Slip

1 minute ago, Slip said:

Purposely oblivious (as usual).

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I didnt know that .

BTW , how do you know that ?

How do you know what McCarthy thinks ?

 

 

 

McCarthy is doing just what you do here every day.  Playing dumb and pretending.  Make an accusation with no basis, then deflect repeatedly.

6 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I was referring to Merrick Garland , who was appointed by Joe Biden and he would have had to agree to and sign off the raid by the FBI on Donalds house  .

   As he would have had to agree to it and give permission for the raid , I do think that its quite acceptable to refer to him as a "boss" of the FBI 

 

Boss "a person who is in charge of a worker, group, or organization."

Now you are making yourself look foolish.  

11 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Why do YOU in particular need to know what is going on? Are you part of the investigating team? Part of Trump's team.

 

Perhaps the FBI are still investigating and gathering more information, and when they have finished their investigation they will report the results to the people who ordered the investigation who will decide what should happen next.

 

I very much doubt if you are on the need to know list.

Now, that's a shame.  After his original demand I was just about to tell him about the inner workings of the FBI, but not now.  Notwithstanding Johnnie's obvious forthcoming disappointment I commend you on an otherwise most excellent post. 55.

^Slightly above: a disavowing trump fanboy lecturing on fiscal responsibility.  Some of these people are so far over the edge that it may be too late.  

6 hours ago, roquefort said:

Exactly. The current crop of politicians on both sides is the worst in living memory. Believing that changing one set of clowns for another is going to improve anything is living in cloud cuckoo land.

You miss the point.  The "all politicians are as bad as us" thing is a right wing trope.  As long as the Tories go there should be some improvement.

35 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

Thanks for exposing your right wing agenda. I got news for you. Years ago, during the Clinton adiministration welfare payments were slashed. And during Covid some states prematurely cut benefits out of the belief that workers would go back to work. That failed big time.

And your use of the labor force participation rate re unemployment makes no sense. As I pointed out earlier it includes most people aged 16 or older except those in the military, in prisons, in nursing homes and mental hospitals. So as the population ages the labor force participation rate is going to decline. The unemployment rate is nearly at a record low and employers are complaining that they can't find workers.

And as for stopping illegal immigration first. If immigrants stop being able to find jobs they'll stop coming. So why the emphasis on the border? Because it distracts from this fact and is a useful emotional issue for the right.  As I've pointed out before, make hiring immigrants a felony, and enforce that law, and illegal immigration will drastically decline. So why do you want to put this second instead of first? 

 

Yeah, who would have thought?  Apparently, the real answer to illegal immigration is to cut benefits to citizens and pay the money to corporations.  Hilarious.

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Its sourced from here ????

https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-addictive

Thank you.  I had missed that one.

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Should I have also posted this then? Apologies

Approximately 1 in 10 people who use marijuana will become addicted. When they start before age 18, the rate of addiction rises to 1 in 6.

https://www.samhsa.gov/marijuana

Yes- I saw that too.  It's unsourced. 

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Well you stated off saying that this was an opinion piece only, I referred you to the article that yes indeed it is but one based on sources and studies, now your verging on another debate on whether you find a study credible.

 

Here is the source and its a meta analysis which is one of the best, plus peer reviewed:

A Review of Cases of Marijuana and Violence

 

Whether you are convinced or not is immaterial to me.

Then why bother to post it in the first place?  Anyway whether you care or not if your arguments and evidence are convincing isn't really the point.  I should perhaps have explained better that this article is an opinion piece with the main idea that "Heavy marijuana use among youths is leading to more addiction and antisocial behavior". 

As interesting as some of the details in the article may be, there is no evidence in the article to support your bolded section of the text, and scant little to support the second except perhaps in a very specific subset of people already suffering mental illness problems. 

The poster you were replying to was making the case that there is no evidence that marijuana is addictive, which is presumably why you bolded that phrase.

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Thats your opinion,  but the article as I said cites sources and studies:

 

"But can pot make people violent? A study last year found that young people with mood disorders such as depression who also smoke weed are 3.2 times more likely to self-harm and die from murder – often after starting violence – than those who didn’t. A meta-analysis found that the risk of engaging in violence was more than twice as high among young adults who used marijuana. It is possible that marijuana can trigger dangerous behaviors in adolescents who are absent for other reasons, such as B. prenatal drug exposure, are predisposed to it."

Well, yes, as it says "it is possible".  Not really very compelling.  There is a lot of this sort of language in it.  I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, just saying that I don't find her article necessarily particularly convincing.  Here are some other quotes:

"It could be a coincidence", "It’s much easier for young people to get hooked. One in 6 people who start using pot while under 18 will develop an addiction" (uncited in the linked source), "Researchers have yet to prove a causal relationship", "It’s possible that pot can trigger dangerous behavior", "legalization seems to be leading to more pregnant women using pot."  (The linked study actually seems to compare pre and post-covid use as opposed to increases following legalisation which happened in 1996 (medical) or 2016 (recreational).  

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

If you actually read the article it also gives sources with real studies and statistics that informs those opinions

This is what you quoted: 
 

Quote

Heavy marijuana use among youths is leading to more addiction and antisocial behavior.

There is nothing in the article or any of the agenda-laden sources she quotes that I can find to back up the claim.  I'm just not sure it is very compelling to back up your opinion with someone else's opinion, especially when they have a clear agenda.

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Heavy marijuana use among youths is leading to more addiction and antisocial behavior.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cannabis-and-the-violent-crime-surge-marijuana-pot-use-thc-shootings-psychosis-mental-11654540197

If you look carefully at the top of that article you may be able to make out it says in quite large font- "Opinion".

3 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

You do understand that Starmer didn't commit an infraction, don't you?

 

That's what it means when the police say that after conducting an investigation that was described as "thorough, detailed and proportionate" they "concluded that there is no case to answer...."

 

This is of course, in complete contrast to the actions of Boris and his minions at Number 10 where after a similarly thorough investigation a total of 126 fixed penalty notices were issued. 

 

Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner cleared by Police

To the right wing's willing cannon fodder it's not a crime if you are one of the annointed, and if you are not, then it's a crime whatever you do.