racketboy.com

BoneSnapDeez wrote:It's okay Luke. Apparently Romney "doesn't remember" it happening. Selective amnesia is common among politicians.

Yeah, the problem here is there are four professionals that corraborate the story so it isn't limited to hearsay from the deceased's family.

Maybe it will be as effective as the shit slung at John Kerry.

That's a good thing. The sooner we legalize and tax it like alcohol the sooner we raise revenue and put an end to drug gangs' major source of revenue.

ElkinFencer10 wrote:No more common law marriage.

NC never had common law marriages.

pepharytheworm wrote:

ZeroAX wrote:.... More proof that western civilization is past its peak, and we are in a downward spiral like the one that lead from Ancient Greece and Rome to the middle ages.

I am curious when you think the peak was?

It got good starting October 30, 1987 (PC Engine release, I'd say the peak was October 29, 1993 Dracula X). It's been downhill since '95.

Jrecee wrote:But when the government decides they want to be in the marriage business, they DO have to promote equality.

Gov't is in the marriage biz...or at least the states are. You get marriage license (is that like a fishing license?) from the Office Of Register Of Deeds. It's a contract.

Zing wrote:Would any of this matter if all legal/tax/etc benefits for legally married couples were revoked? In other words, if there was no such thing as "legal marriage" and it was purely ceremonial?

If I read you correctly, I think it would matter. People that vote for the male/female marriage definition want the "ceremonial" aspect...that somehow if the state decides that male/male or female/female unions are marriages, then THEIR church will also <?!?>

My only comment is that the state is not my religion, and as long as we keep that separation I'm okay. We are a democracy and majority rule...and the majority voted. Even though I voted against the amendment, I do NOT want gay marriage in my church. I have no problem what-so-ever with a (state)partner-union-marriage with all the rights associated with it, but I DO take issue with a (Catholic)wedding-marriage that is not male/female. Hypocrite? Maybe...but that's my view.

Stark wrote: I saw of Romney getting "snippy" with a reporter, she was asking about legalizing marijauna. Seriously, not a headline issue, talk about the economy or something someone cares about.

War on drugs is an economical issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Dru ... _taxpayers

A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy — $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings, and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue ($6.7 billion from marijuana, $22.5 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs).[101][102]

o.pwuaioc wrote:That's a good thing. The sooner we legalize and tax it like alcohol the sooner we raise revenue and put an end to drug gangs' major source of revenue.

So your fix for the economy is to sell pot?

Stark wrote:

o.pwuaioc wrote:That's a good thing. The sooner we legalize and tax it like alcohol the sooner we raise revenue and put an end to drug gangs' major source of revenue.

So your fix for the economy is to sell pot?

No, it won't fix the economy, but any source of revenue would help.

o.pwuaioc wrote:

Stark wrote:

o.pwuaioc wrote:That's a good thing. The sooner we legalize and tax it like alcohol the sooner we raise revenue and put an end to drug gangs' major source of revenue.

So your fix for the economy is to sell pot?

Where did I say it would fix the economy? But any source of revenue would help.

You're right you don't. I said that we should discuss the economy and you replied that it was good we're talking about drugs over the economy and I felt it was implied. I feel like talks about legalizing drugs, is to help pay for the debt we're creating, but doesn't address what I feel is the issue of reducing the debt we create.

EDIT: Also sorry to the OP, we can discuss this elsewhere as it doesn't have much to do with the OP.

retrosportsgamer wrote:

BoneSnapDeez wrote:It's okay Luke. Apparently Romney "doesn't remember" it happening. Selective amnesia is common among politicians.

Yeah, the problem here is there are four professionals that corraborate the story so it isn't limited to hearsay from the deceased's family.

Maybe it will be as effective as the shit slung at John Kerry.

TBH, I don't think it's going to have much effect at all. No one cared that Obama did drugs when he was in high school. Not to mention that this came out so far before election day that if it does make a difference, Romney has plenty of time to change people's minds.

Luke wrote:You're probably right, but recent news has definitely sealed Obama's victory. I could see this election being an even bigger landslide than when Reagan was voted in.

I don't take any one poll as definitive, but the latest Rasmussen poll shows the exact opposite.

I thought you guys were joking about the Romney thing.

"Back in high school, I did some dumb things, and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize."

"if" anybody was hurt or offended?

Stark wrote:EDIT: Also sorry to the OP, we can discuss this elsewhere as it doesn't have much to do with the OP.

No need to apologize. I'd rather this thread not deal with legalization (I'd be surprised if this forum didn't have at least a dozen threads about it), but at the same time I derailed my own thread with the Romney talk (which I believe ties in someway with Ad 1).