Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Weather was terrible today made great time from class to work and back home taking the train. CTA is ran by city government.

Thank you big government today worked out great. It was nice they let us out an hour early personally I didn't see the need but I gladly took it.
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Unfortunately yes it does. The Republicans have become like a bunch of 3rd graders these days. If a Democrat came up with a way to cure all of mankind's suffering, the Republicans would fight against it.

So Chuck Hagel was confirmed today as secretary of defense.

Now did anything change about Chuck Hagel in the last 10 days? No

Did any new info come out? No except we found out Senator Ted Cruz was using right wing bloggers as his sources in his accusations.

Did we learn anything more about Bengazi? No

Did republicans prove they were 3rd graders by filibustering the motion to vote on Hagal lost week? I think so
 

Downinthebend

New member
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
77
So Chuck Hagel was confirmed today as secretary of defense.

Now did anything change about Chuck Hagel in the last 10 days? No

Did any new info come out? No except we found out Senator Ted Cruz was using right wing bloggers as his sources in his accusations.

Did we learn anything more about Bengazi? No

Did republicans prove they were 3rd graders by filibustering the motion to vote on Hagal lost week? I think so

I agree, I thought the republican -whateveryouwanttocallit- was rather comical, not of course because I believe that Hagel is the right choice (Hes far too much of an interventionist for my liking), but because the Republicans didn't think he was "right" enough.

BTW, what do some of y'all think of (illegal) drug use?
 
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
237
I agree, I thought the republican -whateveryouwanttocallit- was rather comical, not of course because I believe that Hagel is the right choice (Hes far too much of an interventionist for my liking), but because the Republicans didn't think he was "right" enough.

BTW, what do some of y'all think of (illegal) drug use?

Illegal drugs are sooo last century... Pharmaceuticals are where it is at.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
BTW, what do some of y'all think of (illegal) drug use?

Marijuana is great. I recommend it haha

Honestly I lose a ton of respect for people who think it should be illegal.

I don't think shrooms or cocaine should be illegal either, but I've never done them. Haha i would like to see it all decriminalized and health care replace prison time. Which, surprisingly, is actually wayyy cheaper and more effective.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Marijuana is great. I recommend it haha

Honestly I lose a ton of respect for people who think it should be illegal.

I don't think shrooms or cocaine should be illegal either, but I've never done them. Haha i would like to see it all decriminalized and health care replace prison time. Which, surprisingly, is actually wayyy cheaper and more effective.

I agree we need to legalize some of these drugs. We put so many resources into the drug war and get so little in return. The drug war has been very inefficent.

It might do a great deal at reducing gun homicides in major cities. So much of gang violence is drug related.
 
Last edited:

Downinthebend

New member
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
77
I agree we need to legalize some of these drugs. We put so many resources into the drug war and get so little in return. The drug has been very inefficent.

It might do a great deal at reducing gun homicides in major cities. As so much of gang violence is drug related.

Should we illegalize any drugs?
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
Some will call this conservative propaganda. I say the numbers don't lie and people vote with their feet. Just throwing it out there...


America's Red State Growth Corridors Low-tax, energy-rich regions in the heartland charge ahead as economies on both coasts sing the blues.
By JOEL KOTKIN

In the wake of the 2012 presidential election, some political commentators have written political obituaries of the "red" or conservative-leaning states, envisioning a brave new world dominated by fashionably blue bastions in the Northeast or California. But political fortunes are notoriously fickle, while economic trends tend to be more enduring.

These trends point to a U.S. economic future dominated by four growth corridors that are generally less dense, more affordable, and markedly more conservative and pro-business: the Great Plains, the Intermountain West, the Third Coast (spanning the Gulf states from Texas to Florida), and the Southeastern industrial belt.

Overall, these corridors account for 45% of the nation's land mass and 30% of its population. Between 2001 and 2011, job growth in the Great Plains, the Intermountain West and the Third Coast was between 7% and 8%—nearly 10 times the job growth rate for the rest of the country. Only the Southeastern industrial belt tracked close to the national average.

Historically, these regions were little more than resource colonies or low-wage labor sites for richer, more technically advanced areas. By promoting policies that encourage enterprise and spark economic growth, they're catching up.

Such policies have been pursued not only by Republicans but also by Democrats who don't share their national party's notion that business should serve as a cash cow to fund ever more expensive social-welfare, cultural or environmental programs. While California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and Minnesota have either enacted or pursued higher income taxes, many corridor states have no income taxes or are planning, like Kansas and Louisiana, to lower or even eliminate them.

The result is that corridor states took 11 of the top 15 spots in Chief Executive magazine's 2012 review of best state business climates. California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts were at the bottom. The states of the old Confederacy boast 10 of the top 12 places for locating new plants, according to a recent 2012 study by Site Selection magazine.

Energy, manufacturing and agriculture are playing a major role in the corridor states' revival. The resurgence of fossil fuel–based energy, notably shale oil and natural gas, is especially important. Over the past decade, Texas alone has added 180,000 mostly high-paying energy-related jobs, Oklahoma another 40,000, and the Intermountain West well over 30,000. Energy-rich California, despite the nation's third-highest unemployment rate, has created a mere 20,000 such jobs. In New York, meanwhile, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is still delaying a decision on hydraulic fracturing.

Cheap U.S. natural gas has some envisioning the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge as an "American Ruhr." Much of this growth, notes Eric Smith, associate director of the Tulane Energy Institute, will be financed by German and other European firms that are reeling from electricity costs now three times higher than in places like Louisiana.

Korean and Japanese firms are already swarming into South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee. What the Boston Consulting Group calls a "reallocation of global manufacturing" is shifting production away from expensive East Asia and Europe and toward these lower-cost locales. The arrival of auto, steel and petrochemical plants—and, increasingly, the aerospace industry—reflects a critical shift for the Southeast, which historically depended on lower-wage industries such as textiles and furniture.

Since 2000, the Intermountain West's population has grown by 20%, the Third Coast's by 14%, the long-depopulating Great Plains by over 14%, and the Southeast by 13%. Population in the rest of the U.S. has grown barely 7%. Last year, the largest net recipients of domestic migrants were Texas and Florida, which between them gained 150,000. The biggest losers? New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California.

As a result, the corridors are home to most of America's fastest-growing big cities, including Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City and Denver. Critically for the economic and political future, the growth corridor seems particularly appealing to young families with children.

Cities such as Raleigh, Charlotte, Austin, Dallas and Houston enjoy among the country's fastest growth rates in the under-15 population. That demographic is on the wane in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco. Immigrants, too, flock to once-unfamiliar places like Nashville, Charlotte and Oklahoma City. Houston and Dallas already have more new immigrants per capita than Boston, Philadelphia, Seattle and Chicago.

Coastal-city boosters suggest that what they lose in numbers they make up for in "quality" migration. "The Feet are moving south and west while the Brains are moving toward coastal cities," Derek Thompson wrote a few years ago in The Atlantic. Yet over the past decade, the number of people with bachelor's degrees grew by a remarkable 50% in Austin and Charlotte and by over 30% in Tampa, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta—a far greater percentage growth rate than in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago or New York.

Raleigh, Austin, Denver and Salt Lake City have all become high-tech hubs. Charlotte is now the country's second-largest financial center. Houston isn't only the world's energy capital but also boasts the world's largest medical center and, along with Dallas, has become a major corporate and global transportation hub.

The corridors' growing success is a testament to the resiliency and adaptability of the American economy. It also challenges the established coastal states and cities to reconsider their current high-tax, high-regulation climates if they would like to join the growth party.

Mr. Kotkin is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and a City Journal contributing editor. This op-ed is adapted from a report released by the Manhattan Institute on Tuesday, "America's Growth Corridors: The Key to National Revival."


This is interesting. Here's the thing though, it seems that the economic growth seems to be a result of those areas being underdeveloped in relation to say New York or Boston, which was the case with California in the 50's. Now with this explosion of growth these areas are going to hit the inevitable wall of limited resources whether it be land for real estate development, infrastructure for transit systems or natural resources such as water. Texas is already beginning to see problems arise from a lack of water and is in the process of suing Oaklahoma and New Mexico (I believe) over water rights. This also begs the question of where are you going to get the revenue to expand schools and the necessary infrastructure to support this growth? Also, given the development patterns already established in say Dallas Fort Worth one must ask will these areas repeat the mistakes of the past when it comes to development? That is to say adopt the suburban track home model or adopt policies that promote density and public transit? How are they going to pay to develop and enforce these policies? What I also find interesting is that as some of these areas become more "tech friendly" and or developed they seem to trend towards becoming more liberal (see Austin and Huston).
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
This is interesting. Here's the thing though, it seems that the economic growth seems to be a result of those areas being underdeveloped in relation to say New York or Boston, which was the case with California in the 50's. Now with this explosion of growth these areas are going to hit the inevitable wall of limited resources whether it be land for real estate development, infrastructure for transit systems or natural resources such as water. Texas is already beginning to see problems arise from a lack of water and is in the process of suing Oaklahoma and New Mexico (I believe) over water rights. This also begs the question of where are you going to get the revenue to expand schools and the necessary infrastructure to support this growth? Also, given the development patterns already established in say Dallas Fort Worth one must ask will these areas repeat the mistakes of the past when it comes to development? That is to say adopt the suburban track home model or adopt policies that promote density and public transit? How are they going to pay to develop and enforce these policies? What I also find interesting is that as some of these areas become more "tech friendly" and or developed they seem to trend towards becoming more liberal (see Austin and Huston).

Would like to point out that some of the states that were mentioned in that are mostly taker states that are essentially taking from blue states. Many states with 0 income tax get away with because they take in more than their citizens pay out in taxes.
 
Last edited:

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,536
Reaction score
3,287
Marijuana is great. I recommend it haha

Honestly I lose a ton of respect for people who think it should be illegal.

I don't think shrooms or cocaine should be illegal either, but I've never done them. Haha i would like to see it all decriminalized and health care replace prison time. Which, surprisingly, is actually wayyy cheaper and more effective.

I have never/will never use any drugs, but I agree. The "War on Drugs" has been a failure and money vaccum. I think a lot of people/law makers are going to be looking at Colorado and Washington closely to see how everything pans out in those states. I believe it should be left up to the individual states to determine the legality of the drugs, and how to tax and regulate them.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Another crazy filibuster story:

Ok so a judge needed to be approved in the 10th circuit which is Oklahoma. So the 2 Oklahoma Senators both recommend a judge to Obama as guy that would be good for the area. So Obama checked him and said you know what this guy seems qualified and he put him up for confirmation.

Apparently this was horrible because the Senate republicans put a block on the guy even though he was proposed by 2 republicans from that state. This guy had been blocked for months they tried take a cloture to break block on occasions and it failed.

Until today. Today this judge Robert Bacharach was unblocked and approved. Well if he was blocked for that long it must have been a close vote right? No the guy was approved 93 to 0 with some Senators voting present.
 
Last edited:
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
I blame the hippies for marijuana still being illegal.

I blame police/prison, legal/artificial "prescription" drug companies, paper, and alcohol/tobacco lobbyists. Marijuana being illegal is big business for them, which is sick and disgusting in its own right.

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wfxaJQVxSA4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:

Downinthebend

New member
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
77
Why isn't a constitutional amendment needed for the prohibition of (Insert drug name here), but was needed for alcohol?
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
That's a really good question. For what it's worth, many states had banned alcohol before federal prohibition.
 
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
237
I blame police/prison, legal/artificial "prescription" drug companies, paper, and alcohol/tobacco lobbyists. Marijuana being illegal is big business for them, which is sick and disgusting in its own right.

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wfxaJQVxSA4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yeah seen that movie some time ago... I just like messing with hippie folk.

But yeah different interest groups have a reason to keep it illegal.

Get it off Schedule 1 and the rest should follow.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Why isn't a constitutional amendment needed for the prohibition of (Insert drug name here), but was needed for alcohol?

My first guess for any amendment would that Supreme Court said something was unconstitutional and the people didn't like it so we amended the constitution.

However I do not know in this instance. I tried looking for such a situation were the supreme court struck down a prohibition law so an amendment was needed to overrule the SC decission.

Only case I found was Mugler vs Kansas and Supreme Court said prohibition by Kansas was constitutional so I don 't have an answer to your question.
 

irishff1014

Well-known member
Messages
26,509
Reaction score
9,284
I have never/will never use any drugs, but I agree. The "War on Drugs" has been a failure and money vaccum. I think a lot of people/law makers are going to be looking at Colorado and Washington closely to see how everything pans out in those states. I believe it should be left up to the individual states to determine the legality of the drugs, and how to tax and regulate them.

Not when it is against Federal law.
 

irishff1014

Well-known member
Messages
26,509
Reaction score
9,284
The arguments I have made would apply to drug laws at every level of government.

With drugs equals violence. As well as drugs getting laced or mixing of drugs with other thin to make more money. This is going to be bad for the country.
 
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
237
With drugs equals violence.Legalizing drugs would end violence. See Alcohol prohibition

As well as drugs getting laced or mixing of drugs with other thin to make more money. Regulation solves this for the most part

This is going to be bad for the country Bad as in we will have a massive influx of drug addicts?
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Would like to point out that some of the states that were mentioned in that are mostly taker states that are essentially taking from blue states. Many states with 0 income tax get away with because they take in more than their citizens pay out in taxes.

Taker states? Is this a joke? The reasons a lot of these companies and people are fleeing the coasts for other regions are clearly stated (lower cost of living, business friendly, economic growth, etc.). Red states aren't "taking" anything, just offering better opportunity and better standard of living than other states. You paint a picture of highway robbery, but this is a perfect example of American people being resilient and willing to move to where the opportunity is. There is no coercion here, unlike most progresive policies. Citizens are free to come and go as they please.

Sour grapes.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
Why isn't a constitutional amendment needed for the prohibition of (Insert drug name here), but was needed for alcohol?

That was back in the day when the Sup. Ct. enforced the Commerce Clause. Nowadays, the feds can prohibit you from growing a single plant with in-state seeds and in-state water, solely for the purpose of in-state consumption. They call it "interstate commerce".
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
I blame the hippies for marijuana still being illegal.

This is actually somewhat true. The psuedo legal status of marijuana in California has allowed a bunch of "hippies" to make a lot of money growing weed. I've read some estimates that marijuana growers in the state spent millions to prevent the full legalization of marijuana during the last couple of election cycles.

The best arguement I have heard against across the board legalization is that our healthcare system is allready a mess and a large influx of new addicts that legalization might produce would only add to its woes. Not to mention affordable mental health services are pretty much non-existent in this country as well.
 
Last edited:

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
This is actually somewhat true. The psuedo legal status of marijuana in California has allowed a bunch of "hippies" to make a lot of money growing weed. I've read some estimates that marijuana growers in the state spent millions to prevent the full legalization of marijuana during the last couple of election cycles.

The best arguement I have heard against across the board legalization is that out helahcare system is allready a mess and a large influx of new addicts that legalization might produce would only add to its woes. Not to mention affordable mental health services are pretty much non-existent in this country as well.

But hippies told me that pot wasn't addicting?
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
But hippies told me that pot wasn't addicting?

Thats because they're too high to notice. Actually everything is the Hippies fault! Lol.

So, votes on best marijuana inspired/themed movies of all time? My vote goes to Cheech and Chong Up in Smoke.
 
Top