@shepwrite said:

I don't blame him, either... I think you pick off the ball, period.

I also don't blame Daboll for taking a shot. Watson was open; it was one of McCoy's few misses. One of about a dozen things that had to go the Jets way. Then again, they kept missing field goals.

The three things that stood out to me that lost us the game: Stuckey's fumble, Rogers not sacking Sanchez at the five to make it 3rd and 18, and McCoy missing a very open Watson on the last possession.

The second to last drive was the one that I would want back. MH got behind the Jets and McCoy missed by a couple of yards, he hits that and it's TD game over.

Wow, I have been away for a while gentlemen and I think this is is the first topic where everyone has agreed. Most of the valid points have been made; but if we want to focus on the real originating reason for marihuana prohibition we need to focus more on the paper mills and the DuPont companies patents from the early 20th century. It was (and still probably isn't) about health but once again money. Leaving the actual consumption of marijuana behind for a moment, Hemp in and of itself may be the most versatile naturally occurring substance on earth.

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is...ijuana-illegal/

http://www.articlesbase.com/spirituality-a...tes-908660.html

These are just the first couple results for history of marijuana prohibition from yahoo.

Side note to this exchange. Vapor, youwere asking me a couple of months back for some reading on the philosophical God, I don't remember if I recommended anything or not, but Locke is a very good place to start. You conversation about natural law is what brought it to my mind. It has been almost ten years but I think this is the one An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

By the by, I still maintain that homosexuality only becomes prevalent in a society is when the future existence of humans is no longer in doubt. So you were probably correct in your bell curve assessment and I would wager there would be a direct correlation in surrounding population on the curve.

Cal, what the hell, are you kidding me. Sir, don't pretend to be of rational conversation and then piggyback on that.

Indeed I do believe that moral frameworks are essentially designed to maximize human life. Now I cannot pretend to know what the ends are to these means as I am not God/ nor am I enlightened enough to catch anything more than the occasional fleeting glimpse of how this end may look. This is why at the beginning I said that you and I were having more of a religious argument rather than a political one. And don't forget that I am not going on the religious definition/preconception of God. I have explained in detail before that I try to set my prism through the philosophical definition of God.

Kinda of quickie here so forgive me. The wife spread eagle argument wasn't necessarily applying to arranged marriages, merely I am saying that if the partner is not willing then it is wrong no matter who says otherwise. The 'it takes two to tango' scenario, if one is not tangoing and is in fact pleading for the band to stop I do not believe the dance to be immoral (admit it that is kind of a funny analogy).

On adultery/polygamy argument I must have missed the boat the first time so let me take another angle that concerns both. In a world of 6 billion people the concerns over this argument are definitely diminished, so image that there are only 428 people left on earth (I pulled that number from a memory of 2012 when they were talking about how much different DNA was needed to repopulate the human race. So we pair off those 428 for the purpose of re-population. Take either scenario, a man wooing/domineering/conning 10 women to become his wives and only have relations with him. Or the man who has his mate, decides it's not enough and finds 9 more willing to have fun on the side. In both cases imagine that all 10 women have his children. In the polygamy situation at least it is known and plans can be changed to accommodate. Now, in the adulteress case, the 9 other children were born without the knowledge of the rest. This could easily result in incest situation where the gene pool is dumbed down possibly ending any chance of re-population. Which by the way, has been a problem in the animal community where a 'stud' has nailed too many partners. I know for a fact the certain breed lineage in dogs has been all but ruined due to inbreeding.

Well you need to decide whether we're having a nature law argument or a societal law. The theory goes that when we enter a social compact (for our own safety, collection of good and materials) that we forgo what once may have been 'right'under natural law. I am not very brushed up on this argument so that description might not be complete.

But Adultery, IMO, isn't a good example of the primal instinct to spread our seed, but more of the primal instinct of jealousy and coveting. And too lazy to look it up, but I thought pedophilia was before teenage years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia Wiki just calls it child sexual abuse, just for clarification the example I used in the previous post I was referring to prepubescent.

Your example of what societies has deemed right only goes to my point. Just because the government laid out (for arguments sake) a beautiful lady at my feet and said 'despite her objections she is yours' doesn't mean it is right for me to take her. Also, technically in bestiality we have no idea if the animal is objecting or not.

Vapor, just be careful with moral relativism. Under this argument you can say the only thing that Hitler did wrong, was loose the war.

@vaportrail said:

smalls, name one thing that truly is absolutely wrong.

Bestiality, Adultery, Pedophilia, there's nothing natural or beneficial to the human race in any of them. I could and am willing to list others but admittedly the line becomes harder to pin point. I will maintain to this day that jealousy and coveting are absolutely wrong; but they are also transient as they are emotive in nature and you can take the wrong (read negative in this instance) and use it for positive motivation. Murder leads to self defense and also revenge principles that I know personally would override my Principle. Example, I walk in immediately after you fatally harm my family and even know you are of no immediate threat to me, I cannot say that my knowing murder is absolutely wrong is going to stop me.

Despite all the generalities on both sides of the argument, and Vapor I completely disagree with you that there is no wrong answer. There most definitely is (but I believe that to be more of a religious argument).

Basically you guys are arguing the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. In a Republic there are set rules that can only be changed by a complex method. A Democracy on the other hand is an ever changing set of rules because it is implicit on majority rule.

No T, that's not how I read it. What he's saying is that the gov subsidies are what allows and even promotes them to violate their land. I pretty sure he's on our side in gov getting out of the farming business.

For me part of what is so confusing and frustrating is the obesity scale in and of itself. This is link to a BMI site... according to their numbers @5'10" 185lbs, I am overweight. Not obese, but still overweight, according to this scale I would have to be around 170 to even get to the high end of normal weight. I realize that none of you know me from Adam but @170 I look very sickly. I was only at that range once in my adult life and it was a result of a head trauma causing me to loose (desensitize) my sense of taste. For comparisons sake, when I was in high school, running, lifting and playing baseball I was carrying a consistent 215.

@vaportrail said:

I think you mean obscure.

But I really don't see what's obscure about one of the most dangerous cities in America attempting to curb gun crimes by making handguns illegal. What about that strikes you as obscure rationalization.

Think about that for a second Vapor. They tried to curb GUN crime by making the instrument illegal. And this is what I will never understand...is the theory that someone is willing to hold up the liquor store with a LEGAL gun...but would use a knife to rob a liquor rather than use an ILLEGAL gun? I just don't understand if your willing to commit a crime does it really matter if the gun is legal or not? Doesn't the law just prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves with the same weapons the CRIMINALS already use.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is the text...and being that Militia is in noway referring to a government formed group (it just wasn't, don't throw the national guard at me that is not what the founders were referring to, they were referring to as it says a citizenry that had the right to armed for defense) then any citizen as the right to be armed for the common defense.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24...gal-immigrants/

I know it is fox and that means it is dumb and stupid to begin with for some. But if even meetings are taking place then it is further evidence that this President as more balls than all since Kennedy. If he is even passively considering this idea it shows that HE knows what's right for the country (his party?) and will stop at nothing to get it done.

Cal, that was the Department of Labor (I believe) in a PSA urging any undocumented worker who feels they are under paid to call the administration to "ensure" equal pay.

@vaportrail said:

I kind of agree with you, smalls. I don't think that forcing everyone to have jobs close to home would be good for the economy. Whether or not this article pans out as real (i have my doubts), the switch should only come about when there's a necessity. I mean, I think in the long run, it'd be better, even if it xxxxed the economy, but a very horrible situation is the only way (realistically) that we'd ever ween ourselves off of it. It'd force the scientific community to come up with an alternative. Unfortunately, I don't think artificial inflation would solve more long-term problems than it creates.

But the only way to legitimately pull off what you're talking about is if it is true; we're actually out of oil. If the US pulled this and there wasn't an equal artificial rise in other countries then all hell would break loose. I mean what this would lead to is in no way going to be peaceful to begin with. But you add the fact that there would be seriously pissed off people with someone to accurately blame in their cross hairs...not pretty. That is why I said (well hinted) that this couldn't be an effective cause and effect policy decision. IE. price out of competition to bring about intense research and development. The reason is quite simple b/c you would have priced the working class out of a living with no (minimum) alternative means.

@vaportrail said:

7 seems kinda crazy. However, I'd say that if this is really going to happen and it's a not just a fear mongering article, then Obama has balls. For a change in oil consumption to actually occur and shit to get done, it needs to be necessary. If this is what Obama is doing, it's a huge gamble, but it could be the kick in the ass necessary to get us off of fossil fuels, and enough money put into R&D of alternatives. On the other hand, this could amount to nothing and f*ck up everything. Or it could be complete bullshit.

In the midst of this economy...how could this help at all. All $7 gas would do is force people to change jobs or not eat. It adds up extremely quick. Example: About a year before gas went up to $4 I was working in Parma Heights for 10/hr. I live in Elyria, it was kind of a far drive (about 45 depending on if I took the turnpike) but @around $2/gallon it wasn't that much to deal with. By time it got up to $4 I had to quit. It was no longer close to worth it b/c of the extra gas money per week. My wife and I figured it out; by time we took gas money and taxes (neither of which is my bosses fault) I was making between 3-4/hr. Now take that to $7 and I would have been loosing money going to work. You can try to 'ween' us off all you want...until there is a fuel source that is not only 'plentiful' but also has machines to run on it all you're going to do is drive the country even further into the ground.

Wow, this thread has gone a number of different ways. If I am reading it right then: Steve, you are wrong on the first part of the argument. You said Miranda shouldn't exist because people shouldn't be view as innocent. You may off backpedaled off this a bit but that was your first premise. As was pointed out, the right to remain silent exist for the same reason that most of the Bill of Rights was written; government cannot be trusted. Remember these were men not far removed from being able to be lock up indefinitely by THEIR OWN government for next to nothing. The right to remain silent is has inherent in the American way of life as the right to bear arms. At times they are both necessary for self preservation.

The second half of the thread concerning torture. I am not even sure you guys are arguing anymore. All that we've shown is that everyone would torture and/or take out revenge/rage on anyone that as done harm to their loved ones. That isn't exactly surprising to me. In fact, with the possible exception of Heck, everyone as admitted they would like to at least turn a blind eye to the government to using advanced measures in the ticking time bomb scenario. The problem seems to be defining what constitutes ticking time bomb. How many people affected, how much time before the attack, how credible is the attack. For me this comes down to how we define mass attacks, whether by US citizens or foreign combatants, if they are acts of war then screw the Geneva Convention and the UN, if they are crimes, then the Bill of Rights must stay in tact.

Vapor, just a point of clarification (and no I don't think our police/military would be able to go this far), but the UN law trumps US law due to some provision entered into a long while ago. Sorry, too lazy to look it up now, but there is a mutual compact agreement of some sort that declares UN laws are the ruling law of its members.

Absolutely ridiculous that they were given anything. In fact, they should have faced some sort of criminal charges themselves. And the "they didn't know they were trespassing b/c there was no sign?" I mean seriously, that is their justification, what were they just going on a friendly family walk and happened to wonder out of their country and into this guys backyard. But I think the thing that bugs me the most is that if these were US citizens they would have had no case. If Arizona has anything close to Ohio's castle law he would have been justified shooting on sight based on all the previous vandalism and attempted break-in's of his dwelling. I mean that is HIS family on HIS land and he is supposed to do nothing. Complete and udder BS.

All seriousness here Heck, I do understand that this is normally a quid pro quo thing, but how does this situation not meet the specifications of the statute.

http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/600.html

18 USC Section 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political

activity

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,

position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,

provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of

Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such

benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any

political activity or for the support of or opposition to any

candidate or any political party in connection with any general or

special election to any political office, or in connection with any

primary election or political convention or caucus held to select

candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this

title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

AMENDMENTS

1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for

"fined not more than $10,000".

1976 - Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum

allowable fine.

1972 - Pub. L. 92-225 struck out "work," after "position,",

inserted "contract, appointment," after "compensation," and "or any

special consideration in obtaining any such benefit," after "Act of

Congress,", and substituted "in connection with any general or

special election to any political office, or in connection with any

primary election or political convention or caucus held to select

candidates for any political office" for "in any election".