Why liberals are not hyprocrits - by Ann Coulter

[Berzerker]

Ned, whats STB?

[NeOmega]

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.

Marijuana? Meth? Both are "home grown"

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?

Name something, I challenge you. (not related to fraud)

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?

Market dynamics. What's your point. Marijuana is not worth more than gold per troy ounce because the high is so good.

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.

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.

Go back to logic class. You are not allowed to debate until you know the latin term.

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.

How about police raidning my dad's van while he was visiting because he was from Arizona and had water jugs in his van, and as the female officer squealed when he asked why said.... "hmmm... I see water jugs, I see blankets, I see hard hat I think METH LAB!"

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.

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.

1) Drug use also rarely leads to overdose.
2) Who are these "others" you speak of, and why are "they" talking to "you?"

That's odd, I thought you didn't want the police to intervene against organized crime, just make their activity legal and the problem goes away. People want to be protected, and the Mafia wants to protect them. Supply and demand, just like drugs.

Surely a great teacher in logic would know better than to try guilt by association!

Barbarians rule by force of arms, civilized man rules by force of law. Choose one or the other.

This, Straybow, is your foundation of sand.
How can you have effective laws without force of arms.
Here is some logic for you.

(B)arbarians=force of (a)rms
(C)ivilized=force of (l)aw
force of (l)aw=force of (a)rms

B=a
C=l
l=a
B=a=l=C
B=C

Civilized=Barbarians by associative properties. Which is illogical, since they are antonyms. And yes I took logic 120 in college and got an A.

Civilization is not rule of law. Civilization is cooperation. The drug war is dividing this nation deeper than you think.

[Berzerker]

Straybow -

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

The dictionary doesn't count now when defining words?

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.

Wanna bet? Peyote is only legal in a few states. Btw, why did you just ask how drug use qualifies as an act of freedom under the definition of freedom but you just referred to peyote use as a matter of religious freedom? Doh! Let me see, I get to decide what you ingest via my proxy called government, and you think you're free? I guess you won't defend the use of alcohol, tobacco, and ice cream, etc, as acts of freedom either. So Stray, how do you define freedom? That's why I referred to the drug war as communistic, the notion that government owns us and can decide what we put in our bodies is left wing extremism...

Do Rasafarians get to claim ganja use as a religious freedom? No, it doesn't fly in any court.

Of course it doesn't fly in court, the same people pushing the drug war run the courts. Did you really expect these people to place people in the courts to contradict their drug war?

No "strike" on that pitch, just another case of how hard it is to pin down every tiny detail in an argument.

Tiny detail?

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.

The violence resulting from the massive black market in drugs includes much more than just prescription drugs. Now, in 2B did I single out the black market in prescription drugs as driving the push for gun control? No, I said the massive black market in drugs which obviously includes ALL black market 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.

I offered Ned this list of reasons to oppose the drug war, I didn't even mention Limbaugh or Coulter in either the list of reasons or my explanation to Ned for the list. Don't blame me for your mistake and learn to accept a correction without throwing around insults.

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??

Sorry, I'm not researching their debates to prove what is obvious.

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.

There you go again, I correct your mistakes and you respond with insults. I said the disaster at Waco was instigated by a no-knock raid that went bad and that's a fact. The same thing happened in the Donald Scott case, it happens alot in this country. So, just what kind of search do you consider "unreasonable" if no-knock raids don't qualify?

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

I cited the 5th Amendment and posted an exercise in simple logic to show how it had been revoked. You still haven't responded to that so try what I've recommended first.

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.

I see nothing from you in support of your assertions, so don't ask me for evidence when you won't even post evidence yourself.

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

We aren't playing dodge ball. You won't answer my question because it exposes the flaw in your argument.

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.

You listen to her and I'll read what James Madison said. I'll ask again, where in the 9th Amendment did Madison say unenumerated rights were different than enumerated rights and were subject to dissolution by the legislative process?

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.

My example refuting your claim was pot, not cocaine or heroin. Ignoring my proof and introducing a strawman won't cut it.

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?

I gave you the origin of the interstate commerce clause, you can try to refute it or not.

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."

You've just refuted yourself, you think the word "regulated" had different, even opposite meanings.

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.

Yeah, that black market in alcohol sure drives drug-related crime. Violence associated with tobacco is increasing because of higher taxes and any violence resulting from a black market in prescription drugs results from the fact prescription drugs are by definition illegal for those without the prescription. You're looking at violence from black markets and concluding this violence would exist regardless of the drugs' legal status. A simple question: when was the last time you heard of alcohol dealers having shootouts over marketshare?

Non sequitur. Neither you nor I are personally responsible for actions of individuals or agencies within our governments.

We are if we support the policies.

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?

And we're responsible for those injustices too. We hire the imperfect people and give them authority, we have to accept responsibility for the results of their imperfections. To blame them and ignore our own complicity is to hide from our actions...

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

Talk about "non-sequitors".

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.

I don't advocate decriminalisation, I advocate re-legalisation. The black market in drugs would be insignificant if drugs were legal and non-existent if legal for everyone.

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.

I didn't say just polluted alcohol, differing purity levels can result in alcohol poisoning. Many heroin OD's are a result of differing purity levels, a result of bad quality control resulting from drug prohibition. Alcohol poisoning happens now and it's legal, so how can you argue poisonings didn't happen when alcohol was illegal?

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

That's another dodge. Bad laws, i.e, laws lacking overwhelming support, breed dis-respect for government.

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

So drug black markets, including tobacco, don't necessarily result in more violence?

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?

Do you know what heroin actually costs? There is a greater demand in this country for tobacco and coffee than heroin, how much do those drugs cost?

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?

Because they, like you, ignore history. I already provided a graph showing homicide rates for the 20th century. And that graph shows the rate ~doubled under alcohol prohibition, declined 13 years in a row after prohibition was repealed to roughly half the rate under prohibition, then doubled again over the past 30 years of the "modern" drug war. Prayer hadn't been removed from schools during the 1920's.

You seem to know what ad hominem means.

Yup, and I didn't ask you to use english in response to that phrase.

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.

Knowing logic isn't the same thing as knowing latin, you know latin and I understand logic.

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.

True, but given the absence of proof for other causes, I'll use common sense. Are you claiming the removal of prayer from schools caused the increase in crime? I have to ask because you've cited prayer without taking a position on the validity of that argument.

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.

You keep ducking my questions and lecture me on logic? I'll accept your repeated avoidance as another white flag.

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.

And in the absence of this other cause, common sense dictates a causative relationship. Do you really need more evidence than two gangs shooting up a neighborhood over marketshare in illegal drugs?

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.

Is that what you call logic? The criminal cartels didn't come into existence until drugs were outlawed. The Mafia and it's street wars over marketshare of alcohol didn't occur until alcohol prohibition.

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.

I'm opposed to the intervention resulting from both the drug war and entitlements - "general" expansion - you seem opposed only to one so if anyone is guilty of this "selectiveness", it's you, not me.

I.e., the "corrupting influence" of political motivations behind drug policies, which were different from Hoover's motivations.

How do you know his motivations?

In other words, he was in power and didn't want to dilute it by following somebody else's lead.

You really think he wouldn't be in control of the FBI's involvement of the drug war? How do you think he stayed in power for so long?

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.

When have you ever heard of a bureaucrat and bureaucracy rejecting an offer to expand it's sphere of influence?

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

Which came first, US involvement or the cartels and the power wielded by Colombian rebels? I don't have to assume, history is on my side.

Ever hear of supply and demand? Already addressed.

Yup, the drug trade has been largely co-opted by the leftist guerillas because drugs are illegal. Why don't they co-opt the coffee trade? Because coffee is legal.

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."

I'll ask again, where did I mention methanol or ethanol and a comparison of the two? Tis a simple question but I can't get an answer.

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 did make this up, I never mentioned methanol. I've already explained that alcohol poisoning can result from purity levels, not just contaminants.

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.

I'm familiar with the effects of "wood alcohol". You've discovered another fount of knowledge, too bad I never mentioned methanol.

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.

Try using the entire quote.

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."

I just explained how impurities can cause an OD and you ignored it.

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

Fewer rapes, fewer murders, less theft. I'd call those successes... Now, where's your list of drug war successes? Too bad you can't claim less drug consumption... Btw, thx to the diversion of resources away from catching rapists, murderers and thieves to catch drug users, we have yet another negative consequence of the drug war.

[Berzerker]

Straybow -

What does that have to do with "gateway behavior?" Nothing—except to evoke the image of eeevil to mask the lack of any real argument. I refer you to lesson #2 ignoratio elenchi ad baculum. Btw, electro-shock is still used.

The same "profession" that came up with electro-shock came up with "gateway" drugs. You don't see something peculiar about the notion that using pot will "trigger" the human brain to desire cocaine? I sure do...

'Scuse me? It is exactly what gateway behavior is. Desensitizing is a major factor, perhaps even the predominant one. Sociopathic pleasure, which would include the allure of the illicit, is also another factor. You are correct, there is a claim that pot specifically excites the same receptors as heroin. Perhaps that is the "clincher" in public debate because citing medical data is a more effective argument than behavioral jargon.

Pointing to an abused child who adopts abusive behavior towards others is not analgous to "gateway" drugs.

Because gateway behavior isn't deterministic. And btw, heroin use among teens is the latest hip thing. 20/20 or somebody did a segment on that a few months ago.

Exactly! The use of pot does not translate into a desire to use heroin. So much for the "gateway" drug argument... It's more likely that people who are willing to use one drug will be more willing to use other drugs just as a basketball player is more likely to try football than a person who shuns sports. But we don't say basketball is a "gateway" sport...

Citations, please?

I've provided the proof in past debates here with Ted Striker who doubted that assertion. Sorry, I don't care to find it again.

If Auntie was hooked on a patent medicine laced with opiates who would report it? If some vagrant or other undesirable died on the streets of no apparent foul play, who would care if the had been addicts or ODed?

Autopsies weren't invented in the 20th century.

How thorough was reporting of addiction to uncontrolled drugs? How thorough was reporting of alcoholism by comparison? How thorough was criminal forensics, esp autopsies (often the only contact addicts would have with doctors)? Don't just throw assertions out and expect me to buy them.

I've given up on you "buying" anything, much less facts. Addiction rates were determined as they are now, by looking at a certain population within a specific geographical location and taking surveys of hospitals.

Sorry I forgot to quote your citations of other countries where various drugs have been decriminalized or legalized and the use or addiction rates didn't skyrocket. I can't remember where you said it, but you know you did.

You didn't ask me for data from other countries. I was merely pointing out that one cannot draw a conclusion about the effect of legalisation by looking at decriminalisation.

Crack is just a processed form of cocaine. Discovery was accidental. It doesn't matter why they were experimenting with different processing techniques.

But it does matter why cocaine became so prevalent, and that was a result of Nixon's war on pot.

No, the freedoms I'm most concerned with are the ones specified in the Constitution, not some mythical freedom to get high.

You think your state of mind - conscienceness - is a "mythical" freedom? Oh yeah, your definition of freedom means politicians get to decide what we all ingest. Btw, just how many freedoms are mentioned in the Constitution? Five, maybe 6? That's why Madison et al added the 9th Amendment, because they never meant the Bill of Rights to be a comprehensive list of freedoms.
But I've already pointed out how the drug war violates religious liberty, so you don't even care about that specific freedom.

That's odd, I thought you didn't want the police to intervene against organized crime, just make their activity legal and the problem goes away.

That's odd, you didn't quote me advocating the legalisation of extortion. Ironically, you support legalised extortion, you just want your politicians to have a legal monopoly.

People want to be protected, and the Mafia wants to protect them. Supply and demand, just like drugs.

Another "analogy"? While you're looking up the word "freedom" in the dictionary, look up "extortion".

No, I'd tell them to move only if they complained that things were more peaceful when the Mafia was allowed to run things without interference from those pesky law enforcement folks.

Both the Mafia and politicians obtain money via extortion. I guess you've found another "distinction" between the two...

No, that would be serfdom. Communism is state ownership of the means of production. Get an education.

I'm getting a very nice education about "conservativism" from you. So tell me, if you produce and the state under communism owns the means of production, doesn't the state own you?

No, I just happen to agree that narcotics should be illegal, and distribution and use of narcotics should be policed aggresively. You are accusing me of agreeing with the abuses, whereas I have never said I do.

I never said you "agreed" with the abuses, only that you can't opt out of the consequences of policies you support.

No. It isn't criminal or immoral to be poor. It is immoral and criminal to push or use narcotics.

So Limbaugh is immoral? Why is narcotics use immoral?

Debate the extent of that immorality if you wish.

It takes two to debate.

Complaining about the cost of law enforcement (a primary role of government) and not comparing that to the cost of military (another primary role of government) and entitlements (not a primary role of government) is not a compelling argument for dismantling the drug policies.

Where have I ever endorsed entitlement programs? I provided a list of reasons to oppose the drug war and nowhere on that list will you find: we need to end the drug war so we can pay for more entitlement programs. Making stuff up still I see...

First, the spelling is s-e-q-u-i-t-u-r.

See, I told you to use english. What's the phrase for people who feel the need to correct spellings?

Second, I have responded on topic to your every point, except where your points were off topic. You don't agree with me, fine. But don't accuse me of not responding to your arguments.

If drug consumption neither decreases or increases because of prohibition, what is the purpose of prohibition? You never did answer that one... And nice loophole, you've responded to all my arguments EXCEPT for the ones you've deemed "off-topic".

No, I doubt many in this thread have read either your massive whine or my response too carefully.

That's called hypocrisy, I "whine" and you "respond. But you said people were laughing at my posts, so where are these people?

Most of us here are more interested in saying something witty than debating facts and politics.

I don't consider your insults "witty". They're more indicative of a person who sees nothing wrong with slander from Ann Coulter but claims she's the unfortunate victim of unwarranted attacks. Oh yeah, you never did show where I "attacked" her...

Ah, the ad hominem again…

Asking what Jesus asked of you is an ad hominem? Maybe you don't know latin after all...

[NeOmega]

Most of us here are more interested in saying something witty than debating facts and politics.

Speak for yourself. You are foolish to think anti-drug war crusaders aren't educated. For alot of them digging up facts is a past time, nay perhaps even a hobby. Those who oppose the drug war are very educated, are gaining momentum, and quite frankly, are convinced the injustice will one day end.

No, I doubt many in this thread have read either your massive whine or my response too carefully.

Just when it seemed you couldn't possibly be more wrong.....

Whine Its not Berz doing the whining.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by st_swithin
A methanol molecule has one carbon, and ethanol has two. They both have the same functional group, though.

You don't want to drink methanol. At least not in the same quality as you would with ethanol.

[Guynemer]

Sorry to resurrect this, just had to share... didn't someone here edit and post an Ann pic to point out this horrifying bit of anatomy?



[IMG]C:\Documents and Settings\Jason Mailloux\My Documents\My Pictures\CoulterIsAMan.bmp[/IMG]

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ned, whats STB?

Set Top Box. It converts signals from cable, sattelite or even over-the-air into signals the TV can receive. In just a few years, all older TVs will require one even for signals received from broadcast stations to convert the digital signals being broadcast into analog that the older TVs understand. Newer TVs will come with Digital receivers.

But Digital and HDTV are not the same thing. You need a higher quality STB to convert these signals into HDTV digital signals.

A major looming problems is whether digital and especially HDTV signals of broadcast stations will be carried thru sattelite TV. Copyright law prevents sattelite service providers from carrying network TV signals (with some exceptions.) They have to instead provide local channels to their customers. If they provide their customer one local channel, they have to provide all channels in a local Nielsen area. DirectTV has slowly been added capacity to provide local channels to its customers. But these are analog signals they carry up to the sattelite at high compression and then down to the STB. The sattelites do not have the capacity to carry digital signals, let alone HDTV signals, of all the thousands of local channels to their customers. DirectTV is considering adding an ordinary broadcast antenna to the sattelite antenna. But it would be interesting if you would actually have to pay for this as you do now for local channels.

But there will still be some like me who live in valleys where we cannot receive any broadcast channels. If DirectTV does not carry the broadcast HDTV channels, we are SOL.

Note, all cable carriers are now converting to carrying digital signals. They are thinking about charging for them, as well. Whether they can continue to charge when the analog signals disappear in three years is still not decided.

[MrFun]

Is there something I can shoot this thread with, so I can kill it??

[Berzerker]

Thx Ned