fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 12, 2012 1:50:02 AM
To keep some things straight, I apologize for the spelling mistakes.
I meant to say that the conversation in here is about to get addressed. I guess its easy say..
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/12/2012 1:50:13 AM EST]
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 12, 2012 1:32:57 AM
rjhenn; For all intents and purposes the conversation in is going to be addressed. When most in here appear to be pro cannabis. In guess its easy to say that when someone who isn't pro cannabis is refusing to answer other questions? But when I guess a URL hasn't been used in its properly viewed format. Some things are easy to talk down?
And the current administration isn't about reduced government. Its about more government. Reaganomics is a thing of the past the last I heard?
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/12/2012 1:43:03 AM EST]
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,605
Points:2,256,100
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 11, 2012 10:32:45 PM
fueluser10 - "Any one care to take a look at that math equation?"
Care to forecast what effect higher taxes and reduced government spending might have on the economy?
And what effect it might actually have on government revenues and the deficit?
Not that any of this is on-topic. But it seems to be about as close as you can come, as long as you refuse to actually address the issue.
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 11, 2012 5:55:47 AM
catspaw, rjhenn: It is common knowledge in the news. Along with the Bush tax cuts ending December 31, 2012. And then the average family house hold will be paying between $2,000 to $3,500 more in taxes each year, also common knowledge. (Did some research and found that as of 2010 there are 308.7 million people in the us. And the average number of house holds seems to be around 116.7 million.) So if one multiplies say $3,000 dollars times 116.7 million? How much does that equal to in taxation dollars? Any one care to take a look at that math equation?
Along with "Sequestration" which begins January 2nd, 2013. Which are new big budget cuts. 110 Billion Dollars worth of new taxes.
I merely mentioned that as part of my retort (the 5 billion in spending cuts.) I never said I was for anything nor am I advocating for anything.
And still legalizing cannabis is a sad idea.
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/11/2012 5:59:26 AM EST]
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,605
Points:2,256,100
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 11, 2012 1:55:46 AM
fueluser10 - And more prattle.
"I never said that the hypothetical legalization of cannabis would fix the debt by itself. I don't know where you got that from."
What you said was: “Then there is an additional 5 billion dollars that are being cut from military spending.”
What catspaw was saying was that, if you're opposed to the $66 billion a year difference we'd likely see from legalizing mj because it won't, all by itself, solve the problem, then why are you in favor of the $5 billion cut in military spending? It's certainly not going to solve the problem all by itself.
|
mnrick041
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:14,470
Points:1,395,785
Joined:Jun 2009
|
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2012 8:18:23 PM
Catspaw,
Yes, it is true that I do not like drugs in general, if someone wants to use them that is their decision but if Marijuana legalization came to vote in MN I would be a NO vote.
If the police find it they should take it away. Fines are appropriate as long as they are not so disproportionate that it would prevent the person from leading a productive life.
The case against my friend was a Federal one, they got him with a CCE charge which basically says you are running it as a business and all your livelihood comes from selling drugs. With that they do not need to charge individual amounts, they had witnesses that implicated him, he had no work history, and no way to show how he had the things that he had. They had known who he was, it came out that people had been telling on him for years, the feds take their time and build a good case. All they had to do was prove that he was involved in his own little criminal enterprise (CCE) and he took a plea bargain for 437 months to avoid a possible life sentence.
If it had just been marijuana alone they probably would have went lighter but I think former Race car driver Randy Lanier got life for a CCE that involved only marijuana although it was on a more massive scale.
Do you think it is worth it just to be a money maker for the government? In effect making drug dealers out of the government?
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2012 7:19:48 PM
catspaw; If you have an issue with me and how I express myself. Please take it up with the web site. And don't forget to mention yourself as well.
And no to legalizing cannabis. Taxing tobacco hasn't made a difference nor has taxing alcohol. Adding another hypothetically legalized vice will not make much of a difference either.
Seems there is a fiscal cliff coming next year. A story from 2 days ago. (Credit to MSN NEWS Politics. Nov 8, 2012. By Andrew Taylor.) The headline reads: The Fiscal cliff combines tax hikes, spending cuts.
"The fiscal cliff will have an impact across the board including businesses and individuals. A number of tax cuts will expire, defense spending will be cut and people will pay more in taxes."
"The cliff is a punishment for previous failures for the bitterly divided Congress and White House to deal with the Governments spiralling debt or overhaul its unwieldy tax code." Are excerpts from the story.
The rest of the story is very intriguing.
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/10/2012 7:23:08 PM EST]
|
catspaw
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:29,929
Points:3,149,735
Joined:Apr 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2012 1:44:16 PM
fueluser, what you were “offering” to do for me was done in a condescending tone and furthermore, it was totally unnecessary if you had just taken the time post your URL properly in the first place.
In fact, if you'd time to learn how to do do links as you've been asked to do several times by several different people, the issue wouldn't have come up at all.
IOW, the problem is all at your end, not mine.
(And BTW, no, my search engine did not offer me the correct spelling. I saw that on my own because I actually pay attention.)
I shouldn't have to search around to find the story you're talking about. The risk you take when you're too lazy to post the correct link is that I'll find a different story in the same publication that will say something different and make you look foolish.
Why don't you learn some of the very simple things you can do on a computer? You've bragged about your communication skills in the past but as far as I can see, you have the worst communication skills of anybody in all of GB. Half the time nobody even knows what it is you're trying to talk about. Somebody posting in a different language is usually able to communicate better.
fueluser - “I never said that the hypothetical legalization of cannabis would fix the debt by itself. I don't know where you got that from.”
Actually, yes, you HAVE said several times that legalizing marijuana wouldn't fix the debt so it shouldn't be done. The way your wrote it implies that you think that only if something fixes the debt by itself should it even be considered. (I'm not going to bother going back to find your exact words because it's not worth the trouble since you never respond reasonably to what's said anyway?)
fueluser - “There is a boat load of taxation coming at a lot of people. Especially on the rich so to speak. Because I guess its viewed that they can afford to pay a bit more into the tax coffers? Then middle class families are looking at $3500 more dollars in taxation coming out of their bill folds in 2013 as well?”
So you advocate the middle class families and the rich to have to pay another $66 billion a year extra? How many families paying $3500 a year do you think it takes to cover that $66 billion – and that's just to break even!
fueluser - “Why legalize cannabis when the taxation needed to bring the debt down is already in the works anyway?”
Because $66 billion extra a year will bring down the debt a lot faster than making the everybody pay it.
You bragged earlier about your understanding of financial matters but you sure don't show any evidence of it.
|
FatherFred
Champion Author
Atlanta
Posts:17,952
Points:3,117,110
Joined:Jun 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2012 12:58:45 PM
NO
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2012 12:05:19 PM
catspaw: Someone offers to do something for you. And you want to talk it down and complain about it? Did you know that when you got to a search engine. And when a word is misspelled. That the search engine will offer the person the choice of the "correct spelling" along with the incorrect spelling. Thus giving two choices to choose from? Its nice that the search engine offers a constructive solution and doesnt complain about it?
I never said that the hypothetical legalization of cannabis would fix the debt by itself. I don't know where you got that from.
There is a boat load of taxation coming at a lot of people. Especially on the rich so to speak. Because I guess its viewed that they can afford to pay a bit more into the tax coffers? Then middle class families are looking at $3500 more dollars in taxation coming out of their bill folds in 2013 as well?
Why legalize cannabis when the taxation needed to bring the debt down is already in the works anyway?
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/10/2012 12:11:14 PM EST]
|
catspaw
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:29,929
Points:3,149,735
Joined:Apr 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2012 8:47:43 AM
mnrick, thanks for joining. It's nice to perhaps have some intelligent debate on this thread.
That sounds like rational thinking, that even though you don't like marijuana, you still acknowledge that the sledgehammer approach of federal anti-drug enforcement is an overkill that isn't working.
Did I get that right?
I see what you're saying about what happened to your friend, but perhaps the meth and ecstasy had more to do with his sentencing than the marijuana.
Unless he had a huge amount of marijuana, such a sentence would more likely be because of selling the other acknowledged dangerous drugs.
Or, if he had that much property, perhaps they used it to prove that he'd been dealing on a large enough scale that they threw the book at him.
That's perhaps a novel idea to just take away all of a drug dealer's property and charge a fine (perhaps a large one?) and I might even go along with that if it had been just marijuana, but as soon as the other two drugs became part of the scenario, I think a harsh penalty is warranted. If you're in your mid-thirties now, you should know that ecstasy and meth are getting into big-time, dangerous drugs calling for more than just a tap on the wrist.
Anyway, it seems like a more interesting idea to have an intelligent discussion with than as you can see has been the case for the last while on this thread. So hope to see you back with your thoughts.
|
catspaw
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:29,929
Points:3,149,735
Joined:Apr 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2012 8:28:34 AM
fueluser - “I'm going to do you a favor. I'm going to email seattlepi.com personally to get the "point of contact person" in regards to that particle that I was talking to you about. And then provide you with that information for you on your whiteboard.”
Thanks for some more proof that you don't even bother to read what anybody else posts.
Two of us have now told you that the problem was not with seattlepi.com but with you.
You made a spelling mistake when you typed out the URL and that causes it not to work. Apparently you not only can't figure out how to use the link tool, you don't even know how to cut/paste a line.
But giving you suggestions how to improve yourself is like talking to a wall. Do you know the word “autism”?
fueluser - “And no to legalizing cannabis. And here's a reason why the hypothetical legalization of cannabis for the purpose of taxation isn't needed. Because as of January 1st 2013. The Bush tax cuts are going to going away. So there will be a plethora of fresh taxation thats going to be available. Then there is an additional 5 billion dollars that are being cut from military spending.”
Ah, that makes a lot of sense. In a $trillion budget with a $300 billion shortfall (figures imaginary just to prove the point – it's obviously not worth doing any research for you since you never pay attention anyway) you think a $5 billion spending cut is going to solve the problem?
So because of that $5 billion cut, you can continue to forgo $66 billion in combined cuts/revenue and it will all work out? And all of this just because “some parents worry about their kids”.
fueluser - “So theres two ideas right there that are already in the works to help bring the debt down.”
Yet before you were rejecting legalizing marijuana because that one idea wouldn't solve the deficit problem all by itself. But now multiple ideas are ok because they're your ideas (even though combined they may not make as much a difference).
You know one of the best parts of the idea of legalizing marijuana re: the budget, is that since you don't use marijuana, it won't be a tax increase on you. It's other people who DO use it who will paying the extra tax, not you. You should like it then.
fueluser - “rjhenn and catspaw; I'm sorry for the "r" being added to the web site Seattlepi.com. And to any inconvenience that it may have caused.”
Then why that stupid rant that you were going to contact seattlepi.com directly and talk to the contact person to complain/get him to call us/whatever it is you think would happen? If you just realized now that the problem came from you, then just don't start with your first paragraph.
Don't tell me you think this is like a typewriter and you don't know how to use the 'delete' button!
|
mnrick041
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:14,470
Points:1,395,785
Joined:Jun 2009
|
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2012 5:51:04 AM
I am not in favor of it. However, people charged with selling, manufacturing or possession of it should simply be fined. The idea of sending people to prison for long periods of time for drug possession is a bad one. Make them pay money instead.
One of my best friends got sent to prison with a 36.5 year sentence for selling meth, ecstasy and marijuana. He had been doing it since high school and at the age of 23 he got sent to prison for what amounts to his whole life, his release date is in 2035. He had a lot of money and for being 23 he had a nice collection of property, cars and other things. They should have simply taken all that away from him, given him a fine and let him be.
[Edited by: mnrick041 at 11/10/2012 5:58:29 AM EST]
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,605
Points:2,256,100
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2012 3:09:25 AM
fueluser10 - "catspaw: I'm going to do you a favor. I'm going to email seattlepi.com personally to get the "point of contact person" in regards to that particle that I was talking to you about. And then provide you with that information for you on your whiteboard."
More prattle.
"And no to legalizing cannabis. And here's a reason why the hypothetical legalization of cannabis for the purpose of taxation isn't needed. Because as of January 1st 2013. The Bush tax cuts are going to going away. So there will be a plethora of fresh taxation thats going to be available. Then there is an additional 5 billion dollars that are being cut from military spending."
Those increased taxes are more likely to hurt revenues than increase them.
Apparently you focus on the budget issue because you can't address the other reasons for legalizing mj.
"rjhenn and catspaw; I'm sorry for the "r" being added to the web site Seattlepi.com. And to any inconvenience that it may have caused."
No problem. All it did was undermine your argument.
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2012 2:40:28 AM
catspaw: I'm going to do you a favor. I'm going to email seattlepi.com personally to get the "point of contact person" in regards to that particle that I was talking to you about. And then provide you with that information for you on your whiteboard.
And no to legalizing cannabis. And here's a reason why the hypothetical legalization of cannabis for the purpose of taxation isn't needed. Because as of January 1st 2013. The Bush tax cuts are going to going away. So there will be a plethora of fresh taxation thats going to be available. Then there is an additional 5 billion dollars that are being cut from military spending.
So theres two ideas right there that are already in the works to help bring the debt down.
rjhenn and catspaw; I'm sorry for the "r" being added to the web site Seattlepi.com. And to any inconvenience that it may have caused.
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/10/2012 2:47:21 AM EST]
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,605
Points:2,256,100
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2012 2:31:25 AM
lightbulbman2008 - "no
no no
no no no"
Posting for points? There's a whole group of topics for that.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,605
Points:2,256,100
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2012 2:31:08 AM
fueluser10 - "catspaw; I mentioned the article so that it could be looked at. (I just looked up the web site its there.)"
But you misspelled the URL, so it doesn't work for anyone trying to use it from your post.
You need to learn to cut and paste, and use the link tool.
"Seattlepi.com exists"
Yes, but your link was to "www.searttlepi.com".
|
catspaw
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:29,929
Points:3,149,735
Joined:Apr 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 11:11:43 PM
fueluser - “If you dont have a link? How about maybe looking the information up the old fashioned was? Seattlepi.com exists”
Well see there you go fuel. Thanks for illuminating the very problem with typing out the URL as you did.
You see, what you posted was:
http://www.searttlepi.com/local/article/more-kids-are-seeing-drugs-in-school-1246765.php
It looked like you might have misspelled the very beginning of it. (Hint - there's no 'r' in 'Seattle').
I took out the 'r' and tried again.
It didn't work then so I tried reducing it by taking out the '.php'
Still didn't work so I took out the 'http://www.'
Nope, so I left off the '1246765'
When that didn't work I figured I'd wasted enough time to make up for you being too lazy (or something else) to figure out how to post a link. If communicating well isn't important enough for you to learn a VERY simple task, then I guess it's not important enough for me to try guessing any longer.
Because at this point, once I did get to 'seattlepi.com', (from your second post) it's been modified so much how do I know that I'm looking at the same article that you are? You never gave a title or author of the article, so how do I know there aren't several on that site about the subject?
|
inthewoods
Veteran Author
Maryland
Posts:360
Points:109,835
Joined:Aug 2006
|
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 5:10:07 PM
yes.. it should be grown by gov. packaged by gov. sold and taxed like cigs. all profit should go to the national debt. after all we can drink ourselves under a table, or poision ourselves with nicotine, and the gov, taxes those , the ones who dont want others smoke in thier lungs, i respect that, im not a smoker,or a drinker. but people who want it are getting it easily now, the law hasnt done anything but drive it to criminals who are profiting, let the gov. profit instead.
|
lightbulbman2008
Champion Author
Worcester
Posts:420,300
Points:1,614,360
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 4:01:02 PM
no no no
|
lightbulbman2008
Champion Author
Worcester
Posts:420,300
Points:1,614,360
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 4:00:27 PM
no no
|
lightbulbman2008
Champion Author
Worcester
Posts:420,300
Points:1,614,360
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 3:58:15 PM
no
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 3:48:34 PM
catspaw, If you dont have a link? How about maybe looking the information up the old fashioned was? Seattlepi.com exists
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/9/2012 3:50:16 PM EST]
|
catspaw
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:29,929
Points:3,149,735
Joined:Apr 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 1:53:43 PM
fueluser - “I mentioned the article so that it could be looked at. (I just looked up the web site its there.)”
Well, without a link I can't find the article. You DO realize that different search engines, different ISP's and even being in different countries affects how or even if you can find something just from what you posted I hope? And if you made a typo in posting the URL, it won't work, even though you can find it on YOUR computer easily because it's been cached in your temporary internet folder.
fueluser - “The typical search engine is my link device. And here's a quote from the article.”
If you're quoting from an article that I can't find because you won't link to it (or even give any other clues how to find it), then how do I know you're not just making up whatever you say you're quoting?
If you tried that trick in university without giving a solid reference to your source, you'd flunk the essay.
fueluser - “I think the debt in one way or form pretty much affects some of us. So if you want to call that prattle go ahead.”
Again evidence that you either don't bother to read or are incapable of understanding what others post.
It doesn't matter what the subject is, or how seriously it affects all of us, if you're just posting “meaningless chatter” and “without saying anything important”, then it's 'prattle'.
Now if you want to have a serious discussion about the debt, and actually answer questions, suggest and debate solutions, and go through the pros and cons of each solution; then that wouldn't be prattle.
But when you just toss out statements like “The debt conversation is one I don't think is going away anytime soon. Why?” and whenever anyone tries to actually talk about anything to do with the debt you just reject everything they say out of hand without any logic, reasoning or evidence to support your POV, then you're prattling.
fueluser - “What is your fascination with tell me I'm doing something that I'm not?”
Please, give me an example of where I've told you that you're doing something that you're not. Unlike you, I don't just whine about the other person is saying. Every time I tell you something like you allege, I go into detail as to just exactly how you ARE doing it.
But just like you accused me of “sidestepping” the issues, and I asked for an example of where I've sidestepped, you're going to ignore this request too.
IOW, you're just 'prattling' and 'trolling' and you actually have no intention of participating in a serious discussion.
fueluser - “I'm not the individual who can say yes or not to possible policies that could change things. I do not have that kind of responsibility.”
I never said you did have that kind of responsibility.
But do you vote? Does a candidate's stance on legalizing marijuana influence whether or not you're going to vote for them? When you talk with your friends and family, do you ever give them your opinion on whether or not marijuana should be legalized? If there was a question on the ballot about legalizing marijuana, would you vote 'no'?
If the answer to any of those is 'yes', then you do in fact have some responsibility for what happens.
Well, seeing as how you so frequently sidestep the responsibility of answering questions, of clarifying what you say that others don't understand, of learning how to use the 'insert link' function, of actually making a real point, of staying on topic, etc., etc., I'm sure it doesn't distress you overmuch to have another responsibility.
But as far as 'onus' goes on you fueluser, there's absolutely no onus on you to keep posting in this thread. And seeing as how you apparently have no intention of actually debating the issue or of saying anything meaningful beyond just "no", or of bothering to answer any questions, even if they're just to clarify what you've said, then I don't know why you keep posting here. You don't even participate in the real function of the site, which is to post gas prices.
[Edited by: catspaw at 11/9/2012 2:03:19 PM EST]
|
dieharder
Rookie Author
Ottawa
Posts:67
Points:234,635
Joined:Sep 2011
|
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 11:50:50 AM
Marijuana should, indeed, be legalized and taxed. Take the money out of organized crime and gangs and put it in the governments hands. We could always hope that this could lead to a reduction in taxation elsewhere, as well as less violence on both sides near the Mexican border.
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 11:13:08 AM
catspaw; I mentioned the article so that it could be looked at. (I just looked up the web site its there.) The typical search engine is my link device. And here's a quote from the article. "We are in an era when people don't really care about school rules or laws. So it happens"
I think the debt in one way or form pretty much affects some of us. So if you want to call that prattle go ahead.
What is your fascination with tell me I'm doing something that I'm not? I'm not the individual who can say yes or not to possible policies that could change things. I do not have that kind of responsibility.
Youre putting an onus on me that is not mine. But you keep going on about it.
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/9/2012 11:18:34 AM EST]
|
catspaw
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:29,929
Points:3,149,735
Joined:Apr 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 7:27:24 AM
BTW fuel, you accused me of “sidestepping” the issues, and I've asked you to show any issue that I've sidestepped.
You haven't done so, which is in itself YOU sidestepping the issue, or in IOW, the question raised by your accusation.
So I'm still waiting. Are you unable to come up with anything to support your accusation? Was it a false accusation (ie a lie)?
|
catspaw
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:29,929
Points:3,149,735
Joined:Apr 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 7:27:04 AM
fueluser - “The prattle as you label it has been about family and educational value based. That sir is not prattle.
Prattle:
To talk or chatter idly or meaninglessly; babble or prate.
To talk in a foolish or simple-minded way; chatter; babble.
To talk in a silly way or like a child for a long time about things that are not important or without saying anything important
eg His speech contained nothing new and was full of political prattle and clichés.
Fiona's such a prattler - I wish she'd get to the point of what she wants to say.
Gee fuel, that description for 'prattle' seem much more applicable to your posts than to any of ours. YOU'RE the one who never seems to get to the point, who makes meaningless statements that nobody can understand. You've never proved anything we've said to be foolish or idle, but on the other hand..
fueluser - “So your possible interpretation of family values is the government legislating a families values?”
Your attempt at spin failed fuel. That's not what I said at all.
“Family values” are something within the family, presumably taught or understood by the family as a whole. They have not whatsoever to do with government legislation and in fact, would be totally independent of government legislation.
It is YOU however, who are advocating that the government legislate “family values”, in which case they become not the values of the family but the values of the government.
fueluser - “The basic family values that I am familiar with is that if the law says something is illegal you dont full around with that which is illegal. Because if an individual below the age of 18 is fooling around with cannabis? That choice is compromising the taught family values of that family.”
So if the law was changed, and the 'family value' was “not to 'fool around with that which is illegal”, then the family value doesn't have to change. They still wouldn't fool around with that which is illegal, but since if the law was changed that marijuana was legal, they could use it without doing anything illegal.
As far as the age of 18 goes, that has nothing to do with your initial statement about 'family values'. Breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of the age of the one doing it. Unless of course the law restricts users to somebody over the age of 18. But there can't be such a restriction if the substance is illegal to everybody. It can only apply if marijuana is legalized but only for people over the age of 18. (ie, your point about age is null and void).
fueluser - “Your educational value retort. I was talking about the possibility of drugs on a schools property.”
Then you clearly didn't understand what I said. “The possibility of drugs on a school's property” is the business of the school's, not the government. Just because a product is legal doesn't mean it's allowed on school property. Alcohol is legal, but most schools have rules against it on school property. Guns are legal in the US, but most schools have rules against them.
fueluser - “(This article goes into that in some detail. http://www.searttlepi.com/local/article/more-kids-are-seeing-drugs-in-school-1246765.php.) There are some telling lines in that story. One could possibly read that article and maybe surmise that todays educational values are being compromised as well?”
Well, since you hadn't mentioned the article before, then how were we supposed to know what you were talking about?
In fact, since your URL doesn't work, we still can't find out. Why don't you learn how to create a link? That way you can avoid the problems of errors in the URL that you post. It's really easy to do for most people, and seeing as how I've given you the step-by-step instructions at least 3, possibly 4 times, then what's your problem? Either you're as suspected, ignoring everything that's posted to you except what you want to object to (which can be a part of trolling) or you can't figure it out regardless of how easy it's made for you (which has other implications).
fueluser - “The debt conversation is one I dont think is going away anytime soon. Why?”
A perfect example of prattle (unless you explain what in heck you're talking about).
fueluser - “Because some parents and grandparents are questioning why their kids are going to be the ones to foot the bill of the debt into the future that is being rung up today?”
And they're going to be asking YOU, not us. Because it's YOU who wants to add an extra $66 billion a year to the deficit by keeping marijuana illegal. Legalizing it would reduce the deficit by that amount, not increase it. So when those questions are asked, the fingers will be pointing to people like you to answer.
fueluser - “It goes beyond legalizing cannabis for the mere taxation of it. Some want the issues fixed that have been festering now for a while. And those issues have been over gone over plenty in here.”
More prattle.
fueluser - “The debt has been forecasted to be at 20 Trillion by the end of the decade? That makes no sense.”
No, it doesn't. Especially when, at an extra $66 billion a year, it could be $528 billion less if marijuana was legalized, but you want to add that to the debt, not deduct it. That's half a trillion dollars by the end of the decade, just so that “some parents won't have to worry”. (But of course they'll worry anyway, since having marijuana illegal doesn't seem to be stopping kids from getting it. But having it legal but restricted to those over 18 would make it harder for them to get).
So it's really YOUR POV that makes no sense. It's YOUR POV that makes both the debt, and the worry, worse.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,605
Points:2,256,100
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2012 12:22:49 AM
fueluser10 - "rjehnn: The prattle as you label it has been about family and educational value based. That sir is not prattle."
Except that it hasn't been about "family and educational value based", whatever that means. Your prattle has been exclusively about never making changes, no matter how much damage the status quo is inflicting on families.
"The basic family values that I am familiar with is that if the law says something is illegal you dont full around with that which is illegal. Because if an individual below the age of 18 is fooling around with cannabis? That choice is compromising the taught family values of that family."
So only your 'family values' count? Even if they're based on lies?
"Your educational value retort. I was talking about the possibility of drugs on a schools property.
(This article goes into that in some detail. http://www.searttlepi.com/local/article/more-kids-are-seeing-drugs-in-school-1246765.php.) There are some telling lines in that story. One could possibly read that article and maybe surmise that todays educational values are being compromised as well?"
By your 'values'. As has often been pointed out, mj is easily available to anyone who wants it precisely because it's illegal. If it was legal, and licensed, it would be harder for certain groups, such as minors, to get hold of it.
"The debt conversation is one I dont think is going away anytime soon. Why? Because some parents and grandparents are questioning why their kids are going to be the ones to foot the bill of the debt into the future that is being rung up today?
It goes beyond legalizing cannabis for the mere taxation of it. Some want the issues fixed that have been festering now for a while. And those issues have been over gone over plenty in here. The debt has been forecasted to be at 20 Trillion by the end of the decade? That makes no sense."
Neither does your insistence on continuing to waste money on failed policies.
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2012 10:49:38 AM
rjehnn: The prattle as you label it has been about family and educational value based. That sir is not prattle.
catspaw: So your possible interpretation of family values is the government legislating a families values?
The basic family values that I am familiar with is that if the law says something is illegal you dont full around with that which is illegal. Because if an individual below the age of 18 is fooling around with cannabis? That choice is compromising the taught family values of that family.
Your educational value retort. I was talking about the possibility of drugs on a schools property.
(This article goes into that in some detail. http://www.searttlepi.com/local/article/more-kids-are-seeing-drugs-in-school-1246765.php.) There are some telling lines in that story. One could possibly read that article and maybe surmise that todays educational values are being compromised as well?
The debt conversation is one I dont think is going away anytime soon. Why? Because some parents and grandparents are questioning why their kids are going to be the ones to foot the bill of the debt into the future that is being rung up today?
It goes beyond legalizing cannabis for the mere taxation of it. Some want the issues fixed that have been festering now for a while. And those issues have been over gone over plenty in here. The debt has been forecasted to be at 20 Trillion by the end of the decade? That makes no sense.
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/8/2012 10:51:04 AM EST]
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,605
Points:2,256,100
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2012 1:38:05 AM
fueluser10 - "catspaw; You're a classic side stepping conversationalist."
Actually, that's you. You produce lots of meaningless prattle. You rarely, if ever, actually answer any questions. You rarely, if ever, back up anything you say.
Such as: "Being that alcohol was previously legalized. And the 79 years of the history speaks volumes for itself? I think would provide quite the precedence from which to work from would it not?"
You've been asked, many times, WTH you're talking about. Are you talking about the many deaths from criminal activity or poisonous alcoholic beverages that occurred because of Prohibition? Or are you talking about the huge sums of money that went to criminals because of Prohibition, that gave them a lot of power and threatened to undermine our society?
Because both those things are occurring now because of the laws on mj.
"66 Billion dollars?? If there was a balanced budget why would there be a need to boost ANY bottom line?"
How are you going to get a balanced budget if you continue to throw money ($66 billion a year) away?
|
catspaw
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:29,929
Points:3,149,735
Joined:Apr 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2012 12:36:24 AM
Family values – if it has to be legislated on the family by the government, then it's by definition NOT the family's 'value'.
Educational values – if somebody wants to use marijuana and the answer is “no, because I said so”, then there's no education going on, it's nothing more than telling others how to live their life (and not even giving them a valid reason).
And fuel, when the budget is balanced, then perhaps there wouldn't be any need to boost the bottom line. But can you see the budget being balanced and the deficit zeroed happening any time in your lifetime? If not, then it's a valid reason.
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2012 12:30:06 AM
catspaw; You commentate on what you find necessary. Like the Whiteboard question? I wasn't referring to the troll comment. The other follow up question that was asked in reference to the comments made beside that one?
And NO again to legalizing cannabis.
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/8/2012 12:31:27 AM EST]
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2012 12:10:15 AM
catspaw: Why I am in here saying no to legalizing cannabis?
A) Family values
B) Educational values.
66 Billion dollars?? If there was a balanced budget why would there be a need to boost ANY bottom line?
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/8/2012 12:16:04 AM EST]
|
catspaw
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:29,929
Points:3,149,735
Joined:Apr 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2012 11:24:05 PM
Please fuel, go ahead and post somewhere that I've sidestepped any issue that you've brought up.
But if you can't are you going to be honest enough to admit that you're wrong? Likely not judging by your history.
Your complaint before has actually been that I've gone into too many of things in too great a detail, and never let anything go by. It's hardly “sidestepping” an issue when I usually take each sentence of your post, line by line, and point out the absurdities of it.
So cut the BS fuel. The only one who sidesteps on this thread has been you.
As a rule you rudely don't answer questions. On the odd occasion when you do acknowledge a question, you post something almost incoherent that nobody can understand and if they ask you to explain, you get all defensive and whiney but never do address the question directly. Whenever a link to a bona fide scientific fact is posted you ignore (ie sidestep) it or change the subject to something else. And whenever a real viable solution to anything, or objection to something of yours comes up, you go off on a tangent to something else, usually a mildly personal attack on me. (eg “You're a classic side stepping conversationalist”)
I used to answer your questions directly, (most of them that are on-topic I still do) but after a few months of seeing you too rude to even acknowledge that I'd asked you a question, I figured that it was pointless for it to be one-sided – especially when most of your questions have been about me personally, not about the topic of the thread.
Yeah, I DO have expertise in drugs. Do you think that just because you have a different opinion that it negates decades of education and experience dealing with them? Do you think that just because “somebody's worried” that the actual facts don't count any more?
Most people are smart enough to realize that somebody who actually works in a particular field might just possibly have a wee bit more knowledge than they do; but not you. You stick to your ideology regardless of what anybody says (unless of course they agree with you or they're “worried”).
How about another example of sidestepping? And of not answering a question (you're predictable).
What does somebody “getting customers through the doors only to offer low customer service” have to do with government debt/deficit management? Not a thing. But it's a way for you to sidestep the original question, which was about if you're trying to reduce the deficit why would you not seriously consider a $66billion boost to the bottom line?
And is “bloviate” your new favourite word now? Gee, I'm hurt. (not – I just consider the source)
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2012 12:27:35 PM
catspaw; You're a classic side stepping conversationalist. (The funny thing is there are some liberal commentators who sometimes go to participate in a news cast. Get asked questions. Not really answering the questions. Then the news anchor has to pause the commentator to ask the same question. Only to get the same talking points re expressed back to the news anchor again. So the commentator does a fine job of getting their talking points expressed. There is a technique in advertising that implores the sales person mentioning the talking points about a said product three times while making a commercial. This way the product is ensured an "awareness factor" to the public.)
You stick to your talking points because you said it yourself because you have expertise in your said field.
Furthermore I do my talking in here. I don't need to go to the Whiteboard section to I guess and talk about someone behind their back?
Why do I need an excuse to come in here and talk?
Just because an individual may have managed a multi million dollar enterprise. I understand some aspects of business. Ive seen companies do what they could to get customers through their doors only to offer low customer service. But it doesnt always mean that the manager of a business is going to run their business to suit the customer. Some being more worried about their profit margin.
Oblivious is as oblivious chooses to bloviate.
And no to legalizing cannabis.
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/7/2012 12:36:40 PM EST]
|
nruf55
All-Star Author
New Jersey
Posts:666
Points:43,245
Joined:Dec 2011
|
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2012 11:53:40 AM
Hell NO
|
catspaw
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:29,929
Points:3,149,735
Joined:Apr 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2012 11:25:30 AM
fuelusers - “I don't know why in the silly blazes I am at fault in my ideas?”
Then just more proof that you either ignore what I post or you don't try to understand. I've told you, literally, dozens of times.
fuelusers - “The guy who plays the character of "Sheldon" from "Big Bang Theory?" His communication skills are fantastic.”
While they're significantly better than your communication skills, if you really think so, then you must have the picture off and just be listening to the sound. Do you really miss the looks all the other characters gives him whenever he says something particular obtuse and unthinking? It's often one of the highlights?
fuelusers - “Yours.. they are what they are.”
Yes, significantly better than yours. You may not like me being harsh with you, but lobbing you softballs wasn't getting anywhere.
fuelusers - “And then you express you displeasure to Bighorne1, about not liking the smell of cannabis. He hasn't said anything thing to you about your "comment."”
You're really going to base your position on a drive-by?
fuelusers - “To me it came across as rude on your part.”
Hey, being the rudest person on this thread, you oughta know.
fuelusers - “The troll comment came from a WHITEBOARD comment that occurred on Oct 22, 2012 between you and another person. And I'll give you two guesses on whom I'm talking about.”
What, that's the first time you've noticed anyone (and not just me) refer to you that way?
fuelusers - “Debt management 101 just for you.”
FYI fuel, I've managed multi-million $ enterprises. I doubt if you're in a position to teach me anything about debt management.
Especially since in what you posted afterwards about balancing the budget totally ignores the fact that part of balancing the budget is to reduce expenditures (in this case cost of enforcement) and increase revenues (in this case legalize a new taxable commodity). If you're going to ignore a possible $66 billion annual variance just “because some parents might be worried”, then you really have no understanding of the subject.
fuelusers - “Why would I be spending the time in here talking about the topic of legalizing cannabis with you and rjhenn?”
I'm retired and just work work once in a while to keep busy. What's your excuse?
fuelusers - “When you question me AGAIN about the deficit. And I guess you didnt like the answers?”
Since you can't ever seem to communicate well enough to explain your answers (on the rare occasions that you're not so rude as to not even try), then what is there to like? The rest of us have given you plenty of feedback as to the problems with your answers, but you seem unable to either explain them, defend them, or refute our answers. Only somebody with blinder on and a big ideology would accept your version on that basis.
fuelusers - “If I was a Political Representative (The above described is what I would be doing for the deficit)”
If you were a political representative with any input on the deficit, it would probably be in far worse shape than it is now.
fuelusers - “With all due respect to the original questions posed on this topic forum. My responsibilities I think would demand more of my time in a creative and constructive manner.”
FYI, “creative” does not mean to keep doing the same ol', same ol' that you have been doing for the past 80 years and expecting things to change.
fuelusers - “I would have maybe come to this web site briefly. Wrote the question down and moved on.”
I really don't know why you do come to this web site. That's why people think you're trolling. (And as much as you like to attack me, I'm not the only one who's said that)
You don't seem to ever have anything new to add. Just the same old that's been done for the past 80 years and added perhaps $1 trillion to the debt over that period of time. Nor do you seem to have any answers for any questions we've asked, nor logical reasons not to try the creative ideas that we've presented.
fuelusers - “Being that alcohol was previously legalized. And the 79 years of the history speaks volumes for itself? I think would provide quite the precedence from which to work from would it not?”
If the history of repealing Prohibition did speak for itself and provide a precedent, then marijuana should have been legalized long ago. That you think otherwise again shows that you don't pay any attention to what others say, but just continue along on your own merry (oblivious) way.
|
SemiSteve
Champion Author
Tampa
Posts:14,703
Points:258,880
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2012 10:38:45 AM
Cannabis now legal for any adult in two States.
The people have spoken.
Hooray for common sense.
Enough of wasting money and lives over something that doesn't hurt anybody. The only hurt was caused by the very fact that it was illegal.
That's 2 States. Now we need the other 48 and the federal govt to end the absurdity.
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2012 3:34:39 AM
Just another day of the same.
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/7/2012 3:35:16 AM EST]
|
SovietSunrise
Champion Author
San Antonio
Posts:7,910
Points:1,117,680
Joined:Jun 2007
|
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2012 3:30:09 AM
Hooray for Colorado, Washington and Massachussetts! Now, pay attention to Arkansas: yes, the medicinal marijuana ballot failed to pass, but did you notice the margins? Very, very close.
'twas a good night.
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2012 3:15:17 AM
Catspaw: You are trying way to hard. I don't know why in the silly blazes I am at fault in my ideas? Based upon your individual determination? But by no means would I ever "hide" as you describe it.
The guy who plays the character of "Sheldon" from "Big Bang Theory?" His communication skills are fantastic. Yours.. they are what they are.
And then you express you displeasure to Bighorne1, about not liking the smell of cannabis. He hasn't said anything thing to you about your "comment."
(To me it came across as rude on your part. But thats my opinion of your words. Being that he is possibly new to this topic forum.)
The troll comment came from a WHITEBOARD comment that occurred on Oct 22, 2012 between you and another person. And I'll give you two guesses on whom I'm talking about.
Catspaw; Debt management 101 just for you. If I was a Political representative. First: Who has constituents to take care of? (IE meaning jobs and health care.) Secondly, balancing the budget of the office that I chose to run for and ACCEPTED the responsibility of that said budget? Thirdly: Taking care of the infrastructure of my said district? As responsibly, constructively, and as reasonably as possible. With as few "delays" as possible.
Why would I be spending the time in here talking about the topic of legalizing cannabis with you and rjhenn? If I had all those responsibilities and had raised my hand in taking an oath to take of those issues on a near daily basis?
When you question me AGAIN about the deficit. And I guess you didnt like the answers? If I was a Political Representative (The above described is what I would be doing for the deficit)
With all due respect to the original questions posed on this topic forum. My responsibilities I think would demand more of my time in a creative and constructive manner. I would have maybe come to this web site briefly. Wrote the question down and moved on.
Being that alcohol was previously legalized. And the 79 years of the history speaks volumes for itself? I think would provide quite the precedence from which to work from would it not?
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/7/2012 3:21:41 AM EST]
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,605
Points:2,256,100
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2012 2:49:59 AM
Well, it looks like Colorado and Washington state are going to approve recreational marijuana, by wide margins.
And that Massachusetts is going to approve medical marijuana, by an extremely wide margin.
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,605
Points:2,256,100
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2012 1:38:41 AM
OilOnTheCheap - "I agree with KansasGunman ... pot users are 'genetic litter'"
So why should the government try to protect them?
And endanger the rest of us?
[Edited by: rjhenn at 11/7/2012 1:39:49 AM EST]
|
OilOnTheCheap
Champion Author
Ventura
Posts:2,250
Points:476,010
Joined:Jan 2012
|
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2012 1:27:03 AM
I agree with KansasGunman ... pot users are "genetic litter"
|
catspaw
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:29,929
Points:3,149,735
Joined:Apr 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2012 1:23:40 AM
fueluser - “Are you one of those types of individuals who likes to find fault in other people catspaw?”
Nope. But if there's fault in their ideas, then I'm not going to let them hide it.
fueluser - “"Contrived" Having an unnatural of false appearance or quality.”
As I said, you don't know how to use the word. Like many other sentences, that one doesn't make sense.
fueluser - “If the shoes fits wear it?" YEAH catspaw I heard thunderous applause after you reading that line from you for what is it now a third maybe fourth time?”
LOL, oooooh, you sound like Sheldon trying to toss a zinger ... and failing.
fueluser - “For you to share the "delicate sense of smell" comment with someone else? Some might call that being sarcastically rude.”
Most people know that I'm not rude to anybody unless they've been rude to me for a while. If you're finding me “sarcastically rude”, then perhaps you should look at your own behaviour over the past year.
fueluser - “I'm the so called troll you speak so gleefully about?”
Don't know where you're getting the “gleeful” from, but I'm hardly the only one to have referred to as a 'troll'. Surely it can't come as a surprise to you?
And like every other thing we've said, you've been unable to come up with any way to refute it.
fueluser - “Legalizing cannabis is an old idea.”
Not as old as your idea of making it illegal.
fueluser - “Legalizing alcohol made money.”
So you think that legalizing marijuana won't make money?
fueluser - “But the issues of having over indulged in alcohol have not seemningly not weened much.”
So make up your mind. Either you want to reduce the deficit or you don't. But you don't seem to be able to make up your mind. Or make a clear reasoning why you think as you do.
But if you think that the issues of alcohol have “seemingly not weened much” (although like many of your comments, I'm not really sure what you mean by that), then you have no idea (and apparently no wish to learn either) what it was like during Prohibition. The mobs were machine-gunning places from the street. People were going blind and dying from poisonous 'bathtub gin'. Rum-runners were making $millions smuggling in illegal booze. Organized crime was thriving to the point where they financed the creation of the Las Vegas that we know today.
BTW, are Dutch?
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,605
Points:2,256,100
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2012 1:09:32 AM
fueluser10 - "rjhenn; So its OK to pay Law Enforcement their wages for the jobs that they are doing? But if the Tax Payer money goes towards cannabis enforcement then someone is in the wrong? How does that make sense?"
As usual, you're not making much sense.
"Legalizing cannabis. Its rare for this set of words to come up. Some people are worried about other things. (And I've gone over them in ad nauseam what those other things are.)"
So how does the failed attempt to ban mj help any of those people with their concerns?
"Teaching for the benefit of the student and not for the benefit of their own reasons."
Actually, that would seem to let you out, but allow catspaw in.
"I'm the so called troll you speak so gleefully about?"
That would appear to be accurate.
If you're not a troll, well, I could get in trouble for trying to provide any other explanation.
"Legalizing cannabis is an old idea. Legalizing alcohol made money. But the issues of having over indulged in alcohol have not seemningly not weened much."
But it did reduce some of the problems associated with alcohol, and didn't make anything worse.
That's how progress usually works.
|
4X4Ford
Sophomore Author
Missouri
Posts:229
Points:30,670
Joined:Feb 2007
|
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2012 10:35:48 PM
NO!
|
fueluser10
Champion Author
Virginia Beach
Posts:2,455
Points:58,965
Joined:Dec 2010
|
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2012 8:30:13 PM
catspaw; You and another stayed behind to distract me? Because Idheinz started another Cannabis Topic Forum? I'm the so called troll you speak so gleefully about?
Legalizing cannabis is an old idea. Legalizing alcohol made money. But the issues of having over indulged in alcohol have not seemningly not weened much.
[Edited by: fueluser10 at 11/6/2012 8:36:18 PM EST]
|
momsno1_taxi
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:35,727
Points:1,271,600
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2012 8:06:53 PM
Never
|