President Obama gets something else right. by AURaptor

America loves a winner!

Quote:

Wulfenstar wrote:
Friday, February 27, 2009 07:54
Actually AU, he is right on this one.

Weed should be treated like booze.

I said exactly that.

I don't promote drug USE, but I am for its legalization.

And tax it like tobacco, we'll see the deficit go...up in smoke

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 8:53 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Wulfenstar wrote:
Friday, February 27, 2009 07:54
Actually AU, he is right on this one.

Weed should be treated like booze.

I said exactly that.

I don't promote drug USE, but I am for its legalization.

And tax it like tobacco, we'll see the deficit go...up in smoke

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

And once again, 'Rap and I find ourselves in agreement.

And good one on the "up in smoke" part, too - that's funny! I LOL'd.

Hell, America NEEDS a new cash crop. Just think - instead of paying farmers to NOT grow corn or wheat, we pay them to grow pot. Now we have a new cash crop, a new export, and soon the rest of the world will be stoned and productivity will go down to our levels.

Mike

If you're going to assume anything, assume you're wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 8:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Actually AU, he is right on this one.

Weed should be treated like booze.

EXACTLY like booze. DUI, underage use, working while high, all of those should be dealt with harshly.

I have zero problem with someone toking up when they're safe at home, or out in a bar with a ride home, but I can't stand the idiot stoners who insist that it makes them a better driver! (And yes, I've actually known people who insisted on that shit.)

Mike

If you're going to assume anything, assume you're wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 9:27 AM

CHRISISALL

I agree with AU here as well.
*slaps self to see if he's dreaming*

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 9:30 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I agree with AU here as well.
*slaps self to see if he's dreaming*

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

Not so easy to pigeon hole after all, huh?

Like the good captain says...

You can't open the book of my life
and jump in the middle....
I am a mystery

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 11:49 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
*slaps self to see if he's dreaming*

*slaps self as well*
Wow, I think we all agree, here. That's... well, encouraging.
I, too, don't promote drug use, but think that this one especially should be legal. And subject to tax, though I'm not sure how that would work on those who grow their own for personal use.
Anyway, if Prozac is going to be legal, even encouraged... Well, like I said, we all seem to be in agreement.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
*slaps self to see if he's dreaming*

*slaps self as well*
Wow, I think we all agree, here. That's... well, encouraging.
I, too, don't promote drug use, but think that this one especially should be legal. And subject to tax, though I'm not sure how that would work on those who grow their own for personal use.
Anyway, if Prozac is going to be legal, even encouraged... Well, like I said, we all seem to be in agreement.

[/sig]

Yup, legalize it all you want, and you'll get nary a complaint from me. Know how much pot I'll smoke to celebrate once it's legal? Not a bit. I've smoked plenty in my life, but just never could really develop much of a taste for it.

Mike

If you're going to assume anything, assume you're wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 12:27 PM

WHOZIT

I still think Barry's a hemorrhoid

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 1:45 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Yup, legalize it all you want, and you'll get nary a complaint from me. Know how much pot I'll smoke to celebrate once it's legal? Not a bit. I've smoked plenty in my life, but just never could really develop much of a taste for it.

I haven't smoked pot in twenty years, but if they legalize it I'm going to run out and buy me a double bubble bong and a sack of seeds.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 1:58 PM

CELLARDOOR

Yeah, I believe states (or more of them anyway) should legalize its use so it can be a taxable commodity. Take that, deficit! Plus, it'll potentially keep more people out of jail for petty crimes. Well, provided that we *do* enforce laws about DUI, underage use, etc. by prevention.

Intriguing article. I don't know posters here yet really, but I'm getting a picture of completely diverse "crew members" sitting down and sharing dinner together over this topic. :) Nice to have some points of agreement.

--Fitting banner quotation: "Once again, the Browncoats have proven to be both an intelligent and generous group of people in a world where each quality sometimes seems to be in very short supply." - Chris Buchanan

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 2:47 PM

CellarDoor - Welcome aboard. Nice name, too - Donnie Darko reference?

Heck, even if we couldn't all sit down to dinner together, we could probably pass around Kirk's new bong and share some munchies!

Mike

If you're going to assume anything, assume you're wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 3:00 PM

America loves a winner!

And while I'm in a giving mood, I might as well give props , though cautiously optimistic, to Obama's Iraq announcement. The troops have fought long and hard and deserve to be brought home.

Hoo rah!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 3:58 PM

Quote:

And while I'm in a giving mood, I might as well give props , though cautiously optimistic, to Obama's Iraq announcement. The troops have fought long and hard and deserve to be brought home.

Hoo rah!

Seconded, again. When I heard that he'd given the order, I actually teared up - something which took me completely by surprise.

May all of our soldiers be safe until they can get back home.

Mike

If you're going to assume anything, assume you're wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 4:08 PM

America loves a winner!

Of course, they won't all ALL be coming home by the deadline, and many will be home long enough to be reassigned, - to Afghanistan, but I think most would probably agree that's where they are needed the most now.

We'll just have to wait and see.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 5:16 PM

NCBROWNCOAT

I usually don't post around here but I have to agree with legalizing pot and getting out of Iraq.

Tax the hell out of pot, make misusing it subject to harsh penalties and NC might have a new cash crop now that tobacco is gone. Small amounts for personal use only though.

I've never used it and most likely never will but I've seen people just moved again and again through the justice system. Unfortuntatly prescription drugs (0xycodone, and my gosh even Ritalin)seem to be the most abused and illegally sold now days.

And coming from an area of the country with a heavy military emphasis, it is time to ease out of Iraq and let them do it on their own.

Afghanistan needs our attention now. It should have been taken care of first. And this comes from a very pro military, active duty veteran who is becoming very middle of the road person who tries to listen to both sides and sift out the best policy. Heck I could almost be called a middle of the road almost libertarian.

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 6:03 PM

Quote:

Of course, they won't all ALL be coming home by the deadline, and many will be home long enough to be reassigned, - to Afghanistan, but I think most would probably agree that's where they are needed the most now.

True, there are going to be some 50,000 still in Iraq, which is a whole bunch, but a whole lot less than there have been.

And I'd say they've been needed the most in Afghanistan since about, oh... September 12, 2001?

I'm taking getting the majority of our combat troops out of Iraq as a GOOD sign, though. Let's hope the good news continues from that part of the world.

Mike

If you're going to assume anything, assume you're wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2009 11:18 PM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
.

I have zero problem with someone toking up when they're safe at home, or out in a bar with a ride home, but I can't stand the idiot stoners who insist that it makes them a better driver! (And yes, I've actually known people who insisted on that shit.

Slight aside on this topic: I've heard it reported by several sources (including Spider Robinson, in a fictional context in his novel Lifehouse), that a study was done in New York State in the early 1970's, measuring driving skills in six graded states of inebriation, comparing/contrasting alcohol with THC. Alcohol consistently degraded driving skills on all six levels, but on the lowest rung of THC consumption driving skill actually increased slightly.

This was attributed to the verifiable fact that THC intake can temporarily improve both depth perception and peripheral vision (due to the same characteristics that make it a viable glaucoma treatment.) It should be noted, however, that once you moved into the next level of THC intox, your driving skills went downhill very quickly--by the fourth tier there was little difference between the drunk and the stoned.

The decision was made not to publish the results, and while I don't usually approve of scientific censorship, in this case I'm willing to make an exception.

There are, after all, a lot of fools in the world, whose reasoning is "If a pinch of salt makes the soup taste better, then a cupful will make it taste fantastic!" The fact that a micro-dose of THC might improve driving skills does not translate into "Take six bong hits and then pop the clutch!" -- but you can bet that's how your average Darwin Award nominee would take it . . .

-----------

On the topic of the main thread, I'd like to say that, whatever your politics, this has to be considered the single most rational drug policy decision to come out of the White House for the last thirty years. Screw politics, screw liberal or conservative, this one's just freaking common sense! About time someone had the huevos to say so.

"Vice is not crime." -- The Rev. Henry Ward Beecher

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 1:09 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

I agree with AU here as well.
*slaps self to see if he's dreaming*

LOL Chris, ya' know, I actually felt the world stop for just a second. Strange days indeed!

Next thing ya' know we'll be sitting around the campfire singing Kumbayah!

The ever hopeful.....

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 3:49 AM

Universal agreement huh? Well, we can't have that.

I think the "legalize it and tax it" chant is bullshit. Sin taxes in general are bullshit. Regardless of the rationalization, they're taxes levied against minority targets of convenience. That's not egalitarian democracy in my book.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 4:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Universal agreement huh? Well, we can't have that.

I think the "legalize it and tax it" chant is bullshit. Sin taxes in general are bullshit. Regardless of the rationalization, they're taxes levied against minority targets of convenience. That's not egalitarian democracy in my book.

Who said anything about a sin tax?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Universal agreement huh? Well, we can't have that.

I think the "legalize it and tax it" chant is bullshit. Sin taxes in general are bullshit. Regardless of the rationalization, they're taxes levied against minority targets of convenience. That's not egalitarian democracy in my book.

Who said anything about a sin tax?

The usual scheme discussed is to have higher than usual taxes on it after it's legalized, like we do with tobacco. If we're only talking the usual sales and excise taxes, I got no beef.

But that puts us back to universal agreement. How boring is that?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The usual scheme discussed is to have higher than usual taxes on it after it's legalized, like we do with tobacco. If we're only talking the usual sales and excise taxes, I got no beef.

But that puts us back to universal agreement. How boring is that?

Well, in that case, shut up you filthy piece of distended rectum :p.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:54 AM

I was about to point out the asshattery of using taxes to discourage behavior based on a moral agenda not everyone shares, but Sarge beat me to it.

That said, yanno - I never cared much for weed, value clarity of mind too greatly to screw with it, beyond a very occasional couple belts of cheap rotgut...

But Kallista, my cat, loves the stuff more than catnip - just imagine that convo at the store?
"No, seriously, it's for my cat."

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
But Kallista, my cat, loves the stuff more than catnip - just imagine that convo at the store?
"No, seriously, it's for my cat."

-F

Heh.... a friend my once had a cat was the opposite. She would snag bags of weed and bury them in her litter box. We even tested her, with oregano and the like - there was something about pot that really pissed her off. She'd get really anxious about it too, until she had it buried and out of site.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:17 AM

Is a tax of marijuana over and above normal sales tax necessarily a 'sin-tax'? If I'm fine with legalisation, and I have no moral or ethical objection to people getting stoned, but also support a 'marijuana tax', wouldn't that mean that the tax isn't a 'sin-tax' by definition?

What if the tax were levied as a balance for the financial costs drug taking can have on a society?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
What if the tax were levied as a balance for the financial costs drug taking can have on a society?

I follow your reasoning here, but I think that's a really bad way to go. Such "costs" are vague and difficult to determine in any case. Lots of bad legislation is based on such "indirect costs to society" and its usually a lame rationalization for some other motive (like taxing people because they're doing something you consider to be a sin).

Looking at it another way, what other kinds of taxes would result if we applied such logic consistently?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I follow your reasoning here, but I think that's a really bad way to go. Such "costs" are vague and difficult to determine in any case. Lots of really bad legislation is based on such "indirect costs to society" and its usually a lame rationalization for some other motive (like taxing people because they're doing something you consider to be a sin).

I see no reason why it couldn't be as easy as calculating an insurance payment.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:54 AM

Quote:

Slight aside on this topic: I've heard it reported by several sources (including Spider Robinson, in a fictional context in his novel Lifehouse), that a study was done in New York State in the early 1970's, measuring driving skills in six graded states of inebriation, comparing/contrasting alcohol with THC. Alcohol consistently degraded driving skills on all six levels, but on the lowest rung of THC consumption driving skill actually increased slightly.

RJ: I can accept that, and don't have any reason to doubt it. Like you pointed out, though, too many people will look at results like that and use it as an excuse to get totally baked before getting behind the wheel. Trust me, the LAST thing we need is people being worse at driving than they already are! :)

I saw a not-very-scientific test in Car & Driver magazine some years back - and I mean quite a few years, because they couldn't do it now without a shitstorm of controversy - where they did similar tests with booze. They had a closed course, and would give the drivers a shot of vodka, wait a bit, and then have them drive the course as quickly and accurately as they could. Logic says that repetition will yield quicker times (as a former autocross racer, I can say that my last run wasn't always my quickest, but my FIRST run was NEVER my best). What they found, though, was that almost universally, those with one or two shots in them - and time for it to affect their driving - were turning the best times. They had just the right mix of aggressiveness, skill, and fearlessness to cut it right down to the wire. Thing is, once they started piling shots on top of that, skills went rapidly downward, and times went rapidly up. By the time they were blowing twice the legal limit, I don't think any of them could get through the course cleanly in any amount of time.

It was an interesting article. It always made me wonder if a professional driver or a semi-pro would do better at or near the legal limit than a stone sober, distracted driver talking on the phone, eating a sandwich, or smacking his kids while trying to negotiate a tricky obstacle course.

Just somethin' to ponder...

Mike

If you're going to assume anything, assume you're wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:58 AM

Quote:

What if the tax were levied as a balance for the financial costs drug taking can have on a society?

It's not that it's necessarily a bad idea, Cit, it's just that in practice it never works out that way. One of the big tax jumps they put on tobacco was supposed to cover anti-tobacco education and health care costs for victims of tobacco use, but it's never long before some genius in Congress gets the bright idea to raid that particular cookiejar to fund some other asinine program.

I wouldn't have a problem with "sin taxes" if they actually USED them to treat the effects of the particular "sin" - but it never seems to work out that way, at least not for long.

Mike

If you're going to assume anything, assume you're wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 11:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I saw a not-very-scientific test in Car & Driver magazine some years back - and I mean quite a few years, because they couldn't do it now without a shitstorm of controversy - where they did similar tests with booze.

I saw something similar with London bus drivers, who after a single shot of whiskey could no longer accurately judge the clearance of two cones.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's not that it's necessarily a bad idea, Cit, it's just that in practice it never works out that way. One of the big tax jumps they put on tobacco was supposed to cover anti-tobacco education and health care costs for victims of tobacco use, but it's never long before some genius in Congress gets the bright idea to raid that particular cookiejar to fund some other asinine program.

Don't put them into the same pot. We separate National Insurance, that pays for pensions and health, separately from other taxes, and the government can't use it for anything else. At least not without completely changing tax and budgetry law and mechanisms.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:19 PM

Quote:
We separate National Insurance, that pays for pensions and health, separately from other taxes, and the government can't use it for anything else.

Yeah, but just because YOUR government does something the smart way, is not guarantee that OUR government would follow suit...

Mike

If you're going to assume anything, assume you're wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yeah, but just because YOUR government does something the smart way, is not guarantee that OUR government would follow suit...

Heh. I've said similar. "Just because the US federal government can't do X, doesn't mean a Government can't". On the whole it's scary how generally incompetent the US federal government can be, no wonder you guys are very pro-states-rights. It seems for all the limitations the Founding Fathers implemented that have fallen by the way side, the 'hamstringing' hasn't.

In a completely unrelated thing, I keep having the desire to check this site just before I get a notification that someone has responded to a post of mine. Spooky.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 1:47 PM

You get notifications?

I s'pose I might, but they'd be going to an e-mail I had at a company 3 jobs ago... Maybe I should check that mail now and again.

Me, I just pop in when I get a moment, and there's usually something brewing.

Mike

If you're going to assume anything, assume you're wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2009 2:41 PM

Quote:
I saw something similar with London bus drivers, who after a single shot of whiskey could no longer accurately judge the clearance of two cones.

This is of course, on the presumption they could do it in the first place, right ?
*ducks*

Actually, London cabbies are pretty impressive behind the wheel, unlike in the states they actually have to pass some reasonable skill and knowledge tests, don't they ?

As for "sin" taxes - who the hell gets to decide, meh ?

Many studies have shown that a small amount of wine occasionally is actually a benefit to your health, but Nooooo, because of SOMEONE ELSES MORALITY, I get fuckin penalized for being a "sinful" person cause I want to follow a meal with a nice glass of port ?

Come on, that's asinine, let's not pretend it ain't.

Think about if they were taxed on say, MY morality, ok ?

300% excise on cellphones, with an added value to car insurance just for owning one (on the assumption you'll use it while driving, no more or less fair than the assumption that someone who uses alcohol will do so in a fashion detrimental to their health) - and the extra expense of annoying people with "secondhand conversation" and damaging their mental health.

Sound fair to you, prolly not - but this is the logic they're going for, behind these taxes, which are just a dodge to avoid admission of applying a moral/religious value to a "sinful" item, initially suggested by the goddamn temperance movement, which devolved into prohibition, which then eventually settled into legal but taxed like hell, on the ASSUMPTION that because anyone who buys alcohol is a scumbag who's going straight to hell and will obviously overindulge in such an "immoral" beverage...

And when the taxes reach a point where they're downright punitive and extortionate, enter the Free (black) market, which is freakin BOOMING right now on tobacco products, causing *more* waste in trying to enforce the tax than simply applying it at a reasonable value would be.

It's idiotic, end of story.

You wanna legalise it, then fine, legalise it, but don't for a minute think that if you legalise it and then tax it prohibitively and extortionately that any net benefit is gonna result when the street dealers laugh and undercut your foolishly overpriced product cause someone wanted to misuse the law to encourage/discourage behavior based on a RELIGIOUS morality.

Haven't we had enough of that stupid shit here in america ?

Don't we STILL have enough ?
Good fuckin heavens, I couldn't cook up chicken marsala last weekend cause GUESS what they wouldn't sell me, cause of the motherfuckin blue laws, ehe ?

Lemme make this abundantly, perfectly clear - I DO NOT SHARE THAT MORALITY, yes ?

Why should I be forced, or even encouraged/discouraged by the Government to abide by it ?

Why should it be automatically assumed that anyone using a product will do so in a harmful way ?

Could that not excuse a tax on spraypaint, or hairspray, on the ASSUMPTION that you will try to get high off the propellent ?

Dress it up all you like, this is a form of using the law to enforce religion, once you strip the bullshit off, and I have zero patience with that shit anymore.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 1, 2009 3:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You get notifications?

Aye, you can turn them off, but if I do I tend to forget which threads I'm posting on sometimes.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
This is of course, on the presumption they could do it in the first place, right ?
*ducks*

Heh, yeah. I think they used the same drivers, with and without the whiskey for a baseline. Having said that, I've seen a bus driver come up on the curb and almost run some one over, using the (abridged) excuse "He was in my way". I've had two cars hit several times by a bus when I was living next to a London borough. My Dad watched a bus drag my mums car twenty feet down the road, and when he came running out the Bus drivers excuse was that he hadn't realised. Hadn't realised not only that he had hit a car, but that he was dragging it down the road.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually, London cabbies are pretty impressive behind the wheel, unlike in the states they actually have to pass some reasonable skill and knowledge tests, don't they ?

They have to pass the knowledge, which means they hve to know the name and position of every street in London. They also have to pass a fairly intensive driving exam as part of that I think. That's only black cabs though, mini cabs just need a driving and taxi licence.

Black cabs get to charge more and have to carry hay in the boot by law. It's for the horse.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Why should it be automatically assumed that anyone using a product will do so in a harmful way ?

Could that not excuse a tax on spraypaint, or hairspray, on the ASSUMPTION that you will try to get high off the propellent ?

Not really. It's reasonable to assume if someone is buying something, they're doing so for it's stated purpose. The stated purpose of a spray can is to spray paint, not get high from solvents. The stated purpose of a bag of weed, is to get high.

I mean you don't buy a car so that you can turn it in to a horse and cart, do you?

Just shut the fuck up ok! :p

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 1, 2009 3:59 AM

Hey, um... Cit?

You might want to check your quotes for attribution. I think you've got me mistaken for Frem. Not that we're that far apart on lots of things...

Mike

If you're going to assume anything, assume you're wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 1, 2009 4:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Hey, um... Cit?

You might want to check your quotes for attribution. I think you've got me mistaken for Frem. Not that we're that far apart on lots of things...

Oh, yeah, sorry, errors in cut and paste. Fixed.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 1, 2009 12:16 PM

Uh huh, and what exactly do you think I was gonna use that bottle of Marsala FOR, ehe?

The assumption that folks are incapable of moderating their own behavior without the governments "help" - which, might I add, doesn't have any real effect beyond pissing them off and making them poorer - is an idiotic one at best.

And tell me why, pray tell, that I simply could not buy any on a sunday morning when I picked up the chicken and other ingredients, if not for someone elses religion ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-prohibitionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raines_law

Always thought it maybe a bit ironic for the same folks who shovelled this shit on us to make an issue of Sharia Law, myself.

And for I think imma have a side of brick sandwich, with a shot, with dinner, grrr.

Ok, yes, maybe a wee lil bit of overreaction, but I am seriously pissed off about it - I promised that girl Chicken Marsala (and I *did* deliver, thanks to borrowing a bottle from a friend) and to see that crestfallen look in her eyes cause of someone elses religious beliefs being forced on us under cover of law really set me off.

Kickin me in the teeth, that's one thing, but upsetting the girl was an express boarding pass for the pissed off express - imma chivalrous bastard, dichotomic that it might be.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 1, 2009 12:27 PM

I prefer Chicken Masala myself. Anyway:

So because your country has far too many Christian Fanatics with far too much control of government willing to force their views on others through law, the whole concept I was talking about is out the window, because it has to be a sin tax?

That makes no sense. How does picking one example of a sin tax or law, prove anything about completely unrelated things. If you're point is that it's stupid, I'd agree. I couldn't get drunk on Sunday when I was in Georgia, motherfuckers. If I wanted to spend my holiday sober, fuck it I don't know what would make me want that.

I just don't see what that has to say on anything I said.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 1, 2009 12:56 PM

Because of those very fanatics.

If a tax is levelled on Marijuana, it's GOING to be used like that, there's no preventing it, alas.

We can pretend otherwise till the cows come home, but it ain't gonna change nothing.

So I am pointing out in advance the inevitable mistake they're going to make if they do finally have the sense to legalize - because those self same folks who'll sabotage it that way will then use the very mistake they made in the first place to claim legalisation has failed, see ?

I mean, it'd be *nice* if they calculated the tax purely on an insurance style formula, but when you add in politicos looking for a cash cow to get the howling mob off their back over them bailing out their buddies at the howling mobs expense - an easily and previously demonised demographic, and add in the typical side order of christian fanaticism, that they will get all manner of stupid about it is all but inevitable.

I know how this is gonna go if they try, that's why I am so irate about it, see ?

And I happen to be pretty touchy about having someone elses religion crammed down my throat under cover of law - since you do not reside here, you've probably no idea just how close Congressman Ernest Istook came to actually outlawing many non-christian beliefs.

While he was distracting everyone with a wedge issue attempt to amend the constitution, his office was also sliding other bills under the table as fast as they could, some of which came DAMN close to passing, and would have rendered many non-christian religions and beliefs illegal in practice.

The FLDS matter didn't help my temper none regarding the issue neither, that fiasco was memorable even here, and still ain't by a longshot over, although I can no longer discuss certain details of it publicly.

Anyhows, the model you presented is likely a smart way to go about it, but it's just not possible here cause of the nature of the people who'd be makin those decisions, see ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 2, 2009 6:02 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I couldn't get drunk on Sunday when I was in Georgia, motherfuckers. If I wanted to spend my holiday sober, fuck it I don't know what would make me want that.

I just don't see what that has to say on anything I said.

You could if you were in a bar or restaurant, and it's after 12noon. ( Or it might be 11:45am, or 12:30, depending on where you are ) So you clearly could get drunk. Stop lying.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 2, 2009 7:36 AM

There are adults trying to have a conversation here, and they don't need a rude obnoxious little boy screaming for attention while they're doing it. Be quiet!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 2, 2009 8:18 AM

CORNCOBB

Hey 'Rap, gotta say, I'm with ya 100% on this, and on bringing the troops out of Iraq.

I don't think weed is all that harmful in moderation, and there's better ways to limit its use than criminalisation.

And as for the troops, I was against the Iraq war all along (which I know we won't agree on, don't worry). But more than that, I just think they're needed more in Afghanistan. I'm not big on war in general, bit of a peace-nik, but if its gotta be they should focus on the high-priority areas (like Afghanistan) and throw in as many ground troops as possible, thus limiting the need for air strikes.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 2, 2009 8:53 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There are adults trying to have a conversation here, and they don't need a rude obnoxious little boy screaming for attention while they're doing it. Be quiet!

The correct, adult response would have been...

" Oh yeah Rap, that's what I meant to say. We both agree that banning the sale of liquor / beer on Sunday is an archaic and failed policy, and allowing us to get a buzz on outside of our own homes is a sad concession for bowing down to the Baptist. Those silly laws should be repealed yesterday. "

Instead, you chose to go a different way.

Pity.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 2, 2009 9:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The correct, adult response would have been...

" Oh yeah Rap, that's what I meant to say. We both agree that banning the sale of liquor / beer on Sunday is an archaic and failed policy, and allowing us to get a buzz on outside of our own homes is a sad concession for bowing down to the Baptist. Those silly laws should be repealed yesterday. "

Instead, you chose to go a different way.

Pity.

The correct response would have been "yes Citizen, I realise I'm an immature troll, and people are trying to have a conversation, and it's wrong of me to throw tempertantrums because no one is paying attention to me. I'm sorry, and I'll try harder."

Instead, you chose to continue to throw your childish tempertantrum because no one was paying you any attention.

I eternally hold out hope that you'll grow up, but not today. *Sigh*.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 2, 2009 9:21 AM

America loves a winner!

The childish one telling others they're being childish.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 2, 2009 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The childish one telling others they're being childish.

Translation : "I know you are but what am I"

Bub-bye, no more attention for you.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 2, 2009 11:31 AM