Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on November 26, 2007, 01:46:08 PM
-
Yep article says they picked him AFTER research.............
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312872,00.html
this is getting interesting:lol
-
I thought Ron Paul supported the "Constitution" not "Prostitution".
I guess it's the "Pros" vs the "Cons"?
:huh
Mac
bsdaddict what's your take on this? Still pimpin Ron Paul?
And who said Politics and Sex make strange bedfellows?
"We'll return to the episode of Rockin the Vote at the Bunny Ranch after a quick word with our sponser..." fades to Viva Viagra commercial
:rofl
Mac
-
Originally posted by AWMac
I thought Ron Paul supported the "Constitution" not "Prostitution".
I guess it's the "Pros" vs the "Cons"?
:huh
Mac
bsdaddict what's your take on this?
:rofl
:lol
Actually a Libertarian SUPPORTS Freedom, and Liberty, over pretty much anything else.
IMHO Ron Paul isn't for or against Prostitution, but he does SEEM for an adult to chose their own path through life without other people interfering. So someone dealing in such a trade would have as many rights as anyone else.
So IIRC Ron Paul would end the war on drugs, probably make em legal. With the understanding that YOU, and I or anyone else, would have to deal with the consequences of our drug use, AND not the Government.
-
Thats a nice concept but overly simplistic in execution. No matter what you do regarding drugs, society and the govt. both will end up having to deal with the consequences. There is no way that drug use will remain behind a closed door and not be out in the public, particularly on the roads as well as in other areas where it won't be making some kind of impact on the general populace.
I don't know what the "perfect" solution is or will be. I just know that it's pie in the sky to think everything will be just fine if all the legal restrictions are eliminated on drugs.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Thats a nice concept but overly simplistic in execution. No matter what you do regarding drugs, society and the govt. both will end up having to deal with the consequences. There is no way that drug use will remain behind a closed door and not be out in the public, particularly on the roads as well as in other areas where it won't be making some kind of impact on the general populace.
I don't know what the "perfect" solution is or will be. I just know that it's pie in the sky to think everything will be just fine if all the legal restrictions are eliminated on drugs.
There is no perfect solution so question comes down to what is the least imperfect. My bet is that a system is best that punishes for bad actions that affect others. That is to say say... drinking... not illegal... just taxed and taxes go towards prevention/treatment. Driving drunk = jail time and a multiplier if you commit another crime while doing so. The biggest problem I think the current system is it does little to deal with the real problem children while wasting resources on minor screw up like some 16 year old dealing pot. The more the stuff is out in the open the better it can be controlled.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Thats a nice concept but overly simplistic in execution. No matter what you do regarding drugs, society and the govt. both will end up having to deal with the consequences. There is no way that drug use will remain behind a closed door and not be out in the public, particularly on the roads as well as in other areas where it won't be making some kind of impact on the general populace.
I don't know what the "perfect" solution is or will be. I just know that it's pie in the sky to think everything will be just fine if all the legal restrictions are eliminated on drugs.
Not saying it is.
Saying IMHO drugs should be treated more like alcohol.
Prohibition DID NOT WORK. IMHO neither is the war on drugs.
Some reading that may be of interest to all..............
"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by R. Heinlein
"Pallas" by L. Neil Smith
"The Probability Broach" by L. Neil Smith
I found the political systems put forth in these books interesting.
The philosophy presented is of interest as well, at least to me it is.
Are any of these ideas gonna cure the ills of humanity?
Humans have the ability to find WAYS to do things.
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato
Doubt it, not sure there is anything out there politically or philosophically that is a true cure all.
But some present partial solutions that DO NOT lead to Government Control of everyone!
"Many politicians lay it down as a self-evident proposition
that no people ought to be free until they are fit to use
their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old
story who resolved not to go into the water until he had
learned to swim.", from Lord Macaulay an English historian.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
bsdaddict what's your take on this? Still pimpin Ron Paul?
of course. From a strictly libertarian standpoint what consenting adults do behind closed doors is noone's business, so long as noone gets hurt. The bunnyranch guy is a libertarian too, so he's not necessarily endorsing RP only for his stance on the pro issue. I'm sure he pays a lot of taxes, for one... RPs message of freedom is appealing to everyone, even prostitutes and pimps... :)
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
There is no perfect solution so question comes down to what is the least imperfect. My bet is that a system is best that punishes for bad actions that affect others. That is to say say... drinking... not illegal... just taxed and taxes go towards prevention/treatment. Driving drunk = jail time and a multiplier if you commit another crime while doing so. The biggest problem I think the current system is it does little to deal with the real problem children while wasting resources on minor screw up like some 16 year old dealing pot. The more the stuff is out in the open the better it can be controlled.
NO! NO NO NO! *Swats rabbid's nose like a bad dog*
No taxes at all! Especially not for that. It is not the government's duty to hold your hand, steal other people's money to try to fix YOUR problems.
-
Originally posted by wrag
So IIRC Ron Paul would end the war on drugs, probably make em legal. With the understanding that YOU, and I or anyone else, would have to deal with the consequences of our drug use, AND not the Government.
Treat it as a disease like alcoholism instead of a crime.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
NO! NO NO NO! *Swats rabbid's nose like a bad dog*
No taxes at all! Especially not for that. It is not the government's duty to hold your hand, steal other people's money to try to fix YOUR problems.
How is the government supposed to do anything with out a source of income?
-
Originally posted by Motherland
How is the government supposed to do anything with out a source of income?
So much for the GWOT. And the infrastructure.
Just say no to extremism. Yay moderatism.
mod·er·ate
3: professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme
- Mirriam Webster
:aok :D
-
The less the government does the better off we'll be.
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help!"
Ba-WAh-hahahahahahahaha! That's a good one!
-
Originally posted by Toad
"The less the government does the better off we'll be."
Quote from a Hurricane Katrina victim? ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Quote from a Hurricane Katrina victim? ;)
Plausible.
-
Quote from just about anyone that has had to deal with the Federal Government.
Example: How they "simplify" the tax code.
you can order a complete set of Title 26 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (that's the part written by the IRS), all twenty volumes of it, at the bargain price of $974, shipping included.
According to the US Government Printing Office, it's 13,458 pages in total. The full text of Title 26 of the United States Code (the part written by Congress--available for an additional $179) is a mere 3,387 printed pages, bringing the adjusted gross page count to 16,845.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Plausible.
Epitath?
-
FEMA was almost as big a disaster as the local gov't in the Katrina sideshow. I doubt many survivors would welcome the help of either the next time Nawlins sinks (and we know it will).
-
So the rationalization behind disbanding government is government mismanagement?
-
I'm not advocating disbanding the government. I would advocate slimming it down do a more manageable and accountable size.
-
Originally posted by VOR
I'm not advocating disbanding the government. I would advocate slimming it down do a more manageable and accountable size.
I don't disagree, per say. It's what agencies and departments serve the most productive and vital roles where most have differences. Even then, I can be swayed. :)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Treat it as a disease like alcoholism instead of a crime.
ack-ack
Can you elaborate as to whom you would be treating? How would you treat it and would the treatment be mandatory?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
NO! NO NO NO! *Swats rabbid's nose like a bad dog*
No taxes at all! Especially not for that. It is not the government's duty to hold your hand, steal other people's money to try to fix YOUR problems.
Actually, what I'm advocating is all taxes be handled at the lowest level and those taxes collected being spent on those who paid them. In this case I'm advocating that the taxes collected via drugs be spent on drug prevention. Just the same as gas taxes being spent on roadwork.
Drug use just sucks but the current system just does not work. Without a society that is extremely regimented illegalization just doesn't work.
-
Originally posted by Motherland
How is the government supposed to do anything with out a source of income?
YAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Thats the point!
That which Governs least Governs BEST!
“[A] wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” —Thomas Jefferson
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"~~Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) On MSNBC
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Thats a nice concept but overly simplistic in execution. No matter what you do regarding drugs, society and the govt. both will end up having to deal with the consequences. There is no way that drug use will remain behind a closed door and not be out in the public, particularly on the roads as well as in other areas where it won't be making some kind of impact on the general populace.
I don't know what the "perfect" solution is or will be. I just know that it's pie in the sky to think everything will be just fine if all the legal restrictions are eliminated on drugs.
6 packs of opiate / stimulant "beer" available to adults will end civilization as we know it... people will have too much fun, sex will become easier to get... chicks will start giving away more than the USDA amount, people will miss work to have casual intimate relations.... corporate America will lose billions in "booty cheddar".
Worst of all, hypes and crack-heads wont have to steal anymore... they can walk into 7-11 for a fix like a nicotine addict / alcoholic, the gendarme will grow wicked bored and start doing pro-active police work... car theft will plummet, auto insurance will become hella cheap... it'll be total anarchy!!
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Thats a nice concept but overly simplistic in execution. No matter what you do regarding drugs, society and the govt. both will end up having to deal with the consequences. There is no way that drug use will remain behind a closed door and not be out in the public, particularly on the roads as well as in other areas where it won't be making some kind of impact on the general populace.
I don't know what the "perfect" solution is or will be. I just know that it's pie in the sky to think everything will be just fine if all the legal restrictions are eliminated on drugs.
Alcohol is a mind bending recreational drug.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Arlo
So the rationalization behind disbanding government is government mismanagement?
The rationalization of disbanding the government is the thought process that tells us that everyone wants to be governed the same way.
Until this becomes possible, in that everyone gets to be governed the way they want, the only logical solution is that you allow them to govern themselves.
Actually, what I'm advocating is all taxes be handled at the lowest level and those taxes collected being spent on those who paid them. In this case I'm advocating that the taxes collected via drugs be spent on drug prevention. Just the same as gas taxes being spent on roadwork.
Gas taxes promote driving. Would drug taxes promote drug use?
If not, then they should not be collected at all. And we get back to the original issue in that if someone has something wrong with them, they should pay for it themselves. It's foolish and degrading to demand that we pay (or be punished) for other people's problems.
-
Originally posted by GovtFlu
6 packs of opiate / stimulant "beer" available to adults will end civilization as we know it... people will have too much fun, sex will become easier to get... chicks will start giving away more than the USDA amount, people will miss work to have casual intimate relations.... corporate America will lose billions in "booty cheddar".
Worst of all, hypes and crack-heads wont have to steal anymore... they can walk into 7-11 for a fix like a nicotine addict / alcoholic, the gendarme will grow wicked bored and start doing pro-active police work... car theft will plummet, auto insurance will become hella cheap... it'll be total anarchy!!
You really are off the chart if you think dealing with drugs (or the drug war if you like) is the majority of police work. It's quite the opposite as the dedicated narcotics section is one of the smallest sections in the average PD.
-
Originally posted by Tigeress
Alcohol is a mind bending recreational drug.
TIGERESS
I would disagree with you on the mind bending part but besides that, your point is?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The rationalization of disbanding the government is the thought process that tells us that everyone wants to be governed the same way.
Until this becomes possible, in that everyone gets to be governed the way they want, the only logical solution is that you allow them to govern themselves.
Ah. The rationalization behind disbanding government is anti-social/selfish tendency (of which you think everyone suffers). Gotcha. :D
Until everyone gets their individual way the only rational thing to do is live in total anarchy.
Your logic never ceases to amaze, LS. :aok
-
Originally posted by Maverick
You really are off the chart if you think dealing with drugs (or the drug war if you like) is the majority of police work. It's quite the opposite as the dedicated narcotics section is one of the smallest sections in the average PD.
I never mentioned it was the "majority", thats your suggestion. It's entirely JDIC / RD specific anyway. The chief of San Jose PD was given an equipment budget from the city manager of $0.00... when he asked how he was supposed to pay for stuff, "asset seizure"... from drug related cases of course... asset seizures are easier than convictions, all they need is a "preponderance of the evidence" to take away property.
It doesn't take Detective Friday to figure out that drug cases became a priority at SJPD... weather it was a "majority" problem or not.
Rather than wasting resources on the WOD to get some cash for police toys, they could have been doing pro-active / "broken window" stuff... like taking every narc unit and having them target car theft, child molesters and violent criminals.
Drug addicts just want to get high, they are forced to steal because of the inflated illegal prices.. letting them walk into 7-11 like a smoker / alcoholic for a fix apparently makes too much sense.
-
BTW heres a LEAP video:
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=28
Where a city auditor, Mitch Lewis from Syracuse NY explains that the "majority" of $$ spent on police services was related to drugs.
They must be a-typical...
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Ah. The rationalization behind disbanding government is anti-social/selfish tendency (of which you think everyone suffers). Gotcha. :D
Until everyone gets their individual way the only rational thing to do is live in total anarchy.
Your logic never ceases to amaze, LS. :aok
It's not hard to understand. America has about 300 million people in it? Assuming a near 50/50 split of Democrats to Republicans, when one side wins the next election, 150 MILLION people are going to get screwed.
-
I got a chance to meet the owner of the Bunny Ranch a few weeks ago. I managed to snap this photo of him at the event:
(http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s272/lanceJOregon/bunny1.jpg)
The girls on each end are employees from the ranch. The "lady" that he has his arm around, though, does not work for him. I'm not sure how best to describe her.
Would you pay to have sex with the other two ladies? I guess some men will.
I lived within 11 miles of the Bunny Ranch for 7 years many years ago. But I was married at the time, and never, ever visited the place. So I have no experience myself with such places.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's not hard to understand. America has about 300 million people in it? Assuming a near 50/50 split of Democrats to Republicans, when one side wins the next election, 150 MILLION people are going to get screwed.
It's harder to understand than you think when you're not even sure where you wanna go with your hypothosis. ;) :aok
-
Govtflu or who ever you were in your previous incarnation. It is possible to relate most crimes to being related to drug use if you just want to put a label on it. Thieves steal to get drug money. People rob to get drug money. People kill during robberies to get drug money. That can then be translated that most LEO functions are related to drugs since they are responding to those crimes. Nice but not necessarily true. It may be a relation but not a causal situation.
It's a shame that san jose council decided to play games with the PD's budget. Their political posturing is hardly indicative of the majority of communities fortunately.
Now how do you propose using the limited folks dedicated to actual narc interdiction on molesters?
Here's another point. You know what one of the more common thefts is from a convenience store is? It's called a beer run. It's where people who should be able to afford beer (or other booze for that matter) steal it when it's actually for sale. Imagine that. People who "need" (or just really really want it) the booze stealing instead of buying it and it's legal for them to buy it.
Now after all of this let me try to restate the what I thought I had been clear about to begin with. The folks in the department who do drug investigations full time, the specialists actually comprise a small part of the department and what they do. This is not the majority of what the department actually does all the time. That's all I said.