RMetal, why is it I'm yet to see a (much needed) IMO interspersed amongst the discredited Randist rhetoric you still feel inclined to preach given the slightest opportunity?
Wow, seems to me the system is working perfectly. Why the hell should normal, law abiding people like me have to be burdened by gutter trash who, for the life of them, simply cannot get it through their skulls that something is against the law? Liberal, love-thy-revolving-door-prisoner experiment hasn't done diddly to curb crime. Maybe it's time to get Tough, capital T and all.
***RMetal, why is it I'm yet to see a (much needed) IMO interspersed amongst the discredited Randist rhetoric you still feel inclined to preach given the slightest opportunity?*** Is there a single post in these threads that <b>isn't</b> just the writer's opinion? ****Why the hell should normal, law abiding people like me have to be burdened by gutter trash who, for the life of them, simply cannot get it through their skulls that something is against the law? Liberal, love-thy-revolving-door-prisoner experiment hasn't done diddly to curb crime. Maybe it's time to get Tough, capital T and all.*** Now I've got you figured out, Alf. You are not a hard-core liberal, or a hard-core right winger....you're just hard core. You like being extremist, and it doesn't really matter which side you take. Don't worry, you'll probably grow out of it when you reach adulthood.
as usual, what a bunch of crap from you. if i wanted to buy a bong and he sold it to me, no one is harmed. it's comparable to selling a shot glass if alcohol were illegal. the law is not always right. as i said in another post, people at the forefront of society can get screwed by laws that lag society. this guy is a perfect example.
two points- some times lawyers have their clients plead guilty to the face because they know that they will get a better deal from the judge in that court room that day then if they try to dispo the case latter or take it to trial and lose. The judge may have even said this is bullshit and I will go easy if you plea in front of me wink wink. Also because of the political nature of the case there may have been no authority or no ability for the prosecutor to offer a plea bargain. So the best deal was with the guilty plea in front of a pot smoking judge. two- GG I see the confusion in your wrghting and your rhetoric. since you do not believe in absolutes,but scales-- and you do not not believe in natural law. So really you have no right from wrong outside of what your society agrees to. you sort of say come on guys the law is not always right--- this pot law maybe be lagging society. man what a drag. Dude it really sucks to not have a compass and be able to say with conviction this is right and this is wrong. huh. Maybe someday you will not only appeal to right and wrong (natural law) but you will actually believe in it. I know I could use better logic here but it was late and I had few beers watching the game.
see the line i underlined above. i disagree with that. i think there can be a higher right from wrong outside of what society agrees to. the higher right and wrong are the laws that people disagree with presently, but will not be removed or changed until the future. these people are ahead of society. not all humans need laws. as i said in another thread, i don't need a law that says don't eat meat for me not to eat it. by my own thinking, i've come to the conclusion that i don't want to make animals suffer. so i don't eat it, even though no law is stopping me. i realize not everyone is capable of this, so yes, laws are needed. but the problem, imo, is that you end up creating a law making system that can lag society. are you going to tell me laws change in step with society? no they don't. bad laws don't change until enough people get pissed and complain. as i said earlier, people at the forefront of society can get screwed by lagging laws. the system is like this: you have some laws. eventually people don't like one. say some people get sent to jail for it. as time passes, more and more people disagree with the law. eventually a large enough number does to change it. the law is changed. BUT THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO WENT TO JAIL FOR THIS LAW--THEY GOT SCREWED. then the cycle repeats. i realize the problem is that you don't know in the present which laws will be changed in the future. but that does not change the fact that some laws will change and some people will be punished for those laws. i would bet this bong law changes, therefore, chong is getting screwed, imo. i don't know where you're getting that from. i know right from wrong with conviction more than most people.
Lol. Where's the "radical opinions should be heard" now? Moron. I wasn't actually referring to the Bong Case, simply to the fact that if people can't get it through their thick skulls that stealing is against the law -- no matter what the value of the item stolen -- then, imo, they 100% deserve whatever punishment the law prescribes. And no, the law isn't always right, and ought to be questioned and changed. Luckily for us, this process already takes place, so you're not breaking any new ground here buddy. However, it is also the height of stupidity to be aware of what the law is, break it, and then cry about having to suffer the consequances. Of course, this is all probably going way over your head, but work on it, maybe you'll get it one day.
perfect example of lagging laws. giordano bruno believed the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. he refused to recant his beliefs. was burned to death by the church. was he ahead of his time? yes. did the laws lag? yes. did he get screwed? yes. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) Born near Naples, in a place called Nola (Campania), Bruno was one of the new breed of scientists who shunned the stilted philosophy of Aristotle; and, thus, came afoul the doctrines of the church. At first he was part of the church (entirely necessary in those days if one was to receive any kind of an education), a Dominican; but not for long. He fled Italy for Geneva and then went to England, that enlighten country, were he taught for awhile (Oxford). He eventually (1585) returned to Europe and traveled extensively, seemingly to avoid his holy pursuers. In 1592, Bruno was arrested by the ecclesiastical authorities (The Inquisition) and put on trial for his beliefs, beliefs based on the real world such as those of Copernicus, and which he would not recant. After a seven year trial, Bruno, in an act which forever branded the church as an intolerant institution, at Rome, was put to death by burning. http://www.blupete.com/Literature/B...ience/Bruno.htm
what are you talking about?????? who's talking about stealing????? yes, the process takes place, but that does not change the fact the some people can get screwed. i will break any law i view as ridiculous and that i know will change. example: i can't buy beer on sunday where i live. fuck that law. it deserves to be disrespected until enough people finally come around and change that nonsense. in the meantime, i'm not going to wait around for slow people.
Think stupid, always think before you talk...... Im not even going to argue this with you. If you feel it correct for a human in this case the guy from California should serve 25 years for stealing not even $10.00 worth of food ( I dont care hopw many times )...then there is no reason to even argue this with you....