1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 11 minutes ago (11:57 AM)
"Life begins under a pure Communist Government when the party declares you a Communist - until that declaration - one has no right to life." And even then, you still have no right to life, or any other rights, for that matter. Humans are property of the state, to live, serve and die at the whim of the elites in power.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 18 minutes ago (11:50 AM)
"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being." Murder is the intentional, unjustified (i.e. not in self-defense) killing of an innocent human being, regardless of whether or not a law declares it to be illegal. This has all been explained to you before, so you either have a serious flaw in your memory, or you are being willfully ignorant / stupid. "When the rest of us start treating unimplanted embryos as if they were ensouled Human Beings, then you can start making pronouncements like the above." I don't care how YOU or "the rest of us" act with regards to ensoulment - such a thing isn't relevant. You are in denial of observable, scientific facts, so anything beyond that point simply marks you as an exceptional fool. Besides which, most pro-lifers are opposed to the in vitro process - it creates and wastes so many innocent lives without ever offering them a chance to even be born, all the while denying children, who have already been born, a chance at adoption.
Hard drives do wear out over time, but it is ridiculous to claim any data loss, assuming IRS IT is following all the legally-mandated procedures. You would have to lose the information on Lerner's HD, all the email recipients' HDs, the server AND the backup server.
"Fair is foul and foul is fair Hover through the fog and filthy air." No need to hover - the moral and ethical smog in DC is thick enough to climb on.
The only people who "denigrate and discriminate" against homosexuals, a self-declared, self-made "minority," are the homosexuals themselves by their own behavior. You do not have a "right" to be hired. You do not have a "right" to silence the views of others, regardless of how "denigrating" or "discriminatory" you might find them. There is no legal basis for offering special protections to people on their preferred "sexual" behaviors.
Racketeering, extortion and fraud continue to earn the mafia billions of dollars each year. You are welcome to do the research, but your opinions do not appear to be grounded in the facts. Just because it isn't reported as some high profile case in the media, it doesn't mean the old mafias aren't as powerful as ever. Again, your opinion contradicts the facts. If you cut off one stream of revenue, they will find / switch to another, just like the American Mafia after Prohibition ended. You are also wrong on the belief that governments don't get a cut of the money. Whether it comes in through individual hands or through direct seizure during busts, the government always gets its share. If anything, "other crimes" would be maximized as they cartels seek other means to continue turning a profit. Regulation effects not only price, but also potency (content) and availability. Why do you think moonshiners are still around?
"Pura, drugs are the only things that are illegal that can make that type of money. Maybe gambling, but even that seems to be going away." The point is that attempting to argue that legalization of drugs will cause significant harm to or eliminate the cartels is wishful thinking. History disagree with you.
We *can* manufacture ourselves, but you are talking a local "start up" versus a massive, wealthy, established industry which can escape our government's regulations. How does that typically turn out? I addressed this above - people who hurt themselves become MY responsibility as a taxpayer in our society. You want to legalize drugs? Make sure to do away with our welfare system first! Additionally, people who use recreational drugs should probably not be permitted to vote. Drug abusers know that their purchases fund the cartels, which harm others. That means drug abusers are directly contributing to the harm of others.
Wrong. As I mentioned earlier, the cartels have been seizing legitimate businesses, particularly mines and plantations. These businesses continue to operate as before, but the profits go to the cartels. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/11/30/mexican-drug-cartels-exporting-iron-ore/ There is another reason why "legalization" will fail to have much impact on the cartels - the less-mentioned, other half: Regulation. So long as there is regulation, the cartels will have a reason to exist (in the drug trade particularly). Also, a little lesson from history: The American Mafia rose to power on alcohol smuggling during Prohibition, but they still exist to this day. After Prohibition ended, they simply moved on to other profitable crimes, and continue to engage in murder, loansharking, arson, robbery, narcotics trafficking, extortion, illegal gambling and labor racketeering. Taking away one source of income does not have a significant effect on organized crime. The only way to truly hurt the cartels is to literally burn them out and punish those who knowingly employ their services, including their customers. But, of course, neither our government, nor the various South American governments are actually interested in hurting the cartels - they are simply too profitable.
"legalizing drugs will decrease violent gang related crime. It should also help with the other types, but I doubt it will do much..the druggies still need to steal to buy drugs..." Cartels control other legitimate businesses, but that hasn't stopped them from being violent, criminal organizations. "Also the govt. has no right to tell people what they should put in their bodies, if someone is dumb enough to smoke crack let them." This is true, and I would agree, except that the current trend is for government to "provide" everything for everyone - at taxpayer expense, of course. I wouldn't particularly care what people do to themselves, except for the fact that I am expected to pay for their care when they can't provide for themselves.
1 - 10 Next