems like a response to someone saying "Trump is awful, so you should vote Hillary in the primary." No one here was saying that. The discussion was about whether you stand on principle and support a third party, or support the party and vote for the nominee, even if you liked someone else better. Choosing the latter is absolutely a reasonable response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful." I didn't cast a third party vote - though I don't blame people like GH for doing otherwise. Sometimes you have to stand on principle in an "inconvenient" time. I have never heard of an election that was advertised as "this election isn't really a big deal, this is a good time to cast a protest vote."
My vote was in Washington and while I knew I couldn't change the outcome, I knew that votes for third parties count more than not showing up toward being registered as discontent. So I voted third party, but I didn't begrudge people who came to the conclusion that voting Hillary was their best choice if they were in a close state. It's the ones who "Pfft" offed the fact that Hillary was the first party candidate/nominee under federal investigation, but then turned on the FBI for mentioning it at an inconvenient time.
Especially the ones who didn't/don't even want to pull the party to the real center representing people, as opposed to the DC center, representing big money donors and lobbyists on different sides of issues.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 05 2017 13:47 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 13:32 LegalLord wrote:On January 05 2017 13:28 ChristianS 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 seems like a response to someone saying "Trump is awful, so you should vote Hillary in the primary." No one here was saying that. The discussion was about whether you stand on principle and support a third party, or support the party and vote for the nominee, even if you liked someone else better. Choosing the latter is absolutely a reasonable response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful." I didn't cast a third party vote - though I don't blame people like GH for doing otherwise. Sometimes you have to stand on principle in an "inconvenient" time. I have never heard of an election that was advertised as "this election isn't really a big deal, this is a good time to cast a protest vote." You forego the natural conclusion, which is that you've never heard of an election in which a protest vote was a good idea. A "good idea" in the sense of "it's a fine time to go and protest because it doesn't really matter." Sometimes you have to accept a worse president on principle for the sake of a chance of a better future. Otherwise you just get an assured decline.
|
On January 05 2017 13:59 GreenHorizons wrote: It's the ones who "Pfft" offed the fact that Hillary was the first party candidate/nominee under federal investigation, but then turned on the FBI for mentioning it at an inconvenient time.
Most investigations require evidence to the crime she's accused of. But in Hillary's case, she was guilty of not being an old white guy.
|
On January 05 2017 16:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 13:59 GreenHorizons wrote: It's the ones who "Pfft" offed the fact that Hillary was the first party candidate/nominee under federal investigation, but then turned on the FBI for mentioning it at an inconvenient time. Most investigations require evidence to the crime she's accused of. But in Hillary's case, she was guilty of not being an old white guy.
Without arguing whether there was sufficient evidence for an investigation (if another employee of the state dept did/does what she did they would probably never get security clearance again, and she lied incessantly about it), it didn't change that the investigation or the potential for it to come up at a bad time, was nonetheless, a foreseeable political reality.
|
On January 05 2017 14:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 13:47 ChristianS wrote:On January 05 2017 13:32 LegalLord wrote:On January 05 2017 13:28 ChristianS 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 seems like a response to someone saying "Trump is awful, so you should vote Hillary in the primary." No one here was saying that. The discussion was about whether you stand on principle and support a third party, or support the party and vote for the nominee, even if you liked someone else better. Choosing the latter is absolutely a reasonable response to "the other side fielded someone buttfucking awful." I didn't cast a third party vote - though I don't blame people like GH for doing otherwise. Sometimes you have to stand on principle in an "inconvenient" time. I have never heard of an election that was advertised as "this election isn't really a big deal, this is a good time to cast a protest vote." You forego the natural conclusion, which is that you've never heard of an election in which a protest vote was a good idea. A "good idea" in the sense of "it's a fine time to go and protest because it doesn't really matter." Sometimes you have to accept a worse president on principle for the sake of a chance of a better future. Otherwise you just get an assured decline. I suppose I can understand your outrage at the Democrats of late then, if you see this election as voters intentionally choosing the worse candidate or failing to support the better one, in hopes that it would convince the Democrats to turn things around. If they don't reform in the way you want them to, then you've elected an autocratic asshole for no gain.
Still seems like a less risky gambit to, I dunno, not elect the autocratic asshole, but too late for that, I suppose. My inclination now is to oppose him, but you're presumably still holding out hope that the Democrats will turn into the party you want if we just abuse them enough.
|
On January 05 2017 16:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 16:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 13:59 GreenHorizons wrote: It's the ones who "Pfft" offed the fact that Hillary was the first party candidate/nominee under federal investigation, but then turned on the FBI for mentioning it at an inconvenient time. Most investigations require evidence to the crime she's accused of. But in Hillary's case, she was guilty of not being an old white guy. Without arguing whether there was sufficient evidence for an investigation (if another employee of the state dept did/does what she did they would probably never get security clearance again, and she lied incessantly about it), it didn't change that the investigation or the potential for it to come up at a bad time, was nonetheless, a foreseeable political reality.
You're talking about the investigation she was cleared of in July until one of Giuliani's friends popped in to mention an email that she was not involved in was not being looked at in regards to her?
|
On January 05 2017 16:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 16:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 16:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 13:59 GreenHorizons wrote: It's the ones who "Pfft" offed the fact that Hillary was the first party candidate/nominee under federal investigation, but then turned on the FBI for mentioning it at an inconvenient time. Most investigations require evidence to the crime she's accused of. But in Hillary's case, she was guilty of not being an old white guy. Without arguing whether there was sufficient evidence for an investigation (if another employee of the state dept did/does what she did they would probably never get security clearance again, and she lied incessantly about it), it didn't change that the investigation or the potential for it to come up at a bad time, was nonetheless, a foreseeable political reality. You're talking about the investigation she was cleared of in July until one of Giuliani's friends popped in to mention an email that she was not involved in was not being looked at in regards to her?
I don't know if "cleared" and found to be "extremely careless" after lying about it the whole time are as synonymous as her supporters insist, but yeah, you're thinking of the same investigation.
|
So much fake news. The mainstream media have been publishing fake news for over 1 decade. Only now that it hurts certain interests it has become an issue. Hypocrite much?
https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/marijuana-related-illness-increases-legalized-211922824.html
This disease and its symptoms are nonsense,never heard from this from anyone. I know of a lot of pot related problems and symptoms,but not the above. It simply is not true or extremely over stated.
And this is not the only fake news,what about all the advertisements disguised as news storys? Also fake,never heard anyone complain about those. (though they are annoying as hell). I do hope they do something against fake news,make that type of add illegal.
|
It's a "real" thing, it's remarkably rare though, which is why the media's using it's typical "we're scientific illiterates so our code of ethics don't apply" analysis.
The study that saw a "doubling" saw a doubling of "cyclic vomiting syndrome "diagnosis. "Cyclic vomiting syndrome" has basically the same symptoms, but isn't cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome.
That said, it's an issue reserved for mostly for heavy users, we're talking 3-5 times a day. It's something you would notice, so when people end up in the emergency room for it, it's because they refuse to acknowledge cannabis is making them nauseous for years.
|
People have complained about fake News/hidden ads for ages, ever since tabloids went online and had to start generate the lions share of their revenue with ads. Your linked article is on "Yahoo News" (lol?) as it seems in the Beauty section (lol!?) and was first in "Teen Vogue" (lol!). Appareantly also in Teen Vogue you find these "stories":
47 Awkward Celebrity Yearbook Photos Taylor Swift's Top 10 Red Carpet Looks Ever How Every Sign in the Zodiac Finds Love The Best Beauty Brands for REALLY Sensitive Skin 10 Things You Own That You Need to Clean Immediately 7 Times Your Favorite Celebrities Got REAL About Their Periods
If people talk about "News" they don't talk about trash entertainment like the example you just brought up.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On January 05 2017 16:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 13:59 GreenHorizons wrote: It's the ones who "Pfft" offed the fact that Hillary was the first party candidate/nominee under federal investigation, but then turned on the FBI for mentioning it at an inconvenient time. Most investigations require evidence to the crime she's accused of. But in Hillary's case, she was guilty of not being an old white guy. Would you stop dismissing every complaint against her as sexism? I'm sure there was plenty of that but come on, your country elected and re-elected a black guy with a foreign sounding name, backwards views can't be her only problem.
|
|
On January 05 2017 19:50 Velr wrote:People have complained about fake News/hidden ads for ages, ever since tabloids went online and had to start generate the lions share of their revenue with ads. Your linked article is on "Yahoo News" (lol?) as it seems in the Beauty section (lol!?) and was first in "Teen Vogue" (lol!). Appareantly also in Teen Vogue you find these "stories": Show nested quote +47 Awkward Celebrity Yearbook Photos Taylor Swift's Top 10 Red Carpet Looks Ever How Every Sign in the Zodiac Finds Love The Best Beauty Brands for REALLY Sensitive Skin 10 Things You Own That You Need to Clean Immediately 7 Times Your Favorite Celebrities Got REAL About Their Periods
If people talk about "News" they don't talk about trash entertainment like the example you just brought up.
Except that that is precisely one of the problems. With everything being "flattened" by Google's personalized recommender system, Facebook's feed, and Twitter being just plain crap, it is increasingly hard to distinguish between fake news and real news. Otherwise some shitty fake news factory in Eastern Europe wouldn't be a problem, just as Teen Vogue is not a problem (according to you).
It used to be the case that you could safely say that if you got your "news" from the Daily Sun, it was mostly made up shit, interspersed with the latest scandal about the celebrity of the month, and a bit of sports news. Somewhere on page 23 it would repeat the ANP headlines so it could justify calling itself a newspaper, rather than just a paper. And if you read the New York Times, you could expect some journalistic integrity.
Nowadays, the good articles are all mixed up with the shit. And even the "quality" media like the WaPo is taking a hit, but it really doesn't even matter that the WaPo is posting shit, because half the time you don't even know the source of what appears on your screen (and this is made even worse with Google and Facebook cloning the web so that you can view it better on your phone screen, but makes it even more obtuse to figure out where the article originally came from).
|
On January 05 2017 19:50 Velr wrote:People have complained about fake News/hidden ads for ages, ever since tabloids went online and had to start generate the lions share of their revenue with ads. Your linked article is on "Yahoo News" (lol?) as it seems in the Beauty section (lol!?) and was first in "Teen Vogue" (lol!). Appareantly also in Teen Vogue you find these "stories": Show nested quote +47 Awkward Celebrity Yearbook Photos Taylor Swift's Top 10 Red Carpet Looks Ever How Every Sign in the Zodiac Finds Love The Best Beauty Brands for REALLY Sensitive Skin 10 Things You Own That You Need to Clean Immediately 7 Times Your Favorite Celebrities Got REAL About Their Periods
If people talk about "News" they don't talk about trash entertainment like the example you just brought up.
Mmm I don't know. It was at the front page of yahoo,a website many people have as their starting page or visit every day and that's the news everyone sees. Quality news media they wont report fake storys most likely. Its the fake news at the internet that gets people worried,and then specially the fake news on popular websites like yahoo and facebook.
@green horizon. Maybe its a real thing,if it is it is extremely rare. Its kinda funny because pot is used to prevent vomiting in some situations with medical use. To now see it can induce heavy vomiting is just weird and makes no sense. I have never ever heard from someone in my environment about this symptom. Many other symptoms yes,but this one never. If its an issue with heavy users then I would guess its 1 in 1000 or less that have this "disease". It sounds a bit like an allergic reaction tbh,and not really a disease. Maybe the vomiting comes from the tobacco used with the weed,that would already make a bit more sense as vomiting from tobacco is not uncommon (see first time smokers)
|
On January 05 2017 22:47 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 19:50 Velr wrote:People have complained about fake News/hidden ads for ages, ever since tabloids went online and had to start generate the lions share of their revenue with ads. Your linked article is on "Yahoo News" (lol?) as it seems in the Beauty section (lol!?) and was first in "Teen Vogue" (lol!). Appareantly also in Teen Vogue you find these "stories": 47 Awkward Celebrity Yearbook Photos Taylor Swift's Top 10 Red Carpet Looks Ever How Every Sign in the Zodiac Finds Love The Best Beauty Brands for REALLY Sensitive Skin 10 Things You Own That You Need to Clean Immediately 7 Times Your Favorite Celebrities Got REAL About Their Periods
If people talk about "News" they don't talk about trash entertainment like the example you just brought up. Mmm I don't know. It was at the front page of yahoo,a website many people have as their starting page or visit every day and that's the news everyone sees. Quality news media they wont report fake storys most likely. Its the fake news at the internet that gets people worried,and then specially the fake news on popular websites like yahoo and facebook. @green horizon. Maybe its a real thing,if it is it is extremely rare. Its kinda funny because pot is used to prevent vomiting in some situations with medical use. To now see it can induce heavy vomiting is just weird and makes no sense. I have never ever heard from someone in my environment about this symptom. Many other symptoms yes,but this one never. If its an issue with heavy users then I would guess its 1 in 1000 or less that have this "disease". It sounds a bit like an allergic reaction tbh,and not really a disease. Maybe the vomiting comes from the tobacco used with the weed,that would already make a bit more sense as vomiting from tobacco is not uncommon (see first time smokers)
Yeah, it's very rare, but it was being reported years ago, though I've personally never seen a case. It is an allergic reaction though, so it's not really a "symptom" of cannabis like most people would probably assume based on the godawful reporting being splashed around places like teen vogue to huff po, to CNN.
Probably more people ending up in ER's for eating edibles they didn't read had peanuts in them than this thing.
|
I mean an allergic reaction is a disease. Just like any other drug you're gonna get negative side effects in subsets of the population, especially the part of the population which is using it in high doses. Not sure why it's so hard to believe that marijuana can have any possible negative side effects in anyone.
|
Like GH suggests, this newly discovered "side-effect" of marijuana is not something worth paying much mind. It really only shows up in users with at least 10-15 years of at around 5 uses daily, and even then, we're mostly only seeing it show up in the heaviest of heavy users, which indicates that comorbidities are likely a factor (super heavy weed users also do lots of other unhealthy stuff).
The lack of clinical data relative to marijuana use is certainly something worth fixing, and the media hype surrounding this new weed "disease" is a good example of why.
|
Has anyone seen this footage of the Trump supporter who was kidnapped in Chicago? Live-streaming his torture on facebook? Why no MSM coverage, doesn't fit the narrative? I'm not going to link the footage here but it's easy to find on youtube for the moment.
|
It's the top story on the Tribune's page and is at the top of my news aggregate, so calm down there, hoss.
|
|
|
|