No, Econo. It was a trial balloon to see if lib would take it on board.Econoline wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:51 amThe third way...?Meade, are you channelling Jarlaxle?MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 9:00 pmIt is more practical to shoot all the drug-users - the compassionate now-you-don't-have-to-live-with-the-shame-and-pain approach. Expeditious and efficacious.
No, he's shitposting.Econoline wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:51 amThe third way...?Big RR wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 1:59 pmAs I see, there are two ways to handle this--follow Lib's proposal impose some sort of martial law and crack down hard to strangle off the supply (a plan destined to failure as history has shown again and again), or attack the demand and provide treatment to addicts (and maybe even addressing the circumstances that lead to this addiction as BSG and others have noted).Meade, are you channelling Jarlaxle?MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 9:00 pmIt is more practical to shoot all the drug-users - the compassionate now-you-don't-have-to-live-with-the-shame-and-pain approach. Expeditious and efficacious.
No, I do not think that would solve problem even if one could wave a magic hand and make it happen, but it does appear they contribute more than their fair share to the problem. However, the statistic can be misleading. Even though the number are high, the source of the problem is located in a few inter-cities and involves relatively few individuals. When I say few, I mean as compared to the total population. It is a few people, both black and white left and right that cause most of the trouble.Joe Guy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 9:50 pmI think the only real solution is to eliminate black people. They seem to be the root of all problems in libland.MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 9:00 pmIn the spirit of lib, it's silly to speak of warfare against drug suppliers. The supply can never be curtailed. It is more practical to shoot all the drug-users - the compassionate now-you-don't-have-to-live-with-the-shame-and-pain approach. Expeditious and efficacious. How about it lib???
You might want to remember — and maybe remind your cousin and anyone else who thinks they might have to 'fight a war of resistance' — of the track record of such 'resistances', going all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. If brought to bear against them, no 'armed resistance faction' will be able to withstand the massed force of the American government. Sure, they may be able to withhold for a while, and undoubtedly there would be significant loss of life (especially nowadays versus what we saw in the days of muzzle-loaders and cannon, which was ghastly enough) on both sides, and some people will be able to 'get even' with those who they perceive as having wronged them, using the concept of an 'armed resistance' as a smoke-screen for a personal vendetta — but in the long run such a cause is inevitably lost.
That's odd. I thought you would agree with her.
In some states it looks like she might be right. In Seattle Ian Cranston gets ten years for defending himself. The black man starts the trouble, throws the first punch, and the white man goes to prison. Instead of shooting him, Cranston is supposed to let him beat him and kick him in the head until he has brain damage. Shit Head likes that, it loves calling brain damaged people morons, makes Shit Head feel superior.
