| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Horvath wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:16:27 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote this crap: I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. You've probably never seen one of your good friends whacked out on coke. So what? Ive seen thousand wacked out on Jack Daniels and such. I agree with Gilligan, Legalise it and let the losers snuff themselfs out, less burden on the system. The cost will drop, and less drug related crimes will happen. **** we should do like Canada and give the herion guys lots of needles and a enough smack to OD. Joe Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Right you are Joe. Let the weakling kills themselves. If it's legal the
profit motive is less, so less crime. Fat people are addicted to food, you don;t see them killing for food (yet) or chubbies selling food on the street corner. Simply look at what Prohibition did to the US. The war on drugs is the same. If something is outlawed, it just gives a monopoly to the criminals. All victimless crimes should be legal. Gilligan "Joe" wrote in message om... Horvath wrote in message . .. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:16:27 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote this crap: I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. You've probably never seen one of your good friends whacked out on coke. So what? Ive seen thousand wacked out on Jack Daniels and such. I agree with Gilligan, Legalise it and let the losers snuff themselfs out, less burden on the system. The cost will drop, and less drug related crimes will happen. **** we should do like Canada and give the herion guys lots of needles and a enough smack to OD. Joe Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Horvath wrote in message . ..
On 24 Nov 2004 18:55:21 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: Horvath wrote in message . .. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:16:27 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote this crap: I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. You've probably never seen one of your good friends whacked out on coke. So what? Ive seen thousand wacked out on Jack Daniels and such. You have no idea what you are talking about. It's completely different. BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies covered with cotton feaver sores to dead drunks with there faces split in half when they had a head on wreck with a telephone pole. Once I had the pleasure of scraping a young girl off a submarine she did a swan dive on from 8 stories up, she was drunk and doing acid. Oh and the guy who choked on his own vomit while on smack, he drowned. But face it Horvath aint nothing you can do. If they want it they will get it and take it. Ive got better things to do then babysit retards who can not control thier own actions or handle thier drug of choice. And I think anyone should be free to do or take what ever he or she choses to do. Be an adult and be responsiable for your own actions. BTW I also know many people that smoke weed daily and own multi million dollars businesses or have high profile careers and have no problem with it at all. Just like I know some people that know when to say when while drinking. It aint the type of drug, it's the type of person using that drug. Like Gilligan said, all victim less crimes should be abolished. And the people that do victimise others should pay to the max. Joe Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
But, how does one define a 'victim'?
Does a victim have to be a human being? If so, it would not be a crime to kill endangered species. It would not be a crime to wantonly pollute the environment. You could just dump your crap anywhere. And what about shooting somebody's dog. A dog certainly is not human. Until you can define 'victim' it is ludicrous to use the term 'victimless crime'. Can the environment be a victim? Can a fetus be a victim? Can an empty building somebody torches be a victim? "Victimless crime" - a typical example of liberal doublespeak. Shame on Gilligan and any others for using the term, let alone advocating for it. CN "Joe" wrote in message om... Horvath wrote in message . .. On 24 Nov 2004 18:55:21 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: Horvath wrote in message . .. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:16:27 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote this crap: I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. You've probably never seen one of your good friends whacked out on coke. So what? Ive seen thousand wacked out on Jack Daniels and such. You have no idea what you are talking about. It's completely different. BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies covered with cotton feaver sores to dead drunks with there faces split in half when they had a head on wreck with a telephone pole. Once I had the pleasure of scraping a young girl off a submarine she did a swan dive on from 8 stories up, she was drunk and doing acid. Oh and the guy who choked on his own vomit while on smack, he drowned. But face it Horvath aint nothing you can do. If they want it they will get it and take it. Ive got better things to do then babysit retards who can not control thier own actions or handle thier drug of choice. And I think anyone should be free to do or take what ever he or she choses to do. Be an adult and be responsiable for your own actions. BTW I also know many people that smoke weed daily and own multi million dollars businesses or have high profile careers and have no problem with it at all. Just like I know some people that know when to say when while drinking. It aint the type of drug, it's the type of person using that drug. Like Gilligan said, all victim less crimes should be abolished. And the people that do victimise others should pay to the max. Joe Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
No shame at all. I'm 100% consistent:
"I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. I think business should have minimal regulation. I believe in well defined and vigorously enforced property rights. I believe in the Constitution. You are a wacko Neo-Con. All you can comprehend is far right religious wackoism or the opposite extreme, far left wackoism. If you choose to drive down the highway of life with your right tires constantly rubbing the curb, go ahead. You wacko! Gilligan, who proudly voted Republican by writing in Goldwater." All the problems you have mentioned exist because of ill defined property rights. Pollution, shooting dog = destroying some elses property. Victim = someone who has had their unalienable rights violated. Unalienable rights = life, liberty, property (the fruits of your labor) Victimless crime = a "crime" created by the state where two or more enter into a non coercive mutual agreement to the benefit of both parties, including individual action. The state defines the behavior (even of a single individual) or outcome of the agreement as a crime. Examples: prostitution, reading certain material, consuming certain substances, gambling, smoking, displaying the Declaration of Independence in schools, hanging the ten commandments in a public place, saying things that may be "offensive", travel to Cuba, etc. No one's unalienable rights are violated by these actions. "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... But, how does one define a 'victim'? Does a victim have to be a human being? If so, it would not be a crime to kill endangered species. It would not be a crime to wantonly pollute the environment. You could just dump your crap anywhere. And what about shooting somebody's dog. A dog certainly is not human. Until you can define 'victim' it is ludicrous to use the term 'victimless crime'. Can the environment be a victim? Can a fetus be a victim? Can an empty building somebody torches be a victim? "Victimless crime" - a typical example of liberal doublespeak. Shame on Gilligan and any others for using the term, let alone advocating for it. CN "Joe" wrote in message om... Horvath wrote in message . .. On 24 Nov 2004 18:55:21 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: Horvath wrote in message . .. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:16:27 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote this crap: I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. You've probably never seen one of your good friends whacked out on coke. So what? Ive seen thousand wacked out on Jack Daniels and such. You have no idea what you are talking about. It's completely different. BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies covered with cotton feaver sores to dead drunks with there faces split in half when they had a head on wreck with a telephone pole. Once I had the pleasure of scraping a young girl off a submarine she did a swan dive on from 8 stories up, she was drunk and doing acid. Oh and the guy who choked on his own vomit while on smack, he drowned. But face it Horvath aint nothing you can do. If they want it they will get it and take it. Ive got better things to do then babysit retards who can not control thier own actions or handle thier drug of choice. And I think anyone should be free to do or take what ever he or she choses to do. Be an adult and be responsiable for your own actions. BTW I also know many people that smoke weed daily and own multi million dollars businesses or have high profile careers and have no problem with it at all. Just like I know some people that know when to say when while drinking. It aint the type of drug, it's the type of person using that drug. Like Gilligan said, all victim less crimes should be abolished. And the people that do victimise others should pay to the max. Joe Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
We are talking about the term 'victimless crime' and I fail
to see that is exclusively to do with property rights. Simply not so! Allow me to give you some examples. Certain things such the very air we breath cannot be defined as property rights yet laws have been passed that make it illegal for people to smoke in enclosed spaces. This is because smoking is not a victimless crime. Smokers force others to breathe their smoke. They take away an unalienable right - to breath air that is clean and does not smell or harm one's health. There is property such one's lawn, house, dog etc. You are correct with respect to that. Where your argument breaks down is on things such as air, freedom of movement, freedom to think and say what one wishes. These have nothing whatsoever to do with property yet they come under the term unalienable rights. Let's take abortion. In spite of what liberal Supreme Court Judges ruled in Roe v. Wade, a woman's right to choose is NOT an unalienable right. Rather, it is a legal right conferred by the Court. Why is it not a victimless crime? It is not a victimless crime because there is a victim - the aborted baby. Yet it is legal. Confused? You should be. It proves that the term victimless crime is too vague to ever expect consideration when you argue "all victimless crimes should be legal". What occurs is a prolonged argument of what comprises a victimless crime and no progress is ever made toward the goal of legalizing that which cannot be defined either by property rights or unalienable rights. A smart libertarian would argue that all unalienable rights are protected by the Constitution and that to grow and smoke ones own herb is protected by the Constitution. Don't call smoking your own homegrown weed a victimless crime as it is not a crime of any type according to the Constitution. You already have one foot in the jailhouse simply because you admit it is a crime. Adding the word victimless to the word crime does not negate the fact that it's still a crime. Get it.? In words even a mountain man from the liberal state of Colorado would understand, don't get down in the mud and wrestle with the pigs - you will find they like it. CN "Gilligan" wrote in message ink.net... No shame at all. I'm 100% consistent: "I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. I think business should have minimal regulation. I believe in well defined and vigorously enforced property rights. I believe in the Constitution. You are a wacko Neo-Con. All you can comprehend is far right religious wackoism or the opposite extreme, far left wackoism. If you choose to drive down the highway of life with your right tires constantly rubbing the curb, go ahead. You wacko! Gilligan, who proudly voted Republican by writing in Goldwater." All the problems you have mentioned exist because of ill defined property rights. Pollution, shooting dog = destroying some elses property. Victim = someone who has had their unalienable rights violated. Unalienable rights = life, liberty, property (the fruits of your labor) Victimless crime = a "crime" created by the state where two or more enter into a non coercive mutual agreement to the benefit of both parties, including individual action. The state defines the behavior (even of a single individual) or outcome of the agreement as a crime. Examples: prostitution, reading certain material, consuming certain substances, gambling, smoking, displaying the Declaration of Independence in schools, hanging the ten commandments in a public place, saying things that may be "offensive", travel to Cuba, etc. No one's unalienable rights are violated by these actions. "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... But, how does one define a 'victim'? Does a victim have to be a human being? If so, it would not be a crime to kill endangered species. It would not be a crime to wantonly pollute the environment. You could just dump your crap anywhere. And what about shooting somebody's dog. A dog certainly is not human. Until you can define 'victim' it is ludicrous to use the term 'victimless crime'. Can the environment be a victim? Can a fetus be a victim? Can an empty building somebody torches be a victim? "Victimless crime" - a typical example of liberal doublespeak. Shame on Gilligan and any others for using the term, let alone advocating for it. CN "Joe" wrote in message om... Horvath wrote in message . .. On 24 Nov 2004 18:55:21 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: Horvath wrote in message . .. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:16:27 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote this crap: I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. You've probably never seen one of your good friends whacked out on coke. So what? Ive seen thousand wacked out on Jack Daniels and such. You have no idea what you are talking about. It's completely different. BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies covered with cotton feaver sores to dead drunks with there faces split in half when they had a head on wreck with a telephone pole. Once I had the pleasure of scraping a young girl off a submarine she did a swan dive on from 8 stories up, she was drunk and doing acid. Oh and the guy who choked on his own vomit while on smack, he drowned. But face it Horvath aint nothing you can do. If they want it they will get it and take it. Ive got better things to do then babysit retards who can not control thier own actions or handle thier drug of choice. And I think anyone should be free to do or take what ever he or she choses to do. Be an adult and be responsiable for your own actions. BTW I also know many people that smoke weed daily and own multi million dollars businesses or have high profile careers and have no problem with it at all. Just like I know some people that know when to say when while drinking. It aint the type of drug, it's the type of person using that drug. Like Gilligan said, all victim less crimes should be abolished. And the people that do victimise others should pay to the max. Joe Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
A well thought out reply. Comments within:
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... We are talking about the term 'victimless crime' and I fail to see that is exclusively to do with property rights. First thing: you life is your exclusive property. From this all other non-conflicting rights are derived. Simply not so! Allow me to give you some examples. Certain things such the very air we breath cannot be defined as property rights yet laws have been passed that make it illegal for people to smoke in enclosed spaces. This is because smoking is not a victimless crime. Smokers force others to breathe their smoke. They take away an unalienable right - to breath air that is clean and does not smell or harm one's health. Breathing polluted air negatively affects one's life. There is property such one's lawn, house, dog etc. You are correct with respect to that. Where your argument breaks down is on things such as air, freedom of movement, freedom to think and say what one wishes. These have nothing whatsoever to do with property yet they come under the term unalienable rights. In order to own your life, you have the unalienable right to sustain it, as long as you don't violate the same rights as others. If you have no right to sustain your life, then you have no right to life (this argument can be used against abortion). You can travel freely, work, grow food, develop land, whatever. Let's take abortion. In spite of what liberal Supreme Court Judges ruled in Roe v. Wade, a woman's right to choose is NOT an unalienable right. Rather, it is a legal right conferred by the Court. Why is it not a victimless crime? It is not a victimless crime because there is a victim - the aborted baby. Yet it is legal. It's a crime with a victim if one regards the baby as a human being. There is also an argument that the fetus is a parasite (up to a certain stage of development) and hence, the mother has a right to terminate the pregnancy. Confused? You should be. It proves that the term victimless crime is too vague to ever expect consideration when you argue "all victimless crimes should be legal". I'm not confused, in fact things are simple with a few basic principles and definitions. What occurs is a prolonged argument of what comprises a victimless crime and no progress is ever made toward the goal of legalizing that which cannot be defined either by property rights or unalienable rights. Victimless crime = no injured party. A smart libertarian would argue that all unalienable rights are protected by the Constitution and that to grow and smoke ones own herb is protected by the Constitution. That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates powers to the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The People and the States respectively. Don't call smoking your own homegrown weed a victimless crime as it is not a crime of any type according to the Constitution. You already have one foot in the jailhouse simply because you admit it is a crime. Adding the word victimless to the word crime does not negate the fact that it's still a crime. The government has made it a crime, a crime without an injured party. Get it.? In words even a mountain man from the liberal state of Colorado would understand, don't get down in the mud and wrestle with the pigs - you will find they like it. Colorado is the second most economically free state in the nation. For the most part, the Democrats here are pretty conservative. The liberals are confined to four areas. CN "Gilligan" wrote in message ink.net... No shame at all. I'm 100% consistent: "I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. I think business should have minimal regulation. I believe in well defined and vigorously enforced property rights. I believe in the Constitution. You are a wacko Neo-Con. All you can comprehend is far right religious wackoism or the opposite extreme, far left wackoism. If you choose to drive down the highway of life with your right tires constantly rubbing the curb, go ahead. You wacko! Gilligan, who proudly voted Republican by writing in Goldwater." All the problems you have mentioned exist because of ill defined property rights. Pollution, shooting dog = destroying some elses property. Victim = someone who has had their unalienable rights violated. Unalienable rights = life, liberty, property (the fruits of your labor) Victimless crime = a "crime" created by the state where two or more enter into a non coercive mutual agreement to the benefit of both parties, including individual action. The state defines the behavior (even of a single individual) or outcome of the agreement as a crime. Examples: prostitution, reading certain material, consuming certain substances, gambling, smoking, displaying the Declaration of Independence in schools, hanging the ten commandments in a public place, saying things that may be "offensive", travel to Cuba, etc. No one's unalienable rights are violated by these actions. "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... But, how does one define a 'victim'? Does a victim have to be a human being? If so, it would not be a crime to kill endangered species. It would not be a crime to wantonly pollute the environment. You could just dump your crap anywhere. And what about shooting somebody's dog. A dog certainly is not human. Until you can define 'victim' it is ludicrous to use the term 'victimless crime'. Can the environment be a victim? Can a fetus be a victim? Can an empty building somebody torches be a victim? "Victimless crime" - a typical example of liberal doublespeak. Shame on Gilligan and any others for using the term, let alone advocating for it. CN "Joe" wrote in message om... Horvath wrote in message . .. On 24 Nov 2004 18:55:21 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: Horvath wrote in message . .. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:16:27 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote this crap: I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. You've probably never seen one of your good friends whacked out on coke. So what? Ive seen thousand wacked out on Jack Daniels and such. You have no idea what you are talking about. It's completely different. BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies covered with cotton feaver sores to dead drunks with there faces split in half when they had a head on wreck with a telephone pole. Once I had the pleasure of scraping a young girl off a submarine she did a swan dive on from 8 stories up, she was drunk and doing acid. Oh and the guy who choked on his own vomit while on smack, he drowned. But face it Horvath aint nothing you can do. If they want it they will get it and take it. Ive got better things to do then babysit retards who can not control thier own actions or handle thier drug of choice. And I think anyone should be free to do or take what ever he or she choses to do. Be an adult and be responsiable for your own actions. BTW I also know many people that smoke weed daily and own multi million dollars businesses or have high profile careers and have no problem with it at all. Just like I know some people that know when to say when while drinking. It aint the type of drug, it's the type of person using that drug. Like Gilligan said, all victim less crimes should be abolished. And the people that do victimise others should pay to the max. Joe Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Capt. Neal® wrote in message ...
But, how does one define a 'victim'? Victim: Someone hurt by someones elses actions. Does a victim have to be a human being? If so, it would not be a crime to kill endangered species. yes it would, you would be taking that species away from other people who enjoy them. Its like stealing. It would not be a crime to wantonly pollute the environment. yes it would. You do not own the enviroment...it owns you. You could just dump your crap anywhere. Then others would have to pay to clean it up. The ones who pay are victims. And what about shooting somebody's dog. A dog certainly is not human. It is property of another human. And it has a right to be treated humainly. Until you can define 'victim' it is ludicrous to use the term 'victimless crime'. Can the environment be a victim? Yes Can a fetus be a victim? Yes Can an empty building somebody torches be a victim? Yes if it has an owner, or someone has to pay to put it out. "Victimless crime" - a typical example of liberal doublespeak. It's not that complicated Neal. Joe Shame on Gilligan and any others for using the term, let alone advocating for it. CN "Joe" wrote in message om... Horvath wrote in message . .. On 24 Nov 2004 18:55:21 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: Horvath wrote in message . .. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:16:27 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote this crap: I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. You've probably never seen one of your good friends whacked out on coke. So what? Ive seen thousand wacked out on Jack Daniels and such. You have no idea what you are talking about. It's completely different. BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies covered with cotton feaver sores to dead drunks with there faces split in half when they had a head on wreck with a telephone pole. Once I had the pleasure of scraping a young girl off a submarine she did a swan dive on from 8 stories up, she was drunk and doing acid. Oh and the guy who choked on his own vomit while on smack, he drowned. But face it Horvath aint nothing you can do. If they want it they will get it and take it. Ive got better things to do then babysit retards who can not control thier own actions or handle thier drug of choice. And I think anyone should be free to do or take what ever he or she choses to do. Be an adult and be responsiable for your own actions. BTW I also know many people that smoke weed daily and own multi million dollars businesses or have high profile careers and have no problem with it at all. Just like I know some people that know when to say when while drinking. It aint the type of drug, it's the type of person using that drug. Like Gilligan said, all victim less crimes should be abolished. And the people that do victimise others should pay to the max. Joe Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is very complicated because the term victimless crime is
a non sequitur. By definition if there is a crime there is a victim or it would not be a crime. One can stretch and stretch and always find a victim. What if you cut down a tree. The tree is a victim? Is it a crime to cut down a tree. Or does the tree have to be owned by a human and the human becomes a victim before cutting down of the tree becomes a crime? My point is it is stupid to use liberal double speak to attempt to help your cause. Calling smoking pot a victimless crime plays right into the hands of the liberals who demand pot remain illegal. When you say smoking pot is a victimless crime they can say it is a crime and they can go to extreme lengths to find a victim so, in this manner, they prevail. If libertarians and any other right thinking people would stop using liberal double speak like victimless crime they would have a much better chance of getting their agenda accepted as reasonable. Don't use the term victimless crime at all. Stop playing the liberal PC and double speak game. They will beat you every time as long as your attempt to fight them on their own terms. Is this so hard to understand? Just say smoking pot is no crime and make the liberals prove it is. All they will be able to come up with is court rulings. Conservatives have the Constitution which gives us unalienable rights among which are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If smoking pot makes me happy then it is Constitutionally guaranteed as long as I don't force it on somebody else. CN "Joe" wrote in message om... Capt. Neal® wrote in message ... But, how does one define a 'victim'? Victim: Someone hurt by someones elses actions. Does a victim have to be a human being? If so, it would not be a crime to kill endangered species. yes it would, you would be taking that species away from other people who enjoy them. Its like stealing. It would not be a crime to wantonly pollute the environment. yes it would. You do not own the enviroment...it owns you. You could just dump your crap anywhere. Then others would have to pay to clean it up. The ones who pay are victims. And what about shooting somebody's dog. A dog certainly is not human. It is property of another human. And it has a right to be treated humainly. Until you can define 'victim' it is ludicrous to use the term 'victimless crime'. Can the environment be a victim? Yes Can a fetus be a victim? Yes Can an empty building somebody torches be a victim? Yes if it has an owner, or someone has to pay to put it out. "Victimless crime" - a typical example of liberal doublespeak. It's not that complicated Neal. Joe Shame on Gilligan and any others for using the term, let alone advocating for it. CN "Joe" wrote in message om... Horvath wrote in message . .. On 24 Nov 2004 18:55:21 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: Horvath wrote in message . .. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:16:27 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote this crap: I'm no liberal in the modern sense at all. I'm a classic liberal or libertarian. I think drugs should be legal. You've probably never seen one of your good friends whacked out on coke. So what? Ive seen thousand wacked out on Jack Daniels and such. You have no idea what you are talking about. It's completely different. BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies covered with cotton feaver sores to dead drunks with there faces split in half when they had a head on wreck with a telephone pole. Once I had the pleasure of scraping a young girl off a submarine she did a swan dive on from 8 stories up, she was drunk and doing acid. Oh and the guy who choked on his own vomit while on smack, he drowned. But face it Horvath aint nothing you can do. If they want it they will get it and take it. Ive got better things to do then babysit retards who can not control thier own actions or handle thier drug of choice. And I think anyone should be free to do or take what ever he or she choses to do. Be an adult and be responsiable for your own actions. BTW I also know many people that smoke weed daily and own multi million dollars businesses or have high profile careers and have no problem with it at all. Just like I know some people that know when to say when while drinking. It aint the type of drug, it's the type of person using that drug. Like Gilligan said, all victim less crimes should be abolished. And the people that do victimise others should pay to the max. Joe Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Bwahaha! Bye Bye Bushy! | ASA | |||
| It's only the liberals hating. | ASA | |||
Hybrid Mode
