Why liberals are not hyprocrits - by Ann Coulter

[st_swithin]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Maybe airport employees have a fetish and you really turn them on. But there are millions of asian muslims, so it isn't entirely illogical.

Yeah, but then Timothy McVeigh is right behind me and they wave him on with "Oh, we ain't checkin' y'all white folk today."

[Ned]

G, No. I only became aware of Ann Coulter in the last couple of years.

[Guynemer]

Well, that's the kind of person she is. Thought you should be aware of that.

[Berzerker]

White male neo- nazis (or whatever he was) haven't been boarding planes with bombs or using them as bombs. Frankly, the militia types haven't really been waging a war, just a few isolated incidents by individual whackos. I want security searching as much as they can because terrorists don't have to get on board, they can put a bomb in someone else's luggage, etc. That's why I don't criticise security for searching old ladies in wheelchairs either, they'd be the perfect unsuspecting carrier of a bomb...

[Ned]

Originally posted by johncmcleod


And the conservative opions aren't? Who cares if I use harsh language when talking about it? There is a serious problem in America right now, and it is because of conservatives, and I'm not allowed to speak my mind on what I believe in? Why should I dilute the anger of my posts when I am angry and angry at something that I deserve to be angry about? If you can't handle me being very harsh and critical of idiotic positions then you have serious problems.

John, what problems are you talking about? Crime? Abortion? Single-parent homes. Homeless clogging the streets of our cities? People being out of work for failure to pass the tax cuts earlier?

What problems are there that are the fault of conservatives?

[Berzerker]

Ned -

I have and Hitachi 42HD50 and DirectTV through a Sony SAT-200. I also have the NFL Sunday Ticket, so I get all the games, although just a few are HD.

The Hitachi is a plasma display TV with a new sort of technology that does not rely on individual pixels, but can be painted like tubes.

Also, all the connections use DVI between the STB and the TV and also between the DVD player and the TV. DVI is a must if you are considering a new HDTV. This is an entirely digital connection so you get the signal with the same quality as it is originally broadcast. The colors are so good, for example, that I have to keep the color level at between 1 and 16 percent. A color level of zero is black and white.

Plasma displays are still a bit expensive, but worth it, IMO. The Sony SAT-200 goes for $800. So it too is a bit pricey. But it is the only satellite receiver out there now that has both DVI and HDCP.

Okay, I'm assuming the Sony SAT-200 is the receiver for the Direct, but what is DVI? Cables and connectors?

As for lawsuits and legalisation, that's true. The legal system is out of control and tort reform is really needed. That was Rush's point in his comment in '98, prohibition doesn't work, so legalising drugs and letting the lawyers have another means of ripping people off might work.

[Ned]

There are at least four common methods for getting TV signals to the TV display: NTSC (coax cable), composite (the yellow plug), RGB that has separate connects for Red Blue Green) and DVI (Digital Video). The signal gets better as you progress from NTSC to DVI. The first three are analog signals and rely on digital to analog converters and analog to digital converters as HD signals are all digital. Each time you convert or transmit something analog, you loss something -such as phase shifts that cause color distortion. Thus the best signal is DVI because the signal is digital all the way.

The FCC has required all future TVs and STBs have DVI. So there is no risk in buying them now. As I said, I would not buy a TV without DVI.

Cable systems are converting en-mass to carrying digital TV and HDTV. They just have not got to my area yet. However, I can tell you that digital TV signals are a lot better than analog. Also, signals using DVI are a lot better than anything else.

The FCC has required that all broadcast TV be digital by 2006. They are all supposed to have digital now and are supposed to surrender the analog bandwidth in 2006. So all TVs without digital capability will need an STB in 2006.

HD and digital are not the same thing. However, most networks are converting more and more of their programming to HD. CBS is the leader. Their football in HD is great.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned

John, what problems are you talking about? Crime? Abortion? Single-parent homes. Homeless clogging the streets of our cities? People being out of work for failure to pass the tax cuts earlier?

What problems are there that are the fault of conservatives?

Ah, they are perfect then!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Ah, they are perfect then!

Of course!

I simply wanted John to identify all the problems of America CAUSED by conservatives. I know liberals and conservatives debate, endlessly at times, the solution to problems. But CAUSED?

[Master Zen]

so you are saying conservatives have never ever caused a single problem in the US? What will you give me if I point just one problem they caused?

[Ned]

Master Zen, I am not saying conservatives are perfect. I for one believe Roe v. Wade is right while most conservatives believe it is wrong. I just believe they are right on most issues.

But, to the extent you want to begin to list the problems caused by conservatives, be my guest.

[Berzerker]

Ned - We have Direct and Hughes receivers but I'm not sure what kind of cables we have running from the satelite to the receivers. I know one TV has an S-video cable connected to the receiver and regular cables for the other TV. We're thinking of getting a plasma TV so I guess I'll have to inquire about DVI.

[uh Clem]

Guynemer: I give up. Glad at least somebody caught the reference. For the record, AC's statement was a couple of years ago, I think.



Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter sich Selbst vergebens.

[Straybow]

Round 2, part 1

Berz' defense of his drug war diatribe

we're dealing with the 1st Amendment.

Sorry, editing error on my part.

Drug use does meet the definition of freedom

And in what court or legislation has this oft-quoted definition of freedom been established?

Btw, there is no federal law protecting peyote use within the states, that has been left up to the states to decide. Strike 2.

No, in this case freedom of religion within Indian Reservations is very much a matter of Federal legislation and treaties with Indian nations. State laws have little or no jurisdiction. Do Rasafarians get to claim ganja use as a religious freedom? No, it doesn't fly in any court. No "strike" on that pitch, just another case of how hard it is to pin down every tiny detail in an argument.

Huh? I didn't tie drug violence to prescription painkillers. …What I did tie together is the violence created by the drug war and the momentum of the anti-gun crusaders.

From your point 2b) "And the violence resulting from the *massive black market in drugs* only fuels the gun banners' arguments in much the same way the violence from alcohol prohibition led to the prohibitive tax on machine guns." You are obviously conflating the prescription drug black market with distribution of illegal drugs.

Prescription drug black marketeers are mostly independent operators with some business, work, or family connection to medical or pharmacy suppliers. Not gangs or cartels with their turf wars. You have the occasional robbery of a pharmacy, ER, or clinic. I suppose we can wait and see whether there are indictments for violent crimes issued against the prescription drug ring in south FL. That certainly isn't the angle so far.

I thought Limbaugh was the context of this diatribe coming here in the Coulter thread…
I'll concede that your obsession is larger than that.

"the side-effect of spying is secondary". Certainly a "side-effect" worthy of consideration by the Founders, especially those who were spied upon.

Interesting speculation on what you think the Founders should have considered. But did they? Again, is it in the records of the debates and issues—citation please??

The BATF launched a no-knock raid that backfired. There was a gun battle and the BATF was forced to withdraw.

Yes, but trying to blame the whole Waco disaster on that one part is just making you look as bad as the conspiracy theory nuts. The excuse was the warrant on Meth. The motivation was far more broad—everything from illegal weapons to child molesting.

I cited where the 5th has been revoked - the drug war. Read what I said and think about it a minute before jerking your knee around.

What specific things did you cite, and where? You are not entitled to the assumption that whatever you say must be correct.

The move against jury nullification began in the first half of the 20th century, the first drug war was in the 1920's. The move against jury nullification has become SOP with the new drug war.

Citations, please? It is up to you to establish your assertions. Jury nullification has always been discouraged by judges and prosecutors. Comes with the job.

Where in the 9th Amendment does it say unenumerated rights are different from enumerated rights and therefore subject to dissolution by the legislature? Oh, you think the right to privacy is "mythical"? Then you wouldn't argue in favor of a constitutional right for you and your wife to conceive a child if we had a Chinese policy of forced abortion for people who conceive without permission?

Sorry, Berz, I'm not going to address your absurd hypothetical. If you can't argue the facts distract with irrelevancies?

Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg agrees that invoking the Constitution to force the ongoing abortion debate to end was a mistake. The arena for managing rights not enumerated is the public arena of the legislative process.

No, [drug trade] isn't "by it's nature" interstate.

Is too! Is too!
When's the last time you heard of cocaine or heroin grown in the US? It crosses the border to get in, it crosses state lines to get to users. Interstate = Federal jurisdiction; states can't regulate activities outside their territory.

Congress… didn't try to use the interstate commerce clause [to ban pot] because they knew the SCOTUS would shoot them down. …And "regulate" doesn't mean ban, it means regulate. And in those days it meant to facilitate trade by restraining the states from interfering with trade. The 2nd Amendment says "a well-regulated militia", would you argue that actually means a banned militia?

Blah, blah, conspiracy, blah. Regulation and even banning of substances is constitutional. Or do you suppose there ws nothing such as contriband and smuggling in the 18th century?

Don't conflate the commerce clause with the 2nd amendment. "Well-regulated" in that context (military practice) means drilled and trained. That's why full-time soldiers were and are called "Regulars."

The reason those cartels exist is because of the drug war.

No, drug trade would still be more profitable than just about anything else that can be smuggled. Even if decriminalized it would still be highly controlled and regulated, and a black market would still exist. Just as there is a black market in prescription drugs and regulated tobacco and alcohol.

Now, is [drug war victim] blood on your hands?

Non sequitur. Neither you nor I are personally responsible for actions of individuals or agencies within our governments. People get screwed in traffic court and family court and everywhere else, too. In case you didn't know, humans aren't perfect and every attempt to enforce law or reach justice is tainted with that imperfection. If only you were king the world would be perfect, right?

I'm not the one breaking up these families with my drug war

Excuse me, I keep forgetting that if you were king the world would be perfect.

You are advocating decriminalization, and families would still break up over resulting addiction, physical abuse, money problems etc. There would still be regulation, and black markets, and families affected by prosecutions.

Alcohol poisoning rose dramatically under prohibition because of polluted alcohol.

If the cause was polluted alcoholic product, then it wasn't the ethanol that caused the poisoning but the methanol or whatever else. I addressed that in response to your #15, which you dodge and I respond to below.

You didn't even address the fact that laws lacking overwhelming support breeds dis-respect for government.

Some people will always have disrespect for the government, which is good. Just ask Thomas Jefferson.

You know, Stray, even die-hard drug war pushers like Orrin Hatch know that even the hikes in tobacco taxes have resulted in more crime.

Yes, but not necessarily more violence. Death and taxes, again.

But when a policy literally transforms a cheap and highly desired product into among the most valuable products, crime will result.

Or is it *demand* that transforms a cheap and *highly desired* product into an expensive and profitable one that attracts the criminal organizations? Nike pays chump change to sweatshop workers and sells the shoes for $100—is that because shoes are illegal, or market dynamics?

Straybow, you cannot compare the 50's (oh yeah, drugs were illegal then too) with the massive gang recruitment that began in the 80's. That's when juvenile crime, especially violent crime, began to skyrocket and all the "post hocs, ad hocs" in the world can't dismiss that.

So therefore *your* explanation of how and why it happened is true? Sorry, you have only made an unproven assertion. There are many sociological factors that advanced through the same period of time. Some people blame it on removal of prayer from schools and other attacks against God and Christian religion. Why should I believe you and not them?

Can you respond in english? I don't care to look up all your latin phrases.

You seem to know what ad hominem means. If you wish to debate, you should at least study logic so you'd know when you've got your head up your nether orifice. Lesson #1 Post hoc, ergo propter hoc means "after this, therefore because of this." You need more than a time line and statistics to establish causation.

You're missing the point, crime would escalate if the cost of food staples increased the way the cost of drugs have increased because of prohibition. Do you deny this?

Lesson #2. This is called distracting from the issue of the debate with irrelevant assertions or conclusions (ignoratio elenchi). The ad hominem is one mode of that logical fallacy. This particular mode is called the appeal to fear, or the ad baculum. Your head is up your orifice here, Berz.

Because according to your "logic", there shouldn't have been any jump because drug wars have nothing to do with crime rates.

Lesson #3. Fallacy of accident: mistaking an accidental or incidental relationship for an essential one. (Sorry, I don't know the Latin for that one.) No,the drug policies and the crime rates could have a causative relationship (your assumption), or could have a mutual relationship (ie, both responding to the same cause, not to each other), or no strong causal relationship at all.

I maintain that the crime rate and drug policies are *both* responses to the demand for drugs and the rise of criminal cartels to meet the demand, with crime commited to pay for drugs a secondary effect. The timing is incidental.

11) "Expansion of government" Which has expanded government more: entitlements, or drug enforcement? Go away, thou irrelevant argument.

Which came first? Drug enforcement!

Blah, blah, conspiracy, blah. What you meant, then, was government intrusion into your ideals of privacy, rather than "expansion" in general. You should try to be specific, I don't like having to do your work.

J Edgar Hoover refused repeated requests to get the FBI involved in the drug war because of it's corrupting influence.

I.e., the "corrupting influence" of political motivations behind drug policies, which were different from Hoover's motivations. In other words, he was in power and didn't want to dilute it by following somebody else's lead. That factor is sometimes present wherever agencies are forced by policy or circumstances to cooperate. Again, that is part of the fact that people are involved. But if you were king that wouldn't be so; people would be perfect and incorruptible.

The US drug war has turned Colombia into the most violent country in Latin America. What does that tell you?

You assume that US involvement is the cause, not the response. Already addressed.

14) As mentioned before, in S America the drug trade is controlled in part by those who opted for leftist military revolution in the first place…

Ever hear of cause and effect?

Ever hear of supply and demand? Already addressed.

15) Nonsense. Methanol poisoning was more common in the prohibition era, not ethanol poisoning.

Where did I even mention methanol or ethanol much less compare the two? God you just make stuff up and act like you've stumbled upon a fount of knowledge.

Lesson #4. Remember your own context and understand your own argument. No Latin phrase here, it's just good practice in debate. To remind you of the context I was responding to: "15) Overdoses - yeah, drug war supporters point to this too, God only knows why. But just as *alcohol poisoning deaths* increased under alcohol prohibition because of poor quality control, drug overdoses have increased under the drug war for the same reason."

As for the latter, I can't help it if you are too ignorant to know that poisoning effects under prohibition were because of product tainted with methanol. Do a little research on methanol poisoning instead of accusing me of "making stuff up." You'll also discover that methanol poisoning rarely results in death. Temporary blindness is the primary effect, and permanent degrading of vision and liver function with prolonged or repeated exposure. It would take a substantial dose of concentrated methanol to cause death all by itself.

OD's are caused by imputies

Wrong again. It is the drug itself that is lethal, not the substances used to cut the concentration. Others have already commented on dust and other impurities leading only to infections, not lethal poisoning.

a heroin addict doesn't know the purity of the heroin they are using. If they get a batch at 50% and the next at ~99%, the difference in purity can cause an OD.

I can understand why you are confused, since "purity" and "concentration" are used interchangibly but carry different connotations. The cause of OD is sloppiness, ignorance and the extreme lethality of the intoxicant involved, not "impurities."

Feel free to list the successes of the drug war.

Feel free to list the successes of outlawing rape, murder, theft, etc. Law enforcement can only try to catch them and prosecute them.

[chequita guevara]

The difference between conservatives and liberals is actually quite simple. Liberals want to regulate business. Conservatives want to regulate individuals.

For example, throughout much of the South there has been this "Strengthening of Marriage" crap, making special marriages that are harder to get divorces from, raising the fees on licenses, waiting periods, crap like that. In my own state, when the Republicans took over, they instituted a three day waiting period and upped the fees to $85. Furthermore, they don't count the day you get the license as one of the days, so I can't get married until tomorrow. Granted, it's a small inconvenience, but why the hell should conservatives be telling me how I can and can't get married.