[RealJustme]

Natalie Cole, legendary songstress, dead at 65

Illegal drugs destroys more lives than any other cause but yet many look at drugs as harmless, Obama just released hundreds of drug dealers that law enforcement risked their lives to capture. Untold billions are spent monthly dealing with damages caused by illegal drugs, emergency rooms in our large cities across America are flooded daily with drug caused illnesses. Drugs are being smuggled over our southern borders by the ton and our government turns a blind eye to it. It's time to make dealing drugs a life sentence and start programs of treatment for those addicted until the supply dries up. Illegal drugs along with illegal aliens are this Nation's biggest problems, both go hand in hand. Get rid of illegal aliens and illegal drugs and the quality of life for Americans would take a giant leap forward.

Several years ago the government actually thought about lacing drugs in large cities to make anyone taking it become seriously nauseous as a deterrent. Who knows how many millions of lives that would have saved had they done that.

[Dogzilla]

Adult humans should have the right to abuse themselves however they want. I don't use any illegal drugs, and VERY few prescription ones.....but if someone is convinced that they need them, or weak enough that they can't resist them, then maybe we just allow them to weed themselves out. Battle them if they steal to get them, or commit crimes while using them, but otherwise leave them alone to wallow in their own misery.

[RealJustme]

I agree with letting the drug abusers kill themselves the problem is we all pay for it when they need medical attention for their self inflicted injuries. I would go after the dealers with no mercy, no second chances, you get caught selling illegal drugs, you pay the price and never see light again. Sure it would cost millions to keep them in prison but it would save millions of lives and billions in associated costs.

[Dogzilla]

Ummm....Obamacare makes them all have insurance, so that you DON'T have to pay all that.

And.....The government should sell the drugs. That will eliminate the criminal element from it, AND raise some tax money. Seems to me that that's a Win/Win/Win situation.

[RealJustme]

Ummm....Obamacare makes them all have insurance, so that you DON'T have to pay all that.

Do you "really" think Obamacare isn't costing us tax payers? :o

[sillydaddy]

The only thing that worries me about all this legalized drug use.....is that some day I may need to depend on

someone that turns out to be stoned out of his mind at the time .....like the pilot on my flight or the

doctor that's about to cut into me to save my life!

I know! I know! But i'd like to think that the pilot and my doctor are law abiding and would not use

if the drugs are illegal.

[Dogzilla]

Everything costs us taxpayers. Obamacare makes healthcare of indigents cost us a little less.


PS....Alcohol is legal, but I can't drink it at work.

[Intrepid]

With a $6000.00 deductible there are damn few people using BummerCare.

WAIT! BummerCare was going to reduce everyones premiums by $2500.00 and no one was going to see their costs go up, "one dime."
What happened?

Oh, that's right...reality happened.

[Dogzilla]

The rightwinger capitalist insurance company assholes happened.

[RealJustme]

The rightwinger capitalist insurance company assholes happened.

No, libtards who have survived off tax payer's dollars with no concept of actually working and paying more into the system than they take, happened. Libtards thought insurance companies could operate at a loss like public agencies and were shocked when they learned that's not the case. Dude, there are no free rides in life, someone has to pay for it.

[Dogzilla]

" libtards who have survived off tax payer's dollars"

You are referring to the black welfare community. While that IS somewhat of a problem, the REAL problems are the giant CORPORATE Welfare Queens that are sucking the taxpayers dry. They're rich enough to buy their very own politicians, and then direct those politicians to continuously cut taxes for the rich, and add taxes to the middle class.

You are correct about the leeches who take more from the government coffers than they give, but you've just got the wrong GROUP of them in your sites.

[RealJustme]

You are correct about the leeches who take more from the government coffers than they give, but you've just got the wrong GROUP of them in your sites.

I run a small business and there's this misconception out there by some that if I use a tax exemption to keep more of my own money I'm actually receiving money from the government. Businesses in America are the highest taxed in the world and it's time to cut those taxes back. I do agree that some businesses own certain politicians, look at all the favors the Clintons have done for those who donate to them.

Dog can you provide the name of an insurance company that gets more tax dollars than they pay? When you say they receive tax dollars are you talking about the portion of their own money they get to keep?

[johnforbes]

Dogzilla, "sights" versus "sites" in your post supra.

[Dogzilla]

In NO way was I referring to any kind of small business. As a small business owner, I KNOW of what you speak. I'm referring to the MegaCorporations.

Thanks, Forbes.

[RealJustme]

I'm referring to the MegaCorporations.

The only difference between a small business and a large business is they have more CPAs and attorneys to insure they take advantage of every tax exemption they can, plus they have huge slush funds to buy political influence; which makes good business sense. Without the trillions in taxes paid by those MegaCorporations this country would be in deep trouble. The thought process that by keeping more of what they earn is receiving tax money is wrong. Outside of green energy companies (which are politically driven), can you name a for profit business that actually receives tax money and pays none?

What I would like to see if a flat tax rate for everyone, it would drop my tax as a small business owner and raise taxes on the large companies. Libtards complain that businesses and the rich are getting over by using tax exemptions to keep to much of their money but those same libtards are against a flat tax rate that would keep them from doing that and we all know why. Those libtards are all for taking exemptions from everyone else, but they want to keep their exemptions.

[Dogzilla]

You have swallowed the bait....hook, line and sinker.

Let me give you a question to think about;

At a flat tax rate of 10%, who would be the most likely to endure a hardship from it?
A person who makes $20Thousand, and pays $2Thousand in taxes, or...
A person who makes $20Million, and pays $2Million in taxes?

[RealJustme]

Dog you're the one that's taken the libtard bait. It's already been discussed that a flat tax rate wouldn't kick in until a certain earnings rate, anyone earning below the poverty rate wouldn't have to pay a dime. For a family of 3 the first 20K would be tax free since that's below the poverty rate, anything after the poverty rate is taxed at 10%.

A family of 3 making 20K would pay "ZERO" taxes.

A family of 3 making 40K would pay 2K in taxes (Remember the first 20K no taxes )

A family of 3 making 200K would pay 18K in taxes ( 9 times the amount of those making 40K)

A family of 3 making 2 million would pay 198K in taxes. (99 times the amount of those making 40K)

Only a libtard would argue those making more money wouldn't be paying their "fair share" of taxes.

[elklindo69]

Legalize, Regulate, Tax

The 'war on drugs' is an abject failure.

Arresting people for possession of a dime bag of weed or a roach is nonsensical. Prisons are for murderers, armed robbers, child molesters, and other assorted violent criminals.

People who are drug addicts belong in clinics not prisons...

[RealJustme]

Prisons are for murderers, armed robbers, child molesters, and other assorted violent criminals.

Drug dealers have killed more people than all our wars combined, most crimes are a result of their drug dealings. Yet Obama has used his power to release thousands of drug dealers (killers) back on the streets. These weren't users, they were dealers, there should be no second chances for dealers.

[brandon]

I'm going to have to partially agree with Elk, Dog and Silly. I'm all for legalizing weed. Not the harder drugs. No jail time for drug addicts. I am however all for locking up drug dealers. Death penalty for the major ones. I personally see alcohol do more damage than weed. And Silly is right that many users seem unable to be responsible enough to not drive or do their job while drunk or stoned. (I was broadsided by a drunk and suffered some serious injuries)

Just as many others enjoy a cocktail in the evening I enjoy a nice early morning smoke before a surf. 8-)

[Clownkicker]

I've wondered for years why drunk driving isn't prosecuted as assault with a deadly weapon.
It's a very serious business. Our society shouldn't tolerate it the way it does. (presumably because many of our lawmakers are frequent drunks and wouldn't want to face jail themselves.)

I really don't see the difference, even though a car isn't designed specifically to kill or injure.
A baseball bat isn't designed to kill or injure someone either, but that's little comfort when used against you in an assault or battery.

[johnforbes]

These are difficult questions.

The Kennedy kid, and Lawford's son, recently spoke out against legalizing pot.

Both of them are recovering substance abusers, and they contend legalization would just put more mind-altering stuff out on the table.

[RealJustme]

I've wondered for years why drunk driving isn't prosecuted as assault with a deadly weapon.

Well clown that's because you're a libtard. There has to be injuries before an assault occurs.

[Dogzilla]

Justme....A family of three who make $20,001 will also pay $2K in taxes. Merely existing requires the first major amounts of your income, so a person with a very high income has a much larger discretionary income than someone merely getting by. Higher incomes deserve higher percentage taxation.

I'm NOT a libtard.

[RealJustme]

Justme....A family of three who make $20,001 will also pay $2K in taxes. Merely existing requires the first major amounts of your income, so a person with a very high income has a much larger discretionary income than someone merely getting by. Higher incomes deserve higher percentage taxation.

I'm NOT a libtard.

No they wouldn't under the plan I provided, they would only pay 20 cents. Read it again. I never said you were a libtard, I said that only a libtard would think those making more wouldn't be paying their fair share under a flat tax plan as outlined. It's a socialist view to hate those who have larger discretionary income and not appreciate that they are actually paying "FAR" more than their fair share of taxes.

[Clownkicker]

"There has to be injuries before an assault occurs."-RealTool

You are wrong, asparagus breath.
You're confusing "assault" with "battery".

Here is a common legal definition of the term "assault" from Cornell: (offer may vary in your jurisdiction)
"1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result."

Try again, Tool.
Why are you so soft on crime? :lol:

[johnforbes]

When Clownhicker is driving his Nash Rambler, it is a deadly weapon.

Ugly?

Sure, and we haven't even started to talk about the Rambler.

[RealJustme]

I've wondered for years why drunk driving isn't prosecuted as assault with a deadly weapon

Clown you still haven't shown how drunk driving can be prosecuted as assault with a deadly weapon when there are no injuries. Try again.

[Clownkicker]

Jesus H. Chrisis.... how does Tool remember to keep breathing?

Someone that stupid has got to have a challenged autonomic nervous system.

[RealJustme]

Clown give us one example of "anyone" being convicted or charged with "assault with a deadly weapon " for merely driving drunk. Trying to equate drunk driving with dealing illegal drugs is a typical libtard diversion. Let's see if clown can come up with a case to back up his claim.

[Clownkicker]

Jesus H. Chrisis, will somebody help The Tool dig himself out of this hole?

ESL, Tool, ESL.
You need to speak English if you expect to understand what English speakers are talking about.

Criminy...

[RealJustme]

:roll: Come one clown, just give us one example to support your case, I'll accept it from any of the 57 States. Surely you can find one?

[RealJustme]

A family of three who make $20,001 will also pay $2K in taxes

Dog, you still standing by that false statement?

[Clownkicker]

"Clown give us one example of "anyone" being convicted or charged with "assault with a deadly weapon " for merely driving drunk."-RealTool

"I've wondered for years why ---> DRUNK DRIVING ISN'T PROSECUTED AS ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. <---"-me


Tool, can you see the hidden secret words in my sentence above.
Ask your ESL teacher what they mean.

HOLY FUCK! He's still breathing.... :shock:

[RealJustme]

Clown- Here is a common legal definition of the term "assault" from Cornell: (offer may vary in your jurisdiction)
"1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result."

So clown, we're still waiting on your example of one example of "anyone" being convicted or charged with "assault with a deadly weapon " for merely driving drunk.

[Clownkicker]

The Democrats, Tool.

It's all a conspiracy by the Democrats.

But you knew that already, right?






HOLY FUCK! :shock: Even I don't believe this...

[elklindo69]

"Clown give us one example of "anyone" being convicted or charged with "assault with a deadly weapon " for merely driving drunk."-RealTool

"I've wondered for years why ---> DRUNK DRIVING ISN'T PROSECUTED AS ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. <---"-me


Tool, can you see the hidden secret words in my sentence above.
Ask your ESL teacher what they mean.

HOLY FUCK! He's still breathing.... :shock:

That's a tough sell politically....really tough.

Do you have any idea how many cops and firefighters get busted for drunk driving in NYC!!! They are major political donors.

:shock:

[RealJustme]

Clown you just burned another cookie dude.

[Clownkicker]

^^^^^HOLY FUCK! This moron is dumber than johnforbes.

[Intrepid]

I don't know how many cops or firefighters are busted for DUI in New Jerk City.

But I did know and spent a lot of time with someone who was a civilian employee of the police dept. of a major city in Texas. This person told me that they were virtually exempt from a DUI arrest. They said the only way they would not be immediately let go, or be given a ride home, would be if it was a rookie cop. Then they said it would only take a phone call to their sergeant for the whole thing to go away.

In a city I used to live in, the cops would cross the nearby state line and drink (and raise hell, according to one tavern owner I knew). Then drive back home with no worries about an arrest from their brother officers.

I also know of an incident where three state troopers from my state were out driving shit face drunk. I know because a friend of mine, who was a neighbor with one of the troopers, was along with them. He told me the story with the off duty trooper standing right beside me. He just had a stupid grin on his face and looked at his shoes as the story was told.

So having a badge is a pretty good insulator from a DUI arrest.

As for being charged with some form of homicide when driving drunk, yes it happens. A drunk woman hit and killed a local teacher as he was out jogging at 6 am a few years back. I remember because he was one of my youngest son's teachers and we had had a meeting with him when I felt the need to educate a public school teacher on my point of view and responsibilities as a parent regarding his teaching methods. She was charged with vehicular homicide, as I remember.

[RealJustme]

Yes if there's injuries or death while driving drunk there often are are additional criminal charges but Clown feels they should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon for just driving drunk :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Clownkicker]

^^^^By George, I think he's got it......finally.

[Intrepid]

Well, I know something about that too. I know a guy that was driving totally shit faced drunk. He stopped at a stop sign, then made a turn onto a two lane highway. But he turned into the oncoming lane and hit another car head on. No one was killed but there was severe damage and some blood and bruises. The cops showed up, took one look at how drunk the guy was and thought they had a chance to make a big example of someone. They breath tested him, arrested him an took him to jail. The charge they tried to put on him was, "Attempted vehicular homicide."
Only problem is, there is no such charge, as his lawyer pointed out. The lawyer also found out the the cops, in their glee over the prospect of really nailing him, forgot to read him his rights.
He walked on the entire deal.

If you are drunk and driving, and hurt no one, you cannot be charged with an assault against the general population since no one was harmed.

[Clownkicker]

Again, no one needs to be harmed in an "assault".
That's why "and battery" must be added for the injuries.
These are legal terms in this context, not conversational terms.

Try yelling angrily at a cop to go fuck himself when you're being arrested.
There's a good chance "assaulting a police officer" will be added to the charges, even if you don't raise a hand against him.

[RealJustme]

Again, no one needs to be harmed in an "assault".
That's why "and battery" must be added for the injuries.
These are legal terms in this context, not conversational terms.

OK clown so give us an example of ANYONE ever being charged for assault with a deadly weapon for just driving drunk. You can't because there is no way to charge a person for that for DUI.

Now if a driver tried to injure someone while driving, that's a different story, and guess what, whether that person is drunk or sober plays no role in a charge of assault with a deadly weapon. It's libtardish to think of charging a person with "assault with a deadly weapon" for simply driving under the influence.

[tvd]

This is eerily similar to Clown's old standby argument where he plays his silly word games.
He will nit pick over the tiniest nuance of what is posted, and use that singular example to debunk the whole conversation.

[Clownkicker]

Jesus H. Chrisis, he's at it again. :shock:

ESL, Tool.
Seriously E-S-L-classes.

[Intrepid]

That's what AssClown Loser Lucky does whenever he is cornered: plays his silly ass word games. Then spews emoticons and does his silly ass victory dance, calls everyone a tool and accuses them of being led around by their handlers.
It's predictable and getting rather tedious.

[tvd]

Yeah, beyond predictable.

Wonder what the word count for just last year is for every time he has posted the word "handlers". :lol:

[Clownkicker]

"OK clown so give us an example of ANYONE ever being charged for assault with a deadly weapon for just driving drunk. You can't because there is no way to charge a person for that for DUI. "-IncrediblyStupidFuck

Look assholes, I can't give an example of something I never claimed existed.
In fact, I specifically said no one is charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" for driving drunk.

So how do you morons figure I'm "cornered" when you are all AGREEING WITH ME?
That's what you assholes always do; you agree with what I said, and then you pretend I am wrong somehow.

All three of you are dumber than any human beings I've ever encountered in my life, literally. :lol: