The News Thread

[zabu of nΩd]

http://archives.cjr.org/united_states_project/the_koch_brothers_media_invest.php

The Koch brothers are def some shadowy dudes

Conservatives dumping millions of dollars into a media machine? Impossible.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Conservatives dumping millions of dollars into a media machine? Impossible.

So what? they shouldn't be able to try and play on the same field that the democrats dominate? How many of the national television channels are not in the left wingers pockets? ABC? NBC? CBS? BUT NOOOOOO, THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE JUST ONE CHANNEL(that you cant even get without cable) and they've been ridiculed and labeled by the media machine as "crazy""fake" etc and your going to complain? lmfao. Thanks for contributing, brosef

 

[CiG]

i wonder if good ole Milton has ever done any of those drugs, or has had any loved ones who have been affected by them. Or has lived in a community that was devastated by them.

Irrelevant.

oh and re: above post ... decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing.

Indeed, decriminalization is a step towards legalization.

and split parent = drug crimes? I love that connection bro, its so solid. Only people with broken families do drugs. Gotcha. How about we count how many of the people here have divorced parents? I certainly don't know any of them that are true fuck ups, and if they are i doubt its because Mommy and daddy broke up. Thats one of the biggest scapegoats ever.

You completely misinterpreted my comment if you took this away from what I said.

What I was saying is, broken families and being involved in drug crime are the two biggest issues in the black American and indigenous Australian communities, which I believe justifies my using of this as an example of how some personal liberties shouldn't be illegal just because it can potentially negatively impact those around you:

Many things can potentially affect those around you. Getting a divorce for example can absolutely ruin a child's life.

Not saying broken families lead to drug crimes or drug crimes lead to broken families.
Just that drug decriminalization might lead to improvements in these communities, as would reinvigorated family values.

I dont see how anyone has the right to tell me(or anyone else) how much of my own money i can spend on drugs.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

i have no respect for people who think the rich or the poor should abide by different laws based on how much money they have.

Yeah, this whole progressive taxation thing is so unfair. We should just have a flat income tax of $10,000 a year, that way the guy who makes $10,000 and the guy who makes $10,000,000 both pay the same. Cause there shouldn't be different laws based on how much money they have.

 

[CiG]

Yeah, this whole progressive taxation thing is so unfair. We should just have a flat income tax of $10,000 a year, that way the guy who makes $10,000 and the guy who makes $10,000,000 both pay the same. Cause there shouldn't be different laws based on how much money they have.

That's not how a flat tax works.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

That's not how a flat tax works.

Why shouldn't it work that way, based on TB's flawless logic? Same law for everyone, it's only fair.

 

[CiG]

Why shouldn't it work that way, based on TB's flawless logic?

Because a flat tax is regarding the %, so say the flat tax is 15%.
That means all people regardless of income, pay 15% into the tax system, ie same law for all people regardless of income which also leads to wealthier people paying more money than less wealthy people.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Because a flat tax is regarding the %, so say the flat tax is 15%.
That means all people regardless of income, pay 15% into the tax system, ie same law for all people regardless of income which also leads to wealthier people paying more money than less wealthy people.

You're contradicting yourself. It's perfectly obvious that the percent system makes richer people pay more money. A person with $10,000 would pay $1,500, while a person with $10,000,000 would pay $1,500,000. Unequal treatment, and therefore unfair.

 

[CiG]

You're contradicting yourself. It's perfectly obvious that the percent system makes richer people pay more money. A person with $10,000 would pay $1,500, while a person with $10,000,000 would pay $1,500,000. Unequal treatment, and therefore unfair.

Your original comment read as if you didn't understand what you're now saying. My bad.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

My point is that any idiot can see that there are qualitative differences between various quantities of wealth which render the idea of "equal financial treatment under law" absurd.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Yeah, this whole progressive taxation thing is so unfair. We should just have a flat income tax of $10,000 a year, that way the guy who makes $10,000 and the guy who makes $10,000,000 both pay the same. Cause there shouldn't be different laws based on how much money they have.

So now you go off comparing donations to tax payer dollars? this just keeps getting better and better

Also you do realize that the rich pay the majority of this nations taxes, right? They were probaly the ones thjat put your through public schooling ... so you should thank them for having the mindset you currently have.

Anyway why am i even bothering with you when you havent had a single legitimate response to any of my posts?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Irrelevant.

Lulz. I dont know if you can actually say that with a straight face. It seems that what drugs do to communities is irrelevant to people like milton(because of the C) category) and even you form what im getting here

Indeed, decriminalization is a step towards legalization.

No, decriminalizing something does not necessarily mean it should be legalized. Saying someone shouldn't go to jail for having a bag of weed doesn't equate to "LETS TAX IT AND START SELLING IT"

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

http://archives.cjr.org/united_states_project/the_koch_brothers_media_invest.php

The Koch brothers are def some shadowy dudes

THE TRIBUNE CHAIN? OH NOEZ WHAT WILL THE LEFTIST MEDIA DO NOW???

 

[CiG]

Lulz. I dont know if you can actually say that with a straight face. It seems that what drugs do to communities is irrelevant to people like milton(because of the C) category) and even you form what im getting here

I know what being arrested for taking and selling drugs does to communities.

No, decriminalizing something does not necessarily mean it should be legalized.

I didn't say that, I said it is a step towards legalization. As in, you do not get to a point of legalization without decriminalization occurring first.

Saying someone shouldn't go to jail for having a bag of weed doesn't equate to "LETS TAX IT AND START SELLING IT"

Agreed. That last part is just my personal preference.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I know what being arrested for taking and selling drugs does to communities.

Thank you for dodging what i said and displaying your ignorance. Drugs do not ruin communities? Moreso than the people who DESERVE to be in jail for slanging hard drugs? Smfh

And i'm still having a pretty good laugh at you implying that i might not be a libertarian because i dont think hardcore drugs should be legalized. That's like saying i'm not a conservative because i'm not religious Also it seems to me that you think that the main reason the government wants to legalize drugs is because they care about our communicates rather than making money off of them? You cant be that blind.

 

[CiG]

Thank you for dodging what i said and displaying your ignorance. Drugs do not ruin communities? Moreso than the people who DESERVE to be in jail for slanging hard drugs? Smfh

No they do. I think everybody knows that at this point.
I just don't think it's only the usage of drugs that is the problem.

And i'm still having a pretty good laugh at you implying that i might not be a libertarian because i dont think hardcore drugs should be legalized. That's like saying i'm not a conservative because i'm not religious

No it's like saying you're not a conservative because you don't want to conserve certain values.
Libertarianism is pretty much inextricably linked with decriminalization as it is socially liberal as a philosophy to the extreme. But you said you were a conservatarian so I dropped it. [shrug]

Dont Tread On Me *unless you want drugs

Also it seems to me that you think that the main reason the government wants to legalize drugs is because they care about our communicates rather than making money off of them? You cant be that blind.

When did I say that?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Please buddy, you are not the one to tell me what libertarianism is. And again, you seem to have a genuine misunderstanding of what the Gadsden flag is and what it stands for. That is without a doubt. "LIBERTARIAN MEANS NO LAWS! EVERYONE IS FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT!" lmfao, are you serious? You sound like a clueless fucking kid right now. Again you're showcasing your ignorance here. Is every one of your political views this misinformed, cliched and generic? Times like this is when if feel like telling you to stick to your aussie politics instead of talking about ours like youre versed in it when you clearly are not. Find me a single legitimate Libertarian politician that wants to LEGALIZE HARD DRUGS. Please, can you? Find me anyone in the Tea Party that says hard drugs should be legalized. P L E A S E

Also you fail to see that most libertarians today ARE conservative(which is why i mentioned the Tea Party in the above post btw).

And lol at trying to imply that conservatives all fall in line to some rulebook that says what should and what shouldn't be conserved. Whatever you say Mr Classical/liberal/libertarian/left winger.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

No they do. I think everybody knows that at this point.
I just don't think it's only the usage of drugs that is the problem.

Well no shit there are other problems. And we are clearly not just talking about "usage" but yeah good try. Its amazing that your trying to imply that legalizing and selling crack and heroin to the public is a good thing and will actually help decrease crime. Do you live on planet earth?

 

[CiG]

It would definitively decrease crime by removing drug users and individual drug sellers out of the criminal category, so...

"LIBERTARIAN MEANS NO LAWS! EVERYONE IS FREE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT!" lmfao, are you serious?

I didn't say that. You've misrepresented what I've said multiple times by this point.

Also:



What a bunch of fucking conservatives.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I didn't say that. You've misrepresented what I've said multiple times by this point.

Also:

View attachment 11958

What a bunch of fucking conservatives.

What exactly does that picture prove? Do you think hard drugslike crack and meth had ruined communities back when that ancient picture was taken?They were sniffing blow in disco ballrooms or clubs back then. You think they were aborting babies left and right when that picture was taken? Also do you think the the libertarians of today are "PRO-CHOICE ON EVERYTHING"?

Should i link you to my last post or do you just want me to repeat myself? FIND ME A SINGLE LIBERTARIAN POLITICIAN THAT IS FOR LEGALIZING HARD DRUGS.

And that is exactly what you said by trying to imply they are inexplicably linked to decriminalization and are pro-choice on EVERYTHING. Again, find me a single libertarian politician that is okay with decriminalizing hard drugs ... or you know what, while you're at it find me one that's for decriminalizing murder and rape. DONT TREAD ON ME, I JUST WANT TO RAPE AND MURDER