Post by: bones129 on January 29, 2016, 12:58:10 AM
Post by: nicname on January 29, 2016, 01:12:50 AM
Bernie.
Post by: wetwillie on January 29, 2016, 06:08:52 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2016, 08:10:55 AM
Post by: Yard Dog on January 29, 2016, 08:24:23 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 29, 2016, 08:41:54 AM
Post by: gatoveintisiete on January 29, 2016, 08:45:04 AM
Post by: steve dave on January 29, 2016, 08:53:23 AM
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 29, 2016, 09:13:42 AM
Post by: 8manpick on January 29, 2016, 09:17:29 AM
Post by: CNS on January 29, 2016, 09:24:18 AM
The ppl that will vote for him have no idea how he would actually govern.
He is patronizing the crap out of the far right.
Post by: ShellShock on January 29, 2016, 09:37:38 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 29, 2016, 09:55:17 AM
For me, either Rubio or Bush.
Post by: Brock Landers on January 29, 2016, 09:56:27 AM
Post by: kso_FAN on January 29, 2016, 09:59:21 AM
Post by: 8manpick on January 29, 2016, 10:02:30 AM
:Wha:
Post by: Yard Dog on January 29, 2016, 10:03:26 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Ftfetflbe505vffjvop0b.gif&hash=a5266cfacc5304ce03d27cb50f2974f5c687776f)
This is the silliest thing that doesn't seem to go away. What exactly does this show negatively about Rubio?
Funnily enough, one of the other things that people hold against him was a time he threw a pass to a little dude running a route and it hit the boy in the face. His campaign released this awesome response to that. Kid totally redeems himself!
https://youtu.be/E8nsYaS4Tv4
Post by: star seed 7 on January 29, 2016, 10:07:11 AM
Post by: steve dave on January 29, 2016, 10:08:19 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Ftfetflbe505vffjvop0b.gif&hash=a5266cfacc5304ce03d27cb50f2974f5c687776f)
This is the silliest thing that doesn't seem to go away. What exactly does this show negatively about Rubio?
Funnily enough, one of the other things that people hold against him was a time he threw a pass to a little dude running a route and it hit the boy in the face. His campaign released this awesome response to that. Kid totally redeems himself!
https://youtu.be/E8nsYaS4Tv4
nothing. and what does obama using a teleprompter show negatively about him? yet people still bring it up constantly. there is a lot of the my team > your team bullcrap that is meaningless that heavy partisans lob out there all the time.
Post by: Trim on January 29, 2016, 10:11:17 AM
Post by: CNS on January 29, 2016, 10:19:00 AM
Post by: gatoveintisiete on January 29, 2016, 10:21:59 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Fblogs%2Fthe_slatest%2F2015%2F08%2F15%2Fdonald_trump_will_report_for_jury_duty_on_monday%2F483208412-real-estate-tycoon-donald-trump-flashes-the-thumbs-up.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg&hash=ab266f65bee940e413cc83f9669ce109ce160047)
Would you just look at the tailoring on this guy, and that power tie :love: :love: :love:
Post by: Kat Kid on January 29, 2016, 10:30:32 AM
I honestly just hate all of this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 29, 2016, 10:32:05 AM
Shellshock, cat27, and Emo.:Wha:
He's the only R that is against the transfer of federal lands to the states.
Post by: MakeItRain on January 29, 2016, 10:44:36 AM
Like the Washington Post editorial board said yesterday: Feel The Bern is just telling ProgLibs what they want to hear.
Yeah, lol he definitely does not have a verifiable history of being on the far left. Bern is a genius for playing the time tested successful path to the white house, pretend to be miles to the left even though America craves a moderate alternative to what we have now.
Idiot.
Post by: MakeItRain on January 29, 2016, 10:48:55 AM
Post by: renocat on January 29, 2016, 10:59:38 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 29, 2016, 11:02:45 AM
Like the Washington Post editorial board said yesterday: Feel The Bern is just telling ProgLibs what they want to hear.
Yeah, lol he definitely does not have a verifiable history of being on the far left. Bern is a genius for playing the time tested successful path to the white house, pretend to be miles to the left even though America craves a moderate alternative to what we have now.
Idiot.
Wow, so hateful.
His history is not relevant to the idea's he's proposing in his presidential run. The WP editorial board rightly pointed out that his plan is nebulous at best, will require substantial tax increases on the middle class with some pie-in-the-sky scenario about how it will fuel growth. Other people much smarter then you have determined that his plan will require trillions more in taxes and ultimately cost the economy 6 million full time jobs (lost).
Post by: 8manpick on January 29, 2016, 11:10:05 AM
When people express displeasure with the overall quality of candidates, is this just code for "I don't the person who is the presumed democratic nominee?" On the political spectrum there's something for everyone so I guess I just don't get that claim.
Well, for the democrats you have a criminal and a self-proclaimed socialist. For the republicans you have a reality TV star, a couple religious zealots, and others who are likely too far behind to catch up. By the time my state has it's primary, it would be shocking to have anyone outside of those 5 as an option, and none of those are good options.
Post by: star seed 7 on January 29, 2016, 11:11:41 AM
When people express displeasure with the overall quality of candidates, is this just code for "I don't the person who is the presumed democratic nominee?" On the political spectrum there's something for everyone so I guess I just don't get that claim.
I prefer to have a good person as well.
We need to just make obama king or whatever
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 29, 2016, 11:13:16 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2016, 11:14:28 AM
When people express displeasure with the overall quality of candidates, is this just code for "I don't the person who is the presumed democratic nominee?" On the political spectrum there's something for everyone so I guess I just don't get that claim.
Well, for the democrats you have a criminal and a self-proclaimed socialist. For the republicans you have a reality TV star, a couple religious zealots, and others who are likely too far behind to catch up. By the time my state has it's primary, it would be shocking to have anyone outside of those 5 as an option, and none of those are good options.
Yeah, the problem is that MIR's crappy state( :D ) is going to vote all of the good candidates off the island before they ever get to Kansas.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 29, 2016, 11:53:39 AM
When people express displeasure with the overall quality of candidates, is this just code for "I don't the person who is the presumed democratic nominee?" On the political spectrum there's something for everyone so I guess I just don't get that claim.
Who is the candidate for people who don't want government to interfere with their body, dictate morality, take away guns, or take large amounts of taxes to redistribute wealth, and who hasn't shown incompetence/willful neglect of national security?
Post by: gatoveintisiete on January 29, 2016, 12:00:13 PM
When people express displeasure with the overall quality of candidates, is this just code for "I don't the person who is the presumed democratic nominee?" On the political spectrum there's something for everyone so I guess I just don't get that claim.
Who is the candidate for people who don't want government to interfere with their body, dictate morality, take away guns, or take large amounts of taxes to redistribute wealth, and who hasn't shown incompetence/willful neglect of national security?
I'm glad you asked Mrs. Gooch, you just described Donald J Trump!
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 29, 2016, 12:13:06 PM
When people express displeasure with the overall quality of candidates, is this just code for "I don't the person who is the presumed democratic nominee?" On the political spectrum there's something for everyone so I guess I just don't get that claim.
Who is the candidate for people who don't want government to interfere with their body, dictate morality, take away guns, or take large amounts of taxes to redistribute wealth, and who hasn't shown incompetence/willful neglect of national security?
I'm glad you asked Mrs. Gooch, you just described Donald J Trump!
I think Trump is anti-abortion (currently) and anti-marriage equality.
Post by: steve dave on January 29, 2016, 12:25:57 PM
When people express displeasure with the overall quality of candidates, is this just code for "I don't the person who is the presumed democratic nominee?" On the political spectrum there's something for everyone so I guess I just don't get that claim.
Who is the candidate for people who don't want government to interfere with their body, dictate morality, take away guns, or take large amounts of taxes to redistribute wealth, and who hasn't shown incompetence/willful neglect of national security?
I'm glad you asked Mrs. Gooch, you just described Donald J Trump!
I think Trump is anti-abortion (currently) and anti-marriage equality.
well, if it matters, he's just pretending to be
Post by: Cire on January 29, 2016, 12:26:24 PM
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: steve dave on January 29, 2016, 12:29:13 PM
I will not vote for Rubio Cruz or trump.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
this is probably an easier exercise. I will not vote for cruz, trump, or bernie. if it's any of those three I guess I'd go bernie > cruz > trump.
Post by: Asteriskhead on January 29, 2016, 12:30:54 PM
Post by: Gooch on January 29, 2016, 12:33:00 PM
I will probably cast my vote into the third party trash can this year again.Your presidential vote goes in the repub trash can every year so.
Post by: Institutional Control on January 29, 2016, 12:34:17 PM
Post by: Gooch on January 29, 2016, 12:35:13 PM
(https://hotterthanapileofcurry.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/none-of-the-above.jpg?w=500&h=288)He dead tho
Post by: CNS on January 29, 2016, 12:54:33 PM
When people express displeasure with the overall quality of candidates, is this just code for "I don't the person who is the presumed democratic nominee?" On the political spectrum there's something for everyone so I guess I just don't get that claim.
Who is the candidate for people who don't want government to interfere with their body, dictate morality, take away guns, or take large amounts of taxes to redistribute wealth, and who hasn't shown incompetence/willful neglect of national security?
Also, need that same person to back the eff off the hyper level of intrusion into our privacy.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2016, 12:57:37 PM
When people express displeasure with the overall quality of candidates, is this just code for "I don't the person who is the presumed democratic nominee?" On the political spectrum there's something for everyone so I guess I just don't get that claim.
Who is the candidate for people who don't want government to interfere with their body, dictate morality, take away guns, or take large amounts of taxes to redistribute wealth, and who hasn't shown incompetence/willful neglect of national security?
Rand Paul
Post by: star seed 7 on January 29, 2016, 01:02:01 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2016, 01:06:20 PM
Rand fails the first two
not really
Post by: CNS on January 29, 2016, 01:18:12 PM
Rand fails the first two
I think he says that because that is his compromise to be a part of the 'pub party. I mean, he is basically the R's Bernie.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 29, 2016, 01:25:03 PM
Rand fails the first two
I think he says that because that is his compromise to be a part of the 'pub party. I mean, he is basically the R's Bernie.
He wants to defund Planned Parenthood which interferes with my body if my body wants to go get a service from Planned Parenthood.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2016, 01:27:44 PM
Rand fails the first two
I think he says that because that is his compromise to be a part of the 'pub party. I mean, he is basically the R's Bernie.
He wants to defund Planned Parenthood which interferes with my body if my body wants to go get a service from Planned Parenthood.
Defunding planned parenthood is stopping some of the wealth redistribution that you just said you don't want.
Post by: CNS on January 29, 2016, 01:30:39 PM
Rand fails the first two
I think he says that because that is his compromise to be a part of the 'pub party. I mean, he is basically the R's Bernie.
He wants to defund Planned Parenthood which interferes with my body if my body wants to go get a service from Planned Parenthood.
Yeah, but he wants to defund everything. I don't think its really about body control, just that he doesn't want govt money going anywhere so that we can be taxed a whole lot less.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 29, 2016, 01:37:09 PM
Rand fails the first two
I think he says that because that is his compromise to be a part of the 'pub party. I mean, he is basically the R's Bernie.
He wants to defund Planned Parenthood which interferes with my body if my body wants to go get a service from Planned Parenthood.
Defunding planned parenthood is stopping some of the wealth redistribution that you just said you don't want.
I said I don't want them to increase taxes by a lot to redistribute wealth. I don't mind keeping it the same or increase a little bit in order to keep poor people from getting poorer (by having unwanted kids).
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2016, 01:47:08 PM
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 29, 2016, 01:50:40 PM
Planned parenthood and the NRA lobby different politicians, so I doubt you ever find a candidate that supports both the way you want them to. You just have to pick your battles sometimes.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. MIR said there is a candidate for everyone, but I still haven't found one.
Post by: star seed 7 on January 29, 2016, 01:56:45 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on January 29, 2016, 02:12:32 PM
Post by: Yard Dog on January 29, 2016, 02:18:35 PM
Planned parenthood and the NRA lobby different politicians, so I doubt you ever find a candidate that supports both the way you want them to. You just have to pick your battles sometimes.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. MIR said there is a candidate for everyone, but I still haven't found one.
Honestly? Your best bet is probably Kasich.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 29, 2016, 02:28:35 PM
MIR is never wrong tho, so look harder
I'm still waiting on him to tell me who my candidate is...
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2016, 02:32:46 PM
MIR is never wrong tho, so look harder
I'm still waiting on him to tell me who my candidate is...
Have you looked into Gary Johnson?
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 29, 2016, 02:42:21 PM
MIR is never wrong tho, so look harder
I'm still waiting on him to tell me who my candidate is...
Have you looked into Gary Johnson?
He looks pretty good. In the 2012 Presidential election he came in third. Just needs to move up 2 spots this time.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 29, 2016, 02:45:59 PM
Planned parenthood and the NRA lobby different politicians, so I doubt you ever find a candidate that supports both the way you want them to. You just have to pick your battles sometimes.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. MIR said there is a candidate for everyone, but I still haven't found one.
Honestly? Your best bet is probably Kasich.
I think he's anti-abortion and anti-marijuana. Both forced morality issues.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 29, 2016, 03:03:45 PM
MIR is never wrong tho, so look harder
I'm still waiting on him to tell me who my candidate is...
Have you looked into Gary Johnson?
He looks pretty good. In the 2012 Presidential election he came in third. Just needs to move up 2 spots this time.
tbh, I think I voted for him in 2012. I didn't really realize he was running again.
Post by: Yard Dog on January 29, 2016, 04:17:48 PM
Planned parenthood and the NRA lobby different politicians, so I doubt you ever find a candidate that supports both the way you want them to. You just have to pick your battles sometimes.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. MIR said there is a candidate for everyone, but I still haven't found one.
Honestly? Your best bet is probably Kasich.
I think he's anti-abortion and anti-marijuana. Both forced morality issues.
But out of all the candidates, he is the least likely to do anything about those issues. He is probably the most open minded about marijuana on that side of the ticket too.
Post by: chuckjames on January 29, 2016, 04:29:21 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on January 30, 2016, 11:42:58 AM
When people express displeasure with the overall quality of candidates, is this just code for "I don't the person who is the presumed democratic nominee?" On the political spectrum there's something for everyone so I guess I just don't get that claim.
Who is the candidate for people who don't want government to interfere with their body, dictate morality, take away guns, or take large amounts of taxes to redistribute wealth, and who hasn't shown incompetence/willful neglect of national security?
Hillary, O'Malley and Marco. I think you would have a hard time in any election finding someone who would match that exact criteria. But let's take them one by one
-The only real candidate that could potentially be a real threat to women's reproductive rights is Ted Cruz but as much as he would huff and puff about stuff like that it would be very difficult to make any movement there. I could see Cruz and Grimace make an executive order to defund planned parenthood though and the std and teen pregnancy rate would immediately skyrocket.
-Dictate morality is a tough one because you can claim that any president would to that, they really don't have a choice. I am not going to pretend where your moral line is and what issues you find important in this realm, I can tell you that Cruz is the only candidate that has the least regard for the separation of church and state.
-No one wants to take away anyone's guns, no one even talks about it. Hillary has the most liberal stance on guns but who are we kidding, the gun lobby is the most powerful in the country. The rights of gun owners has expanded in this country not contracted. Any gun owner worried about anything should probably stop listening to Wayne Lapierre podcasts or whatever.
-I again don't know of a presidential candidate who wouldn't spend some tax dollars, obviously Bernie is the one that is going to spend the most but he is also the only one who has been honest about who he plans to tax. Any candidate that says they won't raise taxes isn't being realistic or is simply lying.
-I don't know if any of the candidates has shown incompetence/willful neglect of national security. There has been only one in the position to do so, Donald seems off the reservation a bit when it comes to national security that's problematic. If you think the email thing was a serious risk to national security then I certainly can't talk you out of that but the government experts don't seem to share that same opinion.
I guess ultimately I have to ask, has there been a president you have liked and if not what has been your issue with the last four our five of them. You seem like a moderate and we've had plenty of moderate presidents. My issue is that I'm not a moderate and I have only had moderate presidents in my lifetime. I guess Ronald was a conservative but that was like 35 years ago so who cares? So I finally have a mainstream liberal candidate so I'm happy. Conservatives are always happy until the nomination is handed out. Mrs. Gooch is there any candidate ever that can make you happy?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2016, 02:08:30 PM
I'm sure this will confuse the unwashed masses, ironically
Post by: IPA4Me on January 30, 2016, 02:33:56 PM
Well, it is a big deal. Military personnel are held to high standards regarding classified materials. The POTUS or a candidate is expected to uphold those same standards.
For those that don't see the problem, talk to your friends that are active duty with twenty or more years especially those holding an O-4 rank or higher. Some of you are too young to have friends that old. Might have to speak to your parent's friends.
Anyhow, I'll vote for Paul in the primary. We'll see beyond that if he makes the ticket.
Post by: SdK on January 30, 2016, 02:36:08 PM
Post by: wetwillie on January 30, 2016, 03:18:24 PM
I've read several posts here regarding Hillary's handling of classified materials as no big deal.
Well, it is a big deal. Military personnel are held to high standards regarding classified materials. The POTUS or a candidate is expected to uphold those same standards.
For those that don't see the problem, talk to your friends that are active duty with twenty or more years especially those holding an O-4 rank or higher. Some of you are too young to have friends that old. Might have to speak to your parent's friends.
Anyhow, I'll vote for Paul in the primary. We'll see beyond that if he makes the ticket.
Rand has zero shot of winning the primary, are you just being loyal to your state?
Post by: IPA4Me on January 30, 2016, 03:19:44 PM
Loyal to Rand. I just happened to live here. He's not as far out there as his dad. Really like his position on many things.I've read several posts here regarding Hillary's handling of classified materials as no big deal.
Well, it is a big deal. Military personnel are held to high standards regarding classified materials. The POTUS or a candidate is expected to uphold those same standards.
For those that don't see the problem, talk to your friends that are active duty with twenty or more years especially those holding an O-4 rank or higher. Some of you are too young to have friends that old. Might have to speak to your parent's friends.
Anyhow, I'll vote for Paul in the primary. We'll see beyond that if he makes the ticket.
Rand has zero shot of winning the primary, are you just being loyal to your state?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on January 30, 2016, 04:09:11 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on January 30, 2016, 05:36:01 PM
The I don't like "forced morality" is a pretty stupid comment to make when talking about government. The laws created by government are essentially the codification of societal morals.
I'm sure this will confuse the unwashed masses, ironically
Agreed
Post by: MakeItRain on January 30, 2016, 05:42:09 PM
I've read several posts here regarding Hillary's handling of classified materials as no big deal.
Well, it is a big deal. Military personnel are held to high standards regarding classified materials. The POTUS or a candidate is expected to uphold those same standards.
For those that don't see the problem, talk to your friends that are active duty with twenty or more years especially those holding an O-4 rank or higher. Some of you are too young to have friends that old. Might have to speak to your parent's friends.
Anyhow, I'll vote for Paul in the primary. We'll see beyond that if he makes the ticket.
I don't understand what the military has to do with anything. Hilary wasn't the commander in chief when she used a private server. Also I take exception to people acting like she was sending classified messages via hotmail. I will continue to take my cues on how to feel about this from the people investigating it.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 30, 2016, 05:56:10 PM
any law forces or dictates morality. that's why stealing is illegal.
Stealing has a victim. Drug use would have been a better example.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on January 30, 2016, 06:06:54 PM
any law forces or dictates morality. that's why stealing is illegal.
Stealing has a victim. Drug use would have been a better example.
Yes, the things I don't want dictated are who a person can marry, what they put into their own body (junk food, drugs,penises, whatever), etc.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on January 30, 2016, 06:22:55 PM
any law forces or dictates morality. that's why stealing is illegal.
Stealing has a victim. Drug use would have been a better example.
Yes, the things I don't want dictated are who a person can marry, what they put into their own body (junk food, drugs,penises, whatever), etc.
yeah i should've used drugs
Post by: Cartierfor3 on January 30, 2016, 06:23:59 PM
any law forces or dictates morality. that's why stealing is illegal.
Stealing has a victim. Drug use would have been a better example.
Yes, the things I don't want dictated are who a person can marry, what they put into their own body (junk food, drugs,penises, whatever), etc.
yeah i should've used drugs
i mean i should've used drugs as my example not actually used them
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbs.dreamstime.com%2Fz%2Fscrew-loose-emoticon-37540097.jpg&hash=060fde4ab3fe74602e18fdbf0e30820dbd5bc661)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 30, 2016, 06:31:02 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on January 30, 2016, 06:31:45 PM
Post by: pvegs on January 30, 2016, 08:44:41 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2016, 08:58:40 PM
hilary. i'm not old, racist, fascist, sycophantic, parochial to the point of vapidity, offensively greedy, or a follower of an imaginary sky-god so lol why would i vote republican
:lol:
Post by: Cartierfor3 on January 30, 2016, 09:00:21 PM
hilary. i'm not old, racist, fascist, sycohpantic, parochial to the point of vapidity, offensively greedy, or a follower of an imaginary sky-god so lol why would i vote republican
holy moly
Post by: star seed 7 on January 30, 2016, 09:03:12 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2016, 09:20:40 PM
Post by: pvegs on January 30, 2016, 10:01:56 PM
:lol:
i mean we're all of us working on disappearing completely, but the important thing to keep in mind is that even tho this is all inherently worthless you could at least vote for someone not actively making the brief flash of light we get more miserable than it needs to be
Post by: star seed 7 on January 30, 2016, 11:05:35 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2016, 11:23:23 PM
:lol:
i mean we're all of us working on disappearing completely, but the important thing to keep in mind is that even tho this is all inherently worthless you could at least vote for someone not actively making the brief flash of light we get more miserable than it needs to be
Who and what are you talking about?
Lib for Hillary! :lol:
Post by: MakeItRain on January 30, 2016, 11:32:17 PM
any law forces or dictates morality. that's why stealing is illegal.
Stealing has a victim. Drug use would have been a better example.
Yes, the things I don't want dictated are who a person can marry, what they put into their own body (junk food, drugs,penises, whatever), etc.
Good luck with finding someone willing to advocate for the legalization of meth.
Post by: SdK on January 31, 2016, 06:12:58 AM
Bravo.
i mean we're all of us working on disappearing completely, but the important thing to keep in mind is that even tho this is all inherently worthless you could at least vote for someone not actively making the brief flash of light we get more miserable than it needs to be
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 31, 2016, 09:01:02 AM
any law forces or dictates morality. that's why stealing is illegal.
Stealing has a victim. Drug use would have been a better example.
Yes, the things I don't want dictated are who a person can marry, what they put into their own body (junk food, drugs,penises, whatever), etc.
Good luck with finding someone willing to advocate for the legalization of meth.
Anyone who has left the suburbs for even a second should know what a serious problem drug use is in this country, and the significant negative impact on entire communities. The idea that drug use is reserved for recreational Saturday evenings after the kids are in bed is so incredibly obtuse.
Post by: MakeItRain on January 31, 2016, 01:29:52 PM
any law forces or dictates morality. that's why stealing is illegal.
Stealing has a victim. Drug use would have been a better example.
Yes, the things I don't want dictated are who a person can marry, what they put into their own body (junk food, drugs,penises, whatever), etc.
Good luck with finding someone willing to advocate for the legalization of meth.
Anyone who has left the suburbs for even a second should know what a serious problem drug use is in this country, and the significant negative impact on entire communities. The idea that drug use is reserved for recreational Saturday evenings after the kids are in bed is so incredibly obtuse.
Agreed. I'm not even sure how I feel about the legalization of weed. We have multiple issues with drug sentencing in this country but I'm not sure the answer to those issues is legalization.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 01, 2016, 08:04:08 AM
Post by: 8manpick on February 01, 2016, 08:07:47 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 01, 2016, 08:10:18 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 09:42:55 AM
I think drug-related offenses should be more in line with alcohol-related offenses.
They don't have similar effects on the community
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 01, 2016, 09:54:01 AM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 10:24:23 AM
Spaghetti monster and imaginary sky god always kinda chaps my ass for some reason. Especially, coming from most liberals who feed a message of "non-judgment, peace, unity, etc." I get that there's a lot of wacko Christians out there, but man, no reason to act like ppl with faith, have the imaginative skills of a 5 year old.
:confused:
Post by: IPA4Me on February 01, 2016, 10:43:24 AM
Spaghetti monster and imaginary sky god always kinda chaps my ass for some reason. Especially, coming from most liberals who feed a message of "non-judgment, peace, unity, etc." I get that there's a lot of wacko Christians out there, but man, no reason to act like ppl with faith, have the imaginative skills of a 5 year old.I often feel the same.
Post by: mocat on February 01, 2016, 10:50:38 AM
I think drug-related offenses should be more in line with alcohol-related offenses.
They don't have similar effects on the community
isn't that mostly due to the fact that "drugs" are illegal and alcohol is not?
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 01, 2016, 10:51:51 AM
I think drug-related offenses should be more in line with alcohol-related offenses.
They don't have similar effects on the community
isn't that mostly due to the fact that "drugs" are illegal and alcohol is not?
How do the effects of alcohol during prohibition and the effects of drugs now compare?
Post by: mocat on February 01, 2016, 10:53:15 AM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 11:04:33 AM
Heroin, meth, etc... I just don't see the value
Post by: mocat on February 01, 2016, 11:05:42 AM
Post by: 8manpick on February 01, 2016, 11:19:34 AM
I'm pretty split on legalized drugs. Weed, ecstasy, and other "recreational" drugs would probably benefit from some governmental oversite and standards you'd see from legalization.
Heroin, meth, etc... I just don't see the value
How do you feel about prescription drugs? Opiates and amphetamines, specifically?
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 11:22:00 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 12:02:18 PM
I think drug-related offenses should be more in line with alcohol-related offenses.
They don't have similar effects on the community
isn't that mostly due to the fact that "drugs" are illegal and alcohol is not?
What? Are you serious? No. Hell no! Do you know people who have drug addiction? I drink alcohol, one of my employees got me a six pack for Christmas and I haven't had one yet. Tell me how many casual drinkers you know now tell me how many casual meth, heroin, or crack users you know. Legalized narcotics would be sure death for poor communities. There is no surer sign of a sheltered suburbanite than someone advocating for legalization of narcotics. Take a trip to an area that has been effected by drugs, spend a few days there and then ask yourself if these people need easier access to drugs. Go watch HBO's current doc about Cape Cod and get back to me about drug legalization; matter of fact don't watch the whole doc, just watch the first scene.
http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/heroin-cape-cod-usa
Just watch this one scene 13:30-16:40, just 3 minutes and ask that question again
https://youtu.be/7zj8-dbbKVo
Please watch it and tell me what you think
Post by: mocat on February 01, 2016, 12:13:54 PM
but the astounding number of people incarcerated for non-violent drug-related offenses is absolutely devastating to a community, no?
Post by: 8manpick on February 01, 2016, 12:29:39 PM
MIR, i do not think heroin or meth should be legal.
but the astounding number of people incarcerated for non-violent drug-related offenses is absolutely devastating to a community, no?
Also the inability to get jobs with those offenses on your record
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 01, 2016, 12:39:31 PM
Post by: mocat on February 01, 2016, 12:40:44 PM
Post by: mocat on February 01, 2016, 12:41:00 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 12:41:44 PM
What's astounding is the number of people who know the potential consequences yet take the risk anyway. I don't care if it's non-violent or not.
I feel the same way about those illegal guns you have
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 01, 2016, 12:42:31 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 12:42:57 PM
100% legal
;)
Post by: Tobias on February 01, 2016, 12:44:04 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 12:48:43 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Ftfetflbe505vffjvop0b.gif&hash=a5266cfacc5304ce03d27cb50f2974f5c687776f)
This is the silliest thing that doesn't seem to go away. What exactly does this show negatively about Rubio?
Funnily enough, one of the other things that people hold against him was a time he threw a pass to a little dude running a route and it hit the boy in the face. His campaign released this awesome response to that. Kid totally redeems himself!
https://youtu.be/E8nsYaS4Tv4
nothing. and what does obama using a teleprompter show negatively about him? yet people still bring it up constantly. there is a lot of the my team > your team bullcrap that is meaningless that heavy partisans lob out there all the time.
A little late on this one, but did you just compare taking a sip of water to not being able to give a speech without a TelePrompTer? Smart people who believe in what they're saying don't have to read a speech word for word.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 12:49:52 PM
MIR, i do not think heroin or meth should be legal.
but the astounding number of people incarcerated for non-violent drug-related offenses is absolutely devastating to a community, no?
I started this off by saying we need sentencing reform. Is there a narcotic other than marijuana that you feel should be legal?
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 12:50:18 PM
Post by: 8manpick on February 01, 2016, 12:51:49 PM
heroin has got to just be incredible, obviouslyBy all accounts, several prescription alternatives are even stronger! They are also regulated so the user knows exactly what they are getting, which would be a huge benefit to legalization of other drugs.
i would never be able to get past the needles thing tho :Yuck:
Don't have to!
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 12:52:24 PM
Rand fails the first two
I think he says that because that is his compromise to be a part of the 'pub party. I mean, he is basically the R's Bernie.
He wants to defund Planned Parenthood which interferes with my body if my body wants to go get a service from Planned Parenthood.
If by "interfere with my body" you mean cutting off tax dollars to a group that will gladly insert instruments into your body to kill a human life, and if that's actually more important to you than every other issue you posted, then I guess you'd better go Dem.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 12:54:01 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Ftfetflbe505vffjvop0b.gif&hash=a5266cfacc5304ce03d27cb50f2974f5c687776f)
This is the silliest thing that doesn't seem to go away. What exactly does this show negatively about Rubio?
Funnily enough, one of the other things that people hold against him was a time he threw a pass to a little dude running a route and it hit the boy in the face. His campaign released this awesome response to that. Kid totally redeems himself!
https://youtu.be/E8nsYaS4Tv4
nothing. and what does obama using a teleprompter show negatively about him? yet people still bring it up constantly. there is a lot of the my team > your team bullcrap that is meaningless that heavy partisans lob out there all the time.
A little late on this one, but did you just compare taking a sip of water to not being able to give a speech without a TelePrompTer? Smart people who believe in what they're saying don't have to read a speech word for word.
The teleprompter thing is a shitbird partisan litmus test, I can't believe people are still talking about it. You can't possibly be that stupid. I mean I get saying it as a joke but to mean it?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 12:55:03 PM
Rand fails the first two
I think he says that because that is his compromise to be a part of the 'pub party. I mean, he is basically the R's Bernie.
He wants to defund Planned Parenthood which interferes with my body if my body wants to go get a service from Planned Parenthood.
Defunding planned parenthood is stopping some of the wealth redistribution that you just said you don't want.
I said I don't want them to increase taxes by a lot to redistribute wealth. I don't mind keeping it the same or increase a little bit in order to keep poor people from getting poorer (by having unwanted kids).
I agree, but does that really go far enough? What about the kids who have already been born? Poor people should be able to take their unwanted offspring to a facility to be euthanized. At least until the age they become "viable."
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 12:56:20 PM
heroin has got to just be incredible, obviouslyBy all accounts, several prescription alternatives are even stronger! They are also regulated so the user knows exactly what they are getting, which would be a huge benefit to legalization of other drugs.i would never be able to get past the needles thing tho :Yuck:
Don't have to!
A big problem right now is people getting hooked on prescription painkillers and then turning to heroin because it's cheaper and easier to get.
Happened recently to a friend of a friend and has totally ruined his life because of a back surgery or something.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 12:57:48 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Ftfetflbe505vffjvop0b.gif&hash=a5266cfacc5304ce03d27cb50f2974f5c687776f)
This is the silliest thing that doesn't seem to go away. What exactly does this show negatively about Rubio?
Funnily enough, one of the other things that people hold against him was a time he threw a pass to a little dude running a route and it hit the boy in the face. His campaign released this awesome response to that. Kid totally redeems himself!
https://youtu.be/E8nsYaS4Tv4
nothing. and what does obama using a teleprompter show negatively about him? yet people still bring it up constantly. there is a lot of the my team > your team bullcrap that is meaningless that heavy partisans lob out there all the time.
A little late on this one, but did you just compare taking a sip of water to not being able to give a speech without a TelePrompTer? Smart people who believe in what they're saying don't have to read a speech word for word.
The teleprompter thing is a shitbird partisan litmus test, I can't believe people are still talking about it. You can't possibly be that stupid. I mean I get saying it as a joke but to mean it?
Yeah, I do. What kind of mouth breathing idiot can't give even a short speech without reading it word for word? Did you ever take a communications class in college? That's probably the easiest jerkoff classes in college. And what do they teach you? Rule 1: don't read your damn speech off a piece of paper. It's not hard.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 12:58:50 PM
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 01, 2016, 12:59:46 PM
Rand fails the first two
I think he says that because that is his compromise to be a part of the 'pub party. I mean, he is basically the R's Bernie.
He wants to defund Planned Parenthood which interferes with my body if my body wants to go get a service from Planned Parenthood.
Defunding planned parenthood is stopping some of the wealth redistribution that you just said you don't want.
I said I don't want them to increase taxes by a lot to redistribute wealth. I don't mind keeping it the same or increase a little bit in order to keep poor people from getting poorer (by having unwanted kids).
I agree, but does that really go far enough? What about the kids who have already been born? Poor people should be able to take their unwanted offspring to a facility to be euthanized. At least until the age they become "viable."
They do currently have facilities that people can take their unwanted children. (not to be euthanised, but to get rid of them)
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 01:01:06 PM
Rand fails the first two
I think he says that because that is his compromise to be a part of the 'pub party. I mean, he is basically the R's Bernie.
He wants to defund Planned Parenthood which interferes with my body if my body wants to go get a service from Planned Parenthood.
If by "interfere with my body" you mean cutting off tax dollars to a group that will gladly insert instruments into your body to kill a human life, and if that's actually more important to you than every other issue you posted, then I guess you'd better go Dem.
As one of the few conservatives on this board who is not a sock or a mouth breathing idiot, don't you feel some obligation not to sound like a stark raving lunatic when talking to moderates with legit questions?
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 01:01:44 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 01:02:06 PM
any law forces or dictates morality. that's why stealing is illegal.
Stealing has a victim. Drug use would have been a better example.
Yes, the things I don't want dictated are who a person can marry, what they put into their own body (junk food, drugs,penises, whatever), etc.
Good luck with finding someone willing to advocate for the legalization of meth.
Anyone who has left the suburbs for even a second should know what a serious problem drug use is in this country, and the significant negative impact on entire communities. The idea that drug use is reserved for recreational Saturday evenings after the kids are in bed is so incredibly obtuse.
Agreed. I'm not even sure how I feel about the legalization of weed. We have multiple issues with drug sentencing in this country but I'm not sure the answer to those issues is legalization.
Well crap. It happened again. MIR said something I agree with.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 01:05:33 PM
Rand fails the first two
I think he says that because that is his compromise to be a part of the 'pub party. I mean, he is basically the R's Bernie.
He wants to defund Planned Parenthood which interferes with my body if my body wants to go get a service from Planned Parenthood.
If by "interfere with my body" you mean cutting off tax dollars to a group that will gladly insert instruments into your body to kill a human life, and if that's actually more important to you than every other issue you posted, then I guess you'd better go Dem.
As one of the few conservatives on this board who is not a sock or a mouth breathing idiot, don't you feel some obligation not to sound like a stark raving lunatic when talking to moderates with legit questions?
No, because there's nothing "moderate" about abortion. Abortion is evil. That doesn't mean all abortion supporters are evil - just that they haven't thought deeply enough about the issue to recognize that it is evil. So I'll explain that to them. And I typically start with the illusion that human lives aren't worth protecting simply because they haven't yet "broken the plane."
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 01:10:41 PM
Rand fails the first two
I think he says that because that is his compromise to be a part of the 'pub party. I mean, he is basically the R's Bernie.
He wants to defund Planned Parenthood which interferes with my body if my body wants to go get a service from Planned Parenthood.
Defunding planned parenthood is stopping some of the wealth redistribution that you just said you don't want.
I said I don't want them to increase taxes by a lot to redistribute wealth. I don't mind keeping it the same or increase a little bit in order to keep poor people from getting poorer (by having unwanted kids).
I agree, but does that really go far enough? What about the kids who have already been born? Poor people should be able to take their unwanted offspring to a facility to be euthanized. At least until the age they become "viable."
They do currently have facilities that people can take their unwanted children. (not to be euthanised, but to get rid of them)
Oh good. So what's the economic basis for killing them in the womb? And should we be deciding who lives or dies based upon economics?
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 01:11:30 PM
Rand fails the first two
I think he says that because that is his compromise to be a part of the 'pub party. I mean, he is basically the R's Bernie.
He wants to defund Planned Parenthood which interferes with my body if my body wants to go get a service from Planned Parenthood.
If by "interfere with my body" you mean cutting off tax dollars to a group that will gladly insert instruments into your body to kill a human life, and if that's actually more important to you than every other issue you posted, then I guess you'd better go Dem.
As one of the few conservatives on this board who is not a sock or a mouth breathing idiot, don't you feel some obligation not to sound like a stark raving lunatic when talking to moderates with legit questions?
No, because there's nothing "moderate" about abortion. Abortion is evil. That doesn't mean all abortion supporters are evil - just that they haven't thought deeply enough about the issue to recognize that it is evil. So I'll explain that to them. And I typically start with the illusion that human lives aren't worth protecting simply because they haven't yet "broken the plain."
Do you honestly not know that abortions is a very small part of what planned parenthood does? Maybe you are stupid. Why don't you stop getting all your info from Rush, Glenn, FNC, and conservative blogs and rough ridin' read something worthwhile.
Post by: Dub on February 01, 2016, 01:14:29 PM
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 01, 2016, 01:17:23 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 01:18:00 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 01, 2016, 01:18:33 PM
I think drug-related offenses should be more in line with alcohol-related offenses.
They don't have similar effects on the community
So put drug users in jail, then? I think a penalty in line with what kids get charged for MIPs would be fairer.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 01, 2016, 01:18:53 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 01:19:52 PM
You mean 1.
Maybe :D
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 01:23:00 PM
Do you honestly not know that abortions is a very small part of what planned parenthood does? Maybe you are stupid. Why don't you stop getting all your info from Rush, Glenn, FNC, and conservative blogs and rough ridin' read something worthwhile.
That depends on how you measure it. If you are comparing 1 abortion to handing out 1 condom, then yes, abortion is a very small percentage of planned parenthood does. Just like MLB is in the business of selling hotdogs because they sell way more hotdogs than play baseball games.
But regardless of what "percentage" PP's abortion services constitute, that is completely irrelevant because nobody is saying PP can't continue to provide all those other services. They just shouldn't be providing abortions if they're going to accept tax dollars.
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 01:25:50 PM
The fact that you guys continue to make these claims while ignoring the law is fascinating.Do you honestly not know that abortions is a very small part of what planned parenthood does? Maybe you are stupid. Why don't you stop getting all your info from Rush, Glenn, FNC, and conservative blogs and rough ridin' read something worthwhile.
That depends on how you measure it. If you are comparing 1 abortion to handing out 1 condom, then yes, abortion is a very small percentage of planned parenthood does. Just like MLB is in the business of selling hotdogs because they sell way more hotdogs than play baseball games.
But regardless of what "percentage" PP's abortion services constitute, that is completely irrelevant because nobody is saying PP can't continue to provide all those other services. They just shouldn't be providing abortions if they're going to accept tax dollars.
And how then do we measure what "portion" of their services they can proceed with? Because you say they can do their other services, but you fail to realize states are pulling ALL of their tax funding.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 01:26:43 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 01, 2016, 01:27:47 PM
Post by: CNS on February 01, 2016, 01:28:31 PM
Is the threshold for the federal government giving an organization money that they only do more good than harm?
If it's harmful, make it illegal and PP will become strictly an abortion free healthcare provider.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 01:28:56 PM
If I want to open an abortion clinic, do I get the same amount of federal funding planned parenthood does? (honestly don't know and am curious)
How good is your lobbyist?
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 01, 2016, 01:29:11 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 01:30:22 PM
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 01, 2016, 01:31:25 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 01:34:09 PM
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 01:37:10 PM
If I want to open an abortion clinic, do I get the same amount of federal funding planned parenthood does? (honestly don't know and am curious)Not really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 02:01:08 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Ftfetflbe505vffjvop0b.gif&hash=a5266cfacc5304ce03d27cb50f2974f5c687776f)
This is the silliest thing that doesn't seem to go away. What exactly does this show negatively about Rubio?
Funnily enough, one of the other things that people hold against him was a time he threw a pass to a little dude running a route and it hit the boy in the face. His campaign released this awesome response to that. Kid totally redeems himself!
https://youtu.be/E8nsYaS4Tv4
nothing. and what does obama using a teleprompter show negatively about him? yet people still bring it up constantly. there is a lot of the my team > your team bullcrap that is meaningless that heavy partisans lob out there all the time.
A little late on this one, but did you just compare taking a sip of water to not being able to give a speech without a TelePrompTer? Smart people who believe in what they're saying don't have to read a speech word for word.
The teleprompter thing is a shitbird partisan litmus test, I can't believe people are still talking about it. You can't possibly be that stupid. I mean I get saying it as a joke but to mean it?
Yeah, I do. What kind of mouth breathing idiot can't give even a short speech without reading it word for word? Did you ever take a communications class in college? That's probably the easiest jerkoff classes in college. And what do they teach you? Rule 1: don't read your damn speech off a piece of paper. It's not hard.
I have a degree in communications and in broadcasting. I gave a public speech last week and am giving another one next week. I'm not the POTUS. I can't think of the last president who didn't use a teleprompter, yep even Ronnie used one, and I don't think any of us will live to see the day a president won't. The reasons why are very obvious, stop being a bad Republican parody.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 02:06:24 PM
I think drug-related offenses should be more in line with alcohol-related offenses.
They don't have similar effects on the community
So put drug users in jail, then? I think a penalty in line with what kids get charged for MIPs would be fairer.
Did you watch that three minutes that I asked you guys to watch? Can we be adults about this and stop pretending that alcohol and narcotics are even remotely close to the same things? Drug offenses are more severe because the effects of narcotics are immeasurably more severe than alcohol.
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 02:13:16 PM
I think drug-related offenses should be more in line with alcohol-related offenses.
They don't have similar effects on the community
So put drug users in jail, then? I think a penalty in line with what kids get charged for MIPs would be fairer.
Did you watch that three minutes that I asked you guys to watch? Can we be adults about this and stop pretending that alcohol and narcotics are even remotely close to the same things? Drug offenses are more severe because the effects of narcotics are immeasurably more severe than alcohol.
Interesting counter point about decriminalization of "hard" drugs.
http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.3njtPELhb
Post by: sys on February 01, 2016, 02:19:00 PM
heroin has got to just be incredible.
yeah. it has to be. just look at how good morphine is.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 01, 2016, 02:20:25 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Ftfetflbe505vffjvop0b.gif&hash=a5266cfacc5304ce03d27cb50f2974f5c687776f)
This is the silliest thing that doesn't seem to go away. What exactly does this show negatively about Rubio?
Funnily enough, one of the other things that people hold against him was a time he threw a pass to a little dude running a route and it hit the boy in the face. His campaign released this awesome response to that. Kid totally redeems himself!
https://youtu.be/E8nsYaS4Tv4
nothing. and what does obama using a teleprompter show negatively about him? yet people still bring it up constantly. there is a lot of the my team > your team bullcrap that is meaningless that heavy partisans lob out there all the time.
A little late on this one, but did you just compare taking a sip of water to not being able to give a speech without a TelePrompTer? Smart people who believe in what they're saying don't have to read a speech word for word.
The teleprompter thing is a shitbird partisan litmus test, I can't believe people are still talking about it. You can't possibly be that stupid. I mean I get saying it as a joke but to mean it?
Yeah, I do. What kind of mouth breathing idiot can't give even a short speech without reading it word for word? Did you ever take a communications class in college? That's probably the easiest jerkoff classes in college. And what do they teach you? Rule 1: don't read your damn speech off a piece of paper. It's not hard.
I have a degree in communications and in broadcasting. I gave a public speech last week and am giving another one next week. I'm not the POTUS. I can't think of the last president who didn't use a teleprompter, yep even Ronnie used one, and I don't think any of us will live to see the day a president won't. The reasons why are very obvious, stop being a bad Republican parody.
Well, I don't think Cruz or Trump use them at all. Rubio uses them from time to time but he's given many a speech without them. So there's actually pretty good odds - at least 50/50 - that the next president won't need a TelePrompTer to tell him when to take a breath.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 01, 2016, 02:21:09 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 01, 2016, 02:22:15 PM
I think drug-related offenses should be more in line with alcohol-related offenses.
They don't have similar effects on the community
So put drug users in jail, then? I think a penalty in line with what kids get charged for MIPs would be fairer.
Did you watch that three minutes that I asked you guys to watch? Can we be adults about this and stop pretending that alcohol and narcotics are even remotely close to the same things? Drug offenses are more severe because the effects of narcotics are immeasurably more severe than alcohol.
I haven't watched it yet, but I will tonight. I agree that the effects of narcotics are more severe for most people. Some cases of alcoholism are every bit as bad. I just don't see how punishing the end user more severely helps anything. The government should do what it can to keep people out of prison, imo. Keep in mind that I'm not advocating for heroin shops being open for business on the streets. I just think use should be decriminalized.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 02:24:39 PM
Is the threshold for the federal government giving an organization money that they only do more good than harm?
If the harm is something that is only defined as a harm by a small few blinded partisan politics but the good is defined as good by everyone, yeah. No controversy in cancer screening, sad education, vaccinations, blood pressure testing, providing physical examinations, etc. I bet you had no idea that planned parenthood provided general care to women AND men. You're being played to focus on the abortions, without knowing that most of their clients aren't going for abortions.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 02:29:03 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Ftfetflbe505vffjvop0b.gif&hash=a5266cfacc5304ce03d27cb50f2974f5c687776f)
This is the silliest thing that doesn't seem to go away. What exactly does this show negatively about Rubio?
Funnily enough, one of the other things that people hold against him was a time he threw a pass to a little dude running a route and it hit the boy in the face. His campaign released this awesome response to that. Kid totally redeems himself!
https://youtu.be/E8nsYaS4Tv4
nothing. and what does obama using a teleprompter show negatively about him? yet people still bring it up constantly. there is a lot of the my team > your team bullcrap that is meaningless that heavy partisans lob out there all the time.
A little late on this one, but did you just compare taking a sip of water to not being able to give a speech without a TelePrompTer? Smart people who believe in what they're saying don't have to read a speech word for word.
The teleprompter thing is a shitbird partisan litmus test, I can't believe people are still talking about it. You can't possibly be that stupid. I mean I get saying it as a joke but to mean it?
Yeah, I do. What kind of mouth breathing idiot can't give even a short speech without reading it word for word? Did you ever take a communications class in college? That's probably the easiest jerkoff classes in college. And what do they teach you? Rule 1: don't read your damn speech off a piece of paper. It's not hard.
I have a degree in communications and in broadcasting. I gave a public speech last week and am giving another one next week. I'm not the POTUS. I can't think of the last president who didn't use a teleprompter, yep even Ronnie used one, and I don't think any of us will live to see the day a president won't. The reasons why are very obvious, stop being a bad Republican parody.
Well, I don't think Cruz or Trump use them at all. Rubio uses them from time to time but he's given many a speech without them. So there's actually pretty good odds - at least 50/50 - that the next president won't need a TelePrompTer to tell him when to take a breath.
Obama didn't use a teleprompter when he was a senator and when he was campaing in Iowa. Ronald Reagan didn't use a teleprompter when he was the governor of California. Jesus Christ man this is really obvious crap, let it go captain crazy.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 01, 2016, 02:30:06 PM
Is the threshold for the federal government giving an organization money that they only do more good than harm?
If the harm is something that is only defined as a harm by a small few blinded partisan politics but the good is defined as good by everyone, yeah. No controversy in cancer screening, sad education, vaccinations, blood pressure testing, providing physical examinations, etc. I bet you had no idea that planned parenthood provided general care to women AND men. You're being played to focus on the abortions, without knowing that most of their clients aren't going for abortions.
Are you a bot shitting out canned responses? I just said I know it's only like 3% of their activity.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 02:32:57 PM
Is the threshold for the federal government giving an organization money that they only do more good than harm?
If the harm is something that is only defined as a harm by a small few blinded partisan politics but the good is defined as good by everyone, yeah. No controversy in cancer screening, sad education, vaccinations, blood pressure testing, providing physical examinations, etc. I bet you had no idea that planned parenthood provided general care to women AND men. You're being played to focus on the abortions, without knowing that most of their clients aren't going for abortions.
Are you a bot shitting out canned responses? I just said I know it's only like 3% of their activity.
You did?
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 01, 2016, 02:35:32 PM
I think drug-related offenses should be more in line with alcohol-related offenses.
They don't have similar effects on the community
So put drug users in jail, then? I think a penalty in line with what kids get charged for MIPs would be fairer.
Did you watch that three minutes that I asked you guys to watch? Can we be adults about this and stop pretending that alcohol and narcotics are even remotely close to the same things? Drug offenses are more severe because the effects of narcotics are immeasurably more severe than alcohol.
I watched the 3 minutes you suggested and while that is a sad story, I would say there are instances of alcohol abuse that have also led to having kids taken away and death...
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 01, 2016, 02:49:47 PM
Interesting counter point about decriminalization of "hard" drugs.
http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.3njtPELhb
I like Portugal's approach. People are allowed to make their own choices but the government is still trying to provide some guidance and support to help them if they make bad choices.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 01, 2016, 02:58:28 PM
Is the threshold for the federal government giving an organization money that they only do more good than harm?
If the harm is something that is only defined as a harm by a small few blinded partisan politics but the good is defined as good by everyone, yeah. No controversy in cancer screening, sad education, vaccinations, blood pressure testing, providing physical examinations, etc. I bet you had no idea that planned parenthood provided general care to women AND men. You're being played to focus on the abortions, without knowing that most of their clients aren't going for abortions.
Are you a bot shitting out canned responses? I just said I know it's only like 3% of their activity.
You did?
No.
Post by: Dub on February 01, 2016, 03:00:21 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 03:06:39 PM
Interesting counter point about decriminalization of "hard" drugs.
http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.3njtPELhb
I like Portugal's approach. People are allowed to make their own choices but the government is still trying to provide some guidance and support to help them if they make bad choices.
I won't point out the very obvious differences between the United States and Portugal and the difficulties in using this same model here, look at the countries they used on their comparison chart, but the article did state this:
Quote
But some social scientists have cautioned against attributing all the numbers to decriminalization itself, as there are other factors at play in the national decrease in overdoses, disease and usage.
At the turn of the millennium, Portugal shifted drug control from the Justice Department to the Ministry of Health and instituted a robust public health model for treating hard drug addiction. It also expanded the welfare system in the form of a guaranteed minimum income. Changes in the material and health resources for at-risk populations for the past decade are a major factor in evaluating the evolution of Portugal's drug situation.
We clearly need drug reforms in this country, like widespread clean needle programs, but they can't include legalization.
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 03:13:45 PM
Interesting counter point about decriminalization of "hard" drugs.
http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.3njtPELhb
I like Portugal's approach. People are allowed to make their own choices but the government is still trying to provide some guidance and support to help them if they make bad choices.
I won't point out the very obvious differences between the United States and Portugal and the difficulties in using this same model here, look at the countries they used on their comparison chart, but the article did state this:QuoteBut some social scientists have cautioned against attributing all the numbers to decriminalization itself, as there are other factors at play in the national decrease in overdoses, disease and usage.
At the turn of the millennium, Portugal shifted drug control from the Justice Department to the Ministry of Health and instituted a robust public health model for treating hard drug addiction. It also expanded the welfare system in the form of a guaranteed minimum income. Changes in the material and health resources for at-risk populations for the past decade are a major factor in evaluating the evolution of Portugal's drug situation.
We clearly need drug reforms in this country, like widespread clean needle programs, but they can't include legalization.
I only post it as another idea in the conversation. I'm not a total decriminalization person because of the huge sociological difference, and uniqueness, the US has compared to other nations. I would be willing to be most on this site would be in favor of decriminalization in a package of social reforms and rehabilitation with only the most ardent drug users and distributors being in a criminal setting like we have now.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 01, 2016, 03:21:53 PM
Post by: ednksu on February 01, 2016, 03:25:20 PM
Post by: pvegs on February 02, 2016, 11:11:28 AM
Spaghetti monster and imaginary sky god always kinda chaps my ass for some reason. Especially, coming from most liberals who feed a message of "non-judgment, peace, unity, etc." I get that there's a lot of wacko Christians out there, but man, no reason to act like ppl with faith, have the imaginative skills of a 5 year old.
i mean, i don't know what you believe, but if it's in a christian god in heaven waiting to vacuum you into the ethereal bliss after you die, then you also believe in santa claus and deserve to be judged for the analytically vacuous trogoloyte you are
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 02, 2016, 11:14:57 AM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 02, 2016, 11:27:21 AM
See what I mean?! :dunno:Spaghetti monster and imaginary sky god always kinda chaps my ass for some reason. Especially, coming from most liberals who feed a message of "non-judgment, peace, unity, etc." I get that there's a lot of wacko Christians out there, but man, no reason to act like ppl with faith, have the imaginative skills of a 5 year old.
i mean, i don't know what you believe, but if it's in a christian god in heaven waiting to vacuum you into the ethereal bliss after you die, then you also believe in santa claus and deserve to be judged for the analytically vacuous trogoloyte you are
Post by: ChiComCat on February 02, 2016, 11:47:07 AM
Post by: CNS on February 02, 2016, 11:48:54 AM
Post by: Asteriskhead on February 02, 2016, 11:58:06 AM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 02, 2016, 12:04:16 PM
Post by: Asteriskhead on February 02, 2016, 12:07:28 PM
Yeah, when you compare it to Santa it's a slap in the face. Like religious ppl have child like wonder. That was my only point.
*insert joke about PC culture here*
Post by: MakeItRain on February 02, 2016, 12:26:01 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 02, 2016, 12:33:09 PM
1. Drugs are becoming legal in some states and illegal in others. If you don't like the drug laws in your state, you are free to move.
2. Abortion was for most of US history left to the states to legislate. When liberals swept through and magically discovered a right to kill an not-yet-viable baby in the womb in the constitution, they violated the states-as-laboratories construct and set the country on fire. Repeal Roe and the model will work again.
3. Subsidies - Planned Parenthood, ethanol, oil, and every other special interest that feeds on our tax dollars - need to be gradually shut off. The federal government should not be picking winners and losers.
4. Get the federal government off the backs of private business and industry. If I want to use an incandescent light bulb or an inefficient water heater, or run my thermostat way cold in the summer and high in the winter and take an hour long shower, I can. Energy is in unlimited supply in this world. I find it illustrative that they always like to count to smoking deaths as reasoning for anti-smoking laws (75% of HEAVY smokers never contract lung cancer) but nobody counts all the automobile deaths resulting from CAFE standards requiring cars to be made lighter and lighter.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest!
Ted Cruz 2016 -- Cruz/Rubio even better.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 02, 2016, 01:00:33 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 02, 2016, 01:16:02 PM
They should most definitely strive to find some winners(global warming being an example or alternative fuel for vehicles) and then fail quick and hard and cut off the losers.
1. Picking winners and losers is not a constitutionally-defined role of the federal government.
2. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a farcical hoax pushed by the political Left in an effort to exert control over the private economy by taxing usage of natural elements such as carbon; the basis of all human life.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 02, 2016, 01:25:39 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 02, 2016, 01:28:12 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 02, 2016, 01:33:08 PM
I am okay with the government (us) sharing the risk of investing in something that 1) benefits mankind, or at least benefits Americans, and 2) that is too big a risk for people and businesses with constraints to shoulder.
Who is the angel that decides your criteria 1 & 2 are met?
If something is worthwhile, there is more than enough money in the private sector to support it, ESPECIALLY if we implement a flat tax rate that everyone must pay.
Post by: pvegs on February 02, 2016, 01:41:19 PM
See what I mean?! :dunno:Spaghetti monster and imaginary sky god always kinda chaps my ass for some reason. Especially, coming from most liberals who feed a message of "non-judgment, peace, unity, etc." I get that there's a lot of wacko Christians out there, but man, no reason to act like ppl with faith, have the imaginative skills of a 5 year old.
i mean, i don't know what you believe, but if it's in a christian god in heaven waiting to vacuum you into the ethereal bliss after you die, then you also believe in santa claus and deserve to be judged for the analytically vacuous trogoloyte you are
a comparison to show the absurdity. in both cases, a belief passed down to you and instead of investigating it as you got older and coming to the only rational conclusion possible - that it's not real - you accepted it as truth and proliferated the farce.
Post by: pvegs on February 02, 2016, 01:45:41 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 02, 2016, 01:49:59 PM
If only there was a representative legislative body for the American public with checks and balances against it.
At the federal level, they're supposed to be doing only those things specifically enumerated by the constitution. At the state level, where the real power was originally designed to be, control of the actions of the federal government should be their main focus.
Funding the wholesale genocide of humanity's most vulnerable is not one of those enumerated functions.
Post by: IPA4Me on February 02, 2016, 01:57:31 PM
also plz don't make me yr pc lib straw man. i am a huge judgmental bad person and that suits me just fine. as such, i respect everyone's right to be wrong.No you don't. You ridicule those of faith rather than respecting that right. Face it. You're an atheist bad person that gets his jollies ridiculing someone that believes something you find illogical.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 02, 2016, 01:59:35 PM
nobody counts all the automobile deaths resulting from CAFE standards requiring cars to be made lighter and lighter.
Yeah, they just count the lives saved instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Post by: 8manpick on February 02, 2016, 02:12:19 PM
nobody counts all the automobile deaths resulting from CAFE standards requiring cars to be made lighter and lighter.
Yeah, they just count the lives saved instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
:ROFL:
Post by: star seed 7 on February 02, 2016, 02:24:27 PM
also plz don't make me yr pc lib straw man. i am a huge judgmental bad person and that suits me just fine. as such, i respect everyone's right to be wrong.No you don't. You ridicule those of faith rather than respecting that right. Face it. You're an atheist bad person that gets his jollies ridiculing someone that believes something you find illogical.
Do you respect flat earthers and Holocaust deniers?
Post by: Ptolemy on February 02, 2016, 02:24:32 PM
Yeah, they just count the lives saved instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Which of those lives were saved by making the cars lighter?
Post by: IPA4Me on February 02, 2016, 02:25:41 PM
also plz don't make me yr pc lib straw man. i am a huge judgmental bad person and that suits me just fine. as such, i respect everyone's right to be wrong.No you don't. You ridicule those of faith rather than respecting that right. Face it. You're an atheist bad person that gets his jollies ridiculing someone that believes something you find illogical.
Do you respect flat earthers and Holocaust deniers?
They can believe what they want. It's not my job to be an bad person.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 02, 2016, 02:25:50 PM
Post by: Asteriskhead on February 02, 2016, 02:26:19 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 02, 2016, 02:29:39 PM
I think we're arguing two different topics. But whatevs. What if the fed gave the states a hw assignment and said get it done?
The idea that state's would be better to act alone on problems that are trying to go after worldwide/nationwide change sounds dumb to me. Maybe USA doesn't need to do those things tho. Maybe Cali should partner up with China
From where does the federal govt get the power to demand hw from a state govt?
State's don't necessarily have to be better to act alone. The point is that in America, they have the freedom to act alone and we the freedom to live where we wish and change those laws as nercessary. If you want to live where a huge central government directs every aspect of your life, renounce your citizenship and move to China or Cuba.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 02, 2016, 02:32:53 PM
Post by: mocat on February 02, 2016, 02:33:48 PM
Yeah, they just count the lives saved instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Which of those lives were saved by making the cars lighter?
please indicate the point in time when cars became lighter and lighter
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/U.S._traffic_deaths_as_fraction_of_total_population_1900-2010.png/1024px-U.S._traffic_deaths_as_fraction_of_total_population_1900-2010.png)
Post by: ChiComCat on February 02, 2016, 02:39:37 PM
I think we're arguing two different topics. But whatevs. What if the fed gave the states a hw assignment and said get it done?
The idea that state's would be better to act alone on problems that are trying to go after worldwide/nationwide change sounds dumb to me. Maybe USA doesn't need to do those things tho. Maybe Cali should partner up with China
From where does the federal govt get the power to demand hw from a state govt?
State's don't necessarily have to be better to act alone. The point is that in America, they have the freedom to act alone and we the freedom to live where we wish and change those laws as nercessary. If you want to live where a huge central government directs every aspect of your life, renounce your citizenship and move to China or Cuba.
Am I allowed to take the highway system to the airport?
Only if it's to ease your move to Cuba you Marxist
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 02, 2016, 02:54:04 PM
I think we're arguing two different topics. But whatevs. What if the fed gave the states a hw assignment and said get it done?
The idea that state's would be better to act alone on problems that are trying to go after worldwide/nationwide change sounds dumb to me. Maybe USA doesn't need to do those things tho. Maybe Cali should partner up with China
From where does the federal govt get the power to demand hw from a state govt?
State's don't necessarily have to be better to act alone. The point is that in America, they have the freedom to act alone and we the freedom to live where we wish and change those laws as nercessary. If you want to live where a huge central government directs every aspect of your life, renounce your citizenship and move to China or Cuba.
The good news is that China has suspended their "one child" policy.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 02, 2016, 02:56:20 PM
please indicate the point in time when cars became lighter and lighter
"A National Research Council report found that the standards implemented in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993. A Harvard Center for Risk Analysis study found that CAFE standards led to 2,200 to 3,900 additional fatalities to motorists per year. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's 2007 data show a correlation of about 250-500 fatalities per year per MPG."
Post by: Ptolemy on February 02, 2016, 02:59:09 PM
The good news is that China has suspended their "one child" policy.
Now they can have 2 - might slow the infanticide of little girls some, but it's a looming disaster for them.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 02, 2016, 02:59:19 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmemecrunch.com%2Fmeme%2F89F1%2Fsuper-troopers%2Fimage.png&hash=51279153d95317bec7ee09147fc1c17d3f073e4e)
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 02, 2016, 03:00:26 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 02, 2016, 03:08:50 PM
So cars are roughly twice as safe since the CAFE standards were implemented, then?
No.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 02, 2016, 03:16:33 PM
So cars are roughly twice as safe since the CAFE standards were implemented, then?
No.
What do you base that on?
Post by: Ptolemy on February 02, 2016, 03:31:14 PM
What do you base that on?
"A National Research Council report found that the standards implemented in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993. A Harvard Center for Risk Analysis study found that CAFE standards led to 2,200 to 3,900 additional fatalities to motorists per year. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's 2007 data show a correlation of about 250-500 fatalities per year per MPG."
Cars being made safer by better engineering does not excuse the reasoning behind CAFE standards. There is no need for CAFE standards and there are clearly measurable costs in human life.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 02, 2016, 04:06:14 PM
What do you base that on?
"A National Research Council report found that the standards implemented in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993. A Harvard Center for Risk Analysis study found that CAFE standards led to 2,200 to 3,900 additional fatalities to motorists per year. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's 2007 data show a correlation of about 250-500 fatalities per year per MPG."
Cars being made safer by better engineering does not excuse the reasoning behind CAFE standards. There is no need for CAFE standards and there are clearly measurable costs in human life.
Yes, because when I get in a car wreck, I want the vehicle hitting me to have as much momentum as possible.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 02, 2016, 04:10:24 PM
Yeah, they just count the lives saved instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Which of those lives were saved by making the cars lighter?
Which of them weren't?
Post by: Trim on February 02, 2016, 04:14:31 PM
Post by: chum1 on February 02, 2016, 04:58:14 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 02, 2016, 06:19:24 PM
Yes, because when I get in a car wreck, I want the vehicle hitting me to have as much momentum as possible.
So using your logic, we will end the concussion problem in football by removing the players' helmets!
Post by: Institutional Control on February 03, 2016, 07:49:42 AM
Yes, because when I get in a car wreck, I want the vehicle hitting me to have as much momentum as possible.
So using your logic, we will end the concussion problem in football by removing the players' helmets!
Already been though of. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/01/08/the-counter-intuitive-idea-that-could-drastically-reduce-head-injuries-in-football/
Post by: Ptolemy on February 03, 2016, 07:59:10 AM
Already been though of. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/01/08/the-counter-intuitive-idea-that-could-drastically-reduce-head-injuries-in-football/
...and the equivalent to auto crashes is we all must drive in wind-up aluminum cans in order to "save the planet" and make road oopsies less death-causing.
Post by: michigancat on February 03, 2016, 08:10:33 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 03, 2016, 08:15:48 AM
Already been though of. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/01/08/the-counter-intuitive-idea-that-could-drastically-reduce-head-injuries-in-football/
...and the equivalent to auto crashes is we all must drive in wind-up aluminum cans in order to "save the planet" and make road oopsies less death-causing.
:lol:
Post by: mocat on February 03, 2016, 08:30:15 AM
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 03, 2016, 08:50:39 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 03, 2016, 03:48:58 PM
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 03, 2016, 05:49:48 PM
Super delegates vote for whomever they want to, all of the major candidates have some number of super delegates that are committed to backing their guy or gal. Anyone who is saying she already has that many committed super delegates is simply guessing though and I would seriously wonder what their bullshit motivation is.
It was on some news broadcast last night. Not sure which one.