From: Peter on
"seth d." <sethd(a)nospamforme.net> wrote in message
news:u5dtj517bpc5mb99r169m7iro0iejtvr0d(a)4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:37:12 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Tell me, are you in favor of repealing the marijuana laws?
>
> Yes, they are just as ridiculous as you are.
>
> Can we have you and all like you repealed while we're at it?
>
> I also think that abortion should be legal until the 75th trimester.
> That's
> 18 years old in case you don't want to do the math. If that option was
> available I doubt you would have made it this far to make everyone else's
> lives so miserable for so long.
>


Another solid, constructive comment.

--
Peter

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b3eb6ef$0$19465$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ut6dnQT77LUaMaPWnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>
>
>> weg9 says: Yes. I am in favor of repealing the Marijuana laws.....I am in
>> favor of repealing any laws against any and all drugs.....Everyone should
>> have the right to ingest anything they have the money to pay for, with or
>> without a doctor's prescription. Why would you want some doctor to have
>> control over you or your body? He should be paid for his advice, and not
>> for his power.
>>
>> Yes. Bush ran up a deficit going to war...So have many other
>> presidents.....Unfortunately, (or fortunately) that's one of the powers
>> we give presidents. and, whenever they do, the nation is split over
>> whether it is a good thing or not......Sorry about that, but it is not my
>> fault.
>>
>> My riding a bike without a helmet only costs you money if you are forced
>> to pay for my health or lack of it. In a libertarian world, you would not
>> be responsible for my health care, and it wouldn't cost you anything if I
>> broke my head. The law that forces hospitals to care for anyone who is
>> carried in to them off the street is a liberal law.....It is not my
>> doing. Today, we have the ability to identify anyone in a few seconds by
>> scanning their eyeballs, fingerprints or DNA, or a chip implanted under
>> their skin. We don't have to take care of people who are here illegally,
>> or who who refuse to buy health insurance. If you want to take care of
>> these irresponsible people, then do so, but please don't charge me for
>> it.
>>
>> "We disagree?" about what? That the tax laws shouldn't be used to control
>> people's morality? What kind of a liberal would say that? Would you like
>> to live in Iran, where the government controls everyone's morality? then
>> go there......I would like to control my own morality, thanks. If I want
>> to drink or smoke myself to death, than why would you care? And, be
>> careful.....Pretty soon the senate will get around to preventing you from
>> doing something that you would like to do, and stop it by taxing the hell
>> out of it....what will you do then? Maybe they will decide that pastrami
>> sandwiches or egg cr�mes are bad for you. Anything that most of them
>> don't regularly do, as a matter of fact.....They don't like to rice
>> motorcycles without their helmets, so it is easy for them to make a law
>> against it.......I don't see them making any laws forcing you to wear a
>> helmet on the golf course......You can get a broken head there, too. I
>> wonder why not? Is it because golf is an old geezers game, and a lot of
>> them play it......Oh, no.....That can't be the reason......:^)
>
> Your problem is that you would let a poor person die in the streets. Does
> having compassion for others = morality, you bet it does. Does a failure
> to have compassion for others = a lack of morality, same answer.
>
> You never answered what would you do about the person who becomes sick,
> through nobody's fault. I say we have a moral obligation to take care of
> them. You claim no. If I understand what you are saying that is what we
> disagree about. If that is not, please explain your position on the above.
>
>
> --
> Peter
I don't claim "no" to that at all. I believe the government should take care
of those who, through no fault of their own are destitute. That means if you
are born with some defect, such that you can't care for yourself, or need
special care, the taxpayers should foot the bill for it. But the operative
phrase above is, "through no fault of their own". The ones who, when faced
with the choice between health care and that Porsche, chose the car, should
have to suffer for their choice. Right now, the state of California is
destitute.....They are over 20 billion dollars in debt. Do you know why that
is? Well, I know why. They have everybody and his brother on welfare whether
they have all their fingers and toes or not.....Less than 1% of the people
on welfare are unable to work. they are all sitting in front of the TV
drinking beer on the California taxpayer's tab right now, when there is no
reason on earth why they couldn't be out earning a living like I did for 40
years. I know this because I knew a lot of these people when I lived and
worked down there. They lived in the apartment buildings that my wife and I
lived in while I was working and saving my money to buy a house, and some of
them lived in other houses in my neighborhood after I did buy a house. Take
the guy that lived next door to me when I lived on Chester Street in Menlo
Park. He had 13 children and he was on disability for a nervous problem. (It
made him nervous to have to work for a living) He lived in a three bedroom
house, and with 13 kids, he used one of the bedrooms for a trash
dump.....After they moved out, it was full of empty beer cans, floor to
ceiling. The guy who owned the house had his son fix it up after they moved
out owing 5 months back rent, and he told me when I helped him install an
new toilet in their bathroom. I saw that bedroom that was full of beer cans,
so I know what I am talking about. These are the people who have broken the
backs of California's taxpayers, and they are the ones that Shouldn't have
been on the public dole. The ones who were born defective should be getting
an average salary, and not the $25 discount on their taxes for being blind
that was on California's form 1040 for many years.......

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b3eb7d7$0$19496$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ut6dnQT77LUaMaPWnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>
>> weg9 says: Yes. I am in favor of repealing the Marijuana laws.....I am in
>> favor of repealing any laws against any and all drugs.....Everyone should
>> have the right to ingest anything they have the money to pay for, with or
>> without a doctor's prescription. Why would you want some doctor to have
>> control over you or your body? He should be paid for his advice, and not
>> for his power.
>>
>
> That is hardly the position of the classic conservative.
>
>
>
>> Yes. Bush ran up a deficit going to war...So have many other
>> presidents.....Unfortunately, (or fortunately) that's one of the powers
>> we give presidents. and, whenever they do, the nation is split over
>> whether it is a good thing or not......Sorry about that, but it is not my
>> fault.
>>
>> My riding a bike without a helmet only costs you money if you are forced
>> to pay for my health or lack of it. In a libertarian world, you would not
>> be responsible for my health care, and it wouldn't cost you anything if I
>> broke my head. The law that forces hospitals to care for anyone who is
>> carried in to them off the street is a liberal law.....It is not my
>> doing. Today, we have the ability to identify anyone in a few seconds by
>> scanning their eyeballs, fingerprints or DNA, or a chip implanted under
>> their skin. We don't have to take care of people who are here illegally,
>> or who who refuse to buy health insurance. If you want to take care of
>> these irresponsible people, then do so, but please don't charge me for
>> it.
>>
>> "We disagree?" about what? That the tax laws shouldn't be used to control
>> people's morality? What kind of a liberal would say that? Would you like
>> to live in Iran, where the government controls everyone's morality? then
>> go there......I would like to control my own morality, thanks. If I want
>> to drink or smoke myself to death, than why would you care? And, be
>> careful.....Pretty soon the senate will get around to preventing you from
>> doing something that you would like to do, and stop it by taxing the hell
>> out of it....what will you do then? Maybe they will decide that pastrami
>> sandwiches or egg cr�mes are bad for you. Anything that most of them
>> don't regularly do, as a matter of fact.....They don't like to rice
>> motorcycles without their helmets, so it is easy for them to make a law
>> against it.......I don't see them making any laws forcing you to wear a
>> helmet on the golf course......You can get a broken head there, too. I
>> wonder why not? Is it because golf is an old geezers game, and a lot of
>> them play it......Oh, no.....That can't be the reason......:^)
>
>
> You obviously know nothing about golf,
>
> Tiger the Geezer.
>
> --
> Peter

weg9 says: I know that I've never seen anyone on a golf course wearing a
helmet.

And, I am not a "classic conservative". I am not even a conservative. I am a
libertarian.

From: Bill Graham on

"Gary Theilsen" <nocontact(a)spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:mndtj5dvv6srmeok63phd6hcrrl4ls6l82(a)4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 17:33:36 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2010-01-01 17:17:30 -0800, Gary Theilsen <nocontact(a)spamfree.com> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:38:41 -0500, "Peter"
>>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my
>>>> lungs
>>>> with your second hand smoke.
>>>
>>> You need to watch Penn & Teller's cable show called "Bullshit!", the
>>> episode where they cover this issue. Are you aware that not even ONE
>>> person
>>> has ever died from second-hand smoke? All of this started by one biased
>>> and
>>> badly done research paper that was later dismissed in court as lacking
>>> any
>>> factual evidence at all. Penn & Teller are not even smokers, drug-users,
>>> nor drinkers, but they will try to uncover and defend the truth whenever
>>> possible as much as possible. They are taking up where Houdini left off
>>> in
>>> exposing frauds and charlatans that use trickery to manipulate and
>>> exploit
>>> a gullible audience. They know all about how that works (on an
>>> entertainment stage for entertainment purposes only) so they are now
>>> using
>>> that knowledge to expose those that use trickery and manipulation
>>> tactics
>>> for ill-gotten gains. Like the smoke banning issue. Do you know how much
>>> money is being had by the drug-companies in advertising their "stop
>>> smoking" drugs, some of the "side effects" from their drugs so terrible
>>> that they kill, or permanently damage people worse than cigarettes ever
>>> could.
>>>
>>> Go educate yourself instead of parroting all other control-freaks'
>>> paranoid
>>> nonsense and stupidity.
>>
>>So, second hand smoke isn't going to kill me. I'll buy that.
>>
>>Now tell me how second hand smoke isn't going to make me choke & cough,
>>my eyes water, my clothes stink, and any other unpleasantness
>>non-smokers would have to endure so those addicted to a corporate drug
>>can indulge themselves.
>
> By doing the polite, respectable, and responsible thing for everyone.
> DON'T
> GO WHERE SMOKERS ARE ENJOYING THEIR CIGARETTES, PIPES, AND CIGARS.
>
> If you don't like a restaurant or bar where people are smoking, then don't
> go there! It's just that amazingly simple. Smokers will treat you with
> respect by not smoking in places clearly deemed for non-smokers only. But
> for idiots like you to place blanket laws on everyone based on unfounded
> and unproven fears and using deceit and lies to do so, it only makes you
> look like the insecure, easily manipulated, control-freak Nazi that you
> are.
>
> When I walk into a place where women are wearing cologne so thick that it
> would make a pig in a sty gag and puke, I walk out of there. Let them
> enjoy
> their gut-wrenching stank, I have plenty of other places I can patronize.
> But you don't see me petitioning politicians to pass laws that all
> perfumes
> should be outlawed in public places do you? No, I respect their
> as-stupid-as-they-are decisions to do with their lives as they see fit.
> The
> rare times I venture into a city and get an instant 2-day headache from
> all
> the carcinogenic diesel fumes, I don't go around passing laws to have all
> fossil-fuels made immediately illegal. No, I go back to where the air
> isn't
> full of more pollutants and carcinogens than my own home, even with the
> cigarette smoke in it.
>
> You're a bloody hypocrite, it's all you are and will ever be.
>

weg9 says: Although your wording is a bit harsh, I agree with
you......In Palo alto, where I used to live, they made a law that banned
smoking in all bars. If a smoking bartender bought his own place (after
saving for years and years) He couldn't put a sign on the door saying:
"BEWARE. - THIS IS A SMOKING BAR. IF YOU ENTER HERE YOU WILL BE EXPOSED TO
SECOND HAND SMOKE. PLEASE GO DOWN THE BLOCK TO MARTY'S PLACE WHERE THERE IS
NO SMOKING." The laws prevented him from doing that. And, people tell me
that this is a "free country".

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b3ebaa4$0$31310$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...

> What about laws against murder, extortion, robbery, etc.
> If I deliberately and knowingly manufacture a substance that causes harm,
> should that be illegal?
> --
> Peter
Two separate questions. Laws against murder and etc. should definitely be on
the books, because they impact the rest of us.

If you need or want a dangerous substance for your own experimentation,
well, why should you be refused it as long as you don't harm anyone else
with it? There is a talk show host in the bay area who was all for banning
books that told people how to build bombs from the library. I couldn't
convince her otherwise. The fact that a policeman who specializes in
disarming bombs might need such a book, didn't make no never mind to her.
She was for censoring books that contained specific knowledge about anything
that she personally considered to be "bad" Like this would make for a "good"
society........Just like banning guns would make for a "safe" society to
Ray. Well, I disagree with that. I think all knowledge should be available
to everyone. Who is good or bad has nothing to do with who knows what. the
more intelligent the society, the less crime there will likely be in any
case. Intelligent people can make a good living without resorting to crime.