tvashtarkatena

On appeal, the court applied intermediate, rather than strict, scrutiny to deny a man previously convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor (his wife came home to find hubby with a professional, hyjinx ensued) the right to possess firearms. US v Chester This is in line with Heller; the right to bear arms should be afforded only to law-abiding, responsible citizens. Previous convictions for violence indicated otherwise in this case. The ruling included a discussion of whether or not conviction for a violent misdemeanor might be a more compelling reason to deny 2nd amendment rights than conviction for a non-violent felony. A case to test that will likely come up sooner than later, possibly securing the right to bear arms for convicted potheads and Martha Stewart.

Some of the fossil fuel subsidies probably go towards improving energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions, so there's likely a component of the black zone that drifts into the green zone.

Jesus probably smoke a shit ton of pot. Pot's been around, according to the arch. record, for at least 6,000 years. I'd guess 50,000 years ago our ancestors were tokin ditch weed.

Medicinal marijuana is a completely different issue than outright legalization, with a very different approval rate. That 81% drops to well under 50% when you're talking about the latter. Your GOP/Dem figures are about right; thanks for nailing my argument. Remember...Baggers are nothing more than extra-militant GOPers. They sure has hell don't vote Dem, and they sure as hell do vote, eh? Your assertion that Baggers are more likely to favor legalization may well be right if the 'libertarian' streak is stronger than the 'social conservative' streak amongst that group. Personally, I doubt that it is; I suspect social conservatism is what fuels the emotion in that movement, and it is, after all, almost pure emotion without a whole lot of rationality, given the inconsistency and incoherence of their agenda, or, er, lack thereof. Hey, I hope I'm wrong. If so, I'd love to see an actual Bagger leader, not Geraldo Rivera's doppleganger, not yesteryear's economist, not kooky-but-lovable-and-largely-ignored-by-his-own-party Ron Paul, come out with a statement in support of ANY drug policy reform other than med. MJ. I've looked...NADA. Can anyone find anything 'official' from the Baggers on this?

The feds, who've done fuck all to reform drug policy (smoking your medicinal weed, green card in hand, in Yosemite NP? Hellooooo, felony!) aren't going to do jack until enough of the states reform first, and those state fights have been pretty partisan so far, with conservative groups on the wrong side of the issue. So when you trot our good ole Ron Paul as your example...yeah. Not exactly a knock out punch. And calling the Tea Baggers 'libertarian'? That's pretty much the national joke these days, isn't it?

I'd love to find a statement by anyone in the tea party leadership supporting marijuana legalization, if you can produce one. They seem strangely silent on the subject on the national level...but certainly not in Washington's legislature. I'd love to be wrong on this one....

LOL You probably won't get the joke Jay, but the rest of us will.

You must cease pursuing little critters into the bush, my son.

Yes, we already all know how Friedman (not a politician) and Ron Paul famously feel about the war on drugs. Not news to anyone.

There you go, cherry picking your facts again and then pretending they represent the entire picture. It's kind of what you do. In this case, however, it's pretty much an outright lie. At the state level at least, pro war on druggies are overwhelmingly republican, according to a lobbyist who knows just a wee bit more about the pulse of our politics than you pretend to. GOPer's in favor of any drug policy reform, nevermind legalization, are exceedingly rare at any level of government, although they do exist. Hopefully, that will change. What you've conjectured is pure crap, however.

The Baggers couldn't possible give enough of a shit about not getting an extra few hundred bucks shaved off their tax bill to howl as loud as they do, so the movement has to be driven by an underlying social schism. Are pot smoking hippies among the long list of folks the Baggers hate?

No means no.

Yeah, more quixotic horseshit. "We must first eliminate the State and then..." Put your money where your mouth is on eliminating subsidies by backing efforts to reduce corporate influence over our political process or STFU. Or you could figure out how to fight in the arena we've got....

Eliminating the state and returning to a state of nature would be awesome once the die off was over....

Can anyone explain to me why the fuckin' baggers are against legalizing pot? And, please, don't try to tell me they're not.

You can campaign finance reform all you want and the population will still be as dumb as a post. Effective organization, planning, and messaging can beat lots and lotsa money. You could just give every candidate $2 m of public money and tell them to STFU otherwise, but you'd still have an ocean of uncoordinated money to contend with after Citizen's United.

If you think gubmint need not play a major role, watch the clusterfuck of bickering idiots that owns and runs our grid try to modernize it. Or not.

Hundreds of billions. Get rid of them be eliminating all special tax preferences in exchange for lowering all marginal rates. In practice these distortions do little more than protect large, established industries to the detriment of everyone else. It's a good thing the Green Revolution that lifted so many millions out of poverty wasn't subsidized. It happened through magic. Then again, it's all subjective. Except cultural relativism, of course. Damn hard to think in binary these days. "The term “Green Revolution” was first used in 1968 by former USAID director William Gaud, who noted the spread of the new technologies and said, "These and other developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a new revolution. It is not a violet Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution." The Green Revolution describes the transformation of agriculture that led to significant increases in agricultural production between the 1940s and 1960s in developed countries and now in underdeveloped countries. This transformation occurred as the result of programs of agricultural research, extension, and infrastructural development, instigated and largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation...." Might be instructive to add up the total combined value of 1st world farm subsidies, toss in the total economic damage they've done to poor farmers around the world, and divide that total by the amount that governments have spent on initiatives like Borlaug's... Erroneously narrow the definition of anything and you're magically right on everything! Let's focus on US corn subsidies, shall we? The Green Revolution is a result of the invention of synthesized nitrogen fertilizers and, to a lesser degree, the development of dwarf, high yield grains. Who coined the term and when is absofuckinglutely irrelevant to any discussion of the subject, but mentioning it does add to one's verbosity...a subjective measure of the success of one's arguments. Massive government programs have been the primary engines for proliferating the use of both synthesized nitrogen fertilizers and and these new plant varieties around the world, which, in turn, enabled developing populations to industrialize or, at least, feed themselves. Of course, this came at the expense of the climate, topsoil, acquifer, and ocean health, but that's another topic.

You want sodden? Try sea kayaking in a light gale.

Or any R&D for that matter.

Hundreds of billions. Get rid of them be eliminating all special tax preferences in exchange for lowering all marginal rates. In practice these distortions do little more than protect large, established industries to the detriment of everyone else. It's a good thing the Green Revolution that lifted so many millions out of poverty wasn't subsidized. It happened through magic. Then again, it's all subjective. Except cultural relativism, of course. Damn hard to think in binary these days.

It happened only once...5 years ago. Go Big or Go Home.

Subsidies for stupid things, like corn-based ethanol (cellulose based ethanol is actually not a bad idea) result in, well, stupidity. Subsidies for smart things, such as energy saving appliances in the home, can greatly accelerate real solutions to problems, particularly where there is technological risk involved. Of course, all subsidies are evil, because, as we all know, gubmint is evil. Sarah knows that, and so did the FOUNDING FATHERS .

...why there are rings around Uranus and why it emits so little heat.... Inquiring minds...

Awesome. Build out already proven green power generation technologies, such as nuclear, wind, and solar today, along with a more efficient grid, while developing future technologies like EGS. Sounds good.