BF_in_Indiana Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Actually they are both crimes. However one is causing a long term drain and possible damage to society. The other is survival. 103659[/snapback] What the hell are you smoking? One is survival? Clearing 50k a year is a little above the "survival" line wouldn't ya say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Can you then explain to me how this is any less criminal than someone standing on the same corner dealing drugs? 103650[/snapback] This whole thread is just another way for you to exclaim "I am SOOOOO drunk" again, isn't it? Where the hell do you get this nonsense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 OK Paco, for someone to learn how to be a mechanic, that costs money. Uusually the unemployed are short of money. Understand where I'm headed here? I can understand your point, but you aren't taking into account normal circumstances that can factor into this. 103657[/snapback] The good news is, there are PLENTY of opportunities out there to learn a new trade for little or next to NO money. THAT's the beauty of it, BF. While the government should not provide jobs, it DOES in many cases provide opportunity! You have to find the opportunities that are out there and put them to work for yourself. Don't wait for it to come to you. GO FIND IT! Personal accountability, BF. You're almost there! Stay with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted November 5, 2004 Author Share Posted November 5, 2004 I will give you a good reply, as this is an intelligent post. There was a news story done on this years ago. They were talking with some of the DC and NYC "bums". Back 10 years ago some of these guys admitted they were making upwards of 60K and not paying taxes. Real easy. The window washers in Mahattan made the most, and in fact had "regular" customers. See how enterprising people can be. 103642[/snapback] So, do you guess these people actually have homes, and simply make themselves look "Homeless" to make the easy money? ( i know, I know.. that sounds ridiculous), or are they just so into drugs, etc, that they blow whatever they take in on that? I mean, if you're making 60k a year, that's going somewhere. The reason I ask, is at one stoplight (Lake Worth and Congress), the guy will always talk to you if you are first in line. And even if i am not going to give him a dollar, i wont do the "just ignore him" thing that alot of people do. Anyway, this one guy was telling me about his son, and how no matter how hard he tries, his son will not eat broccoli, but he loves any kind of red meat. Now, Im thinking three things. 1) If this guy is homeless, is his son sleeping under s bridge, too? 2) If not, what kind of place is this guy living in? 3) Have I been duped this whole time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 The good news is, there are PLENTY of opportunities out there to learn a new trade for little or next to NO money. THAT's the beauty of it, BF. While the government should not provide jobs, it DOES in many cases provide opportunity! You have to find the opportunities that are out there and put them to work for yourself. Don't wait for it to come to you. GO FIND IT! Personal accountability, BF. You're almost there! Stay with me. 103668[/snapback] Like I said Paco, I've never ever said a person shouldn't take responsibility for their own situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Are you a drinker? Liquor was once banned in this country. It's now legal. Assuming you are a drinker, would you stop drinking if it were banned again tomorrow because the government suddenly decided you can't for whatever reason they wanted to make up? I would assume you would still want to drink. Does that make you a bad person? No. Just because some higher up has put in place a law, doesn't mean I have to agree with it. 103617[/snapback] Who said anything about drug dealers being bad people? You said that drug dealers shouldn't be CRIMINALS. Here's what you said before: I'm not saying it's a responsible way to make a living, but it's not criminal in my eyes. def: criminal - relating to, involving, or being a crime. def: crime - an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law Since the LAW says you can't possess or sell drugs then, by definition, drug dealers are criminals. You also said: Unfortunately in our society there are a lot of people that don't deserve to be parents. Many children are neglected, beaten, etc etc etc, by their parents. A parent that uses drugs falls into this category. If they die from using drugs they do hurt their children, but that is more of a moral issue then anything else. What about the dealers who sell directly to children? I guess they're not criminal either, since the kid took the drugs? Or is there a special exception in your rulebook? Using your above statement, if prohibition were still in effect and you drank alcohol, yes, you'd be a criminal. Don't like it? Protest and change the law. Until that's done, it's still a crime. If I choose to drink anyway, I expect that I may be caught and face the penalty (as Nick said in the speeding example). A gun dealer selling a gun (after doing a background check) is not a criminal. Just because you disagree with the law, doesn't mean it's legal to do. (I don't even know why I'm trying to explain the logic here, because I'm sure you'll twist it, but hey - NG warned me, but apparantly I don't learn quickly enough). CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Like I said Paco, I've never ever said a person shouldn't take responsibility for their own situation. 103673[/snapback] Then there would be no need to hold the government responsible to provide jobs to people. I'm glad we finally agree on this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Dave Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I like lamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Who said anything about drug dealers being bad people? You said that drug dealers shouldn't be CRIMINALS. Here's what you said before: def: criminal - relating to, involving, or being a crime. def: crime - an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law Since the LAW says you can't possess or sell drugs then, by definition, drug dealers are criminals. You also said: What about the dealers who sell directly to children? I guess they're not criminal either, since the kid took the drugs? Or is there a special exception in your rulebook? Using your above statement, if prohibition were still in effect and you drank alcohol, yes, you'd be a criminal. Don't like it? Protest and change the law. Until that's done, it's still a crime. If I choose to drink anyway, I expect that I may be caught and face the penalty (as Nick said in the speeding example). A gun dealer selling a gun (after doing a background check) is not a criminal. Just because you disagree with the law, doesn't mean it's legal to do. (I don't even know why I'm trying to explain the logic here, because I'm sure you'll twist it, but hey). CW 103676[/snapback] Those actually aren't bad points. The only two things I would say in response are this. 1. Yes, by law dealing drugs is a crime and these people are criminals. I guess maybe I should preface by saying that I think there are certain drugs that should be legalized? 2. Background checks are worthless if you ask me. Just because I didn't shoot someone yesterday before I bought the gun doesn't mean I won't today after I get it from you. Like I said, these points aren't terrible, i can certainly understand them, but I disagree as noted in points 1 and 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 So, do you guess these people actually have homes, and simply make themselves look "Homeless" to make the easy money? ( i know, I know.. that sounds ridiculous), or are they just so into drugs, etc, that they blow whatever they take in on that? I mean, if you're making 60k a year, that's going somewhere. The reason I ask, is at one stoplight (Lake Worth and Congress), the guy will always talk to you if you are first in line. And even if i am not going to give him a dollar, i wont do the "just ignore him" thing that alot of people do. Anyway, this one guy was telling me about his son, and how no matter how hard he tries, his son will not eat broccoli, but he loves any kind of red meat. Now, Im thinking three things. 1) If this guy is homeless, is his son sleeping under s bridge, too? 2) If not, what kind of place is this guy living in? 3) Have I been duped this whole time? 103671[/snapback] Some do drugs, some buy drugs. Other like your guy has a house. That was the basis of the story, how many actually dressed the part but were really members of their enviroment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 OK Paco, for someone to learn how to be a mechanic, that costs money. Uusually the unemployed are short of money. Understand where I'm headed here? I can understand your point, but you aren't taking into account normal circumstances that can factor into this. 103657[/snapback] Our government literally gives away BILLIONS on such programs. Rarely is the entire amount funded actually spent by the end of the fiscal year. There are other avenues for job training as well. Opportunity doesn't knock. You actually have to leave your house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 OK Guys, I'm out of here, I will pick this up later. Fezmid, thanks for the debate, at least you kept it on topic. Paco, I don't totally agree, with you, we will discuss later. VA, same as Fezmid. I will be back later to discuss this some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I have seen many casual references to the legions of minds ruined by heavy LSD use. But never a traceable scholarly reference. This well-known group of people, "those whose minds were destroyed by LSD in the 60s", remains an undocumented vague assertion, an urban myth.....until now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 You bring up a good point. Our own government has firmly supported the "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." motto by allowing their citizens to buy and carry arms. So if we buy into the "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." motto isn't dealing drugs the same type of thing? I could just as easily go shoot someone with a newly purchased gun as I could OD on drugs. 103567[/snapback] Ok, now I have a dog in the fight. Once again, a big picture concept. A substantial amount of the money that is used in the sponsorship of terrorism comes through alliances betwen terrorist organizations and drug networks. Without going into a long, drawn out explanation, it's a real problem-especially in South America. Remington Arms is not sponsoring criminal-terrorism. Cocaine and Opium lords are. So, everytime you buy your hit of crack, you could very well be contributing to the next suicide bombing somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 this thread= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Ok, now I have a dog in the fight. Once again, a big picture concept. A substantial amount of the money that is used in the sponsorship of terrorism comes through alliances betwen terrorist organizations and drug networks. Without going into a long, drawn out explanation, it's a real problem-especially in South America. Remington Arms is not sponsoring criminal-terrorism. Cocaine and Opium lords are. So, everytime you buy your hit of crack, you could very well be contributing to the next suicide bombing somewhere. 103710[/snapback] Don't you know not to believe everything you see in those commericals? Just kidding. It very well may, but the same government that would tell someone not to buy drugs because they are supplying money to terrorism is also the same government that for many many years supported these very people they speak out against. Oh yeah, I don't do drugs so I'm not supporting anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Don't you know not to believe everything you see in those commericals? Just kidding. It very well may, but the same government that would tell someone not to buy drugs because they are supplying money to terrorism is also the same government that for many many years supported these very people they speak out against. Oh yeah, I don't do drugs so I'm not supporting anything. 104430[/snapback] Thats actually another urban legend, and is also straying from the point. The US never suported UBL, per se. UBL was never even a "freedom fighter" in Afghanistan. He was actually more of a coordinator and financier, with Dad's bucks. His goals were at cross purposes to the US, and he was largely ignored by the CIA as a nuisance. The US supported the Afghans as a whole, because it was a by proxy way to fight the Soviets in an attempt to keep Afghanistan from falling into the Soviet block. To save time here, we didn't support Sadaam either. Much to contrary belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 To save time here, we didn't support Sadaam either. Much to contrary belief. 104475[/snapback] But...But...We have a picture of a political appointee shaking hands with him! That's all the proof we need! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 But...But...We have a picture of a political appointee shaking hands with him! That's all the proof we need! 104476[/snapback] You are right Darin. It's almost as substantial as those pictures Bush showed everyone before we went to Iraq!!!! We must still be looking for those places!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 What the hell are you smoking? Hey look, BF lost the debate with VA! You can tell because he "resorted to name calling!" CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts