Re: Super Bio-nano complexity Within a Cell Points to Creation

[Gordon]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:48:34 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

>Gordon wrote:
>> From God's temporal perspective you may be right, but from our
>> temporal perspective we must work our way through time and learn in
>> the process. This IS the plan.
>
>Why do you claim we must learn if our duty in this life to our God is to
>do exactly as we are told? We are to follow legalistic rules (such as
>no two gals getting hitched) upon threat of eternal punishment. Is that
>a learning experience? Is that free will?
>
We need to expand on this a bit...we are to eventually do exactly as
we want to do (sovereign will) and have the mind set and understanding
such that what we want to do is exactly and precisely what God wants
us to do. But, we must do this by our own sovereign choice, not by
being enslaved or pre-programmed as puppets.

The bottom line is, after we've completed this on-going learning
process our minds and our responses will be exactly the same as God's.
We will then be able to interact with God at his own level, just as
our children interact with their parents when they have reached
maturity. Gordon

[casey]

On May 11, 5:31 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:48:34 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Gordon wrote:
> >>  From God's temporal perspective you may be right, but from our
> >> temporal perspective we must work our way through time and learn in
> >> the process. This IS the plan.
>
> >Why do you claim we must learn if our duty in this life to our God is to
> >do exactly as we are told?  We are to follow legalistic rules (such as
> >no two gals getting hitched) upon threat of eternal punishment. Is that
> >a learning experience?  Is that free will?
>
> We need to expand on this a bit...we are to eventually do exactly as
> we want to do (sovereign will) and have the mind set and understanding
> such that what we want to do is exactly and precisely what God wants
> us to do. But, we must do this by our own sovereign choice, not by
> being enslaved or pre-programmed as puppets.
>
> The bottom line is, after we've completed this on-going learning
> process our minds and our responses will be exactly the same as God's.

We would have become puppets.

> We will then be able to interact with God at his own level, just as
> our children interact with their parents when they have reached
> maturity.

Mentally healthy children are not puppets of their parents
they learn to think for themselves. Parents rejoice in this
outcome and do not threaten their children with eternal
hell fire if they don't become their puppets.


>   Gordon

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 14:31:49 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

Most humans are more morally developed than the god found in the Old
Testament.

[linuxgal]

Free Lunch wrote:
> Most humans are more morally developed than the god found in the Old
> Testament.

God was about to destroy Sodom with the good and the wicked all
together, and Abraham talked him into sparing the city if there were at
least ten good people in it.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 12:39:26 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/9/2013 10:10 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article <b8coo8lba8j09o9q8...@4ax.com>,
>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 05:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>> <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31 Mar, 08:07, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Father Haskell" wrote in
>>>>> messagenews:9c164307-326f-4d39...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.co
>>>>> m...
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Super bio-nano complexity within a cell points to the
>>>>>> intelligence of an awesome Creator.
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbMHlXJryM
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> - Then who created the creator?
>>>>>
>>>>> Atheists often ask this question after they have
>>>>> seen positive evidence that points to a Creator.

He just can't stop lying, can he>

>>>> You've never presented positive evidence for any creator.

Nor has anybody else.

>>>> And if all things must have a creator, then your creator must have
>>>> been created.
>>>>
>>>> You'll never be able to have your cake and eat it.
>>>>
>>> What created the universe/multiverse if we deny the existence of a
>>> creator? If the universe/multiverse could simply pop into existence is
>>> it not reasonable to conclude that a creator might also have just
>>> popped into existence then created the universe/multiverse Gordon.

How is a dishonestly loaded question that once again presumes the very
thing he is supposed to be proving, meant to be "evidence"?

>> Who says the universe "simply popped into existence"?
>>
>Gordon apparently believes his god simply popped into existence.

The morons imagine it has been there forever.

But did you notice he still hasn't provided any evidence.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 14:04:01 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 10 May 2013 12:39:26 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 5/9/2013 10:10 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <b8coo8lba8j09o9q8...@4ax.com>,
>>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 05:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>>>> <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>

><snip>

>>>> What created the universe/multiverse if we deny the existence of a
>>>> creator? If the universe/multiverse could simply pop into existence is
>>>> it not reasonable to conclude that a creator might also have just
>>>> popped into existence then created the universe/multiverse Gordon.
>>>
>>>

>>> Who says the universe "simply popped into existence"?
>>>
>>Gordon apparently believes his god simply popped into existence.
>>

>I never said or implied this. I have stated that I do not know when or
>how God came into existence. I do believe that in order to understand
>this we would need a much deeper level of understanding of those extra
>spatial and temporal dimensions that God has access to but we do not.

Complete and utter bullshit that once again begs the very question you
were supposed to be answering.

>My thinking (opinion, only) along the lines of how God came into

WHAT "GOD" IN THE REAL WORLD OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION, imbecile?

>existence is based upon the idea of an infinite n-dimensional fractal
>system. Where would such a fractal system begin and where would it
>end? That is, God created himself and this is an on-going project from
>God's temporal perspective. From our temporal perspective, God has
>completed his creation. Gordon

Idiot.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 12:48:09 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>Free Lunch wrote:
>> Most humans are more morally developed than the god found in the Old
>> Testament.
>
>God was about to destroy Sodom with the good and the wicked all
>together, and Abraham talked him into sparing the city if there were at
>least ten good people in it.

Not to mention his willingness to have Job's family killed off because
of a bar bet he made with Satan.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 14:31:49 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>

wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:48:34 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Gordon wrote:
>>> From God's temporal perspective you may be right, but from our
>>> temporal perspective we must work our way through time and learn in
>>> the process. This IS the plan.
>>
>>Why do you claim we must learn if our duty in this life to our God is to
>>do exactly as we are told? We are to follow legalistic rules (such as
>>no two gals getting hitched) upon threat of eternal punishment. Is that
>>a learning experience? Is that free will?
>>
>We need to expand on this a bit...we are to eventually do exactly as
>we want to do (sovereign will) and have the mind set and understanding
>such that what we want to do is exactly and precisely what God wants
>us to do. But, we must do this by our own sovereign choice, not by

>bein>g enslaved or pre-programmed as puppets.

Was this cut'n'paste idiocy meant to mean anything, moron?

>The bottom line is, after we've completed this on-going learning
>process our minds and our responses will be exactly the same as God's.

Idiot.

>We will then be able to interact with God at his own level, just as
>our children interact with their parents when they have reached
>maturity. Gordon

IF you had provided as much evidence for your pretend friend as there
is for parents, you might have had a point.

But instead you rudely and stupidly did your usual question-begging.

[Alex W]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 12:37:38 -0500, Dakota wrote:

> On 5/9/2013 10:10 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:


>>

>> Who says it's not "prudent" to study the theory that god exists?
>>
> Studying the theory that god exists is how many of us became atheists.
> I encourage people to study it.

Studying the theory that god exists is essential to a good
understanding of how the human mind works.

[linuxgal]

August Rode wrote:
> Why does God require worship in the first place? Is he insecure? Is he
> egotistical? What is the function of worship?

It serves precisely the same function as replying to a Usenet troll. It
validates its pathetic existence.

[Tom McDonald]

Hmm. My son is an adult, and interacts with me at my own level. He
doesn't do exactly what I want him to do, and never has. I wouldn't want
him to. But according to you, the idea is for humans to become like God,
who is like a human parent, but with the 'perfected' humans having no
mind or responses of our own that differ from God's.

So which is it: are we to be like adult humans in our relationship with
God as a parent; or are we to be like God in our relations with God?

What, exactly, do you think God wants to do with a 'perfected' humanity?
Wouldn't He get pretty bored, if the point of His existence up until
that point was to get us to act like he wanted us to act?

Personally, I think at that point God would probably kill off everyone
and start again, so He could keep playing with His toys.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 19:08:58 -0500, Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You'll never get through to him because in his mind you're talking
about something real rather than applying logic to what theists insist
on telling us about something irrelevant whether or not we're
interested.

[nature bats last]

On May 9, 4:57 pm, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 May 2013 15:56:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <jr5no8pd6bdkdss44guboplvnn0an6i...@4ax.com>,
> > Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 8 May 2013 22:41:01 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 8, 1:36 pm, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> <snip>


;
> >> >You have yet to produce any data supporting your contention that a god
> >> >*actually exists*. Please do so at once, or kindly FOAD out of
> >> >alt.atheism.

;
> >> Same goes for things like gravitons. Should we toss these ideas into
> >> the trash and ridicule anyone who gives them any further thought?


;
> >Nobody claims gravitons are real, so what possible relevance do they
> >have to whether your god exists or not?

;
> Then why is it considered prudent to study the theory of gravitons
> with serious intentions but it is not at all prudent to study the
> theory that God exists and is the creator of all. Gordon

Why not indeed? In fact, you should go right ahead.

And in that, you do have a terrific head start:
"studying God" had been going on for millinnea, whereas
science, only a few centuries.

Which makes it seem a bit odd that in all those
thousands of years, the study of God has progressed this:


---> |

far.

NBL

[linuxgal]

Sparks wrote:
> They updated the English translation to make it more accurate. The
> original Hebrew word is more accurately translated as "murder" than
> "kill". So the correct translation is, "Thou shall not murder."

Stoning kids to death for sassing their parents is still murder.

[Sparks]

On May 11, 9:04 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
> Sparks wrote:
>
> > They updated the English translation to make it more accurate. The
> > original Hebrew word is more accurately translated as "murder" than
> > "kill". So the correct translation is, "Thou shall not murder."
>
> Stoning kids to death for sassing their parents is still murder.

Thank you for inviting me back into the discussion. Just to put aside
the idea some have that I'm a troll, I want to reiterate that I'm
reading this thread on alt.religion.christian, and every post to which
I have responded shows up on the Christian newsgroup.

Your interpretation of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is wrong. First, it wasn't
"kids", and it wasn't for "sassing" parents. It was specifically about
a rebellious son (not a daughter), and he had to be "stubborn",
"rebellious", a "glutton" and a "drunkard". That just doesn't sound
like some little kid sassing his parents to me.

The parents of a rebellious son would have had to try to "chasten"
him, and he'd have had to ignore their chastening of him before they
could take him before the elders of their city. In other words, this
would have had to be some really bad dude who was causing a lot of
problems before they would go to the extreme of taking him before the
elders of the city.

Even then, that wouldn't have meant the elders would immediately have
the son stoned to death. There would have been an investigation of
some sort, and the son would have likely been given the opportunity to
change his ways.

Once again, this is old Jewish law that was given to Jewish judges. Do
you have any historical example of parents having their "kid" stoned
to death for "sassing" them?

[linuxgal]

August Rode wrote:
> On May 1, 1:21 am, Sparks<energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 30, 7:50 pm, linuxgal<linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>> > >Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >
>>>> > > >Why do good people pray for health and still get sick and die?
>> >
>>> > >Because God is incorporeal, immaterial, ineffable, unfathomable,
>>> > >incomprehensible, and a whole host of other descriptions that correspond
>>> > >precisely to non-existent.
>> >
>> >So because this world isn't Heaven, that means there is no God?
> I think she said the reverse: that because there is no God, this world
> isn't heaven.

More like, since there is no God, we must work to make this world more
heavenly.

[Mitchell Holman]

linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in
news:4LCdnfODK8cCCxPM...@giganews.com:

I would settle for making it less hellish.

[Sparks]

Whether one believes in God or not, that should always be our goal.
Unfortunately, there are people in this world who have other ideas
about that. Examples on a grand scale are Lenin, Stalin, Hitler,
Saddam Hussein, etc., and on a smaller scale, the gang-bangers who
shoot up our inner cities on a nightly basis -- or the guy who kept
those women captive for ten years or more.

[Sparks]

On May 11, 3:01 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote innews:

I agree with that. How do you propose doing it?

[linuxgal]

I'm biased toward heavenly, this is my backyard:

http://www.cleanposts.com/images/c/cf/Tipsoo2.JPG

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:7345cc0e-fc3f-4556-
ade5-366...@v9g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:

Take global warming seriously, work on
population control, more income equality,
more educational opportunities, end the
war on drugs, just for starters.

[SkyEyes]

On May 11, 5:24 pm, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:

> > linuxgal<linux...@cleanposts.com>  wrote in

Wow, LG! That's insanely beautiful.

-
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
-

[Sparks]

On May 11, 7:12 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:

>
> > On May 11, 3:01 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote innews:
>
> >> > August Rode wrote:
>
> >> >> On May 1, 1:21 am, Sparks<energizedconservat...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
> >> >>> >On Apr 30, 7:50 pm, linuxgal<linux...@cleanposts.com>  wrote:
>
> >> >>>> > >Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> >> >>>>> > > >Why do good people pray for health and still get sick and
> >> >>>>> > > >die?
>
> >> >>>> > >Because God is incorporeal, immaterial, ineffable, unfathomable,
> >> >>>> > >incomprehensible, and a whole host of other descriptions that
> >> >>>> > >correspond precisely to non-existent.
>
> >> >>> >So because this world isn't Heaven, that means there is no God?
>
> >> >> I think she said the reverse: that because there is no God, this
> >> >> world isn't heaven.
>
> >> > More like, since there is no God, we must work to make this world more
> >> > heavenly.
>
> >>    I would settle for making it less hellish.
>
> > I agree with that. How do you propose doing it?
>
>   Take global warming seriously,

Okay. Looking back over the last million years or so, what do you
think we should settle on as the correct average temperature for this
planet?
>
> work on population control,

That's already happening. Most of Europe has a negative birthrate. So
does Canada, and ours is just barely above breaking even -- and
dropping. Japan also has a negative birthrate. Countries with negative
birthrates are not replacing themselves. Are you happy about that?
>
> more income equality,

How do you propose we accomplish that? We have a growing sub-class of
low-wage workers in our country, a practice that is encouraged by
people who favor open borders.
>
> more educational opportunities,

You should speak with the directors of universities about lowering
their outlandish tuition fees.

>
> end the war on drugs,

Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.
>
> just for starters.

Hmm. When I think of what makes life in this world hellish, I think of
starving people in third world countries. I think of people who are
forced to live under the rule of brutal dictators, where they are
tortured and executed if they try to escape (as with North Korea, for
example). I think of the women in Cleveland who were beaten and
tortured by a maniac for an entire decade of their lives. Things like
that.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 00:22:10 -0700 (PDT), Sparks
<energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Raise the minimum wage to at least $12.50/hour, include health care
costs as a government program, protect undocumented workers from abuse
by their employers.

>> more educational opportunities,
>
>You should speak with the directors of universities about lowering
>their outlandish tuition fees.
>>
>> end the war on drugs,
>
>Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
>make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.

Rational use of alcohol and other drugs works better than prohibition.

>> just for starters.
>
>Hmm. When I think of what makes life in this world hellish, I think of
>starving people in third world countries.

Yet there is adequate food. What there isn't is a fair distribution of
resources. We turn blind eyes to rich American companies that buy their
clothing from sweatshops in Bangladesh and only occasionally care that
the workers are killed when their factories pancake or have a fire.

>I think of people who are
>forced to live under the rule of brutal dictators, where they are
>tortured and executed if they try to escape (as with North Korea, for
>example).

Yet we know that overthrowing someone else's dictator accomplishes
nothing without a real plan of nation-building.

> I think of the women in Cleveland who were beaten and
>tortured by a maniac for an entire decade of their lives. Things like
>that.

How easy it is to focus on a few while ignoring how much damage the very
rich have done to millions.

[Gordon]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:33:51 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

And when the economic system stalls out we can look forward to a
situation similar to that which currently exists in S. Africa and
Mexico. Is this our best goal?

>
>>> more educational opportunities,
>>
>>You should speak with the directors of universities about lowering
>>their outlandish tuition fees.
>>>
>>> end the war on drugs,
>>
>>Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
>>make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.
>
>Rational use of alcohol and other drugs works better than prohibition.
>

This would work if most of the potential users were actually rational.

>
>>> just for starters.
>>
>>Hmm. When I think of what makes life in this world hellish, I think of
>>starving people in third world countries.
>
>Yet there is adequate food. What there isn't is a fair distribution of
>resources. We turn blind eyes to rich American companies that buy their
>clothing from sweatshops in Bangladesh and only occasionally care that
>the workers are killed when their factories pancake or have a fire.
>

When the economic situation stalls out and the agricultural system can
no longer afford diesel fuel and petroleum based fertilizers this will
rapidly cave in.

>
>>I think of people who are
>>forced to live under the rule of brutal dictators, where they are
>>tortured and executed if they try to escape (as with North Korea, for
>>example).
>
>Yet we know that overthrowing someone else's dictator accomplishes
>nothing without a real plan of nation-building.
>
>> I think of the women in Cleveland who were beaten and
>>tortured by a maniac for an entire decade of their lives. Things like
>>that.
>
>How easy it is to focus on a few while ignoring how much damage the very
>rich have done to millions.
>

Balance this by looking at how much benefit the very rich have
provided for all of us. Without those very rich people owning and
managing our industrial and other business systems there would be no
employment and no income for the lower scale people. Would that be a
fun time?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:10:24 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:

Why would the economic system stall out? The important thing, in
addition to raising the minimum wage, would be to guarantee a useful job
to everyone. If the private sector fails to hire, the public sector can
fix and expand roads, sewers, water systems, rails, parks and other
capital infrastructure.

>>>> more educational opportunities,
>>>
>>>You should speak with the directors of universities about lowering
>>>their outlandish tuition fees.
>>>>
>>>> end the war on drugs,
>>>
>>>Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
>>>make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.
>>
>>Rational use of alcohol and other drugs works better than prohibition.
>>
>This would work if most of the potential users were actually rational.

So you assume that the long-failed war on drugs which costs billions in
wasted resources is less irrational?

>>>> just for starters.
>>>
>>>Hmm. When I think of what makes life in this world hellish, I think of
>>>starving people in third world countries.
>>
>>Yet there is adequate food. What there isn't is a fair distribution of
>>resources. We turn blind eyes to rich American companies that buy their
>>clothing from sweatshops in Bangladesh and only occasionally care that
>>the workers are killed when their factories pancake or have a fire.
>>
>When the economic situation stalls out and the agricultural system can
>no longer afford diesel fuel and petroleum based fertilizers this will
>rapidly cave in.

You keep assuming the economy will fail.

>>>I think of people who are
>>>forced to live under the rule of brutal dictators, where they are
>>>tortured and executed if they try to escape (as with North Korea, for
>>>example).
>>
>>Yet we know that overthrowing someone else's dictator accomplishes
>>nothing without a real plan of nation-building.
>>
>>> I think of the women in Cleveland who were beaten and
>>>tortured by a maniac for an entire decade of their lives. Things like
>>>that.
>>
>>How easy it is to focus on a few while ignoring how much damage the very
>>rich have done to millions.
>>
>Balance this by looking at how much benefit the very rich have
>provided for all of us.

How many people were killed by Carnegie's thugs so we could have public
libraries?

>Without those very rich people owning and
>managing our industrial and other business systems there would be no
>employment and no income for the lower scale people.

False. Cooperatives work very well.

> Would that be a fun time?

Better than having billionaires exploiting the poor.

[Mitchell Holman]

Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote in
news:pa8vo81625kjs3qsq...@4ax.com:

Given a chance they are.

Remember what happened when Portugal
dropped all their drug laws? That is to
say.....nothing.


http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/drug-decriminalization-
policy-pays

>>
>>> I think of the women in Cleveland who were beaten and
>>>tortured by a maniac for an entire decade of their lives. Things like
>>>that.
>>
>>How easy it is to focus on a few while ignoring how much damage the
>>very rich have done to millions.
>>
> Balance this by looking at how much benefit the very rich have
> provided for all of us. Without those very rich people owning and
> managing our industrial and other business systems there would be no
> employment and no income for the lower scale people.

The industrial bases is run by publically
traded corportations, not "the very rich".
Japanese corporations are run very efficiantly
and their CEO's do require the billions in
salary and bonuses that Americans do. And as
for American CEO's making billions from their
companies that LOSE money, well, that one requires
some explanation too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html?_r=0

[Father Haskell]

On May 12, 10:10 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:33:51 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
>
> >Rational use of alcohol and other drugs works better than prohibition.
>
> This would work if most of the potential users were actually rational.

Which is why "just say no" was a crock.

[Gordon]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:27:28 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net>
wrote:

A boat that has run aground and is resting on the bottom won't sink
any further if they pull the plug and open the hatches.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 11:16:02 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>

Was this meant to mean anything?

>>>>> I think of the women in Cleveland who were beaten and
>>>>>tortured by a maniac for an entire decade of their lives. Things like
>>>>>that.
>>>>
>>>>How easy it is to focus on a few while ignoring how much damage the
>>>>very rich have done to millions.
>>>>
>>> Balance this by looking at how much benefit the very rich have
>>> provided for all of us. Without those very rich people owning and
>>> managing our industrial and other business systems there would be no
>>> employment and no income for the lower scale people.
>>
>> The industrial bases is run by publically
>>traded corportations, not "the very rich".
>>Japanese corporations are run very efficiantly
>>and their CEO's do require the billions in
>>salary and bonuses that Americans do. And as
>>for American CEO's making billions from their
>>companies that LOSE money, well, that one requires
>>some explanation too.
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html?_r=0

Yep.

[Sparks]

On May 12, 6:33 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 00:22:10 -0700 (PDT), Sparks

> <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Undocumented workers are not allowed to be legally employed. When
employers hire them illegally, it drives down wages for legal workers.
So it's not a matter of protecting undocumented workers from
employers, it's a matter of stopping employers from hiring
undocumented workers. But that won't happen as long as the government
continues to want as many undocumented workers in this country as can
possibly cross our open border.

>
> >> more educational opportunities,
>
> >You should speak with the directors of universities about lowering
> >their outlandish tuition fees.
>
> >> end the war on drugs,
>
> >Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
> >make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.
>
> Rational use of alcohol and other drugs works better than prohibition.

Actually, Prohibition did work. The per capita consumption of alcohol
was reduced during Prohibition, but then climbed dramatically after
repeal.

>
> >> just for starters.
>
> >Hmm. When I think of what makes life in this world hellish, I think of
> >starving people in third world countries.
>
> Yet there is adequate food. What there isn't is a fair distribution of
> resources.

Whose fault is that? The U.S. tried to feed hungry people in Somalia,
and some of our people were killed as a result of trying to help.

>
> We turn blind eyes to rich American companies that buy their
> clothing from sweatshops in Bangladesh and only occasionally care that
> the workers are killed when their factories pancake or have a fire.

The presence of our companies in those places actually raises the
standard of living for those people. Also, the presence of our
companies increases the likelihood that other countries will raise
their safety standards.

>
> >I think of people who are
> >forced to live under the rule of brutal dictators, where they are
> >tortured and executed if they try to escape (as with North Korea, for
> >example).
>
> Yet we know that overthrowing someone else's dictator accomplishes
> nothing without a real plan of nation-building.

There are already many fewer dictators in today's world than there
were 40 years ago. We don't have to physically overthrow them. They're
disappearing as a result of their people becoming more and more aware
of the real freedom that exists outside their tyrannical
dictatorships.

>
> > I think of the women in Cleveland who were beaten and
> >tortured by a maniac for an entire decade of their lives. Things like
> >that.
>
> How easy it is to focus on a few while ignoring how much damage the very
> rich have done to millions.

So is your solution to do what Lenin and Stalin did, and just get rid
of wealthy people?

[Mitchell Holman]

Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:a097f713-9dca-4561-
a7b8-bd9...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from demanding more drug laws and more abortion
laws to claim that more gun laws are unnecessary
because criminals will just evade them anyway.

[Sparks]

On May 12, 8:27 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote innews:

>
> > On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:33:51 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 12 May 2013 00:22:10 -0700 (PDT), Sparks

> >><energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>
> >>>On May 11, 7:12 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:
>
> >>>> > On May 11, 3:01 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> >> linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote innews:
>

They did not drop all their drug laws.
>
> That is to say.....nothing.

Not true.
>
> http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/drug-decriminalization-policy-pays

quoting Manuel Pinto Coelho, M.D, Ph. D:

[excerpt] Drug decriminalization in Portugal is a failure, despite
several published articles claiming exactly the opposite. This paper
will show that there is an illogical campaign supporting the
Portuguese drug policy and an unacceptable manipulation of factual
information.

A book written by Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer fluent in Portuguese,
suggests the opposite of what the research data demonstrates.Mr.
Greenwald is a member of the Cato Institute, an American libertarian
think-tank that has been advocating drug legalization for many years.

This complex issue has been broadcasted worldwide by the press, both
Portuguese and international, boosting the proliferation of the 'good
news' about the Portuguese drug policy and distorting the real
analysis of what is going on in this country. [end excerpt]

More:

http://wfad.se/latest-news/1-articles/1989-the-portuguese-fallacy-and-the-absurd-medicalization-of-europe

From NPR:

Headline: "Mixed Results For Portugal's Great Drug Experiment"
"When Portugal decriminalized all illegal drugs in 2000, officials
hoped to reduce addiction rates and drug-related violence. Today, more
users are in rehab, but drug use is on the rise, and reporter Keith
O'Brien says the policy has made the problem worse."

Quoting Journalist Keith O'Brien: "Well, people on the other side of
the argument say that, in fact, there has been an increase, and the
data bears that out. In those reporting drug use, personal drug use
over the course of their lifetime has gone up about 40 to 50 percent
in the last decade.

"The people reporting the use of cannabis, cocaine, heroin,
amphetamines, ecstasy, you name it, it's all gone up. At the same
time, there has been an increase in drug-related deaths in Portugal.
So there's an argument to be made there."

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Portugals-Great-Drug-Experiment

Headline: Drug experiment"

By Keith O'Brien
Boston Globe

[excerpt] According to the latest report by the European Monitoring
Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction, the number of Portuguese aged 15
to 64 who have ever tried illegal drugs has climbed from 7.8 percent
in 2001 to 12 percent in 2007. The percentage of people who have tried
cannabis, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, ecstasy, and LSD all
increased in that time frame. Cannabis use, according to the drug
report, has gone up from 7.6 to 11.7 percent. Heroin use jumped from
0.7 to 1.1 percent, and cocaine use nearly doubled — from 0.9 to 1.9
percent. In other words, said Keith Humphreys, a professor of
psychiatry at Stanford University, the changes in Portugal have had a
somewhat expected outcome: More people are trying drugs.

"What it says to me is that when you decriminalize, use goes up —
potentially dramatically," said Humphreys. "You can see a doubling of
cocaine use, a doubling of heroin use. And because drug use carries
some risk — no one disputes that — it becomes inevitable that as use
goes up, more people will get hurt." [end excerpt]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/01/16/drug_experiment/

>
> >>> I think of the women in Cleveland who were beaten and
> >>>tortured by a maniac for an entire decade of their lives. Things like
> >>>that.
>
> >>How easy it is to focus on a few while ignoring how much damage the
> >>very rich have done to millions.
>
> > Balance this by looking at how much benefit the very rich have
> > provided for all of us. Without those very rich people owning and
> > managing our industrial and other business systems there would be no
> > employment and no income for the lower scale people.
>
>   The industrial bases is run by publically
> traded corportations, not "the very rich".
> Japanese corporations are run very efficiantly
> and their CEO's do require the billions in
> salary and bonuses that Americans do. And as
> for American CEO's making billions from their
> companies that LOSE money, well, that one requires
> some explanation too.

It's up to the shareholders to do something about it if they don't
like it.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html?_r=0

[Sparks]

On May 12, 10:51 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:

>
> > On May 12, 10:10 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:33:51 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Rational use of alcohol and other drugs works better than prohibition.
>
> >> This would work if most of the potential users were actually rational.
>
> > Which is why "just say no" was a crock.
>
>     Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
> out from demanding more drug laws and more abortion
> laws to claim that more gun laws are unnecessary
> because criminals will just evade them anyway.

We already have gun laws. It's already illegal to shoot innocent
people. Cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest
crime rates, while parts of this country with fewer gun control laws
have lower crime rates.

So what is your solution, take away the guns of law abiding citizens
so that only criminals will continue to have guns?

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:81cfe041-e373-41f4...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

All prohibition did is create criminal
syndicates to profit from the demand for
suddenly illegal substances. Is creating
a new criminal culture a good thing?

>>
>> We turn blind eyes to rich American companies that buy their
>> clothing from sweatshops in Bangladesh and only occasionally care
>> that the workers are killed when their factories pancake or have a
>> fire.
>
> The presence of our companies in those places actually raises the
> standard of living for those people. Also, the presence of our
> companies increases the likelihood that other countries will raise
> their safety standards.

You should read "Shock Doctrine" by
Naomi Kline. Corporations muscle their
way into 3rd world countries, bribe them
to ditch their environmental and worker
safety laws in order to cut down rainforests
and farm lands and hire the displaced
peasants to work under slave conditions
in oppressive factories. How many people
died in that Bangledesh factory collapse
so far?

>
> There are already many fewer dictators in today's world than there
> were 40 years ago. We don't have to physically overthrow them. They're
> disappearing as a result of their people becoming more and more aware
> of the real freedom that exists outside their tyrannical
> dictatorships.

So why maintain the Cuban embargo?

by a maniac for an entire decade of their lives. Things
>> >like that.
>>
>> How easy it is to focus on a few while ignoring how much damage the
>> very rich have done to millions.
>
> So is your solution to do what Lenin and Stalin did, and just get rid
> of wealthy people?
>

Sweden and Norway and Denmark and Japan
and Canada and Germany have wealthy people
AND a sustainable middle class and a safety
net for the public that prevents millions
from being bankrupted by medical bills and
student loans. What is your objection to that?

[August Rode]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 1:42:37 PM UTC-4, Sparks wrote:
> On May 12, 6:33 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

<snip>

> > >Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
> > >make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.
> >
> > Rational use of alcohol and other drugs works better than prohibition.
>
> Actually, Prohibition did work. The per capita consumption of alcohol
> was reduced during Prohibition, but then climbed dramatically after
> repeal.

Prohibition had a myriad of other effects, Sparks. When you make illegal something that people really want, they will still obtain it somehow. Where there is a demand, there is *always* someone willing to supply it. Usually, it will be someone who doesn't necessarily have your best interests at heart.

> > >Hmm. When I think of what makes life in this world hellish, I think of
> > >starving people in third world countries.
> >
> > Yet there is adequate food. What there isn't is a fair distribution of
> > resources.
>
> Whose fault is that? The U.S. tried to feed hungry people in Somalia,
> and some of our people were killed as a result of trying to help.

Resources aren't necessarily restricted to food, Sparks. There's a vast amount of money out there that is simply sitting in offshore bank accounts, money that would go a long way to resolving some of the world's problems if it weren't for the greedy swine and the lax international banking regulations that permit money to be squirreled away where it does no one any good.

> > We turn blind eyes to rich American companies that buy their
> > clothing from sweatshops in Bangladesh and only occasionally care that
> > the workers are killed when their factories pancake or have a fire.
>
> The presence of our companies in those places actually raises the
> standard of living for those people. Also, the presence of our
> companies increases the likelihood that other countries will raise
> their safety standards.

And yet, as the standard of living rises and as the cost of production increases because of improved safety standards, multinational companies look for around the world for less expensive options. China used to be a major manufacturer of clothing. Now, even they are subcontracting to companies in Bangladesh. What happens to Bangladesh when it gets too "expensive" there?

> > >I think of people who are
> > >forced to live under the rule of brutal dictators, where they are
> > >tortured and executed if they try to escape (as with North Korea, for
> > >example).
> >
> > Yet we know that overthrowing someone else's dictator accomplishes
> > nothing without a real plan of nation-building.
>
> There are already many fewer dictators in today's world than there
> were 40 years ago. We don't have to physically overthrow them. They're
> disappearing as a result of their people becoming more and more aware
> of the real freedom that exists outside their tyrannical
> dictatorships.

> > > I think of the women in Cleveland who were beaten and
> > >tortured by a maniac for an entire decade of their lives. Things like
> > >that.
> >
> > How easy it is to focus on a few while ignoring how much damage the very
> > rich have done to millions.
>
> So is your solution to do what Lenin and Stalin did, and just get rid
> of wealthy people?

There's many a wealthy person who accumulates wealth for the sake of being wealthy, and many of those move their funds around the world to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Much of that money is sitting in bank accounts, doing nothing useful. Isn't that a disgrace?

I'd like to recommend a book:
A Game as Old as Empire
edited by Steven Hiatt

[Sparks]

On May 12, 11:09 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:
>
> > On May 12, 6:33 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 00:22:10 -0700 (PDT), Sparks
> >> <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >> >On May 11, 7:12 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> end the war on drugs,
>
> >> >Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which
> >> >will make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.
>
> >> Rational use of alcohol and other drugs works better than
> >> prohibition.
>
> > Actually, Prohibition did work. The per capita consumption of alcohol
> > was reduced during Prohibition, but then climbed dramatically after
> > repeal.
>
>    All prohibition did is create criminal
> syndicates to profit from the demand for
> suddenly illegal substances.

No, that's not *all* Prohibition did. As I said (and you failed to
address), Prohibition reduced the per capita consumption of alcohol in
this country.

>
> Is creating a new criminal culture a good thing?

No, but most people did not buy illicit alcohol from the criminal
culture.

>
> >> We turn blind eyes to rich American companies that buy their
> >> clothing from sweatshops in Bangladesh and only occasionally care
> >> that the workers are killed when their factories pancake or have a
> >> fire.
>
> > The presence of our companies in those places actually raises the
> > standard of living for those people. Also, the presence of our
> > companies increases the likelihood that other countries will raise
> > their safety standards.
>
>     You should read "Shock Doctrine" by
> Naomi Kline. Corporations muscle their
> way into 3rd world countries, bribe them
> to ditch their environmental and worker
> safety laws in order to cut down rainforests
> and farm lands and hire the displaced
> peasants to work under slave conditions
> in oppressive factories.

As I said, and you ignored, corporations raise the standard of living
in those places.

[quoting] Abstract: Many studies have shown that multinational firms
pay more than domestic firms in Third World countries. Economists
critical of sweatshops have responded that multinational firms’ wage
data do not address whether sweatshop jobs are above average because
many of these jobs are with domestic subcontractors. In this paper we
compare apparel industry wages and the wages of individual firms
accused of being sweatshops to measures of the standard of living in
Third World economies. We find that most sweatshop jobs provide an
above average standard of living for their workers. [end quote]

More:

http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369

>
> How many people died in that Bangledesh factory collapse
> so far?

So an Italian corporation bought clothes from a Bangladesh factory.
Yes, it's a real tragedy, but what do you propose we do about it?

>
> > There are already many fewer dictators in today's world than there
> > were 40 years ago. We don't have to physically overthrow them. They're
> > disappearing as a result of their people becoming more and more aware
> > of the real freedom that exists outside their tyrannical
> > dictatorships.
>
>     So why maintain the Cuban embargo?

Because we shouldn't reward Castro.

>
> >> >by a maniac for an entire decade of their lives. Things
> >> >like that.
>
> >> How easy it is to focus on a few while ignoring how much damage the
> >> very rich have done to millions.
>
> > So is your solution to do what Lenin and Stalin did, and just get rid
> > of wealthy people?
>
>    Sweden and Norway and Denmark and Japan
> and Canada and Germany have wealthy people
> AND a sustainable middle class and a safety
> net for the public that prevents millions
> from being bankrupted by medical bills and
> student loans. What is your objection to that?

Their systems are unsustainable in the long run, and will eventually
bankrupt their countries -- probably within your lifetime. You might
get to see it happen.

[Father Haskell]

On May 12, 2:09 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
>     You should read "Shock Doctrine" by
> Naomi Kline. Corporations muscle their
> way into 3rd world countries, bribe them
> to ditch their environmental and worker
> safety laws in order to cut down rainforests
> and farm lands and hire the displaced
> peasants to work under slave conditions
> in oppressive factories. How many people
> died in that Bangledesh factory collapse
> so far?

History repeats itself.

http://www.aflcio.org/About/Our-History/Key-Events-in-Labor-History/Triangle-Shirtwaist-Fire

[Sparks]

> http://www.aflcio.org/About/Our-History/Key-Events-in-Labor-History/T...

Something was done after that disaster, wasn't it? Now the Italian
corporation that bought clothes from the factory that collapsed will
be forced to do something, too. In this country, when it's discovered
that a corporation does business with sweatshops, the corporations do
something about it:

[excerpt] Brand-name companies like Disney, Gap (Research) and Nike
(Research) are expending considerable effort and money to try to
improve working conditions along their supply chains.

This is noteworthy because, in an ideal world, they would not have to
worry about how their suppliers conduct themselves in faraway lands.
Governments, not U.S. companies, are supposed to enforce labor laws
and protect their citizens. But the governments of countries ranging
from China, India and Indonesia to Columbia, Mexico and Brazil have
proven to be either uncaring, corrupt or inept, leaving workers
vulnerable. The result is that global brands have stepped in to do the
job. [end excerpt]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/03/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/

[linuxgal]

But the United States, which runs trillion dollar deficits every year,
funded by printing IOUs to China, that's the one true sustainable
economic system.

[Sparks]

There's nothing wrong with our economic system. We have a government
problem:

Headline: "When Will America Burst D.C.'s Bubble?"

By Salena Zito - May 5, 2013

WASHINGTON--Eighteen Starbucks shops can be found in the three-mile
walk from DuPont Circle to the U.S. Capitol. Not one of them had a
line less than seven people deep on a recent Wednesday afternoon.

Twenty-one construction sites filled with workers on girders and
cranes towering over whole city blocks can be found on the same walk.

Commerce bursts from every angle of this city: small businesses packed
with shoppers, hair salons charging more than the monthly mortgage
payment on my first house for a cut-and-blow-dry, and main as well as
side streets clogged with traffic.

America's capital seems bubble-wrapped in its own vibrant economic
boom, while great chunks of the nation struggle with uncertainty about
how to keep the engine going.

In fact, six of the 10 wealthiest American counties are Washington
suburbs.

Washington once was the manifest of power. Now you can add “center of
wealth” to its portfolio, crystallizing the elite institutional
disconnect between it and the rest of the country.

Nearly six months have passed since the last presidential campaign
promises were preached. Six months of waiting outside of the bubble
for the Obama administration to fulfill passionate vows inserted into
soaring speeches that pledged to create a million new manufacturing
jobs in this term, to help big factories and small businesses double
their exports, and to invest in advanced manufacturing.

All were promises made by the president, over and over again, in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin and Michigan.

The outcome has not matched the promises, not even closely.

Manufacturing has stalled in the last three months, with only pockets
of growth in certain sectors. A report last week by the Chicago
Purchasing Managers Index showed contraction, with manufacturing job-
growth hitting its plateau before Election Day last year.

And what about all of those job promises?

A Labor Department report on Friday showed marginally improved job
growth but manufacturing jobs remain sluggish.

So, while Washington basks in its roaring economy, debating such
issues as gay marriage, guns and how to provide a path to citizenship
for 11 million illegal aliens, the rest of the country asks, “Hi,
remember us? Where are the jobs? Can we focus on the jobs?” [end
excerpt]

More:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/05/thriving_dcs_bubble_will_burst_118261.html

[Tom McDonald]

The DC area is wealthy and growing because businesses have figured out
how to get government money via lobbying and campaign donations/legal
bribes. That's it; that's all of it.

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ebe25238-67b5-44d2...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

Do you realize most of the current mass
shootings (Sandy Hook, Aurora, Ft Hood, Virgina
Tech) WERE committed by "law abiding citizens"?

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:c9475498-5f42-4e4c...@o2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

Ten years ago, Portugal became the first
Western nation to pass full-scale, nationwide
decriminalization. That law, passed Oct. 1, 2000,
abolished criminal sanctions for all narcotics �
not just marijuana but also �hard drugs� like
heroin and cocaine.

By any metric, Portugal�s drug-decriminalization
scheme has been a resounding success. Individuals
caught with drugs in Portugal are no longer arrested
or treated as criminals. Instead, they are sent to
a tribunal of health professionals, where they are
offered the opportunity, but are not compelled, to
seek government-provided treatment.

For those found to be addicts, tribunals have the
power to impose noncriminal sanctions. But in practice,
the overriding goal is to direct people to treatment.

By any metric, Portugal�s drug-decriminalization
scheme has been a resounding success. Drug usage
in many categories has decreased in absolute terms,
including for key demographic groups, like 15-to-19-
year-olds.
>


> http://wfad.se/latest-news/1-articles/1989-the-portuguese-fallacy-and-t

> he-absurd-medicalization-of-europe
>
> From NPR:
>
> Headline: "Mixed Results For Portugal's Great Drug Experiment"
> "When Portugal decriminalized all illegal drugs in 2000, officials
> hoped to reduce addiction rates and drug-related violence. Today, more
> users are in rehab, but drug use is on the rise, and reporter Keith
> O'Brien says the policy has made the problem worse."
>
> Quoting Journalist Keith O'Brien: "Well, people on the other side of
> the argument say that, in fact, there has been an increase, and the
> data bears that out. In those reporting drug use, personal drug use
> over the course of their lifetime has gone up about 40 to 50 percent
> in the last decade.
>
> "The people reporting the use of cannabis, cocaine, heroin,
> amphetamines, ecstasy, you name it, it's all gone up. At the same
> time, there has been an increase in drug-related deaths in Portugal.
> So there's an argument to be made there."

Which country do you think has more
drug traffic crimes - Portugal, America,
or Mexico?




> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/01/16/drug_experi

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:e7f47b85-a351-
4bc3-afdb-7...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

> On May 12, 11:31�am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 12, 2:09�pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > � � You should read "Shock Doctrine" by
>> > Naomi Kline. Corporations muscle their
>> > way into 3rd world countries, bribe them
>> > to ditch their environmental and worker
>> > safety laws in order to cut down rainforests
>> > and farm lands and hire the displaced
>> > peasants to work under slave conditions
>> > in oppressive factories. How many people
>> > died in that Bangledesh factory collapse
>> > so far?
>>
>> History repeats itself.
>>
>> http://www.aflcio.org/About/Our-History/Key-Events-in-Labor-
History/T...
>
> Something was done after that disaster, wasn't it? Now the Italian
> corporation that bought clothes from the factory that collapsed will
> be forced to do something, too. In this country, when it's discovered
> that a corporation does business with sweatshops, the corporations do
> something about it:
>
> [excerpt] Brand-name companies like Disney, Gap (Research) and Nike
> (Research) are expending considerable effort and money to try to
> improve working conditions along their supply chains.
>

Translation: We can trust the corporations
that depend on unregulated sweatshops to eliminate
unregulated sweatshops.

Right. Whatever you say.

[SkyEyes]

On May 12, 12:22 am, Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
> make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.

When it's been tried in the Real World (Switzerland), drug use
actually went *down*, as did crime. By decriminalizing drugs and
putting enforcement dollars towards medical programs, many addicts
were able to access effective drug rehab programs. Furthermore, by
being able to access their drugs from a safe and legal source while
they were still hooked, the crime rate plummeted, as an entire market
for illegal drugs and all that comes with it simply vanished.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<b2fa04ad-41d4-444f...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

Why do we need a "correct average temperature"?

> > more income equality,
>
> How do you propose we accomplish that? We have a growing sub-class of
> low-wage workers in our country, a practice that is encouraged by
> people who favor open borders.

And do you support the billionaires and their pet politicians who create
these policies so they can get even richer on the honest labor of their
exploited employees?

The ones who get themselves subsidized by government for paying lower
wages than can be lived on. The government is spending SNAP money and
Medicaid money on hard-working people doing jobs society needs, but yet
who don't make enough money to get out of poverty. The numbers say that
the average Walmart store gets about $400-450,000 in subsidies for
abusing their workers.

> > more educational opportunities,
>
> You should speak with the directors of universities about lowering
> their outlandish tuition fees.
> >
> > end the war on drugs,
>
> Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
> make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.

Nope. It won't happen. Because it hasn't happened anywhere else.

Most of that misery drug addicts have is due to their drugs being
illegal and, therefore, their supply is in the hands of crooks who
aren't careful about what they cut the drugs with. Legalize and regulate
drugs, punish illegal acts done under the influence, and the prison
population goes down and we save a huge amount of money.

> > just for starters.
>
> Hmm. When I think of what makes life in this world hellish, I think of
> starving people in third world countries. I think of people who are
> forced to live under the rule of brutal dictators, where they are
> tortured and executed if they try to escape (as with North Korea, for
> example). I think of the women in Cleveland who were beaten and
> tortured by a maniac for an entire decade of their lives. Things like
> that.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 15:05:32 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Had the Ft. Hood shooter had his mental health questioned by those who
knew him? The other three had.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 16:43:57 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

I worry just how many of the mentally ill, obsessed religious loonies
we get here have guns.

Long time Usenet regulars will remember Valery Fabrikant and the
Concordia University massacre.

And more recently there was a ranting Youtube loonie in Lansing,
Michigan who was obsessed with atheists, evolution and abortion, who
murdered a girl at his community college and them killed himself.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<ebe25238-67b5-44d2...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 12, 10:51�am, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:
> >
> > > On May 12, 10:10 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:33:51 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > >> >Rational use of alcohol and other drugs works better than prohibition.
> >
> > >> This would work if most of the potential users were actually rational.
> >
> > > Which is why "just say no" was a crock.
> >
> > � � Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
> > out from demanding more drug laws and more abortion
> > laws to claim that more gun laws are unnecessary
> > because criminals will just evade them anyway.
>
> We already have gun laws. It's already illegal to shoot innocent
> people. Cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest
> crime rates, while parts of this country with fewer gun control laws
> have lower crime rates.

Not true.

[Alex W]

Firstly, of course we cannot trust them. If they were
really willing to pay the cost of health and safety
precautions, they wouldn't be in those countries in the
first place.

Secondly, though, it is effectively impossible to ensure
adequate workplace conditions along the entire supply
pipeline. The supply chains are quite simply too long and
convoluted, and way too far out of anybody's control. This
is a seriously underappreciated problem even in Western
countries, as evinced by recurring issues with faulty parts
in the computer and car industries or by the recent
horsemeat scandal in Europe.

[Mitchell Holman]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:6730p81dpbs3etp3n...@4ax.com:

There is no database for people with
medical issues, much less on that can sort
out which can be trusted with guns. And the
Ft Hood shooter was a psychiatrist himself,
for that matter.

As long as guns can be sold to the
general public they will end up in the
hands of the deranged and homocidal.
Background checks are a waste of time.

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ebe25238-67b5-44d2...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> On May 12, 10:51 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:
>>
>> > On May 12, 10:10 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:33:51 -0500, Free Lunch
>> >> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Rational use of alcohol and other drugs works better than
>> >> >prohibition
> .
>>
>> >> This would work if most of the potential users were actually
>> >> rational.
>>
>> > Which is why "just say no" was a crock.
>>
>>     Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
>> out from demanding more drug laws and more abortion
>> laws to claim that more gun laws are unnecessary
>> because criminals will just evade them anyway.
>
> We already have gun laws. It's already illegal to shoot innocent
> people. Cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest
> crime rates, while parts of this country with fewer gun control laws
> have lower crime rates.

Wrong.



1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide


2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.


3. Across states, more guns = more homicide


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

[Sparks]

> >http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/05/thriving_dcs_bub...

>
> The DC area is wealthy and growing because businesses have figured out
> how to get government money via lobbying and campaign donations/legal
> bribes. That's it; that's all of it.

Two key words in your paragraph are "government money". The government
has no money before it confiscates it from the private sector. You've
made my point for me. My point is that people have figured out how to
siphon money from all parts of the country, and direct it to DC so
they can enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.

[Sparks]

On May 12, 1:05 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:

No, the shooter at Sandy Hook stole his weapon. The Aurora shooter had
illegal bombs in his apartment, and he took his guns into a theater
that banned guns. The Ft Hood shooter also took his gun into an area
that was supposed to be gun-free (which is why none of the other
soldiers were able to defend themselves). The Virginia Tech shooter
was in violation of campus law by taking his gun onto the campus.

What further laws do you propose that would have prevented any of
those shootings?

[Sparks]

On May 12, 1:30 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:

But that's not what you said originally. You said they did away with
all their drug laws, which is incorrect.

>
> That law, passed Oct. 1, 2000,
> abolished criminal sanctions for all narcotics
> not just marijuana but also hard drugs like
> heroin and cocaine.

But drugs are still illegal there. Only a small amount of drugs for
personal use are subject to the new law. But then in our country,
first-time offenders are generally given the option of entering a
treatment program in exchange for having charges dropped. Can you give
me an example of anyone in our country who is doing hard time in
prison because of a first-time drug offense (in which they were not in
possession of anything more than could be considered for personal
use)?

>
> By any metric, Portugal s drug-decriminalization
> scheme has been a resounding success.

Not true, since I showed you reason to believe otherwise.

>
> Individuals
> caught with drugs in Portugal are no longer arrested
> or treated as criminals. Instead, they are sent to
> a tribunal of health professionals, where they are
> offered the opportunity, but are not compelled, to
> seek government-provided treatment.

There is a city in Southern California (Inglewood) that rid itself of
crack houses by taking over the crack houses whenever the police found
one, and waiting for customers to stop by. Customers were given the
option of entering a drug treatment program, which most took.
Inglewood no longer has a problem with crack houses, because potential
customers know to stay out of Inglewood.

>
> For those found to be addicts, tribunals have the
> power to impose noncriminal sanctions. But in practice,
> the overriding goal is to direct people to treatment.
>
> By any metric, Portugal s drug-decriminalization
> scheme has been a resounding success.

Repetition of a falsehood doesn't make it true.

>
> Drug usage
> in many categories has decreased in absolute terms,
> including for key demographic groups, like 15-to-19-
> year-olds.

The dishonesty of that statement is obvious. As the information I
provided shows, in other age groups the rate of drug usage went up.
Ignoring facts to make a libertarian point (as Cato did) is wrong.

>
> >http://wfad.se/latest-news/1-articles/1989-the-portuguese-fallacy-and-t
> > he-absurd-medicalization-of-europe
>
> > From NPR:
>
> > Headline: "Mixed Results For Portugal's Great Drug Experiment"
> > "When Portugal decriminalized all illegal drugs in 2000, officials
> > hoped to reduce addiction rates and drug-related violence. Today, more
> > users are in rehab, but drug use is on the rise, and reporter Keith
> > O'Brien says the policy has made the problem worse."
>
> > Quoting Journalist Keith O'Brien: "Well, people on the other side of
> > the argument say that, in fact, there has been an increase, and the
> > data bears that out. In those reporting drug use, personal drug use
> > over the course of their lifetime has gone up about 40 to 50 percent
> > in the last decade.
>
> > "The people reporting the use of cannabis, cocaine, heroin,
> > amphetamines, ecstasy, you name it, it's all gone up. At the same
> > time, there has been an increase in drug-related deaths in Portugal.
> > So there's an argument to be made there."
>
>     Which country do you think has more
> drug traffic crimes - Portugal, America,
> or Mexico?

So your solution is to give up? I know you were under the impression
that Portugal got rid of its drug laws and everything got better, but
you were wrong.

[excerpt] According to a 2009 report by the U.N. Office on Drugs and
Crime, Portugal's drug-use and murder rates rose in the years after
decriminalization. The general rise in drug use was in keeping with
European trends, but the U.N. noted with some alarm that cocaine use
doubled and cocaine seizures jumped sevenfold from 2001 to 2006.

Murders rose 40% in the period. The report tentatively links that with
drug trafficking, but points out overall murder rates in Portugal
remain low. [end excerpt]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303411604575168231982388308.html

[Sparks]

On May 12, 1:35 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
> Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:e7f47b85-a351-
> 4bc3-afdb-7b328b6b6...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

It's a fact that where there is pressure from the public, corporations
will do something about it. They raise the standard of living for
people in third world countries. But since you don't believe it,
what's your solution?

[Sparks]

On May 12, 1:36 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> On May 12, 12:22 am, Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
> > make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.
>
> When it's been tried in the Real World (Switzerland), drug use
> actually went *down*, as did crime.

What's the name of that park in Zurich? How did that work out?

>
> By decriminalizing drugs and
> putting enforcement dollars towards medical programs, many addicts
> were able to access effective drug rehab programs.

We do that for first time offenders here, as long as they don't have
possession of amounts of drugs that could be considered for sale. But
then I'm even aware of a person who was caught with a relatively large
amount of drugs, and escaped any serious jail time.

>
>  Furthermore, by
> being able to access their drugs from a safe and legal source while
> they were still hooked, the crime rate plummeted, as an entire market
> for illegal drugs and all that comes with it simply vanished.

While usage went up. Cocaine usage in Switzerland's largest cities is
among the highest in Europe.

[Sparks]

On May 12, 2:29 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

That's what I'd like to know. The global warming alarmists seem to
think they know what the correct temperature for this planet should
be, since they're alarmed that we've had warming on this planet since
the end of the Little Ice Age a couple of centuries ago.

>
> > > more income equality,
>
> > How do you propose we accomplish that? We have a growing sub-class of
> > low-wage workers in our country, a practice that is encouraged by
> > people who favor open borders.
>
> And do you support the billionaires and their pet politicians who create
> these policies so they can get even richer on the honest labor of their
> exploited employees?

You mean do I support open borders, so a continued influx of laborers
can further dilute the labor pool and drive down wages for legal
workers? No, I don't support that.

>
> The ones who get themselves subsidized by government for paying lower
> wages than can be lived on. The government is spending SNAP money and
> Medicaid money on hard-working people doing jobs society needs, but yet
> who don't make enough money to get out of poverty. The numbers say that
> the average Walmart store gets about $400-450,000 in subsidies for
> abusing their workers.

You wrote that as if money is given to Walmart. That's not the way it
works. Secondly, most Walmart jobs are not intended to be a career
position -- unless one rises up into management, and then they make
pretty good money. But for a kid who needs a summer job, what's so bad
about Walmart? Would you prefer the kid not have a job at all?

>
> > > more educational opportunities,
>
> > You should speak with the directors of universities about lowering
> > their outlandish tuition fees.
>
> > > end the war on drugs,
>
> > Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
> > make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.
>
> Nope. It won't happen. Because it hasn't happened anywhere else.

I disagree, and I've shown why I disagree with documented evidence.

>
> Most of that misery drug addicts have is due to their drugs being
> illegal and, therefore, their supply is in the hands of crooks who
> aren't careful about what they cut the drugs with.

Most of the misery of drug usage has to do with addiction. If someone
gets bad drugs, of course that has an immediate impact. But the long
term effects of addiction are the "hell" to which I referred.

>
> Legalize and regulate
> drugs, punish illegal acts done under the influence, and the prison
> population goes down  and we save a huge amount of money.

And the numbers of drug abusers go up (as I've already shown).

[Sparks]

On May 12, 3:40 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <ebe25238-67b5-44d2-8fd3-2b787b561...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 12, 10:51 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:
>
> > > > On May 12, 10:10 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:33:51 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> > > >> wrote:
>
> > > >> >Rational use of alcohol and other drugs works better than prohibition.
>
> > > >> This would work if most of the potential users were actually rational.
>
> > > > Which is why "just say no" was a crock.
>
> > >     Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
> > > out from demanding more drug laws and more abortion
> > > laws to claim that more gun laws are unnecessary
> > > because criminals will just evade them anyway.
>
> > We already have gun laws. It's already illegal to shoot innocent
> > people. Cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest
> > crime rates, while parts of this country with fewer gun control laws
> > have lower crime rates.
>
> Not  true.

It is true. Look at the city of Washington DC, where guns were banned
for decades while they had one of the highest violent crime rates in
the country. Since the gun ban was lifted by the Supreme Court, their
violent crime rate has gone down.

[Sparks]

On May 12, 4:34 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:
>

> > On May 12, 10:51 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:
>
> >> > On May 12, 10:10 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:33:51 -0500, Free Lunch
> >> >> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Rational use of alcohol and other drugs works better than
> >> >> >prohibition
> > .
>
> >> >> This would work if most of the potential users were actually
> >> >> rational.
>
> >> > Which is why "just say no" was a crock.
>
> >>     Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
> >> out from demanding more drug laws and more abortion
> >> laws to claim that more gun laws are unnecessary
> >> because criminals will just evade them anyway.
>
> > We already have gun laws. It's already illegal to shoot innocent
> > people. Cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest
> > crime rates, while parts of this country with fewer gun control laws
> > have lower crime rates.
>
>     Wrong.
>
> 1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide

What about states such as Vermont or North Dakota, where gun ownership
rates are high and violent crime rates are low? What about cities such
as Chicago (and others) where gun control laws are strict, and violent
crime rates are sky high?

>
> 2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

What about Switzerland, where gun ownership rates are high and violent
crime rates are low?

>
> 3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Are they talking about legally owned guns, or are they including
illegally owned guns (that are owned by criminals despite strict gun
laws)? Because if you look at some of our states with the highest gun
ownership rates, their violent crime rates are low.
>
> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<3944e244-a566-48dc...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

Kids with summer jobs don't work Walmart or fast food any more. Those
jobs are now done by adults, many of whom have children. Imagine working
at a restaurant and needing SNAP to feed your children and yourself.
Imagine not making enough money to rent an apartment.

> > > > more educational opportunities,
> >
> > > You should speak with the directors of universities about lowering
> > > their outlandish tuition fees.
> >
> > > > end the war on drugs,
> >
> > > Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
> > > make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.
> >
> > Nope. It won't happen. Because it hasn't happened anywhere else.
>
> I disagree, and I've shown why I disagree with documented evidence.
> >
> > Most of that misery drug addicts have is due to their drugs being
> > illegal and, therefore, their supply is in the hands of crooks who
> > aren't careful about what they cut the drugs with.
>
> Most of the misery of drug usage has to do with addiction. If someone
> gets bad drugs, of course that has an immediate impact. But the long
> term effects of addiction are the "hell" to which I referred.
> >
> > Legalize and regulate
> > drugs, punish illegal acts done under the influence, and the prison
> > population goes down  and we save a huge amount of money.
>
> And the numbers of drug abusers go up (as I've already shown).

So what? Why do you have a problem with people doing drugs? Do you also
object to people drinking alcohol?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<a3a24d77-1f17-447d...@v9g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

So what? Why do you want to oppress people for no reason?

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:e7f06972-4651-459d...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

> On May 12, 1:05�pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>> Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote

>> innews:ebe25238-67b5-44d2-
> 8fd3-2b7...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

No prior criminal conviction.

> The Aurora shooter had
> illegal bombs in his apartment, and he took his guns into a theater
> that banned guns.

No prior criminal conviction.

> The Ft Hood shooter also took his gun into an area
> that was supposed to be gun-free (which is why none of the other
> soldiers were able to defend themselves).

No prior criminal conviction.

The Virginia Tech shooter
> was in violation of campus law by taking his gun onto the campus.
>

No prior criminal conviction.


Even George Bush has a longer criminal
record than all these shooters put together.
Do you still think background checks will
make a difference?

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:30a5669f-6550-
4d45-8f79-7...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

Just read the cited Harvard study.

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:36c550a6-4f93-
4cab-92b5-0...@v9g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:

So the Bangledesh building collapse didn't
happen because corporations can be trusted to
police the working conditions of their factories?

> But since you don't believe it,
> what's your solution?

Stop subsidizing the export of US jobs.

Oh, but your Republican bosses don't like
that, do they...............




GOP blocks Democrats' jobs outsourcing bill
Sept 29 2010

Washington (CNN) � Senate Republicans successfully
blocked a bill from coming to the Senate floor Tuesday
that Democrats claim would help keep American jobs from
going overseas. The Democratic bill would have ended
certain tax breaks for companies expanding overseas
while giving new tax incentives to businesses bringing
jobs home.
http://tinyurl.com/2am6blp

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3944e244-a566-48dc...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

And your solution to drug abuse is............?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <XnsA1BEE5CFEC7B...@216.196.121.131>,

It's the easiest thing we can do. To manage to pass the simplest step 1
will make it easier to have the discussion to one day come up with
solutions that will save the most lives with the least cost to
individual freedom.

But if we can't even do something that 90% of the American people wanted
done, then what hope can we have for EVER solving the catastrophic
problem we have.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <XnsA1BEE6ECC6338...@216.196.121.131>,

I really don't understand why this wasn't used to make more of them lose
their jobs. Would even the stupidest Republican vote for somebody who
voted to give his tax money to corporations that sent his job overseas?

[Sparks]

Some do, at least where I live.

>
> Those jobs are now done by adults, many of whom have children.

People who have made a decision to have children really should have
something more substantial than a low paying job, don't you think?

>
> Imagine working
> at a restaurant and needing SNAP to feed your children and yourself.
> Imagine not making enough money to rent an apartment.

Why is it Walmart's (or any other employer's) responsibility to pay
more for certain kinds of work than that work is worth? I do have a
problem with certain kinds of work that once paid a pretty good wage
(construction trades, for example), that now pay a lot less (in
inflation adjusted dollars) because of the huge influx of undocumented
labor, which has diluted the labor pool and driven down wages for all
sorts of workers in the construction trades. Not that you care about
that.

>
> > > > > more educational opportunities,
>
> > > > You should speak with the directors of universities about lowering
> > > > their outlandish tuition fees.
>
> > > > > end the war on drugs,
>
> > > > Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
> > > > make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.
>
> > > Nope. It won't happen. Because it hasn't happened anywhere else.
>
> > I disagree, and I've shown why I disagree with documented evidence.
>
> > > Most of that misery drug addicts have is due to their drugs being
> > > illegal and, therefore, their supply is in the hands of crooks who
> > > aren't careful about what they cut the drugs with.
>
> > Most of the misery of drug usage has to do with addiction. If someone
> > gets bad drugs, of course that has an immediate impact. But the long
> > term effects of addiction are the "hell" to which I referred.
>
> > > Legalize and regulate
> > > drugs, punish illegal acts done under the influence, and the prison
> > > population goes down  and we save a huge amount of money.
>
> > And the numbers of drug abusers go up (as I've already shown).
>
> So what? Why do you have a problem with people doing drugs?

I do when they become addicted, which is usually the case with drugs
such as cocaine and heroin. In most cases, drug addicts become
unproductive, and they start causing problems that must be addressed
by society.

>
> Do you also object to people drinking alcohol?

Only when it's to excess, and they drive while drunk and injure or
kill innocent people -- such as the drunk driver who killed Nick
Adenhart, for example.

[Sparks]

On May 12, 7:32 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>
>  Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 1:36 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 12, 12:22 am, Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
> > > > make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.
>
> > > When it's been tried in the Real World (Switzerland), drug use
> > > actually went *down*, as did crime.
>
> > What's the name of that park in Zurich? How did that work out?
>
> > > By decriminalizing drugs and
> > > putting enforcement dollars towards medical programs, many addicts
> > > were able to access effective drug rehab programs.
>
> > We do that for first time offenders here, as long as they don't have
> > possession of amounts of drugs that could be considered for sale. But
> > then I'm even aware of a person who was caught with a relatively large
> > amount of drugs, and escaped any serious jail time.
>
> > > Furthermore, by
> > > being able to access their drugs from a safe and legal source while
> > > they were still hooked, the crime rate plummeted, as an entire market
> > > for illegal drugs and all that comes with it simply vanished.
>
> > While usage went up. Cocaine usage in Switzerland's largest cities is
> > among the highest in Europe.
>
> So what? Why do you want to oppress people for no reason?

I don't want to oppress anyone. I want people to live and prosper
without using illegal drugs.

[Sparks]

On May 12, 8:40 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:
>
> > On May 12, 1:05 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote
>

Uh, why are you asking me that? I asked you what new laws you propose
that would have stopped any of the shooters you mentioned? Can you
answer that question?

[Sparks]

On May 12, 8:41 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:

In other words, don't believe my own eyes when I read about gun
ownership rates in Vermont and North Dakota (for example), and their
very low violent crime rates? I can look at my own neighborhood, where
gun ownership rates are relatively high and crime is low. I can look
at other neighborhoods (such as Washington DC) and know that where
guns were banned, violent crime was sky high. Criminals love knowing
they're going somewhere to commit their crimes where their victims
will be unarmed. The four examples you gave of shooters (Sandy Hook,
Aurora, Ft. Hood, and Virginia Tech) who knew their victims would be
unarmed is a perfect example of my point.

[Sparks]

On May 12, 8:46 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:
>
> > On May 12, 1:35 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:
>

As I've told you (and you continue to ignore) that was an Italian
corporation. What do you propose we do about it?

>
> >  But since you don't believe it,
> > what's your solution?
>
>     Stop subsidizing the export of US jobs.

It wasn't a U.S. corporation involved in the example you gave.

>
>     Oh, but your Republican bosses don't like
> that, do they...............
>
> GOP blocks Democrats' jobs outsourcing bill
> Sept 29 2010
>
> Washington (CNN) Senate Republicans successfully
> blocked a bill from coming to the Senate floor Tuesday
> that Democrats claim would help keep American jobs from
> going overseas. The Democratic bill would have ended
> certain tax breaks for companies expanding overseas
> while giving new tax incentives to businesses bringing
> jobs home.
> http://tinyurl.com/2am6blp

[excerpt] Critics of the legislation said it would put U.S. companies
at a competitive disadvantage internationally, which would hurt,
rather than help, their U.S. operations create jobs. [end excerpt]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703882404575520091126205702.html

[Sparks]

It's certainly not to drop all our drug laws and expect things to
improve in that regard (as you incorrectly thought had happened in
Portugal). I'm for prevention efforts first, followed by treatment
programs for first time offenders (which is pretty much what is
offered now) who only possess enough for personal use. And, of course,
continue the efforts to take drugs off the streets and put
distributors in prison.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<9baea08e-a613-48f8...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

What a load of codswallop.

None of that is any excuse for using the tax money of Americans to ship
their jobs overseas.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<2c74031d-02c5-417b...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

That's why they should be legal. Then you won't have a problem.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<5ea4e8c6-7848-4c12...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

Why did you create a strawman there?

> > > > > > more educational opportunities,
> >
> > > > > You should speak with the directors of universities about lowering
> > > > > their outlandish tuition fees.
> >
> > > > > > end the war on drugs,
> >
> > > > > Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
> > > > > make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.
> >
> > > > Nope. It won't happen. Because it hasn't happened anywhere else.
> >
> > > I disagree, and I've shown why I disagree with documented evidence.
> >
> > > > Most of that misery drug addicts have is due to their drugs being
> > > > illegal and, therefore, their supply is in the hands of crooks who
> > > > aren't careful about what they cut the drugs with.
> >
> > > Most of the misery of drug usage has to do with addiction. If someone
> > > gets bad drugs, of course that has an immediate impact. But the long
> > > term effects of addiction are the "hell" to which I referred.

What right do you have to tell people how they should live their lives.
I thought you were for individual freedom.

> > > > Legalize and regulate
> > > > drugs, punish illegal acts done under the influence, and the prison
> > > > population goes down  and we save a huge amount of money.
> >
> > > And the numbers of drug abusers go up (as I've already shown).
> >
> > So what? Why do you have a problem with people doing drugs?
>
> I do when they become addicted, which is usually the case with drugs
> such as cocaine and heroin. In most cases, drug addicts become
> unproductive, and they start causing problems that must be addressed
> by society.

EXACTLY as it's supposed to happen.

> > Do you also object to people drinking alcohol?
>
> Only when it's to excess, and they drive while drunk and injure or
> kill innocent people -- such as the drunk driver who killed Nick
> Adenhart, for example.

An Angels fan, eh?

I believe that other drugs should be treated in exactly the same
fashion. Do whatever you want to your own body, but the minute the
effects reach other people, then we deal with you.

[SkyEyes]

Which would be the case if you simply decriminalized drugs.

People *have always* used drugs, just like they've always used
alcohol. Relegating drug use to "crime" only creates *more* crime -
just like prohibition created organized crime on a scale never seen in
the U.S. before.

Let people use what they want to use. Sell it legally and tax it.
Put the tax money toward medical care for addicts who want to get off
the drug. Take the criminality and the danger out of it. Eventually,
when it's no longer the tempting forbidden fruit, very few people will
become new users.

-
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
-

[SkyEyes]

And we *all* know how well that's working out.

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:11301578-b671-
4e21-8251-4...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

Sure.

Adopt the gun laws that Australia put
in place after THEIR gun massacre.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-usa-guns-australia-
idUSBRE9320C720130403

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:e08da639-8645-417d...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

If carrying a gun means you won't get shot
why do police wear bulletproof vests?

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3a828c9c-3f9a-
4d75-968b-b...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

I.e, the current US "war on drugs".

Can we be expecting a "victory" anytime soon?

[Alex W]

The only reason distributors exist in the first place is
becaus of the gigantic profits to be made. If we were to
legalise and regulate the trade in narcotics, they and their
entire food-chain would simply wither away. In fact, this
would have definite beneficial effects on criminal activity
across the board, from small-scale crimes committed by
addicts right up to international organised crime which is
currently part-funded by the proceeds from the narcotics
trade: lower prices and less risk at the retail level means
less pressure to fund an addiction through burglaries or
muggings, while at the top end the resulting lack of much of
the funding for major international criminal ventures such
as people-smuggling, gun-running and the counterfeiting and
smuggling of medical drugs would perforce reduce their
activities and capabilities drastically.

[Sparks]

On May 12, 10:28 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405274870388240457552009112620...

>
> What a load of codswallop.
>
> None of that is any excuse for using  the tax money of Americans to ship
> their jobs overseas.

Whatever federal tax dollars you pay, none of it is used to ship jobs
overseas. Neither is any of it given to Walmart

[Sparks]

On the contrary, the problem will only get worse if drugs are
legalized. You have a theory that is not based in reality. All you
have to do is look at what happened in Needle Park, and the real
reason they closed it down.

[Sparks]

To give you an example of a class of people who are making
considerably less money now (in inflation adjusted dollars) than a
similar class of people were making several decades ago -- but you
don't care about that. If you were truly concerned about the lower
incomes of working people, you'd be concerned about people in some of
the construction trades whose wages are being impacted by *illegal*
immigration. Do you care about that, or do you support bringing more
low-skilled laborers into our country to further dilute the labor
pool, which will further drive down wages for all low-skilled
laborers?

>
> > > > > > > more educational opportunities,
>
> > > > > > You should speak with the directors of universities about lowering
> > > > > > their outlandish tuition fees.
>
> > > > > > > end the war on drugs,
>
> > > > > > Legalize drugs? That will cause an increase in drug usage, which will
> > > > > > make life more hellish for a lot of people, not less hellish.
>
> > > > > Nope. It won't happen. Because it hasn't happened anywhere else.
>
> > > > I disagree, and I've shown why I disagree with documented evidence.
>
> > > > > Most of that misery drug addicts have is due to their drugs being
> > > > > illegal and, therefore, their supply is in the hands of crooks who
> > > > > aren't careful about what they cut the drugs with.
>
> > > > Most of the misery of drug usage has to do with addiction. If someone
> > > > gets bad drugs, of course that has an immediate impact. But the long
> > > > term effects of addiction are the "hell" to which I referred.
>
> What right do you have to tell people how they should live their lives.
> I thought you were for individual freedom.

I am for individual freedom until such freedom begins to have a
negative impact on society. That's what happens with people who become
addicted to drugs.

>
> > > > > Legalize and regulate
> > > > > drugs, punish illegal acts done under the influence, and the prison
> > > > > population goes down  and we save a huge amount of money.
>
> > > > And the numbers of drug abusers go up (as I've already shown).
>
> > > So what? Why do you have a problem with people doing drugs?
>
> > I do when they become addicted, which is usually the case with drugs
> > such as cocaine and heroin. In most cases, drug addicts become
> > unproductive, and they start causing problems that must be addressed
> > by society.
>
> EXACTLY as it's supposed to happen.

So you favor more drug addicts running around (and driving around) on
your streets? Because that's what you'll get if you legalize drugs.

>
> > > Do you also object to people drinking alcohol?
>
> > Only when it's to excess, and they drive while drunk and injure or
> > kill innocent people -- such as the drunk driver who killed Nick
> > Adenhart, for example.
>
> An Angels fan, eh?

Yeah, what a team Arte Moreno has put together!

>
> I believe that other drugs should be treated in exactly the same
> fashion. Do whatever you want to your own body, but the minute the
> effects reach other people, then we deal with you.

The difference between drugs and alcohol is that most people can drink
alcohol without becoming addicted to it. That's not the case with
drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Virtually everyone who starts using
those drugs becomes addicted to them, and with that all the negative
effects such addiction brings onto society.

[Sparks]

I disagree, and every indication in the real world backs me up. See
Needle Park for an excellent example.

>
> People *have always* used drugs, just like they've always used
> alcohol.

Do you know this from personal experience, or is this just a pet
theory you've developed?

>
> Relegating drug use to "crime" only creates *more* crime -
> just like prohibition created organized crime on a scale never seen in
> the U.S. before.

But Prohibition did reduce the per capita use of alcohol in this
country, just as our drug laws reduce the numbers of people who would
use drugs. Do you know where to find drugs right now? I don't. But if
they were legal and on sale in every liquor store, isn't it reasonable
to believe even more people would use them?

>
> Let people use what they want to use.  Sell it legally and tax it.
> Put the tax money toward medical care for addicts who want to get off
> the drug.  Take the criminality and the danger out of it.  Eventually,
> when it's no longer the tempting forbidden fruit, very few people will
> become new users.

That's a nice theory, but it wouldn't hold up in the real world.
Needle Park is my example. What's yours?

[Sparks]

So just because it isn't perfect, your idea is to just give up. Making
drugs legal would be a green light by society that it's okay to try
drugs. We'd have so many more addicts to deal with that your head
would spin.

[Alex W]

How can it get worse?

The root of the problem is not drugs and their
addictiveness. The root is MONEY. This is what fuels the
entire global trade. Remove the profits to be made, and
criminals will no longer have the funding to keep up their
drug-running empires -- nor, indeed, will they be interested
in this particular enterprise in the first place. And the
only reason why drugs are expensive and hugely lucrative is
because of our own efforts at interdiction. The best
example here is the Prohibition: after it was repealed,
practically the entire criminal supply chain died overnight.

Money, again, is a crucial factor for prevention, education
and treatment efforts. The current attitude of "why should
our hard-earned taxes pay for filthy addicts to loaf about"
means that those efforts have always be underfunded. By
legalisation, regulation and taxation, we could ensure that
all of these schemes to manage the addiction problem could
be self-funding at a scale to make a genuine impact.

That aside, not all drugs are equal. Given the comparative
harmlessness of marijuana, its widespread acceptance and
use, its low price and ease of cultivation, it would be a
valuable and useful test to legalise this one drug and see
what happens. Frame the law to allow for a five- or
ten-year probationary period, set the tax rate and
ring-fence the revenues, and segregate its consumption by
subjecting it to the same restrictions as tobacco. Then
study the results.

[Sparks]

On May 13, 5:31 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:
> Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:11301578-b671-
> 4e21-8251-44318a441...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

I don't have time to read the article right now, but I will later. In
the meantime, it would be impossible to confiscate all the guns in
this country. We're not Australia, with their relatively tiny
population (smaller than some of our states), and they didn't have the
percentage of gun owners that we have. It was relatively easy to
confiscate guns from that population. In our country, what makes you
think all the gang-bangers are going to turn in their guns? When only
the bad guys have guns, the rest of us would be defenseless.
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-usa-guns-australia-
> idUSBRE9320C720130403

[Sparks]

On May 13, 5:36 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailerizon.net> wrote:

It doesn't mean you won't get shot, but it does mean that someone
might have had the opportunity to stop one of those shooters. The only
thing that did stop those shooters were other people who showed up
with guns.

[Sparks]

What makes you think the increased number of addicts wouldn't continue
to commit crimes, and have other negative impacts on society?

>
> right up to international organised crime which is
> currently part-funded by the proceeds from the narcotics
> trade: lower prices and less risk at the retail level means
> less pressure to fund an addiction through burglaries or
> muggings,

Less risk, yet more addicts. Do you know the effects drugs like heroin
and cocaine have on addicts? They become unproductive, wind up losing
their jobs -- wind up committing crimes to feed their addiction. You
want more addicts?

>
> while at the top end the resulting lack of much of
> the funding for major international criminal ventures such
> as people-smuggling, gun-running and the counterfeiting and
> smuggling of medical drugs would perforce reduce their
> activities and capabilities drastically.

Medical drugs? Aren't those legal now? Why is their criminal activity
in something that is legal?

[August Rode]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 9:38:01 AM UTC-4, Sparks wrote:
> On May 13, 6:02 am, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

> > while at the top end the resulting lack of much of
> > the funding for major international criminal ventures such
> > as people-smuggling, gun-running and the counterfeiting and
> > smuggling of medical drugs would perforce reduce their
> > activities and capabilities drastically.
>
> Medical drugs? Aren't those legal now? Why is their criminal activity
> in something that is legal?

How else are you going to get your opiates or anabolic steroids if you want them but can't obtain a prescription for them? Someone has to supply the demand.

[Dreamer In Colore]

You're unaware of the colossal profits to be had by counterfeiting
medical drugs? Have you had your head in a bucket for the last twenty
years?

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020100

Start there.

Legalizing alcohol sales after prohibition resulted in huge tax
revenues for various branches of government. An analogy can easily be
made to the legalization of gambling: casinos make ridiculous amounts
of money, especially in economic downturns, and no government is even
considering banning that practice even though the downsides are easily
as bad as drug addiction.

Education is the only solution to all of these things: show kids the
truly nasty physical side effects of drinking, drugs, and gambling and
they'll think twice.

Give really harsh sentences to people who smuggle or counterfeit
things to remove the incentive.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Alex W]

Firstly, you assume an increase in the number of addicts.
That is so far entirely unproven.

Secondly, much of the crime perpetrated by addicts is
committed in order to finance their addiction. With
regulated prices, reliable quality and an ensured supply
that legalisation would bring, much of the incentive to
commit such crimes is gone.

>>
>> right up to international organised crime which is
>> currently part-funded by the proceeds from the narcotics
>> trade: lower prices and less risk at the retail level means
>> less pressure to fund an addiction through burglaries or
>> muggings,
>
> Less risk, yet more addicts. Do you know the effects drugs like heroin
> and cocaine have on addicts? They become unproductive, wind up losing
> their jobs -- wind up committing crimes to feed their addiction. You
> want more addicts?

I want existing addicts to be treated properly, by trained
professionals. This category emphatically does not include
prison guards and police officers. Treatment programmes
would also establish direct monitoring of addicts and enable
intervention where and as needed, something that the current
policy of interdiction does not do.

Moreover, the experience with patients who suffer from
addiction to medically prescribed drugs -- valium, oxy, you
name it -- shows that the link between addiction and the
loss of control over one's life is far from inevitable.

>>
>> while at the top end the resulting lack of much of
>> the funding for major international criminal ventures such
>> as people-smuggling, gun-running and the counterfeiting and
>> smuggling of medical drugs would perforce reduce their
>> activities and capabilities drastically.
>
> Medical drugs? Aren't those legal now? Why is their criminal activity
> in something that is legal?

Ever googled for online medications? Chances are fair that
whatever you buy from the friendly website with the good
prices are counterfeit. If you're lucky, those pills won't
do a thing, but you may also find yourself poisoned by them.

That aside, you ought to read up on the whole issue of
prescription drug addiction. Did you know that only
marijuana is abused more frequently in America than
prescription drugs? This means that there are a LOT more
folk out there abusing oxy, vicodin, xanax and the like than
cocaine users or heroin junkies. Mummy hooked on valium is
a bigger medical and social problem than crack whores.
There are 2.5 million Americans addicted to prescription
drugs -- and they account for more overdose deaths than
cocaine, heroin, meth and amphetamines combined. And again,
the common driver here is not the addiction itself but
MONEY: it is so much more profitable to large groups of
shareholders to deny this problem or to divert attention to
currently illicit drugs.

[Mitchell Holman]

Sparks <energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:c784409e-f88b-
4ba2-8628-e...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

"Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years
before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered
any mass shootings since. Studies found a marked
drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and
a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related
suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown."


And your objection to ELIMINATING gun massacres is....?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<2c3c6525-78c8-4ccc...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

So what? What right do you have to tell people what they can do with
their own bodies?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<e971e5ac-6ad7-4048...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

Since I never said it did, why did you mention Walmart?

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:31:36 -0700 (PDT), Sparks
<energizedc...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

So you prefer to invent crimes for no reason other than to find ways to
fill prisons.