|
Notice how the liberals no longer mention Afghanistan
OzOne wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:40:59 -0500, Capt. Neal® scribbled thusly: Notice how all the dire predictions the liberals had about Afghanistan have not come true. Notice how the libs no longer mention Afghanistan because it proves how wrong they were about it. Maybe you could read this http://tinyurl.com/3j9nw The Taliban, which is growing in strength, has vowed to thwart the elections. Its daily attacks on voter registration has killed 650 people so far, including several foreigners. Seventeen men were killed in June, supposedly because they were carrying voter registration cards. The Afghan women willing to talk to me openly about the issue told me they would not register, nor vote, because, "it's just too risky". They lived in Kabul, where voter security will supposedly be "guaranteed" by NATO's omnipresent International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The UN rates 169 of the country's 361 territories as medium or high risk. Much of this area is off limits to UN staff. UNDP admits that "due to financial, logistical and security constraints the registration exercise could not be expanded to the provinces, as originally scheduled". Security is not the only thing hampering the voter registration process. In many areas, particularly in the south, socio-cultural factors stop women from registering. Even if the current UN estimate that 40% of registrations are women is correct, there needs to be substantial progress in reversing women's restricted mobility and participation in public life, their lack of access to information and their dismal literacy levels (21%), to ensure anything resembling equal access to the electoral process. It is difficult to believe the highly publicised registration count. Last week, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana rang Karzai to congratulate him on his choice of running mate for the election and commend him on the voter registration level - supposedly 7.5 million out of the estimated 10 million eligible voters. With the country still in ruins, 180,000 displaced persons and more than 2 million refugees in the surrounding region, all of whom are eligible to vote, such a figure is implausible. And the US is supporting a terrorist financier "US-backed candidates Transitional president Karzai comes from an influential, southern Afghan family of Pashtun origin. He funnelled arms and funds to mujaheddin, and is a former supporter of the Taliban, before he turned on it at the behest of his US backers. " Oz, are you aware that the US was deprived of vital Heroin imports under the Taliban regime? Production is now almost restored to pre-war levels and Neal and JL are once again able to use their laptops! Regards Donal -- |
OzOne wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:40:59 -0500, Capt. Neal® Currently, Afghanistan is being run by a United States backed, transitional government headed by President Hamid Karzai. Presidential elections are expected to be held on October 9, 2004; so far the date has been pushed back twice. Bogus article. The elections were held, contested and settled. Karzi won and in now the duly elected president. There was an 80% voter turnout. Better than your little rat island of a country I would venture to guess. The more you post the worse you look. Give it up. CN |
Thwart the elections. Idiot! The failed to thwart the elections which were held and schedule and succeeded. There were several candidates who lost but took their cue from Democrats and contested the election and demanded a recount. The recount was held and they still lost. Karzi is the duly elected president. You idiots need to read some up to date articles. You look very foolish citing articles that are months old. CN OzOne wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:40:59 -0500, Capt. Neal® scribbled thusly: Notice how all the dire predictions the liberals had about Afghanistan have not come true. Notice how the libs no longer mention Afghanistan because it proves how wrong they were about it. Maybe you could read this http://tinyurl.com/3j9nw The Taliban, which is growing in strength, has vowed to thwart the elections. Its daily attacks on voter registration has killed 650 people so far, including several foreigners. Seventeen men were killed in June, supposedly because they were carrying voter registration cards. The Afghan women willing to talk to me openly about the issue told me they would not register, nor vote, because, "it's just too risky". They lived in Kabul, where voter security will supposedly be "guaranteed" by NATO's omnipresent International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The UN rates 169 of the country's 361 territories as medium or high risk. Much of this area is off limits to UN staff. UNDP admits that "due to financial, logistical and security constraints the registration exercise could not be expanded to the provinces, as originally scheduled". Security is not the only thing hampering the voter registration process. In many areas, particularly in the south, socio-cultural factors stop women from registering. Even if the current UN estimate that 40% of registrations are women is correct, there needs to be substantial progress in reversing women's restricted mobility and participation in public life, their lack of access to information and their dismal literacy levels (21%), to ensure anything resembling equal access to the electoral process. It is difficult to believe the highly publicised registration count. Last week, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana rang Karzai to congratulate him on his choice of running mate for the election and commend him on the voter registration level - supposedly 7.5 million out of the estimated 10 million eligible voters. With the country still in ruins, 180,000 displaced persons and more than 2 million refugees in the surrounding region, all of whom are eligible to vote, such a figure is implausible. And the US is supporting a terrorist financier "US-backed candidates Transitional president Karzai comes from an influential, southern Afghan family of Pashtun origin. He funnelled arms and funds to mujaheddin, and is a former supporter of the Taliban, before he turned on it at the behest of his US backers. " Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
In article ,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Capt._Neal=AE?= wrote: Notice how all the dire predictions the liberals had about Afghanistan have not come true. Notice how the libs no longer mention Afghanistan because it proves how wrong they were about it. Afganistan is a mess. Ussama is running around the hills trailing his dialysis machine. When are we going to get him??? -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:21:26 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap: You forgot to mention that Afghan poppy production is up over five fold and now supplies 87% of the world's heroin. It's great to see unfettered capitalism in place and the resourcefullness of the Afghani people in recognizing a high demand cash crop! I applaud them! It's amazing how you whacko liberals can find one little problem in a sea of success, blow it out of proportion, and then yell, "See, I told you so!" We'll take care of those problems as we get to them. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Horvath" wrote
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:21:26 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote You forgot to mention that Afghan poppy production is up over five fold and now supplies 87% of the world's heroin. It's amazing how you whacko liberals can find one little problem in a sea of success, blow it out of proportion, ... We'll take care of those problems as we get to them. Sure we will. G.Witless had to stop off in Colombia to savor his favorite candy but now he's back them drug dealers better watch their Ps and Qs!! More proof of the VMAT2 Gene. |
OzOne wrote
Pity there's an extensive enquiry into how such a huge number of people managed to vote.....even after so many ballot boxes disappeared or were destroyed. Don't worry, G.Witless will send some GOP experts from Florida to find out what happened. |
"Donal" wrote
You use the term "liberal" to describe anyone who disagrees with your chimp-like leader. You display a memory that is as dysfunctional as your CiC(Chimp in Chief)'s intelligence. I resent your statements! Chimps are far more intellegent than G.Witless (IQ=80) and more important lack the VMAT2 "god" gene that makes some humans believe the most irrational things. A chimp may stick a finger up his butt and smell it ... but not over and over (c: |
"Dave" wrote in message So why, if you know the facts but pretend they don't exist, should we afford your comments any credibility whatever? Maybe he's a "Lawyer" ???? CM |
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. "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 02:21:26 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote this crap: You forgot to mention that Afghan poppy production is up over five fold and now supplies 87% of the world's heroin. It's great to see unfettered capitalism in place and the resourcefullness of the Afghani people in recognizing a high demand cash crop! I applaud them! It's amazing how you whacko liberals can find one little problem in a sea of success, blow it out of proportion, and then yell, "See, I told you so!" We'll take care of those problems as we get to them. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
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. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"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. What has that got to do with them being legal or illegal. Either way, weak people will do bad things to themselves. |
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! |
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! |
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! |
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! |
Well siad Joe!
Gilligan "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! |
On 25 Nov 2004 14:10:03 -0800, (Joe) wrote
this crap: 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. And you think that stuff should be legal? Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
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! |
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! |
Horvath wrote in message . ..
On 25 Nov 2004 14:10:03 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: 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. And you think that stuff should be legal? Is was not legal(except the drinking) and it all happened. You think laws are going to stop it? Why in the hell should a tax payer pay 35,000.00 a year to house some stupid fool that got caught with a bag of weed? I rather give the 35K to an old person that needs it, or some cancer patient that needs it ect.ect.ect...... Joe Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Horvath" wrote in message ... On 25 Nov 2004 14:10:03 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: 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. And you think that stuff should be legal? Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! Tried making an arguably more dangerous drug illegal, look what happened. http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/rtkweb/0844.pdf Funny the active ingredient in popular beverages has it's own hazmat sheet. It amazes me that after spending billions of dollars on the "war on drugs", the public hasn't woken up yet. The only folks that would really lose if controlled substances were made legal are a. Law Enforcement b. Illegal drug wholesalers. Most thoughtful individuals feel that the best method of approaching the issue of drug abuse is to treat it as a public health issue, which it is. John Cairns |
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! |
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! |
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:35:14 GMT, "John Cairns" said: Most thoughtful individuals feel that the best method of approaching the issue of drug abuse is to treat it as a public health issue, which it is. Neat little rhetorical trick, John--define anyone who disagrees with you as not "thoughtful." The statement then becomes a tautology. Why thank you! Seriously though, I have to think for most the issue is one of morality, it is immoral to take drugs, therefore they should be illegal. If there are any other issues, people using drugs when they shouldn't, we have the technology and money to enforce those prohibitions. The thing is, what we're doing now _doesn't_ work, we might consider alternatives. John Cairns |
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! |
Whose morality?
Many societies use drugs as part of religious ceremonies. Is being addicted to nicotine immoral? Cigarettes, a drug delivery device, kills more than all other drugs (except alcohol) combined. Are taking drugs immoral or the intention behind taking them? Gilligan "John Cairns" wrote in message . com... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:35:14 GMT, "John Cairns" said: Most thoughtful individuals feel that the best method of approaching the issue of drug abuse is to treat it as a public health issue, which it is. Neat little rhetorical trick, John--define anyone who disagrees with you as not "thoughtful." The statement then becomes a tautology. Why thank you! Seriously though, I have to think for most the issue is one of morality, it is immoral to take drugs, therefore they should be illegal. If there are any other issues, people using drugs when they shouldn't, we have the technology and money to enforce those prohibitions. The thing is, what we're doing now _doesn't_ work, we might consider alternatives. John Cairns |
"Gilligan" wrote in message ink.net... Whose morality? Many societies use drugs as part of religious ceremonies. Is being addicted to nicotine immoral? Cigarettes, a drug delivery device, kills more than all other drugs (except alcohol) combined. Are taking drugs immoral or the intention behind taking them? Gilligan Well I would think that most believe just the taking makes it immoral, without even bothering to delve into motivation. Not my morality, mind you. John Cairns "John Cairns" wrote in message . com... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:35:14 GMT, "John Cairns" said: Most thoughtful individuals feel that the best method of approaching the issue of drug abuse is to treat it as a public health issue, which it is. Neat little rhetorical trick, John--define anyone who disagrees with you as not "thoughtful." The statement then becomes a tautology. Why thank you! Seriously though, I have to think for most the issue is one of morality, it is immoral to take drugs, therefore they should be illegal. If there are any other issues, people using drugs when they shouldn't, we have the technology and money to enforce those prohibitions. The thing is, what we're doing now _doesn't_ work, we might consider alternatives. John Cairns |
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. Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That has been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government. The states have no power whatsoever and in point of fact serve no useful function anymore. They are leftover and for that matter highly inefficient historical curiousities. What you are refering to is the way things used to be before the checks and balances system was dismantled. The portion of the Constitution you refer to was amended about 90 years ago. The word state is now splled with a small 's'. Think I'm wrong? HOW then would a state, such as colorado compel the Federal Government to do anything? |
Drugs may have a correlation with immorality, but it's not a causal relation
(MHO). Some people have weaknesses which are enhanced(?) by altered state of consciousness, but most people act immorally (regarding drug use) because of the will imposed upon them by others' moral values. How can one claim to believe in God and at the same time call His creations (people/chemicals/plants) evil and wrong? Everything was put here for a reason. Maybe one of the reasons is to help us enjoy life. Scout "John Cairns" wrote in message om... "Gilligan" wrote in message ink.net... Whose morality? Many societies use drugs as part of religious ceremonies. Is being addicted to nicotine immoral? Cigarettes, a drug delivery device, kills more than all other drugs (except alcohol) combined. Are taking drugs immoral or the intention behind taking them? Gilligan Well I would think that most believe just the taking makes it immoral, without even bothering to delve into motivation. Not my morality, mind you. John Cairns "John Cairns" wrote in message . com... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:35:14 GMT, "John Cairns" said: Most thoughtful individuals feel that the best method of approaching the issue of drug abuse is to treat it as a public health issue, which it is. Neat little rhetorical trick, John--define anyone who disagrees with you as not "thoughtful." The statement then becomes a tautology. Why thank you! Seriously though, I have to think for most the issue is one of morality, it is immoral to take drugs, therefore they should be illegal. If there are any other issues, people using drugs when they shouldn't, we have the technology and money to enforce those prohibitions. The thing is, what we're doing now _doesn't_ work, we might consider alternatives. John Cairns |
That's the secret: enjoy life! Amen!
Gilligan "Scout" wrote in message ... Drugs may have a correlation with immorality, but it's not a causal relation (MHO). Some people have weaknesses which are enhanced(?) by altered state of consciousness, but most people act immorally (regarding drug use) because of the will imposed upon them by others' moral values. How can one claim to believe in God and at the same time call His creations (people/chemicals/plants) evil and wrong? Everything was put here for a reason. Maybe one of the reasons is to help us enjoy life. Scout "John Cairns" wrote in message om... "Gilligan" wrote in message ink.net... Whose morality? Many societies use drugs as part of religious ceremonies. Is being addicted to nicotine immoral? Cigarettes, a drug delivery device, kills more than all other drugs (except alcohol) combined. Are taking drugs immoral or the intention behind taking them? Gilligan Well I would think that most believe just the taking makes it immoral, without even bothering to delve into motivation. Not my morality, mind you. John Cairns "John Cairns" wrote in message . com... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:35:14 GMT, "John Cairns" said: Most thoughtful individuals feel that the best method of approaching the issue of drug abuse is to treat it as a public health issue, which it is. Neat little rhetorical trick, John--define anyone who disagrees with you as not "thoughtful." The statement then becomes a tautology. Why thank you! Seriously though, I have to think for most the issue is one of morality, it is immoral to take drugs, therefore they should be illegal. If there are any other issues, people using drugs when they shouldn't, we have the technology and money to enforce those prohibitions. The thing is, what we're doing now _doesn't_ work, we might consider alternatives. John Cairns |
What exactly caused this? Name the legislation and I'll certainly look into
it. Gilligan "Michael" wrote in message ... 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. Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That has been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government. The states have no power whatsoever and in point of fact serve no useful function anymore. They are leftover and for that matter highly inefficient historical curiousities. What you are refering to is the way things used to be before the checks and balances system was dismantled. The portion of the Constitution you refer to was amended about 90 years ago. The word state is now splled with a small 's'. Think I'm wrong? HOW then would a state, such as colorado compel the Federal Government to do anything? |
On 26 Nov 2004 16:16:10 -0800, (Joe) wrote
this crap: Horvath wrote in message . .. On 25 Nov 2004 14:10:03 -0800, (Joe) wrote this crap: 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. And you think that stuff should be legal? Is was not legal(except the drinking) and it all happened. You think laws are going to stop it? Why in the hell should a tax payer pay 35,000.00 a year to house some stupid fool that got caught with a bag of weed? It keeps that person off the street, and spreading his poison to your kids. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:47:36 GMT, "Gilligan"
wrote this crap: Is being addicted to nicotine immoral? Yup! Cigarettes, a drug delivery device, kills more than all other drugs (except alcohol) combined. Tobacco use should be illegal. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:37:29 GMT, "Scout"
wrote this crap: Drugs may have a correlation with immorality, but it's not a causal relation (MHO). Some people have weaknesses which are enhanced(?) by altered state of consciousness, but most people act immorally (regarding drug use) because of the will imposed upon them by others' moral values. How can one claim to believe in God and at the same time call His creations (people/chemicals/plants) evil and wrong? God created evil, as well as the good. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
do you also have a Bible called the Red Dude?
Scout "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:37:29 GMT, "Scout" wrote this crap: Drugs may have a correlation with immorality, but it's not a causal relation (MHO). Some people have weaknesses which are enhanced(?) by altered state of consciousness, but most people act immorally (regarding drug use) because of the will imposed upon them by others' moral values. How can one claim to believe in God and at the same time call His creations (people/chemicals/plants) evil and wrong? God created evil, as well as the good. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Jesus liked wine.
Scout "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:47:36 GMT, "Gilligan" wrote this crap: Is being addicted to nicotine immoral? Yup! Cigarettes, a drug delivery device, kills more than all other drugs (except alcohol) combined. Tobacco use should be illegal. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:08:57 GMT, "Scout"
wrote this crap: Jesus liked wine. He wasn't addicted. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:08:57 GMT, "Scout" wrote this crap: Jesus liked wine. He wasn't addicted. He was brewing it and passing it around..... it's mentioned all over his book. CM |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com