Winners only.

[Jimi77]

Honestly I think just legalizing all of it and taxing the sh!t out of it to fund rehabs and mental health treatment would be something worth trying...all the money we throw at enforcement is doing fck all and we're just making the cartels and other extremely high level dealers rich...

I could see that. I'm kinda for phucking war with the Cartels. Living in Denver, I'm less than impressed with marijuana legalization. I think alot of the problem is kids with mental health issues are ignored right out of the gate and then find drugs is a way to kill the pain and find community. Unfortunately, I don't see the US investing people's mental well being.

 

[spokey9]

I could see that. I'm kinda for phucking war with the Cartels. Living in Denver, I'm less than impressed with marijuana legalization. I think alot of the problem is kids with mental health issues are ignored right out of the gate and then find drugs is a way to kill the pain and find community. Unfortunately, I don't see the US investing people's mental well being.

The upside to legalization a t the federal level is freeing up a huge chunk of annual money...some or would be better spent on mental health

 

[Jimi77]

The upside to legalization a t the federal level is freeing up a huge chunk of annual money...some or would be better spent on mental health

The thing is, the money most likely will be spent on pork projects and tax cuts for the uber wealthy. And it's hard as hell to cut taxes for people that barely pay any in the first place.

 

[Jimi77]

Liar liar pants on fire.

Kansas GOP bill authorizes genital exams of schoolchildren, critics say

Biologically male students will be banned from competing in women's sports from July, with the law being enforced through a "sports physical."

www.newsweek.com

Fact Check-Kansas trans sports bill does not authorize ‘genital inspections of children’

A Kansas bill banning transgender athletes from competing in female-designated sports does not explicitly mention how the biological sex of students will be determined, contrary to claims shared online that it will authorize “genital inspections of children.”

www.reuters.com

 

[Eggs]

That's a tricky one. Throw them in jail - that's expensive. Tell "just quit" - clearly not working. Enable them? Almost all other 1st world nations seem to have less of problem treating drug addiction as health issue. Then again other first world nations invest alot more in mental health, which probably reduces drug addiction in the first place, but that would be liberal socialism.

We certainly haven’t been winning the war on drugs who ever been in office. It ain’t no secret where and how it’s getting in but why it’s allowed reach here? Feeling that the cartel pay many ppl of power to allow this ie Katie Hobbs. Example I live on a island with one port where we’re flooded with illegal fireworks and crystal meth.
For the social approach is giving everyone govt housing for temp solution like EU. I can see this happening with investment group blackrock of leasing their investment properties govt to house homeless and illegals At the same time in help DEI the suburbs. My next guess would eminent domain properties for this.

Japanese billionaire offers up his Hawaii mansions to low-income natives

Dorie-Ann Kahale and her five daughters moved from a homeless shelter to a mansion Thursday, courtesy of a Japanese real estate mogul who is handing over eight of his multimillion-dollar homes to low-income Native Hawaiian families.

www.arkansasonline.com

Adams floats idea of New Yorkers housing migrants in ‘private residences’

Mayor Eric Adams wants regular New Yorkers to welcome thousands of asylum seekers into private dwellings while paying local homeowners and landlords.

nypost.com

 

[RobGMN]

The upside to legalization a t the federal level is freeing up a huge chunk of annual money...some or would be better spent on mental health

Given the successful use of THC against so many medical issues, I would bet money the pharmas have thrown a LOT of money into lobbying against st legalization.
Hmmm, some weed you can grow in your own house, or thousands in chemicals from the pharmacy?

 

[ThxOne]

You're saying that I post a screen cap that proves I am lying? How would that make ANY sense? Anyone who looks at it would immediately be able to call me out on it.
Think about that along with the fact that every single time you accused me of altering your words, I have asked for proof of your accusation, and you've never been able to pony up.

For the next 12 times you will ask the same question. YES.

And you think I read through every single post you have made so I MIGHT find something that will be relevant to the discussion?
I don't recall the post and then use search to find it?
Among all of the dumb ideas you have shared here, that's high on the list of dumbness.

Whatever you say.

Like Jimi said, you think they should censor, but not censor.
" I said if you really NEED the information you should/could be able to FOIA the information."
" The general public doesn't need to know."
" Could/should be able to get it through a foia request."
They should control the info and dole it out only by special request with a demonstrated need, but that is not "censoring", even though it fits the definition to a "t".
censor - to prevent part or the whole of a book, movie, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public
'Sounds a lot like not releasing known information about a criminal except by special request.

Rob, how is any information being prevented from being seen? Not one time have I said you shouldn't be able to see the information. You will never be able to dispute that fact. However, you are dumb so you will try to dispute it. I said the general public doesn't need to know the alleged criminal or suspects sexual identity. <---- this is an opinion. I did not say we need to protest and riot and prevent the news from sharing this information right now!!! <---- that would have been a direct statement of what you are claiming I am doing. You are wrong.

My opinions are true though. The general public doesn't need to know. It is also true that potential jurors can become biased by this availability of information before a trial. You can't dispute that. But you are an idiot so you will. Do I like that the news gives out so much information so freely? No, but I have accepted that they do a long time ago.

Is this like your whole argument of "in" does not mean "in" when talking about nerves in bones? Just alter the definitions of words after you paint yourself into a logic corner?

Couldn't resist could you? You are as predictable as the herpes outbreaks you get weekly.

Could be, but I have run circles around you from the beginning.

Oh my. lol that almost made me piss my pants.

Tell us more about how FOIA is information: "FOIA is PUBLIC INFORMATION DIPSHIT."

Don't try to get literal. Freedom of information. The information is free... for ALL TO SEE. Even you dumbasss.

You think research is bad. You think learning is bad. You think that you "think out of the box" and "question things" by simply refusing to believe or learn.

Speaking for others again Rob? Please tell me again what I think and believe. As much as you want to be Ms. Cleo, you're not. You're a fluffer in ghey porn.

Sorry, those things require action, not just refusal to believe.
You get beyond your depth but refuse to admit you are drowning. It'd be funny if it wasn't actually kind of sad.

Well you said it... must be true.

 

[Eggs]

That's a tricky one. Throw them in jail - that's expensive. Tell "just quit" - clearly not working. Enable them? Almost all other 1st world nations seem to have less of problem treating drug addiction as health issue. Then again other first world nations invest alot more in mental health, which probably reduces drug addiction in the first place, but that would be liberal socialism.

How do handle this?

 

[Jimi77]

How do handle this?

I wouldn't be nice about it. I think because it's organized crime, these thieves will get hammered if/when they catch them.

 

[RobGMN]

For the next 12 times you will ask the same question. YES.

OK. Provide a link or a post number to prove this happened.

Whatever you say.

Rob, how is any information being prevented from being seen? Not one time have I said you shouldn't be able to see the information. You will never be able to dispute that fact. However, you are dumb so you will try to dispute it. I said the general public doesn't need to know the alleged criminal or suspects sexual identity. <---- this is an opinion. I did not say we need to protest and riot and prevent the news from sharing this information right now!!! <---- that would have been a direct statement of what you are claiming I am doing. You are wrong.

It’s prevented from being seen because it is under the control of an entity, has not been released to the general public, and access must be obtained by a special request.
If you decided right now you want to see an SEC report on an investigation, you could not do so. They PREVENT YOU FROM SEEING the report until you file a request under the FOIA.

My opinions are true though. The general public doesn't need to know. It is also true that potential jurors can become biased by this availability of information before a trial. You can't dispute that. But you are an idiot so you will. Do I like that the news gives out so much information so freely? No, but I have accepted that they do a long time ago.

Couldn't resist could you? You are as predictable as the herpes outbreaks you get weekly.

It’s called consistency. Something you lack, other than your lame shifts to name calling and threats of violence when your limited intellect is overburdened in conversation.

Why do you think it’s a good idea that information be held and controlled by the government, aside from your presumption that an uneducated juror is better than an educated one, and that people should only have information on a “need to know” basis?
Or, are those the only reasons?

Oh my. lol that almost made me piss my pants.

Don't try to get literal. Freedom of information. The information is free... for ALL TO SEE. Even you dumbasss.

Don’t try to get literal? Aren’t you the guy always whining that his words are being interpreted? Now you don’t want to be literal either?
Holy fvck you are inconsistent.
The FOIA is a law. Look it up.

Speaking for others again Rob? Please tell me again what I think and believe. As much as you want to be Ms. Cleo, you're not. You're a fluffer in ghey porn.

It’s not speaking for others when you repeat what they say. And you have said the things I repeated.

Well you said it... must be true.

I said it, but you are the one that made it true.

 

[Eggs]

Armenian-Neocon extremist?

 

[Eggs]

This is just fricken wild

 

[ThxOne]

OK. Provide a link or a post number to prove this happened.

No.

It’s prevented from being seen because it is under the control of an entity, has not been released to the general public, and access must be obtained by a special request.
If you decided right now you want to see an SEC report on an investigation, you could not do so. They PREVENT YOU FROM SEEING the report until you file a request under the FOIA.

It is NOT being prevented. If it was, you wouldn't be able to go ask to see it and then see it. They are not disclosing it just because they have it and nothing says they have too. Again though, nobody but you has singled out the FOIA as the only way to obtain the information.

It’s called consistency. Something you lack, other than your lame shifts to name calling and threats of violence when your limited intellect is overburdened in conversation.

Right, having to repeat back to you 6 times what I actually said verbatim because you don't listen isn't consistent. Whatever.

Why do you think it’s a good idea that information be held and controlled by the government, aside from your presumption that an uneducated juror is better than an educated one, and that people should only have information on a “need to know” basis?
Or, are those the only reasons?

I don't think that.

Don’t try to get literal? Aren’t you the guy always whining that his words are being interpreted? Now you don’t want to be literal either?

I am not the guy always whining that my words are being interpreted. I have told you a few times about you doing it. You exaggerate like a dramatic woman and keep saying that shit over and over trying to make it true.

Holy fvck you are inconsistent.
The FOIA is a law. Look it up.

Cool.

It’s not speaking for others when you repeat what they say. And you have said the things I repeated.

Except you don't. Every time you paraphrase, you are not repeating what I said. Every time you speak from your conclusions you are not repeating what I said. This is how your conversations go Rob so stop saying you repeat what I say when you know damn well you don't.

I said it, but you are the one that made it true.

I don't think so.

 

[RobGMN]

No.

So your words are just bullshit then.
As suspected

It is NOT being prevented. If it was, you wouldn't be able to go ask to see it and then see it. They are not disclosing it just because they have it and nothing says they have too. Again though, nobody but you has singled out the FOIA as the only way to obtain the information.

The fact that it is not immediately available at any time and a request has to be filed to get it means you are being prevented from seeing it.
YOU said the information should be retained by someone and released with a FOIA. Whether it's by a FOIA request or ANY other means, if you have to submit a request, then you are being prevented from seeing it.
Hell, this even applies to a library book. You cannot get the book if it is checked out. You cannot get the book without a library card. You cannot get the book without checking it out. You are PREVENTED from getting that specific book until you follow the necessary steps. That book is information that is being controlled by an entity that prevents you from seeing it.

Right, having to repeat back to you 6 times what I actually said verbatim because you don't listen isn't consistent. Whatever.

Inconsistent in that you make demands that are contrary to each other (you cry that your words get interpreted, but also cry that your words are taken literally).
Inconsistent in that you create your own definitions of words after you use the words incorrectly and refuse to admit your error.
Inconsistent in that you make claims over and over about me that you have been wholly unable to prove.

I don't think that.
I am not the guy always whining that my words are being interpreted. I have told you a few times about you doing it. You exaggerate like a dramatic woman and keep saying that shit over and over trying to make it true.

You do it all the time, and you even just did it a few posts ago. "Speaking for others again Rob? Please tell me again what I think and believe."
Do you really not remember your own actions, or do you have selective memory and just forget the stuff that shows you are unable to be consistent?

Cool.

Except you don't. Every time you paraphrase, you are not repeating what I said. Every time you speak from your conclusions you are not repeating what I said. This is how your conversations go Rob so stop saying you repeat what I say when you know damn well you don't.

Here you are, complaining AGAIN that your words are being interpreted. TWICE within a few posts, and MANY times before.
Honestly kid, if language is THAT hard for you to deal with, maybe it is truly time for some remedial classes.
Hell, just go back to my example of the information that can be gleaned simply from what someone says, even when they don't say things explicitly.

Here's another example that you might understand. You say "I went to see the Reds play a home game".
You never said the words, but I know: You saw a baseball game. You were in a stadium. You were amongst a large group of people. You were in Ohio. You left Kentucky. You either flew, drove, rode, took a train, took a bus, or a combo of all three. You saw at least two teams in action. You saw baseball hats, and grass or turf. You very likely saw a team win
Yet you said NONE of these things.
Language. Pretty fekking amazing, huh?

I don't think so.

You can avoid thinking so, but if I said it, I can prove it.

 

[ThxOne]

So your words are just bullshit then.
As suspected

The fact that it is not immediately available at any time and a request has to be filed to get it means you are being prevented from seeing it.
YOU said the information should be retained by someone and released with a FOIA. Whether it's by a FOIA request or ANY other means, if you have to submit a request, then you are being prevented from seeing it.
Hell, this even applies to a library book. You cannot get the book if it is checked out. You cannot get the book without a library card. You cannot get the book without checking it out. You are PREVENTED from getting that specific book until you follow the necessary steps. That book is information that is being controlled by an entity that prevents you from seeing it.

Inconsistent in that you make demands that are contrary to each other (you cry that your words get interpreted, but also cry that your words are taken literally).
Inconsistent in that you create your own definitions of words after you use the words incorrectly and refuse to admit your error.
Inconsistent in that you make claims over and over about me that you have been wholly unable to prove.

You do it all the time, and you even just did it a few posts ago. "Speaking for others again Rob? Please tell me again what I think and believe."
Do you really not remember your own actions, or do you have selective memory and just forget the stuff that shows you are unable to be consistent?

Here you are, complaining AGAIN that your words are being interpreted. TWICE within a few posts, and MANY times before.
Honestly kid, if language is THAT hard for you to deal with, maybe it is truly time for some remedial classes.
Hell, just go back to my example of the information that can be gleaned simply from what someone says, even when they don't say things explicitly.

Here's another example that you might understand. You say "I went to see the Reds play a home game".
You never said the words, but I know: You saw a baseball game. You were in a stadium. You were amongst a large group of people. You were in Ohio. You left Kentucky. You either flew, drove, rode, took a train, took a bus, or a combo of all three. You saw at least two teams in action. You saw baseball hats, and grass or turf. You very likely saw a team win
Yet you said NONE of these things.
Language. Pretty fekking amazing, huh?


You can avoid thinking so, but if I said it, I can prove it.

Tldr. Don't you have a job? Slacker.