Search results

Where did you get that explanation OP? Denomination? It doesn't seem like too much a stretch from the doctrines.

What are you fearing / anxious about?

Thanks for sharing. Personally, I'm starting to look at all the work that could be done, maybe there is enough decent paying work if the labor market thins out. But I also look at distribution of wealth and it is alarming to see productivity so high but distribution so unequal. With so many...

You said it, "some people." What about everyone else that is impoverished by the circumstance of our economy and job market? Do you think there are enough good paying jobs for everyone if they put in the effort? Honest question.

It's not just that, it's the people just above min. wage that min. wage hypothetically effects. If you want I can google some numbers, or you can do it yourself. Min. wage jobs are like 4% of the workforce, but just above it, not enough to ever get ahead is like 50% or worse by some measures...

Just a room in a house/apt is $600 minimun here. Maybe $200/month where the min. wage is $7.25?

Change the end to "why the hell should you be paid enough to live on"

I agree, but I think if people want the whole truth they will inevitably have to suffer some bias and spin when gathering info second or third hand.

The name calling is contextual and peripheral to the core arguments (trumplestiltskin points to Trump's history of grand promises and back-pedalling). It reveals bias but doesn't take away from the facts and argument IMO. If anything, when I see bias it helps me to gauge my skepticism and...

If we are talking about the same "weednews" article, it's not a text of science, never claimed to be. It's a political opinion piece. Some political science and historical arguments in there, but as I outlined earlier, it's not too far a stretch. The real fault is that the author claims Sessions...

I don't know, how many? That list was paraphrasing the article.

Well, I changed his argument to a new headline. The arguments don't convince me Sessions will undoubtedly go after rec MJ, but I think it does give an insight into why he might and how effective he could be.

To me, the point being made is that IF Sessions decides to go after marijuana, there isn't much in the way to stop him. I don't see any real exaggeration in the basic argument and facts: 1. Blue states have legal recreational marijuana laws. Republicans are consituents of red states that fear...

If you are talking about this post I quoted, it's just a long-winded way of saying "he is hyperbolizing". I'm asking how is it hyperbole beyond the obvious bias or how likely are the actual scenarios he describes.

Can you take on any specific argument in the article? You keep repeating that it's biased, you keep trying to discredit the headline, but you haven't talked about any of the substance of the article. Maybe you haven't read it? The summary argument is "what's to stop them from enforcing the...

What bias and fallacy? Any reason why you won't be more specific?

Where is the fault in his argument? I don't think he was arguing that a crackdown is inevitable, only pluasible and/or likely. The biggest deterent to a crackdown IMO would be political backlash in the coming elections.

Forced ultrasounds? Are there pregnant women that don't want ultrasounds? Edit: oh yeah, I wasn't paying mind to the pathetic anti-abortion movement's attempts to undermine abortion rights in any way possible. Why Bernie?

Liberal Nazis is an oxymoron.

When it's completely dry I'll get a legit bud pick: