Bill O defends the drug war

[Tom]

So what then do you believe the purpose of enacting a regulation is? If reducing a behavior is not one of the goals, then how is it substantially idfferent from just making the unpopular kid miserable?
Wut?

Subsidize. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Directly supporting an organization by purchasing their product with an intent to consume (or even further distribute) said product is not a subsidy. The only subsidy the cartels receive is from the government, which induces artificial scarcity and inflated margins by prohibition.

I was responding to points in a post, I used the same words and order to make it clear they were responses, not new topics.

 

[Tom]

Would you settle for insane?
According to Albert Einstein, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Sounds like the Drug War to me...

what different results ?

 

[nonlnear]

I was responding to points in a post, I used the same words and order to make it clear they were responses, not new topics.

Using the same words is not a good idea when the response you are using them in makes those words inappropriate. The post you were responding to used subsidize correctly; you did not. If you knew it was incorrect, why would you present your opinion with such moronic wording? It doesn't help your case. You might as well have retorted with "Yeah, but yo momma's fat." That also would have made it clear you were responding as opposed to creating a new topic, and it would have been about as convincing.

 

[Tom]

Do you think the government should be allowed to regulate what you (as an adult) can or cannot put in your body?

you mean something like a kitten ?

 

[nonlnear]

you mean something like a kitten ?

That is an excellent example. I contend that I should be allowed to slaughter a kitten this afternoon and toss some kitten legs on the grill and it's none of the government's damn business. (I will concede that there may be an interest in keeping the slaughtering process humane, but that's about it.) Do you object?

 

[dank69]

you mean something like a kitten ?

So the problem you have with people smoking weed is that they are harming the plants? If not, your example does not make sense.

 

[CallMeJoe]

what different results ?

If you do not posit that the purpose of the War on Drugs is to reduce or eliminate the use of those drugs, what purpose does it have?

 

[khon]

I honestly think Bill O'Reilly is smart enough to know what his arguments for the drug war don't actually hold up, and he doesnt want to get outdebated on his own show, so he tried to figure out how he could spin it to his advantage.

What he came up with the this "what about the children" angle, which does the job nicely. What he's done is shift the debate from a topic he can't win, to one he can't lose. If he debates the drug war he'll be proven wrong, but if he just talks about child abuse, he will put his opponent in a position where they will seemingly have to either condone or diminish it.

It's quite brillant really. He would make one hell of a forum troll.

 

[sandorski]

I honestly think Bill O'Reilly is smart enough to know what his arguments for the drug war don't actually hold up, and he doesnt want to get outdebated on his own show, so he tried to figure out how he could spin it to his advantage.

What he came up with the this "what about the children" angle, which does the job nicely. What he's done is shift the debate from a topic he can't win, to one he can't lose. If he debates the drug war he'll be proven wrong, but if he just talks about child abuse, he will put his opponent in a position where they will seemingly have to either condone or diminish it.

It's quite brillant really. He would make one hell of a forum troll.

Don't confuse Brilliance with Douchiness.