Maybe the war on drugs could eventually work...

[xBiffx]

Answer the fucking question. Don't obfuscate, answer.

Says the guy bringing Justin Beiber into the argument. You got caught. Just admit it and move on. I answered your question quite plainly and in doing so, I pointed out the problem with your original statement. Move along.

 

[dank69]

You got caught. Just admit it and move on. I answered your question quite plainly and in doing so, I pointed out the problem with your original statement. Move along.

I wasn't talking to you in that post you quoted, and anyway, you did not answer this question:

So if I said 'Why do people like Justin Bieber?' you would immediately assume I think all people like Justin Bieber?

Nor did he.

 

[irishScott]

Notice I did not say all people on the right. I was speaking specifically about the OP. I know not all people on the right agree with the war on drugs. I wonder how ANYONE on the right could possibly agree with the war on drugs.

1. I'm not on the right.

2. I don't agree with everything done in the name of the war on drugs. In fact I'm for the legalization of weed. That said I wouldn't mind the war on drugs partially succeeding either. People who use cocaine, heroin, and the like in my mind are simply idiots unless they're actively trying to break said addiction. I have no more issue forcing vaccination on these people than I would on forcing a suicidal person away from the cliff edge.

 

[xBiffx]

I wasn't talking to you in that post you quoted, and anyway, you did not answer this question:
Nor did he.

No I wouldn't assume you meant all people. I would also assume that no aliens like him either since you said just people. Saying "Why do people on the right" implies that it doesn't apply to the left since there is no mention of them there. It doesn't help when we know the source of this question either. You know what you meant. Quit trying to act innocent. We know where you are coming from in your posts so don't try and be coy about it. No one believes your innocence here for a second.

I think we are done hijacking this thread for now, don't you?

 

[dank69]

1. I'm not on the right.

2. I don't agree with everything done in the name of the war on drugs. In fact I'm for the legalization of weed. That said I wouldn't mind the war on drugs partially succeeding either. People who use cocaine, heroin, and the like in my mind are simply idiots unless they're actively trying to break said addiction. I have no more issue forcing vaccination on these people than I would on forcing a suicidal person away from the cliff edge.

Many of your posts express viewpoints that are firmly on the right of the aisle. I am sorry if you don't think you are part of the right, but I just don't agree.

No I wouldn't assume you meant all people. I would also assume that no aliens like him either since you said just people.

The bolded statement doesn't make sense. If I said white people like Justin Bieber, you would assume black people don't since I said just white people? Terrible man, work on your communication.

Saying "Why do people on the right" implies that it doesn't apply to the left since there is no mention of them there.

No, it does not imply that. You inferred that.

It doesn't help when we know the source of this question either. You know what you meant. Quit trying to act innocent. We know where you are coming from in your posts so don't try and be coy about it. No one believes your innocence here for a second.
...

Innocence? Did I commit some crime here? Lol give it a rest, you assumed some shit and I pointed out how you read it wrong and now you won't let it go.

 

[irishScott]

Many of your posts express viewpoints that are firmly on the right of the aisle. I am sorry if you don't think you are part of the right, but I just don't agree.

I believe in a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants after we've secured the border.

I believe in reinstating the glass-steagall firewall.

I believe the bailouts were a necessary evil to save the American economy.

I believe that we need to put stricter regulations on businesses and raise taxes (although not as much as the left wants).

I believe in a public option for healthcare to force competition.

I am opposed to any injection of purely religious philosophy into public policy (ie. anti-gay-marriage laws).

How am I on the right again? Because I believe in gun rights, fiscal conservatism and that hard drug users are idiots? I'm an independent moderate, deal with it.

 

[airdata]

*sigh*

Any educated person knows that the war on drugs isn't meant to be "won" as in it's over "Won". Winning the war on drugs to the United states government is making billions of dollars every year from imprisoning citizens for using drugs and possession.

We ship guns to drug cartels, help them import their drugs and profit. If the "war on drugs" didn't exist, neither would that profit.

Stuff like this is as much a pipe dream as legal marijuana.

 

[xj0hnx]

Answer the fucking question. Don't obfuscate, answer.

Why? it's irrelevant, and not what you said, nor is it even similar to what you said.

 

[Howard]

*sigh*

Any educated person knows that the war on drugs isn't meant to be "won" as in it's over "Won". Winning the war on drugs to the United states government is making billions of dollars every year from imprisoning citizens for using drugs and possession.

How exactly does the USA "make" money (i.e. generate wealth) from drug enforcement?

 

[xj0hnx]

How exactly does the USA "make" money (i.e. generate wealth) from drug enforcement?

The "country" doesn't, but local police forces, government agencies, and prison industrial complex sure do. Keep the bogeyman scary, and the tax money flowing.

 

[airdata]

How exactly does the USA "make" money (i.e. generate wealth) from drug enforcement?

Does Iran Contras ring a bell?

How about the cia plane that crashed in mexico a couple years back with tons of cocaine on board?

They create jobs through the prison industrial complex. Lock people up, send them to privately owned prisons and provide them w\ $x per inmate, the corporation in turn lobbies and donates to political campaigns and such.


If they wanted to actually win the war on drugs, they would ease up on prohibition and shrink the black market. That's what any smart person would do.

 

[Howard]

Does Iran Contras ring a bell?

How about the cia plane that crashed in mexico a couple years back with tons of cocaine on board?

They create jobs through the prison industrial complex. Lock people up, send them to privately owned prisons and provide them w\ $x per inmate, the corporation in turn lobbies and donates to political campaigns and such.


If they wanted to actually win the war on drugs, they would ease up on prohibition and shrink the black market. That's what any smart person would do.

The Iran-Contra affair wasn't a money-making endeavor, just a bad decision.

The plane that was carrying tons of cocaine was not found to be operated by the CIA at the time it crashed.

Giving private businesses taxpayer money doesn't seem to me to generate wealth in most instances, unless by "making money" you mean "skimming off the top and making some people rich".

 

[dank69]

Why? it's irrelevant, and not what you said, nor is it even similar to what you said.

No, it's not.

Original question:
'Why do people on the right, people that supposedly support personal freedoms, also champion the fight against people doing whatever they want with their own bodies?'
Your assumption:
'Why do people on the right' = 'Why do all people on the right'

New question:
'So if I said 'Why do people like Justin Bieber?' you would immediately assume I think all people like Justin Bieber?'
If you answer 'no' you show an inconsistent pattern of thought:
'Why do people on the right' = 'Why do all people on the right' but
'Why do people like Justin Bieber' != 'Why do all people like Justin Bieber'
Do you see the inconsistency here? Of course you do.

If you answer 'yes' you show an illogical pattern of thought. When someone asks a question such as 'Why do people like Justin Bieber?' most people know that the person asking said question is inquiring specifically about people who do indeed like Justin Bieber, and that the same person asking said question does not believe that all people like Justin Bieber. Yet, when I asked the question 'Why do people on the right...support the war on drugs?' you come to the illogical conclusion that I think that 'All people on the right...support the war on drugs.'

So which is it, xjohnx? What is your answer to the question? Yes or no? Or are you going to continue to dodge the question? Or will you just dodge this thread completely? Or are you able to admit you made a bad assumption?

 

[dank69]

I believe in a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants after we've secured the border.

I believe in reinstating the glass-steagall firewall.

I believe the bailouts were a necessary evil to save the American economy.

I believe that we need to put stricter regulations on businesses and raise taxes (although not as much as the left wants).

I believe in a public option for healthcare to force competition.

I am opposed to any injection of purely religious philosophy into public policy (ie. anti-gay-marriage laws).

How am I on the right again? Because I believe in gun rights, fiscal conservatism and that hard drug users are idiots? I'm an independent moderate, deal with it.

What is your stance on raising taxes on families making $250k+/yr?

 

[irishScott]

What is your stance on raising taxes on families making $250k+/yr?

I think income taxes should be fair all around. Take a certain percentage of everyone's income. Given all of the public services the poor receive and rich do not, it's actually quite a bargain for them. I think taxing the "rich" a higher percentage of income simply because they have more money is un-American and reeks of government desperation; like a child whining to his parents because he spent his entire allowance on toys but still wants candy.

 

[Howard]

I think income taxes should be fair all around. Take a certain percentage of everyone's income. Given all of the public services the poor receive and rich do not, it's actually quite a bargain for them. I think taxing the "rich" a higher percentage of income simply because they have more money is un-American and reeks of government desperation; like a child whining to his parents because he spent his entire allowance on toys but still wants candy.

Some food for thought: rich people have more important votes than poor people do. Is that American?

 

[irishScott]

Some food for thought: rich people have more important votes than poor people do. Is that American?

Not at all, which is also why I support electoral reform to level the playing field so that minority opinions are given a fighting chance. If you can show proof of, say, 50,000 registered followers (pulling that number out of my ass), you should get the same funding as the big boys. Each "party" would be placed in a sub-group comprised of parties from segments of a standardized political spectrum. The parties would be given the option to choose which group they are placed in. Thus if a party or candidate is on the edge of a zone they could could choose which group they feel they could best compete in. Each sub-group would then have it's own "primary" to determine who best represents that portion of the political spectrum. Any registered voter could vote in any primary, but not all of them. At the end of the process you'd have several candidates fairly representing their portion of the political spectrum for the general election.

Individual donations to campaigns should be strictly limited, lobbyist/interest groups may make unlimited contributions but should be required to visibly publicize those donations to the exact monetary figure.

 

[xj0hnx]

No, it's not.

Original question:
'Why do people on the right, people that supposedly support personal freedoms, also champion the fight against people doing whatever they want with their own bodies?'
Your assumption:
'Why do people on the right' = 'Why do all people on the right'

New question:
'So if I said 'Why do people like Justin Bieber?' you would immediately assume I think all people like Justin Bieber?'
If you answer 'no' you show an inconsistent pattern of thought:
'Why do people on the right' = 'Why do all people on the right' but
'Why do people like Justin Bieber' != 'Why do all people like Justin Bieber'
Do you see the inconsistency here? Of course you do.

If you answer 'yes' you show an illogical pattern of thought. When someone asks a question such as 'Why do people like Justin Bieber?' most people know that the person asking said question is inquiring specifically about people who do indeed like Justin Bieber, and that the same person asking said question does not believe that all people like Justin Bieber. Yet, when I asked the question 'Why do people on the right...support the war on drugs?' you come to the illogical conclusion that I think that 'All people on the right...support the war on drugs.'

So which is it, xjohnx? What is your answer to the question? Yes or no? Or are you going to continue to dodge the question? Or will you just dodge this thread completely? Or are you able to admit you made a bad assumption?

Are you dizzy yet?

 

[dank69]

I think income taxes should be fair all around. Take a certain percentage of everyone's income. Given all of the public services the poor receive and rich do not, it's actually quite a bargain for them. I think taxing the "rich" a higher percentage of income simply because they have more money is un-American and reeks of government desperation; like a child whining to his parents because he spent his entire allowance on toys but still wants candy.

Okay, so you understand why I think you are part of the right wing. :thumbsup:

 

[dank69]

Are you dizzy yet?

Ok, dodge it is. I must confess, I was expecting better from you. :\

 

[xj0hnx]

Ok, dodge it is. I must confess, I was expecting better from you. :\

There's nothing to dodge, you made a generalization, then said you don't make generalizations, then got called on it, then started trying to spin it, it's pretty simple really.

 

[dank69]

There's nothing to dodge, you made a generalization, then said you don't make generalizations, then got called on it, then started trying to spin it, it's pretty simple really.

Trololol

 

[irishScott]

Okay, so you understand why I think you are part of the right wing. :thumbsup:

I understand you're pigeon-holing me based on one position. As I've posted I believe in more than few things that the right would start foaming at the mouth over.

I have right-leaning points and left-leaning points, all of which are subject to change should I receive sufficient evidence to do so. I have no static classification other than independent. Sorry if that doesn't fit into your world-view.

Or do you also falsely consider me a Christian simply because I believe in God?

 

[dank69]

I understand you're pigeon-holing me based on one position. As I've posted I believe in more than few things that the right would start foaming at the mouth over.

I am glad you are smart enough to not follow the republican lockstep.

I have right-leaning points and left-leaning points, all of which are subject to change should I receive sufficient evidence to do so. I have no static classification other than independent. Sorry if that doesn't fit into your world-view.

Most intelligent people think the same way you say you do here. My view of you as a 'rightie' doesn't stem from your answer on this one point, although I do consider it a major litmus test. It's more of an overall impression from your posting history. I cannot produce concrete examples, as I do not pay that close attention, so maybe I was way off base, but your answer to the $250k question shows I wasn't that far off.

Or do you also falsely consider me a Christian simply because I believe in God?

I really do not care about your religious beliefs.

But I will try to steer back on topic. You say you have a problem with cocaine users. In fact, you state that you 'have no more issue forcing vaccination on these people than I would on forcing a suicidal person away from the cliff edge.' What makes you think you have the right to force someone who uses cocaine to have a vaccine?

 

[irishScott]

I really do not care about your religious beliefs.

But I will try to steer back on topic. You say you have a problem with cocaine users. In fact, you state that you 'have no more issue forcing vaccination on these people than I would on forcing a suicidal person away from the cliff edge.' What makes you think you have the right to force someone who uses cocaine to have a vaccine?

I was using it as an analogy. Having one or two relatively right-wing views does not a right winger make, but whatever.

Going back to one of my previous posts, I see it the same as not allowing someone to commit suicide. By your logic we shouldn't stop people trying to jump off bridges, just keep right on driving. After all, it's their life. Given all the negatives that come from cocaine addiction, I see anyone who uses it as mentally ill or idiotic. It's arguably a form of self-mutilation given the long-term consequences.