Progressives, part 3...

gut Senior Member
18,369 posts 114 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Feb 10, 2020 9:17 AM
posted by gut

There have been studies on this.  You can't compare the US to Portugal because of the racial/ethnic/geographical diversity the US has that few other countries have.  I mentioned alcohol as on example.  Use google and go educate yourself (and not the "research" from pro marijuana cites).  I can't help it that I'm Gut and you don't know what you're talking about.

I also mentioned gun laws.  It's FREQUENTLY mentioned that only law abiding citizens obey gun laws.  But, ummm, drugs are different okay?  Drug laws reduce usage.  Please stop with the false equivalence that <100% effectiveness = 0% effectiveness.  That is indisputable fact and only people getting their research from High Times think otherwise.

How about another example.  Do you think abortions increased or stayed the same after Roe v Wade?  Even if you don't read research you can try using a little common sense.

 

iclfan2 Reppin' the 330/216/843
9,465 posts 98 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Feb 10, 2020 9:38 AM

Biden out here saying that people don’t need AR 15s bc the military will just shoot you with F15’s and hellfire missiles (which aren’t fired from F15’s). What a moron. Sure Joe, the average military person is just going to agree and start firing on their own citizens. And some goat herders would like to have a chat...

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1226627073055318017?s=21

QuakerOats Senior Member
11,701 posts 66 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Feb 10, 2020 2:05 PM
posted by justincredible

I prefer John Maynard Friedman. 

 

 

 

Hilarious.

 

How about her comment about ‘pulling oneself up by your bootstraps’ ………..she is literally dumber than a rock.

Dr Winston O'Boogie Senior Member
3,345 posts 35 reps Joined Oct 2010
Mon, Feb 10, 2020 9:08 PM
posted by QuakerOats

 

 

 

Hilarious.

 

How about her comment about ‘pulling oneself up by your bootstraps’ ………..she is literally dumber than a rock.

Is Trump "dumber than a rock" when he said the Chiefs came from the state of Kansas?  Why is he allowed to misspeak but someone who you disagree with is stupid for doing the same thing?  

superman Senior Member
4,377 posts 71 reps Joined Nov 2009
Mon, Feb 10, 2020 10:18 PM
posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Is Trump "dumber than a rock" when he said the Chiefs came from the state of Kansas?  Why is he allowed to misspeak but someone who you disagree with is stupid for doing the same thing?  

WOB busting out the whataboutism again.  This is hilarious.

Dr Winston O'Boogie Senior Member
3,345 posts 35 reps Joined Oct 2010
Mon, Feb 10, 2020 10:42 PM
posted by superman

WOB busting out the whataboutism again.  This is hilarious.

You passing that word off as though it's always been part of you vocabulary is funnier. 

superman Senior Member
4,377 posts 71 reps Joined Nov 2009
Tue, Feb 11, 2020 6:46 AM
posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

You passing that word off as though it's always been part of you vocabulary is funnier. 

You thinking that is some sort of big vocabulary word might be the funniest thing of all. 

Dr Winston O'Boogie Senior Member
3,345 posts 35 reps Joined Oct 2010
Tue, Feb 11, 2020 8:24 AM
posted by superman

You thinking that is some sort of big vocabulary word might be the funniest thing of all. 

It's not a big vocabulary words, it's a made up term and it's obscure. Thanks to Google though it's part of your vernacular. 

 

QO says AOC is dumber than a rock and implies it is evidenced by her saying the wrong name for the economist. I'm just curious if that same standard applies to others. If so, we're all dumb as rocks in his book. 

QuakerOats Senior Member
11,701 posts 66 reps Joined Nov 2009
Tue, Feb 11, 2020 10:01 AM
posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

It's not a big vocabulary words, it's a made up term and it's obscure. Thanks to Google though it's part of your vernacular. 

 

QO says AOC is dumber than a rock and implies it is evidenced by her saying the wrong name for the economist. I'm just curious if that same standard applies to others. If so, we're all dumb as rocks in his book. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24C-Psfotl4

 

 

No wonder she is a democrat congresswoman; she could never make it as a bartender.

Dr Winston O'Boogie Senior Member
3,345 posts 35 reps Joined Oct 2010
Tue, Feb 11, 2020 10:58 AM
posted by QuakerOats

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24C-Psfotl4

 

 

No wonder she is a democrat congresswoman; she could never make it as a bartender.

you still don't answer.  I'm not defending AOC - not a fan at all.  I'm just wondering if you hold everyone to the same standard if they say something wrong.

wkfan Senior Member
1,850 posts 13 reps Joined Nov 2009
Tue, Feb 11, 2020 12:35 PM
posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

you still don't answer.  I'm not defending AOC - not a fan at all.  I'm just wondering if you hold everyone to the same standard if they say something wrong.

There is saying something wrong............and there is saying something stupid.

May of AOC's statements are just plain stupid.

 

O-Trap Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909 posts 140 reps Joined Nov 2009
Tue, Feb 11, 2020 2:38 PM
posted by gut

I think you're way off.  A majority of people simply won't risk being arrested, or going to shady areas of town, to seek out drugs to "try".  When you legalize it, you take away the risk, the stigma and the inconvenience of getting it.  It's "widely available" to the relatively small percentage of people who'll take the effort and risk to get it.  Look at the explosion in painkillers - why?, because it was relatively safe and easy to get (but still nothing like going down to the corner store).

A majority of people simply won't risk being arrested, sure.  That majority also isn't likely to use it if the threat of being arrested isn't there.  The dangers of heroin are widely enough understood that the "risk" of being arrested pales in comparison to the "risks" associated with heroin use.

Even if the odds were even, "I could get arrested," while bad, isn't as bad as, "I could die after one use."

Also, you don't take away the stigma just because it's legal.  That's the beauty of social pressure.  We're seeing it play out with smoking even now.

As for the explosion of painkillers, let's indeed explore that.  What prompts people to start using them in the first place?  By an large, it's through medical advice.  The fact that a prescription is written is more than just legal availability.  It's the admonition of an expert on health after evaluating a person's ailment.  It's an imperative statement that compels use, not just a declarative statement expressing availability.

Note that those who do develop addictions to painkillers and who are unable to get ongoing prescriptions are frequently able to sate their addiction through illegally obtaining it ... again, because it's easy to do.
 

posted by gut

Sure, people who really want to can find it and get it.  But you're talking about a relatively small pool of potential users.  There's really no reason to think many drugs couldn't have similar usage rates to alcohol, or tobacco for that matter.  The other thing you're ignoring is an increase in usage of harder drugs will allow people not only access, but to see it's possible to function with it and not become addicted.  There's many more reasons people don't do hard drugs than just being illegal, but the more barriers taken down, the more misconceptions are eroded (or replaced by other misconceptions).

It doesn't take "really" wanting to get it.  I was walking down the street a couple weeks ago, and a man selling walked with me for literally a couple hundred feet trying to sell me "party favors."  There's no great effort to find it.  It's easy to find in nice neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods.

There's really no reason to think drugs couldn't have similar usage rates to alcohol or tobacco?  I agree.  Many drugs would.  Many drugs are also able to be used recreationally without becoming addicted, and one can function at a high level even if they are addicted (similar to alcohol or tobacco).

You seem to say that misconceptions being eroded is a bad thing, and that people being informed on what they put in their bodies is a problem.  I assume I'm not reading that correctly.  If someone can take a drug without becoming addicted, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?  To use a common comparison, we don't ban steak because a baby can't eat it.

The reasons people have for not doing drugs vary, in many cases, based on the drug.  That's not a bad thing.
 

posted by gut

Cue the "it hasn't led to an increase in other countries".  But the US is different.  Other countries don't have our problem with alcohol, either.  I'm 100% certain the more drugs you legalize, the more people will use and the more people that will become addicted.  Maybe that's a reasonable trade-off, or maybe you decide to keep poison out of the reach of children.

That last non sequitur was funny to read.

The more drugs you legalize, the more will be used?  Maybe.  I mean, if we're talking across all drugs, I'd think so, but I actually don't think that would be the case for every single drug, and I think you're failing to consider that the illegality of drugs is actually potentially a draw for some to begin using.

Drugs that have been plastered all over the news over the last several years because of the number of lives they've claimed aren't exactly going to be sought for the good time they offer, just because they're legal.

During prohibition, alcohol consumption didn't drastically decrease.  In the words of John Rockefeller:

"When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before."

It's just one person's observation, and I know the plural for 'anecdote' isn't 'data', but it's a person with a wide reach and a first-hand view of the climate during the time.  His impression was an actual increase of using during prohibition.  Moreover, he notes that the otherwise 'best citizens' ignored the laws and, thus, became law-breakers, increasing the number of criminals.

For what it's worth, there have also been studies into the Prohibition era which suggest that alcohol consumption didn't increase notably in the post-Prohibition era until the 1960s, by which point it would have been for drastically different reasons.
 

posted by gut

You're thinking about it totally wrong.

It's not about whether or not someone "wants" to do heroine, much less the the "want" relative to the "effort".  It's like walking thru a liquor store.

It's easier than going to the liquor store.  Literally.  You can have it come to you, wherever you live.
 

posted by gut

I'm not driving across town, much less an illegal transaction in the 'hood, to try a tequila.

I wouldn't either.  But you don't have to do that for nearly anything now, so I'm not sure what bearing that has on the current discussion.
 

posted by gut

But when it's sitting there on the shelf in front of me?  A lot of people who would not otherwise access it have an opportunity to try it.

Who doesn't currently have access to it?  I'm curious.  It can already be brought to your door.  It will walk down the street next to you trying to sell itself in tourist or night life areas.
 

posted by gut

Also, if something is available on that store shelf, regulated and FD&A approved and all that, the consumer can assume it's "relatively" safe.  Not like the risk of a "hot shot" or any number of other issues with buying illegal drugs.

True.  Legalizing it would, indeed, decrease the risk of getting laced product.  Informed purchase.  Not a bad thing.
 

posted by gut

The "it's easy & widely available" is, honestly, a bunch of horseshit.  So how about a little experiment - if I give you $100, will you go buy me $50 worth of heroine?  We all know your answer is no, which proves me correct.  Or how guns - if guns were illegal would you just go buy them on the black market?  Easy and widely available, right, so gun laws would have no impact on gun ownership?!?

 

The answer is, indeed, no.  However, it's not for the reason you think, which is why you're wrong.  I won't buy heroin for you or anyone else because I don't believe it has any redeeming value.  I think it's dangerous, and I won't contribute to its consumption or its market.  As such, if it were made legal tomorrow, my answer would still be 'no' tomorrow.

My reason for saying 'no' is a morality-based one.  Not a legality-based one.  I have almost no fear of arrest.  Change it to adderall or shrooms ... something I have much less problem with ... and sure; I'd oblige.

QuakerOats Senior Member
11,701 posts 66 reps Joined Nov 2009
Tue, Feb 11, 2020 4:07 PM

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/caruso-cabrera-aoc-socialism-dem-primary

 

Former CNBC anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera is hoping to knock Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., out in this year's primary, as she runs to take New York's 14th congressional district.

A registered Democrat and descendant of Cuban immigrants, Caruso-Cabrera has been a fierce critic of socialism and advocate for free markets. According to CNBC, she filed to run late Monday.

 

 

 

 

Thank God.

Dr Winston O'Boogie Senior Member
3,345 posts 35 reps Joined Oct 2010
Wed, Feb 12, 2020 10:43 AM
posted by QuakerOats

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/caruso-cabrera-aoc-socialism-dem-primary

 

Former CNBC anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera is hoping to knock Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., out in this year's primary, as she runs to take New York's 14th congressional district.

A registered Democrat and descendant of Cuban immigrants, Caruso-Cabrera has been a fierce critic of socialism and advocate for free markets. According to CNBC, she filed to run late Monday.

 

 

 

 

Thank God.

If this helps guys like you who are obsessed with AOC et al., then I'm all for it.  It'll give you something else to focus on - unless Greta is still ruling your dreams. 

queencitybuckeye Senior Member
8,068 posts 120 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Feb 12, 2020 10:54 AM
posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

If this helps guys like you who are obsessed with AOC et al., then I'm all for it.  It'll give you something else to focus on - unless Greta is still ruling your dreams. 

It's certainly a small (1/435th) improvement in the makeup of the House.

O-Trap Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909 posts 140 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Feb 12, 2020 11:40 AM
posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

If this helps guys like you who are obsessed with AOC et al., then I'm all for it.  It'll give you something else to focus on - unless Greta is still ruling your dreams. 

She just makes it really easy sometimes.

Heretic Son of the Sun
20,517 posts 201 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Feb 12, 2020 12:25 PM
posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

If this helps guys like you who are obsessed with AOC et al., then I'm all for it.  It'll give you something else to focus on - unless Greta is still ruling your dreams. 

He'll just shift to one of his other targets if his AOCDS goes away, as he also has ODS, CDS and a few others. And those two, in particular, don't seem to be going away since his "HEADS WILL ROLL....SOON!!!!" claims never seem to be getting any sooner.

Dr Winston O'Boogie Senior Member
3,345 posts 35 reps Joined Oct 2010
Wed, Feb 12, 2020 12:53 PM
posted by Heretic

He'll just shift to one of his other targets if his AOCDS goes away, as he also has ODS, CDS and a few others. And those two, in particular, don't seem to be going away since his "HEADS WILL ROLL....SOON!!!!" claims never seem to be getting any sooner.

Indictments are forthcoming!!!

QuakerOats Senior Member
11,701 posts 66 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Feb 12, 2020 4:53 PM

I’m ok with resignations also ……such as in the DoJ yesterday.  Drain it.

 

jmog Senior Member
7,737 posts 50 reps Joined Nov 2009
Thu, Feb 13, 2020 8:59 AM
posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Is Trump "dumber than a rock" when he said the Chiefs came from the state of Kansas?  Why is he allowed to misspeak but someone who you disagree with is stupid for doing the same thing?  

I liken Trump saying KC was in Kansas to when Obama said he had visited 57 states. Gaffs that are funny, and stupid, but not really indicative that the person has no idea on policy, economics, etc that are important to running the country.

 

AOC is not even comparable, the stupid shit she says about economics, foreign policy, etc are mind numbingly stupid. Even those on the left can't disagree with this assessment.

Login

Register

Already have an account? Login