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:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue

Happy Groundhog Day, as today marks the convergence of two of the Blue Tower's favorite occasions, with it also being Super Bowl Sunday. Word is our local Staten Island Chuck and nearby Punxsutawaney Phil each saw their shadows, scientific proof we should expect six more weeks of wintery weather, though Shipoke Sheena contradictorily says to expect an early spring, and she's not phar phrom Phil, if you'll phorgive the phorced alliteration. I hope she turns out to be right, because the six or so weeks of winter we've gotten so far around these parts have been pretty rough, and some warmth and sunshine will be welcome. Speaking of welcome, yes, the Super Bowl is tonight, and I certainly am looking forward to that, as always. This year's game holds a lot of promise, too, as it embodies so many classic conflicts: The AFC's one seed versus the one seed from the NFC, offense versus defense, the old QB versus the kid, the run versus the pass, good versus evil, orange orange versus lime green ... this one has it all.

R.I.P.: Oscar-winning actor Maximilian Schell dies at 83.

Super Links: Thanks Ant and Acleacius.
Play: Space Flash Arena.
4th and Goal 2014.
Links: Super Bowl questions you're embarrassed to ask your friends.
Christie Asks for Public's Patience While He Comes Up with New Story. Satire warning.
Story: This random guy gets the night of his life in Bud Light's insane Super Bowl ad.
Science: Mysterious undersea “crop circles” finally explained.
Media: Heavy Metal Gamer Plays - Tecmo Super Bowl 2014- Seattle Seahawks Vs Denver Broncos.
A cars worst nightmare. It blends! Thanks The Flying Penguin.
David Letterman - Bill Murray's Peter Pan Flying Entrance.
The Funnies: Then and Now « EXTRALIFE.

View
55 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

55. Re: Super Bowl XLVIII (48) Feb 4, 2014, 07:41 Ant
 
jdreyer wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 14:30:
offense versus defense, the old QB versus the kid, the run versus the pass, good versus evil, orange orange versus lime green

Don't forget "hawks versus horses."

I got the fixins for margaritas and nachos supreme.
I'd rather watch animals play football. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOQp--b2SNI was pretty accurate.
 
Avatar 1957
 
Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx and Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net ...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 11:12 Beamer
 
jacobvandy wrote on Feb 3, 2014, 02:38:
Beamer wrote on Feb 3, 2014, 01:23:
You don't think that, if it was legal, you wouldn't have more people trying it out of curiosity?

Right now, illegality and it simply being difficult to access absolutely limits who is doing it. Obviously a large amount of people still have access to it, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that there are plenty of people that never try it because they never have the opportunity, and that the legal issues further discourage them from overcoming that. I don't think many people would disagree that no one listens to what the government discourages us from. Some, however, do listen to what they prohibit us from.

Removing all barriers will absolutely increase first time users, and for things like meth, first time users are never only time users.
This isn't something like marijuana, which is harmless. This is something that legitimately destroys people.

Also, the "if people want to ruin themselves I say let them" argument below Prez' is a terrible one.

Lol, well since you avoid everything else in my post under the pretense of disagreeing with the basic premise of personal liberty laid out in the first sentence, could you at least explain why you think that's so terrible? Or are you just being typically disingenuous like so many others who are so quick to shrug off any notion of legalizing drugs? I don't think the government needs to be in the business of protecting people from themselves. Certainly not if the only goal is to prevent your "large amount of people" (I'd wager less than 1% of the population, are those who are inclined to want to do hard drugs and the only thing stopping them is a law) from harming themselves because they're stupid. It wouldn't be ignorance, either, because you would still have education of the dangers out there, as well as resources for those who need help when they've gotten in over their heads. Just like you do now for tobacco and alcohol, and those aren't even a fraction as harmful. At some point you need to allow common sense to do its work, or else you end up with Idiocracy.

Again, do you really think all of the negative consequences of these drugs being illegal is worth protecting that small subsect of the population from doing something dumb?

I don't think it's "typically disingenuous."

The government isn't in the business of protecting us from ourselves. It is in the business of protecting us from idiots around us.

Do you know what methheads are? Dangerous. And expensive. The fewer we have, the better. Hence, meth is illegal.

We know, conclusively, marijuana doesn't have the same effects. This is why it's rapidly becoming legal. And, when I worked in criminal law, possession was very rarely prosecuted. Why? It wasted everyone's time. There are only so many judges, and bringing everyone possessing into court would clog things more than they're already clogged.

But meth? Meth is a very different thing.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 10:40 xXBatmanXx
 
InBlack wrote on Feb 3, 2014, 06:47:
Holy Batman offtopic! Way to go Bats!

DROVE THAT SOB RIGHT INTO THE HILL DIDN'T I!?



I like reading the stuff....oh well.
 
Avatar 10714
 
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. / Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
Playing: New dad
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: Finally! Feb 3, 2014, 09:06 WarPig
 
You picked against them in the BTI league? (Thanks!)
No I didn't, the site automatically picks for you if you don't make picks yourself and I didn't make any picks after the regular season was over. (You're welcome!)
 
Avatar 1750
 
________________________________

GO SEAHAWKS!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 08:56 Pigeon
 
Hoop wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 23:15:
Ouch thats gotta harsh the buzz in Colorado.
Did Seattle at least manage to keep it classy after the win?
Sherman did'nt dry hump every Broncos player & wave his Junk at them I hope.

Nope he landed wrong and injured his jawankle. Probably should have been pulling starters at that point, not even a good Manning could have come back by then. And there was nothing good about Manning or the reset of the Broncos for the entire game. I swear something was wrong with Peyton's arm, he was only throwing short passes, and the few he threw down the field were off. Certainly not the laser like precision I'm used to seeing from him.

The Hawks on the other hand were on. They capitalized on every mistake the Broncos made and gave no quarter. They played like a super bowl team should.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: Finally! Feb 3, 2014, 07:33 Mr. Tact
 
WarPig wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 23:01:
I'm old enough that I had a favorite team before the Seahawks even existed. I liked the Vikings because Tarkington was so fun to watch and watched them lose three Superbowls. We got the Seahawks in 1976 and I've watched pretty much every game since then and a good deal of it was really ugly.

It was all worth it!

BEST
GAME
EVAR
!!!!

You picked against them in the BTI league? (Thanks!)

This comment was edited on Feb 3, 2014, 07:45.
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 06:47 InBlack
 
Holy Batman offtopic! Way to go Bats!  
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 03:20 jdreyer
 
jacobvandy wrote on Feb 3, 2014, 02:38:

Lol, well since you avoid everything else in my post under the pretense of disagreeing with the basic premise of personal liberty laid out in the first sentence, could you at least explain why you think that's so terrible? Or are you just being typically disingenuous like so many others who are so quick to shrug off any notion of legalizing drugs? I don't think the government needs to be in the business of protecting people from themselves. Certainly not if the only goal is to prevent your "large amount of people" (I'd wager less than 1% of the population, are those who are inclined to want to do hard drugs and the only thing stopping them is a law) from harming themselves because they're stupid. It wouldn't be ignorance, either, because you would still have education of the dangers out there, as well as resources for those who need help when they've gotten in over their heads. Just like you do now for tobacco and alcohol, and those aren't even a fraction as harmful. At some point you need to allow common sense to do its work, or else you end up with Idiocracy.

Again, do you really think all of the negative consequences of these drugs being illegal is worth protecting that small subsect of the population from doing something dumb?

The problem with ascribing an ideology to a policy is that problems tend to be too complex to be dealt with via ideology. A libertarian ideology would support marketing heroin laced lollipops to 5 year olds b/c Personal Responsibility! People should be allowed to buy plutonium and weaponized anthrax b/c Personal Responsibility, and if they actually detonate a nuke, should we then apply the law to them. It's ridiculous. I'm picking on libertarianism, but this applies equally to liberal or conservative or religious ideologies.

I think we should apply what works, and avoid what doesn't, regardless of ideology:
- Criminalizing drug use has not worked. Decriminalization has worked in places like Portugal.
- Gun control has worked (see Japan, UK, Australia) in greatly reducing gun deaths, although it would be almost impossible to reduce gun ownership in the USA for a variety of reasons (political, cultural, etc.).
- Vaccinations work, and have not been proven to have side effects worse than the diseases they protect against.
- Criminalizing abortions has not worked. They happen anyway, although in much less sanitary conditions that result in much more death. Keep them legal, but rare with widespread education and contraception availability. Countries with both of these in place have very low rates of both unintended pregnancies and abortions.

And on, and on.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 02:44 jdreyer
 
Beamer wrote on Feb 3, 2014, 01:23:
You don't think that, if it was legal, you wouldn't have more people trying it out of curiosity?

Right now, illegality and it simply being difficult to access absolutely limits who is doing it. Obviously a large amount of people still have access to it, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that there are plenty of people that never try it because they never have the opportunity, and that the legal issues further discourage them from overcoming that. I don't think many people would disagree that no one listens to what the government discourages us from. Some, however, do listen to what they prohibit us from.

Removing all barriers will absolutely increase first time users, and for things like meth, first time users are never only time users.
This isn't something like marijuana, which is harmless. This is something that legitimately destroys people.

Also, the "if people want to ruin themselves I say let them" argument below Prez' is a terrible one.

Right. Take each drug on a case-by-case basis. Something fairly harmless like MJ should be regulated like alcohol. Right now highschoolers have a much easier time scoring a doob than they do buying beer, b/c dealers don't card. Legalizing and regulating MJ is key to preventing underage usage, where it can actually do some damage.

Other drugs that are either physically addictive or cause bodily harm perhaps shouldn't be sold, but should be decriminalized. No more sending people to prison for possession. Make the government a supplier and subsidize it, easily undercutting the black market price by orders of magnitudes. Who will pay $100 for a gram of cocaine, when the gov't sells it as a prescription for $5? It's no longer worth it for criminals to import it at such low prices, they'd have to sell at a loss. There's no profit. And the gov't doesn't cut it's coke with Borax. So, none of those health problems occur. For a 95% discount, every addict will accept the condition of attending a treatment program. No more prison sentences will stop destroying people's ability to get a job. Will some of these gov't supplied drugs end up in the general population? I'm sure some will, but no more than what's there now, and likely much less.

One more point: the total value of the raw poppy crop has been estimated at $5B. The cost of fighting heroin at all levels has been estimated at something like $20B. The world could save a ton of cash by just buying the poppy crop each year and dumping it in the ocean.

The "War on Drugs" is over. We lost. It's time to try some new tactics.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 02:40 harlock
 
Cutter wrote on Feb 3, 2014, 01:21:
Get yer bike back? No chance. Bust some kids smoking a doob? No problem.

anything that requires a bit of thinking is out of the question

only the low hanging fruit for these monkeys
 
Avatar 57944
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 02:38 jacobvandy
 
Beamer wrote on Feb 3, 2014, 01:23:
You don't think that, if it was legal, you wouldn't have more people trying it out of curiosity?

Right now, illegality and it simply being difficult to access absolutely limits who is doing it. Obviously a large amount of people still have access to it, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that there are plenty of people that never try it because they never have the opportunity, and that the legal issues further discourage them from overcoming that. I don't think many people would disagree that no one listens to what the government discourages us from. Some, however, do listen to what they prohibit us from.

Removing all barriers will absolutely increase first time users, and for things like meth, first time users are never only time users.
This isn't something like marijuana, which is harmless. This is something that legitimately destroys people.

Also, the "if people want to ruin themselves I say let them" argument below Prez' is a terrible one.

Lol, well since you avoid everything else in my post under the pretense of disagreeing with the basic premise of personal liberty laid out in the first sentence, could you at least explain why you think that's so terrible? Or are you just being typically disingenuous like so many others who are so quick to shrug off any notion of legalizing drugs? I don't think the government needs to be in the business of protecting people from themselves. Certainly not if the only goal is to prevent your "large amount of people" (I'd wager less than 1% of the population, are those who are inclined to want to do hard drugs and the only thing stopping them is a law) from harming themselves because they're stupid. It wouldn't be ignorance, either, because you would still have education of the dangers out there, as well as resources for those who need help when they've gotten in over their heads. Just like you do now for tobacco and alcohol, and those aren't even a fraction as harmful. At some point you need to allow common sense to do its work, or else you end up with Idiocracy.

Again, do you really think all of the negative consequences of these drugs being illegal is worth protecting that small subsect of the population from doing something dumb?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 02:14 jdreyer
 
xXBatmanXx wrote on Feb 3, 2014, 00:34:
Wow. Hate to say it - was very painful to watch.....congrats 'Hawks....

Yeah, pretty awful game to watch. I had no pony in the race, but was hoping for a close game. Switched off after the the runback for TD first play of the second half. Should have switched off at the half. This game reminded me of all those Bills games back in the 90s where they'd get blown out in the SB by Aikman and Emmet.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 01:23 Beamer
 
Prez wrote on Feb 3, 2014, 01:01:
Beamer wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 17:38:
Prez wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 17:12:
xXBatmanXx wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 15:53:

Drug od at 46? Hows that legal argument now?

So if someone commits suicide with a gun should those be illegal too? I am extremely libertarian when it comes to individual rights, so yes, I absolutely think drugs should be legal.

All drugs?
Meth and PCP?

Yep. It's not like the people addicted to stuff like that are having any problem getting it while it's illegal. All we're doing is wasting tax money and wasting the time and efforts of good guys like Bats on what amounts to a completely futile effort. Why don't we instead spend some of those wasted resources on getting the people who need help with their addictions rehabilitated? Criminalizing them and incarcerating them does way more harm than good.

You don't think that, if it was legal, you wouldn't have more people trying it out of curiosity?

Right now, illegality and it simply being difficult to access absolutely limits who is doing it. Obviously a large amount of people still have access to it, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that there are plenty of people that never try it because they never have the opportunity, and that the legal issues further discourage them from overcoming that. I don't think many people would disagree that no one listens to what the government discourages us from. Some, however, do listen to what they prohibit us from.

Removing all barriers will absolutely increase first time users, and for things like meth, first time users are never only time users.
This isn't something like marijuana, which is harmless. This is something that legitimately destroys people.

Also, the "if people want to ruin themselves I say let them" argument below Prez' is a terrible one.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 01:21 Cutter
 
TheLeech wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 23:24:
You guys keep legalizing all these drugs, you're gonna put poor Bats out of a job!

Or more like we can get cops focusing on real, actual crime and help to those with addiction issues. Toronto has a plague of bike thefts. Get yer bike back? No chance. Bust some kids smoking a doob? No problem.

 
Avatar 25394
 
James Woods: Oh that's fun. That sounds like you had a fun time. Where would I fit in with the fun time, huh? Where does James Woods fit into the fun?
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 01:01 Prez
 
Beamer wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 17:38:
Prez wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 17:12:
xXBatmanXx wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 15:53:

Drug od at 46? Hows that legal argument now?

So if someone commits suicide with a gun should those be illegal too? I am extremely libertarian when it comes to individual rights, so yes, I absolutely think drugs should be legal.

All drugs?
Meth and PCP?

Yep. It's not like the people addicted to stuff like that are having any problem getting it while it's illegal. All we're doing is wasting tax money and wasting the time and efforts of good guys like Bats on what amounts to a completely futile effort. Why don't we instead spend some of those wasted resources on getting the people who need help with their addictions rehabilitated? Criminalizing them and incarcerating them does way more harm than good.
 
Avatar 17185
 
Goodbye my Monte boy. May you rest in the peace you never knew in life.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 00:34 xXBatmanXx
 
Wow. Hate to say it - was very painful to watch.....congrats 'Hawks....  
Avatar 10714
 
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. / Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
Playing: New dad
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 3, 2014, 00:26 jacobvandy
 
Beamer wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 17:38:
Prez wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 17:12:
xXBatmanXx wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 15:53:

Drug od at 46? Hows that legal argument now?

So if someone commits suicide with a gun should those be illegal too? I am extremely libertarian when it comes to individual rights, so yes, I absolutely think drugs should be legal.

All drugs?
Meth and PCP?

Why not? If people want to ravage themselves with chemicals, let them be idiots and die terrible deaths. Legalization solves a lot more problems than maybe keeping a few weak-minded individuals away from trying and/or abusing those drugs is worth. The least of which is the huge networks of underground crime that are causing most drug-related violence. Unfortunately, there's more money to be made in taking bribes (including crooked lobbyists on criminal payroll insisting drugs stay illegal) and running private prisons than there is to start selling name-brand meth at Walgreens... So it's not gonna happen.

Totally different situation than marijuana (huge market for that and not very profitable in the smaller amounts achievable in secret), which is why you're seeing this domino effect of legalization all across the country. The powers that be are starting to see that it's more worthwhile to legitimize the weed market than it is to keep jailing people for no reason and seizing the occasional duffle bag of cash from underground operations -- it's only a coincidence that in this case, personal liberty is aligned with the best interests of corporate and bureaucratic greed.

Legalizing narcotics does not mean you suddenly stop policing people's behavior, either. It is still illegal to drive under the influence, or go batshit insane on angel dust and attack someone. These things already happen regardless of the drug being illegal, because people are stupid and do stupid things. It is not the government's job to try to prevent that.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 2, 2014, 23:55 dj LiTh
 
mag wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 22:14:
jdreyer wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 18:55:
Prez wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 17:12:
xXBatmanXx wrote on Feb 2, 2014, 15:53:

Drug od at 46? Hows that legal argument now?

So if someone commits suicide with a gun should those be illegal too? I am extremely libertarian when it comes to individual rights, so yes, I absolutely think drugs should be legal.

It's funny you should mention that. The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides. Countries with much stricter gun laws (i.e. Japan, UK, Australia) have not only lower gun deaths, but also lower suicide rates. Guns just make it way to easy with no chance of reversal, unlike other methods of suicides.

Prohibition of drugs, on the other hand simply hasn't worked over the past 40 years, despite billions of dollars and tens of thousands of law enforcement personnel applied.

I'm for what is proven to work. Decriminalization of drugs appears to work, at least it has in Portugal and in other "experiments." It's a model to emulate. As for guns, I'm under no illusions that we'll get gun ownership rates as low as countries like Japan, nor will we make gun ownership laws as strict as that either. But unlike drugs, restricting guns has worked in other countries to reduce both homicides and suicides.


I don't think overall suicide rates are correlated very strongly with gun laws.

Wikipedia

Japan has a far greater suicide rate, the UK's is only slightly lower than the US's, Canada (with more permissive gun laws) has a lower rate than the UK...

Interesting thing to note about Japans high suicide rate is that apparently its very wide spread for their police force to site suicide in murder cases that remain unsolved so as to save face.
 
Avatar 46370
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 2, 2014, 23:24 TheLeech
 
You guys keep legalizing all these drugs, you're gonna put poor Bats out of a job!  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 2, 2014, 23:15 Hoop
 
Ouch thats gotta harsh the buzz in Colorado.
Did Seattle at least manage to keep it classy after the win?
Sherman did'nt dry hump every Broncos player & wave his Junk at them I hope.

This comment was edited on Feb 2, 2014, 23:58.
 
Avatar 34289
 
Um .. Behind you...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo