mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

1. Ninja edit, again.
2. That's not what "begging the question" means.
3. Assuming you meant, "Which prompts the question," have I said anything that suggests I support life sentences for drug charges?

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

We're LIVING class warfare, courtesy Obama. If you want to take out the loopholes and have a slightly progressive tax rate, I'm all for it. It's good to agree on something, right?

Romney has said that--besides knocking out loopholes, he agrees with the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles study (what did Obama do about that?!), and that taxes would NOT be reduced on high income individuals. Further, SS would become means tested.

There's a lot of faulty information about Romney out there. I am NOT his #1 supporter, but feel that with Obama that the U.S. could very well not recover.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Speaking of the war on drugs...

Team USA judo player disqualified and struck from Olympic records after failing a drug test via marijuana.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

You haven't. I'm trying to find out more on your actual stance with respect to drug charges.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Ah.

Broadly speaking, I tend to favor solutions that involve legalization. More realistically, I'd settle for controlled and regulated like alcohol.

I realize that's not a perspective on drug charges, per se, but since my perspective on drug charges is informed largely by my preference for some sort of drug legalization, I figured that was the most cogent response I could offer.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I've got to back Cord on this one, with the caveat that neither Romney or Obama has laid out any real specific tax guidelines as far as I am aware. I'll working on digging up some citations tonight or tomorrow unless someone beats me to it.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Huh. That's my stance too, interesting.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

If we had a government system that absolutely did not tolerate freeloaders, I'd support legalization. As it is, Obama quietly took off the requirements for the unemployed to actually look for work in order to get their unemployment checks.

Those happy, harmless pot smokers (and their children) do not need to be on the public dole.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

So, in other words, you support our government spending far more money on enforcement of drug laws as opposed to the chance you may support a miniscule minority that are "harmless happy pot smokers"? Let alone the substantial societal costs of drug cartels and the resultant violence?

This only makes sense from a "I'm going to make wild claims of a huge, enormous amount of people who don't work", which requires you to provide proof.

So, let's see statistics on these large amount of people who smoke pot and draw unemployment instead of working, Cord.

P.S. Remember that it can cost up to 45k-50k/year to incarcerate a single "harmless happy pot smoker".

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

I'm working with a family right now trying to place an innocent 2 year old whose parents are crack addicts. So I'm not really cool with the idea of legalizing drugs. Can you tell me what kind of chance this little girl has when she gets kicked around by the system, and may even end up with her drug-addicted mother? PS. they found her living in a house with no electricity, unattended, with a soiled diaper.

What's that worth?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I have real empathy (not sympathy) for that situation, and I still think they should be legalized.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Emails: Treasury drove cutoff of non-union Delphi pensions | The Daily Caller

bbundy

Significant evidence has shown it is much more cost effective and more effective in general to spend money on social systems such as education and rehabilitation than making drugs illegal and battling all the criminals that get created.

Imagine how much financial support the child could get with all the money wasted battling drugs and locking up non-violent criminals. The parents could likely get some help as well. But I’d still be all for neutering them. The Human race has a serious problem in that it is mostly the stupid people who are breeding like rabbits.

Bob

rleete

iTrader: (21)

Ya got that right.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

So, you allege a massive amount of people siphoning off the system...

And you come up with a single personal example of one family that follows the very definition of an appeal to emotion logical fallacy? Wut?

Seriously. You are arguing against hundreds of thousands or possibly even millions of families being destroyed by this drug war*, in favor of a single family you personally know? WUT?

*: Depending on whose numbers you accept

bbundy

Natural selection process is being severely perverted within the human race. I wonder how many more generations it can go on before it experiences a collapse.

Bob

buffon01

iTrader: (9)

Well, President Camacho is already in office... ba dum tss

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

I guess you need to decide whose numbers you choose to believe. Personally, I'd shut down the borders from felons, drug dealers, illegal aliens. I'd implement E-Verify (and why not?!) with heavy penalties for those companies that did not, and I'd cease the anchor baby laws, of which the U.S. is the only advanced nation to still use.

And YES, I allege a massive amount of people siphoning off the system. The REAL problem is that it's with the complicity of the U.S. government. When more people get on disability than get jobs in the past four months, it indicates that the system is becoming a nanny state.

You can't borrow 42 cents of every dollar, shut down industries (coal, for example), and then tell the unemployed that they don't need to look for work--just collect a check for 100 weeks.

I guess while you're on the couch, pick up some good weed at the dispensary for your back. Cool.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

I caught this one too. I wonder if the auto companies had gone through the standard legal BK steps if this would have happened. Either way, it's pretty blatant considering that Obama gave the unions the majority stake in the companies.

buffon01

iTrader: (9)

That is not true, or at least not entirely. Last August I was laid off from work. I was eligible to claim unemployment benefits. I file and it was a requirement that I seek employment and report on weekly basis to be able to get benefits. I never got a penny since being a full time student disqualified me.

Anyhooters, my point is that rules have now been placed in effect to at least give people some trouble to claim benefits. People still abuse it though. Funny story, while I was at the agency to turn in some documents a lady walked-in bitching that due to this "new" regulations she could no longer claim benefits. She had been receiving a check for TWO years...