What's new
By:
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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

pirate said:
I don't disagree with your latter point...smoking (based on some wiki research) represents a far greater risk to the country when lost productivity and health care costs are included. It also would free up $100b for consumers who currently buy smokes.
Click to expand...

I'm a little upset I'm about to make this point since I'm not a smoker and don't really care one way of the other. But while it's true it may free up that $100b for consumers, think about how much of the cost of smokes are taxes. That is a huge source of tax revenue that would be difficult to be replaced which I believe is the only reason that the sale of cigarettes has not been outlawed yet. If they ever find another way to make up for that cash, then it will be bye-bye based on all the bans going into effect now.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The sale of cigarettes will never be outlawed. It's an enormous export industry to Europe and Asia. We can tax and regulate it, but we can't actually ban it as a poison without hurting US businesses.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Rover said:
Again about how the friendly neighborhood drug cartel is not going to suddenly turn into choir boys if pot is legal. Start cutting into their profits in a big way and see what happens to you.
Click to expand...
So how come we're not still paying the Capone gang and friends for our booze? Did they turn into choir boys? Were they not defensive of their turf and their profits?

There's a substantial cost to engaging in illegal activity, and if there's a legal outlet, the legal outlet will rapidly out-compete the illegal one IMO.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Wanted to mention this, but didn't want to start a whole new thread for it. So I guess this is becoming the political catchall thread, so here's it is.

Most Americans Name Just Five Countries That U.S. Should Defend Militarily

Here's the breakdown by the countries they asked about, by percent, yes/no.

Canada - 80/14
Great Britain - 74/17
Israel - 61/26
Germany - 54/32
Mexico - 53/36
France - 46/38
Egypt - 44/35
Japan - 43/44
Afghanistan - 30/54
Iraq - 29/55
Venezuela - 27/55
Saudi Arabia - 25/58
Vietnam - 24/58
Pakistan - 23/57
Russia - 20/65
China - 18/66
North Korea - 11/77
Iran - 8/78

Some of those numbers down at the bottom are kind of depressing.

My list's pretty straight forward. All of NATO, Mexico (for local purposes only), Israel, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand. That's about it. Maybe Kuwait, they're pretty cool.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

pirate said:
I may be wrong but I don't think there are 4 agents standing next to each other: 1 weed, 1 cocaine, 1 heroin and 1 for everything else; so when we legalize pot the cost of the drug war goes down by 25%. If we only legalize pot how much do we really save in the war on drugs if we are still fighting the war?

But, we'll have more stoned people. (and all of the positives that come from that)
Click to expand...

It'll go down by about 70-80% since that is the arrest/conviction rate of marijuana in the drug war. There is a reason why DEA and other law enforcement officials don't want to decriminalize pot. it'll cut their budget.

Well just look at the crime, car accident rate in countries with war on drugs vs countries that have legalized or decriminalized like Dutch, Germany, Denmark, Canada etc... Or compare Alaska rate of use/accident rate vs other states.

At one time our country (32 states) had legalized or decriminalized marijuana... till the federal government decided to push the states into compliance with hiway funds. So Alaska is the only state I believe that it's legal, even though it has been re-criminalized but overturned by the state supreme court.

I love how all the crime data includes alcohol. in blank crime the perpetrator was on drugs/alcohol 40% of the time. I bet if you broke that down it's probably like 90% alcohol related.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Just as a reminder... as of 2014 it will be illegal to buy a normal light bulb.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Tundra said:
It'll go down by about 70-80% since that is the arrest/conviction rate of marijuana in the drug war. There is a reason why DEA and other law enforcement officials don't want to decriminalize pot. it'll cut their budget.

Well just look at the crime, car accident rate in countries with war on drugs vs countries that have legalized or decriminalized like Dutch, Germany, Denmark, Canada etc... Or compare Alaska rate of use/accident rate vs other states.

At one time our country (32 states) had legalized or decriminalized marijuana... till the federal government decided to push the states into compliance with hiway funds. So Alaska is the only state I believe that it's legal, even though it has been re-criminalized but overturned by the state supreme court.

I love how all the crime data includes alcohol. in blank crime the perpetrator was on drugs/alcohol 40% of the time. I bet if you broke that down it's probably like 90% alcohol related.
Click to expand...

So if pot was legal the DEA would shrink by 70-80% or crime would go down 70-80%? Not sure if I understand what you are trying to convey.:)
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Red Cloud said:
Wanted to mention this, but didn't want to start a whole new thread for it. So I guess this is becoming the political catchall thread, so here's it is.

Most Americans Name Just Five Countries That U.S. Should Defend Militarily

Here's the breakdown by the countries they asked about, by percent, yes/no.

Canada - 80/14
Great Britain - 74/17
Israel - 61/26
Germany - 54/32
Mexico - 53/36
France - 46/38
Egypt - 44/35
Japan - 43/44
Afghanistan - 30/54
Iraq - 29/55
Venezuela - 27/55
Saudi Arabia - 25/58
Vietnam - 24/58
Pakistan - 23/57
Russia - 20/65
China - 18/66
North Korea - 11/77
Iran - 8/78

Some of those numbers down at the bottom are kind of depressing.

My list's pretty straight forward. All of NATO, Mexico (for local purposes only), Israel, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand. That's about it. Maybe Kuwait, they're pretty cool.
Click to expand...


Remember, sizeable chunks of Americans polled believe in aliens, that we didn't land on the moon and that a whole batallion of shooters was on the grassy knoll. Who cares what idiots think? As Bobby "The Brain" Heenan once said (speaking of a wrestling crowd) the trouble with these people is they can breed and they can vote. Thankfully, most of the real nutballs eschew the latter.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Red Cloud said:
Some of those numbers down at the bottom are kind of depressing.
Click to expand...

I've seen one of those surveys that showed 1 in 5 don't know from which country we declared independence. Kind of provides some context for those countries at the bottom of the list. :)
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

joecct said:
This guys "church" has something like 150 members. Real significant..... He's getting his 15 minutes of fame. Ignore the idiot.

This is one case where the nooz media should have spiked the story.
Click to expand...

I actually like the story. It separates the blowhards (almost everyone on every cable network) from the folks with principles (like Michael Bloomberg and . . . uhhh . . . help me out here . . .)
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

amherstblackbear said:
I actually like the story. It separates the blowhards (almost everyone on every cable network) from the folks with principles (like Michael Bloomberg and . . . uhhh . . . help me out here . . .)
Click to expand...

Apart from business, Bloomberg's principle principle is that he's smarter than all the rest of us. And we'd better recognize that "fact" and do things his way. He's still an elitist idiot.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

amherstblackbear said:
I actually like the story. It separates the blowhards (almost everyone on every cable network) from the folks with principles (like Michael Bloomberg and . . . uhhh . . . help me out here . . .)
Click to expand...

Yes, Michael "A bomb in Times Square? Must be the Tea Partiers!" Bloomberg is our shining light of rationality.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Cloud, I don't follow the guy enough to make a blanket statement one way or the other. I'm just pointing out that he's one of the few who's been perfectly consistent on both episodes.

WeWantMore said:
Come on. What made Bloomberg's position on the mosque that much better than anyone else's? Apart from the fact that you agree with him.
Click to expand...

Again, he's been consistent. Freedom means putting up with s--- you don't like. If you start making your own personal approval a condition of freedom, you've effed up the entire concept.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

amherstblackbear said:
Again, he's been consistent. Freedom means putting up with s--- you don't like. If you start making your own personal approval a condition of freedom, you've effed up the entire concept.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'll definitely give him that.

I'm just not so sure his motives are as pure as you seem to believe.
 
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

OK, you've piqued my curiosity. What are his motives?

I don't like the guy or dislike him. I'm just giving him credit for not talking out of both sides of his mouth. At least on this one issue.

Compare to left wingers who stand up for freedom in one case and talk about the need for sensitivity in the next. Or right wingers who are all about cultural sensitivity one moment, then you practically have to beat it out of them the next.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top