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.
RuffDraft wrote:
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.
, and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. 
