>> ^direpickle:

>> ^MrFisk:
>> ^direpickle:
>> ^MrFisk:
The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.

And the president is nominally the head of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. How come Bush and Cheney were seen as destroying the country all on their own, but Obama's seen as being completely powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch

I... I assume you posted that to back up what I said?
"The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment."
"The DOJ [part of the Executive Branch] is comprised of 40 component organizations, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons."
Per Wikipedia, w.r.t. FBI:
"FBI Directors are appointed by the President of the United States. They... serve a term of office of five years... unless they resign or are fired by the President before their term ends."
Democrats.org lists the president as one of the leaders of the party.
In summation, the president is nominally one of the heads of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. Why is he seen as being powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?


Technically, the FBI's main concern is terrorism. It's the DEA that has been licking their chops to bust stoners, grow-ops, etc. Them, and state's attorney generals looking for a feather in their cap.
I don't think the President can tell them to ignore laws on the books. However, he does work with Congress to write a budget that funds them: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/the-national-drug-control-budget-fy-2013-funding-highlights
And as you can see, the Obama administration continues the same failed policies of his predecessors. So, I'm not say he's powerless; I'm saying he's complicit.

>> ^MrFisk:

>> ^direpickle:
>> ^MrFisk:
The executive branch doesn't write laws, it only enforces them.

And the president is nominally the head of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.
Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. How come Bush and Cheney were seen as destroying the country all on their own, but Obama's seen as being completely powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch


I... I assume you posted that to back up what I said?

"The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment."

"The DOJ [part of the Executive Branch] is comprised of 40 component organizations, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons."

Per Wikipedia, w.r.t. FBI:

"FBI Directors are appointed by the President of the United States. They... serve a term of office of five years... unless they resign or are fired by the President before their term ends."

Democrats.org lists the president as one of the leaders of the party.

In summation, the president is nominally one of the heads of his party and can, to a degree, set the agenda. As president, he could follow through with his promise to not prosecute medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. As president, he could tell the House and Senate Democrats to push for legislation that would reform drug laws. As president, he could tell the FBI to completely ignore nonviolent drug offenders.

Yeah, the president isn't all powerful. He does have a good deal of power, though. Why is he seen as being powerless in the face of a minor Republican majority in one house of Congress?

This was five years ago? That's ridonkulous!

>> ^kymbos:

Where's he been for the past five years?


Working on various projects. I believe he was trying to get this made for something like a couple of years before it actually happened. You would think that being PT Anderson would get you an automatic greenlight to make whatever you want, but bafflingly enough, it does not. Clearly, something is very, very wrong in Hollywood. If it weren't for Megan Ellison, it's possible that this movie would have never gotten made.

Where's he been for the past five years?

Just worked for a company for five years. Started at a salary below my pay level because the economy was rough and they were holding the cards.

After year one, got promoted to "almost" my pay level.
Year two, 2% raise, largest in my department.
Year three, no raise during a highly profitable year so the company could pay an extra 300 million dollars to their private investment firm. Was told the only other option was to lay off 3000 employees.
Year four, same thing.
Year five, 1% raise, largest in my department again, some people got zero.
Two Weeks ago, layed off with 499 other people, jobs sent to India.

Every year the company was profitable. Every year the top management raked in huge bonuses.

Any effort to raise awareness on the issue of the rampant greed and inequality in corporate America, no matter how ineloquent, is an important step.

>> ^renatojj:
if you pay $200,000 for a Lamborghini, you end up with a Lamborghini. I'm sure some people think a Lamborghini is valuable, otherwise they wouldn't pay $200,000 for it.
Now go find someone willing to dump $200,000 to pay five people to dig and refill holes. Not so valuable.
You can compare anything to paying people to dig and fill up holes and call it economic vandalism, check this out:
Building the empire state building took 40 million dollars in the 30's, that's like paying 1000 people $40,000 each to spend a year digging and refilling holes. Nothing of value has been produced. You just end up with a tall pile of concrete and glass that is in no way distinguishable from thousands of holes in the ground filled with dirt.


A $200,000 sports car has essentially the same value as a $1000 second-hand runaround. They both perform the same functions at about the same efficiency, except the old banger gets better mileage and probably breaks down less. The only people who see more value in the Lamborghini are animalistic simpletons who can't control their instinctive compulsion to flaunt status symbols.

Is this your guiding social principle? Whichever endeavours produce something shiny enough to enflame the passion of a five year old are worthwhile? Dollars spent on pet grooming do not have an equivalent economic benefit as dollars spent on communications infrastructure. This naive doctrine of 'everything has value that can tempt enough morons into paying for it' has to be destroyed.

Sorry, but this needs some unnecessary censorship.

I've lived with _____ all my life and have been breeding ______ ____ for about five years now. I can absolutely guarantee the temperament of my _____. Playing with ____ is a great way to teach them where the lines are. Biting is OK, as long as it isn't hard. They can learn where that line is. I can play fight with my big boy Leo (7.5kg Ragdoll) and he mouths me but never hurts me. He never puts his _____ out and it's great fun. You can play with ____, but you do need to teach them where the lines are and be strict about stopping them when they do cross the line. Do this when they're little and they'll be great _____ when they grow up.
Indiscriminate play without teaching is where the problem is but play-fighting with a great big bundle of fluff is great fun and well worth the effort. I just find it a bit more interactive than a toy on a stick.>> ^robbersdog49:


That's better.

>> ^critical_d:
I would recommend not using your hand to play with the kitten. This can reinforce behavior (it's ok to bite fingers) and this will be a problem when they get older and are capable of doing real damage. Try using a feather wand or any of those cat toys that have a string on a stick design. This will still allow you to play interactively with the kitty and the cat will focus on the toy as "prey" and not your hand. A win-win situation for the both of you!
Let me know if you have any questions and I will be happy to help.
More info:
http://www.perfectpaws.com/cat_training_and_cat_behavior.html
http://www.squidoo.com/cat-bites
>> ^messenger:
Question for experienced cat owners:
I love playing like this with kittens, especially encouraging them to bite me because I like how it tickles, and I find it cute how ineffectual it is. I've also heard that doing that trains cats to bite people whenever they play, a habit which they retain into adulthood and become those annoying cats that bite your guests. Is that really true, or is it just in the personality of the cat whether they'll bite as an adult?
Thanks!


I've lived with cats all my life and have been breeding pedigree cats for about five years now. I can absolutely guarantee the temperament of my cats. Playing with kittens is a great way to teach them where the lines are. Biting is OK, as long as it isn't hard. They can learn where that line is. I can play fight with my big boy Leo (7.5kg Ragdoll) and he mouths me but never hurts me. He never puts his claws out and it's great fun. You can play with cats, but you do need to teach them where the lines are and be strict about stopping them when they do cross the line. Do this when they're little and they'll be great cats when they grow up.
Indiscriminate play without teaching is where the problem is but play-fighting with a great big bundle of fluff is great fun and well worth the effort. I just find it a bit more interactive than a toy on a stick.

>> ^critical_d:

I would recommend not using your hand to play with the kitten. This can reinforce behavior (it's ok to bite fingers) and this will be a problem when they get older and are capable of doing real damage. Try using a feather wand or any of those cat toys that have a string on a stick design. This will still allow you to play interactively with the kitty and the cat will focus on the toy as "prey" and not your hand. A win-win situation for the both of you!
Let me know if you have any questions and I will be happy to help.
More info:
http://www.perfectpaws.com/cat_training_and_cat_behavior.html
http://www.squidoo.com/cat-bites
>> ^messenger:
Question for experienced cat owners:
I love playing like this with kittens, especially encouraging them to bite me because I like how it tickles, and I find it cute how ineffectual it is. I've also heard that doing that trains cats to bite people whenever they play, a habit which they retain into adulthood and become those annoying cats that bite your guests. Is that really true, or is it just in the personality of the cat whether they'll bite as an adult?
Thanks!



I've lived with cats all my life and have been breeding pedigree cats for about five years now. I can absolutely guarantee the temperament of my cats. Playing with kittens is a great way to teach them where the lines are. Biting is OK, as long as it isn't hard. They can learn where that line is. I can play fight with my big boy Leo (7.5kg Ragdoll) and he mouths me but never hurts me. He never puts his claws out and it's great fun. You can play with cats, but you do need to teach them where the lines are and be strict about stopping them when they do cross the line. Do this when they're little and they'll be great cats when they grow up.

Indiscriminate play without teaching is where the problem is but play-fighting with a great big bundle of fluff is great fun and well worth the effort. I just find it a bit more interactive than a toy on a stick.

I've had Clover coffee a couple of times (not at Starbucks). The first time was about five years ago, mostly because it was new, cool and exciting. The second time was about a year later, mostly because it was there.

There hasn't been a third time. I don't know, I just don't get it I suppose. For me it's like the Audiophile nutbars who swear that their new $2000 power cord is the greatest invention in hi-fidelity and has finally given meaning to their lives. A good french press brew, pour-over or Moka pot cuppa is fine by me.

Not at Starbucks.

Five years later, it still makes me chuckle. *Promote.

>> ^Fletch:

Everything NDT says sounds like the most astounding fact he's ever heard, and that you should be astounded by it too. His meter - every enunciation, accentuation, and pause - sounds affected and I, for some reason, can't stand to listen to him. I've tried. He talks about things I'm interested in and I enjoy reading what he has written (I have "Pluto Files" and "Space Chronicles" on my Kindle), but when he starts talking, it just sounds like he's talking to five year-olds to me.
F ck it, upvote.


I know exactly what you're saying. There's a british version of this and he's called Brian Cox. Every single time he speaks, i feel my skin crawling that he knows that he has to try and manipulate the audience into feeling emotion that they just don't feel.

I subscribe to the principle as well. I agree, the connectedness of the universe is absolutely amazing. When you think about the familiar vs. the unfamiliar, the known vs. the unknown.... we know each other, we know the planet we live on and we feel safe here, but there's an infinite chasm in all directions around us. Sometimes when i consider this i can give myself vertigo.

If i were trapped in a cave with the most fundamental islamist ever, and we didn't know what lay on the other side of the collapsed wall, we'd eventually cooperate and work together to get out, to see what's there. Maybe we find something great out there, or maybe we have to build some defences to make ourselves safer in the cave.

Put us on earth, and we put bombs in each other's homes. The knowledge of how amazing the universe is really does lift you up, places you above all the stupid racism and general jingoism. But you can't fake it or inspire it, you either feel it or you don't.

Having said that, at least they're getting the field of physics more attention, and maybe they might influence some kids whilst they're influence-able.

*nochannel

*cinema
*80s


This is not comedy, wtf. five years after the fact but still. what is comedic about this ? the scene is *dark if anything.