US Politics: Another Government Shutdown Looms

[Suttree]

He seems to be really master in deals where the other side doesn't need to give anything up (like in China few weeks ago).

*cough*

Mr. Xi pledged that so-called clean energy sources, like solar power and windmills, would account for 20 percent of China’s total energy production by 2030.

Not to mention the huge amount of momentum this has given to efforts heading into Lima, which was you know...one of the points.

Like I said, he got nothing substantial, just few facesavers.

Ermm, that's not what you said at all. Per usual though you aren't letting facts get in the way of your inane takes.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Like I said, he got nothing substantial, just few facesavers. Those 53 prisoners seem to be significant, until you realize, that Cuba released hundreds just in memory of pope's visit in past and they were often rearrested or in better case exiled in next years anyway. The value of Obama's action for Cubans is far more than few dozen prisoners, especially now, when Venezuela, that plays huge role in keeping Castros afloat, is near economic collapse.

No, you're just shifting the goalposts now:

Well, the main problem is not that Obama started the normalization of relationship with Cuba, the problem is he got absolutely no concessions from them.

You also ignored the part about Cuba allowing more internet access, the potential for that to help foster a more liberal society is clear.

[sToNED_CAT]

*cough*

Not to mention the huge amount of momentum this has given to efforts heading into Lima, which was you know...one of the points.

Which was going to happen anyway. It was a goal declared by PRC at least 2 years ago. And all the "efforts in Lima" achieved nothing. One of the reasons was Chinese (the largest polluter and country that might soon produce more greenhouse gases than US and EU combined) arrogant demand that 1st world countries pay "poor" (incl. China) for their greenhouse gases reduction.

No, you're just shifting the goalposts now:

Not really. It was pretty much nothing compared to what they recieved - the promise to do anything to lift embargo, weakening it immediately, international legitimization (including membership in some organization where Cuba is currently banned) etc. That all is huge for them, especially at this time.

Obama plans to ask Congress to lift embargo completely, if that really happens without any further conditions, Cuba gets everything they wanted - no compensation for Cuban Americans, no political reforms, access to US market, tourists,capital, and all that for 53 prisoners and somewhat (God knows how much) liberalized internet access.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Not really. It was pretty much nothing compared to what they recieved - the promise to do anything to lift embargo, weakening it immediately, international legitimization (including membership in some organization where Cuba is currently banned) etc. That all is huge for them, especially at this time.

Obama plans to ask Congress to lift embargo completely, if that really happens without any further conditions, Cuba gets everything they wanted - no compensation for Cuban Americans, no political reforms, access to US market, tourists,capital, and all that for 53 prisoners and somewhat (God knows how much) liberalized internet access.

You absolutely are shifting goal posts, first it was "absolutely no concessions" now you're saying the concessions aren't good enough. Pretty dumbfounding that you refuse to acknowledge this when it's right there for everyone to see.

In any case, what Cuba "got" from the United States was an agreement for the US to remove some completely ineffective restrictions on travel and commerce, and the return of some Cuban spies. In exchange they released prisoners (which you dismiss just 'cause), and- this is important- are agreeing to increased access to the internet, including new telecommunications infrastructure and connections to the United States specifically. If you can't say see the potential in that, it's because you're averting your eyes on purpose.

Above all, what the United States has given up is a completely ineffective policy that has, at most, harmed the Cuban people while weakening the Cuban Communist Party's grip on power not at all. Ending this policy is a benefit to many Americans who want to travel freely, and particularly to those Cuban Americans who want to visit or send money to family.

[Swordfish]

You absolutely are shifting goal posts, first it was "absolutely no concessions" now you're saying the concessions aren't good enough. Pretty dumbfounding that you refuse to acknowledge this when it's right there for everyone to see.

In any case, what Cuba "got" from the United States was an agreement for the US to remove some completely ineffective restrictions on travel and commerce, and the return of some Cuban spies. In exchange they released prisoners (which you dismiss just 'cause), and- this is important- are agreeing to increased access to the internet, including new telecommunications infrastructure and connections to the United States specifically. If you can't say see the potential in that, it's because you're averting your eyes on purpose.

Pretty much. We're giving up almost nothing for not very much in return, and we get to not have those dumb outdated sanctions to deal with.

Where's the beef again?

[maarsen]

They are not. in fact, they may not even be as good as hondurans.... but it really depends who you ask.

It also depends on what you buy. Black market cigars in Cuba are really easy to get. Ask any bartender or waiter at a resort and you can get a box of any type you want. Unfortunately, being black market cigars, you are likely buying crappy cigars put into a nice box for a hard to beat price. If you go to a proper cigar store in Cuba, be prepared to pay a bit more but the quality is much better. Just a few words of advice when you go to Cuba for the first time.

[The Anti-Targ]

Maybe they should start taking down those representations of that dude they nailed to a tree too.

Fair point. I am unsure though that is what they have up as their Holiday display though, but I don't really know.

Pretty sure the Christmas displays are normally associated with the birth of Christ, not His death. AFAIK churches generally don't put the crucifixion on public display or at least not on public land, so typically DG's argument doesn't hold where the images of the crucifixion are contained in a private building / on private land.

[Kalbear]

Or does it instead legitimize, enrich, and empower the ruling regime? That's the only reason for the bloody tyrant Castro brothers to enter into any agreement.

So...you're for government power to be used? That seems so against what you want. Wouldn't it be better for the free market to vote with their feet and their dollar? If they're against Cuban working practices and whatnot,wouldn't it be better in your mind to just not buy Cuban goods? Instead you endorse coercion via force despite demand for a service.

How interesting.

[Prince of the North]

Pretty sure the Christmas displays are normally associated with the birth of Christ, not His death. AFAIK churches generally don't put the crucifixion on public display or at least not on public land, so typically DG's argument doesn't hold where the images of the crucifixion are contained in a private building / on private land.

Hmm...and here I was thinking DG was simply pointing out the incredibly hypocritical argument that was given for not allowing the image of an angel being cast into a pit of fire (i.e. it's too "violent") since no one seems to have much problem with the image of , you know, a guy nailed to a tree...no matter what time of year it happens to be.

[The Anti-Targ]

Hmm...and here I was thinking DG was simply pointing out the incredibly hypocritical argument that was given for not allowing the image of an angel being cast into a pit of fire (i.e. it's too "violent") since no one seems to have much problem with the image of , you know, a guy nailed to a tree...no matter what time of year it happens to be.

There might be an argument of hypocrisy if "too violent" was the argument given. It was merely a supposition by Guy Kilmore in his post. The article used the phrase "grossly offensive during the holiday season". What a novel idea that some violent images are more offensive to the general public than others, without it being in any way hypocritical.

And you might find quite a few people have a problem with public displays of a guy nailed to a tree as being too gory for a public setting. I'm certainly not interested in walking around seeing images of a half naked, bleeding guy nailed to a tree.

[Prince of the North]

There might be an argument of hypocrisy if "too violent" was the argument given. It was merely a supposition by Guy Kilmore in his post. The article used the phrase "grossly offensive during the holiday season". What a novel idea that some violent images are more offensive to the general public than others, without it being in any way hypocritical.

And you might find quite a few people have a problem with public displays of a guy nailed to a tree as being too gory for a public setting. I'm certainly not interested in walking around seeing images of a half naked, bleeding guy nailed to a tree.

Ah, you're right. Thanks for setting me straight on that. I'm glad to see the Satanic Temple will seemingly get their display :thumbsup: As it said in the article AP linked:

Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves said last week, "This year, we're submitting our display early, with plenty of time to confront any objections or concerns. In a nation that respects religious liberty, viewpoint discrimination is simply intolerable. For that reason, we feel our holiday display sends a very important, affirmative message that goes above and beyond that of superficial season's greetings. It's a message of religious freedom, and Church/State separation expressed in the State's neutrality."

(Emphasis mine)

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Satan's a registered Dem. It is known.

[SkynJay]

Satan's a registered Dem. It is known.

Well sure. But Jesus and him throw hellacious election parties together.

[Guy Kilmore]

Hmm...and here I was thinking DG was simply pointing out the incredibly hypocritical argument that was given for not allowing the image of an angel being cast into a pit of fire (i.e. it's too "violent") since no one seems to have much problem with the image of , you know, a guy nailed to a tree...no matter what time of year it happens to be.

There might be an argument of hypocrisy if "too violent" was the argument given. It was merely a supposition by Guy Kilmore in his post. The article used the phrase "grossly offensive during the holiday season". What a novel idea that some violent images are more offensive to the general public than others, without it being in any way hypocritical.

And you might find quite a few people have a problem with public displays of a guy nailed to a tree as being too gory for a public setting. I'm certainly not interested in walking around seeing images of a half naked, bleeding guy nailed to a tree.

Ah, you're right. Thanks for setting me straight on that. I'm glad to see the Satanic Temple will seemingly get their display :thumbsup: As it said in the article AP linked:

(Emphasis mine)

Pretty much, just a navel gazing statement. I also find the realistic depictions of Christ nailed to a cross to be off putting and would has some objections to that in a public place. Good that the Satanic Temple is getting a display. Yay religious freedom!

Satan's a registered Dem. It is known.

Not that I care, but I imagine so would Jesus with the whole peace, love and meek stuff. Man, Republicans can't get any of the cool Western Iconography going for them.

[Guy Kilmore]

Well sure. But Jesus and him throw hellacious election parties together.

Yep, the Late and Great JC handles the catering (the whole water to wine thing) with Big Red having access to some of the best bands. Good times.

[awesome possum]

If being down with Satan means I get front row tickets to the Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones, Janis Joplin, Keith Moon, John Bonham, Stevie Ray Vaughn, John Lennon, Kurt Kobain, Layne Staley, Shannon Hoon mega-concert then count me in.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Marijuana Law

DENVER — Two heartland states filed the first major court challenge to marijuana legalization on Thursday, saying that Colorado’s growing array of state-regulated recreational marijuana shops was piping marijuana into neighboring states and should be shut down.

The lawsuit was brought by attorneys general in Nebraska and Oklahoma, and asks the United States Supreme Court to strike down key parts of a 2012 voter-approved measure that legalized marijuana in Colorado for adult use and created a new system of stores, taxes and regulations surrounding retail marijuana.

While marijuana remains illegal under federal law, officials have largely allowed Colorado and other states to move ahead with state-run programs allowing medical and recreational marijuana. But the lawsuit from Nebraska and Oklahoma, where marijuana is still outlawed, argues that Colorado has “created a dangerous gap” in the federal drug-control system.

Republican Attorneys General in Nebraska and Oklahoma have discovered the limits of states' rights.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Marijuana Law

Republican Attorneys General in Nebraska and Oklahoma have discovered the limits of states' rights.

Interesting to see if and how lifting the federal ban on medical marijuana will affect this.

[DanteGabriel]

Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Marijuana Law

Republican Attorneys General in Nebraska and Oklahoma have discovered the limits of states' rights.

Hrm. I can think of a whole host of states I'd like to sue for exporting stupid into the rest of the country, and sucking down my tax dollars while they're at it.

[Prince of the North]

Pretty much, just a navel gazing statement. I also find the realistic depictions of Christ nailed to a cross to be off putting and would has some objections to that in a public place. Good that the Satanic Temple is getting a display. Yay religious freedom!

Oh, I'm with you on this. Indeed, up with actual religious freedom instead of simply paying lip service to it.