4 ms·

> The people are totally right to refuse to be fooled again. So are you saying we should just give up on the issue? We tried something and it didn't work. We s

by v64 10y ago

> The people are totally right to refuse to be fooled again. So are you saying we should just give up on the issue? We tried something and it didn't work. We should try again. The solution isn't "build a wall". > The funny thing is that the people beating the drums of climate panic tend to be the same ones that are opposed to nuclear power, which is the easiest and most obvious solution that doesn't require crippling our economy. I agree, I think it's idiotic to vilify nuclear power. Catastrophes have happened, we learned from them. > The government should certainly not favor one religion over another, but the religions are the source of our moral values, even for most of the non-believers among us. We agree to disagree then. I believe religion is a highly personal issue that has no place in public discourse. I do not see Christianity's influence on our culture and morality as a positive thing. > Drugs like heroin and meth and cocaine rob people of their agency, of the will to direct their own lives. They should not be available for purchase. I agree. When I rail against the War on Drugs, I specifically refer to the stance of incarceration rather than rehabilitation as a solution to the drug problem.

marcoperaza 10y ago
>So are you saying we should just give up on the issue? We tried something and it didn't work. We should try again. The solution isn't "build a wall". Part of the solution is certainly to build a barrier. Mind you, this was once uncontroversial when it was just a flimsy "border fence", which is already authorized by law with bipartisan support. Now it seems that some are scared that a proper barrier, combined with real internal enforcement, might actually work. Now that the trust is gone, the government must prove itself on border security and immigration enforcement. Amnesty should only be considered when the people are convinced that this crisis will never happen again, that we will never again have millions of people enter the country against the democratic will of citizens. >I agree, I think it's idiotic to vilify nuclear power. Catastrophes have happened, we learned from them. I suggest then that you base your vote on this issue not so much on who "believes" in climate change or not, but who supports the actual policies that can actually solve it. >When I rail against the War on Drugs, I specifically refer to the stance of incarceration rather than rehabilitation as a solution to the drug problem. Yes, I agree that we should stop imprisoning people for possession. But I do think that trafficking should remain a serious crime. I think you'll find that the prison population won't change much under this arrangement. And even if you did stop imprisoning for trafficking, it wouldn't necessarily change much either. Most people in prison for "non-violent drug offenses" don't have that as their most serious charge.
- v64 10y ago
  > I suggest then that you base your vote on this issue not so much on who "believes" in climate change or not, but who supports the actual policies that can actually solve it. How is the GOP going to put out an actual policy to solve climate change if they don't believe it's even a problem in the first place?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    Nuclear power. What we were talking about.

by v64 10y ago

marcoperaza 10y ago

>So are you saying we should just give up on the issue? We tried something and it didn't work. We should try again. The solution isn't "build a wall". Part of the solution is certainly to build a barrier. Mind you, this was once uncontroversial when it was just a flimsy "border fence", which is already authorized by law with bipartisan support. Now it seems that some are scared that a proper barrier, combined with real internal enforcement, might actually work. Now that the trust is gone, the government must prove itself on border security and immigration enforcement. Amnesty should only be considered when the people are convinced that this crisis will never happen again, that we will never again have millions of people enter the country against the democratic will of citizens. >I agree, I think it's idiotic to vilify nuclear power. Catastrophes have happened, we learned from them. I suggest then that you base your vote on this issue not so much on who "believes" in climate change or not, but who supports the actual policies that can actually solve it. >When I rail against the War on Drugs, I specifically refer to the stance of incarceration rather than rehabilitation as a solution to the drug problem. Yes, I agree that we should stop imprisoning people for possession. But I do think that trafficking should remain a serious crime. I think you'll find that the prison population won't change much under this arrangement. And even if you did stop imprisoning for trafficking, it wouldn't necessarily change much either. Most people in prison for "non-violent drug offenses" don't have that as their most serious charge.

v64 10y ago
> I suggest then that you base your vote on this issue not so much on who "believes" in climate change or not, but who supports the actual policies that can actually solve it. How is the GOP going to put out an actual policy to solve climate change if they don't believe it's even a problem in the first place?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  Nuclear power. What we were talking about.