Saturday, April 20, 2013

Leftist Asshats Wrong - Again

Leftist dipwads, but then I repeat myself. They must be soooo disappointed.

113 comments:

Anonymous said...

It would be nice if there were only "dip wads" on Fox or right wing radio. There are only liars, hypocrites and money grubbers.

Oh, I forgot to mention cowardly chicken hawks.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Fox owned by that anti-american government liar Murdoch? You know, the one on trial in Britain?

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

In defense of the right wing extremist (minus the domestic label) comments....don't we consider the Islamists to be right wing? The IRA to be right wing?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Rickvid in Seattle:
Very, very disappointed.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas, I think nurse Ratched heard your babbling. You are probably in trouble.

Ron said...

Anonymous . . . You are an ass.

BigD said...

How in hell could Islamists be considered "Rightwing" when they want a single Islamic world government and the conservatives want (much) less government. Get a clue, Bozo!

ALa said...

Just came on to post this article:

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/04/47827-13-ridiculous-cases-of-media-bias-after-boston-bombing//

Thankfully Rickvid is brilliantly like-minded :)

Anonymous said...

Ron is another right winger who does not have a valid argument or answer so he has to use profanity. Quite a debater but typical.

Murdoch's NY Post showed photos on its front page of two people not involved in the bombing. Is that just being a dip wad? Or showing the shoddy, lying "journalism" that is the hallmark of Murdoch's media empire?

Murdoch is anti-American which doesn't say much about the listeners and readers of his filthy garbage.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Islamists and IRA right wing? In a word, no. Nor were the Nazis, as is usually believed. They are all socialist movements, statists who would rule as tyrants, telling people how to live, or else they die. Not right wing at all.

Anonymous said...

The main point here is that you are all followers of a foreign-owned media empire that despises our government.

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

Islamist and the religious conservative groups, on the scale of liberal to conservative are considered to the right, not to the left. They are, in no way shape or form, liberal (left).

So don't be calling me a bozo for your inability to grasp the fact that there are many scales, and our political scale tends to be a bit backward from that of Europe.

CrabbyOldMan said...

you are all followers of a foreign-owned media empire
Enemas, I’d say that, among your other mental impairments, you particularly suffer from projection.
You leftards all chant a party line that sounds like something between “Yale, Yale, Yale” and “Sieg Heil”:
Bush started an unnecessary war, Cheney and Rove are evil incarnate, rich people are rich only because they stole their wealth from those rightfully entitled to it, the US is too rich, too powerful and too arrogant, liberals (translation communist knaves and their gullible fool followers) are the sole possessors of the world’s truths and moral high ground which are embodied by Comrade Hussein.

Anonymous said...

Another republican suffering from black outs either alcohol or drug induced. It's the only explanation for anyone who chants their own party line on this blog gotten from said party line chanted to them from right wing extremist radio/TV and then talks of others chanting a party line.

Stop drinking and/or doing drugs so your brain can come out of its fog.

Also, why are you a follower of a man who is being tried in another country and also hates our government and uses his media empire to attack it?

On other blogs equally pathetic republican minions were using the word "a__hat" in their commentaries. It must be the new word for all the right wing parrots with no ability to think for themselves or have any original thoughts. What would you all do if you weren't given new words to say?

Zelda said...

Islamist and the religious conservative groups, on the scale of liberal to conservative are considered to the right, not to the left. They are, in no way shape or form, liberal (left).

Ultimately, there isn't a right and left. There are those who want government (whatever government they fancy) in near complete control, and those who don't. I don't know that the real outcome of an Islamic government is all that different from a far Left communist enterprise. They each have their values and the government doesn't work unless people are forced to comply.

Haverwilde said...

Left vs Right
Liberal vs conservative

Essentially it is all meaningless unless everyone subscribes to the same set of standards and definitions.
In one way of thinking a Russian capitalist is a leftist and a Russian Communist is a conservative. Weird huh?

So I like to think of a continuum of liberty. Maximizing liberty is libertarian and minimizing it is totalitarian. Given that continuum, we are moving away from a libertarian Western World into a totalitarian one. Grim!!!

The Islamic worldview is definitely totalitarian in perspective, as is the Social Conservative, and the Democratic left in this country. Is there any question why, I am depressed by the current political climate. Both the standard Democratic Left, and the GOP Right are totalitarian in viewpoint.

The minority of liberty minded folks is being overrun by the rest. (However, the libertarian view point in is slowly gaining ascendency. God how I hope we can bring sanity to the statist on the left and right and restore some measure of freedom to this once great nation.

Zelda said...

I'll tell you the truth. I think Libertarianism is ascendent right now because it's going to be the default position. No one wants the others' totalitarian view imposed on them, so maybe we will reach a tentative agreement to leave each other alone. Although truthfully, I don't see Progressives letting it rest for long. They never have.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Progressive has always meant, you progress as I tell you to. H.G. Wells, yes, that one, was a huge Progressive during the late 1800's. He coined the term "liberal facism," an approach common at the time, and fairly so today, that the masses are lumpen proletariate, that is, too stupid to know what is in their own best interest. Mere lumps of clay to be molded and shaped by a higher benevolent elite, formed into the new model man of the future. Or not and discarded.

The ultimate end of true Progressivism is the fundamental revision of society into a well oiled machine where every person contributes as he can and receives as he needs. The State is all, and will meet all your needs, as long as you happily submit every piece of your life to its control. And if there is not enough to be spread around, or if you no can longer contribute, well, your services to the state will no longer be required.

And there is no alternative way.

Zelda said...

The ultimate end of progressivism is for human beings to reach their full collective potential. The problem with progressives is that they think they can artificially hasten this end by purging the "undesirables" and forcing the rest of humanity to comply with whatever rules they happen to think are best for them at any given time. But, as science evolves, progressives end up having to change their minds a lot, so it doesn't work out all too well.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas asked Also, why are you a follower of a man who is being tried in another country and also hates our government and uses his media empire to attack it?
For your information, I have no feelings about Rupert one way or another. I watch Fox News because it is the least of evils. The horrible alternatives have driven me to it.
I still greatly miss an hour program on public television called “The Advocates” that (20 years ago) featured high powered debaters (Michael Dukakis and Bill Buckley to name a couple) debating important issues, like atomic energy, taxation, high voltage power lines and the educational system. My guess is that the program was discontinued because the liberals kept losing.
My personal hope is to see the current political turbulence finally produce a winning center right coalition that crowds the religious and anti-abortion zealots, the heirs to the Communist movement, the pacifists and the world government fools off the bed.
It has been demonstrated that Comrade Hussein was raised by openly Communist parents and grandparents whose friends were also openly communist. He himself associates with all kinds of radicals. You can quack and bleat until the cows come home, but cannot demonstrate otherwise.

Haverwilde said...

OTC
Remember when all those leftist asshats kept saying ‘Bush lied,’ there were no ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Now the leftist asshats in the Department of Justice are saying the bomber in Boston had a Weapon of Mass Destruction. The left has always been very loose with their definitions of things: The most corrupt administration in modern American history continues with its racist, redefining ways.

The Lefts’ best friend is his dogma.

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

Zelda, I can definitely agree with those definitions, which was kinda my point. There are different scales for different things, so what maybe left or right on one, might end up being the opposite on another. And I do agree that the religious conservatives are seeking the same Totaltarian set-up they're claiming the social liberals are setting up. It's why I think Bachman and Santorum weren't any better than the Taliban, as far as their beliefs on law goes.

Both parties are imploding, as far as future voters are concerned, and I think it'll be necessary for us to get back to our foundations.

Zelda said...

And I do agree that the religious conservatives are seeking the same Totaltarian set-up they're claiming the social liberals are setting up.

I don't mean to argue semantics, but I tend to draw a distinction between social liberals and progressives. Social liberals seem to be less inclined towards government control, whereas progressives are government control freaks.

It's why I think Bachman and Santorum weren't any better than the Taliban, as far as their beliefs on law goes.

I agree. And it's not that I don't think their beliefs aren't good for people to choose on their own, but allowing the government to have that much power over social issues is dangerous. I do agree with their pro-life stance, however, because I believe unborn children are human beings with individual rights.

Zelda said...

Oh no. Wait. I don't agree at all that Bachman and Santorum weren't any better than the Taliban. I misread and thought you said social liberals. They're no better than progressives as far social policy, but they're far better than the Taliban. The Taliban are an angry, homosexual death cult. There aren't too many governments worse than that.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Bachman and homosexuals, does Bachman know she's married to one?

Fearthuinn min an Saille said...

Anon, go listen to the Dan Savage podcast about that. It's pretty funny.

Zelda, I have a hard time believing that the Bachman/Santorum ilk are going to stop at just threats of jailing, if they got into power, in order to force compliance with their view of a theocratic gov't (kinda like Obama not stopping at our borders with his type).

The last option of any means to force compliance is force. The question is....how far will they go? And I have no doubt that some of them will be willing to go as far as the Taliban have gone, and will do so. We are not immune.

Zelda said...

Zelda, I have a hard time believing that the Bachman/Santorum ilk are going to stop at just threats of jailing, if they got into power, in order to force compliance with their view of a theocratic gov't (kinda like Obama not stopping at our borders with his type).

On what do you base this opinion? Have Bachman and Santorum ever talked about jailing non-Christians?

If you think there can be any comparison of Bachman/Santorum to the Taliban, the press has not done enough to explain just what the Taliban is. America has been far more extreme in the past, and never, even at the worst possible moments of religious frenzy, have we ever had a government like the Taliban.

I have no doubt that some of them will be willing to go as far as the Taliban have gone, and will do so. We are not immune.

No, we're pretty much immune. I've grown up with crazy religious people. And I mean unreasonable, illogical, strict religious adherents. My parents left a god-awful cult when I was about two, but they always gravitated towards religious extremes. Yes, they're nutty. Yes, they're unreasonable. But they are nothing like the Taliban. The concepts of forgiveness and redemption are too important for them to just go around slaughtering people who "dishonor" them.

I think the totalitarianism of the Left is the ascending threat to American liberty. They don't really explain their values, so they are largely hidden from us. They commit murders and crimes of violence which are blacked out by the press. I can't think any other group of murdering terrorists who have gone on to teach at prestigious universities. You?

Haverwilde said...

I must agree with you, Zelda.
There is no moral equivalency between the totalitarian right, and the Taliban, or even the fascist left.
My earlier comments should not be read to say that. However, there are elements within the totalitarian SoCon right that are bent on restricting freedoms, and moving toward the Nanny-State. Elements such as banning all abortions, fighting gay marriage/domestic partnerships, anti-science restrictions on teaching (evolution: requiring equal time for ‘Intelligent Design,’ etc.). Even irritating items like putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of courthouses.
The biggest danger is obviously the fascist left and their systematic assault on private enterprise and personal privacy, and the creation of the classic police state, (which was in fine display in Boston).

CrabbyOldMan said...

Havirwilde, I agree with you except for fighting gay marriage/domestic partnerships.
Legalizing drugs and allowing homosexual “marriage” are both public policies that involve high risk of unintended negative consequences in exchange for no serious benefits at all. None. Can you name one?

Haverwilde said...

Hi COB,

First, every government action, or inaction, has many unintended consequences. To use that as a reason for not taking action is flawed reasoning. The mitigation of foreseeable consequences is part of the legislative process. No one can, by definition, can act to avoid unintended consequences of any action or inaction.

Legalizing drugs:
The primary cause of gang and gun violence is drugs and criminal activity to support drug habits. Face it we have had years of the “War on Drugs” (at least on some drugs), and the drugs have won! How much longer do we want to imprison hundreds of thousands at a cost of billions just in the failed attempt to stem the drug trade? It would be cheaper for the addict and easier for society if we control it instead of fighting it. It is another instance where the ‘perfect’ i.e. ‘no drugs’ is the enemy of the ‘Good,’ i.e. a controlled drug environment. I am not a fanatic. There are some drugs I don’t want to see legal such as the date-rape drug. But we need that conversation. Not the total abstinence of reason and debate.

Gay marriage/domestic partnership:
We already have massive unintended consequences of denial of that basic recognition. Any snubbed subgroup in our society will have a negative impact on the whole of society. With gays representing 3 to 10% of the population, we can ill afford to not recognize their right to partner-up. I have seen no rational reason to deny them that right. Frankly, I wish the government would get out of the ‘Marriage business’ and limit themselves to enforcing partnership agreements and leave ‘marriage’ to the church. But since that is not possible, the only rational action is to open it up to all consenting adults.


CrabbyOldMan said...

Gay marriage/domestic partnership:
We already have massive unintended consequences of denial of that basic recognition.
What are those unintended consequences? I believe that the first place to recognize homosexual “marriage” was Holland in 2000 (please correct me if I am wrong). We had lived with the “consequences” for the previous 5000(?) years.
Any snubbed subgroup in our society will have a negative impact on the whole of society There are no doubt other disordered persons whose feelings get hurt. As I noted above, this is a huge step to address a triviality.
I have seen no rational reason to deny them that right (to partner up). When have they ever actually been prevented them from doing so when both are of legal age?
Legalizing drugs:
My wife is yelling at me to come and eat and I dare not disobey! I have made lengthy comments on this before. Most use the fact of our having a huge problem with alcohol, the devil we know, to justify encouraging another problem, drugs, the devil we don’t know. We have thousands of years’ experience with alcohol, a couple hundred (?) with drugs and with far smaller percentage of users. Meanwhile, no one claims any serious benefit to drug use. I always say that the cost of incarceration generally is not an argument unless one can trot out figures to come up with the cost of letting them run around.

Anonymous said...

COM-http://www.freep.com/article/20110617/OPINION05/106170353/Leonard-Pitts-Jr-40-failed-years-war-drugs

Zelda said...

And see now, I disagree with both of you. :-) As far as marriage goes, I think the state should not be involved in anything but civil partnerships, drugs like pot and coke should be legalized, and abortion should be illegal because we are CREATED equal with an unalienable right to life.

But these are issues that are going to be debated in continuum and what we all can agree on now is sound fiscal policy.

Anonymous said...

You disagree with them and you gave them a smiley face? No way is this Zelda posting, had to be hubby.

Anonymous said...

Yes, her husband is always posting under her name. By the way, she is not stalking him.

Anonymous said...

Republicans are the biggest users of drugs and alcohol. Just ask Rush, he will tell you. Zelduh wanting to legalize marijuana and cocaine says all you need to know about her.

Anonymous said...

Havererwilde: Yes, announcement everyone on right: you have to use "a__hat" every chance you get. These are your marching orders for this week. Thanks for the repetition!

Bush/Cheney lied and it's well documented; how else would their families be able to war profiteer? They had to have a war in order to personally profit. Bush/Cheney: most corrupt in history and now, Bush, predictably says, "what do I have to apologize for?"

Your example comparing Boston Bombers and GWB/DC lies about WMD does not even make sense.

Republicans can't really talk about racism, can they.?Republicans as a group are extremely racist.

There is no way that Zelduh is posting. Any one with any notion of her writing style can see this. First of all, she is not swearing like a drunken sailor and secondly, she does not care for paragraphs. Is hubby doing the posting or someone else? Not fooling anyone.

Republicans on this site are always crying to keep the topic "on point". They couldn't in this instance, however, because of how badly The NY Post and A. Jones screwed up. Much worse than being a dip wad, aren't they? Liars is more accurate.

Republicans cannot defend R. Murdoch. So much for staying on topic.

Anonymous said...

Rickvid and other repubs on site want to rail against progresses and liberals. Too bad you are fooling anyone.

The problem with your arguments is that you all have liberal behaviors in your personal lives. You can't get away from that as much as you want to call yourselves conservatives.

The label you give yourselves is not working in your private lives. The word "conservative" does not fit who you are any more than it fits Limbaugh's.

Conservatives want to use this label but what they are saying is: don't look at me while I am displaying (or hiding) liberal behavior. Just look at me while I am demanding others behave conservatively.

The sad thing is you think no one knows your double standards.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas: Hebrews 13:8 (King James Version)
Sigh.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas, I read that January 17, 2011 opinion piece by Leonard Pitts.

I remember the debate before the 100 to one disparity between crack cocaine and regular cocaine became law. The liberal position was that the consequences of crack cocaine use was so much worse for the black community that the penalties for selling and using crack just had to be tougher in the interest that community’s own good. Of course, the apparently unintended consequence of so many more drug convictions among blacks has necessitated a liberal re-spin: the drug war is really a war on black men.

Poor Leonard!

To actually answer the question of the effectiveness of the drug war, we would have to follow the lunatic fringe’s wishes and legalize drugs and then, after a decade or so, measure the results.
The very high cost of the war on drugs COULD look like a bargain compared to the cost of more wide spread drug use. I am not prepared to take that risk because I doubt we could ever put the genie back in the bottle.
I am STILL waiting to hear about ANY serious benefit in exchange for the obvious risks.

Haverwilde said...

COM,

Well, I guess that makes me part of the lunatic fringe. But I am not suggesting we have to wait for 10 years to see the benefit.

Take a look at the current situation:
Militarized police—Why? The war on (some) drugs.
Prisons full—Why? The war on (some) drugs.
Rampant assaults, robberies and burglaries—Why? In part, to support drug habits.
Has the war on (some) drugs stopped the flow of drugs? Absolutely not!

It is a simple concept.
Once you take the profit out of illegal drugs, you stop the illicit drug traffic.

Your only argument against it is FEAR, without any sound or factual basis.
“The very high cost of the war on drugs COULD look like a bargain compared to the cost of more wide spread drug use. I am not prepared to take that risk because I doubt we could ever put the genie back in the bottle.”

I think if you take a look at the world around you, the genie is already out of the bottle. In the war on drugs, the drugs have won.

You also stated: “I am STILL waiting to hear about ANY serious benefit in exchange for the obvious risks.”

So here are some of the benefits:
1. Less crime
2. Less taxes spent on prisons
3. Less violence.
4. Less money flowing into criminal enterprises, and criminal war lords in drug supplying countries.
5. Less trampling on the rights of citizens, ‘no knock’ warrants etc.
6. A better handle on the numbers of users and the need for addiction services.

I expect that you will not take any of my comments seriously, but I did want to give you an answer, even if you ignore the logic of it.

Zelda said...

I agree with all your points, Haverwilde. I think I would also point to prohibition and the repeal of it. Prohibition was completely ineffective in restricting alcohol consumption, and worse, created a deadly black market just like the drug markets today. Repeal, repeal. Save the money. Let the druggies have their drugs.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Havirwilde you are right. I don't.
The concern is the total level of drug use, NOT who profits from it.
I ask again how much it will cost to let those incarcerated run free. You did not address that question.
It has been shown that when the price of drugs is reduced, the users simply use more until they run out of money. They will still commit crimes to support what would have become an even larger habit.
And Zelda, I wouldn’t mind letting the druggies have their drugs if the rest of us did not inevitably have to pay for it via, for example, “addiction services”.

Zelda said...

It has been shown that when the price of drugs is reduced, the users simply use more until they run out of money.

Sure. That's true whether it's legal or not. What's not important is keeping the addicts from using. What's more important is keeping the cartels from making money. Starve the beast.

Nate said...

Glenn Beck anyone?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, What's not important is keeping the addicts from using.!?!?!?!?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Havirwilde and Zelda:

I copied the following from www.drugabuse.gov>Publications>drugFacts

In 2011, 16.7 million Americans 6.5percent of the population) were dependent on alcohol or had problems related to their use of alcohol (abuse).
After alcohol, marijuana has the highest rate of dependence or abuse among all drugs. In 2011, 4.2million Americans met clinical criteria for dependence or abuse of marijuana in the past year—more than twice the number for dependence/abuse of prescription pain relievers (1.8 million) and four times the number for dependence/abuse of cocaine (821,000).

I don’t think that there is anyone who will argue that we do not continue to pay a very high price for alcohol abuse by 6.5% of the population.

You want to take the risk of making the relatively smaller drug problem into one comparable, or possibly worse than the alcohol problem, by no longer discouraging drug use?
Why would anyone advocate such a move when they are unable to name any serious benefit at all for doing so?

Haverwilde said...

COM,

Okay, you want to be consistent, so 6.4% have alcohol problems that cause trauma to America. But 35.7% are obese, and obesity causes more deaths than alcohol. Are you going to advocate against food addiction? Are you going to advocate for governmental control of calories? Are you going to create the food police to make certain that no one exceeds the maximum daily intake of fats and carbohydrates?

I gave you “specific benefits” which you deny. I even predicted that you would not acknowledge them. But face it there are ‘specific benefits.’
As a conservative, I would expect that you would resist change. That is the role of conservatives. But don’t falsely state that no one has stated ‘specific benefits,’ that is just wrong. I know you disagree. That is your role. I did not expect to change your mind. All I want is to open it a bit, so that you can see there are possibilities beyond the current “It’s the way we have always done things.”

CrabbyOldMan said...

Havirwilde, I don't care if someone is fat. Being fat is not the danger to others DUI is. How many times have you heard of someone eating too much and then getting into a resturant fight and injuring someone else? How many fat people are unable to work, leaving everyone else to support their family?
The fat argument makes about as much sense as your "benefits".
I have said all along that I would be fine with letting others do what they want if the rest of us did not have to pay for it. "They harm no one else" is fantasy.

Anonymous said...

GWB and DC had at least 5 DUIs between them. Cowards and drunks. What a winning combination for our country.

Your guru, Rush, is a huge pill popper. Double whammy. Overweight and on drugs. Surely a boozer as well so, triple threat.

You all had to change the topic from its original point since the right wing media and its lemmings keep blaming our govt for what happened. Also because of how WRONG they all were in their coverage.

Haverwilde said...

COM,
Really?
There is no benefit to stopping the money that flows into the Afghan Warlords, or the Latin America Drug Cartels?
There is no benefit to removing the money that fuels gang violence?
There is no benefit to reducing violent crime across America?
There is no benefit to removing the drug-trafficking profit motive which has put tens of thousands of people prison at a cost of billions?

Again, I am not asking you to accept any of this; but those benefits exist whether you ‘blow them off’ as fantasy or not

CrabbyOldMan said...

Haverwilde, I tried to find a source that would say something like X% of crimes were the result of drug traffickers fighting each other for control of the drug market and Y% were the result of users trying to fund their habit. I imagine that such statistics are to be found somewhere, but I have other things to do and so decided to go with what I could quickly find.
Alcohol cost the economy $235 billion annually.
Illicit drugs cost the economy $193 billion annually.
Over half of all offenders test positive for drugs.
Fifteen percent of all offenses are committed to get money for drugs.
The total crime numbers include trafficking.
Remember that there are four times as many alcoholics as there are drug addicts.
I am still waiting for ANY serious benefit to drug legalization that even pretends to compensate for the risks associated with more wide spread use.
Who stepped into legalized gambling? Who do you think would step into a legalized drug trade?

Zelda said...

I don’t think that there is anyone who will argue that we do not continue to pay a very high price for alcohol abuse by 6.5% of the population.

We paid a higher price during prohibition. The price for drug use is already being paid, AND we're making the most evil people on earth billionaires. Since there isn't much that can be done about addiction and drug use, let's at least stop making bad people rich.

Anonymous said...

Did you change the topic because you are all anti-US govt and don't want to talk about that?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda:
No we didn't.
Prohibition was asinine because alcohol had been used for thousands of years and was consequently deeply ingrained in the culture. Drugs are relatively new.
We are paying a high cost for drug use and will pay much, much more if drug use becomes more wide spread.
"Let’s stop making bad people rich" is not much of a benefit to exchange for the increased social problems we would get from more wide spread drug use.
Frankly Zelda, I think that you have jumped on this drug bandwagon because you have this fantasy of a winning political coalition of anti-abortion people and those favoring drug legalization.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Enemas, I think most of us respond to the most recent comments of others. I think that is natural.
You are correct, however, in pointing out that the practice generally causes the comentary to drift away from the original subject matter.
For example: "Bush Lied!" is a very common and distracting response to almost everything.

Anonymous said...

Crabs: Yes, yes the selective blackouts come on strong and fierce for repubs, but you do realize that when an Anonymous comments outside the topic they are told to "stay on point". Do you ever think about your own behavior before you post?

Anonymous said...

Crabs thinks typing Bible quotes he gets off Google over and over again is not repetitive. Swearing and calling names is not at all a filler or distracting.

Understandable that while you are all lying about Obama you wouldn't want the record of GWB/DC brought up since you cannot reconcile their horrible record and it doesn't fit with right wing narrative.

Given the bad reporting by the fake reporters at Fox and NY Post you went running to get off topic!

CrabbyOldMan said...

I'll probably never be able to comment again because Enemas has humiliated me.

Zelda said...

We are paying a high cost for drug use and will pay much, much more if drug use becomes more wide spread.

You are assuming it will become more widespread. Countries that have legalized it haven't seen any increase in drug use. You have to have more confidence in people's ability to discern for themselves what is good for them and what isn't. Most people don't actually need a law to tell them drug use is stupid. They already know. And those who need a law aren't going to follow it anyway. We may as well take the profit from the evil, horrible cartels.

CrabbyOldMan said...

FYI Zelda:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_during_and_after_prohibition

After the prohibition was implemented alcohol continued to be consumed. However, how much compared to pre-Prohibition levels remains unclear. Studies examining the rates of cirrhosis deaths as a proxy for alcohol consumption estimated a decrease in consumption of 10-20%.[4][5][6] One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests came to a similar result.[7] And, yet another study examining "mortality, mental health and crime statistics" found that alcohol consumption fell, at first, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level; but, over the next several years, increased to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level.[8]

From www.nber.org/papers/w3675

We estimate the consumption of alcohol during Prohibition using mortality, mental health and crime statistics. We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level. The level of consumption was virtually the same immediately after Prohibition as during the latter part of Prohibition, although consumption increased to approximately its pre-Prohibition level during the subsequent decade.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Further FYI Zelda from www.nytimes.com>COLLECTIONS>VIOLENT CRIME
History has valuable lessons to teach policy makers but it reveals its lessons only grudgingly.Close analyses of the facts and their relevance is required lest policy makers fall victim to the persuasive power of false analogies and are misled into imprudent judgments. Just such a danger is posed by those who casually invoke the ''lessons of Prohibition'' to argue for the legalization of drugs.What everyone ''knows'' about Prohibition is that it was a failure. It did not eliminate drinking; it did create a black market. That in turn spawned criminal syndicates and random violence. Corruption and widespread disrespect for law were incubated and, most tellingly, Prohibition was repealed only 14 years after it was enshrined in the Constitution.
The lesson drawn by commentators is that it is fruitless to allow moralists to use criminal law to control intoxicating substances. Many now say it is equally unwise to rely on the law to solve the nation's drug problem.
But the conventional view of Prohibition is not supported by the facts...
...The real lesson of Prohibition is that the society can, indeed, make a dent in the consumption of drugs through laws. There is a price to be paid for such restrictions, of course. But for drugs such as heroin and cocaine, which are dangerous but currently largely unpopular, that price is small relative to the benefits.


There was room for only the first and last paragraphs. I think that you will find the whole piece very informative.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, who do ya believe? This was what Wiki had to say about Portugal. These are only a couple excerpts. On the whole, I remain unimpressed.
The drug policy of Portugal was put in place in 2000, and was legally effective from July 2001. The new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance…
…Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%[14] It has been proposed that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use.[15] However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal [15][16] while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe…

Zelda said...

Those are the most minimal increases. I'm not worried. I think if you treat people like adults, they will behave like adults, and if you treat them like children they will behave like children, complete with irrationality, anger, and rebellion. The government isn't mommy and daddy.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you get back on topic and talk about the right wing govt-hating media you all follow and who screwed up covering the Boston Marathon attack along with their lies about the FBI?

Are you all trying to hide your hatred of our govt?

Zelda said...

That's not the topic, and no one cares what you have to say.

Roboto said...

Oh, my. Enemas is being ignored. We can't have that...
For anyone paying attention, there was a polite difference of opinion going on, consisting of statistics and relevant history, until our resident MPD troll slimed up the post again. No references to the former President, no accusations of being a "big batch baby killer", whatever the hell that means, no inventing other people's traits or habits.

You notice that all that occurred without Leftist intervention. The only possible way it COULD occur.

Roboto said...

BTW, is it coincidence that all of these supposed 'anonymous' posters comment in a row, sometimes minutes apart, and use the same 'witticisms'? Never individually posting?
Or is it merely ONE attention whore, which is sockpuppeting itself?

Using Occam's Razor, it's only one troll.
(I hope so anyway. I'd hate to think that there is more than one cretin that stupid out there.)

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, minimal increases?

11.7 / 7.6 = 154%
1.9 / .9 = 211%
1.3 / .7 = 186%
1.1 / .7 = 157%

Haven't you noticed that a HUGE part of the population is anything but adult?

I agree that the government SHOULDN'T be mommy and daddy, but unless you have a way for mommy and daddy to avoid paying the tab, you should think more carefully about what you say.

Zelda said...

It's still a very miniscule percentage of the population, and they aren't even sure if it's an actual increase.

Haven't you noticed that a HUGE part of the population is anything but adult?

No, I haven't. I see perfectly able-minded, able-bodied people being coddled into incompetence by the government.

I agree that the government SHOULDN'T be mommy and daddy, but unless you have a way for mommy and daddy to avoid paying the tab, you should think more carefully about what you say.

We ARE paying the tab. All of us. And we're paying the fucking cartels. I'm not sure why you ignore them. They're horrible and their crimes are having a terrible impact on the countries south of us, which translates into serious problems for us. I'm not sure why you can't see that.

Anonymous said...

Roboto: Why is the word "wh--re" on your mind? Is it because of another impending trip to an aboriton clinic with a "loved" one? You are an amazing detective.

It was the topic, Zelduh. You all shouldn't hate the govt so much. Of course, you all built the roads you drove on today. You're such independent cowboys.

CrabbyOldMan said...

A “miniscule” part of the population that is extremely expensive.
If 1.5% of the population for whom illicit drugs are a problem cost us $193 billion annually now, is it reasonable to say that one and a half times that number of addicts would cost us $289.5 billion per year (compared to the $235 billion alcoholics now cost us)?
Put another way we pay $14 billion per year per million alcoholics, while we pay $46 billion per year per million drug addicts.
Zelda, I don’t think that even Nit would try to argue that the drug cartels would suddenly give up and go away if drugs were legalized.
Oh, my bad. I forgot that organized crime disappeared after prohibition was repealed.

Roboto said...

Why is the word "wh--re" on your mind?
Dealing with you brings the word to mind, dear.

Is it because of another impending trip to an aboriton clinic with a "loved" one?
I've never been to an aboriton clinic. (For that matter, I've never been to an abortion clinic, either.) Next...

You are an amazing detective.
It doesn't take much detective work to figure out our anonymous poster, in all its personalities.

burun estetigi said...

Really got great experience & knowledge from your blog.. thanks for sharing..
burun estetigi

Zelda said...

Crabby, we've paid a trillion for the war on drugs. It's not working. We have to stop spending money on things that don't work. If people want to be addicts, let them be addicts. They are going to be anyway no matter how much money we spend. So let's stop spending money on them. Why are we spending billions of dollars? Rehab? Prison? Forget it. Just keep driving under the influence illegal with draconian penalties, and let it go.

CrabbyOldMan said...

What period of time has it taken for us to spend a trillion dollars on the war against drugs? What is the source of the figures?
I thought I had already shown that it is very reasonable to believe that we have inhibited (not eliminated)drug use.

Zelda said...

You haven't shown it. And I don't think the cost is reasonable, especially when we are enriching the most evil people on earth.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, see my 3:17 PM, 3:30 PM, 3:57 PM, 3:49 PM and 12:33 PM comments. I think that most would agree that I have.
What period of time has it taken for us to spend a trillion dollars on the war against drugs? What is the source of the figures?

Zelda said...

http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/budgetary-impact-ending-drug-prohibition

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, assuming that the figures are valid:
The report estimates that legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition.
The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.
Neither you nor the report mention:
If we had half again as many addicts as a result of legalization, the $46.7 billion in annual tax revenue would be DWARFED by the $96.5 billion annual increase (289.5-193) (twice the tax revenue) in the social costs we would have if drug use were unrestrained.
Remember that there are $289.5 billion in social costs now.

CrabbyOldMan said...

TYPO: The cost is "only" $193 billion now.

Zelda said...

How is it you think the 289.5 billion doesn't include enforcement? And I want to know the details of the other "social costs." If we're paying for rehab and prevention programs, then it needs to stop. We are in a debt crisis.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, I doubt that the enforcement costs are included in the total social costs, but just for the sake of discussion:

$193.0 - $41.3 = $151.7 social costs without enforcement costs.
$151.7 x 1.5 = $227.6 the increased social costs after legalization.
$227.6 - $151.7 = $75.9 annual increase of social costs

The $75.9 increased annual cost is 1.6 times the $46.7 of added annual tax revenue.

My figures have to be way, way off for your argument to hold any water at all.

If you do not like the social cost figures (I have provided the source), it is up to you to demonstrate that they are false or misleading.

Zelda said...

I don't like or dislike them. I just don't know how those numbers break down and why they wouldn't be significantly reduced if we just let evolution run its course.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, you have been beaten into the ground.

Anonymous said...

Roboto: the word wh____ comes to mind because of what you deal with in your everyday surroundings. You're right you aren't much of a detective or probably anything else. Don't believe the part about the abortion clinic.

Roboto said...

Enemas:
Could you possibly be LESS coherent?

I doubt that it is possible, but if anyone can do it, YOU can.

Zelda said...

Crabby - NEVER! I don't think you have been able to break down your numbers and I'm not convinced the price for enforcement isn't included in "social costs."

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, see my comments @ 7:17 PM and the 8:55 AM that followed.
I havn't tried to break down the social costs. If you want those numbers, look them up.

Zelda said...

Nah. I don't really care. I the government should quite spending any money on it and that people should be allowed to do drugs and the government should not intervene except when they endanger others.

CrabbyOldMan said...

except when they endanger others.

Other motorists?
Their own children?
The victims of the crimes they commit?

Zelda said...

Yes. And also non-drug users who do the same.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Very lame Zelda. Very lame.

Zelda said...

Crabby, how are you any better than a liberal if you want the government to have that much control? You can't even quantify the cost of handing that much power to a Leftist government.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Lamer still.

Zelda said...

So you're okay with the Lefties being in charge of a "war on drugs?"

CrabbyOldMan said...

Oh Zelda!

Anonymous said...

Drug and alcohol users talking about drugs. Very interesting. The war on drugs was started by repubs. That fat slob Bill Bennett was the drug czar so, of course, any program started by inept repubs is not going to be effective.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Did Enemas ever slap ME down! I'll probably never have the courage to comment again!

Zelda said...

How about an answer, Crabs? Do you really want the Lefties in control of the war on drugs? Do you trust them to wage it effectively? And for that matter, do you think it's ever going to end no matter who is in charge? Like most government programs, it's just a slush fund for political cronies.

CrabbyOldMan said...

How about an answer, Crabs? Do you really want the Lefties in control of the war on drugs? Do you trust them to wage it effectively? And for that matter, do you think it's ever going to end no matter who is in charge? Like most government programs, it's just a slush fund for political cronies.

I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that the drug war can ever eliminate illicit drug use. Rather, the drug war INHIBITS drug use.
I don’t think that even the most ardent Libertarian would argue that the government should not directly control national defense, the police and intelligence gathering.
I for one do not like the Leftards managing ANY of those things. However, we have to be satisfied that the jobs will be done alternately poorly and marginally. The government cannot be counted on to do anything beyond collecting taxes efficiently.
It is not realistic to assume that conservatives will gain uninterrupted long term control of the government.
It is out of the question to do the job on a start and stop basis.

Zelda said...

Rather, the drug war INHIBITS drug use.

So war without end. Amen.

It is out of the question to do the job on a start and stop basis.

That's precisely my point. And it's not even as if the conservatives have done the job well. It's best just to let it go. Very few people actually want to abuse drugs recreationally.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, you conveniently ignore the matter of drug use becoming more wide spread if it is legalized, and that the cost of the increased use FAR exceeds the costs of fighting.
If the rest of us didn't have to bear the cost, I wouldn't care, but we DO.

Zelda said...

It's an assumption that drug use will become more widespread. The people who want to do drugs are already doing them. It's not hard to get them. How about let's NOT send the profits to drug cartels. There would also be the added benefit of Mexico and South America being less hellish places that people want to leave so badly.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, I presented evidence that drug use DID become more wide spread, the same as with alcohol use after prohibition was repealed.
You have only your own assertions.
You and the other legalisation advocates are simply unable to come up with any compelling arguments.

Zelda said...

There is also evidence that it DIDN'T become more widespread. It's also hard to get accurate data when someone has to admit they're doing something illegal. And it's hard to believe you don't think billions in government spending with no results or end in sight isn't a compelling argument.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, I presented evidence that it has. If you dispute that, show evidence that it has not.
To borrow your argument: We spent huge amounts of money for centuries fighting crime and fires. This has clearly had no results since we still have both. Therefore, the proper course is to quit spending money for policemen and firemen.

Anonymous said...

Drug and booze users discussing drugs and booze. Makes perfect sense.

Zelda said...

Crime and fires aren't the same thing as drug use. A crime is supposed to involve some injury to another person. Drug use doesn't. Your support of keeping drugs illegal is to minimize secondary crimes associated with their use, but that's prosecuting crimes before they're committed. Time for evolution to take it's course. Give the addicts what they want, starve the cartels, and let's stop spending so much money.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Frankly Zelda, I am very surprised that you would present such an empty argument.

Zelda said...

I'm surprised you would present such an empty response.

CrabbyOldMan said...

I covered all your points before at length.

Zelda said...

Not at all to my satisfaction. You haven't presented any argument to me that justifies keeping the cartels in existence.