Hey, consider this: Amazon may be setting itself up to be the legit Silk Road for recreational cannabis. Think about it! Home growers could have a retail channel that includes the entire US, dragging the industry into legitimacy. Talk about a grass-roots movement... With the new laws in Colorado and Washington, there will be a market starting in January.
Now, no one at Amazon has even suggested such a thing (as far as I know), but I found it an interesting coincidence that this wine-selling program started to make headlines in a big way immediately on the heels of the election. Even if it isn't intentional, this would be (or rather, WILL be) a massive revenue stream for the first company to offer such a service, and Amazon will have this wine business experience to work out the kinks in state-by-state deliveries.
He already released the last two years, idiot. Obviously, he's paid, despite Harry Reid's slander.
I haven't seen any evidence to support your claim, but I certainly look forward to finding out! From my point of view, the people who supposedly have these documents should be prosecuted when they are inevitably caught; on the other hand, I also think they will have done a service to the people of the United States if they can leak the info first.
Civil disobedience is about risking imprisonment. I wish I had the nerve to do more of it.
True, they grew hemp: a non-psychoactive strain of the cannabis we all know an love. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't strong evidence one way or another on the topic of Founding Tokers.
Congress shut down Obama's attempts to close Gitmo and forbade him from using any federal funds to do just about anything with it. While I wish he'd tried harder, he did attempt it. I'd be more concerned about the continued NSA wiretapping.
The President is not a dictator. People tend to radically overestimate how much the President can really do.
He could sit on his hands and not approve any legislation until it was shut down. Perhaps he would get overridden from time to time, but it would send a clear message.
Here's an idea, Congress not passing any legislation in protest of the President not approving any legislation!
My impression of Congress over the last four years is that they have already taken that measure preemptively.
...or it suggests that mice with stronger immune systems are more inclined to be promiscuous.
Granted, the hypothesis suggested in TFA is more plausible, but it's not the only possible explanation.
I don't see why your premise is less plausible. A healthier organism is more likely to attract multiple mates. It seems far more plausible to me, actually.
Drugs which severely impair judgement and have strong physically addictive properties should probably remain illegal.
I'm going to have to disagree. The people that use them can severely impair their own judgement if they want.
Of course you are. If you read very carefully all the way to the end of the sentence (that's the bit with the period at the end) you'll see that I said "impair judgement AND has strong physically addictive properties". Hardened addicts are a danger to the welfare of all those around them, thus...
but the common good is served by keeping them illegal.
What common good? The one where people ignore the laws that restrict them and use the drugs anyway? The one where police bust into the wrong homes and murder families because of the drug war?
... my assertion about the common good. The fact that the concept of a common good is outside your pantheon isn't terribly surprising, but sometimes we can significantly improve the health, safety and well-being of the many by narrowly curtailing the rights of a few. It's a delicate balance, and I won't claim to have all the answers, but a chaotic free-for-all society is no society at all.
Evidence can be believed - as long as it is scientifically verifiable. Otherwise it isn't evidence. Historical evidence is based on (among other things) documentation, photography/video and eyewitness testimony. All of these things can be tested scientifically, therefore "historical" evidence is not distinct from scientific evidence. Your dogmatic assertion that your god wrote the bible is tiresome. Men wrote that book, and the predictions of men are sometimes correct - it isn't evidence of a deity even if you refuse to accept it. In fact, there is a rich, well-documented history of the origins and numerous translations of the bible across the centuries. Unless you read Greek and Hebrew, you aren't even reading the original text (whatever your beliefs about the "original" author).
To put it another way, in the words of the esteemed Lionel Hutz, "We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."
I'm also not interested in your banal predictions about an afterlife, because (as with all your other arguments) it is unknowable. It is unknowable. Just in case I haven't made an impression on this point, it is unknowable. Please consult a professional theologist if the concept still remains unclear. In any case, I personally think the threat of hellfire is absurd. If a person does the "right" thing only out of fear of torture, it demonstrates nothing about their character except a fear of personal pain.
As I said before, I'm not interested in challenging your faith (although you seem intent on hammering it into me). It surprises me a little how poorly you seem to grasp both science and faith. Jesus said to pray in private. I would personally be grateful if you'd listen to the guy.
I won't be responding again so if you feel the desperate, prideful need to have the last word, now is the time.
Yes, jail for marijuana use is too much. No, not all drugs should be legalized.
Name the drug that you think should be kept illegal, and I will explain to you why it should be legalized.
Drugs which severely impair judgement and have strong physically addictive properties should probably remain illegal. Examples include cocaine/crack, heroin, and methamphetamine. I don't judge the morality of users of these drugs, but the common good is served by keeping them illegal.
On the other hand, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, and cannabis are classic examples of drugs which should be legal, in my opinion.
I appreciate your sincerity, but none of this is evidence of God in the scientific sense. I wouldn't attempt to dissuade you from your faith, but the Bible is made up of words written on a page by man. God doesn't pick up a pen, it doesn't leave fingerprints. An article of faith isn't objective evidence - in fact, faith is belief without evidence. That is simply the definition. With evidence, faith is not required. They are distinct, separate, non-intersecting concepts in unrelated fields.
Which is fine! One can be proud of one's faith, celebrate it. The unknowable is fascinating and compelling. But don't try to make it into something it isn't. Claiming articles of faith as evidence (it seems to me) is an insult to faith.
Nothing is ever “proved” in any human endeavor, except perhaps mathematical proofs. Evidences no matter how much or how numerous, can only be either believed or disbelieved. There is plenty of evidence that God does indeed exist, but that does not prove he does. Either way, you either have to believe the evidence or disbelieve. There is no proof. There are people today who will refuse to believe that any human being ever stood on the moon or that the Holocaust ever happened, despite all of the evidence.
I'm not aware of any evidence of the existence (or non-existence) of God, whereas evidence of the Holocaust exists in video, photographs, documents, and first-hand eyewitness accounts. Certainly one can choose to disbelieve, but denial of proof doesn't negate the proof.
A person might say the sunrise is evidence of God, but as far as science is concerned it's only evidence of gravity and orbits and... you know, testable physical phenomenon. As far as I am aware, God is inherently untestable in this way because it's a non-corporeal phenomenon. According to my best understanding it is a phenomenon that exists outside of both time and space, in fact.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against faith, but faith doesn't have any impact on evidence. They are not intersecting concepts. I would be very interested to hear some specific examples of what you mean by "evidence that God does indeed exist".
the Generals are well-trained killers and they're protected by well-trained killers as well, so those different scenarios are not exactly equivalent.
Is there an exception to the law that prohibits making threats as long as you're only threatening someone who has the ability to fight back? Fascinating.
there are homeless people all over the city who are just as delusional as this guy. Are you going to force medication on them "just in case" they actually do something illegal?
No, but if they had access to mental health treatment they might not be on the street anymore.
WHAT? You mean that a country with a huge pornography addiction, widespread promiscuity, high STD infection rates, is "puritanical"?
Pretty much exactly, yes. Those things you mention are extreme reactions against a largely puritanical society (well, the high STD [and teen pregnancy] rates are a result of poor-to-nil sex education because Sex Is Evil).
... there is certainly a slippery slope here if you start classifying certain political beliefs, even extreme (truthers etc) as a sign of insanity in and of itself.
Delusion is a symptom of mental illness even if the delusion is "political". This isn't about political speech, it's about individuals who are not cognitively secured to objective reality. On the other hand, if that alone was enough to submit someone to psychological evaluation, the House floor would have to be reclassified as a mental disaster area.
Come to think of it, is there a requirement for elected officials in the US to submit to such evaluation? It's not a terrible idea...
As numerous sources have pointed out, his proposals do not work mathematically.
Ryan's do though.
Defend this nonsense. Ryan refuses to specify key parts of his plan, so for you to claim it works mathematically is a statement of outrageous ignorance or a commonplace lie.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, consider this: Amazon may be setting itself up to be the legit Silk Road for recreational cannabis. Think about it! Home growers could have a retail channel that includes the entire US, dragging the industry into legitimacy. Talk about a grass-roots movement... With the new laws in Colorado and Washington, there will be a market starting in January.
Now, no one at Amazon has even suggested such a thing (as far as I know), but I found it an interesting coincidence that this wine-selling program started to make headlines in a big way immediately on the heels of the election. Even if it isn't intentional, this would be (or rather, WILL be) a massive revenue stream for the first company to offer such a service, and Amazon will have this wine business experience to work out the kinks in state-by-state deliveries.
I'm hopeful.
He already released the last two years, idiot. Obviously, he's paid, despite Harry Reid's slander.
I haven't seen any evidence to support your claim, but I certainly look forward to finding out! From my point of view, the people who supposedly have these documents should be prosecuted when they are inevitably caught; on the other hand, I also think they will have done a service to the people of the United States if they can leak the info first.
Civil disobedience is about risking imprisonment. I wish I had the nerve to do more of it.
Weren't Washington and Jefferson hemp growers?
True, they grew hemp: a non-psychoactive strain of the cannabis we all know an love. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't strong evidence one way or another on the topic of Founding Tokers.
I'd rather have a post than a funny mod - and I got both! =D So thank YOU sir, for making my morning.
Congress shut down Obama's attempts to close Gitmo and forbade him from using any federal funds to do just about anything with it. While I wish he'd tried harder, he did attempt it. I'd be more concerned about the continued NSA wiretapping.
The President is not a dictator. People tend to radically overestimate how much the President can really do.
He could sit on his hands and not approve any legislation until it was shut down. Perhaps he would get overridden from time to time, but it would send a clear message.
Here's an idea, Congress not passing any legislation in protest of the President not approving any legislation!
My impression of Congress over the last four years is that they have already taken that measure preemptively.
Yeah, let's see the White House hydroponic set up in the grow room. Nothing but the best kind for these guys
What would be the point? Everyone knows the president doesn't inhale.
No... you're thinking of the FIRST first black president.
...or it suggests that mice with stronger immune systems are more inclined to be promiscuous.
Granted, the hypothesis suggested in TFA is more plausible, but it's not the only possible explanation.
I don't see why your premise is less plausible. A healthier organism is more likely to attract multiple mates. It seems far more plausible to me, actually.
Drugs which severely impair judgement and have strong physically addictive properties should probably remain illegal.
I'm going to have to disagree. The people that use them can severely impair their own judgement if they want.
Of course you are. If you read very carefully all the way to the end of the sentence (that's the bit with the period at the end) you'll see that I said "impair judgement AND has strong physically addictive properties". Hardened addicts are a danger to the welfare of all those around them, thus...
but the common good is served by keeping them illegal.
What common good? The one where people ignore the laws that restrict them and use the drugs anyway? The one where police bust into the wrong homes and murder families because of the drug war?
... my assertion about the common good. The fact that the concept of a common good is outside your pantheon isn't terribly surprising, but sometimes we can significantly improve the health, safety and well-being of the many by narrowly curtailing the rights of a few. It's a delicate balance, and I won't claim to have all the answers, but a chaotic free-for-all society is no society at all.
Evidence can be believed - as long as it is scientifically verifiable. Otherwise it isn't evidence. Historical evidence is based on (among other things) documentation, photography/video and eyewitness testimony. All of these things can be tested scientifically, therefore "historical" evidence is not distinct from scientific evidence. Your dogmatic assertion that your god wrote the bible is tiresome. Men wrote that book, and the predictions of men are sometimes correct - it isn't evidence of a deity even if you refuse to accept it. In fact, there is a rich, well-documented history of the origins and numerous translations of the bible across the centuries. Unless you read Greek and Hebrew, you aren't even reading the original text (whatever your beliefs about the "original" author).
To put it another way, in the words of the esteemed Lionel Hutz, "We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."
I'm also not interested in your banal predictions about an afterlife, because (as with all your other arguments) it is unknowable. It is unknowable. Just in case I haven't made an impression on this point, it is unknowable. Please consult a professional theologist if the concept still remains unclear. In any case, I personally think the threat of hellfire is absurd. If a person does the "right" thing only out of fear of torture, it demonstrates nothing about their character except a fear of personal pain.
As I said before, I'm not interested in challenging your faith (although you seem intent on hammering it into me). It surprises me a little how poorly you seem to grasp both science and faith. Jesus said to pray in private. I would personally be grateful if you'd listen to the guy.
I won't be responding again so if you feel the desperate, prideful need to have the last word, now is the time.
Yes, jail for marijuana use is too much. No, not all drugs should be legalized.
Name the drug that you think should be kept illegal, and I will explain to you why it should be legalized.
Drugs which severely impair judgement and have strong physically addictive properties should probably remain illegal. Examples include cocaine/crack, heroin, and methamphetamine. I don't judge the morality of users of these drugs, but the common good is served by keeping them illegal.
On the other hand, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, and cannabis are classic examples of drugs which should be legal, in my opinion.
Yeah, but if you use marihuana once, you won't be able to stop and will do it more than once a day. After all, It is a drug
You don't have to tell me about the dangers of drugs. I've had an asprin habit for years.
I appreciate your sincerity, but none of this is evidence of God in the scientific sense. I wouldn't attempt to dissuade you from your faith, but the Bible is made up of words written on a page by man. God doesn't pick up a pen, it doesn't leave fingerprints. An article of faith isn't objective evidence - in fact, faith is belief without evidence. That is simply the definition. With evidence, faith is not required. They are distinct, separate, non-intersecting concepts in unrelated fields.
Which is fine! One can be proud of one's faith, celebrate it. The unknowable is fascinating and compelling. But don't try to make it into something it isn't. Claiming articles of faith as evidence (it seems to me) is an insult to faith.
'potential sales' are a widely-accepted concept in economics
So is supply-side theory. Wide acceptance doesn't really imply validity.
Nothing is ever “proved” in any human endeavor, except perhaps mathematical proofs. Evidences no matter how much or how numerous, can only be either believed or disbelieved. There is plenty of evidence that God does indeed exist, but that does not prove he does. Either way, you either have to believe the evidence or disbelieve. There is no proof. There are people today who will refuse to believe that any human being ever stood on the moon or that the Holocaust ever happened, despite all of the evidence.
I'm not aware of any evidence of the existence (or non-existence) of God, whereas evidence of the Holocaust exists in video, photographs, documents, and first-hand eyewitness accounts. Certainly one can choose to disbelieve, but denial of proof doesn't negate the proof.
A person might say the sunrise is evidence of God, but as far as science is concerned it's only evidence of gravity and orbits and... you know, testable physical phenomenon. As far as I am aware, God is inherently untestable in this way because it's a non-corporeal phenomenon. According to my best understanding it is a phenomenon that exists outside of both time and space, in fact.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against faith, but faith doesn't have any impact on evidence. They are not intersecting concepts. I would be very interested to hear some specific examples of what you mean by "evidence that God does indeed exist".
the Generals are well-trained killers and they're protected by well-trained killers as well, so those different scenarios are not exactly equivalent.
Is there an exception to the law that prohibits making threats as long as you're only threatening someone who has the ability to fight back? Fascinating.
"The guy seriously believes..."
As long as it's just believing, why would anyone care?
Do people who believe in angels also need help?
No - only the ones who threaten "angels" with axe murder the way this guy threatened military personnel (although not a specific individual).
there are homeless people all over the city who are just as delusional as this guy. Are you going to force medication on them "just in case" they actually do something illegal?
No, but if they had access to mental health treatment they might not be on the street anymore.
WHAT? You mean that a country with a huge pornography addiction, widespread promiscuity, high STD infection rates, is "puritanical"?
Pretty much exactly, yes. Those things you mention are extreme reactions against a largely puritanical society (well, the high STD [and teen pregnancy] rates are a result of poor-to-nil sex education because Sex Is Evil).
... there is certainly a slippery slope here if you start classifying certain political beliefs, even extreme (truthers etc) as a sign of insanity in and of itself.
Delusion is a symptom of mental illness even if the delusion is "political". This isn't about political speech, it's about individuals who are not cognitively secured to objective reality. On the other hand, if that alone was enough to submit someone to psychological evaluation, the House floor would have to be reclassified as a mental disaster area.
Come to think of it, is there a requirement for elected officials in the US to submit to such evaluation? It's not a terrible idea...
Prove that He doesn't.
"Extraordinary claims require [...] evidence."
- Reader's Digest
God = Exists
Now if we could only figure out which God.
I've got a warehouse full of cheap wine riding on Bacchus.
So he's responsible for inflicting atrocities and human suffering on a grand scale AND of an act of war?!
I don't know. His stirring rendition of Whip My Hair moved me. Deeply.
http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/video/neil-young-and-bruce-springsteen-whip-my-hair-111610/1260532/
Now if you had a mass of people wearing the same shirt and poking en masse - that would be funny!
And an excellent protest, especially if it happened in multiple airports at the same time.
As numerous sources have pointed out, his proposals do not work mathematically.
Ryan's do though.
Defend this nonsense. Ryan refuses to specify key parts of his plan, so for you to claim it works mathematically is a statement of outrageous ignorance or a commonplace lie.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/whats-in-the-ryan-plan/
Maybe not, but I can't imagine that the number of plutonium managers with experience is very large.
True - plutonium does NOT like to be managed.