The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel

Post Reply New Topic

I will agree your posts are more rational than Xenon13's, but you are still nowhere close to being the centrist that you claim to be.



A problem I would argue that was started under Carter, made worse by Clinton, and then the Dems stonewalled Bush when he tried to get the problem fixed.



Which is what primaries is for, get them voted out in the primaries so we don't end up with a lesser of two evils situation.



This is one of the cases where the slippery slope argument is valid and there are examples to back it up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -jail.html

http://www.wayoflife.org/files/706fe196 ... e-109.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... crime.html



Your definition of an activist Judge would be anyone that would uphold the Constitution. The Bush tax cuts involved the budget hence why they could get around the fillabuster, the Judges issue was dealt with by the gang of 10 which included Senator John McCain.

Said one of the the apologists for the right-wing calls for violence. In the very thread in which he did it.

Feel free to quote where I claimed to be a "centrist." I called you out on this just yesterday. Quit making s**t up.


Reagan and Bush had nothing to do with it, eh?


You are still advocating denying legal rights to a certain class of people. It is very simple to take the position that everyone has their rights, and that these rights include criticism of other people. The issue of political correctness infringing on free speech is separate from having the government dictate who you can and can't marry.


Um... almost all of that violence is a direct result of the drugs being illegal. You clearly have no understanding of this issue, or of American history.


No, my definition of an activist judge is one who will overturn precedent to suit their particular ideology. This applies to both left-wing and right-wing justices.


How is McCain's involvement relevant? The membership of the gang of 10 doesn't change what happened- the Democrats filibustered on a significant issue, the Republicans threatened to remove the filibuster, and the Democrats eventually backed down. When the Republicans became the minority, all of a suddent the filibuster was a wonderful thing.

I've already proven one of the supposed calls for violence was actually something deliberately taken out of context by the left.

Glenn Beck said that someone would have to shoot him dead before he'd shut up about the founding fathers. Then you guys turn around and say Glenn Beck is calling for violence towards liberals.

@ Orwell

You don't have to explicitly say you're a centrist. You constantly act like you are unbiased and objective, you try to paint that perception all the time, when you really are quite biased.

I don't even make that claim, but even if I did, unbiased/objective is not at all the same thing as centrist.

And I'm saying you're neither unbiased/objective, nor are you a centrist. You are a liberal, maybe not quite as far left as xenon13, but you are left wing.

Have I claimed to be any of those things? There is no such thing as an unbiased/objective human.

I mean, on an overall picture I am left of center (by US standards), I acknowledge that. But my views are actually pretty mixed on several issues, and I still have enough libertarian leaning in me that it's not as simple to just say I'm a liberal. Heck, at one time I was registered Republican, and I voted for a Republican for Senate last November.

EDIT: Maybe not quite as far left as Xenon13? Are you mental? I'm Barry f*****g Goldwater compared to Xenon13.

hah. AuH20 for Prez

Hey Orwell, welcome to the "partisan zealots claiming that you're pretending to be less biased than you really are club". It's just as ridiculous as it sounds.
Only the most stubbornly difficult to classify politically people qualify for this great honor.

Yup, I'm a far-left liberal who opposes democracy and has advocated for monarchy in the past.

The sad thing is, Inuyasha won't even recognize the incongruency in that claim, and will shortly embark on some absurd rant about how all liberals oppose democracy.

I'm for Imperialist Space Pirates who bombard planetside targets from orbit.

Actually, I would say you're advocating for Big Government Nanny States, not realizing what that would do as far as people's rights. You fail to think of the consequences of the policies that you support.

Do I think you actually want a Dictatorship, well you aren't as loony left as xenon13, so probably not. However, you don't reason through what the policies you support would lead to.

That's a ridiculous and unfounded assumption on your part. You have no idea what my stances on most social welfare programs are. And given that I used to be a pretty extreme libertarian (and still have a libertarian bias), I certainly have thought about the consequences of such programs, from both sides of the issue.


You have no idea what policies I actually support. You are continuing to make crap up.

Incidentally, the part about opposing democracy wasn't a parody of your continued unfounded assumptions. I actually think democracy is nonsense, especially if it involves universal suffrage.

1. If you legalize drugs, the border issue will mostly be resolved because there'll be no more money for black marketeers to make.

2. Prove it. I have first hand experience with drugs and users. What do you have other than BS rhetoric? Drug addicts would be much less a danger to society if they weren't placed outside of it because of garbage laws that make what they do to themselves illegal. Not to mention they wouldn't need to steal as much either considering that the legalization of drugs would cause a massive drop in prices (and would probably also mean that drugs would dry up in many places where it would no longer be a profitable venture). These people are already illegal by default...do you think that committing another crime on top makes any difference to most of them? If you make it legal, you eliminate that extra motivation.

3. You act like as if it'll still be pushers on the street after legalization. That won't be the case for most of the stuff other than maybe weed. Most drugs do require a fair bit of processing and it wouldn't be an operation that would just run on the streets. You also have to assume that it'd be treated much the same way as tobacco and alcohol currently are treated where there are regulations and penalties to be faced if you don't follow the law. Black markets get onto school campuses much more easily than legal markets and legal markets have less impetus to do such things.


Addicts and users will still exist, this is obvious by the fact that there are so many now with it illegal. The studies done elsewhere show that just the simple act of decriminalization drops use rate exponentially, to actually legalize it would most likely not only do the same but also increase revenue, create new jobs, and allow people to re-enter society rather than their existence being defined as "illegal per se" without committing any actual crimes.

Sure, like the drug dealers are just going to pack up and leave.



Sarcasm: Okay sure LSD is such a great drug... Psychosis, genetic damage, hallucinations, but that's all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD

Sarcasm: Okay Cocaine can cause strokes, it is a high powered stimulent for goodness sakes, I think everyone whom has ADHD and is on ADHD medications are well aware of how dangerous and addictive medications like Ritalin are to people whom are nonADHD.



Uh that explains how juveniles end up getting cigarettes and alcohol, often setting them up to be abused by an adult. Now you're giving the adult more to things to choose from to entice minors.



I will agree with you on the fact the people using the drugs shouldn't be punished as harshly as they are currently. A lot of people are introduced to these substances by immoral individuals looking for new "customers." Addiction isn't something that most people can easily overcome I think rehab should be pushed more, and actually research done to make rehab more effective than the joke it currently is for some people. I think there should be stiffer penalties for dealers though than even the ones currently on the book.

Edit:

Getting back to topic:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s ... shooting-f

Drug dealers aren't just gonna pack up and leave, but it will make the drug trade a hell of a lot less profitable. Because of illegality the prices are inflated big time. It costs me $25-30 to buy a half quarter (3.5 grams), which costs the same as 3 cigarette packs at most when a half quarter is only enough for 3 fat joints and one anorexic joint. Because the production costs are so low (if you ignore the outrageous electricity costs for indoor growing), it's supposed to be more like $1 for a gram. I do agree though that using alcohol to justify the argument of illegality making it easier to access for the underage is a stupid ass myth. Of course alcohol's harder to get, a bottle isn't as compact as a pack of smokes . I don't think weed will be any easier or harder to get from legalization since both legal cigarettes and natives are equally as easy to get.

And yeah, rehab is a joke. There is a strong neurochemical aspect to addiction, but they fail to address that personality traits and values exacerbate addiction and not just their ability to cope with stress. Impulsiveness, low emotional control, fatalism, hedonism, a refusal to change one's worldview, etc. need to be addressed. Changing personality traits and values aren't easy at all, as it involves changing the way you see the world not just changing the motions you go through. Old habits die hard, and there is a lot of inertia involved. This also needs to be taken into consideration since non-addicts usually have unreasonable expectations when it comes to addicts.