Allowing rampant drug distribution isn't going to make the country better, so you if that is your end goal you can't support the decriminalization of selling drugs.
The war on drugs has accomplished nothing good. All it has done is waste billions of tax payer dollars, empower violent drug cartels, and make America the most incarcerated per capita first world county. The mass incarceration of non-violent drug criminal also has the unintended side effect of taking fathers away from their children, leaving them to grow up without a father figure. There is no evidence that it has even reduced drug use or addiction. It has been a complete and total failure, and I challenge you to make a logical argument otherwise. If we were smart, we'd legalize drugs, tax them and use some of the tax revenue to help treat addiction.
Here's the problem. When I posted it, it was reported by cnn,fox and many others. The f.o.p has much more credibility than you gave them. Just because they aren't a government payed organization, doesn't mean they are not a collection of the people who would have first hand accounts of what's going on. It was not a bullshit story. If he retracted his statement after I said it , it doesn't make it a bullshit story at the time I posted it. So pretty much calling what I posted as bull shit, and then giving complete credence to the same outlets that are saying he retracted it just because it fits what you see as Credability. If you would rather believe that during these events the people of the community love to destroy their own towns, then fine. You are just giving more warrant for police to be defensive in these communities .
Murder convictions for gang members have the same side effect -- fatherless children, so if that is your argument then should we not imprison murderers? Or perhaps the solution isn't to not punish drug dealers but punish them in another way. But you haven't shown that imprisoning drug dealers is not good, just that it does have other repercussions. But all imprisonment has repercussions.
O My argument was clear. The war on drugs has done nothing good, a lot of bad, and has been a complete failure. You've done nothing to dispute that.
No, you argued it was a failure based on a premise that can be used to argue we shouldn't imprison anyone. I've clearly shown that's a nonsensical premise unless you are going to defend the position that imprisoning murderers is also a failed exercise because of negative repercussions if the murderers are fathers. My question back to you disputes your argument or forced you to accept the nonsensical example I gave which the logic of your logic position permits.
I gave several reasons. You chose to latch onto one part and try to make an argument out of it as if it was the only thing I said.
You gave examples of which not a single one leads to the conclusion that selling drugs should be legal simply because of those consequences.
Uh, ok. Let's recap. The war on drugs has cost billions of dollars. It has not reduced drug usage or addiction. It has empowered violent drug cartels and turned America into the highest per capita imprisoned first world country. It has done nothing good and you have yet to make a single point to the contrary. Legalizing drugs would take money and power away from violent drug cartels, raise tax revenue that could be used to treat addiction and stop imprisoning nonviolent Americans at an alarming rate. Maybe you could even call it "the land of the free". Aside from all that, the war on drugs is great for America.
Can someone give an argument FOR the war on drugs? I mean other than Mr Mackey telling us drugs are bad mkay.
You certainly misinterpreted something, I don't know what, but I never said or insinuated that "people shouldn't have to listen to cops." I have no idea where you got that from. My whole point was that cops shouldn't be shooting people just because they don't talk to them or listen to them and unless there is a clear and present danger cops shouldn't be shooting anyone. The operating procedures of virtually every police department in the country agree with me.
No! Here's the problem: "police say about 70% of arrests during the charlotte riots are people with out if state ids." Somebody posted that and that was complete and total bullshit. When called out on it they posted two different links, one on Breitbart and one on another worthless piece of crap website that indicated a spokesperson for an outside group made the claim. The claim was still bullshit. Then there came a time when even the original poster realized the claim was bullshit but did not have the balls to man up and 1) Admit they made a bullshit claim and 2) Admit his sources made bullshit claims.
I apologize if I'm wrong. I saw headlines that said it was stated on Erin Burnett show and Fox News, but to be honest I don't work near a computer . I can't spend the time all the time to click them all, and sometimes just go by the search results . So if he never said that then in wrong. I still believe that these protests are comprised of many pro agitators ... But I'll leave that as opinion for now.
I guess that settles that. For the record, I don't believe there is a vast conspiracy of left wing billionaires funding civil disturbances. What would be the point?
The point would be more federal control. Why would somebody like soros fund this movement so much? I doubt he gives a rats ass about "justice". I don't think any billionaire give a shit about justice for the oppressed, if anything they want them out of the way to preserve resources for future generations of people they see that deserve to inhabit this planet. but it's all about perception and you're free to see anything how you want. This "movement " is filled with so much bullshit and half truths, at the same time it has merit. But when people are agitated to riot before any truths cone out by the same internet that you saw put out a "bs" story on the 70% angle, it deserves just as much questioning .
Who says he does? And what is "so much?" I believe a lot of people believe in justice, and clean water, eradication of disease, education and all those "social causes" some find so distasteful. Billionaires too, and some of them spend their own money for change in these areas. A bunch of billionaires have pledged to give away as much as 99% of their wealth to charities and have formed many of their own. I think they do "give a shit" and have the wherewithal to do something about it. http://www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-giving-away-their-money-2015-10 You keep repeating buzz words like "agitated to riot before any truths cone (sic) out" without saying what makes you believe such a thing happens and you're now blaming "the same internet" when such a thing does not exist. What exists are people and websites that manipulate people by spreading lies and half truths to people who would rather repeat them than verify their truthfulness. We see a lot of that right here.
there is usually a business or control incentive behind it too. besides,dumping money is valuable to people who have too much of it. heres a link to what the country wont talk about...random acts of racial violence not involving police,but done just because of skin color. Kind of like the guy beat up in the parking garage in charlotte. and theres that "out of town" rhetoric too . http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016...protest-felt-targeted-because-they-are-white/
Please explain your statement about "usually a business or control incentive." Also, tell us how "dumping money is valuable to people who have too much of it" and how much is too much - I want to make sure I never get there. How is your link relevant to anything else in this conversation? Please be specific.
So I am guessing you don't know about charity being tax deductible? If you want to know about how special interests can be disguised as charity, then just look at the Clinton foundation in Haiti for one small example . As far as the link being relative? It's a by product of this whole rhetoric. Some people are mad about what they perceive as police brutality , and it turns into lets organize and beat up white people or the other way around . It's very relative as the media is pushing a dangerous rhetoric. It also mentions then organized as being comprised of out of towners. Are you an employee, or a business owner? I'm an owner , and one saving grace at tax time is business write offs. I'm a small business owner, I can imagine the benefit for billionaires. or billionaires who don't have business for write offs and use donations in their interest.
Don't attempt to patronize me, I'm well aware of charitable tax deductions but also am well aware that the deduction cannot exceed the donation. Were you unaware of that? So how valuable can that "money dumping" be? Give away a million, take a half million dollar deduction? Is that your version of the new math? You have a case to make about the Clinton Foundation's work in Haiti to make? Then lay it out for all to see, tell us all about those special interests because we all know how Haiti can skew our policies, seeing as how strong a nation it is. Now you've posted another link and can't explain how it is relevant to the topic at hand - tell us about it and tell us about the dangerous rhetoric the media is pushing, whatever that means. Your last sentence about your link is indecipherable. Your business and your writeoffs, as well as billionaires and their writeoffs don't come into play here either unless you can somehow explain how they are pertinent to the discussion - try to stay focused.
