|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,767
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,767 |
At least the farmer had a LA 700!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,489
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,489 |
I was asking. I have seen far too many that only became interested in illegal immigration, anti-gun laws, bail outs, and similar on or after January of 2009. The Tea Party that got riled about government waste and corruption on 19 January of 2009 comes to mind. Now, was he doing all of this before then or not?
Ah, so you're using the incredibly asinine argumentative tactic of "you can't go there unless you've been there". I have no idea how many issues are going to come up here that I have not yet commented on but according to you, if I do, that opinion is diminished because of it. How ignorant.
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,206
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,206 |
Out of curiosity, were you always this vocal on border issues or did you just start in the last year and a half or so? I don't think you'd grasp his answer, Jason. He's pro law enforcement, as are most Americans because this is supposed to be a nation of laws. That we don't all agree with all the laws is a given. But it's the principle of the matter that's important. Again, I don't expect you to grasp it. You're too focused on one particular aspect of the nation's woes to have any worthwhile input on the overall picture, or so it seems. I was asking. I have seen far too many that only became interested in illegal immigration, anti-gun laws, bail outs, and similar on or after January of 2009. The Tea Party that got riled about government waste and corruption on 19 January of 2009 comes to mind. Now, was he doing all of this before then or not? And I have many interests. Pointing out republican based anti-gun laws in regards to those who promote republicans as an alternative to anti-gun democrats was the first thing that got many here pissed off at me. Nobody likes it when their sacred cow is shown to be like every other cow and they start name calling as a result. And from looking at the articles on Law Enforcement, that situation looks a lot like Animal Farm. AND WITH THAT THE DOUCHE GOES ON IGNORE
Unreconstructed to the End. Dum Vivimus Vivamus Death smiles at us all...but only FMF Corpsmen smile back
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,206
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,206 |
Where did the ignore button go?
Unreconstructed to the End. Dum Vivimus Vivamus Death smiles at us all...but only FMF Corpsmen smile back
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,756 Likes: 36
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,756 Likes: 36 |
Go to their profile and hit "Ignore this user."
It'll work too.
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303
Campfire Kahuna
|
OP
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303 |
Out of curiosity, were you always this vocal on border issues or did you just start in the last year and a half or so? I don't think you'd grasp his answer, Jason. He's pro law enforcement, as are most Americans because this is supposed to be a nation of laws. That we don't all agree with all the laws is a given. But it's the principle of the matter that's important. Again, I don't expect you to grasp it. You're too focused on one particular aspect of the nation's woes to have any worthwhile input on the overall picture, or so it seems. I was asking. I have seen far too many that only became interested in illegal immigration, anti-gun laws, bail outs, and similar on or after January of 2009. The Tea Party that got riled about government waste and corruption on 19 January of 2009 comes to mind. Now, was he doing all of this before then or not? And I have many interests. Pointing out republican based anti-gun laws in regards to those who promote republicans as an alternative to anti-gun democrats was the first thing that got many here pissed off at me. Nobody likes it when their sacred cow is shown to be like every other cow and they start name calling as a result. And from looking at the articles on Law Enforcement, that situation looks a lot like Animal Farm. Hey, I'm usually a pretty compassionate kinda' guy, towards the "Afflicted", but you've pretty much blown any chance for that, JasonB. You're certainly sick, but the bad news is that WTF is WRONG with you does not look curable,......you want to REMAIN the way you are. That would lead me to ask (AGAIN),....WHY do you come to sites like this,....? Listen up, you diseased, deranged, ridiculous in most aspects (particularly the VISUAL), and repellent in all others, corksocker,........ I've LIVED on this Border, and been writing about it for a LONG time,......right here, too. I would imagine that your own predeliction and TALENT for getting THROWN offa' websites leaves you in the dark as to how that would work. Again,....ask around, Blarto. GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 569
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 569 |
[/quote] I've been hit by a drunk too. Since the complaint revolves around crime that comes from trafficking drugs I specifically asked if there was any recent shootouts where alcohol distributors were trying to secure sales areas which seems to be a resounding "no".
I would ask for a link to info showing there were people who were prevented from ever drinking alcohol during the short time period of prohibition, but after your claiming 18 is no longer the voting age or that somehow that amendment had anything to do with alcohol distribution or use I'll just assume it was trying to inflate your argument.
And I would be in favor of banning alcohol again just to see the effects it would have on the nation's hypocrites. It would be bloody (as it was before) but overall it would be worth it. [/quote]
You know, I wasn't being rude. I didn't get into the arguments or name-calling. I also didn't say "hit" by a drunk; I said "KILLED BY" as in never to be seen again, 50% of my sisters and 25% of my siblings now GONE because of DRUNKS. There doesn't have to be shootouts for people to die.
Do you think it really matters to my family whether it was an alcohol-trafficker and a bullet, or a drunk with a Chevy Van, or do you understand that either way, innocent people DIED? This was my ONLY point. Either way, if drugs are legalized, there will STILL be countless dead, annually. No guns required.
Inflate my argument? I'm guessing everyone except you understood that I messed up and referenced the 26th amendment while meaning the 18th. My mistake for assuming you read content.
I never said people were prevented... I said, "Laws just keep HONEST men honest, they don't make honest men." During prohibition there were people who, because it was illegal, never tried alcohol. Once again, try naming anyone today who hasn't tried alcohol. Drugs, eventually, will be the same way. BOY THIS SOUNDS FAMILIAR.
I DON'T want it to be any easier for my son to get drugs than it already is. Period. No underlying, ulterior, or otherwise unstated intention. No mud-flinging necessary. I'm not nor have I ever been part of the "powers-that-be", I just don't want illegal drugs legalized. Making them legal just takes one charge away from prosecutors when they kill someone while under the influence.
Last edited by CAPITALIST; 06/20/10.
"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." - Thomas Jefferson
"Normal" isn't coming back; Jesus is!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 29,348 |
� The only way to pull the rug out from under this dynamic is to legalize all drugs. � If that were fully and truly logical and realistic, it'd apply equally to rape, murder, robbery, burglary, etc.
"Good enough" isn't.
Always take your responsibilities seriously but never yourself.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,058
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,058 |
I was asking. I have seen far too many that only became interested in illegal immigration, anti-gun laws, bail outs, and similar on or after January of 2009. The Tea Party that got riled about government waste and corruption on 19 January of 2009 comes to mind. Now, was he doing all of this before then or not?
Ah, so you're using the incredibly asinine argumentative tactic of "you can't go there unless you've been there". I have no idea how many issues are going to come up here that I have not yet commented on but according to you, if I do, that opinion is diminished because of it. How ignorant. No, I am using the tactic of seeing people that went and still go apeshit over the 1994 (D) semi-auto ban, but are accepting if not supportive of the (R) based semi-auto bans of 1989 and 2005 that are still on the books. There are plenty that have done the same with illegal immigrants and the bail outs. Fine with the situation when republicans were in, but all of a sudden they are foaming at the mouth mad about it when a (D) gets in and they go on and on complaining about gun laws, illegals, and bail outs and how we need to get (R)'s back in to make everything right. In other words, hypocrites. I have no problem with someone who has just seen the light, hypocrites on the other hand I have no use for.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278 |
WTF? No the way to stop it is to start shooting drug smugglers and sellers in the head immediately after being caught in the act. Might work if drug merchants had unwilling victims who had an incentive to bring them to justice. They don't, though: all they have is willing customers who object to them being put out of business. The harsher you make the law, the more expensive you make the drugs, which brings more money into the drug business, which has at least two big effects. First, it makes the drug business more profitable and therefore more attractive and therefore expands it. Second, it provides for the corruption of ever more cops, judges, and legislators, therefore making the harsher laws ever more ineffectual. Imagine you've caught a drug dealer in the act, and the law says you should shoot him in the head. If you let him go and pretend not to have seen anything, you get half a million dollars. If you shoot him in the head, you get nothing and his buddies torture and kill your family in front of you. What do you do? People who favor the War On (some) Drugs are either getting kickbacks from it or don't understand the way the world works.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,048
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,048 |
� The only way to pull the rug out from under this dynamic is to legalize all drugs. � If that were fully and truly logical and realistic, it'd apply equally to rape, murder, robbery, burglary, etc. I don't follow ya, Ken. Violent crimes cannot be legalized. Even if the system stopped punishing people for it, your list would still be acts of outright lawlessness. It's not the same concerning consumption of drugs (to include alcohol) because no natural law has been broken, only a legality. The act of consuming a drug (to include alcohol) commits no crime against anyone and breaks no natural law. The unfortunate truth that while under the influence a user might injure someone is a given, but laws in place to curb possible future occurrences cannot be condoned, let alone held in the same regard as laws against willfully committed violent crimes(such as your list). Plus, legalizing rape, murder, robbery etc, would have no effect on the profits to be gained by such an act where legalizing drugs, as Hawkeye says, would pull the rug out, effectively reducing the profits enough to end the violence, turf wars, etc. Murder, robbery, bribery, etc, will still have their rewards whether or not they are legal acts.
BAN THE RAINBOW FLAG! PERVERTS OFFEND ME!
"When is penguin season, daddy? I wanna go kill a penguin!" ---- 4 yr old Archerhuntress
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 17,278 |
� The only way to pull the rug out from under this dynamic is to legalize all drugs. � If that were fully and truly logical and realistic, it'd apply equally to rape, murder, robbery, burglary, etc. The difference, Dr. Howell, is that rape, murder, robbery, and burglary are all mala in se, or bad of themselves, because they have victims whose rights are violated. Even if there were no State penalties at all for such crimes (especially if there were no State penalties), their victims and their victims' advocates would object to them enough to make their consequences sufficiently uninspiring that they wouldn't be a significant problem. The vast majority of the population is strenuously opposed to such crimes, because they understand that if they become commonplace, their own security will be severely compromised. But drug use and trafficking are merely mala prohibita, or bad because they're prohibited; they have no victims and they violate no one's rights. There is no vast majority of the population opposed enough to them to take time and money out of their schedules and budget to do something about them. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for a coercive State extorting resources to support the War On (some) Drugs, I seriously doubt that a double-digit percentage of the folks here at the Campfire would voluntarily donate enough money to support even one dynamic entry per year in each of their communities. I don't give a rip whether my neighbor is smoking pot--or even mainlining heroin--in his own bedroom. And neither do most other people, at least not to the extent where they would be willing to do anything more substantial than holler slogans about it. That's the difference. Perhaps instead of comparing the War On (some) Drugs to rape and murder, you could compare it to laws against owning scary guns or excessively large toilet tanks. You'd probably find more congruence there.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,807
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,807 |
I still think that drugs should be legalized only if drug dealing is also made an affirmative defense against assault. I.e., show that the assault victim was known by the assailant to be a drug dealer and the assailant gets off Scot-free.
Perhaps the method of assault could be regulated, such as being limited in the size of the stick used.
Islam is a terrorist organization.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303
Campfire Kahuna
|
OP
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 53,303 |
Well, if nothing else, Capitalist, we got you savvied on the "Oathkeepers" phenomena,.......I'm tickled that you're impressed.
This degeneration of theme into this endless loop "Republican v Dem." and "Legalization of Drugs" has been gone over ad infinitum. Any deterministic solution (drugs) will continue to elude alla' those participating, per usual.
The mouthy, arrogant fat circus clown on the tiny motor scooter ?........I dunno' what to say about him, other than he looks like the "New Slinky", and will learn a lot about stairs here.
Maybe we can now look at steering this conversation towards it's original thrust,...that of The American County Sheriff's clear cut authority to mobilize Constitutional Militia, and Posses. I'd REALLY like to hear how that particular concept floats in other parts of this GREAT Country of ours.
Best regards to most,
GTC
Member, Clan of the Border Rats -- “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”- Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,048
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,048 |
The American County Sheriff's clear cut authority to mobilize Constitutional Militia, and Posses. I'd REALLY like to hear how that particular concept floats in other parts of this GREAT Country of ours. I always considered it not only a duty but a necessary one. It should be so commonplace everyone expects it without a second thought.
BAN THE RAINBOW FLAG! PERVERTS OFFEND ME!
"When is penguin season, daddy? I wanna go kill a penguin!" ---- 4 yr old Archerhuntress
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,960 Likes: 8 |
WTF? No the way to stop it is to start shooting drug smugglers and sellers in the head immediately after being caught in the act. The cartels themselves have gone that one better; actually cutting off the heads of rival smugglers. Turns out that ain't stopped people though. THIRTY BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, or maybe eighty million dollsrs a day, take yer pick, those being drug revenue estimates pouring into Mexico. If ya don't think that sort of money can corrupt Americans, look at the long litany of Texas Law Enforcement convicted for complicity, including right here in San Antonio, selling themselves for far less than the big numbers cited. Does corruption go up to the state and federal level, I dunno, but that sort of money could make a lot of compaign contributions. Look at the interests that employ illegals for example and their effect on politics, over revenues far lower than what drugs generate. Birdwatcher (somewhere back East)
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,794
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,794 |
By now you have so many in congress that are users and have been elected on drug money that it won't be long before it is legalized.
Aim for the exit hole.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,983 Likes: 55
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,983 Likes: 55 |
� The only way to pull the rug out from under this dynamic is to legalize all drugs. � If that were fully and truly logical and realistic, it'd apply equally to rape, murder, robbery, burglary, etc. Not at all. Very few would support the legalization of those things. They are what we call malum in se crimes, i.e., generally understood to be wrong in themselves. Laws against the voluntary ingestion of substances are what we call malum prohibitum crimes, i.e., "wrong" only because prohibited by law. There are enough people who wish to engage in the consumption of illegal drugs to support a substantial black market in them, the high street prices (and thus high profit potential) of which provide the engine for organized crime.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,983 Likes: 55
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,983 Likes: 55 |
People who favor the War On (some) Drugs are either getting kickbacks from it or don't understand the way the world works. BINGO!! It's one or the other.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 54,842
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 54,842 |
How in the hell did this come to "Legalize Drugs"? Pathetic!
Back in the heartland, Thank God!
|
|
|
|
658 members (160user, 10Glocks, 10gaugeman, 06hunter59, 12344mag, 01Foreman400, 67 invisible),
2,543
guests, and
1,369
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,193
Posts18,524,033
Members74,030
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|