Liberal solution to illegal immigration
in [Golf]
|
Prev: March of the Titans (brief video re: White Race, 1 min, 30sec)
Next: What the heck is Tiger doing?
From: dene on 17 May 2010 04:01 "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:sk21v554tad6g14515atm7vhg55rqnhhe5(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:26:36 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> No. Because the cost of getting heroin is so high they cannot lead > >> normal lives. > >> > >> -- > >> Alan Baker > >> Vancouver, British Columbia > >> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > > >It is clear that you know absolutely nothing about drug addiction. > >Addicts don't behave the way they do simply because illegal drugs are > >expensive. It's the addiction itself that keeps them from being > >responsible, productive members of society. I've seen this myself. You > >obviously haven't. As I said before, anybody who thinks a junkie is > >going to become a good parent if only we would legalize heroin is > >utterly ignorant of the effects of drug addiction. > > You really don't know what you're talking about. Please.....explain why you know what you're talking about. -Greg
From: dene on 17 May 2010 04:03 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-2407CC.12214716052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article > <177e36a9-3e8b-4583-90be-661b9b30c5f9(a)h11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 16, 5:02 am, alan <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > On May 15, 10:33 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:51:05 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > > > > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On May 14, 7:45=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:27:12 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > > > > > > >> <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> >You have yet to explain how or why legalizing drugs would have any of > > > > >> >these effects. Legal or illegal, people still have to pay for them. > > > > > > > >> Actually it's been explained a few times already. =A0Obviously you > > > > >> haven't been paying attention. > > > > > > > >I've been paying very close attention, and you have not explained it. > > > > > > > If you could get a reliable supply of heroin for $25 a day rather than > > > > $500, it would be possible for addicts to get the money they neeed > > > > without stealing. One of the reasons that methadone was introduced > > > > was to allow addicts to stop comitting crimes (many violent) in order > > > > to support their habit. It also allowed addicts to get jobs and > > > > resume a somewhat normal life. The addict benefited and so did the > > > > community. > > > > > > > In addition, if drugs were legally available in a store then street > > > > gangs wouldn't be killing each other for the right to seel drugs on > > > > the street. > > > > > > Nor would they be handing out free samples to try and get new > > > customers hooked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >And why are children of drug addicts better off having their parents > > > > >> >at home? Do you think junkies make good parents? > > > > > > > >> If drugs were legal, they would have a lot better chance of being good > > > > >> parents. > > > > > > > >A junkie is a better parent if heroin is legal than if it's illegal? > > > > >You can't be serious. Did the end of Prohibition make alcoholics > > > > >better parents? > > > > > > > Did it make them worse parents? > > > > > > Good point. > > > > It is not a good point at all. Making narcotics widely available, > > cheap and easy to buy would expand the ranks of drug addicts. Anyone > > who thinks a drug addict can be a responsible, productive member of > > society and a good spouse and parent is incredibly ignorant. > > I'm sorry, but that is just not necessarily so. Wow. That's a helluva rebuttal. Ever thought about running for office. You got the skill of "speaking out of both sides of your mouth down pat." -Greg
From: Moderate on 17 May 2010 08:13 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-82BD6C.02343715052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <MPG.2657afbfc9307bfc989f25(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> >> Going over seas and killing agressors is ok but, killing those same >> agressors on our own soil is verboten? > > What "agressors" on your soil would those be? Billy Clark and Carbonite :-)
From: Moderate on 17 May 2010 08:18 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-3F0CBA.15361914052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <MPG.265798b2d7093387989f1e(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> >> There were these really smart dudes about 250 years ago who had a real >> good understanding of human nature. When they constituted the US they >> made sure to put in these things called checks and balances. > > Once again with the deliberate obtuseness, Bert? > > In what way does Obama believe himself to be above the United States > Constitution? I don't think anybody said he was. The comment was directed at your interpretation of the Constitution.
From: John B. on 17 May 2010 09:34
On May 17, 4:03 am, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > news:alangbaker-2407CC.12214716052010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > > > In article > > <177e36a9-3e8b-4583-90be-661b9b30c...(a)h11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 16, 5:02 am, alan <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > On May 15, 10:33 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:51:05 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > > > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >On May 14, 7:45=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:27:12 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > > > > > > >> <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >You have yet to explain how or why legalizing drugs would have > any of > > > > > >> >these effects. Legal or illegal, people still have to pay for > them. > > > > > > >> Actually it's been explained a few times already. =A0Obviously > you > > > > > >> haven't been paying attention. > > > > > > >I've been paying very close attention, and you have not explained > it. > > > > > > If you could get a reliable supply of heroin for $25 a day rather > than > > > > > $500, it would be possible for addicts to get the money they neeed > > > > > without stealing. One of the reasons that methadone was introduced > > > > > was to allow addicts to stop comitting crimes (many violent) in > order > > > > > to support their habit. It also allowed addicts to get jobs and > > > > > resume a somewhat normal life. The addict benefited and so did the > > > > > community. > > > > > > In addition, if drugs were legally available in a store then street > > > > > gangs wouldn't be killing each other for the right to seel drugs on > > > > > the street. > > > > > Nor would they be handing out free samples to try and get new > > > > customers hooked. > > > > > > >> >And why are children of drug addicts better off having their > parents > > > > > >> >at home? Do you think junkies make good parents? > > > > > > >> If drugs were legal, they would have a lot better chance of being > good > > > > > >> parents. > > > > > > >A junkie is a better parent if heroin is legal than if it's > illegal? > > > > > >You can't be serious. Did the end of Prohibition make alcoholics > > > > > >better parents? > > > > > > Did it make them worse parents? > > > > > Good point. > > > > It is not a good point at all. Making narcotics widely available, > > > cheap and easy to buy would expand the ranks of drug addicts. Anyone > > > who thinks a drug addict can be a responsible, productive member of > > > society and a good spouse and parent is incredibly ignorant. > > > I'm sorry, but that is just not necessarily so. > > Wow. That's a helluva rebuttal. Ever thought about running for office. > You got the skill of "speaking out of both sides of your mouth down pat." > > -Greg Yes, he really shut me down with that. Thank God he didn't hit me with an LOL. That would have ruined my day. |