The record
Archive
Filter by subreddit, year, topic, and post vs comment. Every hit includes the parent thread and, for replies, the comment being answered.
72 matches
TIL that in 2005, the DEA reported seizing $477 million worth of drugs, whereas the estimated value of drugs sold within and into the US is $64 billion dollars. This makes the efficiency rate of the DEA less than 1% at curtailing US drug trade.
Replying to Namika · But legal marijuana in Colorado costs half as much as the former street value there, even after all the taxes.
Uhh, no it does not.... The illegal marijuana trade has actually gone up in Colorado since the enactment of the recreational laws, since the legal weed costs so much more than the illegal. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/colo-pot-black-market/7292263/ http://…
TIL The world's tallest tree is named Hyperion; it barely escaped logging in the 70's and its exact location is a carefully guarded secret
Replying to [deleted] · I actually like the palm tree ones, they don't look half bad.
They are certainly better than a normal tower. They are all over Phoenix, and you barely notice them unless you are looking.
TIL The world's tallest tree is named Hyperion; it barely escaped logging in the 70's and its exact location is a carefully guarded secret
Replying to Jias · I'm more a fan of natural cell phone towers myself. They have more antioxidants.
That's a myth. Organic cell phone towers are no healthier than normal ones. Don't even get me started on GMO cell signals.
TIL The world's tallest tree is named Hyperion; it barely escaped logging in the 70's and its exact location is a carefully guarded secret
Replying to perfectshot29 · Wow those artificial cell phone towers look different than the original, all natural cell phone towers.
[The originals needed some improvement](http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/cell-phone-tower-camouflage-tree-forest.jpg) [As did their desert counterparts](http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/cell-phone-tower-disguised-as-a-palm-tree.jpg)
TIL The world's tallest tree is named Hyperion; it barely escaped logging in the 70's and its exact location is a carefully guarded secret
Replying to Phycoz · Yeah, I don't see anything that really sticks out. Can someone point it out to me?
I think that large artificial cell phone tower is blocking the view.
TIL that in most elevators, the close-door button doesn't work. It's just a placebo. Press away, friends.
Replying to GottaP · Elevator mechanic here- they work. If you arrive at a floor in the direction you are travelling and no one is there, or you mistakenly registered the wrong call, stick your hand …
Although in Mexico City, if you hit that close button that door slams shut instantly! No need to break the infrared beam. That's where you are safest from a zombie attack!
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to thc1138 · >I am simply explaining why the war vote amendment would not work in our system of representation. I know that and I wasn't suggesting they make it law. >You voted for the people…
Our representatives *should* hold them accountable. I know that is obviously not always the case. That is how it is supposed to work, though.
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to Kramereng · Yes and no. They wouldn't be sent to combat. However, since they're not as vital to the economy, they would probably have higher chances of serving in an administrative role. Or a …
Haha, that would be hilarious. The elderly that voted yes would be forced to put on crappy USO performances.
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to Kramereng · I think the same people who made the decisions who to approve for selective service during previous wars would be in charge of this. Those people certainly wouldn't jeopardize our …
So technically the elderly vote wouldn't hold as much risk, since they know they wouldn't be sent.
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to Kramereng · Signing up as a volunteer for service doesn't mean that the military would actually approve you for combat or any service for that matter. They would filter out those who are unfit…
So what would happen to business owners? They approve of the war, but enlisting for military service would not be in the country's best interest, since running their business would probably do more for the war than they could as an infantryman. What about armor manufacturers? The…
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to peskygods · They wouldn't even have an indirect say in how it was spent *on war*. One exception. Is that such a bad thing? After all, war is a pretty big decision and i'm not sure you should h…
EDIT: I misread Yes, I think that is a slippery slope. No taxation without representation, period.
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to pocketknifeMT · >Your straw man would only make sense if the ones dying in modern wars were drafted. They are not. They volunteered. WWII, Korea, Vietnam were within the last century. You don't t…
Yes I do, and I do not agree with the draft. We either need to have no draft and no war vote, or we need to have no draft and a war vote that everyone participates in. But that would still leave us the possibility that nobody enlists in the military. I guess that's just one more…
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to pocketknifeMT · so you are back to the dollars vs lives argument? Dollars pale in comparison.
They are not mutually exclusive! Your straw man would only make sense if the ones dying in modern wars were drafted. They are not. They volunteered. So they had a choice about going to war or not. If we were to enact the war vote amendment, then a large portion of the population…
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to pocketknifeMT · No I am saying the average retiree draws more money from the system than they put in. They effectively don't pay for anything going forward, on net. Any war they voted for wouldn't…
Then what about the physically disabled? What about those still in the workforce that are unfit for duty, but not retired yet? What about those who are retired and paying taxes on investment income? What about retirees who sell their homes and pay tax on the gains?
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to pocketknifeMT · Old people don't pay for the war. They did in ancient times because it was fought on a cash basis. Today, we deficit finance wars. Those kids who fight it are the ones that pay for…
You are saying that not a single dollar from the federal government's general fund went to offensive or ancillary military measures relating to recent wars? Come on now...
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to pocketknifeMT · Well, I advocate anarchy in point of fact. This would be a non-issue. Everything would be governed by multilateral contracts, contracts, and social pressure. Forcing people to do a…
I am not claiming that. I am simply claiming that you cannot have taxation without representation. Having a percentage of the population pay for something they are not allowed to vote on (directly or by representation) is against the constitution. You can debate how shitty our cu…
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to Grandy12 · >That is indirect representation. That sounds more like indirect indirect representation. I mean, you vote on someone, so that he indirectly represents you in voting someone who …
Indirect doesn't stipulate only once removed. That is how our system has been since the founding of our country. There is no way everyone can vote for every single appointment in the government. There are too many people, and I wouldn't know the first thing about who would be the…
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to monkeedude1212 · Why not? Then they can enjoy the spoils of war. But either way, if you're looking for a "zero sum" solution, this is as close as you're going to get. The current system of borrowi…
Stop using straw men. I agree that running the debt up to pay for wars is fucked. I get that. I also get that modern societies cannot operate on a barter system, nor can we allow "spoils of war."
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to pocketknifeMT · I don't agree that the proposed amendment is fucked. Hence the argument.
Then what would you advocate? Only those able to serve can vote, but everyone pays?
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to monkeedude1212 · >And then is somehow paid for by the same people who are no longer in the private economy generating taxes?!? How would that work? The same way the world worked before currency. Y…
You are saying we should run our government and military like a barter society? Nobody gets compensated to be in the military? They just get food, water, and housing?
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to pocketknifeMT · >most young people do not have any money and are too young to be paying a lot of taxes yet, so that would not fund a war. As any modern war is fought by deficit financing...the y…
Why are you arguing that with me? I agree that the current system is fucked. I also agree that the war vote amendment was fucked. They are not mutually exclusive!
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to monkeedude1212 · Either thats part of the risk you sign on for when you vote for war, or those wishing to bring troops home can provide the funding, or the funding must be set aside prior to deploy…
I am not sure what you are arguing. What do you want? You want a popular vote for every military action, which is limited to those of able age, mental, and physical health to serve. Which then places that person into active service (taking them from their tax paying jobs). And th…
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to thc1138 · Oh, I didn't know you voted for the people in the Pentagon. [They get to spend $925.2 Billion of taxpayer money](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_fy12bs120…
You voted for the people who appointed those people. That is indirect representation. Just because you don't understand that, does not make it any less true. You did indirectly vote for those people in the Pentagon! I don't like the current system either, nor am I advocating the…
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to pocketknifeMT · So the system of the old sending the young to die in war is just because otherwise old people might not have an indirect say in where their money goes in one specific case? I just…
I'm not a huge fan of the current system either. I am just explaining why the war vote amendment would not work. If the only people that can vote are the ones young enough to serve, then the only ones that can legally be required to pay for it are those same people. However, most…
TIL that in 1916 an amendment was proposed to the Constitution that all acts of war would be put to a national vote. People voting yes would have to register as volunteers for service in the United States Army.
Replying to monkeedude1212 · They don't have to. Make it so that war is financed via volunteer funds as well.
That opens up a whole new can of worms. What would happen if we deployed troops, then the next time a vote came around everyone voted down the continued funding? The troops are just left there? What happens with a society with an aging population?