40 years, a trillion dollars, zero results.

[The Rabbi]

Brainless. I clearly stated, and this time even gave you an example of my answer, that YES, some opinions are better than others. Yet you still go on and on about how I'm saying the opposite?

The part that makes me giggle is that we're in a thread about drugs, and you clearly are on summmmfin. I dunno what, but it's something




I love how you keep on skirting this free market thing, also. Is this: They are not good at inculcating moral values in people or turning sinners into saints. Sorry if you ever thought otherwise.

TO SAY THAT THESE THINGS SHOULD COME FROM ANYWHERE BUT THE PARENTS?

I am not skirting free market issues at all. I have stated clearly what the role of the free market is.
Values is another issue entirely. If you want to start a thread on where values ought to come from go right ahead.

Who brought values into the discussion? You did, by stating that free markets aren't good at inculcating them in people. So stop skirting: what was your point? That *since free markets don't, than "what," exactly, should?> Are you saying drug laws are necessary b/c free markets don't enforce any sort of values, and that some other force should? What force?

This is a discussion board. Don't dance, discuss.

Actually you are the one who brought values in with this comment:

But anyways, aside from that ///// there doesn't need to be a study. If you believe in the "free market," then the logic follows that people wouldn't buy en masse a product that would ruin their whole lives. Otherwise, you're saying that the "free market" wouldn't do its job. You can't have these sorts of things both ways.

"Ruin their whole lives" sounds like an introduction of values to me.

If you want to discuss where values come from and how they should be taught go ahead and start a thread on it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gubmint's role isn't "inculcating values"...That's the tool of leftist authoritarian do-gooder social engineers.

Plato would disagree with you.

Plato can kiss my ass...Besides that, I don't believe he's a signatory to the either the DoI, Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution.

Next stupid authoritarian leftist nanny argument?

Plato provided the intellectual basis for a lot of thought that went into the Declaration and Constitution. All the founders had read him and were familiar with his views.
So dismissing his views shows an arrogance of ignorance. Sorry.

 

[G.T.]

I am not skirting free market issues at all. I have stated clearly what the role of the free market is.
Values is another issue entirely. If you want to start a thread on where values ought to come from go right ahead.

Who brought values into the discussion? You did, by stating that free markets aren't good at inculcating them in people. So stop skirting: what was your point? That *since free markets don't, than "what," exactly, should?> Are you saying drug laws are necessary b/c free markets don't enforce any sort of values, and that some other force should? What force?

This is a discussion board. Don't dance, discuss.

Actually you are the one who brought values in with this comment:

But anyways, aside from that ///// there doesn't need to be a study. If you believe in the "free market," then the logic follows that people wouldn't buy en masse a product that would ruin their whole lives. Otherwise, you're saying that the "free market" wouldn't do its job. You can't have these sorts of things both ways.

"Ruin their whole lives" sounds like an introduction of values to me.

If you want to discuss where values come from and how they should be taught go ahead and start a thread on it.

Duck, dodge, deflect. You post like a fucking coward, dude. If you don't want to stand by what you say or haven't thought it through, then don't say it. These are discussion boards, but instead of discussing your non-points, all you do is side-step. Basically, you're a fucking pussy.

Now, if you're actually interested in the discussion of legalization: there's pertinent questions in regard to your "stance:"

1: Why should they be illegal. We can begin there, or....I can just move along from your tripe. Either/or, I am still dead sexy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who brought values into the discussion? You did, by stating that free markets aren't good at inculcating them in people. So stop skirting: what was your point? That *since free markets don't, than "what," exactly, should?> Are you saying drug laws are necessary b/c free markets don't enforce any sort of values, and that some other force should? What force?

This is a discussion board. Don't dance, discuss.

Actually you are the one who brought values in with this comment:

But anyways, aside from that ///// there doesn't need to be a study. If you believe in the "free market," then the logic follows that people wouldn't buy en masse a product that would ruin their whole lives. Otherwise, you're saying that the "free market" wouldn't do its job. You can't have these sorts of things both ways.

"Ruin their whole lives" sounds like an introduction of values to me.

If you want to discuss where values come from and how they should be taught go ahead and start a thread on it.

Duck, dodge, deflect. You post like a fucking coward, dude. If you don't want to stand by what you say or haven't thought it through, then don't say it. These are discussion boards, but instead of discussing your non-points, all you do is side-step. Basically, you're a fucking pussy.

Now, if you're actually interested in the discussion of legalization: there's pertinent questions in regard to your "stance:"

1: Why should they be illegal. We can begin there, or....I can just move along from your tripe. Either/or, I am still dead sexy.

I am not dodging anything. You're the one who can't answer whether you think all opinions are equal. You're the one who brings up extraneaous things like moral values.

Drugs should be illegal because their use has no redeeming social value and they cause social and economic disruption.
Would you care to posit in one sentence why you think they should be legal? Assuming you actually think that, of course.

 

[G.T.]

Actually you are the one who brought values in with this comment:

"Ruin their whole lives" sounds like an introduction of values to me.

If you want to discuss where values come from and how they should be taught go ahead and start a thread on it.

Duck, dodge, deflect. You post like a fucking coward, dude. If you don't want to stand by what you say or haven't thought it through, then don't say it. These are discussion boards, but instead of discussing your non-points, all you do is side-step. Basically, you're a fucking pussy.

Now, if you're actually interested in the discussion of legalization: there's pertinent questions in regard to your "stance:"

1: Why should they be illegal. We can begin there, or....I can just move along from your tripe. Either/or, I am still dead sexy.

I am not dodging anything. You're the one who can't answer whether you think all opinions are equal. You're the one who brings up extraneaous things like moral values.

Drugs should be illegal because their use has no redeeming social value and they cause social and economic disruption.
Would you care to posit in one sentence why you think they should be legal? Assuming you actually think that, of course.

ALL OPINIONS SHOULD NOT BE EQUAL, FOR THE 6-THOUSANTH TIME, numb nuts. IS THAT NOT AN ANSWER? Question answered. It's a yes or no question, should they all be equal, my answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, do you now need a Webster's to define that word for you, or what? Grow up with your sissy little dancing word game. My answer suffices this time, as it did the last 400 times. Say it again, go on ignore, no sweat off my nut satchel. You're obviously just a troll trolling.

I think they should be legal because I don't think that big pappy Government needs to tell me what I can and can't do when it effects noone but myself. I also disagree that there's no redeeming value.

Pot, for example, can be fun and also intrigues some absolutely excellent art.

I also don't think that it's the Government's job to legislate what does or does not deposit social value. You obviously do. Go big brother.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so you think gov't has no role in maintaining public safety.
And you think smoking crack has a redeeming social value.
And you think gov't has no role in reflecting society's values.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[G.T.]

OK, so you think gov't has no role in maintaining public safety.
And you think smoking crack has a redeeming social value.
And you think gov't has no role in reflecting society's values.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Well, number one I neither said nor alluded to anything regarding public safety, but in-fact stated that as long as what I'm doing effects noone but myself (hence does NOT effect public safety), Government can fuck off. So your reading comprehension missed the mark there.

Then I stated I disagree that drugs cannot have a redeeming value, and my example was POT, not crack, and from that you said that I think crack does. I haven't and won't try crack, to know, but it could make me write the most profound literature known to man, who the fuck knows? Jimmie Hendrix is in the Rock Hall of Fame. He was on Acid when he performed.

And no, I don't think the Government should reflect our Values as a society because the collective "our" doesn't all have the same set of values to begin with.

For instance, I will teach my kid that Alcohol is more Dangerous than weed. This is something I've done research on, and also agree with from personal experience over-and-above that research. The Government seems to legally disagree, so the Government in this case DOES NOT reflect my personal values. N'or is it their job to. That's a parent's job. It's called individualism.

 

[G.T.]

In addition, I don't think something needs to have a redeeming value, regardless, to be legal. I totally disagree with that premise on its face. I don't need to go into the 7 billion examples of legal things with no redeeming value, do I?

 

[JWBooth]

OK, so you think gov't has no role in maintaining public safety.
And you think smoking crack has a redeeming social value.
And you think govt has no role in reflecting society's values.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Government has a role in maintaining public safety. Death squads on the streets goes beyond "public safety".
Smoking crack has no redeeming social value, neither does advocating for statist, totalitarian solutions.
Government has only one role, to seek more power for government. If a society values a powerful, intrusive government, the government will reflect this.

What we can all agree on, regardless of political persuasion, is that Rabbi is a believer in statist solutions to problems that don't exist.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so you think gov't has no role in maintaining public safety.
And you think smoking crack has a redeeming social value.
And you think govt has no role in reflecting society's values.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Government has a role in maintaining public safety. Death squads on the streets goes beyond "public safety".
Smoking crack has no redeeming social value, neither does advocating for statist, totalitarian solutions.
Government has only one role, to seek more power for government. If a society values a powerful, intrusive government, the government will reflect this.

What we can all agree on, regardless of political persuasion, is that Rabbi is a believer in statist solutions to problems that don't exist.

Sorry but spouting narco-libertarian slogans isn't the same thing as engaging in debate.

 

[JWBooth]

OK, so you think gov't has no role in maintaining public safety.
And you think smoking crack has a redeeming social value.
And you think govt has no role in reflecting society's values.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Government has a role in maintaining public safety. Death squads on the streets goes beyond "public safety".
Smoking crack has no redeeming social value, neither does advocating for statist, totalitarian solutions.
Government has only one role, to seek more power for government. If a society values a powerful, intrusive government, the government will reflect this.

What we can all agree on, regardless of political persuasion, is that Rabbi is a believer in statist solutions to problems that don't exist.

Sorry but spouting narco-libertarian slogans isn't the same thing as engaging in debate.

You don't have to apologise, we accept your lack of comprehension for what it is. As for brushing aside any response to your drivel as sloganeering, you would have us accept your absolutist statements without a shred of evidence as debate?

 

[The Rabbi]

Government has a role in maintaining public safety. Death squads on the streets goes beyond "public safety".
Smoking crack has no redeeming social value, neither does advocating for statist, totalitarian solutions.
Government has only one role, to seek more power for government. If a society values a powerful, intrusive government, the government will reflect this.

What we can all agree on, regardless of political persuasion, is that Rabbi is a believer in statist solutions to problems that don't exist.

Sorry but spouting narco-libertarian slogans isn't the same thing as engaging in debate.

You don't have to apologise, we accept your lack of comprehension for what it is. As for brushing aside any response to your drivel as sloganeering, you would have us accept your absolutist statements without a shred of evidence as debate?

You clealry have nothing to contribute to this debate but gov't paranoia. Buh-bye.

 

[JWBooth]

Sorry but spouting narco-libertarian slogans isn't the same thing as engaging in debate.

You don't have to apologise, we accept your lack of comprehension for what it is. As for brushing aside any response to your drivel as sloganeering, you would have us accept your absolutist statements without a shred of evidence as debate?

You clealry have nothing to contribute to this debate but gov't paranoia. Buh-bye.

Debate? What debate? We have your absolutist, lets institute the same methods the Commies used, statements and everybody else's responses.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry but spouting narco-libertarian slogans isn't the same thing as engaging in debate.

You don't have to apologise, we accept your lack of comprehension for what it is. As for brushing aside any response to your drivel as sloganeering, you would have us accept your absolutist statements without a shred of evidence as debate?

You clealry have nothing to contribute to this debate but gov't paranoia. Buh-bye.

Rabbi, regardless of what he denies, is indeed a big government statist when it comes to solving cultural problems. He is no conservative.

 

[sweetie]

...i sense the stoooopid conservative republicans, flounder and babbi, derive some of their income from this stinking insane 'drug war'..

..or maybe they're just poisonously stooooooooooopid!..

...i still haven't had one of you stoooopid fuck drug warriors show me the constitutional article, sec., and clause that authorizes your miserably stoooooooooooooooooooopid federal 'drug war'..(i love springing this one on you stoooooopid fuck drug warriors face to face...)

...the rest of you, have a good day!...