What the frick?!

A Free And Independent Scotland.

Moderator: Mod Squad

Re: What the frick?!

Postby DaCrum » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:20 am

Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby DaCrum » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:33 pm

Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:34 pm

WhatTheFuckHasObamaDoneSoFar.com wrote:Reversed 'global gag rule', allowing US aid to go to organizations regardless of whether they provide abortions
So it's illegal to do fund abortions with government dollars here, but we can give money to organizations overseas who do it? So what they're saying is that our President is either a hypocrite or just doesn't care about America?

WhatTheFuckHasObamaDoneSoFar.com wrote:Signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, giving the FDA the authority to regulate the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of tobacco for the first time
Hah! Sure. Increase the cost of cigarettes. Why not just ban smoking? Oh, that's right.
Image
[And yes, I know that's a photoshopped picture; the point stands. Obama DOES smoke.]

WhatTheFuckHasObamaDoneSoFar.com wrote:Appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in US history
Yeah, that's what the government was missing: openly gay officials.

Including Kevin Jennings, the Safe School Czar, who admitted that "Safe" is a code word for promoting homosexuality to children as young as kindergarten regardless of whether the parents think it's okay.

All of this stuff is good?

And what is this?

WhatTheFuckHasObamaDoneSoFar.com wrote:Created more private sector jobs in 2010 than during entire Bush years
Yeah okay sure. The page that it links to has a graph that reads "Job Change In Private Payroll Jobs" and has negative blocks all the way up until a few months prior to 2010.

If you want to talk about net job loss/gain, then Bush is the clear winner. For the majority of his term, the "official" unemployment rate wavered between 4 and 6 percent with the average being somewhere around 5.6%, and then started going up around April-2008 timeframe, at the same time that the workforce increased by about 800,000 in one month, which shows you how ineffective it is to calculate net jobs using the unemployment rate to begin with. But for the sake of argument, let's keep going with their own flawed concepts.

At the beginning of 2009, unemployment was at 7.6% or so, and it rose to 10.6 before it started falling (to be fair: gaining jobs). Therefore, he's "lost" more jobs than he's "gained." Unemployment has been hovering around 9% for the past several months. And we're supposed to be celebrating?

Get him to drop unemployment back to about 7%, and then we'll start applauding him. Get him to drop it to Bush levels (4%) and America can give him a fucking Standing Ovation. Until then, we shouldn't be allowing bullshit like this to pass as fact.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby EagleMan » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:09 pm

RuffDraft wrote:So it's illegal to do fund abortions with government dollars here, but we can give money to organizations overseas who do it? So what they're saying is that our President is either a hypocrite or just doesn't care about America?

Because the two situations are clearly the same. Yes, it is illegal to do it here, but it isn't in some areas overseas. How is Obama a hypocrite? Did he sign the law that made it illegal? You come out of nowhere with your accusations that he doesn't care about America and is a hypocrite. It's hardly related at all to overseas organizations being funded. So, what, he would care for America by breaking the law here? It makes no sense.

RuffDraft wrote:Hah! Sure. Increase the cost of cigarettes. Why not just ban smoking? Oh, that's right.
http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpr ... king-1.jpg
[And yes, I know that's a photoshopped picture; the point stands. Obama DOES smoke.]

Who..cares? He doesn't smoke anymore, in fact, his wife made him quit it as part of the deal in her giving approval for him to run for President. You also suggest something you should know is absurd. He knows it's dumb to ban smoking, because it'd accomplish absolutely nothing and would only drive it underground. He once smoked, therefore he automatically approves of smoking? People can't change, and for the better as well? Everyone's done something illegal at least once. I'm sure you haven't recycled on occasion. Does that automatically mean you don't support recycling? No. You've probably gone over the speed limit on occasion. Does that mean you think everyone should go past it? Probably not.

RuffDraft wrote:Yeah, that's what the government was missing: openly gay officials.

Technically, yes.

RuffDraft wrote:Including Kevin Jennings, the Safe School Czar, who admitted that "Safe" is a code word for promoting homosexuality to children as young as kindergarten regardless of whether the parents think it's okay.

I could find that quote nowhere in that article. The title also splices quotes, and I find quote splicing several times in the article. It's source also links to a similarly right-wing site. The validity of your source can't be trusted. While they do talk about him, I find no admission that "safe" is a code word for promoting homosexuality. Since you already take it to be true, do you think he means promoting homosexuality as in literal homosexuality, or promoting its cause and acceptance? They can easily mean either thing. Also, demanding that parents think something is "okay" is absurd, as it pertains to having children accept each other. So if I told my school that promoting racial equality was dumb and that I didn't want my child exposed to that, they shouldn't be allowed to do that? For gender equality as well? What about poor people?

RuffDraft wrote:All of this stuff is good?

Yes.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13880
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:22 pm

sounds good to me.

also: if obama wants to smoke, let the motherfucker smoke.
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby DaCrum » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:30 pm

I posted that for the intelligent people to enjoy. Sorry you didn't get the memo Ruff.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:53 pm

DaCrum wrote:I posted that for the intelligent people to enjoy. Sorry you didn't get the memo Ruff.
If that link was something only intelligent people could be pleased by I am proud to call myself a moron.

EagleMan wrote:Because the two situations are clearly the same. Yes, it is illegal to do it here, but it isn't in some areas overseas. How is Obama a hypocrite? Did he sign the law that made it illegal? You come out of nowhere with your accusations that he doesn't care about America and is a hypocrite. It's hardly related at all to overseas organizations being funded. So, what, he would care for America by breaking the law here? It makes no sense.
No, I'm saying we should hold other countries by the standards we have set for ourselves. Allowing money to be granted to overseas organizations to do what would otherwise be illegal here presents a conflict of interest.

EagleMan wrote:He doesn't smoke anymore, in fact, his wife made him quit it as part of the deal in her giving approval for him to run for President.

February 8th, 2009.
June 25th, 2009.
February 28th, 2010.
February 9th, 2011.

In short, HAHAHAHAHA no.

EagleMan wrote:You also suggest something you should know is absurd. He knows it's dumb to ban smoking, because it'd accomplish absolutely nothing and would only drive it underground.
I think what I meant to say is ban the sale of cigarettes. That's probably a better idea. Just banning smoking would make people do it in secret and drastically reduce cigarette sales every year, and probably make people smoke a lot less often. But then people would still smoke, so no problem solved...

EagleMan wrote:Everyone's done something illegal at least once. I'm sure you haven't recycled on occasion. Does that automatically mean you don't support recycling? No.
Well, not recycling isn't illegal, and it takes more energy to recycle a bottle than it does to make a new one, but anyway...
Eagleman wrote:You've probably gone over the speed limit on occasion. Does that mean you think everyone should go past it? Probably not.
No, but we already have clearly-defined laws against speeding. We don't really have clearly-defined laws against smoking or the sale of cigarettes.

For example, if we didn't have laws against cocaine, Coca-Cola would probably still be made with cocaine today; and there would be many other products that would likely include it due to its alleged medicinal use. However, then regular people could make cocaine and sell it and there would be far more regular users addicted to it. The same goes for cigarettes. I believe that cigarettes should be banned and the industries behind them dismantled. But that's just my perspective.

EagleMan wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:Yeah, that's what the government was missing: openly gay officials.

Technically, yes.
Actually what is missing currently is someone who can do their fucking job without a hidden agenda.

EagleMan wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:Including Kevin Jennings, the Safe School Czar, who admitted that "Safe" is a code word for promoting homosexuality to children as young as kindergarten regardless of whether the parents think it's okay.

I could find that quote nowhere in that article.
Yeah, it wasn't in the article. I couldn't find that quote again, although I heard him talk about it somewhere in 2009. As I have cited it, it's more of an apparent goal.

It's source also links to a similarly right-wing site. The validity of your source can't be trusted.
Right-wing sources can't be trusted? So what you're saying is that only Left-wing news is ever trustworthy? Yeah, like MediaMatters is an example of unbiased reporting. Being Right-wing or Left-wing is not a valid reason to discount something. Being proven wrong is a valid reason to discount something.

EagleMan wrote:Since you already take it to be true, do you think he means promoting homosexuality as in literal homosexuality, or promoting its cause and acceptance? They can easily mean either thing.
Yes, this is true. So which would of the two you be in favor of and which do you think they're really going for?

EagleMan wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:All of this stuff is good?

Yes.
...

HAHAHAHAHA NO.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:02 pm

RuffDraft wrote:
EagleMan wrote:
RuffDraft wrote:Yeah, that's what the government was missing: openly gay officials.

Technically, yes.
Actually what is missing currently is someone who can do their fucking job without a hidden agenda.

In politics?

Is that even a thing?
And you call us idealists. Pfft. Do their job.
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Whatis6times9 » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:07 pm

When has prohibition ever worked?
Image
ButtStuff: I love you, too.
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8977
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:15 pm

The alcohol one worked great.

It gave us all that great gangster cultural images.
Think of all the awesome films and shit that came from all that death, violence and corruption.
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:15 pm

what classifies as a hidden agenda? because imho, everyone has agendas that are not related to work when they get a job that might not come up normally in their term of employment. :X
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:07 am

Well if you're trying to promote, say, acceptance of homosexuality, and you distribute literature to schools that has pornographic content, one might say that you have something else in mind.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby DaCrum » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:08 am

My point is that you're retarded. Stop making strawmans.
Escape will make me God.
65124_134_12++[CMND PRAMA +49c2]
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:09 pm
Location: τ Ceti
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:56 am

DaCrum wrote:My point is that you're retarded. Stop making strawmans.

Image

NeoWarrior7 wrote:The alcohol one worked great.

It gave us all that great gangster cultural images.
Think of all the awesome films and shit that came from all that death, violence and corruption.
And yet, during prohibition, fewer people drank alcohol, which is the whole point. And yes, as with anything illegal, people try to get away with doing it. Why are many drugs illegal or controlled? Because they have very harmful side effects in small quantities. And in spite of this, people use/consume them because they like it, for any number of reasons.

Given that any substance that can cause severe damage to or impairment of the human body over short period of time when used as intended is generally illegal, it actually makes sense that the government would outlaw alcohol (and cigarettes, actually). But, as it stands, alcohol is decriminalized. You can be arrested for being drunk in public, or driving a car, but not for drinking it in your own home, as long as you are of age to do so.

I've got someplace to be, so I'll cut off my dialogue here. Discuss, gentlemen.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:58 am

awareness and education are just as important as the technicality of the allowance of freedom of any issue

and education, like journalism, is best presented as neutrally as possible in order for people to have real freedom of choice.
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby EagleMan » Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:04 am

RuffDraft wrote:No, I'm saying we should hold other countries by the standards we have set for ourselves. Allowing money to be granted to overseas organizations to do what would otherwise be illegal here presents a conflict of interest.

The separation of powers and federalism is for the branches of government to compete with each other, alongside the states with the central government. The executive branch does not have to completely submit itself to the whims of the states nor to the other branches, especially so if their actions are not illegal. Abortion, however gruesome in thought, provides a much needed service that is a net-benefit in places like Africa. In areas like the U.S., the benefit is more arguable, but in the places where these overseas organizations work, in developing countries, the service is much more beneficial to their society due to rampant overpopulation and the problems that result from such.



Ok, I'm sorry I didn't specify that it was a process, but the articles you link do clarify that he is currently off the habit. His process definitely began with is running for President though. Very few people quit something cold turkey, and nor is it advisable to do so in most cases. Thanks for laughing it capitals, it shows a high level of respect.

RuffDraft wrote:I think what I meant to say is ban the sale of cigarettes. That's probably a better idea. Just banning smoking would make people do it in secret and drastically reduce cigarette sales every year, and probably make people smoke a lot less often. But then people would still smoke, so no problem solved...

Well I guess that's a possibility, but it also fails to neglect the inevitably crime underworld that would spring up alongside it. So problems created.

RuffDraft wrote:Well, not recycling isn't illegal, and it takes more energy to recycle a bottle than it does to make a new one, but anyway...

I live in California where it is illegal not to recycle.
RuffDraft wrote:No, but we already have clearly-defined laws against speeding. We don't really have clearly-defined laws against smoking or the sale of cigarettes.

You can't buy if you're under 18, and areas where smoking is not allowed is marked by a sign, much like traffic signs. If traffic signs are "clearly-defined", then how come No Smoking signs aren't?

RuffDraft wrote:For example, if we didn't have laws against cocaine, Coca-Cola would probably still be made with cocaine today; and there would be many other products that would likely include it due to its alleged medicinal use. However, then regular people could make cocaine and sell it and there would be far more regular users addicted to it. The same goes for cigarettes. I believe that cigarettes should be banned and the industries behind them dismantled. But that's just my perspective.

I very seriously doubt that most people would agree with the statement that Coca-Cola would still use cocaine today if it wasn't outlawed. Many companies remove illicit products (as the public gains awareness of their danger) in an attempt to gain the good-will of the consumer, and consequently, their purchase.

RuffDraft wrote:Actually what is missing currently is someone who can do their fucking job without a hidden agenda.

Because people chosen to be appointed to the government had a hidden agenda just waiting for them to gain a position of power. They always knew they would get the appointment nod, and so formulated their hidden agenda while they waited for the appointment over which they have no control of. I think the more likely scenario is that you simply watch/read things that tell you that these people have agendas. I find the actions of the government much more believable/realistic when I view them as average, stupid, humans.

RuffDraft wrote:Yeah, it wasn't in the article. I couldn't find that quote again, although I heard him talk about it somewhere in 2009. As I have cited it, it's more of an apparent goal.

That article states that he is fighting anti-gay bias, and promoting respect and tolerance for homosexuality. That is very different from promoting homosexuality itself.

RuffDraft wrote:Right-wing sources can't be trusted? So what you're saying is that only Left-wing news is ever trustworthy? Yeah, like MediaMatters is an example of unbiased reporting. Being Right-wing or Left-wing is not a valid reason to discount something. Being proven wrong is a valid reason to discount something.

I did not discount the article solely on its political leanings, as I mentioned with the quote splicing and the fact that the article didn't actually back up what you were saying. That is a valid reason to dismiss something, is it not, if the source in question doesn't actually back up what you say? Also, did I ask you to link to a left-wing organization like the Huffington Post or Newsweek? The world is not left and right, it is possible to be centrist or neutral (or both). I asked for a neutral source. The article linking to a site for its source that lists itself as being "a national organization devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda" can't be given the benefit of the doubt.

RuffDraft wrote:Yes, this is true. So which would of the two you be in favor of and which do you think they're really going for?

Obviously I would be in favor of the promotion of tolerance. Also, that is accusing an organization he formerly headed of misconduct. If you headed an organization, and then left, and then the organization took a turn towards the absurd and extremist, would you be happy being painted as supporting that? It is unfair. I do not see anything in the article that says that he himself supported these endeavors. I can agree however that what they push is ludicrous, but it is understandable seeing as how it is a group advancing the gay cause, and any group that advances a cause is typically extremist, regardless of ideology. A black man who went through much racism in his youth and later headed an organization such as that is likely to endorse the reading of explicit tales of racism to children, because of how personally affected he was by racism and how dedicated he is to the cause now. The content of the books promoted by the GLSEN organization can be said to be pornographic, just as the books by a similar black organization could be condemned as glorifying violence or obscenity. For instance, I remember reading the book Beloved, a lurid tale of slavery and the tribulations that they endure, and the extremity of its details only made the central theme of the book more poignant and emotionally accessible, rather than the typical trite "slavery is bad" statement that is fed down children's throats.

RuffDraft wrote:...

HAHAHAHAHA NO.

Please maintain a level of respect and composure. No one is perfect, and I wouldn't say that I am, but this flagrant laughter is entirely disrespectful and unbecoming of someone who devotes so much time to his posts and research. To tarnish your credibility by taking this moment of self-satisfaction amongst all this effort is very unproductive.
RuffDraft wrote:]And yet, during prohibition, fewer people drank alcohol, which is the whole point. And yes, as with anything illegal, people try to get away with doing it. Why are many drugs illegal or controlled? Because they have very harmful side effects in small quantities. And in spite of this, people use/consume them because they like it, for any number of reasons.

Given that any substance that can cause severe damage to or impairment of the human body over short period of time when used as intended is generally illegal, it actually makes sense that the government would outlaw alcohol (and cigarettes, actually). But, as it stands, alcohol is decriminalized. You can be arrested for being drunk in public, or driving a car, but not for drinking it in your own home, as long as you are of age to do so.

Yes, it certainly achieved its goal, but that's not why people reference Prohibition. People reference it to talk about (however indirectly) the law of unforeseen consequences. Reducing the rate of drinking is fantastic. But it might not seem so fantastic when you realize that comes at the cost of many lives lost, whether to crime or death, and the gangs and law-breaking that comes with the prohibition of a substance such as alcohol. The positive may be great, but if the negatives outweigh the good, the positive is no longer worth it, and it is historically accepted that the negatives far outweighed the good, unless you'd like to argue that Prohibition was, overall, beneficial for society as a whole.
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 13880
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:24 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Valhallen » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:04 am

Ahem. I won't say much now besides that Prohibition wasn't very effective. Overall numbers are hard to come by, but it seems to have increased consumption of hard liquor and underage drinking. And also that most people here could probably make alcohol from the present contents of their kitchen and pantry. A ban on alcohol is pretty much unenforceable. Consider that it's widely made in prisons by prisoners.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:53 am

The main problems of Prohibition were caused by the corruption involved; if there was some way we could have mitigated that, it might have been enforced a little better. I imagine that if we were to have instead tried prohibition in today's society rather than back then, it would have worked a little bit better. Perhaps we can do what we do now with cigarettes and just tax the shit out of it.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:45 pm

I thought we already did tax the shit out of alcohol?

Also, since when do you support taxes and government interference? I thought you stood with Ron Paul, and his Give America Hookers and Blow position.
Frankly, if he called it that, he'd probably get more voters.
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby BeeAre » Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:51 pm

RuffDraft wrote:The main problems of Prohibition were caused by the corruption involved; if there was some way we could have mitigated that, it might have been enforced a little better. I imagine that if we were to have instead tried prohibition in today's society rather than back then, it would have worked a little bit better. Perhaps we can do what we do now with cigarettes and just tax the shit out of it.



??? yeah this is weird, i agree with neo. are you supporting government control in this circumstance????
Snafu Comics' Forum Alpha Bro, Staff Writer, Editor, Image, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
最後の撃は。。。切ない。Puff Most Epic.
Ladies and Gentlemen, The:
BR

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Mississippi
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:59 pm

But, also, no, I don't think the corruption would be manged better. Just look at the Mexican drug cartels. I doubt it could become quite that bad, but honestly, people are kinda dicks.

Also, you're forgetting one slight fact. A lot of people really like alcohol, or at least enjoy a drink once in a while. Besides that, it's rather accepted. You do a little cocaine, you're an out of control druggie. Drink a little alcohol, you're a normal person.
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Valhallen » Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:15 pm

NeoWarrior7 wrote:I thought you stood with Ron Paul, and his Give America Hookers and Blow position.
Giving America hookers and blow would be socialism. Ron Paul's more for a "Let America Have Hookers and Blow" kind of deal. And there's some legitimacy to that position. It's not like hookers and blow don't have their benefits. It's just that certain things have enough systemic costs that it's better to ban them than to allow them with certain levels of regulation.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:23 pm

You know what I meant by give. Gosh.

Though, free hookers and blow for everyone IS a great position....
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11824
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Valhallen » Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:42 pm

Shut up baby, you know it.

Image
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: What the frick?!

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:35 am

Large government is bad, but some government control is necessary. I'm not blind to that.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

PreviousNext

Return to Central Compton Botanical Gardens

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hiroko, Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests