ManagingPrime

In plain English, the specific phrase "OR TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO HAVE POLICIES RESTRICTING THE USE OF MARIJUANA BY EMPLOYEES" means that if a Colorado employer wants to prohibit its employees' MJ use (and not just on the job), it still can do so. PS - the Arizona law was a poor predictor because (a) state laws are very frequently non-uniform from one state to another, and (b) in any event, the AZ law deals with medical MJ, whereas the CO proposition deals with recreational MJ. I stand corrected....really should have read the prop. Looks like some employees may find themselves in a precarious situation. In light of no provision in the state law and no changes to the federal law, I can't imagine many employers changing their drug policies.

Looking to purchase a reserve for decorative purposes. What's a good source for retired reserves or military squares? I have not had much success on ebay, dz.com or bj.com. Anyone know of any large buyers of the military gear when they $hit can their gear?

I have to admit that I have not read the prop, but I'm willing to bet there is a provision to protect employees. For instance, the Arizona Department of Health Services has the following on their FAQ page: QP24: My workplace routinely tests for drugs including marijuana. If I'm a qualified patient, what kinds of protection do I have? The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act states that an employer will not be able to penalize a qualifying patient with a registry identification card for a positive drug test for marijuana, unless the patient used, possessed, or was impaired by marijuana on the employment premises or during hours of employment. If you are unsure how the Act applies to you, consult an attorney licensed to practice law in Arizona.

The state will NOT be selling MJ in state liquor stores, or anywhere for that matter, any time soon. They will be in court for years and that's that. What we will see is hundreds and thousands of citizens in those states not being arrested, fined, losing jobs, etc. due to simple pot use/possession, and that is a great step forward. The big grey area is HOW people legally get their pot (that's an ongoing issue here in AZ) without retail locations. This piece of the puzzle is what is absolutely critical for revenue generation and limiting the influence of the cartels. Bottom line: The prohibition era is dying quickly. Very soon the majority of Americans will view marijuana prohibition to have been more detrimental to our nation than alcohol prohibition. Let the states and the Feds work out the details, but the people are speaking, and they are saying "smoke 'em if ya got 'em."

Just look and listen. You can learn just as much from the mistakes of the bad skydivers as the good.

Solar is still very viable. A lot of govt incentive money went into peoples pockets more than into r&d which would have put the industry in a much beter position, but even without them the numbers work.

Ehrlich lost the bet to someone who stated: "humanity would never run out of anything..." Additionally, the bet was quite limited in scope (metals prices). You argue that everything will be ok because of Enlightened self-interest. How enlightened are the masses? (Hint: Not Very) I tend to think that Thucydides had the right idea: "[T]hey devote a very small fraction of time to the consideration of any public object, most of it to the prosecution of their own objects. Meanwhile each fancies that no harm will come to his neglect, that it is the business of somebody else to look after this or that for him; and so, by the same notion being entertained by all separately, the common cause imperceptibly decays"

Exactly. When people fail to balance their rights with responsibility others (govt) steps in to "define" how people can responsibly exercise their rights. We can witness in any number of situations. I can't think of any case were someone can not exercise their "right" to reproduce. I say that since so many people seem unable to temper that right with responsibility it's time for it to to become a priviledge like so many other "rights".

Who decides if we can drive a car, carry a concealed weapon, practice law, etc.? Seeing as how the welfare rolls would drop I'm sure there would be many idle government employees that could administer the program. Standards? Let's start with sufficient finances to support a child WITHOUT government support. A high school education. A class on parenting. No history of violent crime. I'm not advocating forced abortions or sterilization. I do however think that if someone is not a "qualified" parent there should be consequences...starting with disqualification for certain government support and tax penalties. I think this is the EGO thing people are referencing. Why should someone be allowed to have a child (or 15) just because they CAN? Human rights need to be balanced with human responsibility, the two are complementary.

Just because some took it to far does not mean it does not have its merits. I would venture to say that planned parenthood has been a success to some degree. That's not the best analogy. If I was born with a gun in my hand could I then use it however I wanted?

I don't see human reproduction as the overall problem, after all it's important for the continuation of the species. I take issue with the poor and the stupid reproducing. They are the ones with the higher birth rates, those children tend to be the drain on the economy and those genetics dilute the pool. Let's call a spade a spade. I'm required to have a license to drive, skydive, work and for various other activites...basic proficiency and responsibility is required...why not the same for reproduction?

Welcome back Chuck! You going to be out for $15 friday? I would be interested in learning to fly (maybe buy) one of dem squirrel suits.

So say we have another round of QE. Banks will have more reserves, but what assurances are there that banks will lend these funds? I don't question how QE is supposed to function. At the core, i take isdie with the fed and banks administrating something as important as money supply. As opposed to QE, which we can agree is money creation, why not just take those credits and distribute to all citizens?

QE is an end run on interest rates. When the fed has already lowered rates to zero or near zero, QE is employed. In therory it should lower intetrst rates or at least keep them low. More people are drawn to save when rates are high. People are more likely to payoff high interest debt. Conversely, people are more likely to borrow and invest, in theory, when rates are lower. To a degtee you are right with your example. Current rates paid on savings are less than the rate of inflation. So, if your money is parkef in a bank, under a matress, etc., you will see its value erroded.

As someone in the banking industry I'm a beneficiary of QE. I understand how it works, but I don't agree that it's in the best interest of all. To believe that I would also have to be a subscriber to other ideas like trickle down, but I'm not particularly interested in going there now. I did not say that the economy would not contract. The question is, who would it contract for the most? Regarding the "intended" effects of QE: "The rich" don't tend to keep their wealth in the bank. They tend to keep it in real estate, stocks, etc. QE tends to increase the values of those assets. If you are poor, I'm not giving you a loan. What QE does do is increase the cost of goods and services. The poor typically live check to check. They have are not going to see awesome year end bonuses as a result of the QE, thus resulting in them paying off those old student loans. I'm not saying that if there was another round of QE that people on whole would "feel good" for a while. But, cocaine feels good for a while. Alcohol feels good for a while. Going to the mall/DZ and maxing out all the cards on new toys and jumps feels good...and then the bill comes due. ....I think the euro is in the predicament it is because it was an ill conceived idea from the start.

I don't disagree. I just don't have faith in the intestinal fortitude of the american people to demand what needs to be done to get our financial house in order.

\ If....but, It would be political suicide. Not only would bush tax cuts have to expire, so would most all deductions....and every tax bracket would need to be taxed at a higher rate progressively....AND there would have to be substantial cuts to government spending.

GDP does not account for externalities like wealth distribution. The OP was about how QE tends to be of most beneficial to the wealthiest households. It's a fair argument against QE.

100B a year?!?! That's will make a huge dent in the annual budget deficit of......1.2T. It's sad that the HOT debate among politicians is over a 10% budget deficit reduction.

Aside from the pilot getting in trouble I could think of a couple charges that could be thrown your way if you pissed the pilot of sufficiently (at least in the united states). -Inciting terror (passengers/pilot thinking you just peter panned) -Reckless endangerment (sudden/unexpected weight change...if pilot was pissed he could claim it was dangerous)

How many would she not TDO where the FBI, secrect service and local police were present? What i find interesting is that in the aftermath of his release everyone is talking about the VA state statutes that were used (and abused) to detain him. Ive read the statutes and i dont have a problem with them. Remember, the local police and the VA statutes were simply tools utilized by the FBI. My concerns are that many people still fail to realize that all of our electronic communications are being monitored. The DHS used VERY broad strokes when stating who could possibly be a domestic terrorist. American citizens can be detained indefinately simply for "links" to terrorism and our government refuses to state what these links might be. That's scary. This case feels like a dry run. I can with certainty state, albiet wothout factual evidence, that this week reports have circulated through various federal agencies regarding the american peoples response to this event....such are the timrs we live in.

Appears that a judge felt this guy got railroaded.... http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Va-judge-orders-release-of-detained-veteran-3810234.php

Fuck hippa. Once your in the public forum it's all free game. That is in fact, i believe, the moral of the story. He's nutty. He has some valid concerns, but presentation suggests a little unhinged. But, that's a lot of people...and they are not in the system. The question begging to be answered is why is he? The threatening mass murder arguement is bullshit. He did not...he kept posting about impending armed insurrection in between his posts about various conspiracies. I've got fb contacts that make very similar posts. They are not locked up for evaluation. Should they be? Should i report them? I'm serious. They have guns. They seem to have this shared idea of civil war round two. They talk of banking and government conspiracies. I even suspect a few of being racist. I don't want anyone to be murdered. I especially don't want to see a mass murder. Should i report? See something, say somwthing, right?

Well....we agree there. You probably are right. He probably is a nutter. However, despite all the reporting...there's no evidence. There lies the rub. FB page still up and running.... https://www.facebook.com/brandon.raub?sk=wall

Can you put quotes around that threat? Don't be naive. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/nyregion/officer-adrian-schoolcraft-forcibly-hospitalized-got-no-apology-just-a-bill.html Claire Swinney of New Zealand was also held in a psychiatric ward and called “delusional” for criticizing the government. Susan Lindauer was held under the Patriot Act for a year at Carswell Air Force Base - where psychiatric drugs were pushed on her - after she alleged government corruption. (Note. Can't readily find any "good" references for this one) A few traits that can earn you a delusional diagnosis: frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/05/26/the-inner-worlds-of-conspiracy-believers I remember a quote from one of my favorite press secretaries reminding ""all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." I'm wondering if you are just so blindly partisan that you have a knee jerk reaction to this particular bit of news because you perceive it being championed by "the other side". I'm probably wrong, but you seem to have a strong opinion, but are lacking a demonstrated desire to support it.