2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Buster Bluth]

So he came in and taught a couple classes part time teaching God knows what. Impressive.

Doesn't bother me at all (it's comical) but I assumed an institution as "prestigious" as Harvard would require their professors to have a PhD.

Outside of government no one has hired this clown to do a damn thing full time.

This is getting pathetic

 

[Ndaccountant]

I actually would support getting rid of prescriptions for drugs altogether -- particularly drugs that are used to manage pain. As you say, there will aways be people who will abuse their bodies -- we have all these restrictions now and there are still people who get their hands on it. People who have chronic pain -- say back pain -- have to suffer needlessly because of people who abuse prescription drugs. New laws have forced doctors to reduce the number of prescription pain medications they allow. Those with chronic pain are forced (at least in Pennsylvania) to sign papers promising they will not attempt to get the same medicanion from any other doctor, and submit to piss tests to make sure they are not taking more than was prescribed. Its insane. These people are just trying to get through their days without suffering. Because of these new stupid rules, some (more and more each day) abandon the pursuit of prescription pain medications because of the latesest crop of insane rules and restrictions on them, and turn to street drugs like heroine. I believe this plays a big role in the uptick in heoroine overdoses. "War on Drugs" policies continue to demonize drug users and toss them in prison (which is sort of what those "facilities" you are describing above have become. You want to talk about expensive ... we have more people locked up that any other country in the world.

Decriminalizing drug use takes away the financial incentives of drug cartels, dealers, and the like and we can start cutting the costs that our prison society has incurred. It also allows people to manage their own pain as they see fit and not have to suffer for no reason than there are people who would abuse the system. There are people who abuse it now, and often find themselves taking substances that are less safe.

You are right ... you are never going to fix the whole addiction problem no matter what we do. No need to make everyone else suffer because of people who lack personal control (whether it is a personal decision or a sickness). Back to the Christy comments ... If it is a sickness, deal with the sickness and remove the stigma. That's mostly what I liked about his comments.

LOL......fentanyl on demand. Don't see anything going wrong with that idea.

 

[kmoose]

People who have chronic pain -- say back pain -- have to suffer needlessly because of people who abuse prescription drugs. New laws have forced doctors to reduce the number of prescription pain medications they allow. Those with chronic pain are forced (at least in Pennsylvania) to sign papers promising they will not attempt to get the same medicanion from any other doctor, and submit to piss tests to make sure they are not taking more than was prescribed. Its insane. These people are just trying to get through their days without suffering. Because of these new stupid rules, some (more and more each day) abandon the pursuit of prescription pain medications because of the latesest crop of insane rules and restrictions on them, and turn to street drugs like heroine. I believe this plays a big role in the uptick in heoroine overdoses. "War on Drugs" policies continue to demonize drug users and toss them in prison (which is sort of what those "facilities" you are describing above have become. You want to talk about expensive ... we have more people locked up that any other country in the world.

I don't understand how asking someone to stick with one doctor for prescribing pain meds, or taking an occasional urinalysis equates to "needless suffering"?

I would submit that those who really are "just trying to get through their days without suffering" probably wouldn't give a whit about pissing in a bottle once a month or so, or working with the one doctor at a time, if they are getting the meds they need. If their suffering is so bad, those two conditions seem to be incredibly small prices to pay, to ease that suffering.

 

[wizards8507]

I actually would support getting rid of prescriptions for drugs altogether -- particularly drugs that are used to manage pain. As you say, there will aways be people who will abuse their bodies -- we have all these restrictions now and there are still people who get their hands on it. People who have chronic pain -- say back pain -- have to suffer needlessly because of people who abuse prescription drugs. New laws have forced doctors to reduce the number of prescription pain medications they allow. Those with chronic pain are forced (at least in Pennsylvania) to sign papers promising they will not attempt to get the same medicanion from any other doctor, and submit to piss tests to make sure they are not taking more than was prescribed. Its insane. These people are just trying to get through their days without suffering. Because of these new stupid rules, some (more and more each day) abandon the pursuit of prescription pain medications because of the latesest crop of insane rules and restrictions on them, and turn to street drugs like heroine. I believe this plays a big role in the uptick in heoroine overdoses. "War on Drugs" policies continue to demonize drug users and toss them in prison (which is sort of what those "facilities" you are describing above have become. You want to talk about expensive ... we have more people locked up that any other country in the world.

Decriminalizing drug use takes away the financial incentives of drug cartels, dealers, and the like and we can start cutting the costs that our prison society has incurred. It also allows people to manage their own pain as they see fit and not have to suffer for no reason than there are people who would abuse the system. There are people who abuse it now, and often find themselves taking substances that are less safe.

You are right ... you are never going to fix the whole addiction problem no matter what we do. No need to make everyone else suffer because of people who lack personal control (whether it is a personal decision or a sickness). Back to the Christy comments ... If it is a sickness, deal with the sickness and remove the stigma. That's mostly what I liked about his comments.

This.

If a grown ass adult wants to poison himself, mahalo to him.

 

[Cackalacky]

I suppose you think the pyramids were tombs?

1. Zero bodies or mummies were ever found in the pyramids.

2. Egyptian royalty was interred in the Valley of the Kings.

3. The supposed "sarcophagi" they found in the pyramids aren't big enough to fit am adult human, let alone human within a series of coffins as was the custom.

4. It's exciting to me, as a Republican primary voter, that this is the best hit piece the media can come up with.

5. Keep attacking Carson and Trump, please. Neither will be the actual nominee and the longer heat stays of Rubio and company, the better.

6. Who the fuck cares? This "story" is EVERYWHERE.

You don't get it do you.. wooly gets it. He just makes shit up and he believes things that are just demonstrably false.

This is not the best "hit piece" they can come up with. Its not even a hit piece. Just another window in the lulu bird that is running for president.

And you should be REALLY concerned that a presidential candidate believes the Flintstones is accurate history. LOL.

 

[kmoose]

LOL......fentanyl on demand.

"Yeah, give me a pack of Marlboro Light 100s in the box, $20 on Powerball, this package of Randy Goat Weed, and, um............. a 75 pack of morphine......... no, the pills."

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't understand how asking someone to stick with one doctor for prescribing pain meds, or taking an occasional urinalysis equates to "needless suffering"?

I would submit that those who really are "just trying to get through their days without suffering" probably wouldn't give a whit about pissing in a bottle once a month or so, or working with the one doctor at a time, if they are getting the meds they need. If their suffering is so bad, those two conditions seem to be incredibly small prices to pay, to ease that suffering.

It doesn't. But, if Patient X was prescribed eight of Pill Y per day to manage pain for years, and the person was able to get through life without being in constant pain, that was OK. But, when the new rules were put into place, doctors began prescribing Patient X two of Pill Y instead, and that person who was responsibily managing his/her paid suddently had to "suffer needlessly" because the ground shifted under their feet.

I have talked to several people who have been through this at the doctor's office. They don't prescribe them pain medication with refills ... they make them go into the doctor every month (and pay those fees as well, which is another topic altogether) and get a new prescription. They are made to feel, they say, as if they are doing something wrong by asking for the medication that they have been taking for years without issue. The "two condiitions" are put into place to track people who are abusing the drugs, and everyone else has to jump through these hoops to ensure that abusers can't abuse. But, of course, it does not work and the abusers keep abusing or turning to more dangerous and unregulated street drugs and creating another problem altogether. The more restrictive we become on prescription pain medication, the more people search for alternatives to relieve said pain. Look at the heroine problem that is going on across the country right now, and ask yourself why that drug has made such a resurgence.

 

[kmoose]

You don't get it do you.. wooly gets it. He just makes shit up and he believes things that are just demonstrably false.

UNlike.......

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PbnKGopT0Uc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Right?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

This getting pathetic

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Getting?

 

[kmoose]

It doesn't. But, if Patient X was prescribed eight of Pill Y per day to manage pain for years, and the person was able to get through life without being in constant pain, that was OK. But, when the new rules were put into place, doctors began prescribing Patient X two of Pill Y instead, and that person who was responsibily managing his/her paid suddently had to "suffer needlessly" because the ground shifted under their feet.

I have talked to several people who have been through this at the doctor's office. They don't prescribe them pain medication with refills ... they make them go into the doctor every month (and pay those fees as well, which is another topic altogether) and get a new prescription. They are made to feel, they say, as if they are doing something wrong by asking for the medication that they have been taking for years without issue. The "two condiitions" are put into place to track people who are abusing the drugs, and everyone else has to jump through these hoops to ensure that abusers can't abuse. But, of course, it does not work and the abusers keep abusing or turning to more dangerous and unregulated street drugs and creating another problem altogether. The more restrictive we become on prescription pain medication, the more people search for alternatives to relieve said pain. Look at the heroine problem that is going on across the country right now, and ask yourself why that drug has made such a resurgence.

So you're AGAINST background checks for handgun purchases? Or you're just FOR a legal free-for-all on dangerous narcotics?

 

[Ndaccountant]

It doesn't. But, if Patient X was prescribed eight of Pill Y per day to manage pain for years, and the person was able to get through life without being in constant pain, that was OK. But, when the new rules were put into place, doctors began prescribing Patient X two of Pill Y instead, and that person who was responsibily managing his/her paid suddently had to "suffer needlessly" because the ground shifted under their feet.

I have talked to several people who have been through this at the doctor's office. They don't prescribe them pain medication with refills ... they make them go into the doctor every month (and pay those fees as well, which is another topic altogether) and get a new prescription. They are made to feel, they say, as if they are doing something wrong by asking for the medication that they have been taking for years without issue. The "two condiitions" are put into place to track people who are abusing the drugs, and everyone else has to jump through these hoops to ensure that abusers can't abuse. But, of course, it does not work and the abusers keep abusing or turning to more dangerous and unregulated street drugs and creating another problem altogether. The more restrictive we become on prescription pain medication, the more people search for alternatives to relieve said pain. Look at the heroine problem that is going on across the country right now, and ask yourself why that drug has made such a resurgence.

There is a WIDE gap between changing prescription rules and regs versus no more prescriptions. Let's not limit this to pain meds, you are also talking about steroids, antibiotics, etc. It's really a silly thing to contemplate.

 

[wizards8507]

So you're AGAINST background checks for handgun purchases? Or you're just FOR a legal free-for-all on dangerous narcotics?

Yes to both.

 

[woolybug25]

UNlike.......

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PbnKGopT0Uc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Right?

I don't think that you're grasping what Cack is talking about. Your post was about Clinton lying, no one is accusing Carson of lying. Rather the real issue is that he actually believes the ridiculous shit he says.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't think that you're grasping what Cack is talking about. Your post was about Clinton lying, no one is accusing Carson of lying. Rather the real issue is that he actually believes the ridiculous shit he says.

Lying is far worse than genuinely believing a falsehood. The point that Moose is making is that Clinton's lies are far more dangerous than whether Ben Carson thinks wheat or dead bodies were stored in the pyramids.

I'm no Carson supporter for a slew of other reasons, but these recent attacks are moronic.

 

[Cackalacky]

UNlike.......

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PbnKGopT0Uc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Right?

I am not talking about HRC. I have not talked about her. I do not support her and I will never vote for her. So there is no point in responding to my posts ABOUT Ben Carson and his detachment form reality, with videos about HRC as if they negate anything I post about Ben Carson, who is the person I focus on in my recent posts. Not HRC. Not Dems, Not Bernie Sanders, Not Marco Rubio.

BEN CARSON.

I AM in fact talking about Ben Carson though. Exclusively. Which is evident in my last several posts in this thread.

 

[kmoose]

I don't think that you're grasping what Cack is talking about. Your post was about Clinton lying, no one is accusing Carson of lying. Rather the real issue is that he actually believes the ridiculous shit he says.

Gotcha! So it's ok for a person to make shit up if they don't actually believe it. Like, say......... taking sniper fire at the airport. But it's not ok to "make shit up" if you DO believe it? Like saying, "I believe the pyramids were used to store grain"?

 

[GoIrish41]

So you're AGAINST background checks for handgun purchases? Or you're just FOR a legal free-for-all on dangerous narcotics?

I'm not really seeing the connection here, but I'll try to respond.

I am for background checks for handgun purchases because they make it more difficult for people to inflict pain on other people. I am for getting rid of prescription requirements for pain medication because it keeps people from having to live in pain.

So, I'll just ask: you are against background checks for handgun purchases because they violate individual rights, but for people being told that they must continue to live in pain because some government entity has determined that these drugs are" dangerous"? Who is being inconsistent?

Remember this old chestnut? -- Criminals will still get their hands on guns no matter how strict you make the gun laws. You don't think that logic applies to drug abusers, too? Decriminalizing these drugs will cause a deep reduction in crime (both violent and non-violent), ensure there are fewer single parent families because people will not go to jail for drug offenses, and relieve a lot of people from chronic pain and make their lives better. There will be knuckleheads who would abuse ... just like there are knuckleheads who abuse legal alcohol and legal tobacco. I don't hear anyone calling for prohibition anymore, since that policy seemed to have worked so well in the past.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I am not talking about HRC. I have not talked about her. I do not support her and I will never vote for her. So there is no point in responding to my posts ABOUT Ben Carson and his detachment form reality, with videos about HRC as if they negate anything I post about Ben Carson, who is the person I focus on in my recent posts. Not HRC. Not Dems, Not Bernie Sanders, Not Marco Rubio.

BEN CARSON.

I AM in fact talking about Ben Carson though. Exclusively. Which is evident in my last several posts in this thread.

While we're on the topic, though, Carson lied about his involvement with the herbal supplement company and the math on his tax plan.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-ben-carson-says-he-has-no-connection-mannat/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...en-carsons-tithe-based-tax-plan-lead-1-trill/

Lying is bad. Like it or not, it's pretty much par for the course in our politics.

 

[Cackalacky]

Lying is far worse than genuinely believing a falsehood. The point that Moose is making is that Clinton's lies are far more dangerous than whether Ben Carson thinks wheat or dead bodies were stored in the pyramids.

I'm no Carson supporter for a slew of other reasons, but these recent attacks are moronic.

Its not moronic when this guy is leading in polls. He is polling better than any of the establishment guys. He may very well do what Santorum did and fall out after Iowa... But he is your front runner at this time. So it is relevant, and not moronic.

Are you saying a liar is less credible than a person who has no attachment to reality? You worse candidate would be one who lies as opposed to a person who can't tell the difference between a fact that agrees with reality and a belief that is verifiably contrary to reality?

Ok....

 

[kmoose]

I am not talking about HRC. I have not talked about her. I do not support her and I will never vote for her. So there is no point in responding to my posts ABOUT Ben Carson and his detachment form reality, with videos about HRC as if they negate anything I post about Ben Carson, who is the person I focus on in my recent posts. Not HRC. Not Dems, Not Bernie Sanders, Not Marco Rubio.

BEN CARSON.

I AM in fact talking about Ben Carson though. Exclusively. Which is evident in my last several posts in this thread.

I was not saying that it's ok for Ben Carson to make stuff up. You don't like him because you think he is a little bit crazy, and that he actually believes the things that he is saying are absolute truths. But you DO support a party whose unquestioned frontrunner makes shit up as well? I guess what I am trying to say to you is....... is it that Ben Carson makes things up that bothers you, or is it that the things that Ben Carson "makes up" bother you?

 

[GoIrish41]

I was not saying that it's ok for Ben Carson to make stuff up. You don't like him because you think he is a little bit crazy, and that he actually believes the things that he is saying are absolute truths. But you DO support a party whose unquestioned frontrunner makes shit up as well? I guess what I am trying to say to you is....... is it that Ben Carson makes things up that bothers you, or is it that the things that Ben Carson "makes up" bother you?

... or is it the things that he makes up are irrationally stupid?

 

[woolybug25]

Gotcha! So it's ok for a person to make shit up if they don't actually believe it. Like, say......... taking sniper fire at the airport. But it's not ok to "make shit up" if you DO believe it? Like saying, "I believe the pyramids were used to store grain"?

Don't put words in my or Cacks mouth. You are the only person that brought Clinton and your perception on her lying. Our point never included lying, compared whether lying was worse or even compared them as people. It was solely based on Carsons bizarre belief system. You are the one bringing in an entirely different topic in efforts to deflect by spinning Clinton instead of having to acknowledge Carson's completely ridiculous twisting of both history and science.

 

[Cackalacky]

I was not saying that it's ok for Ben Carson to make stuff up. You don't like him because you think he is a little bit crazy, and that he actually believes the things that he is saying are absolute truths. But you DO support a party whose unquestioned frontrunner makes shit up as well? I guess what I am trying to say to you is....... is it that Ben Carson makes things up that bothers you, or is it that the things that Ben Carson "makes up" bother you?

Lying is very different from convincing your self falsehoods are the truth. Lying for political gain is normal and typical. Sadly. I don't support anyone who lies. Both parties do it. They both use half truths, white lies, secretes and other things to frame the context of their arguments to get the best deals they can. That is what is.

Carson does not do that. He can't be reasoned with. There is no reaching a deal with someone who believes the end times is near and that Israel needs to be destroyed so Jesus can come back. There are a great deal of things that bother me about Ben Carson. I have made numerous posts in here already and I am not gonna go back and reiterate them., but the main thing for me I don't think Carson is capable of distinguishing reality which makes his conceptualization on important policies dangerous.

 

[Cackalacky]

Don't put words in my or Cacks mouth. You are the only person that brought Clinton and your perception on her lying. Our point never included lying, compared whether lying was worse or even compared them as people. It was solely based on Carsons bizarre belief system. You are the one bringing in an entirely different topic in efforts to deflect by spinning Clinton instead of having to acknowledge Carson's completely ridiculous twisting of both history and science.

This is what he does. He is being disingenuous and intentionally mischaracterizing our posts. Its not new but it is tiresome.

I never mentioned Dems, or HRC or lying for political gain.

 

[kmoose]

I'm not really seeing the connection here, but I'll try to respond.

You are against the drug laws because they place what you consider an undue burden upon legitimate people, in an effort to stop the minority of people from getting access to drugs that they will abuse. Especially since the abusers will find their drugs elsewhere, anyways.

But you are FOR background checks, which place what many consider an undue burden upon legitimate people, in an effort to stop the minority of people from getting access to weapons that they will abuse. Especially when the abusers will find their weapons elsewhere, anyways.

I am for background checks for handgun purchases because they make it more difficult for people to inflict pain on other people. I am for getting rid of prescription requirements for pain medication because it keeps people from having to live in pain.

I can understand this distinction, but what about the pain and anguish that loved ones have to endure, when a family member goes through addiction? Does their pain not count to you? Do you simply discard them, and "too bad, so sad" for them? Wouldn't it be better to regulate the distribution of highly addictive drugs like narcotics, in an effort to keep people from too easily becoming addicted? And who is going to pay for the social services that these addicts are going to require?

So, I'll just ask: you are against background checks for handgun purchases because they violate individual rights, but for people being told that they must continue to live in pain because some government entity has determined that these drugs are" dangerous"? Who is being inconsistent?

It sure as fvck isn't me, because I am FOR background checks. And I'm all for expanding them. If you are in a situation where your life is seriously threatened because you have to wait a week to purchase a handgun, then there's really not much hope for you, anyway.

 

[kmoose]

This is what he does. He is being disingenuous and intentionally mischaracterizing our posts. Its not new but it is tiresome.

I never mentioned Dems, or HRC or lying for political gain.

Would you like some cheese with that? You did mention, numerous times, your disdain for Ben Carson "making stuff up". You've shown a pretty consistent "Anti-GOP, Pro-Dem" stance throughout this thread. So I think it was not out of line to make a comparison between Ben Carson "making stuff up", and the leader of your party "making stuff up".

But I will try to keep focusing on the ideas and thoughts here, while you continue to attack people.

 

[kmoose]

There is no reaching a deal with someone who believes the end times is near and that Israel needs to be destroyed so Jesus can come back.

Pardon me, seriously, if I am not up to date on this, but Carson actually said this? As in he actually said, "Ya know, the end is coming soon, and if we want Jesus to be able to come back, we're going to have to destroy Israel." ? Or he was having a philosophical discussion and this subject came up? Do you have a source for it?

 

[wizards8507]

Hillary Clinton keeps smearing Bernie Sanders as a sexist: Now she is reaching for the race card.

 

[GoIrish41]

You are against the drug laws because they place what you consider an undue burden upon legitimate people, in an effort to stop the minority of people from getting access to drugs that they will abuse. Especially since the abusers will find their drugs elsewhere, anyways.

But you are FOR background checks, which place what many consider an undue burden upon legitimate people, in an effort to stop the minority of people from getting access to weapons that they will abuse. Especially when the abusers will find their weapons elsewhere, anyways.



I can understand this distinction, but what about the pain and anguish that loved ones have to endure, when a family member goes through addiction? Does their pain not count to you? Do you simply discard them, and "too bad, so sad" for them? Wouldn't it be better to regulate the distribution of highly addictive drugs like narcotics, in an effort to keep people from too easily becoming addicted? And who is going to pay for the social services that these addicts are going to require?



It sure as fvck isn't me, because I am FOR background checks. And I'm all for expanding them. If you are in a situation where your life is seriously threatened because you have to wait a week to purchase a handgun, then there's really not much hope for you, anyway.

Which is why my OP was complimentary of Christy's comments about treatment for addiction. I suspect that paying for treatment for addiction is considerably less expensive than locking people up in the insane numbers that we do in this country, not to mention clogging up court dockets, and the re-direction of law enforcement resources that the "war on drugs" has brought about in this country.

And you ARE being inconsistent if you are FOR protecting people's rights on guns, but AGAINST protecting people's rights to manage their own pain. And I say this with the caveat that I, again, see almost no connection to these two topics -- one has to do with individual rights that end up with people being killed in movie theaters and churches (hurting others) and one has to do with individual rights that allow people to make decisions about their own bodies. You are making the same kind of "beside the point" arguments to me as you are to Cack and Wooly above on a totally different topic. I will agree with Cack, it is tiresome.

 

[Cackalacky]

Would you like some cheese with that? You did mention, numerous times, your disdain for Ben Carson "making stuff up". You've shown a pretty consistent "Anti-GOP, Pro-Dem" stance throughout this thread. So I think it was not out of line to make a comparison between Ben Carson "making stuff up", and the leader of your party "making stuff up".

But I will try to keep focusing on the ideas and thoughts here, while you continue to attack people.

Negged. Terrible post.

1st of all.... I am am anti establishment politician. So yes that pretty much takes care of both parties.
2nd.... I am anti GOP in the sense that their policies are no policies at all. They are hypocrites on family values and religion and the economics... the thrust of their policy "initiatives".
3rd... I am not a registered Dem nor do I vote exclusively for Dems. So you are totally wrong there and are once again attempting to mischaracterize me to paint me with a black brush. ALso I don't have a leader of my party as I am not a registered Dem or GOP. Negged.
4th... I have attacked no one. I have recently only posted about Ben Carson as he is leading in several polls. I am free to do so I don't see how that is whining you troll when you are the one purposefully arguing in bad faith and putting words in everyone's mouth. Negged.