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: MNMikeW on 18 May 2010 11:10 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4bec8039$0$4870$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:23:50 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: > >> Liberals don't do security. > > I'll make a deal with you: you don't say stupid things and I won't think > you're stupid. Likewise I'm sure.
From: MNMikeW on 18 May 2010 11:49 "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:61a5v5de8hur4q0vm9qpfb8dq5rdp5o05m(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> No, but he was married. =A0But there was nothing about him that would >>> have made it impossible to be a good parent. >> >>Well, this may surprise you, but most junkies are not rich and >>successful. Most are poor and pathetic. > > I can't disagree with this. However, many of the problems associated > with drug addiction are the result of drugs being illegal. > No. The problems arise because the drugs ARE ADDICTING! Alcohol is just as addicting now as it was during prohibition.
From: MNMikeW on 18 May 2010 11:54 "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:bf21v5hqv9jqnpsrd4l9dqp49pm1rrogku(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 16 May 2010 11:55:53 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On May 16, 10:31=A0am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 02:01:22 -0700 (PDT), alan <alangba...(a)telus.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >Heroin addicts today are in pretty much that precise fix (if you'll >>> >pardon the pun): they have to pay exorbitant prices to feed their >>> >addiction and it impacts their ability to discharge the duties of a >>> >normal life. A heroin addict who is receiving treatment with methadone >>> >is able to function, so =A0why would they not be able to function if >>> >they were being treated by smaller doses of heroin instead? >>> >>> They use methadone because it gets around the laws against heroin. >>> Methadone has some advantages because you only need one oral dose a >>> day rather that 4 or 5 if you shoot smack. =A0Most addicts will tell you >>> that they prefer smack to methadone. =A0 >>> >>> Again, most of the negative aspects of heroin are because it's >>> illegal. =A0A heroin addict with a reliable affordable supply of drugs >>> can lead a fairly normal life. >> >>I have known and been around heroin addicts. They do NOT lead normal >>lives. > > Of course not. However, if heroin was legal they could. No, they would become more addicted.
From: MNMikeW on 18 May 2010 11:57 "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:5bmtu5po503vjfv2k9o2u6h9jq19129mer(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:51:05 -0700 (PDT), "John B." > <johnb505(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. It would also make then do a lot more heroin.
From: MNMikeW on 18 May 2010 11:58
"dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote in message news:85cbbrF9l0U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "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 > > Bakers stupidly sure is shining through in this thread. |