SeVeR

Only cos he'll ban you for 13 years X'terr. All hail Delic! The second coming of Jesus is upon us! Zion! Tupac! Bad Babylon Rar! Etc!

How the !@#$%^&* did it come to this?

Ok i agree with all that. I think i misunderstood your definition of "anti-US". You mean it in an economic sense, i mean it in a social sense. People in England aren't criticising the US for being an economic power yet i fully expect European governments to unite to compete with the US in that way. You are lumping two very different issues under one "anti-US" !@#$%^&*le. As far as economic strength is conerned, i'm happy to be living out of poverty and i don't care where i'm doing it. But starting a war in Iraq which has created a breeding ground for terrorists who Bush is now using to justify staying in Iraq even longer... (priceless ) ...is why i'm anti US.

And your goal is to draw conclusions from very little evidence. How is it the goal of Europe to become the anti-US? Europe, especially Britain, has become a production centre for critics of all countries in the world, even our own. It's because we don't have any patriotism. From your perspective, coming from a country where patriotism exists, this appears uncharacteristic of an ally. But what you don't understand is we criticise everyone just the same. Criticism needs to be heard but only from people who aren't selective in their criticism in a way that is hypocritical. Britain is turning into a !@#$%^&*-house of wannabe gangster teenagers with no education and no respect. America socially is in better shape, politically they're not. All countries have their faults. Its our job to voice all faults without letting patriotism get in the way of listening to the opposing criticism.

Oh there's a little bit of evidence behind every !@#$%^&*umption Ail.

Yes, unless you tell me your reasons why they shouldn't be let in.

Ok well i understand this is a trap because there can be many interpretations of the same article. But you'll see from this BBC article that the facts are what do the talking: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6092540.stm Facts like this: The second cascade had been installed two weeks ago with the knowledge of UN nuclear inspectors, the source said."The International Atomic Energy Agency has been fully aware of the issue and the inspectors are present in Iran," the source said. ...would go unreported on a Right Wing American News Provider. In fact most Americans probably still believe that Iran is hiding their enrichment program. Iran is defiant of US threats but completely open with the UN about their development of civilian reactors which for your interest are incapable of producing the plutonium isotope necessary for nuclear weapons. Firstly i meant when you put "us" in lower case. But what i mean is you saying "our exposure of Israel" when you did no such thing, just like most Americans didn't. So who are you talking about? Then you say Iran is not on the best terms with "us". I presume you meant "us" this time because you put it in lower case. So again you're talking as if we are all enemies of Iran. You've described all Americans as being pro-Israel and anti-Iran. Where is this unwavering guarantee of national support for the government coming from? I did not see the debate so couldn't possibly judge your interpretation of it.

Dealing drugs would still be illegal so one person selling those drugs on to another person at a party would still be illegal practice. But i see what you mean, the relaxation of laws might make people take any existing laws less seriously. A smear campaign is not guaranteed to work. I still believe there are many positives to do with this method. And personally i see the weak-minded fools who might start taking hard drugs as expendible anyway, although another part of me says that we need those people so that the rest of us can stand on their shoulders at some point. However with the dealers gone the rate of new users may actually go down, so i don't know if thats something that would get worse. I see a decrease in crime and an elimination of dealers as a big plus.

Respect? Any show of respect is based on opinion. I just want the facts reported without any prejudicial agenda. The news is suppoed to be factual, even you must realise that diluting vast quan!@#$%^&*ies of factual information with snippets of politically motivated opinion will bring about a certain level of acceptance towards those opinions. What does respecting Israel have to do with reporting facts? Selecting stories for the purposes of swaying public opinion towards one side of the conflict doesn't respect anyone. You keep saying "us" and "our" as if we are all automatically aligned with President Bush's views on the world. But even if Bush is correct in his thinking it by no means warrants the news to be bias towards that view. So far Iran has done nothing wrong and yet through the media we have large amounts of people saying its ok to invade their country and kill hundreds of thousands of them. The reason: Bush's opinion on Iran. What is the BBC leaning towards? If i hated the US i wouldn't be living here. Exactly how is the US easy to hate? Is that your way of dismissing the criticism as unsubstantiated and overblown? From what you've said this sounds like a debate. Debates require intellectual, logical thinking whereby one side cannot disguise opinion as fact without being brought up on it. Quite frankly it is impossible for a Republican to defend himself in a debate these days. What i'm talking about is one-sided news broadcasts and story-selection for those broadcasts.

I never said to make DUI legal. You seem to be operating on the idea that lots more people will take mind-altering drugs if they are made legal. If thats the case then probably DUI would become more of a problem. Would you start taking them, would Ducky, would I? Who are these mindless switches out there that you speak of?

Oh common! Considering your political views i'm not surprised you said this but during the Israeli/Hezbollah war did you see a single story on Fox about Israeli's killing civilians or was it all "Hezbollah fires thousands of rockets into Israel" or "Israeli soldier killed in vicious Hezbollah attack". What about when the UN referred to the US report on Iran as dishonest, it almost looked like Fox didn't even report it. I don't call it the Christian/Republican/Patriot propoganda channel because i feel like it. MSNBC is also a very poor reporter of news for some of the reasons you stated. Even CNN makes the odd gaff and shows some political allegiance but thats probably for ratings more than anything. If you want good news, look outside America, you'd be amazed how clear and unopinionated it is. Believe me when i say its quite a shock to watch American News after coming from Europe.

Does one Colombian druglord grow his crop different from another? Doubt it. Its the same "!@#$%^&*" and any after-harvesting modifications can easily be catered for. The drug-dealers will go out of business because they will lose all their customers. Unless of course they try to compete with a m!@#$%^&*-purchaser of narcotics selling at zero profit, which is impossible. Druggies aren't snobs when it comes to buying drugs, they want a fix and if there is any "special taste" (which i really do doubt) it can be catered for. Do you see me disagreeing with you? Except now they have to go to a hospital, grab a map or get directions then find this rehabilitation centre? NBV, ever used laziness as an excuse not to do something? If you put a help centre in a place where you know they have to p!@#$%^&* every single day you remove the excuse. Ever heard of a pub? I know they're more difficult to find in America... but common! Foot the bill? They already OD on what they can buy illegally, a few more will OD but do you have any idea what the drain is already on the economy because of the drug-trade? Just open your mind and get past the: "Alcohol = BAD. Smoking = BAD. Pot = BAD." Mmmkay?

You can't just up and leave. The addiction doesn't let you. You have to be physically stranded in another country with no computer to break the addiction and even then, when you make it back to normality, 17th parallel will come crawling back out from under some rock to taunt you while you sleep, so that its all you can think about when you wake up.

Then you and me disagree. What do you call methodone? Whats the difference between getting it cheap or expensive? You're still !@#$%^&*ed up after. When its cheap you remove the need for the users to get money through petty crime. They're gonna force their habit to its limits anyway, its just a matter of who has to suffer. I've never seen a drug clinic in my life. It takes some sort of effort on the part of the user to seek out that help. By legally selling the drug you can stick the help center in exactly the same place meaning that the user walks past it every single day and knows precisely where it is. Even drug-users have a limit. If that limit is death then the suicidal nature of their actions will echo that drug-use is an illness, the ultimate weakness is to commit suicide. Then let them die if they OD. Should i give a !@#$%^&*? I want to remove all the crime that comes with drug-use, all the drug-dealers, and i want to stick the help-center right in their faces when they come to buy drugs so they have no excuses. If they then OD and die because they can't control their habit then they're a lost cause. She can't afford the 4th one because she wasn't able to steal enough. If you refuse treatment, you die. Simple. There is a cure if they want it. I don't want all the other crime that comes from the drug industry to be a result of us being sympathetic to people who refuse to be treated. Exactly, we follow our parents examples when we see that it doesn't affect them much. Thankfuly we haven't all got drug-using parents which is why its a ridiculous analogy. It already is happening exactly like that. What were you expecting, a miracle cure? Yes i drive alot. I assume you don't... or drive at a nice "safe" speed in a 70MPH limit? The conditioning is there because you assume the government is setting the speed limit that is popularly deemed safe for that road. Its sad and it happens but only when a large percentage of people want to be going faster than you and are stuck. If you're going 40MPH in a 60MPH limit and there are 10 cars behind you, some maybe honking their horns, then i think that kind of pressure might even get to you. This will happen because alot of people already want to be allowed to drive faster, again completely different from drugs where we have very specific reasons that have nothing to do with legality! Heroin is completely illegal, it would be made completely legal. No stages. Its not like changing from 40MPH to 60MPH. You're can still legally drive, there is still a legal limit, only the specifics of the law are changing. I'm talking about removing a law completely, a suitable comparison would be to remove speed limits altogether. I don't give a crap what the existing users think about it. Yea, both. The effect of the drug will be there for all to see, actually that would be good publicity: broadcasting the deaths from drug-use. Wha-duh? Ya think?!?! Christ.. you already know what my answer is. Wait, so crime rate drops because they no longer need the extra money to buy more drugs, because now they're getting those drugs from a clinic.... and you're saying that the crime rate while on those drugs will increase? That would imply that they're getting more !@#$%^&*ed up than they were when they were burglarizing for the extra cash that they now don't need. What makes you think that getting MORE !@#$%^&*ed up will cause MORE crime? From my experience, the more !@#$%^&*ed up you are the less ability you have to do just about anything!

Even the law is opinion, you can't avoid it, sometimes you have to trust in it.

Most people already perceive drugs as a weakness so its hardly a change in traditional thought. In my opinion alot of people turn to drugs through:1. Curiousity 2. Peer-Pressure 3. Rebellion Making it "legal medicine" bought in "clinics" by "ill" people would go along way to de-romanticising drug-use that is currently illegal and therefore a spark for the curious and rebellious. In the same way people don't say "i want to try getting syphalis this week" you can turn it into a disease prompting pity rather than what it currently is. They have to volunteer to get help! In this case the help center will be located in the same place as the drug-outlet, making it easy to get help if they want it. The whole point of this plan is to cut the rate of new users and cut the rate of crime. Existing users either die off or get the help that's right in their face everytime they go to buy drugs. And how exactly does cost efficiency change anything? They're still ruining their life. The help can never be forced on them, is this what you're suggesting? The best we can do is stick the help center in the same place they have to go to get a fix so that they see that option as regularly as possible. I see you criticising this idea, but what alternative are you offering. I know there is no perfect way to eliminate drug-use, to me this is the best way to control it and reduce it. You can't force people to get help, i would have thought your "experiencing life as a person and witnessing lives spent as a person" would have taught you that. But they get it anyway. These people are ODs waiting to happen, if they go all crazy and OD quicker because the cost is cut down then i don't care. Their deaths will go as further warning that this is an illness... it will even be seen as suicidal in that way, the ultimate weakness. This isn't an age limit though, we haven't spent our whole lives waiting to take drugs knowing that it'll be ok to do it when we reach the right age. Not only that but a large number of families are drinking beer on the couch and sipping wine at the dinner table. Its an awful comparison to make because we are brought up knowing there is nothing wrong with it through our parent's example. Even if your parents take drugs and there is an age limit when you can "finally" do it too... you wouldn't! Because you'd see the detrimnetal effects just like those kids who have abusive drunk parents see the negative effects of drink! What? How exactly does it "hinge" on that? I know full well that people don't abuse the laws alot of the time, but you seem to miss the point that there are reasons that go far beyond legality. We all have to understand the rules that are given to us, we have to ask why. This is why Christians seem completely at odds with the Bible, they have no means to understand where the 10 commandments comes from, they're just there, sent from God. They seek to interpret the Bible to their own will as a result by attempting to seek answers from God and getting the echo of their own personal desires instead. We don't have a switch based on legality. I could have smoked before 16 but didn't, yet i chose to drink since i saw my parents doing it without any adverse effects. We aren't switches. The point is that people will change because of the conditioning gone through based on all the other speed limits that they've ever seen. If you see a 40 MPH sign you immediately drive at that speed and you'll do the same for higher speeds. Secondly the peer pressure will be in effect - If everyone else is going this fast then i really should too, i don't want to hold everyone up. Thirdly there is no "stage" i.e. going from 40-60MPH, you either take drugs or you don't. With drugs there is no conditioning to start taking them if it becomes illegal since its a separate subject by itelf - for a suitable analogy you'd have to say that all the speed limits on all the roads would be taken away, by doing so you'd be legalising speeding, not redrawing the limits. You open up clinics - making drug-use appear as a sickness. You make it legal - de-romanticising its part in rebellion and removing the curiousity of something that is "taboo" enough to be banned. The publicity coming from this change in legislation would then push these issues into the forefront of our minds, it would be all over the news "Drug Clinics selling drugs legally to users". The dealers would go out of business over night and we'd be transferring their business over to the government who can offer every single one of them rehabilitation. At the same time as reducing crime significantly.

Done. 24th now.

Yeah but 150 times a month? You could dehydrate and die... or your balls could shrink and dissolve and ... need i go any further! Anyway, i'm sure unprotected sex with strangers can be considered "bad" and "detrimental to your health" AND the health of others! - Yet its not illegal. Not everything bad is illegal.

NBV: Yea, its bad, even i can use that word because it has such a broad definition. Having sex five times a day for a month is probably bad too... as is unprotected sex with a stranger. But should it therefore be illegal? Who is it bad for? And if you think its bad for other people (than the user) then how do you think that happens? Do you have an alternative solution other than the system that has failed to work for decades? Ducky: Then you don't understand much about psychology and the effect of perceived weakness. True. The point of making it legal for them is to cut the price down to the bare minimum thereby removing the drug-dealers and removing the need for drug-related crimes to supply their habit. Two benefits, the drug-users personal situation doesn't change, except they now have a much easier avenue to get help if they want it. Hah! No is the answer you were looking for, would you be stupid enough to do this, would anyone on this board be that stupid? People don't have a switch whereby they immediately do something if it becomes legal. We all have reasons that go beyond legality. There would be other reasons to change than legality in this situation. It's not an analogy. By removing the crime of drug-use you are pretty much halfway to changing the image anyway. Opening "clinics" to supply the drugs at rock-bottom prices would go a step further (its all in the choice of language), the publicity from such a huge change in legislation would then do the rest... so in actuality you don't really have to do anything to "push" the image. You mean in the same way STD clinics are an advertising campaign for having un-controlled sex? Please...

No it's not. Even it it were impossible a line could still be drawn to determine what level of opinion should be broadcast as news.

Good thing i never said that then. I was saying that drug-use being construed as an illness rather than a crime would deter more people from taking up drug-use. It'll be less popular and more a sign of weakness. I don't expect any existing users to quit over that. Perfectly logical if you don't use dismissive interpretation. How are there going to be more addictions and deaths? You think people will buy drugs because they're legal when they've had plenty of time to buy them when they're illegal? By removing drug dealers and changing the image of drugs you'll get fewer users in my opinion. To start taking drugs you'd have to walk into a clinic because there'll be no dealers and whats even better is its not too difiicult to develop a test to find out who is a drug-user and who isn't. You could quite easily give drugs only to existing users. With the dealers gone, the rate of new users will be cut to near zero. ...and of course yes, all in addition to less crime. Yea, but there's a line between something thats bad and something that should be illegal. Its perfectly legal for you to hit yourself over the head with a hammer but its still "bad".

Fox News shouldn't even be allowed to be called News. It should be called the "Republican and Christian Perspective on Current Events that go through a Stringent Right Wing Selection Process". News channels should have no political affiliation causing them to promote certain stories to the forefront that are then intepretted in a way designed to provoke a right-wing response.

Mmmkay? By the way, if you legalise all drugs and sell them through the government at a profitless price you'll end up removing all the drug dealers and therefore the vast acquisition of new customers. By then splashing various media outlets with the idea that drug-use is an illness rather than a crime you'll do more to stop the possibility of new-users than the police can ever do. Drug-users will get their dope at less than a quarter of the price from drug-clinics, where they can accept or refuse help offered to them. If drug dealers happen to get any new customers they'll immediately lose them to the clinics, putting them completely out of business. The reduced price of drugs will vastly reduce other crimes such as robbery and violent !@#$%^&*ualt. The idea is simple and logically it would work if we could all get beyond this pathetic ideal of "drugs are bad... Mmmkay?"

I think the question should be: Does FOX News have a political agenda behind their selection and interpretation of stories and is this ethical?

Try it, what comes out would be an exact replica of yourself and then when it grows up you can have clone sex and be like "i'm so beautiful that i !@#$%^&* myself" and then maybe harvest your clone for organs when you get older... in fact you could keep making clones and live forever. lol priceless.