Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Nuclear Unicorn
Nuclear Unicorn's Journal
Nuclear Unicorn's Journal
March 12, 2015
Is there any practical use for the far end of the toaster dial?
I was making toast and I guess I accidentally turned the knob to a higher setting; not much, just from, "2 1/2" to about, "3 1/2" (okay, I have no idea what those little tick marks mean). First, I smelled the smell of burning toast and when my toast popped up I thought, "Well, I could probably use this to patch the hole in my car from that hailstorm."
Now, my toaster goes up to, "8." It can't be for bagels because the toaster has a bagel button. So, what reason could anyone have for turning the dial all the way up?
March 10, 2015
Okay, so let's "war-game" this: The President orders the arrest of 47 opposition senators.
He's sitting at his desk when an aide hands him a printout of the petition. After consulting with his advisors he instructs the DOJ to file arrest warrants.
Then what happens?
March 6, 2015
We do things diff'rent, out here in the country
March 3, 2015
No matter how you look at it, from the grandest structures to the tiniest elements, the universe is a thing of resounding beauty.
Scientists take the first ever photograph of light as both a wave and a particle
Scientists take the first ever photograph of light as both a wave and a particle
...
It's been over 100 years and every experiment with light that any scientist has ever performed proves that light either behaves as a wave or that light behaves as a particle, but never both at the same time. No one has glimpsed both states simultaneously until now.
...
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/image-of-light-as-a-wave-and-a-particle-2015-3#ixzz3THGzleMG
...
It's been over 100 years and every experiment with light that any scientist has ever performed proves that light either behaves as a wave or that light behaves as a particle, but never both at the same time. No one has glimpsed both states simultaneously until now.
...
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/image-of-light-as-a-wave-and-a-particle-2015-3#ixzz3THGzleMG
No matter how you look at it, from the grandest structures to the tiniest elements, the universe is a thing of resounding beauty.
March 1, 2015
It's not about safety, it's about control. Here is a wholly unrelated USSC precedent set in 1997 and the response is to disregard the rule of law and extort people.
So much for the myth of the law-abiding gun grabber.
When the inevitable and wholly predictable counterpoint about marijuana legalization was raised the only response was to shout louder and pound the table harder.
X-post: Inside The Conservative Campaign To Stop Cops From Enforcing Federal Gun Laws
Inside The Conservative Campaign To Stop Cops From Enforcing Federal Gun Laws
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/federal-gun-laws_n_6754416.html
States are passing "nullification laws" that effectively prevent the enforcement of federal laws, particularly gun laws. How the hell can that be?
"Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, was involved in writing the first draft of that (nullification) bill. He said he discussed the concept in 2009 while waiting to appear on Glenn Beck's Fox News show with Andrew Napolitano, the senior judicial analyst for Fox News, in New York City. As Marbut remembers it, Napolitano told him: "All you need to do is don't help enforce these federal laws, because they don't have the manpower to do it."
This can happen because in 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Printz v. United States that the federal government cannot force local chief law enforcement officers to fulfill federal tasks. The gun nutz are counting on "small government" to allow them to flaunt federal laws. Well, there's more ways than one to skin that cat.
Montana receives $1.55 in federal revenues for every $1.00 it sends to Washington in the form of taxes. Wonder what happens to Montana's economy if that drops to, say, $.50? It seems that Red states are much more dependent on the federal trough than Blue states: http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
Just close down a couple of military bases, cut off federal subsidies for grazing or mining on federal lands and see how long they can hold out. It can be a bitch when you bite the hand that feeds you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628319
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/federal-gun-laws_n_6754416.html
States are passing "nullification laws" that effectively prevent the enforcement of federal laws, particularly gun laws. How the hell can that be?
"Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, was involved in writing the first draft of that (nullification) bill. He said he discussed the concept in 2009 while waiting to appear on Glenn Beck's Fox News show with Andrew Napolitano, the senior judicial analyst for Fox News, in New York City. As Marbut remembers it, Napolitano told him: "All you need to do is don't help enforce these federal laws, because they don't have the manpower to do it."
This can happen because in 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Printz v. United States that the federal government cannot force local chief law enforcement officers to fulfill federal tasks. The gun nutz are counting on "small government" to allow them to flaunt federal laws. Well, there's more ways than one to skin that cat.
Montana receives $1.55 in federal revenues for every $1.00 it sends to Washington in the form of taxes. Wonder what happens to Montana's economy if that drops to, say, $.50? It seems that Red states are much more dependent on the federal trough than Blue states: http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
Just close down a couple of military bases, cut off federal subsidies for grazing or mining on federal lands and see how long they can hold out. It can be a bitch when you bite the hand that feeds you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628319
It's not about safety, it's about control. Here is a wholly unrelated USSC precedent set in 1997 and the response is to disregard the rule of law and extort people.
So much for the myth of the law-abiding gun grabber.
When the inevitable and wholly predictable counterpoint about marijuana legalization was raised the only response was to shout louder and pound the table harder.
March 1, 2015
So Scott Walker and Rand Paul have each won separate polls.
This seems to speak to me the GOP is prepared to make a significant move to the right in 2016.
That being said, does that give the Democratic party the space to move further left or dos that create a vacuum in the middle for a more centrist position?
Frankly, I would be at a loss if I were asked to find a single potential Democratic candidate that was NOT solid on the issues of gender issues, social justice, marriage equality, immigration reform, economic equality, etc. The question then becomes: How much of the unclaimed middle do we need to worry about if the GOP is pushing hard and fast to the right?
If the GOP jettisons the centrists and independents do we really need to dilute our positions in order to win them or should we fight for what we know are the best policies? Do we really need to coddle corporations while trying to explain away the embarrassments of past military adventurism?
We keep hearing that over zealous demands of purity will be our undoing but if the GOP is going undiluted RW what better opportunity will we see again to get the best of the best?
February 28, 2015
Apparently the child in the picture is a jihadist that has traveled to numerous foreign lands and poses a terrorist threat.
No discussion as to whether of not the one million people on the watch list deserve to be there; just an assumption that they are guilty and therefore should be stripped of their civil rights without due process. If it were a RWer making this argument people would be howling that this was nothing more than an effort to stir-up Islamophobia and they would be right.
Yet, here we are, being fed the guilty-Muslim-until-proven-innocent line and, moreover, we're being told that in order to combat this nefarious evil lurking in the shadows we must restrict the rights of all people -- even those who never travel to nations on the watch list.
Of course, one has to also wonder: What good would even a total prohibition do if someone is prepared to engage in an act of war on US soil? Have terrorists, of any stripe, been thwarted in their ability to gain the weapons of their choosing whether guns, bombs or carpet razors?
X-Post: "Gun Rights for Terrorists"
Gun Rights for Terrorists
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/opinion/gun-rights-for-terrorists.html
"Protective measures include the tracking of travel patterns to and from certain countries, and tightened airport security, but our laws do nothing to stop domestic terrorist suspects from gaining access to the tools they need to inflict terrible damage. Those on the terror watch list are free to buy and own unlimited firearms in the United States.
And it is well documented that they do. The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, recently reported that between February 2004 and December 2014, individuals on the watch list attempted to purchase firearms or explosives on 2,233 occasions — and more than 90 percent of the time, they cleared a background check and received approval to buy.
In fact, only a very small percentage of the roughly one million people on the international terror watch list are American citizens. Among the objective criteria that cause someone to be listed are active membership in an organization devoted to jihad, a record of transfers of money to a terrorist organization, and the incitement of acts of terrorism.
Gun lobby opposition has also played a part in earlier failures to address the problem. A small, extremist sliver of the gun-owning population (including the leadership of the National Rifle Association) opposes any limitations — even a restriction of terror suspects’ right to arm themselves."
==============
Yep, law abiding citizens all.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628345
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/opinion/gun-rights-for-terrorists.html
"Protective measures include the tracking of travel patterns to and from certain countries, and tightened airport security, but our laws do nothing to stop domestic terrorist suspects from gaining access to the tools they need to inflict terrible damage. Those on the terror watch list are free to buy and own unlimited firearms in the United States.
And it is well documented that they do. The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, recently reported that between February 2004 and December 2014, individuals on the watch list attempted to purchase firearms or explosives on 2,233 occasions — and more than 90 percent of the time, they cleared a background check and received approval to buy.
In fact, only a very small percentage of the roughly one million people on the international terror watch list are American citizens. Among the objective criteria that cause someone to be listed are active membership in an organization devoted to jihad, a record of transfers of money to a terrorist organization, and the incitement of acts of terrorism.
Gun lobby opposition has also played a part in earlier failures to address the problem. A small, extremist sliver of the gun-owning population (including the leadership of the National Rifle Association) opposes any limitations — even a restriction of terror suspects’ right to arm themselves."
==============
Yep, law abiding citizens all.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628345
Apparently the child in the picture is a jihadist that has traveled to numerous foreign lands and poses a terrorist threat.
No discussion as to whether of not the one million people on the watch list deserve to be there; just an assumption that they are guilty and therefore should be stripped of their civil rights without due process. If it were a RWer making this argument people would be howling that this was nothing more than an effort to stir-up Islamophobia and they would be right.
Yet, here we are, being fed the guilty-Muslim-until-proven-innocent line and, moreover, we're being told that in order to combat this nefarious evil lurking in the shadows we must restrict the rights of all people -- even those who never travel to nations on the watch list.
Of course, one has to also wonder: What good would even a total prohibition do if someone is prepared to engage in an act of war on US soil? Have terrorists, of any stripe, been thwarted in their ability to gain the weapons of their choosing whether guns, bombs or carpet razors?
February 28, 2015
I would think this would be the best argument out there. Yet, no one seems to argue that point.
I wonder why that is?
The gun control argument you never see presented
You don't need a gun. Law enforcement has a proven track record that shows they respond promptly and decisively to budding crimes. Response times have decreased so dramatically that you can often have a police officer on-scene sooner than you could run to the bedroom to retrieve a pistol from storage.
Moreover, the police have shown themselves to be courteous, service-minded professionals that work towards bettering their communities. They take seriously their sacred charge to serve and protect the citizens of their districts.
All in all, the ability of the police to interdict criminals before any real harm can be done is high enough to make the risks associated with gun ownership substantially higher than the risks of summoning the police and patiently awaiting their immediate arrival.
I would think this would be the best argument out there. Yet, no one seems to argue that point.
I wonder why that is?
February 28, 2015
uh huh
Boris Nemtsov, Putin Foe, Is Shot Dead in Shadow of Kremlin
Boris Nemtsov, Putin Foe, Is Shot Dead in Shadow of Kremlin
MOSCOW — Boris Y. Nemtsov, a prominent Russian opposition leader and former first deputy prime minister, was shot dead Friday evening in central Moscow in the highest-profile assassination in Russia during the tenure of President Vladimir V. Putin.
The shooting, on a bridge near Red Square, under the towering domes of St. Basil’s Cathedral, ended Mr. Nemtsov’s two-decade career as a champion of democratic reforms, beginning in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, and just days before he was to lead a rally to protest the war in Ukraine.
Mr. Putin condemned the killing, the Kremlin said, and Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, said the president would personally lead the investigation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/world/europe/boris-nemtsov-russian-opposition-leader-is-shot-dead.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0
MOSCOW — Boris Y. Nemtsov, a prominent Russian opposition leader and former first deputy prime minister, was shot dead Friday evening in central Moscow in the highest-profile assassination in Russia during the tenure of President Vladimir V. Putin.
The shooting, on a bridge near Red Square, under the towering domes of St. Basil’s Cathedral, ended Mr. Nemtsov’s two-decade career as a champion of democratic reforms, beginning in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, and just days before he was to lead a rally to protest the war in Ukraine.
Mr. Putin condemned the killing, the Kremlin said, and Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, said the president would personally lead the investigation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/world/europe/boris-nemtsov-russian-opposition-leader-is-shot-dead.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0
uh huh
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Sep 16, 2009, 07:33 PMNumber of posts: 19,497
