Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Legal Briefs

View
108 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >

88. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 14:57 RollinThundr
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:47:
InBlack wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 07:42:
Banning cigarettes is counterproductive, its a huge industry and there is a lot of money involved. Better a large tax and let people choose for themselves. Look how the alcohol ban turned out, production went underground and it powered one of the biggest crime waves the US has ever seen. IMO they should legalize marijuana as well. Its a herb, like tobbaco and could power another huge industry that would be very beneficial to the economy. Then they should tax the shit out of that too, considering the risks.

This, exactly this. Banning outright needs to be preserved for those few most destructive things like heroin. Most things should simply have the price adjusted based on some kind of measure of the damage they do to society. Rice, apples and broccoli: 0% tax. Jam and butter: 20% Twinkies, Coke, potato chips, and MJ: 50%. Etc. Obviously how much these %s should be is up for debate, but no one doubts that "foods" like potato chips and Coke are causing a nationwide health epidemic and need to be reigned in. I'd put in place an advertising restriction on these things too, like tobacco.

We'll never see this though, not with our current government completely in hock to corporations. Get corporate advertising out of politics, and you might see some good laws. And while I hate the current trend in journalism "both sides do it" false equivalency, in the case of being coopted by corporate money, both US parties are neck deep, so you'd never get anything like this passed.

Ban everything ban breathing while you're at it. Because people can't be personally responsible to not eat potato chips all day and get fat, tax chips 500%! that will teach em! Big Daddy Obama will tell you what to eat, when to sleep, when to rub one out. Jesus you guys are really something.

Please all of you liberals, move to the UK or China.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
87. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 14:56 jdreyer
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 07:51:
[url=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-court-of-appeals/1611207.html]Here's a good case about strict liability.

A guy downloads a ton of porn off of Limewire. Some of it is underage, but not marked so. He deletes the underage porn. He has no interest in underage porn. But, once he opens it, he knows he has it. He did not know he was going to download it until after the fact.

He is found guilty.

Well, except that he hadn't deleted ALL of them:

The officers seized the computer and delivered it to the crime lab of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office. Once there, crime lab employee Anthony Pollock searched the computer's hard drive and noted that LimeWire was installed on the computer. He found “hundreds” of adult pornography files, and also discovered 63 files that he believed could be child pornography, based on their file names. Most of these files were located in a LimeWire “Shared” folder. Pollock was not able to locate the videos downloaded by Officer Hanson on June 17 and July 23 by name; he found evidence, however, that two of those videos were previously on the computer, but had since been removed or deleted.

If you've got 63 undeleted illegal files on your had drive, that indicates you're not very interested in deleting them.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
86. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 14:55 Verno
 
I don't know jdreyer, I'm not a fan of banning either but when smoking costs are into double digits of our national healthcare costs, I perk up and change my tune. I'm a money person and it's hard to argue with that. The taxes from smoking probably don't even cover the huge direct costs involved, let alone the indirect ones.

I'm all about less control instead of more but some things just make sense for the betterment of society as a whole. If people want to be fat morons, whatever. It is really hard to restrict food and alcohol for obvious reasons. Something like smoking though? Fuck it, it's stupid and doesn't give us anything in return unless you're a shareholder of a big tabacco company. Restrict the advertising until it doesn't exist anymore, remove it from the public so it can't cause harm and I can pay lower taxes.

On a personal note smoking sucks anyway, I did it when I was young, thought it was cool then I grew up and realized I might as well just light money on fire since it was the same thing and at least better for me. I don't really begrudge smokers on an individual level, I kind of feel pity for anyone so ensnared by what is incredibly stigmatized these days. Also they smell like asshole and don't even realize it due to deadened senses thanks to the smoking. That said I also hate anything that increases my taxes with no upside to me so whatever, tax and hammer that shit into the ground.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Infamous Second Son
Watching: Midsomer Murders, Dominion, The Knick
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
85. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 14:54 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:39:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:29:
We have no middle class because of low taxes, not high taxes.

Duh.
lol sure thing. Not going to bother to debate economics with you, you've proven more than once that you think out of control spending is a good thing anyway.

I've never said that. I've said that curbing spending isn't the only way to balance a budget and that there are more important things than a perfect balanced budget.

But whatever. I've repeatedly shown how the middle class grew when taxes were highest and shrunk when Reagan cut them.

You're just unable to comprehend that. Which is so damn confusing. The middle class had the strongest growth when the top tax bracket was over 85%. When Reagan knocked it into the 30s the middle class fell apart.
So weird that you don't acknowledge that the people that are able to create a middle class instead kept that money for themselves (and why wouldn't they? They felt they earned it because they worked for it.)

People like you seem to think that everyone should keep what they earn, yet also believe that people at the top will somehow decide to keep wages where they need to be to sustain a middle class. It's so counterintuitive and has been proven incorrect historically.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
84. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 14:47 jdreyer
 
InBlack wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 07:42:
Banning cigarettes is counterproductive, its a huge industry and there is a lot of money involved. Better a large tax and let people choose for themselves. Look how the alcohol ban turned out, production went underground and it powered one of the biggest crime waves the US has ever seen. IMO they should legalize marijuana as well. Its a herb, like tobbaco and could power another huge industry that would be very beneficial to the economy. Then they should tax the shit out of that too, considering the risks.

This, exactly this. Banning outright needs to be preserved for those few most destructive things like heroin. Most things should simply have the price adjusted based on some kind of measure of the damage they do to society. Rice, apples and broccoli: 0% tax. Jam and butter: 20% Twinkies, Coke, potato chips, and MJ: 50%. Etc. Obviously how much these %s should be is up for debate, but no one doubts that "foods" like potato chips and Coke are causing a nationwide health epidemic and need to be reigned in. I'd put in place an advertising restriction on these things too, like tobacco.

We'll never see this though, not with our current government completely in hock to corporations. Get corporate advertising out of politics, and you might see some good laws. And while I hate the current trend in journalism "both sides do it" false equivalency, in the case of being coopted by corporate money, both US parties are neck deep, so you'd never get anything like this passed.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
83. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 14:39 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:29:
We have no middle class because of low taxes, not high taxes.

Duh.
lol sure thing. Not going to bother to debate economics with you, you've proven more than once that you think out of control spending is a good thing anyway.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
82. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 14:37 RollinThundr
 
Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:46:
InBlack wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:24:
Excuse me for butting in (no pun intended) into this argument I dont usually defend Rollingthundre's opinions but claiming that smoking costs more in tax dollars than the industry brings in is a rather weak argument.

When you add up all of the direct and indirect costs for smoking related health care I'm sure that's the case. That's without going into the toll it takes on families and the economy. I don't have any studies handy because I rarely care much for smoking debates but I'm sure there have been several done in NA if you get google happy. Keep in mind most of the money the Big Tobacco lobbies take in stays there. Health care in North America is insanely expensive, you have no idea man. It is not uncommon for people to get very sick and go into major debt or bankruptcy after being screwed by health insurance. Smokers get boned on that stuff too, the HMOs will use anything against you and smoking is a giant red flag on your file.

The government is pretty indifferent about the taxes, they will make it up somewhere else. The taxes also don't scale with the costs which continue to increase every year. I can't disagree with RM that the smoking industry doesn't have a very long term future ahead, it's being slowly phased out everywhere I travel. I'm on business in Canada pretty often and they don't even let them display cigarettes on the shelves there in many places, American tobacco companies have it easy.

Actually the tax itself is more than half the cost per pack to begin with. Trust me, the government makes a ton off of those who smoke.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
81. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 14:29 Beamer
 
We have no middle class because of low taxes, not high taxes.

Duh.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
80. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 14:14 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:44:
I can't tell from that rant, would you prefer that Monsanto's genetically modified crops, which there's no proof cause cancer and could probably end up doing the opposite (in that hopefully someday they reduce the need for pesticides, which we do have proof causes cancer.)

Wouldn't that be a slippery slope?
I imagine you'd prefer a world where the government never says "hey, that causes cancer, stop doing it" and, well, we have no options. Because, if you've followed the Supreme Court case, you'd see you really do have no options. Over 91% of soybeans are genetically modified. Basically, you're eating genetically modified food at every meal.

I'd imagine, if it comes out that they cause cancer, the US wouldn't do anything because, I mean, nanny state.



Also, it's impossible for the US to become a 3rd world country, under the modern definition. And, under the prior definition, we'd simply have to be neither communist nor part of NATO, an organization you probably feel is socialist, so you'd probably prefer us to be a third world nation.

I'm saying let them test the shit extensively first to make sure. Don't you think that would be a better idea than a bill that has a provision to exempt them from any wrong doing should it happen? If it's so safe why is that type of provision in the passed bill that prolly no one actually read? As usual.

If taxes continue to go up to the point where we have no middle class since Obozo is all about tax and spend wealth redistribution what would you call it?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
79. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 11:46 Verno
 
InBlack wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:24:
Excuse me for butting in (no pun intended) into this argument I dont usually defend Rollingthundre's opinions but claiming that smoking costs more in tax dollars than the industry brings in is a rather weak argument.

When you add up all of the direct and indirect costs for smoking related health care I'm sure that's the case. That's without going into the toll it takes on families and the economy. I don't have any studies handy because I rarely care much for smoking debates but I'm sure there have been several done in NA if you get google happy. Keep in mind most of the money the Big Tobacco lobbies take in stays there. Health care in North America is insanely expensive, you have no idea man. It is not uncommon for people to get very sick and go into major debt or bankruptcy after being screwed by health insurance. Smokers get boned on that stuff too, the HMOs will use anything against you and smoking is a giant red flag on your file.

The government is pretty indifferent about the taxes, they will make it up somewhere else. The taxes also don't scale with the costs which continue to increase every year. I can't disagree with RM that the smoking industry doesn't have a very long term future ahead, it's being slowly phased out everywhere I travel. I'm on business in Canada pretty often and they don't even let them display cigarettes on the shelves there in many places, American tobacco companies have it easy.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Infamous Second Son
Watching: Midsomer Murders, Dominion, The Knick
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
78. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 11:44 Beamer
 
I can't tell from that rant, would you prefer that Monsanto's genetically modified crops, which there's no proof cause cancer and could probably end up doing the opposite (in that hopefully someday they reduce the need for pesticides, which we do have proof causes cancer.)

Wouldn't that be a slippery slope?
I imagine you'd prefer a world where the government never says "hey, that causes cancer, stop doing it" and, well, we have no options. Because, if you've followed the Supreme Court case, you'd see you really do have no options. Over 91% of soybeans are genetically modified. Basically, you're eating genetically modified food at every meal.

I'd imagine, if it comes out that they cause cancer, the US wouldn't do anything because, I mean, nanny state.



Also, it's impossible for the US to become a 3rd world country, under the modern definition. And, under the prior definition, we'd simply have to be neither communist nor part of NATO, an organization you probably feel is socialist, so you'd probably prefer us to be a third world nation.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
77. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 11:24 InBlack
 
Excuse me for butting in (no pun intended) into this argument I dont usually defend Rollingthundre's opinions but claiming that smoking costs more in tax dollars than the industry brings in is a rather weak argument.

This industry is allfuckingpowerful. Is that a good thing or bad? Well everyone knows my opinions on conglomerate corporations,.
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
76. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 11:14 yuastnav
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:07:
[...]
We'll be a totalitarian 3rd world shithole before you know it, I hope you pat yourself on the back when it happens.

The United States want to install a tyrannical ruler and leave the NATO? Where did you get that information? :/
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
75. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 11:07 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:04:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:53:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:27:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:06:
Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:58:
Defending a dude who was pointing a laser at both an aircraft and a policy helicopter and defending smoking in the same topic, wow. You have to admire the nerve if nothing else, LOL.

Where did I defend smoking? I have nerve? I'm not the one name calling and tossing out bullshit left and right. Look to your boyfriend beamer for that.

"I'm not insulting anyone, ask your boyfriend!"


Hehehehe.



Also, dude, you love slippery slope arguments. More importantly, you think everything is a nanny state unless the government is already doing it. Drunk driving laws? Swell! Any other new law limiting what you can do? Nanny state!

Stop twisting things, did I ever even suggest being against laws in general? Or drunk driving laws? Holy fucking strawman batman!
I am not saying you are against laws.
I am saying you are against new laws that may change your habits.

Old laws that changed other people's habits? Those are fine.
New laws that change your habits? NANNY STATE!


See how I'm not saying you hate laws but instead saying you use the term "nanny state" very hypocritically.

That is the slippery slope right there. Cigarettes are still legal right? How bout fattening coca cola and MC Doubles with cheese? When you start allowing politicans to outlaw things because it'll make you feel better or whatever, that's the definition of slippery slope.

We'll be a totalitarian 3rd world shithole before you know it, I hope you pat yourself on the back when it happens.

Nice job passing the Monsanto Protection act btw dems, when people start getting cancer from genetically enhanced food and can't sue, maybe we can outlaw food in general because it's too dangerous.

I'm so glad the liberals are on the case to protect us helpless citizens.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
74. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 11:04 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:53:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:27:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:06:
Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:58:
Defending a dude who was pointing a laser at both an aircraft and a policy helicopter and defending smoking in the same topic, wow. You have to admire the nerve if nothing else, LOL.

Where did I defend smoking? I have nerve? I'm not the one name calling and tossing out bullshit left and right. Look to your boyfriend beamer for that.

"I'm not insulting anyone, ask your boyfriend!"


Hehehehe.



Also, dude, you love slippery slope arguments. More importantly, you think everything is a nanny state unless the government is already doing it. Drunk driving laws? Swell! Any other new law limiting what you can do? Nanny state!

Stop twisting things, did I ever even suggest being against laws in general? Or drunk driving laws? Holy fucking strawman batman!
I am not saying you are against laws.
I am saying you are against new laws that may change your habits.

Old laws that changed other people's habits? Those are fine.
New laws that change your habits? NANNY STATE!


See how I'm not saying you hate laws but instead saying you use the term "nanny state" very hypocritically.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
73. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 10:53 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:27:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:06:
Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:58:
Defending a dude who was pointing a laser at both an aircraft and a policy helicopter and defending smoking in the same topic, wow. You have to admire the nerve if nothing else, LOL.

Where did I defend smoking? I have nerve? I'm not the one name calling and tossing out bullshit left and right. Look to your boyfriend beamer for that.

"I'm not insulting anyone, ask your boyfriend!"


Hehehehe.



Also, dude, you love slippery slope arguments. More importantly, you think everything is a nanny state unless the government is already doing it. Drunk driving laws? Swell! Any other new law limiting what you can do? Nanny state!

Stop twisting things, did I ever even suggest being against laws in general? Or drunk driving laws? Holy fucking strawman batman!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
72. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 10:27 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:06:
Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:58:
Defending a dude who was pointing a laser at both an aircraft and a policy helicopter and defending smoking in the same topic, wow. You have to admire the nerve if nothing else, LOL.

Where did I defend smoking? I have nerve? I'm not the one name calling and tossing out bullshit left and right. Look to your boyfriend beamer for that.

"I'm not insulting anyone, ask your boyfriend!"


Hehehehe.



Also, dude, you love slippery slope arguments. More importantly, you think everything is a nanny state unless the government is already doing it. Drunk driving laws? Swell! Any other new law limiting what you can do? Nanny state!
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
71. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 10:08 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:56:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:48:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:41:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:39:
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:29:
You brought this up tough guy. You're the one who launched into the 'why is so smoking so demonized?!!' shit. No one cares if you want to smoke yourself to death, we care about how much it costs society in health and dollars. Yeah no shit smoking increases the risk of cancer, glad you caught up to 30 years ago. That's why the government taxes the shit out of it and restricts advertising to try and prevent people from getting addicted.

The alcohol argument is brainless and invalid. Alcohol can be used recreationally in a responsible manner, cigarettes on the other hand are engineered to be addictive. You can drink without health impact, you cannot smoke without health impact. This is scientific fact, not opinion. Smoking affects general respiratory functions, lowers your immune system capability and a dozen other very nasty things OTHER than cancer risk.

You can gnash your teeth and call me names all you want but you can't hide from the truth. Smoking is on the decline in most countries so the governments approach is working. That's why tobacco companies are getting into the food industry, the writing is on the wall.

So stop trying to change the goalposts and pretend I'm trying to get you to quit. I don't give a SHIT about you, smoke a damned chimney you rude little ankle biter. Just don't sit there and preach to me about the government being so mean to tobacco and launch into hysterics about health care when you are a part of the problem.

Alcohol does as much damage and can aid in the cause of long term illness like alzheimers. It's just as bad as smoking. I'm not changing goalposts one bit. Never heard of anyone being killed by a smoking driver, however you hear about drunk driving deaths daily. So yeah I do think you're wrong. Yet there's no major tax on alcohol in comparison to cigarettes and you see a booze ad every 5 minutes.

Yup, you can get killed by a drunk driver, so drunk driving is outlawed.
You can get killed by second hand smoke, plus it makes your clothes smell like ass, so public smoking is outlawed.

Makes sense to me. Though, I suppose, it's a nanny state thing. Maybe we should relax drunk driving laws. If I choose to drive drunk that's my decision, not the gubments!

You'd know all about nanny state things I'm sure. Maybe we should outlaw cars too, while we're outlawing guns and everything else so you can live in your little bubble world and be safe while papa Barry watches over you.

Woosh.

No I got it, it was just a stupid fucking thing to imply. But keep your bullshit up, it's comical.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
70. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 10:06 RollinThundr
 
Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:58:
Defending a dude who was pointing a laser at both an aircraft and a policy helicopter and defending smoking in the same topic, wow. You have to admire the nerve if nothing else, LOL.

Where did I defend smoking? I have nerve? I'm not the one name calling and tossing out bullshit left and right. Look to your boyfriend beamer for that.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
69. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 09:58 Verno
 
Defending a dude who was pointing a laser at both an aircraft and a policy helicopter and defending smoking in the same topic, wow. You have to admire the nerve if nothing else, LOL.  
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Infamous Second Son
Watching: Midsomer Murders, Dominion, The Knick
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
108 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo