I dunno. Are the 0.01%ers trying to figure out a new way to fuck over the middle class?

Since middle class wages have stagnated since the late '70s our share of the tax burden hasn't really been able to grow, and the rich have had their burden reduced quite a bit. So now we have massive debts. Gotta pay 'em somehow. I know, sounds kooky, right?! Look at the filial responsibility laws. Parent racking up huge debts to the state because of the care they need in old age? Think you won't have to pay for that? Think again.

I expect that we'll start to see enforcement as a way to shift more of the tax burden onto the middle class (at least what's left of it). Banana Republic here we come.

Actually, "attacking her personally" with words I think at this point is warranted. She is putting a lot of people at risk of death through her public advocacy. I'll be surprised if at some point someone who's child died due believing her bullshit doesn't decide to attack her personally with actual violence. I know I wouldn't want a grieving parent blaming me for the death of their child.

But it's not. Remember: money = free speech.

Rich people are allowed to convince the police officer to not give them a speeding ticket using their form of free speech (money), just as you're allowed to convince the police officer to not give you a speeding ticket using your form of free speech (words from your mouth).

Guess which one will probably result in a beating.

Obvious to everyone except our lunatic conservatives. Or maybe it is obvious to them and this is their goal.

I was saying the same thing to a "Scotsman" just the other day.
As we all know no Scotsman drinks his tea with cream.
Well here was this "Scotsman" drinking his tea with cream.
I said to him,"No true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream."
He replied,"Well I drink my tea with cream!"
I said,"As I said,'No true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream.'"

Translation:

I figure you can substitute the phrase "fucked up" for 'mysterious' and the meaning would be more clear. Or maybe just add it, i.e. "God works in mysterious, fucked up ways."

Thank you, Archangel Michael, for deigning to try to educate the uneducable. You are doing, err... God's work.

Nice straw man. Were you able to kick his ass? I hear they can be rough.

Actually the guy at the computer decided to torture those little fucks for the rest of eternity for being so presumptuous, because he loved them unconditionally.

Conservatives sure are a funny (insane?) bunch nowadays. If you're an actual scientist who is an expert in climate research, and say that climate change is real, that man is causing it, and that it will probably be a bad thing overall then you're just shilling for more of that lucrative research money (and want to destroy America). If you're not a scientist who is an expert in the field, but defer your judgement to those who are experts (of which 97% are in agreement) as most educated people do, then you're not qualified to speak on the matter, so you should just shut up (because you want to destroy America).

Honestly, four or five (or ten?) years ago I might have just thought that you didn't have the facts, but in the year 2014 I just find it weird. Why is reducing how much oil we burn such a bad thing? I don't fucking get it.

In this country (the US), yes I'll give you that, but it shouldn't be that way. They've gamed the system so that the more money you have, the more speech you have, but it's a rigged system.

I'm saying that inherently money != free speech, and that the law should reflect that. If we had a constitutional amendment explicitly stating that money != free speech then we could talk sensibly about limiting its corrupting influence. As it is now it has taken pretty much all of the power away from the people. You say "ah, but go out and vote!" Okay, I'll go vote for asshole 'A' or asshole 'B'. Those are my realistic choices. Not much of a choice there, and the billions floating around in politics ensures that will always be the case.

Sorry. Our founding fathers were mostly a bunch of bad asses with really good ideas that they were willing to fight for, and the country that came out of that fight was great.

It's the money grubbing assholes who are fucking it up now by claiming that money = free speech and corporations are people. That means that the ultra rich have at least 10,000 times as much speech as most of us, and that there are a lot of people that have no voice at all. Money should not be equivalent to free speech. Never. It's a fucking travesty that it is, and the people who made it so are destroying our country. I'm not being hyperbolic here.

Meh. I would certainly rather get behind this than FB's Oculus Grift.

It's so fitting that your username is Jane Q. Public. You are an excellent representative of the general public and their ignorance on all things scientific.

I really doubt that you would have it on the same level as we have it today, but I don't think that is the reason to legalize drugs.

We should legalize drugs because it is the right thing to do. The drug laws are a relic of the past when people thought that it was okay to legislate their brand of morality. We now know that drug prohibition causes much more harm than good, and so that makes it dangerous and wrong to continue down the prohibition path. The war on drugs is a failure, and to keep pushing for these laws either means that you're insane, or you want to manipulate the public or are being manipulated.

I do think that as a side benefit of legalization we will see less violence and criminal activity by the cartels, less money to corrupt politicians, less money to buy arms, less money to pay muscle, etc. etc, but of course we won't see these benefits if we don't even try.