knapplc

The factual basis is these cartels are a direct result of the drugs being prohibited in the first place. There was never an illegal drug trade until we started prohibiting drugs. Take away their whole reason for existing, they don't exist. Except that you can still buy black-market pharmaceuticals that are perfectly legal to this day.

Unfortunately, they've already been unleashed on society. And no, I can't agree that legalizing and regulating them would cause more harm than, say, funding murderous drug cartels than make them available to the public anyways. You're apparently presuming that the drug cartels will simply dry up and wither away if drugs are legalized? Where is the factual basis for that? Why would they stop rather than acting as a black market source? It's done a lot more harm than good, and it's not even close. Again, any factual basis for this opinion? You're claiming that the goal of removing drugs from society is not beneficial? Sorry, that's entirely not true. Because the program has been poorly implemented doesn't in any way make its goals harmful.

Not necessarily. I am for legalizing it and i don't do drugs. Spending 10 billion a year on the war against drugs when it could go to better places is what gets me pissed. making drugs illegal infacts glamerizes it even more than if it was legal. People like to do things they aren't suppose to but less likely to do things that are legal. It was an easy mistake to make, considering your post on da sker's Status Update the other day:

We've seen steps toward concessions from the North Koreans before, only to see them fall back to hard-line stances. But with Kim Jong Il out of the picture and Kim Jong Un now in control, could this be a sign that the North Koreans are ready to seek peace? Here's hoping...

I have practiced Carlfensian architecture. Tile project in my condo. Probably spent twice what it would have cost to have a pro do it, and it was crappy quality.

I'm far more likely to smoke (legal) pot than to drink whiskey. One is nice, the other heinous. Same goes with most strong liquors. Heck, if it wasn't for the ridiculously addictive qualities of most hardcore drugs, I'd like to try them. I'd like to know what the big deal is about opium/laudanum, cocaine, heroin, etc. I've been drunk, I've been high, but I've never been drugged. I'm curious, but not curious enough to 1) break the law, or 2) run the risk of addiction.

The Tudors were a ruling family of England. A "Tudor house" is a house built along the architectural style that was popular during the reign of the Tudors. It's akin to Gothic architecture, Elizabethan architecture, etc.

I think marijuana should be legal and I don't smoke. I should probably have clarified that I was referring to the OP. And for the record, I smoked pot in high school, and I probably would on occasion today if it was legal.

One of many real American heroes in just that one company. And there were many, throughout the ETO and PTO. Great quote by Compton here: “Second platoon was indeed ‘blessed’ to have Buck Compton as our leader. He was a quiet and strong officer who, above all, listened and talked to the men under his command. I could never say enough to express my thanks and admiration for Buck Compton.” - William ‘Wild Bill’ Guarnere

We are never going to legalize stuff like crack, meth, heroin, cocaine, etc. Mood-altering drugs like this unleashed on society would cause far more harm than "the war on drugs" ever did. The war on drugs hasn't been terribly effective. But that doesn't mean it's without merit, or that its goals are not beneficial to society. And any time I read "time to legalize it," inevitably that means the person who wrote it smokes, and wants to do it without getting busted.

I don't think she was a Tudor. She looks like a Stuart... maybe a Plantagenet. But definitely not a Tudor.

Alice in Chains said it best. "To some, God's name, is smack" Love the band, but I think that it doesn't work in this context The way I take the lyrics seems to. Religion makes some people wacked crazy, and 'smack' is certainly a reference to heroin. People get high and crazy on both of em. They stole that line from the old saw, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Largely attributed to Karl Marx, but it predates his writings (or, at least, his published writings) in several publications. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.- Karl Marx, 1843 LINK Their so-called religion acts merely as an opiate: irritating, numbing, calming their pain out of weakness. (translated from German)- Novalis. 1798 LINK The Marquis de Sade wrote about "numbing the people to the pain of their daily existence (paraphrase)" in Juliette: You fear the powerful eye of genius, that is why you encourage ignorance. This opium you feed your people, so that, drugged, they do not feel their hurts, inflicted by you. And that is why where you reign no establishments are to be found giving great men to the homeland; the rewards due knowledge are unknown here, and as there is neither honor nor profit in being wise, nobody seeks after wisdom. (translated from French)- Sade, 1797 LINK

You can accuse Obama of lots of things, and be correct. But "idiot" is not one of those things. The guy is really, really smart. That doesn't automatically equate to "great president," but he's certainly not an idiot. The closest thing we've had to an idiot in the presidency, at least in recent memory, is George Bush. The second one. I'm not sold on really, really smart. The guy can present himself well but some of the things said off the cuff make me scratch my head. As far as education. Is it worth the cost these days? I'm missing the dumb comments, I guess. Or, I'm missing the amount of dumb comments that exceed those of his recent contemporaries in that office. Stick a mic in a president's face seven times a day and he's bound to say something that doesn't come out right. Heck, Bush II made a career of it. But to the point, that doesn't mean Obama is not smart. He's sharp. Regarding the bold, I don't know what it costs these days. I know it's significantly higher than it was 20 years ago when I went to college, and I'm really concerned about paying for school for my kid when the time comes. There is a lot to be said about having a college degree. Over the course of a lifetime the average college grad makes about a million dollars more than a non-graduate, but those are old numbers from a study a year or five ago. Not sure what that would be today, or even if that will hold true to as we go on. I tend to think it's better to have a degree than not.... but the cost is a growing factor in that discussion.

I think Osborne is going to take the rash of injuries into account when evaluating this season. Plus our SOS is going to be a factor - according to Sagarin, we've played the 4th-toughest SOS in the country. We've played eight top-25 teams this year, and beaten one of them. Yes, we got absolutely obliterated by two of them (over four games), and weren't all that competitive in several more games, but the fact that we've lost so many guys to injury, including our two big men in the middle, really inhibits Doc from succeeding.

Hawks didn't want just a conversation on Huskerboard. He wanted a conversation on every Husker forum, and he wanted a conversation in the newspapers, and at water-coolers across the state. Just posting on one forum doesn't get that conversation happening. Sean Callahan isn't going to tweet about a new Huskerboard topic. I think he did just what he wanted with his ad - Barfnecht even took the bait and wrote a response article. Hawks ad got a statewide conversation going. It may not change any minds, but he got people talking about it. Except that people are already talking about it, on every message board, at every water cooler, at every diner across the state. It's not like he told us about a problem nobody knew we had. There are three separate topics about Doc specifically in this forum alone, with a combined 4,000 views. That's just one message board among about a dozen. I was mostly joking with that post you quoted, and I thought the gif was funny so I took the opportunity to post it. But the point I was making is still valid - this isn't news. And he isn't going to get anything done by taking out that ad. He didn't create a conversation where none existed before, he just said what we've all been saying already. He did nothing wrong. He just didn't do anything to actually fix the problem.

I was thinking Merton Hanks Think he'd stick his neck out for a job at Nebraska?

This is simply not true. As GrillOnGrill stated, we did this frequently during the heyday of this program, where RBs were recruited, then turned into Linebackers. Heck, Cody Glenn's switch should be recent enough to ring a bell with you. You remember Glenn - LB for the Colts, right?

I don't think either Bobby Bowden or Joe Paterno totally gave up such decision-making duties, did they? And they were the two biggest figurehead coaches I can think of in recent memory.

How many race car drivers does it take to blow up a safety truck? Just Juan.

I believe I'm safe in assuming that, based on this post, you've given up sex for Lent?

OC every time. It's his offense - he knows best his ability to make it or not, and I'd like to think he's smart enough "football-wise" that he isn't going to put his DC in a bad position. These are guys who will likely be HC's within a few years. They aren't 3-4 years from being an intern. You know that's not the case.

I have a preconceived "issue" with simply hiring guys who used to play for us. The skills required to be a good player are much different than those necessary to be a good coach. Tommie Frazier is the first example that comes to mind. None of our old DBs are seasoned coaches. I'd like to see a guy come in that can make an impact teaching our secondary solid coverage skills while at the same time having good recruiting skills and contacts. Maybe Minter meets that bill, but I don't think we need to solely focus on "our people." I think that's a dangerous thing to do.

You can accuse Obama of lots of things, and be correct. But "idiot" is not one of those things. The guy is really, really smart. That doesn't automatically equate to "great president," but he's certainly not an idiot. The closest thing we've had to an idiot in the presidency, at least in recent memory, is George Bush. The second one.

While the Catholic Church has much to answer for over the course of the last millennium and a half, there are some gross historical inaccuracies in this post. The Catholic Church did not found the Knights Templar. They were founded by a few knights in the Holy Land, and gained favor with the Church some time later. They were not controlled by or beholden to the Church - they were their own separate entity, and never an arm of Catholicism. The Templars weren't back-stabbed by the Church. They grew to a large and powerful organization based on the perception that they were God's Soldiers, blessed by him with the ability to keep the Holy Land safe for pilgrims. When the Holy Land was overrun by the Saracens, the Templars lost much of their clout. They were also heavily involved in usury in Europe to fund their organization, and King Phillip of France ended up owing them more money than he could repay. His solution was to declare them outlaws, seize their castles and absorb their wealth. He persecuted many of them, although it's debatable whether they deserved what they got. The demise of the Knights Templar had far more to do with Philip of France than with the Church. The Catholic Church did not "help start the Dark Ages." The Dark Ages were a period of poverty throughout Europe, and while it is certainly true that the Catholic Church didn't give up its wealth to feed the poor, it is not true that they caused the Dark Ages, unless you believe the Catholic Church could create a mini Ice Age for a couple hundred years, or you believe they had some nefarious reason to do so. Now, could they have made it better? Absolutely. But they did not create it, nor did they sustain it. They profited by it by perpetuating the ignorance of the masses and thus keeping themselves in charge, but the same could be said of most every major and minor royal of the time, too. The fall of Constantinople was as much political as it was a failure of the Catholic Church. The Church was heavily involved in politics at the time, and it is true that the Eastern Orthodoxy was in opposition to that of the West, whose seat was Rome, and this is entirely not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus that the Church claims to follow. Be that as it may, there is simply no historical accuracy to the idea that Muslims "conquered much of eastern Europe." I believe you're speaking of the Mongols, who were an unstoppable force as far as the West was concerned, and had the Mongols chosen to continue pushing West there is little or nothing The Church could have done to stop them. The Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople, but again this is a far more complicated situation than simply stating that The Church didn't help. The Eastern Empire was a shell of its former self, the Western Empire was as devastated by the effects of the Dark Ages and the Black Plague as the East, and it's unlikely, again, that had the western Church wanted to do anything to stop the Turks from conquering Constantinople that they could have. Medieval Europe simply wasn't capable at the time of resisting the Turkish forces as they conquered Constantinople. Again, there's a lot of wrong to discuss with the Church over the years. But if we're going to discuss them, we should be as accurate as is reasonable.