Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

Enough Pot Happy Talk

Bay0Wulf Wrote: Jan 04, 2014 1:26 PM
Wilbor ... Actually ... I am wondering the same thing as Origanalist is ... What ARE you babbling about? Addiction either is addiction or it is not. To clarify what I said; A very small percentage of the population are (or ever will be) what are called "addicts". So ... even with your contention that "90% of drug addicts ..." you are still talking of a tiny fraction of the population. I smoke cigarettes and drink coffee (my personal 2 addictions) somehow I never considered that they were gateways to ... anything. Making or enforcing laws to control the ENTIRE population in order to protect a few from THEMSELVES is just, plain WRONG.
In response to:

Enough Pot Happy Talk

Bay0Wulf Wrote: Jan 04, 2014 11:44 AM
You admit that you've been "sober" for over 18 years ... kudos (really). That admission right there puts the entire rest of your article in the trashcan. You were unable to "control your own urges" therefore anything you say beyond that is tainted by your inability. You refer to "Professional Drug Counselors" as warning ... Of course they are going to "warn" it is THEIR industry. They have to say something. They have a tendency to use almost anything as a "reason" why poor Johnny got himself in this fix. It's not really Johnny's fault ... it was the ... cigarettes which led to alcohol which led to pot which led to cocaine which led to heroin which led to him stealing from his friends and family to support his habit! In FACT ... a very popular notion these days ... it's YOUR FAULT because you HELPED Poor Johnny by lending him money for groceries! YOU ARE his "ENABLER"!!! You knew he wasn't going to buy groceries ... The Liberal Pap that is poured all over this topic ... NOT about marijuana but about whether or not you can become addicted is ROT!!! IF YOU CANNOT CONTROL YOURSELF that is YOUR problem and should not become EVERYONE ELSE'S problem. An overwhelming majority of people have no problem controlling themselves, have no "addiction" problem. We are being punished by the small percentage of the population among us who are "addicts". There are also many among us who believe that many things should be illegal for "Our Own Good". God Preserve Us From Those With Good Intentions!!!
In response to:

Enough Pot Happy Talk

Bay0Wulf Wrote: Jan 04, 2014 10:20 AM
1. Everything is "Addictive" to someone ergo we should make everything illegal. 2. If you have to go to the "Underground" to find something, you are going to be exposed to other illegal things too. 3. Drugged and Drunk driving incidents have been eclipsed by texting and cell phones. Shall we make them illegal too? 4. I thought conservatism was against "Nanny State-ism". Its time to take responsibility for your actions. 5. Billions have been spent to pursue, arrest, try and incarcerate users of marijuana. Billions have been spent to house them in prisons. Billions have been spent in teaching relatively harmless people to be hard core criminals. 6. Almost any nitwit can find some source to back up whatever view they want to espouse ... the AMA is as bad as every other. 7. In referring to yourself as "No expert" you then went on to tell us you are a "recovering ..."
rx7pj ... you have been playing with yourself for much too long. Don't you know that leads to mental retardation and delusions of having something worth saying? You need to find another hobby ... try playing in traffic for awhile please.
In response to:

Fracking Saves Water

Bay0Wulf Wrote: Dec 26, 2013 12:52 PM
Many of the "fixes" to the problems we have can be found in the advances being made in the very Technologies that are perceived to be creating the problems. Solar Power sounds all kind of wonderful but is still extremely expensive for the "common man" to get into. Advancing Tech is changing this. Wind Mills are a fool's game and I can foresee no advance that will make these work on a large scale. Bio Fuels are a fool's game also. So far, the most reliable, constant, affordable and useful sources of power in relation to dollars vs. caloric output are petrofuels. They could be used more efficiently perhaps but nothing else comes close. Coal, oil, propane, natural gasses are what we have that currently make most sense (nuclear & hydro electric are a couple exceptions). I think that perhaps these can be used to provide some funding to directly assist in our search for other alternatives and making the alternatives we are already looking at more affordable and possible. My biggest chuckle personally is the electric and hybrid automobiles. People who have them cop a "Holier than thou" attitude and fail to realize the power they use is being made by some "filthy" electric generation plant ... somewhere.
In response to:

Fracking Saves Water

Bay0Wulf Wrote: Dec 26, 2013 12:39 PM
The authors on both sides of the debate in terms of "Studies and Findings" are both as likely to produce flawed, skewed or false information. Either side that is funding these studies have their own Agendas. Information from either side is suspect. Greenforces and EPA have run amok now and in the past. Industries and Corporations have likewise run amok now and in the past. What is needed is that We have access to sufficient relatively safe Energy to advance Our Technologies, maintain Our Selves (and Country) Financially and Balance the Damages and Potential Damages to prevent Corporations from ruining the Landscape and Quality of Life for All.
In response to:

Dumb Politicians Won't Get Elected

Bay0Wulf Wrote: Dec 26, 2013 11:27 AM
Capitalist ... while I agree with you in general having been in the same boat for years ... I would ask whether you do your tax returns at the end of the year and how much you get "back"? Having the money deduct from each paycheck gives one the impression of "paying taxes" even though some of those monies are for various forms of "insurances" (ie. Disability, Social Security) unfortunately, once you add up all the lines on the tax return and do the deductions allowed, most people get a refund. In most cases that refund reflects almost all the taxes taken for State or Federal purposes usually leaving a very small percentage that is actually kept. Then, when many people put in special deductions or allowances, many people actually get back a lot more than they put in ... and continue to cry that they are overtaxed. When I was younger, I did a lot of off-the-books sidework which I never reported instead, I didn't file taxes figuring if I did not file the Gov would believe it owed me money and not look too closely into my finances. Apparently that worked (or I just experienced dumb luck) and they never came asking. Aside from a few years when I popped up over $100k, that represents all the actual taxes I ever paid based on my income. I wonder honestly how much of the taxes you are referring to actually remained in the government coffers after you got done filing for your return.
In response to:

A Farm Bill in Name Only

Bay0Wulf Wrote: Nov 17, 2013 12:29 PM
I hit "Flag as Offensive" by MISTAKE. I am sorry. I was after Reply but got distracted. Agriculture often needs a ... temporary ... helping hand. There actually are crop failures (drought, too much rain, etc.). Farming is no longer an inexpensive enterprise regardless of how large or small it may be. Although to many people, agriculture seems to be less and less important, all that stuff at your grocery store comes from somewhere. Without those farms you would have very little to buy and much less to choose from. The prices would be MUCH higher and ... what few people realize is that the major money in agriculture (the prices you see as an end product) is added and made by the middleman and not the farmer. The "Commodities Market" right through to the Grocery Chain are all making a better living off the product than the "typical farmer" makes (leaving out Big Farm). Consider, that when you say "agriculture" you are not just speaking of fruits and vegetables but also dairy and beef, chicken, pork, eggs, leather ... etc ... some of which are very difficult and demanding to raise and involve huge amounts of up-front expense and livestock & dairy do not easily lend themselves to being part of the Big Farm Complex. Also, it is the smaller farmers that create the pressure to present a more diverse offering of products and usually offer a much better grade of product overall. Without them, I can see the day where the produce section would offer about 8 different items with very little variety. If you follow your suggestion, the probability is that you would be the one to lose as you, yourself (and all consumers in general) actually "stand on their two feet" also. Much of what makes your shopping experience ... enjoyable ... is due to the subsidies that you are benefiting from albeit indirectly.
In response to:

A Farm Bill in Name Only

Bay0Wulf Wrote: Nov 17, 2013 12:08 PM
Being involved in a minor aspect of agriculture I would say that the first part of this article that I happen to like is the removal of Food Subsidies from the Farm Bill. It should never have been there to begin with and has made the Bill extremely difficult to rework. It is true that the biggest recipients of the Farm Bill's Ag Aspect are the Mega-Farms (where its hard to even consider them "farms" ... most of the owners are corporations ... not "farmers") It is also true that many (very many) farms (both large and small) take out crop insurance and pray for the crop to fail. Sometimes they even go out of their way to help them fail as they actually make more if the insurance pays off than if they have a successful crop. Its not surprising to hear that the subsidies are being used to buy this insurance although that is obviously a scam and needs addressing. What we have here is Big Farm (like Big Pharma) being heavily subsidized while small farms are losing ground. The Big Farms don't need (or need as much) help as the smaller farms do and the smaller farms are the ones that need the most help and protection. I don't see that I can offer an answer to this puzzle ... I haven't thought seriously enough about it for long enough (the Agricultural Aspect as separate from the Food Subsidies) but removing the Food Subsidies and making them a stand-alone Bill is a HUGE step in a very useful direction.
Oooops! That was supposed to read "... corrupt and useLESS politician and idiots."
I don't really see a problem here. Its no like this kind of thing is "new" to Illinois and they've never lost overly much in the process. They still create tons of new corrupt and useful politicians (look at Our President) and idiots. As they make it more impossible to do business in Illinois, the companies will simply migrate to areas that are more conducive to business. WIsconsin, Indiana, Michigan (especially Detroit), Iowa, Missouri and Kentucky all could use some extra businesses. Several of these touch the Great Lakes and offer excellent ports, several other of these touch the Mississippi River and offer access and transport that way and ... pretty much any rail line that runs through Illinois also runs through one or more of these other states. Interstate trucking might have a minor problem by-passing Illinois but it wouldn't be unworkable. While California would be hard to lose due to its extensive West Coast access, the loss of Illinois wouldn't really hurt anybody ... except those who live in Illinois. Soooo ... why should we care if Illinois turns itself into the next State-wide Detroit?
Previous 21 - 30 Next