> I don't even think you have a clue where and how the term "states rights" originated.
It originated with the fact that the original colonies viewed themselves as independent nations. Even now, individual states run their own affairs. The national government was never meant to micromanage things. It's supposed to be inherently limited. Even the Constitution is supposed to be limits on government (rather than an enumeration individual rights).
The original colonies were so wary of a national government that they tried and failed to set up the US as a loose confederacy.
> The actual problem is that there's no such thing as a "moderate Republican" any more, besides Susan Collins.
No. The problem is that there are no more Democrats left. They all turned into social democrats leaving those of us who aren't communists without a liberal party to vote for.
Sure. But this stuff has been going on so long that it's part of history class. Even the term gerrymander goes back to the earliest days of our republic.
That said, the fact that a state (or a voter) went for Obama and then Trump is no proof of nefarious meddling.
This idea that the system is broken because it produced a result you don't agree with is even MORE dangerous to democracy than gerrymandering.
Short of a simple geometric algorithm, any attempt to redraw districts will generate objections. Both parties will seek to alter the result to benefit them.
> a president to try to stop a mean nasty book being published
You mean libel? Individuals have had legal cause to try to punish people for libel since pretty much forever. People like to ignore this fact because they don't like the victim. If the shoe were on the other foot, they would be out for blood.
> Then I guess we can expect him to refuse to sign such a law and protect our freedoms and liberties. Which is, by the way, pretty much part of his job...
You mean like our Lord and Savior Obama did? Hell, if you can't depend on your "age of acquarius" president to do the right thing, what chance does a "mere real estate developer" have?
It's funny how the old status quo is suddenly the end of the world as soon as there's a name change at a certain address.
> An OTC drug can be perfectly safe for extended long term use -- but should only be done under a doctor's supervision.
Those two statements are inherently contradictory.
A drug by definition is meant to "mess you up". It should be pretty obvious that anything that can have a useful effect on your body will also likely disturb it as well.
Assuming that things are harmless is very dangerous.
NSAIDs aren't the thing you take for "serious" pain.
They will also destroy your other organs if you treat them like candy over long periods of time.
Pretty much any drug taken regularly will do this and you need to be under sufficient medical supervision to ensure this doesn't happen. Pretty much every drug needs to be treated as harmful by default and we tend to take the exact opposite view as a society.
It's easy to think that your entire race is at a disadvantage when you have no real clue what other people have experienced. You're woefully out of touch. You think your own experience is the norm when it is anything but.
All of the ranting and raving about how unqualified Trump was, yet he defeated the opposition party's chosen successor based on grasping simple bits from high school civics.
The "most qualified candidate ever" failed to do this.
> This while one party lobbies for social services, civil rights, gay rights, health care, immigration reform, etc., and the other stridently resists it at all turns.
So your side is virtuous and the other side is evil and the only reason you can't be more virtuous.
This is exactly the sort of unhinged nonsense that turns off the moderate liberals and independents.
Also, not everyone that's liberal is also a socialist. So lumping that kind of crap in with the liberty issues is kind of a non starter for some of us.
>> He's a trans SJW who often writes about the trials of being a female in IT. To this person ANYONE who doesn't celebrate their flavor of crazy is "far-right" and full of "hate". > > So it complains about working in IT - did I read that correctly?
I wonder if it thinks that working in IT would be all utopian and shit if only it was normal. Kind of makes me wonder why I've been wasting my life in all these crappy companies. I can pass for normal (in this one area). I wonder what I've been doing wrong all my life. =p
> Quite a lot of people react badly if you misgender them. > > If you don't believe me,
You want to comment on this nonsense and you haven't even experienced this yourself. How cute. How much of mundane little Herbert do you have to be to have managed to avoid something like that your ENTIRE life.
> You mean the same kind of hate that conservatives used to demonize and dehumanize liberals for the past 30 years? The same kind of hate that launched a concerted effort to turn the word "liberal" into a slur? That kind of hate?
Now who's peddling a "false equivalence". Calling you an idiot is not remotely the same thing as saying we should beat you up for your views. Calling you an idiot is also not the same as shouting you down, rioting when you speak, and seeking to prevent you from speaking.
You remind me of the 80s Xian fundies that tried to cry oppression.
> "hate and violence" is on the Left but then only on the "far, far right", Way to advocate for political neutrality while being completely non-neutral. > > Extremism is what defines political violence. Me telling you that probably won't change anything though.
No. Commonality is what defines extremism of any sort.
How popular and accepted is the idea "You can hit someone just because you hang some arbitrary label on them". This idea is shockingly popular amongst modern liberals.
You're trying to redefine terms to suit yourself and that's precisely the problem here. The left likes to distort terms to suit their political agenda. This includes YOU redefining the term "extremism".
While you are fixating on "fairness" you are neglecting the fact that nobody is a charity. You don't work for free. Why do you expect anyone else to.
ANY activity needs to yield a good return on investment or no one will bother. Ventures that are high risk or require a large up front investment will require a better potential upside.
While you're whining about "fairness" you're undercutting the incentives that will cause useful work to get done. That means YOU are putting lives at risk. You are undermining all future progress in medicine.
Which government is that exactly? Name ONE drug or gene therapy treatment that can be had for peanuts in another "socialist" country because the government actually did all the work.
Things don't work like that even in Europe.
It turns out that people don't work for free.
Also, governments are notoriously stingy and taxpayers everywhere complain that they pay too much.
> Good thing nobody asked you for the definition of "medicine", because it doesn't mean "a chemical".
Calling this thing a medicine really contradicts the vernacular understanding of what a medicine is. This leads to a lot of butt hurt about how expensive this procedure is when people don't fully understand that it's bespoke manufacturing for a single patient.
So yeah, calling this thing a "drug" or a "medicine" is really pretty stupid.
The point of language is communication, not getting your rocks off "sounding fancy" or being a grammar nazi.
Slashdot Mirror
> I don't even think you have a clue where and how the term "states rights" originated.
It originated with the fact that the original colonies viewed themselves as independent nations. Even now, individual states run their own affairs. The national government was never meant to micromanage things. It's supposed to be inherently limited. Even the Constitution is supposed to be limits on government (rather than an enumeration individual rights).
The original colonies were so wary of a national government that they tried and failed to set up the US as a loose confederacy.
> The actual problem is that there's no such thing as a "moderate Republican" any more, besides Susan Collins.
No. The problem is that there are no more Democrats left. They all turned into social democrats leaving those of us who aren't communists without a liberal party to vote for.
> 20m is well outside the kill zone for either. You're talking 5-10 at most.
So if we got ourselves a standard issue frag grenade you wouldn't flinch if we detonated it 20m from you then?
Sure. But this stuff has been going on so long that it's part of history class. Even the term gerrymander goes back to the earliest days of our republic.
That said, the fact that a state (or a voter) went for Obama and then Trump is no proof of nefarious meddling.
This idea that the system is broken because it produced a result you don't agree with is even MORE dangerous to democracy than gerrymandering.
Short of a simple geometric algorithm, any attempt to redraw districts will generate objections. Both parties will seek to alter the result to benefit them.
> You actually think autocratic, authoritarian Trump
That kind of silly nonsense is straight out of the Trump troll book. It's also classic Goebbels.
> a president to try to stop a mean nasty book being published
You mean libel? Individuals have had legal cause to try to punish people for libel since pretty much forever. People like to ignore this fact because they don't like the victim. If the shoe were on the other foot, they would be out for blood.
Shucks, this sounds like grounds for a good old fashioned filabuster.
Even if it fails, you can at least be on record as fighting the good fight.
You don't have to be a total accomplice and then pretend something else later.
> Then I guess we can expect him to refuse to sign such a law and protect our freedoms and liberties. Which is, by the way, pretty much part of his job...
You mean like our Lord and Savior Obama did? Hell, if you can't depend on your "age of acquarius" president to do the right thing, what chance does a "mere real estate developer" have?
It's funny how the old status quo is suddenly the end of the world as soon as there's a name change at a certain address.
My first "reality pill" regarding Obama was a FISA vote he made while a candidate. This vote violated his own campaign promises.
This rot infests both parties. Don't kid yourself. Crap like this can't persist otherwise.
> An OTC drug can be perfectly safe for extended long term use -- but should only be done under a doctor's supervision.
Those two statements are inherently contradictory.
A drug by definition is meant to "mess you up". It should be pretty obvious that anything that can have a useful effect on your body will also likely disturb it as well.
Assuming that things are harmless is very dangerous.
NSAIDs aren't the thing you take for "serious" pain.
They will also destroy your other organs if you treat them like candy over long periods of time.
Pretty much any drug taken regularly will do this and you need to be under sufficient medical supervision to ensure this doesn't happen. Pretty much every drug needs to be treated as harmful by default and we tend to take the exact opposite view as a society.
It's easy to think that your entire race is at a disadvantage when you have no real clue what other people have experienced. You're woefully out of touch. You think your own experience is the norm when it is anything but.
Two words: Electoral College.
All of the ranting and raving about how unqualified Trump was, yet he defeated the opposition party's chosen successor based on grasping simple bits from high school civics.
The "most qualified candidate ever" failed to do this.
"sociopathy"
Now you are trying to turn something that's political disagreement into something that resembles a mental illness.
That's straight out of the Soviet oppression playbook.
Nonsense like yours is precisely why even political affiliation should be a protected class in terms of discrimination.
> This while one party lobbies for social services, civil rights, gay rights, health care, immigration reform, etc., and the other stridently resists it at all turns.
So your side is virtuous and the other side is evil and the only reason you can't be more virtuous.
This is exactly the sort of unhinged nonsense that turns off the moderate liberals and independents.
Also, not everyone that's liberal is also a socialist. So lumping that kind of crap in with the liberty issues is kind of a non starter for some of us.
>> He's a trans SJW who often writes about the trials of being a female in IT. To this person ANYONE who doesn't celebrate their flavor of crazy is "far-right" and full of "hate".
>
> So it complains about working in IT - did I read that correctly?
I wonder if it thinks that working in IT would be all utopian and shit if only it was normal. Kind of makes me wonder why I've been wasting my life in all these crappy companies. I can pass for normal (in this one area). I wonder what I've been doing wrong all my life. =p
> Quite a lot of people react badly if you misgender them.
>
> If you don't believe me,
You want to comment on this nonsense and you haven't even experienced this yourself. How cute. How much of mundane little Herbert do you have to be to have managed to avoid something like that your ENTIRE life.
Get out of here you sad little breeder.
> You mean the same kind of hate that conservatives used to demonize and dehumanize liberals for the past 30 years? The same kind of hate that launched a concerted effort to turn the word "liberal" into a slur? That kind of hate?
Now who's peddling a "false equivalence". Calling you an idiot is not remotely the same thing as saying we should beat you up for your views. Calling you an idiot is also not the same as shouting you down, rioting when you speak, and seeking to prevent you from speaking.
You remind me of the 80s Xian fundies that tried to cry oppression.
As if.
> "hate and violence" is on the Left but then only on the "far, far right", Way to advocate for political neutrality while being completely non-neutral.
>
> Extremism is what defines political violence. Me telling you that probably won't change anything though.
No. Commonality is what defines extremism of any sort.
How popular and accepted is the idea "You can hit someone just because you hang some arbitrary label on them". This idea is shockingly popular amongst modern liberals.
You're trying to redefine terms to suit yourself and that's precisely the problem here. The left likes to distort terms to suit their political agenda. This includes YOU redefining the term "extremism".
> Fallacy of false equivalence, right up there with Trump.
It sure is. Modern leftists are fare more prone to threaten and use violence against political opponents.
Someone managed to display a statistical correlation between alcohol consumption and a limited number of particular cancers.
That's the rub with most of these "carcinogen" declarations.
They are typically only relevant to particular cancers. Those particular cancers may be more or less common or easier or harder to treat.
Alcohol fits into the "less common and easy to treat" section.
Although your own personal genetics are much more relevant. Torturing yourself for the rest of your life won't help anything.
I hate to break it to you (really I don't) but there are already common medical procedures that bill out at MORE than this procedure.
Tens of thousands of people see bills like this every year. Considering the alternative, I doubt if it distresses them too much.
While you are fixating on "fairness" you are neglecting the fact that nobody is a charity. You don't work for free. Why do you expect anyone else to.
ANY activity needs to yield a good return on investment or no one will bother. Ventures that are high risk or require a large up front investment will require a better potential upside.
While you're whining about "fairness" you're undercutting the incentives that will cause useful work to get done. That means YOU are putting lives at risk. You are undermining all future progress in medicine.
Which government is that exactly? Name ONE drug or gene therapy treatment that can be had for peanuts in another "socialist" country because the government actually did all the work.
Things don't work like that even in Europe.
It turns out that people don't work for free.
Also, governments are notoriously stingy and taxpayers everywhere complain that they pay too much.
> Good thing nobody asked you for the definition of "medicine", because it doesn't mean "a chemical".
Calling this thing a medicine really contradicts the vernacular understanding of what a medicine is. This leads to a lot of butt hurt about how expensive this procedure is when people don't fully understand that it's bespoke manufacturing for a single patient.
So yeah, calling this thing a "drug" or a "medicine" is really pretty stupid.
The point of language is communication, not getting your rocks off "sounding fancy" or being a grammar nazi.