|
Fog Tripper posted:Dis-proportionally targeting? Incarceration-rates aside, do you imagine laws are actually targeting a specific race? Which laws might those be? The sentence for regular powdered cocaine and the sentence for crack cocaine were different when the sentences were first set. The sentence for crack cocaine was significantly higher. Powdered cocaine is primarily used by better-off whites, whereas crack cocaine was primarily used by the inner-city poor (read: poorer black people) because you could get more of it for cheaper compared to the regular version. And the people making the sentencing guidelines knew it.
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
Zorodius posted:Tallgeese said "you can get more for cheaper," but how could that possibly be true? Wouldn't $X of crack necessarily contain less actual cocaine than $X of powder? Right, but you can smoke crack cocaine for a faster high, and you can get away with putting more crap in it (heck, it's cocaine mixed with a base to begin with). You can't smoke powdered cocaine, to get the same kind of high as crack you have to inject it. Tallgeese fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I asked what laws were targeting them, not what sentences. This implies you acknowledge that the sentences were racially targeted, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
...somehow I severely doubt that it's actually reversible in the way the tweet is implying. I mean there are critical developmental periods. You don't get to block hormones during one and then remove the block without something not going quite the way it should. Just like using hormone injections to try and force puberty doesn't quite work past a certain age.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
I assume that "don't" is extraneous, and honestly I'm not surprised in any way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:LOL Trump is such a huge baby. And yet, America is a nation of babies, so...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Les Os posted:The US and China are equally bad, China is simply more transparent about it Aaaaaand you have just lost basically anyone who was on the fence who might have otherwise agreed with you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Les Os posted:You literally think slavery and genocide are not the building blocks of modern US culture and that the past 200 years have been largely "fine". I think arguing about politics on the Internet is mostly useless but that's the goddamn stupidest thing I've ever heard, coming from someone that routinely post at an utterly retarded level. Posting ridiculous hyperbole like this will not make that girl you like sleep with you. Give it up, man.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:It's like college tuition. They're so high bc they know students will qualify for the loans. Stop letting everyone take out $60k in loans to get a poo poo degree and give unis that money directly instead of slashing their funding and tuition would go down. Not buying this one. There are state college systems which only started charging tuition once black and Hispanic students started coming in. And not necessarily in backwoods states either. And then there's the fact that anyone who has ever been in student "government" anywhere will tell you that state-funded unis can't manage their budget for poo poo either. Tallgeese fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
You're forgetting the first part: "If people could afford medical care". You have to have both.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
I thought the answer to that question was generally "World War II + The Communist Bogeyman".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:The problem is more complicated than I presented there but there's gotta be a reason I was paying thousands of dollars per quarter in the USA and 90 euro a semester in Germany and imo easy credit for student loans has to be part of it. Oh no, you're absolutely right that student loans are a part of it. No question. The problem is that I am not seeing a solution that doesn't involve a lot of colleges shutting down, and I'm not convinced the right colleges would shut down, ignoring that "right colleges" is loaded as hell.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
GREAT SATAN posted:e: nvmd Funny thing about this... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html They apparently changed the title at some point, though who honestly knows when. Check the fine print at the bottom. Tallgeese fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Mar 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
So what's the story here again?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Blue Train posted:Donald Jennifer Trump What the hell is this misogynistic bullshit? I've been seeing it far too much, which is more than once.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Blue Train posted:I call the man by his name perhaps you should not enforce traditional gender stereotypes At least be funny about it. Next I expect somebody to type out "Micro$oft" like I'm back in the 90s, which was about as amusing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
KomodoWagon posted:Stop talking about your dick It's rather disturbing that the first thing you thought of was my pre-pubescent 90s penis. Something you'd like to tell us, Aatrek?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Jukebox Hero posted:I'm a Christian myself but that poo poo needs to stay the gently caress out of government. It's an old book that's been translated thousands of times by assholes with personal agendas. Tell me that if Satan exists(he doesn't) he wouldn't be twisting this ancient book to evil purposes. This is a rather confusing statement. I don't see how you can say you're a Christian when the entire foundational basis for the religion in modern times is the book and extrapolations from said book.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
It is my observation that when Americans talk about how bringing in people from other cultures makes the country great and all that, they're mainly referring to the food and nothing else. I do not know why, but I find it kind of disturbing and reductive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:why would you want to import making GBS threads on the street as a cultural landmark though Oh no, I agree. It just feels like the "more culture = good" people are being dishonest when all they really want is to be served.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Why should a candidate get every single elector from a 51-49 win in a state? Whose interests are being protected by this? The problem with your argument is that it smells disingenuous, and thus it is destined to lose because nobody trusts your motives. New Phone nails it. Why is this suddenly only a huge consideration when basically every single state-level institution uses the same 51-49 system, and why does it only seem to matter when it works against urban people?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I've repeatedly said that the dems lost the election by the rules that are in place fair and square. I do not like Hillary Clinton. Again, the issue is in how you present the argument. It's not the idea itself. The problem is who is making it, and the perception of why they are making it. In short, I question if anyone believes you when you seem to be expressing concern about the voters of upstate NY. Not even people in Manhattan care about their votes. Moridin920 posted:Because they see the juxtaposition between winning the popular vote but still losing anyway and they get mad about it. You know for a fact that if it happened to Trump and not Clinton the people currently complaining would not be. That's what I am driving at, it reads as self-serving.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I could equally argue that celebrating the EC as the winners is self serving. You could, but you're advocating for a change and they aren't. The onus is on you to convince others, and I am simply telling you that you do a very poor job. The fact you were unable to counter my questioning of your earnestness proves my point for me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Mordor She Wrote posted:I don't..see how Clinton was that awful of candidate, she was third term Obama without charisma. Like Bernie was the infinitely preferable option, but we didn't get him as a choice, so the electorate decides to poo poo the bed and vote for someone who is really going to throw them overboard. Here we see a person without charisma attempt to devalue the absolute necessity of charisma to sell your ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Mordor She Wrote posted:Enjoy voting for lovely celebrities then. You do realize that it is far more likely that, if you're voting for a celebrity, you're going to be voting for a Democrat, right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Mordor She Wrote posted:So the democrats should run a celebrity who has no idea what they are talking about but just yells "LOCK HER UP" and "bigly", since those are the persuasive arguments that got Trump elected? Considering the number of celebrities that Hillary got to speak on her behalf, this seems like the logical next step.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Mordor She Wrote posted:As opposed to "currently under investigation and has been under investigation a myriad of times for corruption" Trump? That is why personal charisma is important. Trump had enough that he could convince people who otherwise wouldn't think so that the investigations of him were biased or themselves corrupt. Clinton, on the other hand, lacked this ability and attempted to make up for it with a finely honed political organization and celebrity endorsements.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Also honestly it really didn't help that after the primary was over the "Bernie Bros" were treated with dripping disdain by the HRC camp. Who the gently caress was running their strategy and campaign exactly because loving lol. People who thought it was impossible for them to lose, so it really didn't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
ditty bout my clitty posted:It's important to remember that free speech isn't just about getting to say what you want, it's also about being protected from persecution like lawsuits for saying or writing things.Even defamatory things, and even if you have an interest in defaming the object you're writing about. By this logic the UK should be incredibly low on the list, since it is infamous for how easily you can abuse its defamation laws. Yet it's higher than the US. So obviously that cannot possibly be a factor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I understand that, and I'm not even saying it is necessarily bad, I am simply saying that I don't believe Germany is really 5 slots ahead of the US on the "who has freer speech" scale. Things start making a lot more sense once you realize Everything is Politicized.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
There's a problem there: you can't actually prove Manafort did any of the work, especially considering the article itself points out he scammed the hell out of that billionaire. I thought scamming Russian billionaires out of their money was good?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Look, here's the problem. You have two choices: Believe the intelligence community. or Believe Trump. Neither source is inherently trustworthy. Therefore, who the trust ultimately becomes a matter of whatever you want to believe. That's the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:"Bad man accused other bad man of something, other bad man is bad therefore IT MUST BE TRUE!" ...yes, that happens all the time. Even journalism is basically a user confidence-based industry. I was describing how the vast majority of people operate. Hell, you've probably done the same thing if it's convenient enough.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Like even just saying "The FBI refuses to cooperate fully with our probe into the wiretapping, I am replacing X Y and Z with these people" would be enough to start to sway me to maybe he's right but... You and I both know that if this happened he would be accused of firing honest people and stuffing cronies who would lie for him in. Come on now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Spunky Psycho Ho posted:Maybe he sacs up in 2020! I point out that it is technically possible for a "good lich" transformation, but as far as I know Bernie is not an elf... ...or is he?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Toadvine posted:V possible. democrats would have the election handed to them, republicans would blame outsiders for the loss, and nobody will have learned a thing. On the other hand, if anyone can snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory, it is the Democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Time out. This is a percent of 1929. How was the USSR's industrial output in 1929? If it was low, then of course it could go up and stay up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Lol, nobody denies that you gotta give the electorate what it wants. Still doesn't change the fact that she was infinitely more qualified and got much more votes than him. What the gently caress is this post. I have never seen an analogy so terrible. I maintain that minds that produce posts like this are why the left keeps losing. This is not natural. Tallgeese fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
I never thought I would encounter posters worse than Spunky, but his opponents are really upping their game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
Mordor She Wrote posted:Yeah in all fairness people who wanted to vote Hillary during the primary bafffled me, like the Trump supporters are absolute retards so that' is their excuse, but actively supporting Hillary over Bernie, like what the gently caress. You really don't want to go down this road, since if I were being brutally honest Bernie was mostly a white person phenomenon. The reasons for this are many and varied, but yeah. Ethnic minorities by and large were not sold on the Bern.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 01:03
|
|