From the article:
Areu further accused Carlson and Kurtz of trying to get her to go to their hotel rooms in 2018 and 2019, respectively
From the complaint:
- Following the show, Mr. Carlson, hardly making any effort to hide his intentions, began telling Ms. Areu that he would be alone in New York City that night, and specifically said that he would be staying alone in his hotel room without any wife or kids.
- Without question, Mr. Carlson was probing to see whether Ms. Areu was interested in a sexual relationship. Ms. Areu awkwardly sidestepped Mr. Carlson’s advances and declined to spend the night at his hotel. Mr. Carlson promptly retaliated against Ms. Areu, who was featured on his show only three times in 2019 and has not appeared once in 2020.
This is the most ridiculous accusation I have ever heard. Tucker tells guest that he is staying alone in NY for a Christmas Party, so OBVIOUSLY he was trying to get her to have sex with him and is guilty of sexual harassment. Pure insanity. If a judge doesn't throw out this ridiculousness immediately we are truly in bad times for Law and Order.
From Webster’s this time: “sale: the act of selling; specifically : the transfer of ownership of and title to property from one person to another for a price”
Every sale has a minimum of two parties, a buyer and a seller. If you outlaw the SALE, both parties are included.
If you intended to only imprison people SELLING beer and cigarettes you should have been more clear, and you’re still an authoritarian ass.
You really have no idea what a straw man is.
And here it is, the comment that shows the world how truly stupid you are. You just stated you think buying and selling cigarettes/beer should put people in prison, because at the end of the day, that’s what “illegal” means. Get your authoritarian ass out of here.
“I don’t actively support outlawing alcohol” “So yeah, I could support outlawing the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the U.S.” https://i.imgflip.com/2pi1lk.jpg
Straight from Wikipedia: “A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.” If you cant point out where I argued that pot is good for you, then by definition it is a straw man.
And yes, our entire legal system is set on precedents, so pointing out that more dangerous substances are currently legal is identifying the precedent is not being followed and is a perfectly valid argument.
Our freedoms are not limited to things that are necessary for survival. If you think alcohol and tobacco should put people in prison for simply possessing or using them, we will never find common ground and I don’t see a point in continuing this conversation. Enjoy your day.
Sorry, but there needs to be more to the argument for it to remain illegal than “it’s not good for your health”. I haven’t seen anyone here arguing that it is, so the straw man doesn’t really hold up. Plenty of things that are not good for your health are legal - tobacco, alcohol, and sugar just to name a few. What are these “harms of pot” outside of dangers to ones own health?
I completely agree that this doesn’t even make top 10 list of political problems I think we should be tackling, but solving this issue would not be a bad thing.
And since you do say you like the debate - while I’m not sure I am on board, I think there is an interesting argument in favor of decriminalization of all drug use centered around individual liberties.
“Your freedom ends where my rights begin”. The idea is that the act of drug use alone doesn’t hurt anyone but the individual, and truly free individuals should be able to weigh the risks and make potentially self harming decisions. Similar to the pro 2A argument, it could also be said that everything you really try to prevent by prohibiting drug use is already illegal. “We don’t want meth heads robbing people” is answered with “robbing people is already illegal”.
Then when you look at the crime that is associated with the logistics of drug sales, crime that wouldn’t exist if you could buy said drugs at the Walgreens down the street, it makes you start to question if prohibition really is the answer.
Again, I don’t personally buy into this strongly enough to advocate for decriminalization of hard drugs like crack, meth, and heroin, but it certainly makes me wonder.
Out of curiosity, why are you so against it’s legalization, or at least decriminalization?
I find myself very libertarian in my beliefs, at least in the live and let live aspects, and I really can’t understand why we are regulating what people put in their bodies in the first place. If alcohol was illegal, I would have an easier time understanding the logic, at least it would be consistent. Yet alcohol has been at least anecdotally shown to cause more physical and societal damage than pot and it is still legal.
I am going to be intentionally vague going forward for obvious reasons. I am almost 30 years old, I have smoked every evening for probably the past 12 years. I have more credentials than most people twice my age. My career is further along than ANYONE I know at my age. I work in a very demanding and important industry, and I am flourishing. I have a wife, I have a home, we are working on the kids. We pay our taxes (probably more than most others in my age group). However when others come home and drink a beer to relax after a long days work, I find pot a better alternative. I just don’t understand why a rational person believes I need to be in prison for at worst destroying my own lungs.
Found a few articles like the following, but a video is much harder to argue with than an article. https://nypost.com/2020/05/31/accused-molotov-cocktail-hurler-is-ivy-league-educated-lawyer/
I understand this reaction, but personally I think that will only escalate the situation. As a gun owner, I know there is a time for deadly force - when there is an imminent threat to the lives of you or those around you. That is not the case when rioters are destroying businesses and property you frequent when no one is there.
Recommended to repost not using Imgur.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1266496239698432004
After seeing this “misleading” Tweet by Schiff, I thought Twitter would like to know that it is factually in accurate so they could place a warning message on it like they did for Trumps tweet. Then I discovered I can’t report ANY of Adam Schiffs Tweets. Is this just me?
I provided as much rationale as you did.
Here are a few reasons early in person voting should continue:
On the other hand, I can’t think of a single reason why allowing each and every citizen with ID the ability to vote a week early, on a day that may work better for their schedule, would be a bad thing.
Why don’t you provide some rationale on why it should be discontinued?