Because the state was debating state level policy and there was a lot of talk about what the feds would or wouldn't accept.

But don't let asking for clarification get in your way of feeling whatever it is you feel.

Years ago I was standing outside the State House with a sign that read "When it comes to marijuana, the feds are full of shit". At one point a passing legislator (I recognized him) commented I shouldn't use foul language as kids would be coming and going.

"I"ve already won," I told him, "because you're going to remember what my sign says, and my message is now a permanent part of your thinking."

And so it is with you, I've already won. I'm there, my message makes sense and is smart. The titillating part for you is that now you can read sensible writing while you tell your friends and family how bad what I write is.

I get it.

Thought 2 of 2

I believe the biggest problem regarding firearms in the United States today is much more about contemporary "gun culture" then it is about the number or even firepower of guns available.

Once this gun culture was about military, hunting and self-defense. Nowadays, unfortunately, this gun culture has become about political labeling and more use in our social and political affairs.

This is the one that really makes some people in public office wilt.

Thought 1 of 2

I've never suggested anything like you're bringing up. Along the way I've suggested many things including "draining the swamp" type actions where, for example only, firearms confiscated due to illegal use or ownership be as immediately as possible destroyed. And then layer on restrictions to the types of firearms legally available for general use (yeah - gun control).

You, me, the person siting next to either of us ... we're all bozos on this same bus, and most of us have been cogs on the wheel and along for the ride. We didn't create the situation, and we're not financially profiting from it. But we do have the power to do something, and I don't believe what we're doing now is working at all.

No, it's about the guns. Guns everywhere. Guns to be used. Gun rights.

It all melds into one big hazy cloud to me because the only response that ever comes out is spouting nonsense constitutional hypothesis-wannabes and more guns with more more uses for that more guns in our social and political spheres.

There's just too many guns and too much firepower running around on our streets. It's a message worth repeating.

Phil Scott's freely chosen GOP/VTGOP has taken away a woman's right to autonomy over her own body; and they're stealing books from our children's libraries and hiding those books away. The Republican Party is actually outlawing men who want to wear clothes that make them feel good. They are attacking your children and their ability to grow by going after your kid's education, health care, food and shelter.

And they're laser focused on giving in-animate objects (guns) the rights of human beings.

Just thought this was a good time to mention these realities.

I support a public school system that is ...

Provides a quality education, is open to all comers, legally accountable to the public, and free of charge at the door.

My preference is that this system is available to all from birth though end of life.

If we do this right, there will be a lot of equity built into how we move forward. My argument is we need to move forward and make that equity a foundation of the effort.

I don't believe we have the time to wait until things seem more fair and better prepared.

And we need to keep on getting as much electricity as possible from those non-CO2 emitting sources. But even with renewables (even going with the most genuine of those) requires resources, and I'd suggest we don't want our usage to outstrip those resources.

Does this have to be permanent or very long term? We'd find out, but from this view I come down very strongly on the side of "we'll find out".

How that works and the effective differences depends upon your direct supplier for the most party, but even with that, it isn't a steady graduation of price as usage goes up. What you're referring to is movement from plateau to plateau.

The idea to remove the plateaus in favor of steady up slope.

I don't know about the credits thing, but pricing based upon amount of usage makes sense. We not only have to get off the opioid-like fossil fuel addiction, but at least in the near term we have to be much more frugal in our electricity usage.

From the letter:

>Here in Vermont, the Legislature must be pushed to price electricity on a sliding scale with the lowest users paying a lower rate and as usage goes up, so does the price per kilowatt. We are in the process of exchanging clean electricity for dirty fossil fuels for heating and transportation. There will have to be a credit built in for the higher usage driven by clean and efficient heat pumps and electric, vehicles as these must be encouraged. It must still be weighted to avoid overconsumption.

I agree with you regarding Reddit being part of "social media", and I think Reddit in particular is well suited to a future model.

What will have to change, in my thinking, is how outside information can be forced into what we know as a sub-reddit. That's where the closed system comes into play: the curating part.

(As an aside, I'm the type that likes to indulge in a random inflow for a bit every day)

So if Reddit changes in that way, I don't think it reflects what we know today - but I could be way off on all this.

I think that social media as we understand it today is going to disappear. Curating on a personal or system wide level is going to be made impossible by the massive amount of new material that will generated daily.

There will be social media like sites that give the appearance of what we are comfortable with right now, but those sites will be closed systems meant to provide a place with a suitable and predictable set of protections (or lack of).

That too. At least it's acknowledged by the businessman and seems lesson learned.

They should have NOT been terrorizing other people too.

Imagine how much good we could do if we'd view guns with even half the suspicion we view marijuana.

An alternative: Governor Phil Scott could have gone down to the Slate Ridge area and stood shoulder to shoulder with our fellow Vermonters who were being terrorized.

But he chose not to.

I've been told on multiple occasions that threatening words and behavior are not themselves illegal; but I don't care - Scott could have done the decent thing, but our Governor was more interested in staying above the fray.

That was Phil's choice.

My posts did not make him do that.

No, the GOP is not telling you to do anything, but that isn't what I'm saying. Of course you can read what I write or what you want me to be writing - that's your choice.

And don't forget Governor Phil Scott's brave and forward leaning response when queried regarding heavily armed thugs associated with Slate Ridge terrorizing our fellow Vermonters: "What would you suppose we should do?" ("Scott on Slate Ridge response: ‘What would you suppose we should do?’", VTDigger, 10/30/20)

Just sayin'.

There are organizations and there are individuals. Pick which one you want to be for yourself, and then we'll discuss.

Fact is that the Republican Party acts as it does and that's what I represent in my posts. It doesn't mean every Republican is as their Republican Party does, but under the best of circumstances it's defined as enabling.

Group dynamics are what they are, and every one of us makes some compromise to belong to a group. Stop making the compromises the GOP/VTGOP is telling you to make.

See ... I don't know you. I don't even know if you're from Vermont or bumfuck, Egypt. I would have no way to know if you as an individual is a racist or violent or whatever, and my assumptions with people always start with the positive meaning I would have to know you to call you out on something.

But I DO know the Republican Party. Extremely well.