JFLNYC wrote:

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?

Our ruling

Romney said it took the president 14 days before he called the Libya attack terror.

In fact, Obama described it in those terms the day after the attack. But in the days that followed, neither he nor all the members of his administration spoke consistently on the subject. There were many suggestions that the attack was part of demonstrations over an American-made video that disparaged Islam.

We rate the statement Half True.

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.

Werthless wrote:...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....

Visualizing Vastness

What makes subjects like biology and climate science so hard is not just that they involve so many variables; it’s that the crucial phenomena in them occur over such a wide range of scales. Biologists need to contend with everything from nano-size DNA molecules on up to cells, organs, organisms and ecosystems. For climate scientists the relevant scales go from the molecular (the photochemistry of ozone) to the global (the fluid mechanics of the jet stream). Many of the great scientific puzzles of our time have this multiscale character.

....A contentious example, especially in this election season, is inequality. The distribution of wealth in the United States spans at least 10 powers of 10, ranging from people whose net worth is measured in tens of billions of dollars, to those with barely a dollar to their names. This disparity dwarfs even the six powers of 10 in the solar system. As such, the distribution is extremely difficult to depict on a single graph, at least on the standard kinds of plots with linear axes, which is why you never see it displayed on one page.

Depending on your politics, you may think that wealth inequality is a problem to be solved, or irrelevant, or an encouraging sign of a free society. But whether you believe we need more inequality or less, I think we can all agree that it would be helpful to understand the actual distribution. Unfortunately its multiscale character confounds us.

Bucky wrote:it's not just that, though. The US is on the opposite arc right now. Heck, people are banning soda and trans fats. not a good climate to try to UN ban stuff that many feel is bad for the human body.

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.

"Politicians don't like to admit they don't have control over everything," says Daniel Weiss, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a non-partisan advocacy group that favors a clean-energy agenda.

"A non-answer probably reflects the complexity of the issue," adds Branko Terzic, a former commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who now heads the Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions. He says prices also vary within the United States because of localized conditions such as oil supply, refinery capacity and transportation.

"High gasoline prices in California are due to a fire at a major oil refinery and a power failure — not a lack of oil," says Weiss, adding Romney's "drill, baby, drill" proposals may boost domestic supply but won't necessarily bring down gas prices. "Even though Canada produces nearly all of its oil, it too had high gasoline prices this year due to high worldwide oil prices."

Warszawa wrote:

"Politicians don't like to admit they don't have control over everything," says Daniel Weiss, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a non-partisan advocacy group that favors a clean-energy agenda.

"A non-answer probably reflects the complexity of the issue," adds Branko Terzic, a former commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who now heads the Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions. He says prices also vary within the United States because of localized conditions such as oil supply, refinery capacity and transportation.

"High gasoline prices in California are due to a fire at a major oil refinery and a power failure — not a lack of oil," says Weiss, adding Romney's "drill, baby, drill" proposals may boost domestic supply but won't necessarily bring down gas prices. "Even though Canada produces nearly all of its oil, it too had high gasoline prices this year due to high worldwide oil prices."

cut & paste everywhere

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.

CalvinBall wrote:west chester will now fine you if they catch you throwing a cigarette butt onto the ground. 100 dollars.

my dad was the only one who voted against it.

Bucky wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:west chester will now fine you if they catch you throwing a cigarette butt onto the ground. 100 dollars.

my dad was the only one who voted against it.

I applaud this legislation

Why did your dad vote nay

Warszawa wrote:

"Politicians don't like to admit they don't have control over everything," says Daniel Weiss, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a non-partisan advocacy group that favors a clean-energy agenda.

"A non-answer probably reflects the complexity of the issue," adds Branko Terzic, a former commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who now heads the Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions. He says prices also vary within the United States because of localized conditions such as oil supply, refinery capacity and transportation.

"High gasoline prices in California are due to a fire at a major oil refinery and a power failure — not a lack of oil," says Weiss, adding Romney's "drill, baby, drill" proposals may boost domestic supply but won't necessarily bring down gas prices. "Even though Canada produces nearly all of its oil, it too had high gasoline prices this year due to high worldwide oil prices."

cut & paste everywhere