not sure if i posted this before, but this was a really great read: GOP Mogul Behind Drug Rehab 'Torture' Centers Is Bankrolling Opposition to Pot Legalization in Colorado

this issue is related to why our prisons are so constantly full and have been for the last couple decades. mass incarceration is big business now

pacino wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:

pacino wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:Agreed on principle. But realistically, anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama because of this alone is probably too much a pothead to remember to make it to the polls anyway.

Right, it just irks me that states have a democratic process in place, whether it be ballot initative, referendum, etc., and the Feds just swoop in and ends it right there. People who really could use it suffer, and its a shame.

What's also a shame is that both parties are prisoners to the big pharma lobby, and of course marijuana is a huge threat and competition for them so it makes sense.

i agree as for some cancer patients and chronic pain patients it is the ONLY thing that truly helps; however, i am less for medical marijuana as a permanent thing and more for it as a step in teh door to just full legalization. i just don't care if you want to get blitzed drinking EW and coke zero or a bong.

Agree 100% with this. Change occurs at a snails place in the U.S., so in my mind the first step is fully legalize medicinal. If it was up to me the Drug War would end yesterday.

yes. it seems to me that much of the american public votes conservative economically, even if i dont agree, so the republican party would be wise to disband itself from its super right-wing religious element and just dominate our politics. but, they try to rile up the base with social issues and alienate a lot of young voters who may not agree with more liberal economic views. i just dont get why they do that???? i'm a liberal, but i know lots of younger (under 35) voters that would vote republican if they didn't have so many damned anti-drug and anti-gay politicians in power.

Exactly. Keep in mind I'm a Republican. I'm much more libertarian oriented and barely agree with anything my Party says anymore. Its been hijacked by neo-conservatives with an absurd foreign agenda, and by religious zealots who are a disgrace. Pretty frustrating stuff.

Roger Dorn wrote:

pacino wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:

pacino wrote:

Roger Dorn wrote:

kimbatiste wrote:Agreed on principle. But realistically, anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama because of this alone is probably too much a pothead to remember to make it to the polls anyway.

Right, it just irks me that states have a democratic process in place, whether it be ballot initative, referendum, etc., and the Feds just swoop in and ends it right there. People who really could use it suffer, and its a shame.

What's also a shame is that both parties are prisoners to the big pharma lobby, and of course marijuana is a huge threat and competition for them so it makes sense.

i agree as for some cancer patients and chronic pain patients it is the ONLY thing that truly helps; however, i am less for medical marijuana as a permanent thing and more for it as a step in teh door to just full legalization. i just don't care if you want to get blitzed drinking EW and coke zero or a bong.

Agree 100% with this. Change occurs at a snails place in the U.S., so in my mind the first step is fully legalize medicinal. If it was up to me the Drug War would end yesterday.

yes. it seems to me that much of the american public votes conservative economically, even if i dont agree, so the republican party would be wise to disband itself from its super right-wing religious element and just dominate our politics. but, they try to rile up the base with social issues and alienate a lot of young voters who may not agree with more liberal economic views. i just dont get why they do that???? i'm a liberal, but i know lots of younger (under 35) voters that would vote republican if they didn't have so many damned anti-drug and anti-gay politicians in power.

Exactly. Keep in mind I'm a Republican. I'm much more libertarian oriented and barely agree with anything my Party says anymore. Its been hijacked by neo-conservatives with an absurd foreign agenda, and by religious zealots who are a disgrace. Pretty frustrating stuff.

as a liberal, i said that i'd be more 'scared' politically of a guy like gary johnson than mitt romney. johnson is a serious politician who does not get bogged down by social issues because he's a modern man. if the republican party were to truly wise up to the werthless/johnson/dorn/etc style of thinking, i do think the democratic party would have a tough time because the US isn't 'centre-right' period, but it does appear to be anecdotally centre-right economically. people like to be equal and fair but also want to spend their own money, regardless of how they think it may help people or not. it's the job of us liberals to explain how it helps everyone. it's just we don't have that chance since we have to fight on these crazy social issues and not even try to sway our own leaders to the liberal economic views.

i mean, to suggest that the president is an economic liberal seems a little specious. but he's a social liberal, sans drugs.

I don't know--social conservatives are a huge part of the Republican rank and file. The Huckabee types aren't going for Gary Johnson, and there are a lot of people who take the God stuff seriously. Reagan's ability to unite social conservatives with free market types is what leads to Republican success. Free market types couldn't win on their own. Also, it's important to note that at least since Goldwater, free market types have been allied with those favoring an aggressive foreign policy.

TenuredVulture wrote:I don't know--social conservatives are a huge part of the Republican rank and file. The Huckabee types aren't going for Gary Johnson, and there are a lot of people who take the God stuff seriously. Reagan's ability to unite social conservatives with free market types is what leads to Republican success. Free market types couldn't win on their own. Also, it's important to note that at least since Goldwater, free market types have been allied with those favoring an aggressive foreign policy.

where would they go, then, though???? some 3rd party that in our system would have no say and then elect the very type of people they seem to think are the devil-incarnate??

mozartpc27 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:In this case, what I meant my wife would eat you for lunch on was the premise that "men feel more of a biological imperative to work 80 hour weeks to be the provider, and that women often feel an imperative to spend more time with their family," not the existence or non-existence of a gender gap. Although I am sure she would be quite happy to take you up on that as well.

Surveys lie? I'm talking about averages, not your wife. I'd laugh if your wife tried to use herself as an example to argue against a statistical average. "Men are usually taller than women? Well, how come I'm taller than you? Ha, you're wrong!"

Thanks dog, you've insulted my wife's intelligence without having spoken to her. And speaking of laughing at somebody, you've wilfully missed, for the second time, the main thrust of my point: your assertion that "men feel more of a biological imperative to work 80 hour weeks to be the provider, and that women often feel an imperative to spend more time with their family" is based in nothing but your own emotional opinion of how gender roles work, and in no research whatsoever.

But while you can set up a strawman argument that my wife has not (and would not) present and "laugh" at her for it, you refuse to acknowledge that or take ownership of it.

Very manly, actually. Sad to say.

Sorry I offended you and your wife. That was obviously not my intent. There were strings of posts, and I tried to just quote the parts of the posts that I was responding to.

I cited statistics from surveys, that on average, men care more about money and work longer hours on average as "evidence" (I'm not sure what you mean it's not based on research... maybe you missed that post) that the decisions men and women make affect average incomes. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted the argument that "your wife would wipe the floor with me on that point." I tried to anticipate what you were saying, but I obviously guessed wrong on how your wife would wipe the floor with me on that issue. Care to set the record straight and share on how she would do that then?

pacino wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I don't know--social conservatives are a huge part of the Republican rank and file. The Huckabee types aren't going for Gary Johnson, and there are a lot of people who take the God stuff seriously. Reagan's ability to unite social conservatives with free market types is what leads to Republican success. Free market types couldn't win on their own. Also, it's important to note that at least since Goldwater, free market types have been allied with those favoring an aggressive foreign policy.

where would they go, then, though???? some 3rd party that in our system would have no say and then elect the very type of people they seem to think are the devil-incarnate??

They might stay home. If you look at at the history, there was nothing inevitable about the Reagan coalition--social conservatives voted for Carter in large numbers in 1976. Had he used a few extra helicopters, we might be here talking about how Carter breathed new life into the New Deal coalition, healing America of its racial divisions in the process.

so he likes two good songs, Jump Around and The Way You Look Tonight. nice

The Economist is always on about the great thing about a two party system is that it forces both parties, but particularly the "out" party (they speak in context of UK Parliament, but it's sort of translatable to the US), to the center. The idea goes that the out party in particular, after spending enough time out, will eventually do whatever it takes - change their ideas, move.to the center, etc. Witness New Labour in 1997, and, supposedly, the Conservative party now.

My pet theory, though, is that, in an entrenched two party system, like this one, the "out" party really has no incentive to be as strident in their positions as possible - because eventually, during some election cycle, the people will either be frustrated enough with unfavorable conditions, or simply bored enough of more of the same, that they will vote for the other guy, no matter what the other guy is saying.

The US's division of government among three branches kind of throws a wrench in this (thank god), because there are three branches and usually one party is not out from all 3, and when they are they rarely go back in to power at all 3 branches simultaneously. I'd be interested to see this theory tested in say the UK however - particularly because I don't live there.

i greatly prefer the UK/canadian system. you elect a government, they get a coalition, they put their ideas in, and they succeed or fail and then voters decide on if they think it worked or not.

Youseff wrote:

Werthless wrote:"President Obama, education is the gateway to future success. In recent years, women are 60% more likely to have earned an undergrad degree by age 23 than men, and single, childless women make 8% more money in their 20s than their male counterparts. What policies will you support to help men close this education gap?"

Can you imagine if some 25 year old guy asked this at the town hall, the outcry from liberals. This would be an absurd question, even though both facts are true. And now suppose they exaggerated the statistic to make it look like a bigger issue. Oh boy.

I'm looking forward to reading Werthless' ponderings of how offensive it would be if we had a White History month.

The other 11 months are white history month.

td11 wrote:i think moz was fine, sheriff. i was looking forward to werthless' response

I think pages 47-50 of the last thread speak for themselves. You'll notice in my post that said "People don't understand regression...." it was in direct reply to a post by moz that ends with "People have such entrenched, yet totally unresearched or backed up by any facts at all, opinions on gender and the "biology" of maleness and femaleness." I mean, I had already cited the research and facts behind my statement. I could only assume that he thought they were invalid. Calvin's subsequent posts about "it doesnt matter if the pay gap is true or not, but people believe it is" sums up where I believe moz is. I believe the truth DOES matter. It matters when people foolishly assert that Obama is Muslim, or not a citizen, and it matters that people believe that a pay gap of 72% has external causes that need legislation to correct.

I'm sorry I resurrected this matter tonight, but I felt that Moz was mischaracterizing what I said. Thanks burton and dude for trying to defend my intent. I try to be straightforward when presenting an argument, and I dont care about offending people for my position. But I dont want moz or others thinking my position is that I dislike his wife, or think I'm smarter than her, or think she doesnt work hard, or anything else. I know nothing about his wife except that he believes she would mop the floor with me based on my post.

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:In another matter:

jerseyhoya wrote:One more thread like the last two, and Romney should be the president of the United States in 95 days.

If the Republican party takes its lead from yourself and Werthless, and treats the wage gap issue with a sort of sneering condescension, let me assure you that we will be celebrating Obama's 2nd inaugural in 95 days. Fortunately for you guys, you'll notice that Romney was much less contemptuous of the question than either of you.

It was an inaccurate question based on a faulty premise. I'm not running for anything or trying to get anyone to vote for me.

If I was in the debate, I'm not not dumb enough to answer that question by trying to explain the nuances of why the gender gap does not require government action. I'm not an idiot. I only do this on the internet. In real life, I don't talk politics with strangers and co-workers, and do a lot of head nodding when crazy liberals and crazy conservatives engage me in conversation.

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:the woman whining about the horseshit 'fact' of women making 72% of men

In the interest of full disclosure, when I repeated the essence of this question to my wife (who did not watch the debate), she called the woman who asked it "stupid." Not that she doesn't strongly disagree with the premise that there is no income disparity between men and women (leaving the reasons for that disparity aside, please), but she was apparently as aggravated as jh that this woman said 72 and not 78.

And me, I'd cut slack to regular folks on getting numbers like that right. But jh, my wife: these are hard people.

I'd probably get along quite well with your wife. I also dislike stupid people.

i also dont talk politics in real life outside of my family.

Werthless wrote:I'd probably get along quite well with your wife. I also dislike stupid people.

Stupid people in general or all stupid people?

Werthless wrote:
My wife makes more than me, but I predict that in 10-15 years, I'll earn more than her due to the choices that we'll make in raising a family.

docsmooth wrote:I predict there's at least a 40% chance you're incorrect about you making more than your spouse in 10-15 years

My wife makes around 30% more than me. The fact that you set the line at 40% instead of the 70% or so that our earnings gap would suggest indicates that you agree with my overall comment, that the decisions surrounding child raising affect the earnings of men and women unequally. I'm encouraging my wife to work (I like saving a little more money for our kid's future astronomical college costs), but it's not me who feels depressed going back to work after leave. It certainly didnt help that ALL of her female co-workers gave her the handy advice "You WILL cry leaving your kid. Everyday."

(Sorry for all these posts in a row. Overall, I've been enjoying the participation in these threads lately.)

wish they still drawled that good

yes, fdr. anytime i hear him, i get half a chub.

wish politicians still talked like that, too.



btw, fdr was smiling too much! very rude!!!