Thread: Reganomics

Originally Posted by Veovis

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by Veovis

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Free will in a free country huh? Let me know when that really exsists then we can debate it.

In other words, if the direction our country is taking has changed from the vision of its founders, then all arguments to try to restore that vision are null?

How do you figure?

When women couldn't vote, would you have said, get back to me when blacks can vote? Two wrongs don't make a right...

No, I think he is saying something about modern government curtailing free-will.

Think you are free? Try not paying your taxes. Hell, try doing anything that the law disapproves of. Free will isn't free because restrictive governments punish their naughty little free-will-exhibiting citizens if they color too far outside the lines.

Am I close?

Do you know where the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" came from? If you don't, look it up.

Of all the unalienable rights a free human has, the number one right is HIS OWN BODY. It is the only thing he is born with, and for a government to tell someone what he can and can't do with his own body is the exact opposite of the vision of our forefathers. It's very close to telling someone what he can and can't believe, which is exactly the tyranny these same forefathers were escaping from.

The fact that we have to pay taxes or fulfill other societal obligations isn't in any way related to the discussion at hand, and saying "I won't debate with you because this society isn't really free" is a cop-out.

Do you or do you not believe that adults should have a right to do what they want with their own body? Simple question, YES or NO. If you don't believe that, I find it ironic you would swear "always faithful" to a country which was founded on those principles.

whoa, whoa chief - i was trying to infer what he meant...I was not speaking for myself.

You or I can do whatever we want with our bodies. The cops have and will continue to throw people in jail if those activities violate the law, however.

I guess, one could argue, based on civil law, that no - we do not have the "right" to do whatever we want - without consequences. The government, apparently, has the right to curtail our rights if we break the law.

...

of course - you might not have been talking to me...who knows any more. I'm at the tail end of a 16 hour day at the office so I am a little sleepy.

Smoke 'em if you got em.

Originally Posted by ems_goof

Doing a presentation to a driver's education class about drunk driving once, I came up with the number of people directly affected by just one person's choice to drive while intoxicated - wrecking their car on a deserted road. I don't remember the exact number, but it was over 40. So the BS of "I'm the only one it affects" can just be left at the door.

Ok, so since alcohol causes drunk driving which causes dead people... should we arrest sober people for having a six pack of beer on their possession? We tried that, it was called prohibition, it failed. See above, see above.

Originally Posted by Consultant

You or I can do whatever we want with our bodies. The cops have and will continue to throw people in jail if those activities violate the law, however.

Repeatedly describing the current legal situation has no place in an argument about what that situation SHOULD be.

Imagine somebody saying this 100 years ago: "Well, you may think that women should have voting rights... but that doesn't change the fact that they DON'T." (well DUH, but how does that contribute anything to the discussion?)

Of course the cops will throw you in jail for breaking the law (DUH). Which proves that you CAN'T (legally) do what you want with your own body. Which is a sad state of affairs. We're afraid of chemically crazed maniacs being unleashed, but the people that do turn out that way (and I won't deny they exist) aren't stopped at ALL by the current laws. Do you think alcoholics even CONSIDERED drying out during prohibition? Prohibition of any kind only takes away from the innocents.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I guess its just funny to you that kids die from illegal drugs. Nice

No, the point of that picture, since you missed it, is that it is silly to limit our freedoms "because of the children."

How many children do you think have died at the hands of a legally owned gun? Do you think guns should be outlawed?

How many marriages have been broken up by a WoW addiction, thereby damaging the children? Do you think video games should be outlawed?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by Veovis

Panic, you obviously aren't thinking of the children.

I guess its just funny to you that kids die from illegal drugs. Nice

Veovis hit it spot on.......

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by Veovis

Originally Posted by ems_goof

Doing a presentation to a driver's education class about drunk driving once, I came up with the number of people directly affected by just one person's choice to drive while intoxicated - wrecking their car on a deserted road. I don't remember the exact number, but it was over 40. So the BS of "I'm the only one it affects" can just be left at the door.

Ok, so since alcohol causes drunk driving which causes dead people... should we arrest sober people for having a six pack of beer on their possession? We tried that, it was called prohibition, it failed. See above, see above.

Originally Posted by Consultant

You or I can do whatever we want with our bodies. The cops have and will continue to throw people in jail if those activities violate the law, however.

Repeatedly describing the current legal situation has no place in an argument about what that situation SHOULD be.

Imagine somebody saying this 100 years ago: "Well, you may think that women should have voting rights... but that doesn't change the fact that they DON'T." (well DUH, but how does that contribute anything to the discussion?)

Of course the cops will throw you in jail for breaking the law (DUH). Which proves that you CAN'T (legally) do what you want with your own body. Which is a sad state of affairs. We're afraid of chemically crazed maniacs being unleashed, but the people that do turn out that way (and I won't deny they exist) aren't stopped at ALL by the current laws. Do you think alcoholics even CONSIDERED drying out during prohibition? Prohibition of any kind only takes away from the innocents.

And who says it's not as it should be? I happen to like the way it is now. For the most part it keeps all of my shit in my house. Whos to say that would be the case if all drugs were legalised? No one in here is the great massia. I don't remember anyone being a prophet. Let time i checks it was still a group of normal people that like to exspress there opinion around like it's a fact.

Whats a sad state of affairs? The fact you cant walk outside and shot your neighbor because he's being to loud. I will concede to the fact there are plenty of laws that should not exsist however this is not one of them.

Everytime this is brought up all we hear is prohibition blah blah blah. That story is dead get past it. There is no comparison between illegal narcotics and alcohol. You could twist it like everyone always does and try to make it mj verses alcohol but that isn't the topic. Let me know when alcohol is as addictive as illegal narcotics not just mj because thats what the war on"drugs" is about.

How was it deemed as you put it

illegal narcotics

?

Was the ban itself justified in the first place?

Educate yourself on the matter and listen to the reasons stated in the 1930's.


I get a good laugh myself from the reasons.

but to you I am sure you are all for it 100% and it does make people turn ultra violent.....