Sowell; the voice of reason- [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Sowell; the voice of reason-


Skyhook
12-18-2012, 13:18
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2012/12/18/sowell-invincible-ignorance/?subscriber=1

"The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago,.... "

series1811
12-18-2012, 13:46
Eloquently put. I don't imagine it will get much play in the MSM.

jeanderson
12-18-2012, 14:01
The one that absolutely floors me is the theater in Aurora, Colorado a few miles from the one where the shooting took place. They have always allowed carrying guns into the theater.

What did they do weeks after the shooting? They banned people from carrying and put up no-gun signs! :wow:

I mean, what's the thought process there? Same as these fools that write laws to "control guns".

barbedwiresmile
12-18-2012, 14:28
Interestingly, while nearly all GT "conservatives" would agree with the unassailability of Sowell's logic above, most would disagree as it applies to drugs, or any other contraband item.

Oh yeah: There's no "constitutional right" to drugs.

And we wonder why are in this mess....

Everyone wants to use the government as their muscle. Then they want to cry when that same muscle is used against them by another.

We reap what we sow.

jeanderson
12-18-2012, 15:53
Interestingly, while nearly all GT "conservatives" would agree with the unassailability of Sowell's logic above, most would disagree as it applies to drugs, or any other contraband item.
I'm not sure I follow your point here. You're comparing drugs to guns?

I think Sowell's point is that putting restrictions on firearms harms only the law-abiding citizen, doing nothing to solve the problem.

I for one thing the war on drugs by the government is mostly a collosal failure, just like everything the federal government gets involved in. I don't really like them using their "muscle" for anything.

barbedwiresmile
12-18-2012, 16:29
I'm not sure I follow your point here. You're comparing drugs to guns?

I think Sowell's point is that putting restrictions on firearms harms only the law-abiding citizen, doing nothing to solve the problem.

I for one thing the war on drugs by the government is mostly a collosal failure, just like everything the federal government gets involved in. I don't really like them using their "muscle" for anything.

Sowell:

"The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available."

ie:

The key fallacy of so-called drug prohibition is that such laws do not in fact control drugs. They simply take drugs (choices) away from law-abiding citizens, while people bent on using drugs find them readily available.

(And that doesn't even take into consideration the violence that is injected into the market by prohibition.)

Skyhook
12-18-2012, 16:33
Interestingly, while nearly all GT "conservatives" would agree with the unassailability of Sowell's logic above, most would disagree as it applies to drugs, or any other contraband item.

Oh yeah: There's no "constitutional right" to drugs.

And we wonder why are in this mess....

Everyone wants to use the government as their muscle. Then they want to cry when that same muscle is used against them by another.

We reap what we sow.

Gun ownership = drug use.. where's my freaking BS flag when I need it!?

Skyhook
12-18-2012, 16:35
The one that absolutely floors me is the theater in Aurora, Colorado a few miles from the one where the shooting took place. They have always allowed carrying guns into the theater.

What did they do weeks after the shooting? They banned people from carrying and put up no-gun signs! :wow:

I mean, what's the thought process there? Same as these fools that write laws to "control guns".

Loosely quoting from another thread, here: Some folks will do something to make themselves feel better even though what they are doing is irrational and may/will infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens..

Fred Hansen
12-18-2012, 17:35
Gun ownership = drug use.. where's my freaking BS flag when I need it!?Chillax brah! It's just weed man...

kirgi08
12-18-2012, 17:42
:smoking: :animlol:

Skyhook
12-18-2012, 17:57
:smoking: :animlol:

X2 !

:cool:

Ruble Noon
12-18-2012, 17:57
Gun ownership = drug use.. where's my freaking BS flag when I need it!?

Probably under that pile of freedom that you tossed out.

Skyhook
12-18-2012, 18:03
Probably under that pile of freedom that you tossed out.

Really!?

:faint:

Ruble Noon
12-18-2012, 18:18
Really!?

:faint:

Yes. When you support the state taking away freedom in one area, when you support the state banning something then you are setting the stage for the state to ban that which you hold dear.

Snowman92D
12-18-2012, 18:23
The COTUS guarantees us life, liberty and the pursuit of recreational drug use. :smoking:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ruble Noon
12-18-2012, 18:26
Thomas Sowell, the voice of reason on drugs

Drug raids are good politics, but they don't make a dent in the problem.
Like prohibition, the ban on drugs has been a financial bonanza for organized crime, and its profits have financed the corruption of law enforcement agencies, politicians, and judges.
It is a dangerous illusion that we have the omnipotence to undue every evil. A crusading mentality can easily makes things worse. Drugs are inherently a problem for the individual who takes them, but they are a much bigger problem for society, precisely because they are illegal.
This is just one more area where we have to recognize government has its limits. Ignoring those limits is not only reckless arrogance, but dangerous.


http://the-classic-liberal.com/thomas-sowell-drug-war/

Skyhook
12-19-2012, 08:24
Yes. When you support the state taking away freedom in one area, when you support the state banning something then you are setting the stage for the state to ban that which you hold dear.

My definition of 'some area' is limited to limiting behaviors which are proven to be detrimental to other citizens. Yes, I do approve of laws against driving under the influence, for instance. I also support laws which forbid convicted felons from ever owning firearms. There are other - few- examples, but ..:dunno:

series1811
12-19-2012, 10:19
Interestingly, while nearly all GT "conservatives" would agree with the unassailability of Sowell's logic above, most would disagree as it applies to drugs, or any other contraband item.

Oh yeah: There's no "constitutional right" to drugs.

And we wonder why are in this mess....

Everyone wants to use the government as their muscle. Then they want to cry when that same muscle is used against them by another.

We reap what we sow.

I would agree, that no matter what the subject, certain posters will try to tie it into their objection to not being able to get drugs.

(But, they're not addicted, or anything).

happyguy
12-19-2012, 11:10
Let the druggies have their drugs. Let them have them at a very young age. Hell, lets subsidize them so they can take more.

Maybe they'll take themselves out of the gene pool before they reproduce.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy :)

Chesafreak
12-19-2012, 11:28
The problem with what Sowell and any of us could ever say to liberals is that they are fueled by emotion while we are the voice of reason. It just doesn't matter how logical you are and how many facts you can quote because they just can't see past the emotion.

There are quite a few liberals on my wife's side of the family. You know what happens when I try to use logic in a calm discussion about the Newtown shooting and "assault weapons" to get them to see that the logic and historical fact of gun control won't work and try talking about mental health issues? I learn that they also don't mind limiting freedom of speech. They deleted the thread when I started to make too much sense and some were starting to understand our (freedom loving gun owners) point of view rather than have anyone to see the light.

ditto1958
12-19-2012, 12:06
The problem with what Sowell and any of us could ever say to liberals is that they are fueled by emotion while we are the voice of reason. It just doesn't matter how logical you are and how many facts you can quote because they just can't see past the emotion.

Yes, but there's more to it than that. Government is limited in what it can do, due to the flawed state of human beings. Attempts to right too many wrongs just cause much more harm than good. Conservatives, many of whom are religious, understand that man is in a fallen state. There are no utopias on earth, and we are here on earth to try to do good and earn our way to heaven. Conservatives want everyone to be successful, but understand government cannot, and should not try, to do much of anything about that.

How do you sell that to liberals if you are in politics? When a charismatic guy like Obama (or even Kennedy back in 1960), comes a long filled with youthful energy, and promises he's going to make things a lot better for people, there are unfortunately a lot of folks who think that sounds really good.

barbedwiresmile
12-19-2012, 12:10
Gun ownership = drug use.. where's my freaking BS flag when I need it!?

Freedom = Freedom

Don't hurt anyone else, none of the government's business.

Unless, of course, one is a modern American 'conservative' GOP heel-clicker.

The height of shameless hypocrisy is demanding one's liberty while attacking that of another with whom you disagree.

jlavallee
12-19-2012, 12:28
I would agree, that no matter what the subject, certain posters will try to tie it into their objection to not being able to get drugs.

(But, they're not addicted, or anything).

Are people free to live as they choose as long as they don't harm anyone else or not?

You can't have your freedoms you want and then turn around and expect people to give in to your ideals of what should be constrained.

YOU are the very reason that the Republican party is filled with idiots that have no conviction.

jlavallee
12-19-2012, 12:32
Freedom = Freedom

Don't hurt anyone else, none of the government's business.

Unless, of course, one is a modern American 'conservative' GOP heel-clicker.

The height of shameless hypocrisy is demanding one's liberty while attacking that of another with whom you disagree.

That is hitting the nail on the head. Unfortunately, their heads are too hollow to get it.

Snowman92D
12-19-2012, 12:46
The height of shameless hypocrisy is demanding one's liberty while attacking that of another with whom you disagree.

Indeed...and exceeded only by the shameful spectacle of grown men wringing their hands and crying for their "right" to get stoned. :rofl:

Gunhaver
12-19-2012, 13:41
The problem with what Sowell and any of us could ever say to liberals is that they are fueled by emotion while we are the voice of reason. It just doesn't matter how logical you are and how many facts you can quote because they just can't see past the emotion.

There are quite a few liberals on my wife's side of the family. You know what happens when I try to use logic in a calm discussion about the Newtown shooting and "assault weapons" to get them to see that the logic and historical fact of gun control won't work and try talking about mental health issues? I learn that they also don't mind limiting freedom of speech. They deleted the thread when I started to make too much sense and some were starting to understand our (freedom loving gun owners) point of view rather than have anyone to see the light.

No. Just no. You are not the voice of reason. You are the voice of climate change and evolution deniers, the voice of 2000 year old mythology being taught as science, the voice of alienating entire classes of people based on sexual practices, the voice of trickle down economics, the voice of a particularly twisted variety of rape fantasy, the voice of "where's Obama's birth certificate??!!" and the voice of handing ever increasing amounts of power to the elites.

You're just too delusional to see all of that. You think that just because you're right about this one issue then you must be right about them all. You caused this problem by letting your party become such a disgusting parody of itself that nobody but yourselves want's to listen to yourselves.

And I know you think I'm wrong about most of that so you don't even consider that I may be right. That's exactly the same effect you experienced with your wife's liberal family. You're wrong about just about everything. They're entitled to be wrong about this one thing.

series1811
12-19-2012, 15:27
Are people free to live as they choose as long as they don't harm anyone else or not?

You can't have your freedoms you want and then turn around and expect people to give in to your ideals of what should be constrained.

YOU are the very reason that the Republican party is filled with idiots that have no conviction.

Admit it though, between drugs being legalized, and firearms being outlawed, you know which one you would choose.

Snowman92D
12-19-2012, 15:59
True dat.

If Obama offered to legalize drugs in exchange for all 2nd Amendment rights, the Ron Paul flash-mob dopers here would be falling all over each other to turn in their guns. :rofl:

Snowman92D
12-19-2012, 16:04
No. Just no. You are not the voice of reason. You are the voice of climate change and evolution deniers, the voice of 2000 year old mythology being taught as science, the voice of alienating entire classes of people based on sexual practices, the voice of trickle down economics, the voice of a particularly twisted variety of rape fantasy, the voice of "where's Obama's birth certificate??!!" and the voice of handing ever increasing amounts of power to the elites.

You're just too delusional to see all of that. You think that just because you're right about this one issue then you must be right about them all. You caused this problem by letting your party become such a disgusting parody of itself that nobody but yourselves want's to listen to yourselves.

And I know you think I'm wrong about most of that so you don't even consider that I may be right. That's exactly the same effect you experienced with your wife's liberal family. You're wrong about just about everything. They're entitled to be wrong about this one thing.

Wow..........................................I hope you've found time to get neutered or spayed. I'd hate to think you'd reproduce.
:supergrin:

Chesafreak
12-19-2012, 16:20
No. Just no. You are not the voice of reason. You are the voice of climate change and evolution deniers, the voice of 2000 year old mythology being taught as science, the voice of alienating entire classes of people based on sexual practices, the voice of trickle down economics, the voice of a particularly twisted variety of rape fantasy, the voice of "where's Obama's birth certificate??!!" and the voice of handing ever increasing amounts of power to the elites.

You're just too delusional to see all of that. You think that just because you're right about this one issue then you must be right about them all. You caused this problem by letting your party become such a disgusting parody of itself that nobody but yourselves want's to listen to yourselves.

And I know you think I'm wrong about most of that so you don't even consider that I may be right. That's exactly the same effect you experienced with your wife's liberal family. You're wrong about just about everything. They're entitled to be wrong about this one thing.

Thanks for proving my point. :rofl:

Chesafreak
12-19-2012, 16:47
You caused this problem by letting your party become such a disgusting parody of itself that nobody but yourselves want's to listen to yourselves.

The reason why the Democrats can't see the logic of our 2nd Amendment stance is because they have become the party of "Idiocracy". Just toss 'em a phone to distract them before they start to get a clue.

Its ironic that they don't mind taxpayer sponsored abortion clinics murdering an astronomic number of unborn babies while going nuts over evil assault rifles killing a few children.

barbedwiresmile
12-19-2012, 16:53
Indeed...and exceeded only by the shameful spectacle of grown men wringing their hands and crying for their "right" to get stoned. :rofl:
It's called courage and intellectual honesty, not to mention consistency. I do not use drugs, yet I am among the most vocal critics of prohibition on this board. I hope you get your gun "rights" taken away. It's the wake-up call we need. Then we see what we're made of as a people - my guess is that we are not made of the same stuff as our forebears.

Ruble Noon
12-19-2012, 16:59
It's called courage and intellectual honesty, not to mention consistency. I do not use drugs, yet I am among the most vocal critics of prohibition on this board. I hope you get your gun "rights" taken away. It's the wake-up call we need. Then we see what we're made of as a people - my guess is that we are not made of the same stuff as our forebears.

That's pretty obvious by reading through GT.

Gundude
12-19-2012, 17:19
Gun ownership = drug use.. where's my freaking BS flag when I need it!?
The fact that you steadfastly refuse to "get" the connection is the identical behavior gun-banners exhibit.

You pretend they have ill intent, but they simply "don't get it", just like you don't. You have a lot in common with them.

Gunhaver
12-19-2012, 17:26
The reason why the Democrats can't see the logic of our 2nd Amendment stance is because they have become the party of "Idiocracy". Just toss 'em a phone to distract them before they start to get a clue.

Its ironic that they don't mind taxpayer sponsored abortion clinics murdering an astronomic number of unborn babies while going nuts over evil assault rifles killing a few children.

Taxpayer dollars don't fund abortions. Planned parenthood is required to use federal funding for things like cancer screening and treatment, STD testing and general healthcare but never abortions and they're required to keep very strict books to show that they're complying. It's like the one issue where the screaming from the opposition actually prevents tax dollars from being spent on something. Not war, not welfare, not corporate welfare (you know, the government picking winners and losers), but the rabid anti-abortion crowd gets listened to and just goes on fully unaware how much they've gotten their way.

Much like the anti-gun crowd.

Gunhaver
12-19-2012, 17:32
Thanks for proving my point. :rofl:

Yeah, I guess that's the reason that the vast majority of the most logical and reasonable thinking people (scientists and other highly educated people) fall overwhelmingly on the religious right side of the political spectrum.

:rofl::animlol::rofl::animlol::rofl:

Snowman92D
12-19-2012, 19:42
It's called courage and intellectual honesty, not to mention consistency. I do not use drugs, yet I am among the most vocal critics of prohibition on this board. I hope you get your gun "rights" taken away. It's the wake-up call we need.

Well...how mean. So...we all deserve to lose our RKBA if we don't agree to legalize drugs? That's what all of us "need" to have happen for not agreeing to dope? Nice to see the priorities that govern your mind. I gather that all Hussein has to do is offer to legalize dope in a quid pro quo for the 2nd Amendment and you dopers will hand 'em over. :supergrin:

Then we see what we're made of as a people - my guess is that we are not made of the same stuff as our forebears.

Obviously you and your doper friends aren't made of the same stuff. I don't think that Jefferson, Madison, Adams and our other forefathers stood around in Independence Hall, wringing their hands and crying that their "right" to stayed stoned should not be infringed. Courage.....??? The "courage" that needs the crutch of recreational dope to get through a day?
:rofl:

jlavallee
12-19-2012, 20:49
Admit it though, between drugs being legalized, and firearms being outlawed, you know which one you would choose.

Because I don't use drugs but I do shoot and carry daily, I am supposed to say what? I know your answer but I also know that by infringing on drug users ability to as an individual do as they choose as long as they harm nobody else, I open the door to my firearm rights being trampled.

If as a result of needing to support their habit they steal or they drive under the influence, that crime ought to be punished just as a gun owner ought to be held responsible if they shoot and harm a bystander for example.

The notion that individuals have the right to choose to protect themselves and the collective can't ban guns is no different than the individual making a decision about what to ingest and the collective (or the bible thumping wing) has no right to say *****. If you cause harm to another, you're held responsible, if you don't, you're free to live your life as you see fit.

That I ever held my nose and voted with the bible thumping wing because they were the lesser evil is something I am ashamed of. To think that I may have promoted "collective" good because I wanted to keep the liberties I cared about is vile and actually helped to destroy my liberty. That is where the left/right paradigm keeps us, supporting the collective that takes rights, the collective called government.

Snowman92D
12-19-2012, 21:18
Because I don't use drugs...

Yeah, I hear that a lot. :whistling:

The notion that individuals have the right to choose to protect themselves and the collective can't ban guns, is no different than the individual making a decision about what to ingest and the collective (or the bible thumping wing) has no right to say *****. If you cause harm to another, you're held responsible, if you don't, you're free to live your life as you see fit.

You know...that's precisely the rationale that the friendly guys at NAMBLA lay on you when you lock them up. Their "right" to boff little boys is no different from our 2nd Amendment right. (I must have missed that part of the Bill of Rights that's protects boffing little boys.)

It's the same snivelling justification for their actions that the dopers use. The NAMBLA guys loudly, continually contend that no one is hurt by boffing little boys. In fact, they say, there are a lot of positive benefits...so it's none of society's Bible-thumping business.

It's heartening to see that the anarchists and dopers here have found common ground. :rofl:

Ruble Noon
12-19-2012, 21:51
Well...how mean. So...we all deserve to lose our RKBA if we don't agree to legalize drugs? That's what all of us "need" to have happen for not agreeing to dope? Nice to see the priorities that govern your mind. I gather that all Hussein has to do is offer to legalize dope in a quid pro quo for the 2nd Amendment and you dopers will hand 'em over. :supergrin:



Obviously you and your doper friends aren't made of the same stuff. I don't think that Jefferson, Madison, Adams and our other forefathers stood around in Independence Hall, wringing their hands and crying that their "right" to stayed stoned should not be infringed. Courage.....??? The "courage" that needs the crutch of recreational dope to get through a day?
:rofl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_politicians_who_admit_to_cannabis_use

Snowman92D
12-19-2012, 22:05
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_politicians_who_admit_to_cannabis_use

Okay...not sure why you'd post this since (a) it's Wikipedia, and (b) in the text it says:

The first American law concerning cannabis was passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1619, which required every household to grow hemp since it was viewed as a "strategic necessity". Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other colonies later allowed hemp to be used as legal tender, increasing production by farmers.

Founding Fathers, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, grew hemp, though there is no evidence that they knew of the plant's psychoactive properties.

So you're trying to say that hemp was grown as a cash crop for making rope, etc., back then? Or are you inferring that this "proves" the Founding Fathers stood around Independence Hall wringing their hands and crying that their "right" to stay stoned shouldn't be infringed? :smoking:

Ruble Noon
12-19-2012, 22:08
Okay...not sure why you'd post this since (a) it's Wikipedia, and (b) in the text it says:

The first American law concerning cannabis was passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1619, which required every household to grow hemp since it was viewed as a "strategic necessity". Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other colonies later allowed hemp to be used as legal tender, increasing production by farmers.

Founding Fathers, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, grew hemp, though there is no evidence that they knew of the plant's psychoactive properties.

So you're trying to say that hemp was grown as a cash crop for making rope, etc., back then? Or are you inferring that this "proves" the Founding Fathers stood aroundf Independence Hall wringing their hands and crying that their "right" to stay stoned shouldn't be infringed? :supergrin:

I posted it so that you might start delving into the history of drug use in America.

Snowman92D
12-19-2012, 22:14
...and a colorful history it is. :bluesbrothers:

jlavallee
12-19-2012, 22:55
Yeah, I hear that a lot. :whistling:



You know...that's precisely the rationale that the friendly guys at NAMBLA lay on you when you lock them up. Their "right" to boff little boys is no different from our 2nd Amendment right. (I must have missed that part of the Bill of Rights that's protects boffing little boys.)

It's the same snivelling justification for their actions that the dopers use. The NAMBLA guys loudly, continually contend that no one is hurt by boffing little boys. In fact, they say, there are a lot of positive benefits...so it's none of society's Bible-thumping business.

It's heartening to see that the anarchists and dopers here have found common ground. :rofl:

The fact that you use an example of grown men assulting children who can't give consent and think that is even remotely close to what we're talking about shows your lack of intelligence. Just like the other wing of your two party system, any use of reason is met with hysteria and some garbage that doesn't even make sense.:upeyes:

But alas, when you believe in a mystery man in the clouds and base that belief on nothing but "faith" then I guess it's isn't a stretch to come up with some weird stuff. Still, I don't normally care as long as you keep that **** to yourself but it should never shock me that anyone who can be sold on the fairy tales in the "good book" isn't exactly using reason and logic as the basis for their decisions.:upeyes:

jlavallee
12-19-2012, 23:00
...and a colorful history it is. :bluesbrothers:

Obviously, a man who based on his posts and solid reasoning knows first hand the dangers of drug side effects.:rofl:

kirgi08
12-19-2012, 23:51
I see the results of use everyday,where does that place me?.'08.:dunno:

Snowman92D
12-20-2012, 03:12
The fact that you use an example of grown men assulting children who can't give consent and think that is even remotely close to what we're talking about shows your lack of intelligence.

I drew a parallel between dopers and NAMBLA practitioners both using the same jailhouse rationale to morally justify the satisfaction of their 'needs'...that they have a natural "right" to indulge their 'urges', the same as other citizens have a natural "right" to self-defense and to possession of a defensive firearm. You attempted to establish that self-gratification carries the same moral, if not legal, imperative as self-defense in our society. It's just as much hogwash when you say it as when the NAMBLA guys say it.

If you keep talking hogwash about someone's statement without reading it first, people are gonna wonder about the truth of your above assertion that you don't use dope. By the way, the NAMBLA advocates insist that their little boff-partners in fact do give consent. They decry those archaic "Bible-thumper" laws we enforce on them that set the age of consent at 16 or so. Their BS words...not mine. Try reading up on their published rhetoric. You'll see their parallel to dopers in attempting to justify their "rights".

But alas, when you believe in a mystery man in the clouds and base that belief on nothing but "faith" then I guess it's isn't a stretch to come up with some weird stuff. Still, I don't normally care as long as you keep that **** to yourself but it should never shock me that anyone who can be sold on the fairy tales in the "good book" isn't exactly using reason and logic as the basis for their decisions.:upeyes:

I dunno about you, but I "based my belief" on the state and federal criminal codes I was enforcing. Why bring up the "mystery man in the clouds"...? Did you forget what you were talking about midway through your post, or something? You probably ought to get some rest or folks are gonna wonder about your 'lack of intelligence'. Be sure you wash your hands before you go to bed. Cleanliness is next to Godliness, you know. :supergrin:

cowboywannabe
12-20-2012, 04:50
Mr. Sowell is ignored by politicians on both sides of the fense, unfortunately for us.

Skyhook
12-20-2012, 07:35
I drew a parallel between dopers and NAMBLA practitioners both using the same jailhouse rationale to morally justify the satisfaction of their 'needs'...that they have a natural "right" to indulge their 'urges', the same as other citizens have a natural "right" to self-defense and to possession of a defensive firearm. You attempted to establish that self-gratification carries the same moral, if not legal, imperative as self-defense in our society. It's just as much hogwash when you say it as when the NAMBLA guys say it.

If you keep talking hogwash about someone's statement without reading it first, people are gonna wonder about the truth of your above assertion that you don't use dope. By the way, the NAMBLA advocates insist that their little boff-partners in fact do give consent. They decry those archaic "Bible-thumper" laws we enforce on them that set the age of consent at 16 or so. Their BS words...not mine. Try reading up on their published rhetoric. You'll see their parallel to dopers in attempting to justify their "rights".



I dunno about you, but I "based my belief" on the state and federal criminal codes I was enforcing. Why bring up the "mystery man in the clouds"...? Did you forget what you were talking about midway through your post, or something? You probably ought to get some rest or folks are gonna wonder about your 'lack of intelligence'. Be sure you wash your hands before you go to bed. Cleanliness is next to Godliness, you know. :supergrin:


Ok, there's humor and irony in the past several exchanges and I'd like to just note a bit of it.
When Snowman92D started eloquently discussing his anti-dope position I thought 'It won't be long before one of the pro-dopers calls him a bad name or just tries to insult his intellect'-- bingo.
Then, forgive me, but a citizen with a definite anti-dope position with the moniker Snowman? :cool:

Skyhook
12-20-2012, 07:41
Mr. Sowell is ignored by politicians on both sides of the fense, unfortunately for us.


I doubt that is true.

But, you are welcome to your opinion, and like buttholes, everyone has one.:whistling:

jlavallee
12-20-2012, 08:30
I dunno about you, but I "based my belief" on the state and federal criminal codes I was enforcing.

That explains your posts completely.

Snowman92D
12-20-2012, 08:33
...you're welcome. :supergrin:

kirgi08
12-20-2012, 09:22
:miff:

Ruble Noon
12-20-2012, 12:08
Ok, there's humor and irony in the past several exchanges and I'd like to just note a bit of it.
When Snowman92D started eloquently discussing his anti-dope position I thought 'It won't be long before one of the pro-dopers calls him a bad name or just tries to insult his intellect'-- bingo.
Then, forgive me, but a citizen with a definite anti-dope position with the moniker Snowman? :cool:

Not pro-dope, pro-freedom.

Snowman92D
12-20-2012, 13:59
Yep...Freedom = Drug Legalization. :smoking: