Beer did have lower amounts of alcohol as, I believe, it was around 2-4% abv as opposed to today 5-8% abv. Mead is similar but I am not as sure for that one. I should have been specific.
I think it was through treaties with other countries. I remember asking a similar question and finding some treaties that gave the legal framework to regulate substances.
Thank you. That is more along the lines what I was looking for. It does show that my perception has some grounding in reality.
But if you look at survey data, most people who sit out elections don’t say they were deterred by inconveniences. They say they simply weren’t interested in voting at all, or disliked the candidates, or didn’t care. While we should take self-reported surveys with a grain of salt, there’s something important going on here
I think the take away is that we are both correct. Which cause is more? I don't know and I didn't know that at the start of this conversation.
* People die a lot of different ways. * A very serious way is cancer * What is the cause of death people are afraid of?
Re-read my post and you will see I am not making an argument that people vote because they don't care. I said: "Those were few and far between from the many more that just didn't care. That's just the perception I have seen... I am willing to correct my perception with something substantive"
That isn't an argument. Stop treating my perception and asking to correct my perception as an argument. Posting a list of *one reason* doesn't address what I am asking for even if that reason is serious.
Ok. That doesn't tell me what I was asking for. I was looking for polling into the reasons why people don't vote.
Yes, voter suppression is and continues to be an issue but again my perception has been that more people don't care than because of any barrier (suppression as an example).
Correct me if I am wrong. You need a driver license or CA ID card number to register to vote in CA. In addition to the last four digits of SSN and DoB. I believe my mistake was reading the bullet points as or not and. http://registertovote.ca.gov/
How can I get an CA ID card or drivers license without going to the DMV?
Ok. So California has barriers to vote by having to prove you can legally vote. So why would it be an issue to have a voter ID if you have to prove you can legally vote as it stands now?
Is the DMV the only option? Does the proposed laws only list the DMV? I thought there were same day registration proposals that allowed you to vote if you had the valid ID that you would use in the DMV to get the ID?
How do you get anything from the DMV if it is so far?
Those were few and far between from the many more that just didn't care. That's just the perception I have seen. I have seen issues with various polling stations around (long lines, etc) but those seem like isolated incidents in certain high population areas that under-staff their stations or have issues with same day registration.
I am willing to correct my perception with something substantive
How do you get to the DMV if you live 30 miles away from the closest one, and have to work two jobs just to put food on the table?
Same way you get to the polling station?
if you don't have a birth certificate or SS card, what then?
I am not sure. What do we do if someone can't prove they have a legal right to vote which is what I thought the point of a voter ID was supposed to address?
This is discriminatory, and is intendedt to be so.
HOW?!?! I don't understand. They can get to the polling station but not the DMV (as an example, I am sure they can get the ID in other government facilities that the law would spell out. Hell allow over the phone or by mail to solve that problem). They can't prove they have a legal right to vote but they can still vote but it's discrimination if you ask for proof of who you are?
There are 12.5 million illegal immigrants in the US. In California, they are given a drivers license which is enough to be able to vote. How many votes swung the last election? Clinton had 3 million more but actual swing votes? 60,000 maybe in key districts? Do you think maybe that could have an influence on our election, more so than spurious anonymous sourced Russian meddling?
Why is more important for undervoting. If people don't care that is their business as opposed to having barriers to being able to vote that stop them from voting.
I think undervoting is better explained by apathy and people not caring than any barrier to vote.
A dying human can't just resurrect under another name, a corp can.
Tell me more about Enron. Are you suggesting that the punishments for breaking the law by a corporation need be harsher or extend to the executives? Sure, but that is due process of law. That doesn't help your point.
Our current legal system gives an advantage to those with more money.
So what is your fix? That isn't reason enough to restrict the rights of everyone because some individuals with a common interest should be treated differently according to you.
uing someone for millions for sharing a song is unjust. I agree it is legal, it just means that the law, due to currption, is straying away from justice.
So what is your fix? Again, that is not reason enough to restrict the rights on individuals with a common interest. Anyone can rant and rave why things are broken, which is fine and dandy, but unless you have a valid solution beyond "restrict their rights" I am not sure what your point is other then complaining about the rights we all have. Copyright is a right that governments protect. Law isn't perfect, which is why we have the system we have. What's are your proposing we change? The law? Sure I can agree let's convince enough people to change it but as you know that isn't enough because we don't let mob rule win. It's a long and tedious process of convincing a lot of people by design. Change that system? No. How does that support your original point?
libertarians don't trust government. On the other hand, they expect their government to protect one's rights?
I said "government exists to protect the rights of their citizens". Libertarians or Socialists* generally agree on that idea. How the government does that is the point of contention. Does smaller limited government do better at protecting the rights of individuals? Or are larger government regulating common needs better at protect the rights of individuals? You are grossly misunderstanding libertarians positions.
*Using a loose term of "socialist" to mean opposite of libertarian e.g. more government isn't bad.
How come a corporation can be considered a group of individuals that shares a common goal and a country can't?
Because a corporation exists for a variety of reasons and acts within the law while the government exists to protect the rights of citizens through law. A corporation can have their life, liberty, and property taken away through due process just like an individual. The point is that the government should mostly be concerned with protecting the rights of their citizens more so than virtue signaling by social manipulation in subjective definitions of speech which fundamentally undermine the principles of democracy. Democracy cannot exist without free speech. Unless we want to contemplate whether democracy has failed and so we must restrict free speech for a different system.
law allows corporations to sue you bankrupt
Which also allows you to sue those corporations.
current law allows corporations to sue you bankrupt, which will lead to violence being used to take your property away from you.
Through law. Through action by the government on behalf of the corporation suing you. Also, I do not agree being sued bankrupt is the same as violence perpetrated to take your property unjustly. There are just reasons to take your life, liberty or property away through due process of law that apply to corporations. The government because of the people, through their elected representatives in the legislature, enacted such law for the government to execute.
a global company that is trying to bankrupt me all over the world.
I would expect my government to protect my rights and ensure that any retaliation was just and lawful. IOW, protect my rights that any corporation expects.
Governments have a monopoly of pre-emptive violence through law that I cannot avoid. I can avoid Twitters authoritarian censorship very easily.
I agree that in certain situations corporations can be forced by law to protect the rights of the individual. But we should not be quick to restrict the rights of a group of individuals because they share a common goal e.g. a corporation.
No, we're not. Even with all the mass shootings living in the US is a safe prospect especially not in the major cities where most of the shootings occur (coincidentally with strictest gun laws). Every mass shooting is universally condemned, does not have any public support, and is seen as an extreme thing universally. Unlike say, sharia law (that outlaws homosexuality and the legal framework for throwing gay people off rooftops) and the universal acceptance in Islamic cultures from many polls. No one acts within the law undertaking a mass shooting but you are within the legal framework in sharia law when you throw gay people off a rooftop.
There is a strong culture for guns but that is a different conversation. Conflating that with a culture of rampant mass shooting is ridiculous on it's face. I live in solace knowing that any US political party can never perpetrate what ISIS does because I can have guns and I can talk about any issue. Unlike Germany or ISIS.
There is a concern that the more companies and citizens abandon the ideals and change the culture, we will eventually abandon the legal protections. We have already seen similar erosion to due process on the University through Title 9 expansion (luckily being rolled back).
We force companies to protect the rights of citizens all the time. The Civil Rights Act is a prime example where we limit the rights of companies to protect the rights of individuals. At some point, it is reasonable to ask if the platforms of speech where the majority of political discussions happen be protected by the companies that enable it much like telecommunications and bakers protect the rights of their customers.
You are wrong that their image is "tainted". That is propaganda, pure and simple. The FBI has 35,000 employees. Your not tainting 35,000 people because a couple of them sent some text messages before an election of how bad Trump was.
I disagree because it was a special investigation with huge ramifications and something like that kind of conflict of interest went on for too long. How many other investigations can be compromised by similar mistakes? That is not the standard for which the FBI should be known for and high profile cases, like this, has lasting effects on their perceived impartiality for political investigations. There is certainly damage to their reputation.
. Obama tried to correctly warn the Americans about the Russian meddling
Again, because of things like the tarmac meeting, the IRS scandal, and campaigning for Trumps opponent it is very hard to take his warning seriously when it looks like pure politics. We had no evidence to base any of the accusations except for innuendo and trust. I am sorry, but nothing Obama did in the end of his presidency lends credence to his warning not being overt political bias. He sure does have a good smile if he was so concerned. I will wait for the investigation to be over but I have no reason to trust Obama at the end of his term nor do I have any reason to trust the innuendo of anonymous sources.
In short a great many republicans were fine with the interference as long as it benefited them.
Did I not post real facts? Care to dispute which fact I posted wasn't real?
You are not disputing what I said. You are shifting to one report from January that doesn't say much of anything. High confidence from agencies that have lied to Americans before. Great, how is that different than listening to a partisan shill and why should I trust them until things are official?
There was other justification to fire Comey from the recommendation of the guy overseeing Mueller. The point is that the FBI has damaged their reputation and perceived impartiality because of shit like Ohr.
I'll wait for the investigation to finish but the dossier played a part in it by starting the narrative and initial investigations and reporting that made that report possible. Do you think we would have this investigation if Clinton won?
The Steele dossier started the Russian collusion story because the DNC was hacked and they wanted to find a Russian connection. It was the basis for FISA to monitor the Trump campaign during the election. The wife of a member of Muellers investigation worked for Fusion GPS when the dossier was commissioned. Other members of his team wanted "an insurance policy" for a Trump victory in the election.
I don't know how you can claim that the Russian collusion investigation has nothing to do with it when it started the whole fucking thing. These are not disputed things and there are damning elements to the FBI.
Slashdot Mirror
Beer did have lower amounts of alcohol as, I believe, it was around 2-4% abv as opposed to today 5-8% abv. Mead is similar but I am not as sure for that one. I should have been specific.
I think it was through treaties with other countries. I remember asking a similar question and finding some treaties that gave the legal framework to regulate substances.
I don't remember the specifics.
It's also pertinent to note that older/ancient alcoholic beverages contained much less alcohol than modern variants.
Thank you. That is more along the lines what I was looking for. It does show that my perception has some grounding in reality.
But if you look at survey data, most people who sit out elections don’t say they were deterred by inconveniences. They say they simply weren’t interested in voting at all, or disliked the candidates, or didn’t care. While we should take self-reported surveys with a grain of salt, there’s something important going on here
I think the take away is that we are both correct. Which cause is more? I don't know and I didn't know that at the start of this conversation.
No, I am asking:
* People die a lot of different ways.
* A very serious way is cancer
* What is the cause of death people are afraid of?
Re-read my post and you will see I am not making an argument that people vote because they don't care. I said: "Those were few and far between from the many more that just didn't care. That's just the perception I have seen... I am willing to correct my perception with something substantive"
That isn't an argument. Stop treating my perception and asking to correct my perception as an argument. Posting a list of *one reason* doesn't address what I am asking for even if that reason is serious.
Ok. That doesn't tell me what I was asking for. I was looking for polling into the reasons why people don't vote.
Yes, voter suppression is and continues to be an issue but again my perception has been that more people don't care than because of any barrier (suppression as an example).
Correct me if I am wrong. You need a driver license or CA ID card number to register to vote in CA. In addition to the last four digits of SSN and DoB. I believe my mistake was reading the bullet points as or not and. http://registertovote.ca.gov/
How can I get an CA ID card or drivers license without going to the DMV?
Ok. So California has barriers to vote by having to prove you can legally vote. So why would it be an issue to have a voter ID if you have to prove you can legally vote as it stands now?
Is the DMV the only option? Does the proposed laws only list the DMV? I thought there were same day registration proposals that allowed you to vote if you had the valid ID that you would use in the DMV to get the ID?
How do you get anything from the DMV if it is so far?
Those were few and far between from the many more that just didn't care. That's just the perception I have seen. I have seen issues with various polling stations around (long lines, etc) but those seem like isolated incidents in certain high population areas that under-staff their stations or have issues with same day registration.
I am willing to correct my perception with something substantive
How do you get to the DMV if you live 30 miles away from the closest one, and have to work two jobs just to put food on the table?
Same way you get to the polling station?
if you don't have a birth certificate or SS card, what then?
I am not sure. What do we do if someone can't prove they have a legal right to vote which is what I thought the point of a voter ID was supposed to address?
This is discriminatory, and is intendedt to be so.
HOW?!?! I don't understand. They can get to the polling station but not the DMV (as an example, I am sure they can get the ID in other government facilities that the law would spell out. Hell allow over the phone or by mail to solve that problem). They can't prove they have a legal right to vote but they can still vote but it's discrimination if you ask for proof of who you are?
There are 12.5 million illegal immigrants in the US. In California, they are given a drivers license which is enough to be able to vote. How many votes swung the last election? Clinton had 3 million more but actual swing votes? 60,000 maybe in key districts? Do you think maybe that could have an influence on our election, more so than spurious anonymous sourced Russian meddling?
Why is more important for undervoting. If people don't care that is their business as opposed to having barriers to being able to vote that stop them from voting.
I think undervoting is better explained by apathy and people not caring than any barrier to vote.
How do they get to the polling station if they can't get to the DMV or have to work during polling hours?
You didn't think this through, did you.
A dying human can't just resurrect under another name, a corp can.
Tell me more about Enron. Are you suggesting that the punishments for breaking the law by a corporation need be harsher or extend to the executives? Sure, but that is due process of law. That doesn't help your point.
Our current legal system gives an advantage to those with more money.
So what is your fix? That isn't reason enough to restrict the rights of everyone because some individuals with a common interest should be treated differently according to you.
uing someone for millions for sharing a song is unjust. I agree it is legal, it just means that the law, due to currption, is straying away from justice.
So what is your fix? Again, that is not reason enough to restrict the rights on individuals with a common interest. Anyone can rant and rave why things are broken, which is fine and dandy, but unless you have a valid solution beyond "restrict their rights" I am not sure what your point is other then complaining about the rights we all have. Copyright is a right that governments protect. Law isn't perfect, which is why we have the system we have. What's are your proposing we change? The law? Sure I can agree let's convince enough people to change it but as you know that isn't enough because we don't let mob rule win. It's a long and tedious process of convincing a lot of people by design. Change that system? No. How does that support your original point?
libertarians don't trust government. On the other hand, they expect their government to protect one's rights?
I said "government exists to protect the rights of their citizens". Libertarians or Socialists* generally agree on that idea. How the government does that is the point of contention. Does smaller limited government do better at protecting the rights of individuals? Or are larger government regulating common needs better at protect the rights of individuals? You are grossly misunderstanding libertarians positions.
*Using a loose term of "socialist" to mean opposite of libertarian e.g. more government isn't bad.
How come a corporation can be considered a group of individuals that shares a common goal and a country can't?
Because a corporation exists for a variety of reasons and acts within the law while the government exists to protect the rights of citizens through law. A corporation can have their life, liberty, and property taken away through due process just like an individual. The point is that the government should mostly be concerned with protecting the rights of their citizens more so than virtue signaling by social manipulation in subjective definitions of speech which fundamentally undermine the principles of democracy. Democracy cannot exist without free speech. Unless we want to contemplate whether democracy has failed and so we must restrict free speech for a different system.
law allows corporations to sue you bankrupt
Which also allows you to sue those corporations.
current law allows corporations to sue you bankrupt, which will lead to violence being used to take your property away from you.
Through law. Through action by the government on behalf of the corporation suing you. Also, I do not agree being sued bankrupt is the same as violence perpetrated to take your property unjustly. There are just reasons to take your life, liberty or property away through due process of law that apply to corporations. The government because of the people, through their elected representatives in the legislature, enacted such law for the government to execute.
a global company that is trying to bankrupt me all over the world.
I would expect my government to protect my rights and ensure that any retaliation was just and lawful. IOW, protect my rights that any corporation expects.
I am not sure what your point is.
Governments have a monopoly of pre-emptive violence through law that I cannot avoid. I can avoid Twitters authoritarian censorship very easily.
I agree that in certain situations corporations can be forced by law to protect the rights of the individual. But we should not be quick to restrict the rights of a group of individuals because they share a common goal e.g. a corporation.
We're a culture of rampant mass shootings
No, we're not. Even with all the mass shootings living in the US is a safe prospect especially not in the major cities where most of the shootings occur (coincidentally with strictest gun laws). Every mass shooting is universally condemned, does not have any public support, and is seen as an extreme thing universally. Unlike say, sharia law (that outlaws homosexuality and the legal framework for throwing gay people off rooftops) and the universal acceptance in Islamic cultures from many polls. No one acts within the law undertaking a mass shooting but you are within the legal framework in sharia law when you throw gay people off a rooftop.
There is a strong culture for guns but that is a different conversation. Conflating that with a culture of rampant mass shooting is ridiculous on it's face. I live in solace knowing that any US political party can never perpetrate what ISIS does because I can have guns and I can talk about any issue. Unlike Germany or ISIS.
Oops wrong one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Well, besides the big rocket most of the costs are catering.
One step further, we need a final solution to the Nazi's. amirite?
There is a concern that the more companies and citizens abandon the ideals and change the culture, we will eventually abandon the legal protections. We have already seen similar erosion to due process on the University through Title 9 expansion (luckily being rolled back).
We force companies to protect the rights of citizens all the time. The Civil Rights Act is a prime example where we limit the rights of companies to protect the rights of individuals. At some point, it is reasonable to ask if the platforms of speech where the majority of political discussions happen be protected by the companies that enable it much like telecommunications and bakers protect the rights of their customers.
You are wrong that their image is "tainted". That is propaganda, pure and simple. The FBI has 35,000 employees. Your not tainting 35,000 people because a couple of them sent some text messages before an election of how bad Trump was.
I disagree because it was a special investigation with huge ramifications and something like that kind of conflict of interest went on for too long. How many other investigations can be compromised by similar mistakes? That is not the standard for which the FBI should be known for and high profile cases, like this, has lasting effects on their perceived impartiality for political investigations. There is certainly damage to their reputation.
. Obama tried to correctly warn the Americans about the Russian meddling
Again, because of things like the tarmac meeting, the IRS scandal, and campaigning for Trumps opponent it is very hard to take his warning seriously when it looks like pure politics. We had no evidence to base any of the accusations except for innuendo and trust. I am sorry, but nothing Obama did in the end of his presidency lends credence to his warning not being overt political bias. He sure does have a good smile if he was so concerned. I will wait for the investigation to be over but I have no reason to trust Obama at the end of his term nor do I have any reason to trust the innuendo of anonymous sources.
In short a great many republicans were fine with the interference as long as it benefited them.
Both sides are like that.
So, what you're saying is that the leadership is made up of people who strong-arm their way to the top.
-.- I maintain my position because you haven't addressed anything . The FBI has damaged their reputation and their perceived impartiality.
Did I not post real facts? Care to dispute which fact I posted wasn't real?
You are not disputing what I said. You are shifting to one report from January that doesn't say much of anything. High confidence from agencies that have lied to Americans before. Great, how is that different than listening to a partisan shill and why should I trust them until things are official?
There was other justification to fire Comey from the recommendation of the guy overseeing Mueller. The point is that the FBI has damaged their reputation and perceived impartiality because of shit like Ohr.
I'll wait for the investigation to finish but the dossier played a part in it by starting the narrative and initial investigations and reporting that made that report possible. Do you think we would have this investigation if Clinton won?
The Steele dossier started the Russian collusion story because the DNC was hacked and they wanted to find a Russian connection. It was the basis for FISA to monitor the Trump campaign during the election. The wife of a member of Muellers investigation worked for Fusion GPS when the dossier was commissioned. Other members of his team wanted "an insurance policy" for a Trump victory in the election.
I don't know how you can claim that the Russian collusion investigation has nothing to do with it when it started the whole fucking thing. These are not disputed things and there are damning elements to the FBI.