Sorry, but you have to think through to the logical consequences.
Posted By: TechSupport on 2009-04-16
In Reply to: The question was specific to marijuana - Observer
I'm sorry, but you can't have it just one way. If marijuana is legalized, it's sheer nonsense to imagine it will stop there.
And I assure you that I do care what people consume, and so should you. You must have no conception at all of the enormous costs to society of dependence and addiction (and puhleeze don't tell me marijuana isn't addictive because that train left the station long ago). The fact that we legalize a substance does not make it any less harmful.
Doesn't it seem passing weird to you that the very same people whose political ideology supports the notion of banning ice cream socials in high school, banning corn syrup, and all sorts of bans on smoking cigarettes in not only public but also many private places would support the legalization of marijuana?
Cough that one up.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
What consequences? That is just it, there are no consequences...
just kill it and move on. There should be some responsibility here. And people wonder why promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, girls pregnant at 12 and 13...go ahead dear, there is no right or wrong, you just go out and "express yourself" and if you come home pregnant do not despair...we'll take you right on down to Planned Parenthood and kill that inconvenient baby so that YOUR life is not ruined. It has become an "it's all about me" society. And while there is nothing more selfish than a randy 17-year-old boy...and men deserve a good deal of the blame...not fair to lay all the blame on men. Takes two to tango, and less than 20% of abortions are due to rape or incest. And we constantly hear "it's my body" and "stay out of my uterus.."..one would wish they would be more discerning about that body, that uterus. It would save lives.
And inject a healthy dose of reality of the consequences
of sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing. I think there is a lot of truth in the contention that the consumer credit freeze-out by TARP funded banks doing God-knows-what with the money.
Hank and George. Consequences of not = economical failure.
Where is Hank?
The only logical question I have...sm
Let's say the Clinton's administration's caution of not wanting to harm innocents and the UAE prince in one instance, led to bin Laden's escape during times we could have took him out. I'll say Clinton dropped the ball. His caution turned out not the best call. But wait, haven't the republicans told us the movement was bigger than bin Laden. Anyway, when on God's green earth does Bush plan on picking the ball back up.
Even after 9-11, he has failed to locate bin Laden (or maybe not - maybe there will be a docu-drama of how he refused to take him out during this term. I still don't get how cozy we were with the bin Laden family after 9-11. I don't care if they disowned him).
Ironically, the Bush White House gets so many tapes from bin Laden, yet don't have a clue where he is. The conservatives really don't have much to stick their chests out about here either.
Seems like a logical decision
to reject a man who would guarantee that the election would be lost. There is a lot at stake here. I think that is a good example of him putting Country First, not his own personal preference, if indeed his preference was Lieberman. 
So much for logical discussion between right and left.
/
Thank you for your intelligent, logical remark...par for the course
x
Quick - can you see this author's logical
Whether someone says "You shouldn't be able to do in your bedroom" or someone says "You should be able to do in your bedroom", it's just opposite sides of the same thing, i.e. someone offering an opinion about your bedroom activities. Whether it's "may" or "may not" doesn't change the fundamental character of the statement.
Got brain?
"Guilt by association" is a logical fallacy.
Unless, of course, you're quite prepared to admit that Obama is a domestic terrorist. (Need the associations to support that?)
Please understand. I don't blame you. I blame the public school systems that no longer teach students logical skills.
Just trying to be logical, but I doubt security wise that would be a good idea.
.
|
