Brit Hume: Biden looked like 'a cranky old man to some extent, debating a ... - Daily Caller [ournewsa.blogspot.com]
The Art Sutter Show - The Art Sutter ShowIt's Friday the 13th and Art is feeling superstitious as he talks to guests Lynne Ewart an astrologist who makes some interesting predictions and author Stanley Robertson who tells us of the gypsy curse placed on a family ring, but will anyone be brave enough to wear it? He also talks to conservationist and the presenter of Country Matters Dick Balharry, actor John Cairny and star singer Barbara Dickson. There are also live studio performances from The Corries and Alyson McInnes.
Following Thursday night’s vice presidential debate, Fox News Channel senior political analyst Brit Hume said the way viewers react to Vice President Joe Biden’s aggressive demeanor will dictate who “won†the debate.
“Well, it all depends on what they think of Joe Biden and his demeanor,†Hume said. “If you read the transcript, you might conclude that the vice president had a very strong debate, that he had a lot to say, that he was strongly critical of Gov. Romney and his program, that he held his own. But that’s not all there is to it. We had the split screen, much as we did during the presidential debate. And what you saw while Paul Ryan was talking, as others have pointed out was smirking, laughing, smiling, mugging by the vice president.â€
Hume said Biden risked coming across as “a cranky old man.â€
“My sense was that it was so compelling that people probably couldn’t take their eyes off of it. And so, it will come down to whether or not people thought that was attractive or not. Myself, I thought it was unattractive. I thought it was rude. And I have a feeling it will come across to an awful lot of people as rude. It looked like a cranky old man to some extent, debating a polite young man.
Follow Jeff on Twitter
Recommend Brit Hume: Biden looked like 'a cranky old man to some extent, debating a ... - Daily Caller Articles Question by : How is Prohibition of any product justifiable in a "Free Country"? Why shouldn't I be able to sell or ingest? whatever I want as long as I don't put others in Jeopardy? Why is it illegal to smoke marijuana or any other good product that the facists who hate freedom have outlawed? Is it because "Big Brother" (The Government) Knows whats best for us children of the State? Medical Marijuana is taxed and we pay way too much in taxes to be able to sell it. lulz you can't afford a nuke stupid. Best answer for How is Prohibition of any product justifiable in a "Free Country"? Why shouldn't I be able to sell or ingest?:
Answer by isurvived
Lock up an addict today. Report their dealer to the IRS too.
Answer by John
Yes, and why is it prohibited to buy and sell nuclear bombs? What if I WANT one?
Answer by bjxl99
Prohibition of a product is acceptable when it prevents harm to innocent people. For example if crack or meth were legal, people that used them would be a danger to innocent peolpe while they were high, and once addicted the addicts would create a huge boost in crime to continue their habit. Not to mention the drain on the new socialized health care.
Answer by Friendly Stranger..
I think you have to ask yourself, "how responsible am I with the use of drugs?" The reason why prohibition was implemented during the 1920's is because at that time alcohol was at an all time use in terms of consumption. As a result you had people abusing it, and the government had to step in. The reason why prohibition didn't work was becau se it sparked mass violence and riots in response to the law. So the ban was lifted. Now in terms of today, drug use as it relates to marijuana and other narcotics are illegal because of its harmful effects. Although alcohol is harmful as well when abused, the effects of those drugs outweigh that of alcohol. Think about it. You have users who have literally died, and some who will never be the same because of being high. Sure you might say that alcohol can cause the same or similar problems. But the long term effects are far greater with narcotics.
Answer by L T
What free country? "Freedom" in America means the right of multinational corporations to rape the country.
Answer by s0d0/\/\
All prohibition is doomed. The government will want its grubby hands in the action soon enough.
Answer by PoBoy
The only justification would be if the product causes more harm than not prohibiting. Pot is a good example: the cost of prohibition in terms of law enforcement, jails, bribery, corruption, home invasions, muggings, profit to organized crime, etc, so far outweighs any benefit of prohibition that prohibition can not be justified on any rational basis. Other harmful products, e.g., salt, fat, etc, should be disclosed and regulated. A vote for prohibition is a vote for organized crime.
Answer by Read My Lips
You know, prices aren't very bad right now, they have stayed the same. There is plenty around. The government cant stop it. I wonder if the price would go down or go up? Either way it is around and will be. Its a plant for christs sake. Meanwhile, when i get done rolling this big fat joint, i will smoke it and answer the next question. puff puff cough cough. Cons, you got a problem with it? TOUGH!
Answer by Fair and Balanced
It gets worse. For example: By law you're prohibited from smoking a Cuban Cigar ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, even if it's legal where you are.
Answer by Mr. Smartypants
The prohibition of marijuana came from the same place as the prohibition of alcohol, from the 'progressive' era beginning at the start of the 20th century. At that point, the govt. decided to get involved in regulating narcotics. And that was a good idea. At the turn of the century you could walk into any drug store and buy opium, morphine, cocaine, etc. just over the counter. Patent medicines were getting very popular then (because medical care was getting expensive, so people wanted to treat themselves.) Patent medicine mfgrs were not required to list the ingredients on the label, they were considered 'trade secrets'. So lots of patent medicines had narcotics in them, and you'd never know. People bought 'soothing syrup' to quiet a fussy baby, and the stuff worked really well! They had no idea the active ingredient was opium or heroin. So the govt. stepped in and regulated narcotics, making them available by prescription only. In fact this was so popular that politicians wanted to go further. In a burst of national pride after WWI we banned alcohol, which turned out to be a mistake. Also marijuana was banned, mostly because it was seen as a drug used only by blacks and Mexicans. Wm Randolph Hearst, the richest and most powerful man in America, owned forests to make paper for his newspapers. He knew hemp could grow 8 times as much fiber for paper, per year, as trees, and he didn't want the competition. So he published lurid stories about people smoking pot and then going off on sprees of rape and pillage and mayhem. In fact it was Hearst that chose the name 'marijuana' because it sounded foreign. Since the 1970s, the War on Drugs has been really nothing more than a justification for more govt. power. Before the WoD, cops didn't have the right to question someone at random on the street without 'probable cause'. They couldn't break down doors or tap phones without a warrant, or summarily confiscate money or property without 'due process'. That's the REAL purpose of the War on Drugs. In fact the War on Terrorism can be seen as just the next step in govt. control, allowing the govt. to imprison someone without habeas corpus, and torture him until he confesses to whatever they want.
Answer by Eric
Drug laws fall under Heath and safety codes I'm not saying that some drugs can't safely be used for recreation but think about it, say you have a short temper and you also like to use cocaine and one day something happens that normally wouldn't be a big deal but now your high and have zero patience and plenty of fuel for your aggression. Do you see what could happen? It's a free country so I think I'll go to 7/11 naked today. No, it's against the law, not because they don't want you to be naked but because people/kids have the right to be protected from that exposure. Like it or not it's all about the greater good.
0 comments:
Post a Comment