Justinian I,

The corporate treasury is simply the collective profit of a group of individuals with rights. They could always restructure their cash flow to include a political action committee which is funded before "profit" is calculated.

Your ignorance makes you short-sighted. What you propose just causes bureaucracy and accomplishes nothing, except to trample on rights and make things difficult and convoluted which should be out in the open as free speech.

Ultimately, in democratic nations, the people are and must be the arbiters of the truth and policy. You can't protect people from themselves with laws restricting free speech. If you can't advocate a cause and win support with the truth, then you're in a moral and intellectual cesspool of a population and nothing will save them from their own votes.

Sure, sometimes companies advocate things we all disagree with. But so do advocacy groups which seek to restrict those companies' operations. Can't we all agree that sometimes companies are right to fight back against lunatic advocacy groups? I doubt you're all vegans with plastic shoes, spending $10 on a cup of rice to ensure a minimal of animals were harmed/displaced by the farming, and shunning electric power and plumbing.

So give me a break. You all enjoy the benefits of companies' free speech. You haven't remotely thought this through. All we've got here are gut reactions of ooooo big companies bad! Me sheep! Must be protected!

None of the limitations proposed on corporate spending suggested here would actually remove their hand from the political sphere. Most of them would just require some shuffling of money.

Free speech is not evil. Apathetic idiots [who vote] are. Know your enemy.

I'm not going to go search page after page of threads to find things you're either too stupid to remember or lying about.

You've been very open about your desire for massive government taxing corporations out of existence, redistributing income, and redistributing wealth. And you've gone farther.

This is a stupid discussion. If you have memory problems, they're not my problem. If you have trouble with the English language, that's not my problem. If you object to what educated people think of communism yet hold views 100% in line with communism, that's not my problem.

Give me a break.

?

I quoted you very directly in the past. There was no disputing what you said. You didn't dispute it at the time; you couldn't. I'm just pointing out what you said in the past. Denying it's just stupid. Most people's memories last more than a few weeks. Grow up.

I don't keep track of weirdo children who lie about their positions on a bloody politics forum. Grow up.

I have a counter-proposal: All the lying about things you've said and positions you've advocated? Just stop.

Companies made up of American citizens have every right to take part in the communicative process. They produce something, make profits, and employ people. They're central to most Americans' lives and well-being.

Electing politicians who can be bought is on the populace, and has nothing to do with companies' free speech right. if WFS and Justinian are suggesting that taking away companies' free speech rights would somehow keep them out of politics, out of bribing and owning elected officials, they're sadly ignorant and mistaken.

More free speech rights and knowing where people and organizations stand politically is a good thing. What we do with that knowledge is on us.

NHS is garbage. Garbage in Canada. Garbage in England. Socialized medicine is garbage everywhere it's done.

There are many cultural and even genetic reasons for different different life expectancies which have nothing to do with a nation's health care system. I've already previously pointed out that life expectancy and socialized/free market healthcare do not necessarily correlate. There are many other factors at work. Hell, the USA has a very limited "free market" healthcare system, much to its detriment.

The fact is that the free market provides better care to more people than socialized care. The fact is that the free market improves medicine as a whole more than socialized care. The fact is that the free market incentivizes good behavior and lets those who make bad decisions pay for the increases in costs which their own decisions cause--social justice--more than socialized care.

Free markets provide better care for more people. They improve medicine as a whole far more. They're more just in where they distribute costs.

If you want to talk about statistics and empirical bases for beliefs, spend some time studying socialized systems before you share your opinions. They are, without fail, garbage. They provide less than average (for free markets) care, rationed by bureaucrats, with even the middle class having less options and worse options.

The only "studies" which rate the USA lower in healthcare rankings than nations with socialized care are bullshit rankings of "access," never quality, which are skewed to show the USA unfavorably by not taking into account state aid to the poor--Which accounts for most aid, including federal dollars which are distributed through state programs.

?

I handed you more than a half dozen sites and quoted bloody wikipedia to help you understand why gateway drug theory is garbage.

You never responded to a single word of it. It would take you using drugs to reply to arguments ripping your unfounded claims apart.

You're on Einstein's level of high logic there. I can't follow.

Seeing as murder is illegal.

If you want to argue why it shouldn't be, you should first admit that you long for prohibition and hate freedom.

Mr. Yell,

"Costs in what? Repression of drug users is victimless.  They don't count, because they don't care about themselves."

You didn't answer my question. Do you support prohibition? Are you against legal caffeine?

The "war on drugs" is costly because:
It creates a black market, which means both massively increased cost of goods and no police to regulate the market. I haven't referenced the sellers' deaths in this because I understand that you don't care. But this DOES result in deaths in law enforcement trying to regulate the industry. And deaths to intimidate those who might witness the business and speak out. The innocent, not-in-the-business deaths as a result number in the tens of thousands in just recent years.

And, since all instances of countries legalizing/decriminalizing drugs (even all drugs, which I'm not suggesting should be done, at least not right away) have resulted in pretty much unchanged rates of use, I ask what justifies all of this loss of innocent life. What do you have to show for the war to justify these costs?

And, of course, it costs dollars too. But I tend to focus on the innocent people getting killed because of it. And I ask why? For what gain?

I'll have to give your reference to China some thought. Maybe their society is preferable to ours. Maybe freedom really does suck compared to slavery. Hey, whatever price I have to pay to keep some evil man who ought to be put to death from smoking a joint this month is worth it, right?

Mr. Einstein,

"I know this better than someone who reads the Constitution, reads the Federalist Papers, reads the writings of the founding fathers knows the Constitution. The difference is they read it. I studied it, lived with it around me, I worked on it, and I read it."

Do you appreciate the irony of your screenname? Your associate's degree obviously isn't in the field. Your "experience" obviously isn't in the field. The jobs you listed give you some exposure at best. Like your claim of having read 200 books on the topic, your humongous ignorance of the topic suggests they either--like your jobs--weren't really on the subject (are you counting all books about those jobs? they'd barely inform you of the topic at all), were extremely limited in scope to the BS you'd accept, or are just fictitious.

"Shall I mock your insults and show how your all bluster? No... I think I will question your qualifications to even offer an opinion."

I don't need qualifications to cite doctors and chemists who clearly state that you're wrong regarding the effects of various drugs.

I don't need qualifications to cite studies in multiple countries which all show legalization/decriminalization not resulting in increased usage rates.

I don't need qualifications to refer to mass graves in Mexico as a result of the drug policies you support, which you have nothing to show for; nor do I need qualifications to refer to the many law enforcement agents who have been killed as a result of the black market which the policies you support create.

I don't need qualifications to cite all of the reasons "gateway drug theory" is a ridiculous and not remotely sound theory. I linked you more than a half dozen sources ripping it apart previously, and you just put your head in the sand and repeated your reference to it here. It's garbage by academic standards. It's garbage by common-sense standards.

"Your worldview ends when it interferes with my worldview."

How does my preference to enjoy a joint with a few beers on my porch or in my garden once or twice a month interfere with you?

Please advise. You can't give any answer which isn't filled with complete bullshit.

"Since your drug loving worldview means death, robbery, theft, indecency (added for Justinian), loss of power at times, damages to bridges, stolen funeral markers, and more... Your worldview takes a backseat to my worldview."

Again, you have absolutely no basis for this BS and it's why we're making fun of you. You're just making things up. Most of the things you refer to are a result of the "drug war" you support, not drugs. That you're unable to differentiate between the two is just embarrassing. You're offering evidence of the costs of your drug war, not drugs. Thanks for backing up arguments against your position.

You watched guys pee. Damn you are an expert. I take back all of those references to facts I kept trolling with. My bad. I've never watched a dude pee before. You're the expert.

RisingDown,

I like how you accepted his credentials as a "medical expert."

He's not going to mention gateway drug theory more than the passing reference. I ripped him apart when he brought up the issue of Libertarian positions on drugs in the past. He immediately stopped posting and gave up when I bombarded him with links making fun of "gateway drug theory."

I've repeatedly asked about alcohol, and recently nicotine and caffeine as well. He ignores these questions. If pressed he claims that alcohol's pretty harmless and marijuana is all kinds of things which literally no professional would claim it is. He just toes the Republican party line because they give him intellectual validation. Attempts to focus on medical facts like the effects of marijuana vs alcohol or the logical hypocrisy of current laws results in loads of fabricated claims of how Pot grew into a monster and ate his cousin once.

Pot was made illegal because of who was using it, not its effects. Einstein doesn't know his history, so he doesn't care. Until Republicans tell him it's okay to think about the topic and ponder the evidence, he's not going to.

That was simply one example.

The tax would have to be about 99% to balance the budget. If I'm off by a few percent because he'd make up some offsets elsewhere with 0 numbers to back them up, that doesn't change the argument or its validity.

I didn't "conjecture" what rate would be required, I cited sources for total US corporate profits and the annual deficit for the past few years, including what they were slated to hit this year. I cited the numbers and pointed out what he was proposing in real terms. That's not "conjecture," that's injecting common sense into abject stupidity and ignorance.

He very directly proposed increasing corporate tax rates to wipe out our government deficit. He was direct and clear on the method and the objective. Technically, the tax rate he proposed is exactly the tax rate (method) he proposed to achieve balanced government budgets (objective). He was too ignorant of the facts to know what this tax rate would be, but that doesn't change the fact that it's exactly what he advocated. Technically, I just did the math that he proposed.

He also claimed that such a tax rate would have no impact on businesses, because it's only a tax on PROFIT. The ridiculous ignorance of statements like this is why I used such unfriendly words.

I quoted him very directly in stating things which are 100% communist and pointed out that they were. He immediately stopped responding to those threads. I wish I'd kept links for the 1 or 2 which were explicitly and undeniably clear. But, considering this level of dishonestly or just unimaginable stupidity, it doesn't really matter. I stoop pretty low, but I'm not interested in that stupid and dishonest of an exchange.

If you vehemently argue X Y and Z one week then insult people who point out that you did just weeks later, maybe some unpleasant descriptors aptly describe you.

"It's" is implied in the first sentence. It's not formal, but it's not incoherent.

You've literally claimed what I said you claimed in the second sentence. It's not a strawman when you referenced literally what I cited as evidence.

Your education and work experience is not directly related to drugs, is it? You obviously have absolutely no academic knowledge of drugs, in light of medicine, psychology, or sociology. You keep repeatedly making appeals to authority, so why don't you tell us just what authority that is? You don't have any. You were in a homeless to work program. That's great. That gives you absolutely no expertise on the topic of drugs.

"- Bunched together for brevity. Kemp is clearly ignorant of pimps deliberately addicting young girls to keep them reliant upon the pimps. Argument one slain with just one counter fact which shows his is an uneducated opinion."

This alleged crime is already a crime. Go and fight it, dumbass. Claiming this is widespread and accounts for more than a tiny minority of drug users is laughable. That you argue .001% of drug use is forced makes drug use in general a crime forced on innocent people? Yeah you REALLY slayed that argument by referencing .001% doing something which is already a crime!

You're really raising the level of exchange on the forum with logic like that! Good response, which completely ignores the logic and morality of my argument! Ohnoes, the 99.999% must be protected from themselves and their own freedom in the name of SAVING the .001% from a crime which can already be prosecuted! That doesn't even make any sense.

"Additionally studies do show education, rehab and incarceration do have an impact upon drug use."

Yeah. A tiny impact. Which decriminalization and even legalization also have.

"Of course Kemp will try to deny it."

Sorry, I don't deny the truth like you. Yes, they have a tiny impact on drug use. But considering that decriminalization and legalization also have this impact, as shown in every nation which has decriminalized/legalized, you've still not provided a justification for the lives lost to your drug war. I've already explained why this "point" of yours is not justification, yet you've failed to respond.

Little over your head, are you?

"His claim of casualties is designed to tug heart strings. Drug addicts do kill people, he wants to allow anyone to be a drug addict and thus increase the killing."

1) Most of their crimes are motivated by your drug war and the black market it creates. Legalization/decriminalization don't create more criminals because they wipe out drug crime.
2) Drug usage rates are barely influenced by legalization/decriminalization. Studies consistently show that those who want to use, legal or not, use. All the evidence suggests that there'd be no or almost no change in the number of drug users. How would that increase the number of deaths due to drug use? Especially when doses could be regularized and regulated?

So where's your evidence that legalization/decriminalization would save lives? You'd need to save many tens of thousands to save more than the current drug war has costed. Yet you have absolutely no evidence that it saves ANY lives, let alone tens of thousands.

Again and again, the facts and my arguments are demonstrated to be over your head. As it turns out, arrogance is not a good substitute for knowledge and understanding.

"-Strawman again. Claims I need to learn about a topic I am deeply educated about."

You're just embarrassing yourself. You don't know anything about it. You have a 2 year degree and worked with the homeless briefly. Big [clucking] deal. That doesn't make you "deeply educated" about it. Grow up.

I can see that, this time, you're trying to respond to some of my arguments. But you're completely missing them and responding like a 5 year old, so it's not much better.