Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Skylar]

LOL!

Take a bow Stein!

I'd like to thank the contributor for her time... and in proving that absent God, there is no potential for morality.

Says who? Again, restating your opinion isn't proving your opinion. Why must morality involve religion? You can't say.......save that it must be so. Er......because. Its the why where your argument breaks down. You can't explain it, let alone prove it.

Why can't someone use their own capacity for moral reasoning to conclude that killing is wrong? Most folks clearly have the capacity. Why must mysticism, dietary restrictions, dress codes, creation myths and a myriad of other arbitrary criteria that has zero to do with morality be included?

There is no reason. Morality needs none of it. Most people have the capacity to use their own reasoning to come to sound moral judgments.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Laughing....talk to me when you can explain why morality must include religion. You've utterly abandoned any reasoning save to repeat, over and over that it must be so. But you can't explain why, having no logical or rational reason why it must be so.

Try again. This time without the circular reasoning and fallacies of logic.

Is murdering infants in their cribs morally wrong?

Depends... Is the baby a threat to your life or your good health. Then... probably not, it's your call, if ya aren't sure that you can safely subdue the infant, then, again... probably not. But you're gonna REALLY have to sell it in court. Because odds are, you're going down for the long stretch. I mean if the infant is strapped to a bomb, which has a poopy trigger, and if that bomb goes off you're dead. Then I'd say with the poopy trigger bomb in evidence, you're probably good to go, assuming you can prove you didn't strap the poor rascal in the bomb.

[/quote]

You know the passage of the Old Testament I'm referring to. So you have your context:

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

1 Samuel 15: 3

Not a single mention of any of your red herrings. No bombs. No poopy diapers. Just a baby. Is killing that baby in its crib morally wrong?

You knew full well exactly what I was referring to....and talked around it. Avoided the topic. If your objective morality was as valid as you claim, you wouldn't have needed to avoid the question.

Has the Creator of the Universe commanded you to do so? If so, the answer is: No. Otherwise... Yes.

And you just demonstrated the profound folly of the truly religious: if you can convince them that 'god told you to do it', you can get them to do anything. Slaughter babies, blow up discotheques, fly planes into buildings. And believe that every child being hewn in two with the sword, every suckling being impaled, every building destroyed by exploding aircraft was a moral, righteous act.

Because you're not allowed to think for yourself, to apply your own moral reasoning. That's what can make the truly devout so destructive and terrifying. They'll do *anything*. Commit any atrocity. And feel it was moral and righteous and good.

You'd have a harder time convincing most secular humanists of the same. There's a reason most of your suicide bombers are theists.

Feel better?

Not really. I feel sorry that your ilk can't recognize something as simple as murdering babies in their cribs is wrong......even if you believe 'god' told you to do it. Your moral reasoning is that crippled. That uselessly manipulable. All someone has to do is convince you that 'god' told you to do it.....and they own you. You're little more than disposable property.

And this is the basis you want me to draw *my* morality from? Um, no. My own moral reasoning is vastly superior to whatever hopelessly broken system you've shackled yourself to.

No. It was an act of trust in the Supreme Being, the Creator of the Universe... who give's life and takes life.

It was an immoral act of genocide, an unspeakable attrocity that you not only excuse, not only deem acceptable, but laud. That's scary. Moreso when you realize how many of your ilk have equally abdicated their capacity for moral reason and twisted the most vile abominations imaginable into acts of righteous morality.

I refuse to do abdicate my moral compass even if you gladly will. I refuse to do what I consider evil, no matter who tells me to do it.

If yes, then your objective morality just hit a speed bump. If no, ...then you demonstrate the profound folly of religion: it requires you abdicate your capacity for moral reasoning and accept reprehensible acts like slaughtering children as not only acceptable, but good and righteous.

False... If yes, then the basis of morality is proven false, as the Creator of the Universe sets the law of the universe. To disregard the law, is to undermine that which sustains humanity.

So you believe. But you could be wrong. Torquemada believed he was moral when he mutilated and tortured people in the name of his God. All manner of atrocities were justified using equally sweeping rationalizations. Not simple justified...but twisted in the mind of the faithful into acts of righteous goodness. Where carving out a girl's clitoris with a knife was an act of moral goodness....if god told you to do it. Where detonating a bus full of children is moral and justified....if god told you to do it. Where crashing a plane full of people into a building full of more was righteous and moral.....if god told you to do it. Where molesting 9 year old girls was moral and good ....if god told you to do it.

There's no atrocity you couldn't justify using the same logic. And given the sheer body count history has offered us of those killed in the name of religion, very few that haven't been justified already, using the exact same logic you just did. Religion not only allows the kind of abdication of moral reasoning that you've fallen prey to...it actively encourages it.

We're getting into yet another folly of religion: it might be wrong. Given the sheer number of religions and how often they conflict, the odds that any given religion have it right are quite awful. You simply assume it must be so.....exactly like every other devoutly religious person, including the billions that disagree with you. And you can't all be right. Almost all of you MUST be wrong, as your beliefs are often mutually exclusive and explicitly contradictory. And then there's the elephant in the living room....

.....there's absolutely nothing that mandates any of them got it right. You could all be wrong.

That is not what I call a sound basis to base my moral reasoning on. Nor an authority I would ever willingly sacrifice my own capacity for moral reasoning upon. And even more absurd.....you call this mishmash of unprovable, mutually exclusive contradiction, where the overwhelming majority of theists MUST be wrong and there is a credible chance that all of them are wrong....an 'objective' moral system.

Slick, that's not objective. That's hopelessly, inevitably, undeniably and almost certainly self deluded subjectivity. If not you, then all the other theists who follow different religious beliefs than you. If not one of them, then you and all your fellow theists who got it wrong. And if none of you got it right, then all of your have shackled yourself with self deluded subjectivity that you'll gladly commit any atrocity to satisfy.

No thank you.

It is "No"... therefore it recognizes the supreme authority of the Creator and the insignificance of all life, absent God. As absent God, there is no life... as humanity discovers each and every single day, somewhere, as the carnage of Godless, amoral and immoral lives established through their respective failure to recognize, respect, defend and adhere to God's (Nature's) law, having long suffered (being punished) the consequences of those poor choices. Just as Saul was punished for not killing the Amalekite King, despite his having killed everyone else of the tribe, including their cute little Moo-cows and the little baby lambs... .

God created life because without God there is no life.

Holy fuck, that's some circular reasoning. You really can't see the profound fallacies of logic you must embrace to believe as you do, can you?

God's law, is not debatable, it's not subject to your acceptance of such, it doesn't care if you approve or not. It is... and you'll either benefit from having obeyed or you'll suffer as a result of your failure to do so.

Which God? Vishnu? Izanagi? Yahweh? Baal? An? Christ? One's Buddha nature? According to which sect? Among which religion? In which era?

And which law? Even among Christians there are wildly different beliefs. And that's just a snapshot of today. Look at Christianity across time and its gets even more wildly diverse. Go outside Christianity to Judiasm, or Islam, or Zorastrianism, or Shinto, or Buddhism or Hinduism, and you have several billion more people that believe just as fervently in their gods and their law as you do yours. And they don't agree with you.

If it can't be debated....then what of all the debate? The religious wars? The wildly different interpretations of the same religious texts, with wildly different conceptions of these 'laws'? The wildly different religious texts?

You can't both be right. Your religions are mutually exclusive. It can't be BOTH the Greek pantheon of Gods AND Jesus. And it doesn't have to be either. Which means that almost all theists in history would logically HAVE to be wrong. They would HAVE to be self deluded.

What are the odds that in all the sects of all the religion in all the world in the entire expanse of time, that you just happened upon the one true representation of God? That all other beliefs are wrong, all other conceptions of God are wrong, all other laws are wrong.....and that only your beliefs, your god and the laws you follow are right?

Remembering that logically, almost all theists that ever lived would be as deluded as they were wrong on every of the same tenets.....despite believing just as fervently as you do now.

I'd say those are pretty slim odds. Especially when you take into account the very real possibility that none of you got it right. As there is absolutely nothing in the concept of theism that mandates that any religion have the truth. Or an accurate conception of morality.

And you want me to abdicate my own moral reasoning for *theism* which logically must almost always be self deluded nonsense?

Um, no.

 

[bripat9643]

ProggDuppe thinks McCarthy was in the House of Representatives running the HUAC a decade before he became Senator

Link to my mistake, liar?

I was talking about McCarthy, you posted some off-topic nonsense about Hollywood writers

321 artists had their lives ruined, aasshol

Their lives were not ruined by McCarthy, numskull. Furthermore, most of them were members of the Communist Party.

Some,mainly in the 20's and early 30's, before the world figured out the USSR was a sham, or were pro-USSR during WWII...and yes he ruined their lives, at least for years. The definition of hater demagogue. Your hero, fool.

Liberal turds like you didn't figure that out until 1989 when the Soviet Union collapsed.

 

[toxicmedia]

Democracy is all about majority rule, and I am personally in favor of that. ... .

So you favor Majority Rules?

Naturally then you're a proponent of the majority recognition that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman?

Yep, if put to a poular vote, and that's how people feel.[sic]

Oh it's been put to many popular votes... with the vast majority of the people in the vast majority of the States having elected the vast majority of the representatives who voted to recognize Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman. Most of those majorities, in the majority of states went to the trouble of setting that recognition in their Constitution.

Now you said that you believe in "Majority Rules"... and your ideology is busy over-ruling those majorities through their plants in the judiciary, manipulating the 'honor system'.

Now you dam' well know this... yet when you had the chance to condemn your comrades who were working ot overturn 'Majority Rule', you chose to NOT do so.

Demonstrating that you're a hypocrite and a liar.

Pretty cool, huh?

Too bad you can't argue without losing your temper.

I'll not waste my time responding.

 

[toxicmedia]

n

The problem with Libertarian economic and social platforms is they've never been tested.

Did you know that I'm a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian?

As a result, socially, I think almost nothing should be illegal. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion, gay marriage, public nudity, and so on.....

Fiscally, I'm for smarter spending with heavy oversight.

You are a materialist and a nihilist, congratulations.

Oh quit, I'm neither, and a little public nudity, gambling, prostitution, and so on...would only offend a prude. Which makes me think you might be a Republican

Yea, it isn't like gambling has bankrupted families, or prostitution leads to social ills like diseases, drug use, and suicide, yea I must be a TEA BAGGER. Wow, how insightful.

So we need government to make our choices for us to protect us from making bad ones? Thank God we have a moral government that can make our choices for us better than we can. You sure trust them to give them that kind of power. I'm not sure why the liberals bother you so much when you trust government to be the guardian of morality. BTW, they don't deserve that trust.

Now liberals can walk through your door. Government needs to confiscate our money and give it to the right causes because we may not pick the right ones or give enough. Government has to ensure we have access to free birth control because we can't trust people to provide it themselves. It's a never ending cycle.

Yes, at a certain level, people need to be protected by the state, both internally and externally. So unless you are against the idea of a state and policing powers on principle, I don't see why you are so offended by my notion the government should at some level contain and restrict harmful vices.

The problem with Libertarianism is they view humans beings as atomistic individuals who actions have no effect on the greater community, whether it be socially or economically. Some don't recognize this, others accept it and don't care. So either they are ignorant or nihilistic. So I simply disagree with them on this point. I think they make good points on decentralization of power but their hyper-individualism and materialism disgusts me.

Our government isn't moral at the moment because the people aren't moral. John Adams even said our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.

The problem with Libertarian economic and social platforms is they've never been tested.

Did you know that I'm a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian?

As a result, socially, I think almost nothing should be illegal. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion, gay marriage, public nudity, and so on.....

Fiscally, I'm for smarter spending with heavy oversight.

You are a materialist and a nihilist, congratulations.

Oh quit, I'm neither, and a little public nudity, gambling, prostitution, and so on...would only offend a prude. Which makes me think you might be a Republican

Yea, it isn't like gambling has bankrupted families, or prostitution leads to social ills like diseases, drug use, and suicide, yea I must be a TEA BAGGER. Wow, how insightful.

Drug use is only a problem if you're an alchoholic or an addict, and you can't create laws to change that. For that there is AA and NA.

Gambling is a fun hobby unless you're addicted to it. Gambling addiction is incurable and bearly treatable. And not with laws.

Prostitution like so many things is not so bad without the stigma prudes dump onto it, and the illegality of it creating the crime surrounding it.

Drug use is a problem for family and friends of the afflicted as well. Not to mention the surrounding community who has the economic costs and social costs of drug addiction placed on it(less productivity, more poverty, more welfare, more crime). Drug abuse isn't merely an individual issue.

Your standard for whether something is legal is whether it is fun to you? That is a subjective and dangerous standard if applied to its extremes. I don't think it is fun, nor do I think bankruptcy or losing an important paycheck is fun, especially if someone has a wife and kids, and no, not all such people are addicts.

So republican prudes cause prostitutes to use drugs, get diseases, commit crime, and commit suicide at higher rates? That is an interesting theory, care to back it up. The reason people oppose prostitution is not because we hate sex, its because we understand the undo damage such activity has on the individual, and the costs it can potentially place not only on those close to them but on the greater society. It isn't my fault you are so atomized and narrow minded you don't realize these things.

Another point is, people aren't born gambling or drug addicts. They are born with addictive personalities. So if you can curb the particular harmful addictive habits through you reduce the social and economic costs that come with said addictions and increase social capital.

You can't stop drug/alchohol abuse with laws. The Baltimore Washingtonians started a movement in 1840 that wound up being the failed Temperance Movement. The government should stay out of an given family's problems with addiction. You don't see the crime involved with alchohol anymore because it's regulated. The same could easily apply with drugs.

Republicans aren't the reason for peripheral crime resulting from illegal behavior. The illegality of the behavior forces it underground where it is at the mercy of criminals, along with the people who practice that behavior.

People develop addictive behavior, it clearly runs in families, and meaningful treatment is the job of counselors and AA/NA

And what is your problem?...I keep my criticism generalized, and it's not my fault if you jump in front of my oncoming generalized criticism. Yet you and that other guy just can't get through a post without an insult to me.

I was enthused about creating thoughtful responses to your comprehensive posts, but now I'll just go get another cup of coffee and watch the news.

Feel free to declare yourself victorious. I don't know what I was thinking. You were right, and I have no idea what facts even are.

Have a nice day.

 

[kaz]

The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex

LOL, you don't know what that means...

What part, specifically?

Criminalized

And where is the misunderstanding? When the police raided the home of Richard and Mildred Loving they did so in the early hours of the night in hopes of catching them having sex....as interracial sex was a felony.

Are you saying that felonies aren't crimes? Or that this law didn't enjoy majority support in Virginia...where it passed easily?

Right. Now show that most Americans supported that, which is what you claimed.

 

[kaz]

Oh it's been put to many popular votes... with the vast majority of the people in the vast majority of the States having elected the vast majority of the representatives who voted to recognize Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman. Most of those majorities, in the majority of states went to the trouble of setting that recognition in their Constitution.

Now you said that you believe in "Majority Rules"... and your ideology is busy over-ruling those majorities through their plants in the judiciary, manipulating the 'honor system'.

We're a republic. Which means that the majority doesn't possess the ability to strip the individual of rights. The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex. But that didn't stop the federal judiciary from protecting the rights of Richard and Mildred Loving and overturning the law that stripped them of their constitutional rights.

See how that worked? Works like that today too. If the majority vote to say, strip individuals of gun rights in Chicago, the federal judiciary intervenes. If the majority vote to say, strip gays of their constitutional right to marry, the federal judiciary intervenes.

Rights generally trump powers. If you're going to deny rights you need a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage simply don't have one.

Where is the right to interracial sex in the Constitution? I'm curious.

9th amendment. A right need not be enumerated to exist, as the constitution makes ridiculously clear.

That simply isn't true and most definitely wasn't the argument made in the Loving V. Virginia decision. No such right exists or was argued for. You need to do your research and clearly don't understand the 9th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment says that the law must be applied to all people the same way. Being black or white changed who you could marry. A clear violation of that, your race changed who you can marry.

Liberal gay advocates misuse that to justify gay marriage. Being gay does not change who you can marry.

BTW, I don't support government marriage at all, I'm just answering your question.

 

[kaz]

I don't know what to tell you, but Libertarians are Liberals(Libertarianism was born of classic liberalism). I don't know what to tell you if you don't understand that libertarianism is merely a school of liberal thought. Open a history book I guess to start, go to wiki, or whatever..

Um ... read my sig ...

The point I am making is that those vices do harm others, and often oneself. And on that point, today we seem to live in a society based on the faulty "harm principle". We always emphasize, "don't hurt others" or "as long as it is consensual"; but we have lost sight of the affect our actions have not only on others but how otherwise "consensual acts" harm ourselves. Our society has forgotten to teach us how not to harm ourselves. Part of the reason is the atomization and the growing moral nihilism of society, partially due to hyper-individualism, but also to scale, technology, multiculturalism, and the dominance of secular ideology in the West.

I guess you are to obtuse to recognize the difference. The point is, you can't help being black, being black isn't a crime. You can chose whether or not to take drugs, and possessing or selling drugs is a crime.

When you harm someone, then we agree that is a crime.

Your rules for when it is and is not appropriate for arresting someone based on that they ... may ... harm someone are just arbitrary. People do all kinds of things that may harm someone. Criminalizing activities based on possibilities is ridiculous. You're a lot more like authoritarian leftists than I am. I am nothing like them. Their whole agenda is based on what could happen. OMG, you may be old and not have saved any money! You may be black and you may run into a racist who won't hire you! OMG, you may be a woman who wants to have sex and you may not be able to afford birth control! You may be married to a gambler and he may be compulsive and he may gamble your money away! You may be married to a pot head and he may mmore on to more drugs, and he may...

We need government to take care of it now!

Much of the law is based on minimizing "harm", or preventative actions. What are traffic laws, or building codes but preventative measures the minimize harm(and measures that reduce the risk of economic and social costs being occurred from say multiple accidents on the road ways or building collapsing due to fire or earthquake). My positions aren't arbitrary at all, but based on the body of evidence of the negative economic and social costs that prostitution, drug use, and gambling have on a society. They are common sense, something you begin to understand with maturing as you grow out of the high school/college libertarian phase.

I don't know what I can tell you. You're just rationalizing. You're no different than liberals, you just want different things. Once you decide government can make our choices for us just because they can when we have harmed no one then what they do with that incredible power are just the details. You justify everything the left wants legally. You just again want something different. BTW, you can't enforce traffic laws on people's personal property. That analogy is a failure from go.

 

[kaz]

The Supreme Court (do you know the Supreme Court is the only court in are nation not to have a Code of Ethics?).

It's certainly notthe only one without ethics though.

Really, that's not my understanding - please enlighten me.

If I could enlighten a liberal then you would have to buy my book to find out how I do it. I'm more likely to learn to levitate elephants. The problem is you don't want to be enlightened, you want free stuff and to be unburdened of your personal responsibility.

Fuck you. If anyone needed evidence you're an asshole, and a liar, you've provided it.;

Liar? Back that up.

 

[Skylar]

The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex

LOL, you don't know what that means...

What part, specifically?

Criminalized

And where is the misunderstanding? When the police raided the home of Richard and Mildred Loving they did so in the early hours of the night in hopes of catching them having sex....as interracial sex was a felony.

Are you saying that felonies aren't crimes? Or that this law didn't enjoy majority support in Virginia...where it passed easily?

Right. Now show that most Americans supported that, which is what you claimed.

Lets clarify a point first: what did I 'not know what that means'. Because you just agreed with me on criminalization.

 

[kaz]

LOL, you don't know what that means...

What part, specifically?

Criminalized

And where is the misunderstanding? When the police raided the home of Richard and Mildred Loving they did so in the early hours of the night in hopes of catching them having sex....as interracial sex was a felony.

Are you saying that felonies aren't crimes? Or that this law didn't enjoy majority support in Virginia...where it passed easily?

Right. Now show that most Americans supported that, which is what you claimed.

Lets clarify a point first: what did I 'not know what that means'. Because you just agreed with me on criminalization.

Yes, if you know what criminalization means, you would not have made the ridiculous argument that you did that "most" Americans want to criminalize it. If you want to claim rather than not knowing what criminalization means you just made a ridiculous, unsupported sweeping statement about it then I would accept that.

 

[Iceweasel]

Once you decide government can make our choices for us just because they can when we have harmed no one then what they do with that incredible power are just the details. You justify everything the left wants legally. You just again want something different. BTW, you can't enforce traffic laws on people's personal property. That analogy is a failure from go.

It's the classic conservative/libertarian argument. I would lean to less control over people by government and it would mean less help from government. Want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Fine, but don't demand hospitals pick up the tab if something happens. I think a libertarian would agree with that.

But, what about dropping all drug laws? Would you really want a meth lab next door or quick easy access to meth. Many more addicts will be the result and that will have an impact on all of us, like it or not. There needs to be a line somewhere.

 

[Contumacious]

Once you decide government can make our choices for us just because they can when we have harmed no one then what they do with that incredible power are just the details. You justify everything the left wants legally. You just again want something different. BTW, you can't enforce traffic laws on people's personal property. That analogy is a failure from go.

It's the classic conservative/libertarian argument. I would lean to less control over people by government and it would mean less help from government. Want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Fine, but don't demand hospitals pick up the tab if something happens. I think a libertarian would agree with that.

But, what about dropping all drug laws? Would you really want a meth lab next door or quick easy access to meth. Many more addicts will be the result and that will have an impact on all of us, like it or not. There needs to be a line somewhere.

Why is a nuclear reactor OK, but a meth lab is not?


If drugs are decriminalized , why would the black market operate meth Labs?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[Skylar]

What part, specifically?

Criminalized

And where is the misunderstanding? When the police raided the home of Richard and Mildred Loving they did so in the early hours of the night in hopes of catching them having sex....as interracial sex was a felony.

Are you saying that felonies aren't crimes? Or that this law didn't enjoy majority support in Virginia...where it passed easily?

Right. Now show that most Americans supported that, which is what you claimed.

Lets clarify a point first: what did I 'not know what that means'. Because you just agreed with me on criminalization.

Yes, if you know what criminalization means, you would not have made the ridiculous argument that you did that "most" Americans want to criminalize it. If you want to claim rather than not knowing what criminalization means you just made a ridiculous, unsupported sweeping statement about it then I would accept that.

Ah, I see your confusion. You just changed the tense of my argument. I said the majority *supported* criminalizing interracial sex. I didn't say most Americans want to criminalize it.

If you want to claim that you don't understand the difference between past and present tense rather than intentionally misstating my argument, I'd accept that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Supreme Court (do you know the Supreme Court is the only court in are nation not to have a Code of Ethics?).

It's certainly notthe only one without ethics though.

Really, that's not my understanding - please enlighten me.

If I could enlighten a liberal then you would have to buy my book to find out how I do it. I'm more likely to learn to levitate elephants. The problem is you don't want to be enlightened, you want free stuff and to be unburdened of your personal responsibility.

Fuck you. If anyone needed evidence you're an asshole, and a liar, you've provided it.;

Liar? Back that up.

Happily:

"The Supreme Court’s greatest assets are its integrity and the public’s trust. Yet while the Code of Conduct for United States Judges binds every lower federal court judge, and every state judge is subject to a corresponding code of ethics, the nine justices of the Supreme Court are not subject to any binding code of ethics. Both to help ensure ethical conduct by the justices and to reassure the American people of the integrity of the Court, our highest court must be held to a code of conduct."

- See more at: Supreme Unaccountability The Nine Federal Judges to Whom No Code of Ethics Applies

So, here in Red and White is my back up. You are now free to cut and run as most RW lying jerks usually do when faced with reality!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Once you decide government can make our choices for us just because they can when we have harmed no one then what they do with that incredible power are just the details. You justify everything the left wants legally. You just again want something different. BTW, you can't enforce traffic laws on people's personal property. That analogy is a failure from go.

It's the classic conservative/libertarian argument. I would lean to less control over people by government and it would mean less help from government. Want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Fine, but don't demand hospitals pick up the tab if something happens. I think a libertarian would agree with that.

But, what about dropping all drug laws? Would you really want a meth lab next door or quick easy access to meth. Many more addicts will be the result and that will have an impact on all of us, like it or not. There needs to be a line somewhere.

Why is a nuclear reactor OK, but a meth lab is not?


If drugs are decriminalized , why would the black market operate meth Labs?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

MJ is the only drug I would decriminalize and regulate.

Do we really want dolts taking antibiotics every time they get a sniffle?

Heroin is much safer than Meth, and it is one of the most powerful pain killers - why is it not available for cancer sufferers in a Hospice?

Our drug laws need to be debated and revised. The war on drugs is an abject failure.

 

[Political Junky]

You'd make a great Nazi. lol

ProggDuppe thinks McCarthy was in the House of Representatives running the HUAC a decade before he became Senator

Link to my mistake, liar?

I was talking about McCarthy, you posted some off-topic nonsense about Hollywood writers

321 artists had their lives ruined, aasshol

Their lives were not ruined by McCarthy, numskull. Furthermore, most of them were members of the Communist Party.

Innocent people were devastated by McCarthy.
Lucille Ball was a huge success in spite of him.
McCarthy died of alcoholism at 48.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why is a nuclear reactor OK, but a meth lab is not?

If drugs are decriminalized , why would the black market operate meth Labs?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?.

Because meth labs can be done at home on the cheap. Why pay someone else to cook it up? The fact that it's dangerous as hell doesn't stop some people, even now. And nuclear power plants aren't exactly slapped together like Methhead Mike's garage lab.

 

[bripat9643]

ProggDuppe thinks McCarthy was in the House of Representatives running the HUAC a decade before he became Senator

Link to my mistake, liar?

I was talking about McCarthy, you posted some off-topic nonsense about Hollywood writers

321 artists had their lives ruined, aasshol

Their lives were not ruined by McCarthy, numskull. Furthermore, most of them were members of the Communist Party.

Innocent people were devastated by McCarthy.
Lucille Ball was a huge success in spite of him.
McCarthy died of alcoholism at 48.

Lucille Ball had nothing to do with McCarthy. All you proved is that you're another ignorant, irrational McCarthy hating dumbass who doesn't know the slightest thing about him.

The fact that McCarthy died of cirrhosis proves absolutely nothing. It's purely a gratuitous slam that assholes like you can't resist.

 

[dcraelin]

Oh it's been put to many popular votes... with the vast majority of the people in the vast majority of the States having elected the vast majority of the representatives who voted to recognize Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman. Most of those majorities, in the majority of states went to the trouble of setting that recognition in their Constitution.

Now you said that you believe in "Majority Rules"... and your ideology is busy over-ruling those majorities through their plants in the judiciary, manipulating the 'honor system'.

We're a republic. Which means that the majority doesn't possess the ability to strip the individual of rights. The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex. But that didn't stop the federal judiciary from protecting the rights of Richard and Mildred Loving and overturning the law that stripped them of their constitutional rights.

See how that worked? Works like that today too. If the majority vote to say, strip individuals of gun rights in Chicago, the federal judiciary intervenes. If the majority vote to say, strip gays of their constitutional right to marry, the federal judiciary intervenes.

Rights generally trump powers. If you're going to deny rights you need a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage simply don't have one.

The majority did NOT "definitely" support criminalization of interacial sex. There was no vote...but regardless the 14th amendment, representing the will of the majority, already addressed that question.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ProggDuppe thinks McCarthy was in the House of Representatives running the HUAC a decade before he became Senator

Link to my mistake, liar?

I was talking about McCarthy, you posted some off-topic nonsense about Hollywood writers

321 artists had their lives ruined, aasshol

Their lives were not ruined by McCarthy, numskull. Furthermore, most of them were members of the Communist Party.

Innocent people were devastated by McCarthy.
Lucille Ball was a huge success in spite of him.
McCarthy died of alcoholism at 48.

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Lucille Ball

That's one of the many Progressive Big Lies about McCarthy