Steer Planet - Show Steers and Club Calves Forum

I totally understand why your not supose to discuss politics or religion. 

I totally understand why your not supose to discuss politics or religion. 

Especially since they are the same to both sides.

Politics- check, Religion- check, ok, now if we can get someone to say something bad about Canadians and Charolais this topic will really go sideways in a hurry.

I know where my vote will be going, come November, and I know why, It will not be because of their stance on gay marriage, it will be based on where the Country is headed.

Marriage = a man and a woman

Civil union= who ever to who ever (Zach a brother and sister, brother and brother, or sister and sister still can't get married, no matter how much they love each other, are you offended by that?)

Give them all the same rights but make sure they all go through the same hell married people do if they decide to break their union, it is only fair.

Is that a serious statement.....sister to brother etc? Incest? You are comparing homosexuality to incest. I find that extremely offensive and ignorant.

Restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer

Isn't that the way it is now? The victim of a crime can bring civil charges against the "wrongdoer." Like the family of OJ's wife did against OJ. OJ might have had an asset or two to give, but it didn't bring the people he killed back. If a drunk or a druggie kills someone just exactly what would you propose to restore the life of that victim? What would be restitution to the family? What is restitution enough that it's not sake to walk down the street? Now you might not have streets to walk down out in the sticks, but the majority of people in this country do. What about the time and productivity loss to employers? How are you gonna justify that?  Is the recreational drug user going to pay the taxes I have to pay because he doesn't pay any and can't pay for his hospital trips? But the kicker is that in 99.99% of the cases the recreational drug user that infringes upon my right not to have to worry about him has ZERO to give in restitution. Ever hear of a saying "you can't get blood out of a turnip?", or do they use that verbage in TX?

So your restitution idea sucks.  But you keep trying. I read other things you have written here and you are getting "better" as you go.

. Show me anything that suggest increased crime rates are positively correlated with the leniency of drug laws. YOU CAN'T DO IT! Again, I'm not making the connection between drunks and druggies and socially responsible recreational users; whether we're talking alcohol or marijuana. 

I can understand your fear walking down the street though, I've been to a Falcons game in ATL.  One of the dirtier cities/states I've ever been to- so I can understand your bitterness.   

And guess what big dog, I'm 26 and paid more in taxes last yr than 85% of the people in our country so kiss my freedom-minded ass. 

Came here to say this. People who do drugs are going to do them regardless of what the law says. At least if that stuff is legalized, we can pull some revenue off of it without money driven crimes.

Quote from: GONEWEST on May 31, 2012, 10:47:53 PM

Restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer

Isn't that the way it is now? The victim of a crime can bring civil charges against the "wrongdoer." Like the family of OJ's wife did against OJ. OJ might have had an asset or two to give, but it didn't bring the people he killed back. If a drunk or a druggie kills someone just exactly what would you propose to restore the life of that victim? What would be restitution to the family? What is restitution enough that it's not sake to walk down the street? Now you might not have streets to walk down out in the sticks, but the majority of people in this country do. What about the time and productivity loss to employers? How are you gonna justify that?  Is the recreational drug user going to pay the taxes I have to pay because he doesn't pay any and can't pay for his hospital trips? But the kicker is that in 99.99% of the cases the recreational drug user that infringes upon my right not to have to worry about him has ZERO to give in restitution. Ever hear of a saying "you can't get blood out of a turnip?", or do they use that verbage in TX?

.
So your restitution idea sucks.  But you keep trying. I read other things you have written here and you are getting "better" as you go.

 I guess I'm not making the connection between burnin one down whilst listening to some Dave Matthews and cleaning the house and your association with the murder of Nicole Simpson?? Murder is a crime in and of itself and should be delt with accordingly. Show me anything that suggest increased crime rates are positively correlated with the leniency of drug laws. YOU CAN'T DO IT!  Again, I'm not making the connection between drunks and druggies and socially responsible recreational users; whether we're talking alcohol or marijuana. 

I can understand your fear walking down the street though, I've been to a Falcons game in ATL.  One of the dirtier cities/states I've ever been to- so I can understand your bitterness.   

And guess what big dog, I'm 26 and paid more in taxes last yr than 85% of the people in our country so kiss my freedom-minded ass. 

Well at least you got the big dog part right. Not sure what I said that made you want to be such a  horses butt about it, but you started it and you're old enough to take it.

First you never told me how these people could pay restitution for ANYTHING, much less the loss of a life. You just wanted to spout off about Atlanta being dirty and you paying taxes like that had anything to do with anything.  You cant connect dead people as the result of a crime together? No matter what the crime is they are dead. Restitution of ANY KIND won't bring them back. So what then? OH I KNOW!....  YOU are that recreational user you want to see decriminalized aren't you!! Now I get it, and you've lost a few brain cells and can't make a connection between people being dead as the result of the actions of another no matter the crime or intention. And to you a few bucks should buy their way out of it no matter what they did! Now I understand where you are coming from.

There are a lot more Meth recreational users than pot smokers at a Dave Mathews concert. The point, besides the one on your head, is that drug users are dangerous. And if you couldn't lock them up, convict them of crimes, they would have no consequences for their actions. You understand that a recreational Meth user has nothing to pay restitution with right? So he steals your stuff or knocks you in the head for the $5 in your pocket. Surely you can see that shouldn't be legal. Unless the Doritos are getting to you.  What is your definition of a socially responsible recreational user? The ones at  the Dave Mathews concert? How many of them get arrested??? NONE. How many people like that EVER get arrested. They just get tickets like speeding. So who is it that you want to decriminalize? What is your definition of a socially responsible drug user. That's an oxymoron as compared to you who are just the last part.

Now tell me about your crime stat argument again?? Doesn't it follow that if you decriminalize ANY activity, the crime rate, by definition the measure of the amount of crimes committed,  would go down? It's no longer a crime.

And I see where your perspective of the world comes from if Atlanta is one of the dirtier cities you have ever been in. You don't get out much do you, boy?

 Also I can  see where you could be 26, seems more like 16, but I can see 26. And thanks for paying your taxes. You keep good government employees like feed grass from being without a job.

Zack, not everyone has the same rights or privileges as others, I think gay couples who are committed to each other should have the same rights as other couples. I do not believe anyone should get married just to get the benefits.
On the other, I should have used polygamy instead, It is currently illegal, it does happen, Is it OK if they live together but do mot get married? How do we determine what is a right, now if you go by the Bible then polygamy is wrong, if not, what makes it wrong. Or should it all be OK? I think I just confussed myself on that one. I give up, if I offended anyone sorry.

I should have taken my own advice no religion, politics, Canadians, or Charolais.