Slap Shot
I got nothing
Last edited:
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
- Thread starter ScottM
- Start date
- Status
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
This POV I can understand - heck, way back in the 80s, my partner and I ran a high school cross-ex debate case on decriminalizing drugs in order to reduce prison overcrowding.
The part where you lose me is when you somehow make the leap that only Republicans are responsible. I'm guessing there's been more than one or two anti-drug laws passed into law by Democratic legislatures and signed by Democratic executives.
This POV I can understand - heck, way back in the 80s, my partner and I ran a high school cross-ex debate case on decriminalizing drugs in order to reduce prison overcrowding.
The part where you lose me is when you somehow make the leap that only Republicans are responsible. I'm guessing there's been more than one or two anti-drug laws passed into law by Democratic legislatures and signed by Democratic executives.
USAFA Bulldog
New member
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
No, it's certainly not just a Republican thing. I knock the Republicans more on this, since they claim to be for small government and free markets. The drug war and illegal immigration is anti-free market and I say both the drug war and the illegal immigration war are anti-free market and anti-small government.
If both parties conduct a transaction to buy and sell an "illegal" drug, there's no victim. If you allow the government to use force (via SWAT or whatever) and go after the "illegal" drug people and there's a shootout, it may not be the death chair, but the effect is the same.
It's wanting killing of innocent people, since there is no victim. Now if one of the parties in the transaction is holding a gun to the head of the other and the cops shoot the party with the gun, it's acting in the self-defense of the victim.
No, it's certainly not just a Republican thing. I knock the Republicans more on this, since they claim to be for small government and free markets. The drug war and illegal immigration is anti-free market and I say both the drug war and the illegal immigration war are anti-free market and anti-small government.
If both parties conduct a transaction to buy and sell an "illegal" drug, there's no victim. If you allow the government to use force (via SWAT or whatever) and go after the "illegal" drug people and there's a shootout, it may not be the death chair, but the effect is the same.
It's wanting killing of innocent people, since there is no victim. Now if one of the parties in the transaction is holding a gun to the head of the other and the cops shoot the party with the gun, it's acting in the self-defense of the victim.
Last edited:
MinnesotaNorthStar
Minding the gap
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Either way, how do you get "GOP wants to kill innocent people for victimless crimes" from "war on drugs."?
No, it isn't. SWAT doesn't get sent in for the dealer on the corner. They use force against the distribution portions of drug rings who are often armed with automatic weapons. While Dave the dealer from Duluth might be a nice guy...the rest of the cartel isn't. I would argue more innocent lives are lost to get the drugs to the streets due to the violence of the cartels than the DEA going in and busting a drug house.
Either way, how do you get "GOP wants to kill innocent people for victimless crimes" from "war on drugs."?
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
I think the war on drugs is a joke also but what about a dealer and a 16 yr old kid? How can people be innocent if they are breaking the law?
I think the war on drugs is a joke also but what about a dealer and a 16 yr old kid? How can people be innocent if they are breaking the law?
USAFA Bulldog
New member
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Because breaking the law and innocence are two different things, especially in cases where there is no victim. In some cases two minors engage in consensual acts and both are required to register as sex offenders. They broke a law, yet I would most certainly say they're innocent people. Depending on the act, it may be risky, hurt feelings may happen, and other things might happen, but the government shouldn't be involved unless the act wasn't consensual.
Right now liquor stores currently can't sell to people under a certain age. Even if there wasn't that law, liquor stores still wouldn't do it, since there would be so much pressure from the community to not sell liquor to a 16 year old.
You're fighting the symptom, not the problem. Drugs being illegal creates the problem of cartels. It makes a black market for drugs. Since they're illegals, dealers can get away with things that normal business owners can't. So I've read that when alcohol prohibition was ended, other problems went away as well.
Wanting something banned is wanting violence to be done. Usually it stars as threatening to use violence. People may not see it as violence, but it certainly is. If there wasn't violence backing the law, then the law would be completely voluntary.
On certain laws, maybe at first there is fines. There's no choice in that right? There's the threat of violence; if you don't pay the fine you'll be forced, at gunpoint if need be, into a car and thrown in a cage.
As I said a portion of Dems are for the drug war, but I criticize the GOP more since they claim to be for free markets and small government. I certainly have things I find the Dems more wrong for (gun laws, etc).
Because breaking the law and innocence are two different things, especially in cases where there is no victim. In some cases two minors engage in consensual acts and both are required to register as sex offenders. They broke a law, yet I would most certainly say they're innocent people. Depending on the act, it may be risky, hurt feelings may happen, and other things might happen, but the government shouldn't be involved unless the act wasn't consensual.
Right now liquor stores currently can't sell to people under a certain age. Even if there wasn't that law, liquor stores still wouldn't do it, since there would be so much pressure from the community to not sell liquor to a 16 year old.
You're fighting the symptom, not the problem. Drugs being illegal creates the problem of cartels. It makes a black market for drugs. Since they're illegals, dealers can get away with things that normal business owners can't. So I've read that when alcohol prohibition was ended, other problems went away as well.
Wanting something banned is wanting violence to be done. Usually it stars as threatening to use violence. People may not see it as violence, but it certainly is. If there wasn't violence backing the law, then the law would be completely voluntary.
On certain laws, maybe at first there is fines. There's no choice in that right? There's the threat of violence; if you don't pay the fine you'll be forced, at gunpoint if need be, into a car and thrown in a cage.
As I said a portion of Dems are for the drug war, but I criticize the GOP more since they claim to be for free markets and small government. I certainly have things I find the Dems more wrong for (gun laws, etc).
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Bulldog: Several of us have inquired ever so politely, more than once, what you're talking about when you accuse Republicans "wanting" to "kill" innocent people.
So far, you've responded with boiler plate rhetoric about "victimless crimes," which is the default position of "anti-war on drugs types." Apart from the fact that there ARE victims, whether you want to recognize them or not, it's not answering the question(s) we've put to you to explain who it is who "wants" "innocent" people killed. And how it is they get dead. As nearly as I can understand the muddle that is your position, the mere enforcement of drug laws is "proof" that Republicans (and some wayward Democrats) "want" innocent people killed. That's preposterous, bordering on insane.
I have concluded that the reason why you don't is that you can't. That you're just talking through your hat. No harm done, of course. But in future you might be prepared to defend your position better than you have here. You might also consider not staking out such a juvinile position to begin with.
Bulldog: Several of us have inquired ever so politely, more than once, what you're talking about when you accuse Republicans "wanting" to "kill" innocent people.
So far, you've responded with boiler plate rhetoric about "victimless crimes," which is the default position of "anti-war on drugs types." Apart from the fact that there ARE victims, whether you want to recognize them or not, it's not answering the question(s) we've put to you to explain who it is who "wants" "innocent" people killed. And how it is they get dead. As nearly as I can understand the muddle that is your position, the mere enforcement of drug laws is "proof" that Republicans (and some wayward Democrats) "want" innocent people killed. That's preposterous, bordering on insane.
I have concluded that the reason why you don't is that you can't. That you're just talking through your hat. No harm done, of course. But in future you might be prepared to defend your position better than you have here. You might also consider not staking out such a juvinile position to begin with.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Yeah, Jock Yablonski and Victor Riesel send their best.
Yeah, Jock Yablonski and Victor Riesel send their best.
Last edited:
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Someone's stuck in the chicago meatpacking years...
Someone's stuck in the chicago meatpacking years...
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
So you're cool with me driving 150 mph any time I want, afterall there no victims. What about Drinking and driving, no victims there either
If there were no laws most businesses would sell Wild Turkey to a toddler. Don't know much about retail, do ya?
So you're cool with me driving 150 mph any time I want, afterall there no victims. What about Drinking and driving, no victims there either
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
well, that's what happens when you get your hands in the machine
well, that's what happens when you get your hands in the machine
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Ew. Upton Sinclair wrote about something like this.
Ew. Upton Sinclair wrote about something like this.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Chicago? Lol. I am Boston-born and raised and went to some of America's finest schools since the day I was born.
Did anyone else see President Obama's speech today? I hope so because some people here need to hear what he says. It will help you see the light provided you can get past his skin color.
Chicago? Lol. I am Boston-born and raised and went to some of America's finest schools since the day I was born.
Did anyone else see President Obama's speech today? I hope so because some people here need to hear what he says. It will help you see the light provided you can get past his skin color.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
I don't care if he has green skin, he's still a liberal and I disagree with his spending and just about every policy he has ever tried to get through congress.
I don't care if he has green skin, he's still a liberal and I disagree with his spending and just about every policy he has ever tried to get through congress.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
That's a nice bit of trolling you've done these last couple days.
Going to them and learning from them are two entirely different things.
Why are you so obsessed with a man's race?
That's a nice bit of trolling you've done these last couple days.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
See, that laminated card libs carry around in their wallets does double duty. On one side, the list of Republicans "too stupid to be president." On the other, words libs throw into an argument when they're getting their butts kicked--which is nearly all the time.
Words like: "Racist," "Sexist," "Homophobe," "Islamophobe."
Sooo much easier than thinking. There are way too many libs who would be struck mute if they couldn't smear people with those words, and others.
See, that laminated card libs carry around in their wallets does double duty. On one side, the list of Republicans "too stupid to be president." On the other, words libs throw into an argument when they're getting their butts kicked--which is nearly all the time.
Words like: "Racist," "Sexist," "Homophobe," "Islamophobe."
Sooo much easier than thinking. There are way too many libs who would be struck mute if they couldn't smear people with those words, and others.
Last edited:
- Status