Ron Paul Wins All of Maines delegates to the RNC in Tampa Romney wins ZERO

[Oddball]

So we don't need any laws at all? We dont need laws against rape because people really don't rape other people. Or laws against fraud because people really dont commit fraud.

Stupid libtard strawman....Again.

The laws against aggressive and violent acts against non-consenting victims aren't any kind of preventative measure against said transgressions (no to anyone with an IQ above 50 anyways), but as a way to punish the criminals and, at least in part, make the victims whole again.

 

[The Rabbi]

So we don't need any laws at all? We dont need laws against rape because people really don't rape other people. Or laws against fraud because people really dont commit fraud.

Stupid libtard strawman....Again.

The laws against aggressive and violent acts against non-consenting victims aren't any kind of preventative measure against said transgressions (no to anyone with an IQ above 50 anyways), but as a way to punish the criminals and, at least in part, make the victims whole again.

So laws against fraud ought to be abolished?
How do you make victims "whole" by putting people in jail? What does that do for anyone?

 

[JWBooth]

But I dont usually have that person at the wheel of a car hurtling towards me. Or driving my bus. Or operating on me.

You DO realize that both of those are illegal in their own right?

Alcohol is legal, drunk driving isn't.

Ending prohibition does not make it legal to drive impaired. You offer nothing but a straw man.

It is all he has, and he has an army of them.

 

[Oddball]

So we don't need any laws at all? We dont need laws against rape because people really don't rape other people. Or laws against fraud because people really dont commit fraud.

Stupid libtard strawman....Again.

The laws against aggressive and violent acts against non-consenting victims aren't any kind of preventative measure against said transgressions (no to anyone with an IQ above 50 anyways), but as a way to punish the criminals and, at least in part, make the victims whole again.

So laws against fraud ought to be abolished?
How do you make victims "whole" by putting people in jail? What does that do for anyone?

You can't be this ******* stupid....Really.

 

[The Rabbi]

Stupid libtard strawman....Again.

The laws against aggressive and violent acts against non-consenting victims aren't any kind of preventative measure against said transgressions (no to anyone with an IQ above 50 anyways), but as a way to punish the criminals and, at least in part, make the victims whole again.

So laws against fraud ought to be abolished?
How do you make victims "whole" by putting people in jail? What does that do for anyone?

You can't be this ******* stupid....Really.

Deflection.
It's all you guys have because you make a coherent argument.
Damn, you really are dumber than the leftist sloth-brains that post here. They at least have some kind of reasoning power. You guys just mouth slogans and then get insulting when someone calls you on it.

 

[Oddball]

It's not a deflection...You have to have an IQ of about 50 to not understand the difference between an aggressive and harmful act against an unwilling victim, and acts that do direct harm to nobody else but those who participate in that activity.

Either that or you're a closet liberoidal, which is a wash anyways.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So laws against fraud ought to be abolished?
How do you make victims "whole" by putting people in jail? What does that do for anyone?

Dude, who the hell said that?

Laws against theft, violence (coercion), and fraud are recognized by all as being necessary.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not a deflection...You have to have an IQ of about 50 to not understand the difference between an aggressive and harmful act against an unwilling victim, and acts that do direct harm to nobody else but those who participate in that activity.

Either that or you're a closet liberoidal, which is a wash anyways.

All acts that are destructive to one person are destructive to everyone around him.
I am sorry you need to deflect from this basic point by hurling ad homs.

 

[Oddball]

Bullshit libtard argument...Again.

Basically the same bullshit libtard argument that implies anyone who has no health insurance is a deadbeat, who will automatically stick everyone else with the bill for his medical care.

I understand that you're completely out of ammo and need to blow a smoke screen...But really.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's not a deflection...You have to have an IQ of about 50 to not understand the difference between an aggressive and harmful act against an unwilling victim, and acts that do direct harm to nobody else but those who participate in that activity.

Either that or you're a closet liberoidal, which is a wash anyways.

All acts that are destructive to one person are destructive to everyone around him.
I am sorry you need to deflect from this basic point by hurling ad homs.

Yep. A liberal dressed up as a conservative. How original.

So what constitutes harmful, rabbi? Can it be anything one deems harmful? If I get mad and take it out on the wrong people I have harmed them and our relationship. Should we make a war on anger too? Maybe set up some check points to test people's patience? After all, if I lose my patients with someone it can harm their feelings....

Just admit you're a psuedo-conservative neoliberal with progressive tendencies. Please. This conservative image you're trying to bolster is see through.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bullshit libtard argument...Again.

Basically the same bullshit libtard argument that implies anyone who has no health insurance is a deadbeat, who will automatically stick everyone else with the bill for his medical care.

I understand that you're completely out of ammo and need to blow a smoke screen...But really.

More deflection. All you can do is hurl names around. Pathetic, frankly. But hysterical as well in showing up the dissonance between how narco-libtards see themselves and the actual truth.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not a deflection...You have to have an IQ of about 50 to not understand the difference between an aggressive and harmful act against an unwilling victim, and acts that do direct harm to nobody else but those who participate in that activity.

Either that or you're a closet liberoidal, which is a wash anyways.

All acts that are destructive to one person are destructive to everyone around him.
I am sorry you need to deflect from this basic point by hurling ad homs.

Yep. A liberal dressed up as a conservative. How original.

So what constitutes harmful, rabbi? Can it be anything one deems harmful? If I get mad and take it out on the wrong people I have harmed them and our relationship. Should we make a war on anger too? Maybe set up some check points to test people's patience? After all, if I lose my patients with someone it can harm their feelings....

Just admit you're a psuedo-conservative neoliberal with progressive tendencies. Please. This conservative image you're trying to bolster is see through.

Even more deflection.
Do you think assault ought to be illegal?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It is illegal because it takes away someone else's rights. It's that simple. If I ingest drugs and die early or right then, or whatever, I have harmed no one but myself. I have not deprived another of their rights. We have a constitution here, or do you think it is flawed also?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

All acts that are destructive to one person are destructive to everyone around him.
I am sorry you need to deflect from this basic point by hurling ad homs.

Yep. A liberal dressed up as a conservative. How original.

So what constitutes harmful, rabbi? Can it be anything one deems harmful? If I get mad and take it out on the wrong people I have harmed them and our relationship. Should we make a war on anger too? Maybe set up some check points to test people's patience? After all, if I lose my patients with someone it can harm their feelings....

Just admit you're a psuedo-conservative neoliberal with progressive tendencies. Please. This conservative image you're trying to bolster is see through.

Even more deflection.
Do you think assault ought to be illegal?

Now you answer my questions in return of me answering yours. Instead of dodging. Although you do dodge and weave uncanny like. Must have been at it sometime now.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

SO, you got answers for me?

 

[The Rabbi]

It is illegal because it takes away someone else's rights. It's that simple. If I ingest drugs and die early or right then, or whatever, I have harmed no one but myself. I have not deprived another of their rights. We have a constitution here, or do you think it is flawed also?

What right does assault take away?
How about a right of security, which is certainly diminished in a neighborhood with heavy drug use? Basic safety is a human right.
This notion that the drug addict only harms himself is nonsense. Even so, who says you can harm yourself?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I have the right to liberty. The right taken away in an assault is liberty. Here is the definition of liberty.

Liberty | Define Liberty at Dictionary.com

1.freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2.freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3.freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4.freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5.permission granted to a sailor, especially in the navy, to go ashore.

You are free to harm yourself by definition of liberty and we have the right to liberty, to the pursuit of happiness (also conducive with rights against assault) and life (yet another right taken in an assault), Just as a few rights infringed on in an assault.

Drug consumption does not equate to acts of violence against others or anything otherwise. Your argument is lost as of now.

 

[Oddball]

Bullshit libtard argument...Again.

Basically the same bullshit libtard argument that implies anyone who has no health insurance is a deadbeat, who will automatically stick everyone else with the bill for his medical care.

I understand that you're completely out of ammo and need to blow a smoke screen...But really.

More deflection. All you can do is hurl names around. Pathetic, frankly. But hysterical as well in showing up the dissonance between how narco-libtards see themselves and the actual truth.

No deflection...It's the bullshit libtard tyrant augment you're making and you cannot explain it away....That's the truth, Skeezix.


And don't give me that sanctimonious crap about name calling, when you go straight for the "narco-libertarian" garbage off the top of the deck.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What right does assault take away?

Well there goes ANY credibility you had left...

How about a right of security, which is certainly diminished in a neighborhood with heavy drug use? Basic safety is a human right.

Neighborhoods with heavy drug use have diminished security because of prohibition.

Most of my neighbors start drinking at about ten on weekends, but they don't diminish my security. I question the use of power tools and beer, but it's their hands involved/

This notion that the drug addict only harms himself is nonsense. Even so, who says you can harm yourself?

Who appointed you to determine harm, comrade Stalin?

 

[The Rabbi]

I have the right to liberty. The right taken away in an assault is liberty. Here is the definition of liberty.

Liberty | Define Liberty at Dictionary.com

1.freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2.freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3.freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4.freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5.permission granted to a sailor, especially in the navy, to go ashore.

You are free to harm yourself by definition of liberty and we have the right to liberty, to the pursuit of happiness (also conducive with rights against assault) and life (yet another right taken in an assault), Just as a few rights infringed on in an assault.

Drug consumption does not equate to acts of violence against others or anything otherwise. Your argument is lost as of now.

Then prisoners are having their right to liberty violated. Anyone who has any constraint put upon his actions ahs his liberty taken away. Based on this you can't shush someone in a movie theater either becaue that's taking away his liberty. Any zoning ordinance is taking away someone's liberty.
You didnt answer the question about assault. Maybe you can't?