|
|
On July 26 2012 10:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 09:57 RavenLoud wrote:On July 26 2012 06:47 kwizach wrote:On July 26 2012 06:37 Epocalypse wrote: Here are some good points made by Diane Macedo about Obama's speech. No, she does not make some good points, because she apparently doesn't understand what Obama's "you didn't build that" phrase referred to. Have you been following this discussion at all? Leave him alone, he's just an Austrian economist that live in his own bubble. Everytime someone gives him a valid counterargument, he ignores it and proceed to repeat the same thing over and over. Don't forget about the youtube videos! He wouldn't be an Austrian economist without posting hundreds of "educational" youtube videos every day.
Don't forget the almost constant quotes from Ayn Rand....
|
On July 26 2012 07:19 coverpunch wrote: Ok, let's apply it. What are your thoughts on Obama's presidency so far and the potential for Romney to do better?
Do you want a Canadian's perspective or are you not going to give a shit?
|
On July 26 2012 11:56 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:19 coverpunch wrote: Ok, let's apply it. What are your thoughts on Obama's presidency so far and the potential for Romney to do better? Do you want a Canadian's perspective or are you not going to give a shit? Knock yourself out. There's no shortage of foreigners offering their opinions in this thread, and your opinions are more interesting than most of theirs.
|
On July 26 2012 06:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:46 coverpunch wrote:
I think this is just a fundamental difference of political philosophy. The government definitely does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Hence the 2nd Amendment. Hence the right to kill in self-defense.
Hmm... I don't think my definition here is controversial but perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think 2nd amendment conflicts with this but I would have to consider this tension more carefully and I don't have any answer. Anybody have thoughts?
Technically the 2nd Amendment is granted by the government to people and so is the right to kill in self-defense. While exercising one's 2nd Amendment right or self-defense right is one's own decision, it is legitimized by the government. That's my way of looking at it.
The government has a monopoly on legitimate use of force, but they license some of that legitimacy to us in certain situations.
|
On July 26 2012 12:11 SkyCrawler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:56 sam!zdat wrote:On July 26 2012 06:46 coverpunch wrote:
I think this is just a fundamental difference of political philosophy. The government definitely does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Hence the 2nd Amendment. Hence the right to kill in self-defense.
Hmm... I don't think my definition here is controversial but perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think 2nd amendment conflicts with this but I would have to consider this tension more carefully and I don't have any answer. Anybody have thoughts? Technically the 2nd Amendment is granted by the government to people and so is the right to kill in self-defense. While exercising one's 2nd Amendment right or self-defense right is one's own decision, it is legitimized by the government. That's my way of looking at it. The government has a monopoly on legitimate use of force, but they license some of that legitimacy to us in certain situations. Actually the Constitution flows the opposite direction. The Constitution is written by the people for the people and enumerates the powers that are given to the government. The Bill of Rights spells out which rights are inviolable by the government and can never be taken away (although they can be restricted; for gun control, the government can ban the sale of guns to people with a history of violent crime). So you control the monopoly of force, although the government can and does restrict it in many ways.
|
On July 26 2012 11:56 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 07:19 coverpunch wrote: Ok, let's apply it. What are your thoughts on Obama's presidency so far and the potential for Romney to do better? Do you want a Canadian's perspective or are you not going to give a shit? Please. I want to hear more opinions about why Obama has been a good or bad president and whether Romney can do better or not, not less.
|
I'm pretty sure Obama is only slightly better in this regard, but Mitt Romney is a hypocritical piece of shit.
Romney on assault weapons: "Well this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already," Romney said in an interview with NBC News. "But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't."
Romney on medical marijuana: Romney vows that, "if you elect me President you are not going to see legalized medical marijuana. I am going to fight it tooth and nail."
So on one hand, making bad things illegal won't make them go away, on the other hand, making harmless plants illegal will make them go away and save America's poor stoned soul.
Joke of a candidate, joke of a country if he gets anywhere close to the presidency.
|
On July 26 2012 20:50 DamnCats wrote: I'm pretty sure Obama is only slightly better in this regard, but Mitt Romney is a hypocritical piece of shit.
Romney on assault weapons: "Well this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already," Romney said in an interview with NBC News. "But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't."
Romney on medical marijuana: Romney vows that, "if you elect me President you are not going to see legalized medical marijuana. I am going to fight it tooth and nail."
So on one hand, making bad things illegal won't make them go away, on the other hand, making harmless plants illegal will make them go away and save America's poor stoned soul.
Joke of a candidate, joke of a country if he gets anywhere close to the presidency. In the first phrase he is perfectly right, criminalising something doesn`t magically makes it dissapear, look at literally anything.
In the second, he says "he will fight it", not he will make it dissapear, which is absolutely in line with the first phrase.
As for harmlessnes of MH, i have a lot of doubts. Mostly because of the way drugs work.
Takw alcohol as an example. It is harmless, in fact our body produces it itself, which is why is is not poisonus to us unlike CH3OH(methanol) and other of such.
Still it is very harmfull if overdosed. And US and other countries did try to criminalise alcohol, well, didn`t worked out well, but doesn`t mean they shouldn`t try to phase it out eventually.
|
On July 26 2012 20:50 DamnCats wrote: I'm pretty sure Obama is only slightly better in this regard, but Mitt Romney is a hypocritical piece of shit.
Romney on assault weapons: "Well this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already," Romney said in an interview with NBC News. "But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't."
Romney on medical marijuana: Romney vows that, "if you elect me President you are not going to see legalized medical marijuana. I am going to fight it tooth and nail."
So on one hand, making bad things illegal won't make them go away, on the other hand, making harmless plants illegal will make them go away and save America's poor stoned soul.
Joke of a candidate, joke of a country if he gets anywhere close to the presidency.
I think maru should be legalized, as I believe it is safe when used responsibly and that the harmful effects have been overblown.
but saying it is harmless is completely incorrect. It is not a happy pill that the fun police took away.
|
On July 26 2012 20:50 DamnCats wrote: I'm pretty sure Obama is only slightly better in this regard, but Mitt Romney is a hypocritical piece of shit.
Romney on assault weapons: "Well this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already," Romney said in an interview with NBC News. "But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't."
Romney on medical marijuana: Romney vows that, "if you elect me President you are not going to see legalized medical marijuana. I am going to fight it tooth and nail."
So on one hand, making bad things illegal won't make them go away, on the other hand, making harmless plants illegal will make them go away and save America's poor stoned soul.
Joke of a candidate, joke of a country if he gets anywhere close to the presidency. Not to make things worse for you, but if he's a candidate he's already pretty close to the presidency. But to the best of my knowledge he can't make medical marijuana illegal, he can only fail to legalize it at the federal level. I believe it's a state issue other than that?
|
As far as drugs are concerned, we should follow Portugals example. Decriminalization for all drugs (and maybe legalization for marijuana). Treat them as medical issues. We need to stop overincarceration.
|
On July 26 2012 21:49 DoubleReed wrote: As far as drugs are concerned, we should follow Portugals example. Decriminalization for all drugs (and maybe legalization for marijuana). Treat them as medical issues. We need to stop overincarceration. Aside from incarceration rates decreasing, has this actually helped Portugal at all? It sounds almost like a cop out so they don't have to pay for incarceration.
|
Afaik, it has been some time since i read about it, Portugal is way better off with the legalisation than before it.
|
On July 26 2012 22:01 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 21:49 DoubleReed wrote: As far as drugs are concerned, we should follow Portugals example. Decriminalization for all drugs (and maybe legalization for marijuana). Treat them as medical issues. We need to stop overincarceration. Aside from incarceration rates decreasing, has this actually helped Portugal at all? It sounds almost like a cop out so they don't have to pay for incarceration.
it didnt make the black market go away if that is what you are asking. It just made people start selling even shittier stuff at an even lower cost.
|
On July 26 2012 21:49 DoubleReed wrote: As far as drugs are concerned, we should follow Portugals example. Decriminalization for all drugs (and maybe legalization for marijuana). Treat them as medical issues. We need to stop overincarceration. How long will it take food companies to only sell food with drugs to make you addict to their products?
On July 26 2012 21:33 aloT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 20:50 DamnCats wrote: I'm pretty sure Obama is only slightly better in this regard, but Mitt Romney is a hypocritical piece of shit.
Romney on assault weapons: "Well this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already," Romney said in an interview with NBC News. "But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't."
Romney on medical marijuana: Romney vows that, "if you elect me President you are not going to see legalized medical marijuana. I am going to fight it tooth and nail."
So on one hand, making bad things illegal won't make them go away, on the other hand, making harmless plants illegal will make them go away and save America's poor stoned soul.
Joke of a candidate, joke of a country if he gets anywhere close to the presidency. I think maru should be legalized, as I believe it is safe when used responsibly and that the harmful effects have been overblown. Can you imagine the "responsible" use?
People heavilly fail to responsible use alcohol, and considering marijuana is consumed under more or less same circumstances usually, the idea that it would be used responsibly is wishfull at best.
|
On July 26 2012 22:29 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 21:49 DoubleReed wrote: As far as drugs are concerned, we should follow Portugals example. Decriminalization for all drugs (and maybe legalization for marijuana). Treat them as medical issues. We need to stop overincarceration. How long will it take food companies to only sell food with drugs to make you addict to their products?
you mean sugar?
|
On July 26 2012 22:33 aloT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 22:29 naastyOne wrote:On July 26 2012 21:49 DoubleReed wrote: As far as drugs are concerned, we should follow Portugals example. Decriminalization for all drugs (and maybe legalization for marijuana). Treat them as medical issues. We need to stop overincarceration. How long will it take food companies to only sell food with drugs to make you addict to their products? you mean sugar? Sugar doesn`t make you dependent on a few consumptions. Drugs perfectly can.
Besides sugar in not a drug.
It is just a very easy to digest food, and you consume it from almost any food anyway, fruits for example.
It is in fact way more similar to salt than drugs.
If you overconsume easy to digest food it can naturally lead to you ability to digest harder food diminishing, but it does not substitute anything because the body already uses it, and it doesn`t interfere with the nerve system work anyhow.
Kinda similar to the way the lack of exercising and a lot of laying on bed can diminish you ability to run and carry heavy weight.
|
On July 26 2012 22:21 aloT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 22:01 Chargelot wrote:On July 26 2012 21:49 DoubleReed wrote: As far as drugs are concerned, we should follow Portugals example. Decriminalization for all drugs (and maybe legalization for marijuana). Treat them as medical issues. We need to stop overincarceration. Aside from incarceration rates decreasing, has this actually helped Portugal at all? It sounds almost like a cop out so they don't have to pay for incarceration. it didnt make the black market go away if that is what you are asking. It just made people start selling even shittier stuff at an even lower cost.
Could you explain this further? I had heard that the decriminalization in NED and POR were both rather successful.
|
On July 26 2012 23:59 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 22:21 aloT wrote:On July 26 2012 22:01 Chargelot wrote:On July 26 2012 21:49 DoubleReed wrote: As far as drugs are concerned, we should follow Portugals example. Decriminalization for all drugs (and maybe legalization for marijuana). Treat them as medical issues. We need to stop overincarceration. Aside from incarceration rates decreasing, has this actually helped Portugal at all? It sounds almost like a cop out so they don't have to pay for incarceration. it didnt make the black market go away if that is what you are asking. It just made people start selling even shittier stuff at an even lower cost. Could you explain this further? I had heard that the decriminalization in NED and POR were both rather successful. They are successful, what the poster is describing is what is effectually a black market "fire sale" as criminal elements seek to squeeze the last bits of profit out of an industry that is now regulated and aboveboard. There may always be a niche market for sub-par drugs, but the fact that they are selling cheap, low quality product is a clear indication that the profit motive is dwindling. And where profit motive dwindles, interest dwindles as well.
|
|
|
|
|