HaloMagic

Why? And by what authority? Whoever carries the bigger stick? They are set-up to create a safer society. The end result of their enforcement isn't always the same.

Good to see you back, mt. The libs have been terrorizing the board. Full disclosure: I've been helping them. I'm all about teamwork.

Honest answer? I'd make sure that my kids and anyone that I care about wouldn't buy product from that neighbor. Any failure by them would be a failure on my part. The last couple of decades of my life have treated me very well. I've been lucky. It hasn't always been that way. I lived for years in communities where my neighbors sold drugs. I learned to stay away and I never once thought to blame those people. They provide options. Other people take those options. Knowing first-hand just how possible it is to not take those options I can't bring myself to believe it is necessary to restrict others. I don't want people to sell drugs. I don't want people to use drugs. I don't want kids to throw their lives away. I don't want people to help kids throw their lives away. I try to help prevent it. I just don't believe I am in charge. Flat out, I don't believe a human has the right to control another human. There are very few occasions where I find it acceptable for society to restrict the rights of others. Drug distribution/use is not one of those reasons. I understand it is for others. For me it's not.

Hey Chuck. I have a big empty space for YouTube videos as well. I use Chrome on my Xoom. When I use the stock browser it shows up.

Promising to pay more than you have isn't a sign of insolvency. If you expect revenue then you'll get money. Does the $16 trillion include the promises of revenue they will receive? It looks like we have 20 years to figure out how to make it solvent after 2033. That doesn't sound like an emergency to me.

Does Pujols belong in the top 15 after the last two seasons?

We should also ban people who troll and then say "I'm serious. That's just my opinion." And yet we don't. Because of that I think We should keep the "convo" people, too.

I'm down with the conspiracy theory and the whole government involvement and cover-up thing but one thing that always stuck out to me was the idea that the bullet that killed him came from the front. Looking at the Zapruder film you can clearly see the front of that guys head get blown out. That was not an entry wound. I'm not sure about magic bullets or lone gunmen but I absolutely know that that death shot came from behind, not from in front or to his right.

http://www.amazon.com/Anaheim-Angels-Series-Collectors-Edition/dp/B004K4FUTS/ref=pd_bxgy_mov_text_y

She's not Jewish, guys. She's Mexican. She doesn't even have any money.

So short term socialism doesn't lead to mediocrity or laziness? Good to know. At what point do the positive benefits of socialism degrade into filth and debauchery? 5 years? 10 years? I'm dying to know. Also, Superman was an alien. You would have hated him.

The first point is legitimate IF you believe that people shouldn't have the freedom to ruin their own lives if they so desired. I do not believe that and I would allow anyone to do whatever self-destructive action they so desire as I'm not in charge of them. I don't own them and I don't feel I have the right to tell them what to do, just as I feel they don't have the right to tell me what to do. The second point is nonsense. Businesses create jobs which provide wealth and spending power. Corporations are a portion of those businesses. There is nothing inherently wrong with corporations. Some may be bad. The concept is solid. Don't attack the concept just because of some individuals. Otherwise we could make a pretty strong argument that we should not allow procreation because people just "turn it into a big pile of crap like they do everything else."

Coming from the person who said we should give women a tax credit for staying at home and raising their kids, this statement drew a hearty chuckle from me. Well done.

My argument for less regulation probably just wasn't big government enough for you. It's still completely on the rails.

Why not? If you'd like to mention other groups feel free to do so.

Yes. Repcons. Like Jay.

And yet repcons don't seem to mind restricting less harmful products even more than alcohol. It's amazing. And hypocritical.

Yeah, it's true. They're so small they seem to just kinda sneak out. Wait, were you talking about the dogs or the Filipinos? I don't catch Filipinos. The meat disagrees with my stomach. Ha! Jokes about am32, rape, Filipinos, dog consumption, overt racism, and now cannibalism? This thing has to be headed to the HOF.

Anything is an expansive word. Better put, I don't think something like marijuana should be more restricted than something like alcohol. It's nonsensical. Also, while i support zero regulation I recognize in a society where even the supposed "small government champion" Repcons want to get their grubby little hands on every sector of our lives, zero regulation isn't possible. So if there has to be regulation we should arrange it in a manner that is sensible and actually aids our society. Preventing a marijuana industry doesn't do that. Nor does outlawing it completely.

Yeah, making it illegal requires no regulatory agencies at all, huh? I'm not against growing for personal use. I'm against the government telling me what I can and can't sell. I guess I'm just not as pro big government as you. Nice try spinning it to make it seem like people who want less things made illegal and regulated are in favor of more government agencies, though.

I glanced at this and thought it said scones. Suffice it to say, I was pretty disappointed after clicking the thread.

They eat dogs. Ask st1ck.

Why prevent industry of any kind? If someone wants to grow or make something for themselves let them. If someone wants to grow or make something to sell to others let them.

In his defense they ran like 30 minutes over and they were cutting off people the whole night. His co-producer had just chatted away for like 2 hours. I'm sure he was worried about the time issue. Still, hard to see them cutting away on the Best Picture speech. You could tell there were some cases where certain people seemed to get a little more rope. Anne Hathaway and Quentin Tarantino were the two that come to mind. If it were some lesser known schmucks they would have had their microphones cut during their long-ass boring speeches. But they didn't even get the music.

Glad you were there to set us straight.