Dems, Dem-lites and Independents, who ya backing at this point and why? by WISHIMAY

Seriously, no one has anyone they like? I get there's a lot of choices out there...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 5, 2019 1:17 PM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Seriously, no one has anyone they like? I get there's a lot of choices out there...

I was going to respond the other day, but it's essentially:

1. None of them excite me that much - that's a bit troubling. I am encouraged and impressed by many of the Dem candidates as a collective and as individuals. They are all a major step up from what we saw in the 2016 GOP Freak Show. I like a lot of what I see in bits and pieces, but as soon as I say, "yeah, that one," I think of a situation where they might not do well, like getting along with the GOP, SO WE CAN GET THINGS DONE (tired of this nothing gets done business). Or debates with Trump. Or dealing with International leaders. Some of them have great ideas (Warren, Sanders), but that's not enough to win undecideds.

2. I would vote for a dead dog over Trump.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 5, 2019 1:20 PM

Bernie. Walks it like he talks it, always has.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 5, 2019 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Bernie. Walks it like he talks it, always has.

Care to elaborate? What do you LIKE?

I don't have anything against him personally, but I've never thought him a strong enough leader, and he's darn near 80 now. If there is anything I've noticed about being President, the person needs to be in good enough shape to make it through 8 possible years with most facilities mostly intact.

That, and I don't support $15 an hour minimum wage, or "reparations" to anyone.
No teenager is worth $15 an hour and just about everyone can get Social Security.
This country is going broke and making decisions that would hasten that are counter-productive to us continuing to BE a country.

He goes too far with things and you have to be tempered with a basic reality of what people will abide without creating chaos and violence. It means he will always be a niche politician.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 5, 2019 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Bernie. Walks it like he talks it, always has.

Care to elaborate? What do you LIKE?

I don't have anything against him personally, but I've never thought him a strong enough leader, and he's darn near 80 now. If there is anything I've noticed about being President, the person needs to be in good enough shape to make it through 8 possible years with most facilities mostly intact.

That, and I don't support $15 an hour minimum wage, or "reparations" to anyone.
No teenager is worth $15 an hour and just about everyone can get Social Security.
This country is going broke and making decisions that would hasten that are counter-productive to us continuing to BE a country.

He goes too far with things and you have to be tempered with a basic reality of what people will abide without creating chaos and violence. It means he will always be a niche politician.

I think he would have beaten Trump handily. He's sharp and healthy, much more so than the idiot we have now.

$15 should be the minimum. Most people who work for minimum are NOT teenagers. People making an almost adequate income will spend more, and that benefits the economy.

How does he go too far? Guaranteed healthcare for all, like the rest of the first world? Why do we need profit-seeking corporations ripping us off for necessary services?

What does Joe want to do about for-profit prisons?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2019 12:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:

I think he would have beaten Trump handily. He's sharp and healthy, much more so than the idiot we have now.

$15 should be the minimum. Most people who work for minimum are NOT teenagers. People making an almost adequate income will spend more, and that benefits the economy.

How does he go too far? Guaranteed healthcare for all, like the rest of the first world? Why do we need profit-seeking corporations ripping us off for necessary services?

Sorry, image is important for that high of a public office. The only thing I feel when I look at Ol' Bern is constipated and disheveled. Shallow, but people want to back candidates that feel and look strong. Trump got elected MOSTLY because he reminded them of the high powered 80's vibe. Most people at the time had no clue what his politics were.

These are the problems with mandatory indiscriminating minimum wage.
-fewer employees

-fewer hours for current employees or removed perks like tips, free food/parking, etc.

-replacement of employees through automation

-increase in prices of products or services sold

-greater purchasing power for workers with the revenue going back to businesses they patronize and products or services they avail of or purchase

-decreased interest in college education since minimum wage jobs are paid almost the same or can be more than what jobs requiring college education pay

- high minimum wage laws create a barrier to getting a job that the privileged are better able to overcome than the underprivileged. When jobs are scarce, then immigrants, workers with few skills or little education, and those with limited English proficiency are going to have a harder time convincing employers that their labor is worth $15 an hour than their better-skilled, native, English-speaking competitors.

A factory near here is hiring 500 people at $15-$18 an hour. Adults can do more than get by on that HERE, until you double what they pay for goods and THEN you create MORE people UNDER the poverty line. There are so many people here that ALREADY can't pay for food, despite the "All Americans are fat" trope. I think the problems are that many people need to work part-time or the ones that can't work or people that are gig paid aren't getting enough. There's no way I could work full time in my condition and still feed myself if I had to, but I'm not quite disabled, either. Signing up for disability with hubbs working would only get me $75 a month, so it encourages people to not get married to keep benefits. People that CAN work usually get paid what they can live off of, it's the people that can't that don't fit the system.

Carte blanche healthcare for all is also not a solution. It sounds good, but at the end of the day it will drag us all down with the sheer enormity. Not to mention trying to justify your own healthcare expenditures to people who don't know you or your name without looking at a chart is ASININE, and that's what will happen. We have a system in place it just needs to be FIXED.

I think maybe a better solution might be better regulation of healthcare costs by state.
No matter where you go in a state an x-ray should cost the same, because they are providing necessary services. There are prices on walls in doctors offices in France. In Australia, people are entitled to binding estimates before they go in for elective surgery. They are starting to do that here, but you have to find it on their website and the try to cross-reference their costs with your insurance which is madness. Speaking of insurance AND hospitals, let's limit the amount of profit they can make off of other people's health like Japan does.

The most prestigious hospitals in Japan are large, mostly public institutions with medical teaching programs. Investor-owned for-profit hospitals are prohibited in Japan. A corporation may own and manage a hospital, but it must be for the benefit of its employees and the local community, and profits may not be taken out of it for other purposes. By law, the chief executive of any hospital must be a physician so they know what is necessary and what isn't.

Also, people need to know more about which tests can result in an ACTUAL treatment, versus endless testing that achieves nothing. Every time I go to the doc she wants to run 100 tests on my blood when I really only NEED to monitor 5 things. That adds the hell up. EVERY test needs to be justified by the consumer, which is time consuming but a program can be written to help with that and it would help people be more informed about their own health.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2019 2:38 AM

The scary things is is that all of that ^ is prolly going to be immaterial in 10 years anywho. Doc AI and Amazon Tech will change how we do EVERYTHING medical anyway...

https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/27/amazons-newest-service-uses-machine-
learning-to-extract-medical-data-from-patient-records/

The company claimed that Comprehend Medical can accurately identify “medical conditions, anatomic terms, details of medical tests, treatments, and procedures.” In turn, patients can use the service to help manage different aspects of their treatment, including scheduling healthcare visits and prescription medicines or determining insurance eligibility.

Of course, the uploading of medical records to the cloud for machine-learning analysis might beg questions from patients about how Comprehend Medical will ensure their privacy. Amazon says patient data is encrypted and can only be unlocked by customers who have a key, and that no data processed will be stored or used for training its algorithms. Comprehend Medical complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

AI in the Exam Room
Several groups have met with success in modeling deep-learning AI to DR screening. Players range from big fish in computer science to high school students. It’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these efforts will be commercialized and widely accepted by medical professionals, but here’s a look at early movers in AI for DR.

• Google’s DeepMind. London-based AI firm DeepMind, acquired by Google in 2014, is working with Moorfields Eye Hospital to develop algorithms for early detection of DR and age-related macular degeneration. The team is reviewing fundus photos and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans from more than one million exams that took place at Moorfields in 2017.13 In addition to imaging, the dataset will also include each patient’s demographic information, disease status, treatment history, imaging devices used and time elapsed between visits. By combining imaging with exam data, the team is exploring not just automated grading of fundus photos and OCT scans, as in other AI efforts, but also the feasibility of developing “novel quantitative measures for specific disease features and for monitoring the therapeutic success.”13 The work is ongoing and results have yet to be announced.

• EyeLogic. A smartphone app now under development, this uses an algorithm built from analysis of more than 75,000 fundus images found in the Eye Picture Archive Communication System (EyePACS) telemedicine database. Published results show 94% sensitivity and 98% specificity for diabetic retinopathy.14 Given that the technology identified cases that need further evaluation and treatment with high reliability, the authors conclude that a fully data-driven AI-based grading algorithm has the potential to be used to screen fundus appearance in patients with diabetes.

Created by 18-year-old Rishab Gareya of San Jose, Calif., the work earned him a $50,000 scholarship to Stanford.

• Eyeagnosis. A second teen techie, 16-year-old Kavya Kopparapu of Herndon, Va., created an app that uses a 3D-printed lens as a smartphone accessory to enable self-administered eye exams. The AI was designed using off-the-shelf Microsoft code and a database of 34,000 retina scans from the National Institutes of Health.15

Tests performed at a hospital in Mumbai found the app can “spot diabetic retinopathy with the accuracy of a human pathologist,” according to IEEE Spectrum.15 It also can identify retinal microaneurysms. The app remains in testing.

• Dr. Grader. Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) developed this AI platform and is about to deploy it at 20 general practitioners’ (GP) offices in Western Australia. The software was built from an IBM database of 88,000 retinal images in the EyePACS library. At-risk patients “would usually be referred to a specialist for screening, waiting six weeks or more—now it can potentially be done in a single 30-minute visit to a GP,” according to CSIRO.16 If successful, the app could help reduce the $14 billion annual impact of diabetes on the Australian economy, CSIRO says.

• Optos/Verily partnership. In January 2017, another Google company, Verily Life Science, announced a partnership with Nikon and its subsidiary Optos to create new DR screening protocols.17 No other details have been released, but the effort is expected to combine Verily’s machine learning technology with Optos’ ultra-widefield imaging already popular in today’s practices.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2019 3:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Tulsi Gabbard. She has a better foreign policy.

There's one problem with Federal minimum wage, just as there is with Federal payment schedules for Medicare: The cost of living varies greatly across the country. What might be a living wage in some places barely meets poverty level in other places.

Plus, as long as you;re committed to "free trade" then much of that money will fly out of the national economy to pay for cellphones, clothing, cars etc made elsewhere. If you really want to stimulate the economy you have to take a fundamentally different stance on "free trade" and take a protectionist stance with native industries and with employment. The "free flow" of money, goods, and people will not allow you to do that.

As far as healthcare is concerned, that too would take a different approach. There are several ways to approach the problem: one of them is to eliminate the horrible inefficiencies of the health insurances by having the government take over the insurance function. Plus, as the only "buyer" of medical services, the Federal government would have huge leverage in setting prices. Instead of competing on prices, medical services would have to compete on outcomes.

OTOH that sets up a centralized flow of money which parasites are always attracted to. another approach is DEcentralization: fostering competition by (as WISHY suggests) posting standard prices, instead of these "secret pricing" deals that each service provider has with the various insurances.

Anyway, until we control our military spending these are all pipe dreams because the military just sucks everyone dry.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2019 1:45 PM

How Come So Many Bernie Bros Are Women and People of Color?
Despite data to the contrary, the media continues to distort Sanders' politics and the diversity of his supporters
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/12/17/how-come-so-many-bernie-
bros-are-women-and-people-color

Bernie Sanders: Bringing people together

The first person I ran into at the gathering was, believe it or not, Bernie Sanders himself. I told the senator, "One of the things that's really frustrating to progressives who support you is this narrative about your not being a feminist or not being anti-racist." Then I asked, "How can we push back on that, given how much the corporate media seems to be interested in that narrative?"

To which he replied:

What we are fighting for is to bring people together—Black and White and Latino, Native American and Asian American—around an agenda that speaks to the needs of ordinary Americans and not just the one percent. We want Medicare for All, we want to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, we don't want our kids to be living in a planet ravaged by climate change. So we are making progress. We expect opposition to continue. And we're gonna do the best in this fight that we can.

When you look at corporate media, you're looking at media owned by large, often international corporate conglomerates, which are owned by some of the wealthiest people in this country or in the world. They will do anything and everything they can do to protect their own interest and they will say anything about anybody that they want.

During a panel discussion later that day, he went spoke further about the dangers of divide-and-conquer strategies deployed by the enemies of equality:

When people are pushed aside, when people are hurting, you have demagogues who step in and say "Our problem is that Mexican who is picking strawberries." So you take that anger and frustration and pain that people are feeling and you turn them against people who are in worse shape than [they] are. And our job is to bring people together and say, "No. It is not some Mexican who is picking strawberries who is our enemy. It is Wall Street, it is the fossil fuel industries, it is the drug companies, it's the insurance companies." Let's stand together and take those people on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2019 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Tulsi Gabbard. She has a better foreign policy.

A: You're not a Democrat.

B: You're not an American.

C: Fuck off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2019 2:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Tulsi Gabbard. She has a better foreign policy.

A: You're not a Democrat.

B: You're not an American.

C: Fuck off.

You're not a person, you're a badly- programmed bot.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2019 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Tulsi Gabbard. She has a better foreign policy.

As far as healthcare is concerned, that too would take a different approach. There are several ways to approach the problem: one of them is to eliminate the horrible inefficiencies of the health insurances by having the government take over the insurance function. Plus, as the only "buyer" of medical services, the Federal government would have huge leverage in setting prices. Instead of competing on prices, medical services would have to compete on outcomes.

Anyway, until we control our military spending these are all pipe dreams because the military just sucks everyone dry.

Having read several articles on Mrs. Gabbard today, I find she is just a pissier, more confused version of Bernie, and I think her allegiances partially lie elsewhere.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabba
rd-2020-president-campaign-explained

This part seems to sum her up well.

In 2017, the socialist publication Jacobin published a brutal takedown entitled “Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend,” focusing on dispelling the myth of Gabbard as an opponent of America’s wars abroad.

“Gabbard’s almost singular focus on the damage these wars inflict domestically, and her comparative lack of focus on the carnage they wreak in the countries under attack, is troubling,” Jacobin’s Branko Marcetic writes. “It is nationalism in antiwar garb, reinforcing instead of undercutting the toxic rhetoric that treats foreigners as less deserving of dignity than Americans.”

Just two weeks ago, the Intercept, a left-aligned antiwar outlet, published a deeply reported expose on Gabbard’s ties to Hindu nationalists. Gabbard has long supported Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, an anti-Islam right-winger who had previously been barred from entering the US due to being personally implicated in deadly anti-Muslim riots.

As much as I would like to see a woman Prez, it's going to have to be the right person at just the right time, and that time ISN'T now.

I have long believed that in order to have a female Prez, we are going to have to have a strong VICE Prez first. Trump has proved that the culture of toxic masculinity and misogyny is far too pervasive to force a woman into that position without acclimating the low-brows to reality.

We're going to HAVE to have a female VP FIRST.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2019 3:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:

2. I would vote for a dead dog over Trump.

The whole thing with him and his father being "born in Germany"....It couldn't get any clearer that there is something seriously wrong, and we have no procedures or Dr. McCoy to stand up and say "You sir, are altered and are hereby relieved of duty!"

I feel like I'm in the bad Star Trek dimension. Every day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2019 6:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:

Tulsi Gabbard. She has a better foreign policy.
As far as healthcare is concerned, that too would take a different approach. There are several ways to approach the problem: one of them is to eliminate the horrible inefficiencies of the health insurances by having the government take over the insurance function. Plus, as the only "buyer" of medical services, the Federal government would have huge leverage in setting prices. Instead of competing on prices, medical services would have to compete on outcomes.
Anyway, until we control our military spending these are all pipe dreams because the military just sucks everyone dry. SIGNY

Having read several articles on Mrs. Gabbard today, I find she is just a pissier, more confused version of Bernie, and I think her allegiances partially lie elsewhere.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabba
rd-2020-president-campaign-explained

I read the VOX article, and altho the article troubles me, it's not Gabbard that's the problem.

The article fails to mention, for example, that Tulsi didn't just "support" Sanders in 2016, she actually quit her role as DNC vice chair and as a superdelegate because of the underhnded (in her view) way that the DNC was treating Sanders
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/28/tulsi-gabbard-quits-dn
c-support-bernie-Sanders. She wouldnt "go along to get alomg".

And Vox's view of Syria, Gabbard, and terrorism is wrong, and stupid. If Gabbard is anti-Muslim, how could she wind up "quasi-supporting" Assad who is himself Muslim? The article then goes on to repeat the trope that Assad was responsible for the "worst excesses" in te war in Syria, overlooking the fact that the radical Muslims terrorized the populations that they controlled, attempted to "ethnically cleanse" groups like the Yazidis, took captured women and girls as sex slaves, used chemical weapons, and dreamt of new and excitng ways to torture and kill civilians - including burning them alive in iron cages and setting off chain explosives that had been set on the necks of lines of captured men. The fact that this article would soft-peddle the barbrity of jihadists tells me that their integrity/ objectivity is questionable, at best.

In sum,the article seems to have a distinct DNC-establishment bias against Gabbard. In fact, it has all the hallmarks of a "hit piece", full of misinformation, innuendo, and carefully-selected facts. And quite frankly, I find the DNC to be a corrupt anti-democratic organzation which supports corrupt warhawk candidates, and with few redeeming points

Quote:

This part seems to sum her up well.

In 2017, the socialist publication Jacobin published a brutal takedown entitled “Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend,” focusing on dispelling the myth of Gabbard as an opponent of America’s wars abroad.

“Gabbard’s almost singular focus on the damage these wars inflict domestically, and her comparative lack of focus on the carnage they wreak in the countries under attack, is troubling,” Jacobin’s Branko Marcetic writes. “It is nationalism in antiwar garb, reinforcing instead of undercutting the toxic rhetoric that treats foreigners as less deserving of dignity than Americans.”

I don't fimd that troubling at all. As a American candidate, she has to appeal to American voters and represent American interests. One of the problems of our foreign policy is how often Americans are convinced that we HAVE to stick our nose into other people's affairs and represent someone else's interests. We have destroyed many nations and killed over a million people in the name of R2P or democracy or whatever. Maybe a little enlightened self-interest would save us - and others -from our mistakes.

Quote:
Just two weeks ago, the Intercept, a left-aligned antiwar outlet, published a deeply reported expose on Gabbard’s ties to Hindu nationalists. Gabbard has long supported Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, an anti-Islam right-winger who had previously been barred from entering the US due to being personally implicated in deadly anti-Muslim riots.

Not sure I care. As long as she doesn't advocate military or clandestine support for (or against) foreign leaders..?

Quote:
As much as I would like to see a woman Prez, it's going to have to be the right person at just the right time, and that time ISN'T now...

You were for Hillary, right?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2019 11:45 AM

As for a woman, I would still vote for Sarah Palin if she was the top of the ticket. She has been the best candidate on a ticket since at least 2006, maybe since 1986. If she would have been the top of the ticket I would have voted for her, despite having Ultra Liberal RINO McCain as her running mate.

As an independent, I haven't seen anybody jump out at me. I doubt I'll vote for Trump or Weld.
I wonder if the Clinton Crime Family Foundation will fund a run for Chelsea. She doesn't seem the cackling Harpy like Hilliary, more empty headed like Willie.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2019 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted:
Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Bernie. Walks it like he talks it, always has.

Care to elaborate? What do you LIKE?

That, and I don't support $15 an hour minimum wage, or "reparations" to anyone.
No teenager is worth $15 an hour and just about everyone can get Social Security.
This country is going broke and making decisions that would hasten that are counter-productive to us continuing to BE a country.

$15 should be the minimum. Most people who work for minimum are NOT teenagers.

This Troll peddles so many lies, they're hard to keep track of. Just because this Troll's family and friends are all incapable of income beyond Minimum Wage, does not mean the same applies to the rest of the world.
Lettuce take a look. From BLS data, in thousands.
March 2019: Civilian noninstitutional Population over 18: 249,670
Civilian noninstitutional Population total: 258,537.
Civilian noninstitutional Population age 20 and over: 241,838.
Looks like BLS does not count working teenagers under age 16.
So, age 16 & 17: 8,867. Age 18 & 19: 7,832.
Total Employed: 156,441. Over 20: 151,554. Over 18: 154,839. Age 25 and over: 137,630.
Employed age 16 & 17: 1,601. Employed age 18 & 19: 3,285. Employed age 20-24: 13,925.
Part-Time workers: 27,622.

The most recent data I found on Minimum Wage was from 2015. For the moment, let us assume the data is comparable, and extrapolation is possible.
Hourly workers age 16-19, 11% are paid at or below Minimum Wage. That would mean for March 2019.
Hourly workers age 25 or older, 2% are paid at or below Minimum Wage. That would mean for March 2019.
Part-Time workers, March 2015: 27,655.
Employed age 16-17: 1,445. Age 18-19: 3,046. Age 20-24: 13,584.

870,000 workers were paid Minimum Wage.
1,691,000 workers were paid below Minimum Wage, normally meaning they worked for Commission and/or tips.
Hourly workers age 16-19 paid Minimum Wage: 258.
Hourly workers age 20-24 paid Minimum Wage: 218.

I found some data from 2017.
Total workers at Minimum Wage: 542.
Workers age 16-19 paid Minimum Wage: 172. 32%
Workers age 20-24 paid Minimum Wage: 149. 27%
Workers age 25 or more paid Minimum Wage: 221. 41%
Primary Minimum Wage job is Part-Time: 379.
Primary Minimum Wage job is Full-time: 121.
Primary Minimum Wage job is 40 hours or more: 90.
So, Primary job is Minimum Wage: 500.
U-3: 5.1%. U-6: 10.1%. Involuntary Part-Time: 3.9%. (6127)

From 2012:
Total workers paid Minimum Wage: 1,566.
Workers age 16-19 paid Minimum Wage: 484. 31%
Workers age 20-24 paid Minimum Wage: 378. 24%
Workers age 25 or more paid Minimum Wage: 704. 45%
Jan 2012 U-3: 8.8%. U-6: 16.2%. Involuntary Part-Time: 5.7% (8747)

2019 U-3: 4.2%. U-6: 8.0%. Involuntary Part-Time: 3.0%. (4800)
Estimated workers paid Minimum Wage: 353.
Estimated workers age 25+ paid Minimum Wage: 39%, 137.
Estimated workers age 16-19 paid Minimum Wage: 33%, 118.
Estimated workers age 20-24 paid Minimum Wage: 98.
Estimated Primary job is Minimum Wage: 325.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2019 1:51 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Tulsi Gabbard for foreign policy. As I've mentioned before, I have 2 items on my list 1) not blowing up the planet, and 2) addressing global warming. She looks like she will be focused at least on 1).

Plus I've seen the hit pieces on her in Salon, one of the MSM's outlets (can't remember if it was NYTimes or WaPo), and ZH. And obviously republicans are against her. And now the one in Vox. In my mind she must be doing something right if everyone in the system is against her, because ...

All the usual suspects have got us in this mess by doing what they always do, and they're not going to get us out with more of the same.

We need 'different', not 'more'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2019 2:01 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As for minimum wage ... my idea is that if something is necessary to do, then it's worth paying a living wage to get it done.

The idea that profit is and should be the one and only value by which we measure worth is a narrow and false idea. Here are two example about profit, and how it doesn't measure 'worth' very well. It's profitable to kill and rob people. Yet we don't allow it. It's not profitable to bear and raise children. Yet it's absolutely vital to society's survival. In neither case does profit measure worth at all.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2019 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
As for a woman, I would still vote for Sarah Palin if she was the top of the ticket. She has been the best candidate on a ticket since at least 2006, maybe since 1986.

Palin and her whole hypocritical family are a hot stupid mess.

She shouldn't EVER be in charge of ANYTHING. Maybe running a tabloid...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2019 9:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In my mind she must be doing something right if everyone in the system is against her, because ...

I haven't seen such a screwed up twist of illogical BS since 6ix said it about someone else. What a REACH

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2019 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In neither case does profit measure worth at all.

WORTH measures WORTH. Profit just measures what someone will pay and is never the same from day to day.

People have kids to HAVE SOMETHING TO DO. People rob because they wanna get stoned or buy something they can't. Using the word profit in either of those equations is looney.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2019 10:01 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
WORTH measures WORTH. Profit just measures what someone will pay and is never the same from day to day.

I'll use the word 'profit' more formally in the future - to indicate a business gain above and beyond expense, rather than to indicate more generalized idea of cost v benefit. And I hope you'll do the same, or we won't understand each other.

But it sounds to me like you agree: that profit and worth aren't the same, and profit shouldn't be used to evaluate worth.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2019 10:07 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In my mind she must be doing something right if everyone in the system is against her, because ...

Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

I haven't seen such a screwed up twist of illogical BS since 6ix said it about someone else. What a REACH

Well - ahem! - 1) you took the quote out of context without considering the argument, and 2) calling something 'screwed up' isn't and argument.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2019 10:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Tulsi Gabbard for foreign policy. As I've mentioned before, I have 2 items on my list 1) not blowing up the planet, and 2) addressing global warming. She looks like she will be focused at least on 1).

Plus I've seen the hit pieces on her in Salon, one of the MSM's outlets (can't remember if it was NYTimes or WaPo), and ZH. And obviously republicans are against her. And now the one in Vox. In my mind she must be doing something right if everyone in the system is against her, because ...

All the usual suspects have got us in this mess by doing what they always do, and they're not going to get us out with more of the same.

We need 'different', not 'more'.

You say that Republicans are against her, obviously.
Does she or her platform have anything to offer or excite Conservatives or Libertarians?
Liberals and Democrats being against her sounds like a start, has potential to stir interest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2019 3:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
As for a woman, I would still vote for Sarah Palin if she was the top of the ticket. She has been the best candidate on a ticket since at least 2006, maybe since 1986. If she would have been the top of the ticket I would have voted for her, despite having Ultra Liberal RINO McCain as her running mate.

You didn't explain WHY you like Palin. THAT is a topic worthy of discussion!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2019 3:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
I think I'm going with Booker.

I saw a clip of him on Ellen, he's articulate and seems like he knows how to act. He helped balance the budget in Newark for the first time in a decade. Rethugs will like that he's pro-gun and pro-enforcing gun laws we already have. Isn't threatened by LGBTQ. If he marries Rosario Dawson he'll have the geek parade eating out of his hands. Oh, and he'd like a woman VP, so that's a great first step on that front too.

Plus being black would piss off Trump, so that could only be a postive.

Identity politics aside, do you have any links to info about Booker?

I admit to having taken a huge dislike to him in 2010, when he pimped out Newark public schools to Zuckerberg, who gave him $100 million grant so that Zuckerberg could try out his ideas on how to "fix" public education. I'm no too thrilled about "charity" and social engineering by the uber-elite, and disgusted that Booker would buy into it.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2019 5:36 AM

lol Booker.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2019 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Tulsi Gabbard for foreign policy. As I've mentioned before, I have 2 items on my list 1) not blowing up the planet, and 2) addressing global warming. She looks like she will be focused at least on 1).

Plus I've seen the hit pieces on her in Salon, one of the MSM's outlets (can't remember if it was NYTimes or WaPo), and ZH. And obviously republicans are against her. And now the one in Vox. In my mind she must be doing something right if everyone in the system is against her, because ...

All the usual suspects have got us in this mess by doing what they always do, and they're not going to get us out with more of the same.

We need 'different', not 'more'.
You say that Republicans are against her, obviously.
Does she or her platform have anything to offer or excite Conservatives or Libertarians?
Liberals and Democrats being against her sounds like a start, has potential to stir interest.

Thinking on it more, everybody against her: same thing for Trump. As a lifelong Democrat, the Democrats now hate him. And also the GOP hates him, obstructs him, constantly fights against him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2019 10:22 PM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6900495/Cory-Booker-introduce
s-legislation-set-commission-reparations-slavery.html

Booker may have just shot himself in the foot with white people...and ME.

Mark my words, "reparations" will start another civil war. Or just more white people sniping black people in groups. Hope it'll be worth it for something long dead.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2019 10:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'll use the word 'profit' more formally in the future - to indicate a business gain above and beyond expense,

But it sounds to me like you agree: that profit and worth aren't the same, and profit shouldn't be used to evaluate worth.

Nope, I understood exactly what you meant, just know enough about profit to know you can't paint it as the motivator or the evaluator in EVERYTHING.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2019 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
...and disgusted that Booker would buy into it.

Where ELSE were they going to get money, Republicans???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 11:24 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6900495/Cory-Booker-introduce
s-legislation-set-commission-reparations-slavery.html

Booker may have just shot himself in the foot with white people...and ME.

Mark my words, "reparations" will start another civil war. Or just more white people sniping black people in groups. Hope it'll be worth it for something long dead.

What a fool - he's out, no loss. He was always one of the lessor candidates.

How would one even begin to calculate such a "repayment" anyway? Would you have to prove you had relations that were slaves, or is this just a broad calculation? Would you have to be 100% black? There have been many generations since slavery, I'm sure there has been much mixing of races. The concept has always seemed bizarre to me, but I'm not black. I am part Irish though, plenty of poor treatment there! Do I get a slice of that pie?

Better to focus on current and future human rights and racial equality, than spend the time trying to fix the past imho.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 12:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:

...and disgusted that Booker would buy into it.- SIGNY

Where ELSE were they going to get money, Republicans??? WISHY

There were literally dozens of reforms that Booker could have made without prostituting the Newark school system to Zuckerberg. But that would have meant crossing the teachers union amd kicking out undperperforming administrators and staff, and closing some schools in favor of others and maybe even getting on parents' asses to support their kids' education.

****

"Reparations"? Yeah, for what? One side of my family didn't move here until 1920 and the other side until 1948. What the hell do I, or my family, have to do with the past injustice of slavery? Where did we benefit? Taking that logic further ... what about the descendants of families who fought on the Union side? what do THEY have to do with slavery (except maybe helping end it)? If the descendants of slaves are due reparations what about the descendants of Union soldiers? Do they get a bonus? And even descendants of slave-holders? If they're fighting prejudice, why should they be punished for something their great great grandaddy did?

The crimes of slavery were committed by people long-past. You can't punish people today for something that happened a long time ago.

How about we just root out prejudice wherever we find it* (which btw still exists) and make sure that everyone has an equal education up to college?

Jeezuz, what whiny bullshit.

* And that means blacks against whites as well as whites against blacks, blacks against browns, whites against whites, women against men and men against women, and ... most importantly ... the rich against everyone else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 3:13 PM

If one wants to help "repair" blacks in America, one should legalize weed and stop putting the fathers in prison for 25 to life for selling it.

The War on Drugs and Bill Clinton's bill in 1994 did more harm to black families in America than anything else.

They'd also have to take the profit out of prisons first. It's gross to think how much money prisoners have made that end up going into political campaigns.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
If one wants to help "repair" blacks in America, one should legalize weed and stop putting the fathers in prison for 25 to life for selling it.

Not so fast. As much as I think weed is better than booze, weed still has plenty of negatives. Just today there was a study that found that women that used it for morning sickness had babies that have fewer neurons in the memory sections of the brain. That's a biggie. It would also explain why people who use it regularly before 27-ish are more apathetic and less competent because your brain isn't done forming connections to those areas until then. And according to recent traffic studies in states where weed is legal, there ARE more accidents and people on weed are more likely to be on OTHER substances when arrested for DUI.

Maybe we should make it legal for people who can prove they cannot procreate or drive. Less people, more buses...win win.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:

What a fool - he's out, no loss. He was always one of the lessor candidates.

How would one even begin to calculate such a "repayment" anyway?

Better to focus on current and future human rights and racial equality, than spend the time trying to fix the past imho.

Not sure I would count him out entirely though, have seen a few comments going his way. I think a lot of people saw him on Ellen.

I've never seen how that could even begin to be established either. Maybe they all know it and they keep bringing it up to get the fringe votes of people who think they're gonna get free stuff...

It's been a while since I mentioned it, but my step-father is black, ex-cop. Truly one of the nicest people I know on the planet, and that's one of the reasons he couldn't stay a cop. Back when all the black face stuff was going on couple months ago I was talking about it with mom and she said he could care less, so to test that theory I got out the Halloween kit and used three tubes of black paint (not cartoonishly, I actually did look like a black woman) and sent him a pic... Mom said he was eating dinner when she showed him and he choked laughing and she thought he was going to have a heart attack laughing himself to death... Couple days later I get a whiteface mom did on HIM. What's funny is he said I looked like one of his cousins and he looks a bit like one of my mom's cousins.

Like I said, great guy. And that's the way it should be, we should all be able to laugh at the differences. Not absolving people who put on KKK hoods and did picture spreads of their stupidity, but people that are just playing around others should just get over it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
If one wants to help "repair" blacks in America, one should legalize weed and stop putting the fathers in prison for 25 to life for selling it.

Not so fast. As much as I think weed is better than booze, weed still has plenty of negatives. Just today there was a study that found that women that used it for morning sickness had babies that have fewer neurons in the memory sections of the brain. That's a biggie. It would also explain why people who use it regularly before 27-ish are more apathetic and less competent because your brain isn't done forming connections to those areas until then. And according to recent traffic studies in states where weed is legal, there ARE more accidents and people on weed are more likely to be on OTHER substances when arrested for DUI.

Maybe we should make it legal for people who can prove they cannot procreate or drive. Less people, more buses...win win.

I've never heard of any studies like you're stating here. I do agree that you probably shouldn't be able to use it until you're out of high school though.

Weed's gotten a bad rap for almost a hundred years now.

Take a look at this list of corporations that fund the Partnership for a Drug Free America and ask yourself how many of them could stand to lose a lot of money if weed is considered for the legitimate medicinal properties it has.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/pdfa1.htm

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2019 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Weed's gotten a bad rap for almost a hundred years now.

EVERY substance you regularly inject, inhale, slather on, ingest has potential positives and negatives, it just takes years to pin them down because they affect in so many different ways and at vastly different rates.

100 years ago if a person decided not to work too much they could get dead fairly easily, hence the "rap". I wouldn't call that undeserved, if the effects are real.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2019 12:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
If one wants to help "repair" blacks in America, one should legalize weed and stop putting the fathers in prison for 25 to life for selling it.

Not so fast. As much as I think weed is better than booze, weed still has plenty of negatives. Just today there was a study that found that women that used it for morning sickness had babies that have fewer neurons in the memory sections of the brain. That's a biggie. It would also explain why people who use it regularly before 27-ish are more apathetic and less competent because your brain isn't done forming connections to those areas until then. And according to recent traffic studies in states where weed is legal, there ARE more accidents and people on weed are more likely to be on OTHER substances when arrested for DUI.

Maybe we should make it legal for people who can prove they cannot procreate or drive. Less people, more buses...win win.

I've never heard of any studies like you're stating here. I do agree that you probably shouldn't be able to use it until you're out of high school though.

Weed's gotten a bad rap for almost a hundred years now.

Take a look at this list of corporations that fund the Partnership for a Drug Free America and ask yourself how many of them could stand to lose a lot of money if weed is considered for the legitimate medicinal properties it has.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/pdfa1.htm

Do Right, Be Right. :)

As long as you keep yourself stoned, you will continue to never hear of real studies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2019 1:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If one wants to help "repair" blacks in America, one should legalize weed and stop putting the fathers in prison for 25 to life for selling it.

I agree.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2019 8:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Weed's gotten a bad rap for almost a hundred years now.

EVERY substance you regularly inject, inhale, slather on, ingest has potential positives and negatives, it just takes years to pin them down because they affect in so many different ways and at vastly different rates.

100 years ago if a person decided not to work too much they could get dead fairly easily, hence the "rap". I wouldn't call that undeserved, if the effects are real.

I'm not going to argue that everything is great about it. As you said though, it's not as bad as alcohol, and I don't think we'd argue with each other when I say that it's not as bad as cigarettes either.

It also effects different people differently. And who knows, maybe that's not even true and it's because there's about a hundred thousand different batches that you can have that will effect you differently. When you buy it off the street, not only do you have no idea where it was grown and what chemicals were used to grow it, but you have no idea if the dealers weighed it down with anything from orange juice to hairspray.

I argue that not only should it be legal, but you should also be allowed to grow several plants of your own in your tomato garden like some states have already allowed. That way you know exactly what strains you're using, you can keep it chemical free, and you know that some shady dealer hasn't put any additives in it to make it heavier at the point of sale.

Oh... and BTW, JSF, I haven't smoked in years now. As long as they refuse to legalize it on a national level, I'm not risking the admittedly very small chance that a job that pays well enough for me to consider working full time comes along.

I'm also wondering what horrible thing somebody you cared about did while smoking weed that makes you so adamant against it. You're honestly the only person online or IRL that I know that thinks the way you do about it in 2019.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2019 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Weed's gotten a bad rap for almost a hundred years now.

EVERY substance you regularly inject, inhale, slather on, ingest has potential positives and negatives, it just takes years to pin them down because they affect in so many different ways and at vastly different rates.

100 years ago if a person decided not to work too much they could get dead fairly easily, hence the "rap". I wouldn't call that undeserved, if the effects are real.

I'm not going to argue that everything is great about it. As you said though, it's not as bad as alcohol, and I don't think we'd argue with each other when I say that it's not as bad as cigarettes either.

It also effects different people differently. And who knows, maybe that's not even true and it's because there's about a hundred thousand different batches that you can have that will effect you differently. When you buy it off the street, not only do you have no idea where it was grown and what chemicals were used to grow it, but you have no idea if the dealers weighed it down with anything from orange juice to hairspray.

I argue that not only should it be legal, but you should also be allowed to grow several plants of your own in your tomato garden like some states have already allowed. That way you know exactly what strains you're using, you can keep it chemical free, and you know that some shady dealer hasn't put any additives in it to make it heavier at the point of sale.

Oh... and BTW, JSF, I haven't smoked in years now. As long as they refuse to legalize it on a national level, I'm not risking the admittedly very small chance that a job that pays well enough for me to consider working full time comes along.

I'm also wondering what horrible thing somebody you cared about did while smoking weed that makes you so adamant against it. You're honestly the only person online or IRL that I know that thinks the way you do about it in 2019.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

You pretend to be a veritable expert on pot.
Let's check if you know the basics.
When the Government had a University study marijuana, what were the health effects found to be?

BTW, it was a University that you may have visited.

And, if you are able to give an accurate answer, did you know that before today?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2019 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Let's check if you know the basics.

He doesn't read, he only youtubes...and youtube only does science if it can burn or blow up something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2019 3:16 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Pot is not "harmless"... it DOES have an effect on people's brains ... that's why they ingest/smoke/vape it!

OTOH, it's not a Class 1 Drug either. It should either be legalized AND REGULATED, or possession should be reduced to a misdemeanor.

I personally don't like pot. In fact, I absolutely hate that "free floating" effect.

And modern pot strains are so much stronger than the old-fashioned ones. Maybe there should be a limit on total cannabinoids. The dose makes the drug: Nobody ever got addicted chewing coca leaves, but concentrate it and make it inhalable so it hits your system all at once and POW!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2019 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Pot is not "harmless"... it DOES have an effect on people's brains ... that's why they ingest/smoke/vape it!

OTOH, it's not a Class 1 Drug either. It should either be legalized AND REGULATED, or possession should be reduced to a misdemeanor.

I personally don't like pot. In fact, I absolutely hate that "free floating" effect.

And modern pot strains are so much stronger than the old-fashioned ones. Maybe there should be a limit on total cannabinoids. The dose makes the drug: Nobody ever got addicted chewing coca leaves, but concentrate it and make it inhalable so it hits your system all at once and POW!

Thank you, Sigs.

Somebody here that actually worked in the field.

I've never been a professional. I just have plenty of life experience, and I've seen up close and personal how pot effects people compared to other drugs.

At the end of the day, alcohol and cigarettes are far more dangerous to anybody than weed is. Alcohol is still legal because they tried to make it illegal and it failed miserably. Cigarettes are legal because it's a giant source of government revenue and the economy would likely implode overnight if they stole that golden egg laying goose from themselves. The only reason that they're legalizing weed on a state by state basis today is because of greed... not because they suddenly got "woke" on the issue.

Bottom line is, you can get it anywhere, anyhow. I'd argue that it's much easier to acquire than alcohol and cigarettes are... particularly for kids.
Nobody asks you for your photo ID to verify your age when selling you weed on the black market.

If it were made legal to grow, at least you would know exactly what's going into it and know it wasn't weighed down with chemicals. If it were legal to buy from dispensaries, you would have your choice of different strains and potency that were grown in uniform batches so it wouldn't be a random bag of whatever-the-fuck every time you picked one up.

And you were doing so good Wishy. Having a legitimate adult conversation for almost two days on the subject. I was going to comment on that before, but I knew it was just a matter of time before the other shoe dropped.

And, that's not an answer to my question, JSF.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Any 'drug' - alcohol, nicotine, pot - should be illegal before the age of 21. But then, I think you should be 21 before you can join the military or be in any position where you can either kill or be killed, or go to an adult jail, or buy violent video games or watch violent shows.

Sadly, we haven't been able to fix the causes of violence in the community or in the home.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 11, 2019 2:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Weed's gotten a bad rap for almost a hundred years now.

EVERY substance you regularly inject, inhale, slather on, ingest has potential positives and negatives, it just takes years to pin them down because they affect in so many different ways and at vastly different rates.

100 years ago if a person decided not to work too much they could get dead fairly easily, hence the "rap". I wouldn't call that undeserved, if the effects are real.

I'm not going to argue that everything is great about it. As you said though, it's not as bad as alcohol, and I don't think we'd argue with each other when I say that it's not as bad as cigarettes either.

It also effects different people differently. And who knows, maybe that's not even true and it's because there's about a hundred thousand different batches that you can have that will effect you differently. When you buy it off the street, not only do you have no idea where it was grown and what chemicals were used to grow it, but you have no idea if the dealers weighed it down with anything from orange juice to hairspray.

I argue that not only should it be legal, but you should also be allowed to grow several plants of your own in your tomato garden like some states have already allowed. That way you know exactly what strains you're using, you can keep it chemical free, and you know that some shady dealer hasn't put any additives in it to make it heavier at the point of sale.

Oh... and BTW, JSF, I haven't smoked in years now. As long as they refuse to legalize it on a national level, I'm not risking the admittedly very small chance that a job that pays well enough for me to consider working full time comes along.

I'm also wondering what horrible thing somebody you cared about did while smoking weed that makes you so adamant against it. You're honestly the only person online or IRL that I know that thinks the way you do about it in 2019.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
You pretend to be a veritable expert on pot.
Let's check if you know the basics.
When the Government had a University study marijuana, what were the health effects found to be?

BTW, it was a University that you may have visited.

And, if you are able to give an accurate answer, did you know that before today?

So, you cannot answer, you have no clue about the basic facts of pot, you avoid your failures by not even bothering to try to answer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 11, 2019 2:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

And you were doing so good Wishy. Having a legitimate adult conversation for almost two days on the subject. I was going to comment on that before, but I knew it was just a matter of time before the other shoe dropped.

"He doesn't read" ISN'T an attack, it's truth. You deny ANYTHING you don't personally see yourself and you don't believe written laws and principles of science because you (AGAIN) lack the personality to validate to YOURSELF what already is proven fact.

Personality, meaning: set of traits that allow intellectual function.

You have a mental disorder. Not kidding, not attacking.
If you could put your broken ego aside you could see it and fix it.

You stopped drinking, you got a job, now UNDERSTAND SCIENCE. Pick up a book fer crissakes...

Black holes exist, weed ISN'T all good for you, and this planet is shaped like a lumpy lemon.

There's yer starting point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 11, 2019 8:02 AM