Why Bush is a horrible president, And why the war is pointless Options

[ComradeRed]

not really...he doesnt follow the constitution word for word...he interprets it into what he thinks it means...

The Constitution is the LAW. What if I don't follow the law word for word and instead interpret it into what I think it means? I'd get arrested and thrown in prison! We should do the same thing to Bush.

Would a strong conservative want to invade Iraq? No.
OF COURSE HE DIDNT WANT TO!!! he knew it was inevitable...for cryin out loud...who the crap wants to start war

REad some REAL conservative columns like American Conservative (www.amconmag.com)... not imperialist neocon trash. The War on Iraq was not inevitable at all.

Would a strong conservative want to support a ban on semiautomatic rifles? No.DOI! a conservative point of view implies that it was the persons fault that the accident happened...liberals blame the gun

So why does Bush support a ban on semiautomatic rifles? Bceause he's NOT conservative.

Would a strong conservative want to RAISE government spending ... more than any other President in US History? Hell no.
AGAIN! he didn`t WANT too...its not like he had a choice...and a lot of it goes into ending terrorism...

That's not true. He's raised social spending more than any mother president since FDR. His medicare plan, social security, etc. The defense budget is only a small chunk of the overall budget increases.

Bush is NOT a conservative. He isn't really a liberal either. I perfer Fascist.

[LaRevolucion]

his decisions may not be the best but they have certainly benifited the american people.

How have they benefited the american people?

[capsule]

bush is too conservative, kerry is too liberal...

u know, i honestly couldn't care bout whether bush or kerry becomes president, because:

1) both of em ain't good
2) im still 15...taxes n medicare aint a problem for me.
3) i can't even vote


Each of em have their own flaws. and don't go callin bush a horrible president, both sux.

[onenonly101]

How have they benefited the american people?

tax cuts, securing the country(please don't make any stupid comment on how bush knew about 9/11, when he had just got into office)

Also everyone who is so against Bush, ya'll need to send the 600 dollars back to him since he is such a horrible person.

[*CrackedRearView*]

So basically you're a Republican.. makes sense now..

EmeraldKnight, I've been debating on this forum with you for quite some time, and I never would have guessed that you're a stereotypically-oriented person.

To deny your negative connotations, not all Republicans are stupid, and uneducated.

I would consider myself an example.

The Constitution is the LAW. What if I don't follow the law word for word and instead interpret it into what I think it means? I'd get arrested and thrown in prison! We should do the same thing to Bush.

A more informed person should know that the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law has been an ongoing struggle for centuries (i.e. Les Miserables).

We don't follow the law word for word, ComradeRed, in many cases we throw the literal meaning out of the window, and stick to what we perceive it to mean. That's one of the beautiful things about this country; it's ability to reason, unlike 17th century England, etc.

The War on Iraq was not inevitable at all.

No, but thousands of preventable deaths were.

He's raised social spending more than any mother president since FDR.

And FDR was one of the most brilliant presidents to ever lead the country, in the opinion of many.

Bush is NOT a conservative. He isn't really a liberal either. I perfer Fascist.

Oh that explains it all. Bush must be Fascist...

Seeing how we're all so oppressed...

How have they benefited the american people?

They've made our country more secure from military attack than it has been in years, they've given you more money come New Year's (assuming you're a tax payer), and they've given us a strategic, economic-monopoly on the Middle East (oh yeah, it's so horrible and cruel, but it's business, and it's good for the economy, which seems to be the only thing my local liberal chums give a damn about).

Bush is the ugliest person made on this universe.... i mean come on.... hes the stupidest president we've had

Actually, I think Kerry's a lot uglier than Bush... (and Bush went to Yale, by the way, a far cry from "stupid").

I mean, look at this guy...JEEZ

Attached File(s)

 flexibility.jpg ( 37.64K ) Number of downloads: 3

 

[inlonelinessidie]

^^ lol

[ComradeRed]

A more informed person should know that the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law has been an ongoing struggle for centuries (i.e. Les Miserables).

We don't follow the law word for word, ComradeRed, in many cases we throw the literal meaning out of the window, and stick to what we perceive it to mean.  That's one of the beautiful things about this country; it's ability to reason, unlike 17th century England, etc.

The Spirit of the Law is meaningless when there is nothing to check the government, simply because the government can interpret it as whatever it wants. Every dictatorship follows the law in name, because they interpret it a certain way.

The only situation under which spirit of hte law is acceptable is when there is an external check on the government to prevent abuse, i.e. a large body of armed rebels capable of overthrowing said government.

The fact remains that in all but the most severe of cases, the letter of the law should be followed, because the "spirit" is meaningless when one agency becomes too powerful and is given the sole right of interpretation. Overinterpretation of the law is the primary cause of most transformations from free society to dictatorship.

No, but thousands of preventable deaths were

... And we caused thousands more deaths. Not to be cynical, but Hussein wasn't threatening us. We don't have an obligation to people in other countries.

And FDR was one of the most brilliant presidents to ever lead the country, in the opinion of many.

And Benito Mussolini made the trains run on time (especially those carrying Jews to concentration camps). In that sense, he was a pretty smart guy.

But like Roosevelt, he was evil.

Roosevelt invented the concept of Anti-Law which still holds today. Anti-law is essentially disregarding the letter of the law -- I.e. transforming a country into a state of martial law, in which case the Constitution is not merely bent but broken. http://www.constitution.org/mil/lawnanti.htm

Senate Report 93-549, written in 1973, said "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." It goes on to say:

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of National emergency. In the United States, actions taken by government in times of great crisis have ... in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of National emergency."...

"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule this country without reference to normal constitutional process.

"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

Even if one argues that Roosevelt was well-intentioned, which I would say that he was not, the fact remains that he led the path open for future abuses, such as those of Dubya, that are a MUCH greater threat than terrorism. After all, you don't live with terrorists every day.

There have been many incidences where the US Government has acted with more brutality than anything we discovered about Hussein, and all this can be traced ultimately to FDR. Take, for example, the Gordon Kahl murder in 1983, where a NONVIOLENT tax protestor's house was stormed by Federal Agents. He was repeatedly beaten with rifles, his limbs were cut off, and objects were thrusted into his anus before he was shot in the head. His wife recieved death threats.

Was FDR a brilliant guy, as you claim? Certainly. But he was an evil genius.

"It is better to tear some holes in the Constitution and fix them later, than to lose it altogether."
--Abe Lincoln

FDR forgot the "fixing them later" part of that justification.

Oh that explains it all. Bush must be Fascist...

Seeing how we're all so oppressed...

Read above. Many examples of governmental atrocities show that the United States is far from a free nation. A good indication of freedom is the incarceration rate -- at 0.7%, the United STates has the highest percent of people in prison of any country ... and over 2/3 are there for nonviolent offenses, mostly drugs.

This helps explain why the United Nations kicked us off the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE -- because, in fact, the Federal Government has become oppressive by the standards of 1776, and even the standards of today.

They've made our country more secure from military attack than it has been in years, they've given you more money come New Year's (assuming you're a tax payer), and they've given us a strategic, economic-monopoly on the Middle East (oh yeah, it's so horrible and cruel, but it's business, and it's good for the economy, which seems to be the only thing my local liberal chums give a damn about).

I agree with tax cuts, but if our monopoly is really so good for the economy, explain why Oil Prices are going up so fast?

Monopolies are NEVER good for an economy -- that's an agreed upon economic fact by Neoclassicists, Keynesians, Game Theoriests, just about every school of thought.

Actually, I think Kerry's a lot uglier than Bush...

I agree

(and Bush went to Yale, by the way, a far cry from "stupid").

For someone like Bush, it was much easier to get into Yale in 1970 than it is today. There are many stupid people at the Ivies -- Athletes, Legacies, Affirmative Action Admits, etc.

[inlonelinessidie]

But seriously who cares who is uglier than the other. This is not a beauty contest, it is a presidential election.

[*CrackedRearView*]

The Spirit of the Law is meaningless when there is nothing to check the government, simply because the government can interpret it as whatever it wants. Every dictatorship follows the law in name, because they interpret it a certain way.

The government intreprets the law however they want every single day.

The people that do so are called judges. Do you really mean to tell me the United States Supreme Court follows the strict, word for word letter of the law?

If we followed the word for word meaning of the law, abortion would be illegal, and I'd be one happy camper.

The only situation under which spirit of hte law is acceptable is when there is an external check on the government to prevent abuse, i.e. a large body of armed rebels capable of overthrowing said government.

When activities are carried out or supervised by the legal authorities, the principle that no special favors must be extended is the rule. Under the law, everyone must be treated the same, without regard to religion, color, national origin, and other special attributes. It is this idea that animates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, indeed, the rule of law itself.

The reasoning behind this is rather straightforward. The law governs us all as human beings who live in human communities. So, it is only our common humanity that must come into play as far as the law is concerned, nothing special about us. If one must not kill, assault, kidnap or rob others, that applies simply by virtue of being human not because one hails from Japan or has dark skin pigmentation. That is one reason why segregation, dictated by the laws of various Southern states, was so clearly unjust. That is why even when it would appear to make some sense, racial profiling is a very dubious police practice. That is why sexual or ethnic discrimination by governments is to be forbidden.

The simple fact that we're humans with morals is the reason slavery is now abolished, not necessarily that the slaves and their supporters had the firepower to do it themselves.

The fact remains that in all but the most severe of cases, the letter of the law should be followed, because the "spirit" is meaningless when one agency becomes too powerful and is given the sole right of interpretation

One agency wasn't given the sole right of interpretation.

Maybe you've heard of the Congress? It's both conservative, and liberal, and because Bush was successful at showing that further diplomacy was useless and that an attack would not hinder the war on terrorism, Congress approved.

And it hasn't, we've literally crippled Al-Qaeda, and we've given one of their biggest supporters (Hussein) the shaft.

Overinterpretation of the law is the primary cause of most transformations from free society to dictatorship.

That's an extreme hyperybole, because I don't see the United States becoming a dictatorship for quite some time.

... And we caused thousands more deaths. Not to be cynical, but Hussein wasn't threatening us. We don't have an obligation to people in other countries.

?!?!

Not to pick nits about numbers, but the Islamic Republic News Agency reports:

"For over 20 years, under the leadership of Hussein (succ. Ahmad Hasan al Bakr),
appx. 1,200 citizens died per week as a direct cause of Hussein and the Baath party."

Excuse me, but I'm quite positive we've dealt out as much death waging war as this man did ruling a country from day to day.

Corresponding to this, Hussein threatened the entire world, not just his own people.

Hillary Clinton was quoted saying "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Any dictatorship with biological and chemical destructive capabilities threatens the entire world.

I'll do my reading up on FDR, because I really don't know much about him, except for the fact that he was considered one of the best presidents (2nd to Abraham Lincoln according to C-SPAN).

Also that his economic policies saved capitalism in the country.

Many examples of governmental atrocities show that the United States is far from a free nation. A good indication of freedom is the incarceration rate -- at 0.7%, the United STates has the highest percent of people in prison of any country ... and over 2/3 are there for nonviolent offenses, mostly drugs.

Drugs create a deadly black market, and are illegal. We're not oppressive by sending violent drug offenders to prison, we're getting them off the streets and away from your child, cousin, nephew/niece, sibling, grandson, etc.

This helps explain why the United Nations kicked us off the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE -- because, in fact, the Federal Government has become oppressive by the standards of 1776, and even the standards of today.

Actually it's not because we send druglords to jail, it's because they whined about our refusal to accept the Kyoto Protocol, which wouldn't work anyway because it requires complete cooperation to gain the environmental effects it desires, and China, one of the biggest environment destroyers, wouldn't accept. Hence, the U.S. saw it as useless, and traditional enemies (France, Japan, etc.) played a big part in making us lose our seat.

The removal of the United States from the Commission is hardly cause for despair, anyway. The Commission is a hypocritical body that allows serious human rights abusers to participate and doesn't do anything beyond talk, and they really don't.

I don't think we need to be on a commission for "human rights" that offers countries such as Pakistan and the Sudan membership, anyway.

Monopolies are NEVER good for an economy

No, your logic has run eschew.

In global, international business, if one nation owns a monopoly on a certain business, it throws it to the forefront, which is good for it's national economy.

Of course, and I agree, in small business, and national capitalistic affairs, monopolies can be very damaging to small business.

For someone like Bush, it was much easier to get into Yale in 1970 than it is today. There are many stupid people at the Ivies -- Athletes, Legacies, Affirmative Action Admits, etc.

That's irrelevant if you successfully complete Ivy League English, Political Science, Philosophy, History, Sociology, and Foreign Language courses with flying colors, which George W. Bush did.

[ComradeRed]

The government intreprets the law however they want every single day.

The people that do so are called judges. Do you really mean to tell me the United States Supreme Court follows the strict, word for word letter of the law?

If we followed the word for word meaning of the law, abortion would be illegal, and I'd be one happy camper.

Nope, I'm saying that they SHOULD insofar as is possible... especially the Tenth Amendment.

When activities are carried out or supervised by the legal authorities, the principle that no special favors must be extended is the rule. Under the law, everyone must be treated the same, without regard to religion, color, national origin, and other special attributes. It is this idea that animates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, indeed, the rule of law itself.

The reasoning behind this is rather straightforward. The law governs us all as human beings who live in human communities. So, it is only our common humanity that must come into play as far as the law is concerned, nothing special about us. If one must not kill, assault, kidnap or rob others, that applies simply by virtue of being human not because one hails from Japan or has dark skin pigmentation. That is one reason why segregation, dictated by the laws of various Southern states, was so clearly unjust. That is why even when it would appear to make some sense, racial profiling is a very dubious police practice. That is why sexual or ethnic discrimination by governments is to be forbidden.

The simple fact that we're humans with morals is the reason slavery is now abolished, not necessarily that the slaves and their supporters had the firepower to do it themselves.

I agree completely. And since everyone should be, as you say, treated the same under the rule of law, so must the government. In other words -- the government (an actor in society) MUST obey the law to the same extent that you and I must -- which means pretty strict adherence to the letter, if not exactly.

And slavery WAS abolished by firepower -- haven't you ever heard of the Civil War?

One agency wasn't given the sole right of interpretation.

Maybe you've heard of the Congress? It's both conservative, and liberal, and because Bush was successful at showing that further diplomacy was useless and that an attack would not hinder the war on terrorism, Congress approved.

And it hasn't, we've literally crippled Al-Qaeda, and we've given one of their biggest supporters (Hussein) the shaft.

You are aware that Bin Laden has been trying to overthrow Hussein right? Religiously fanatical Al-Qaeda and secular Hussein are strongly opposed to each other. Bin Laden's stated three goals in the late 90s were: 1) Destroying Israel, 2) Removing Western Troops from Saudi Arabia, and 3) Overthrowing Hussein. We've done two of those for him.

That's an extreme hyperybole, because I don't see the United States becoming a dictatorship for quite some time.

0.7% of our population in jail, the VAST majority for victimless crimes, proves that the United States, has, in fact, become an oppressive government.

?!?!

Not to pick nits about numbers, but the Islamic Republic News Agency reports:

"For over 20 years, under the leadership of Hussein (succ. Ahmad Hasan al Bakr),
appx. 1,200 citizens died per week as a direct cause of Hussein and the Baath party."

Excuse me, but I'm quite positive we've dealt out as much death waging war as this man did ruling a country from day to day.

Corresponding to this, Hussein threatened the entire world, not just his own people.

Hillary Clinton was quoted saying "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Hillary Clinton is a moron, firstly. Secondly, Hussein WAS a bad guy... I agree... but it wasn't our business going in. We don't represent the Iraqi people.

Any dictatorship with biological and chemical destructive capabilities threatens the entire world.

So why don't we invade North Korea? China? Vietnam? Israel? Carnegie Mellon University? etc.

A threat is not an action. A person walking down the street with a gun threatens the entire community, but it isn't proper to take action unless it becomes imminent or if he actually does something.

Biological and chemical destructive capabilities are not that destructive ... my high school biology lab could count as posessing these sort of weapons. Classifying weapons is really misleading -- especially when you consider that rifles do the ssame thing bio weaposn do.

I'll do my reading up on FDR, because I really don't know much about him, except for the fact that he was considered one of the best presidents (2nd to Abraham Lincoln according to C-SPAN).

Also that his economic policies saved capitalism in the country.

He did not save capitalism, he was a as a matter of fact a socialist. Look up the Tennessee Valley Authority, something that was blatantly Soviet.

Hitler would be ranked Germany's best leader if he won World War II.

Drugs create a deadly black market, and are illegal. We're not oppressive by sending violent drug offenders to prison, we're getting them off the streets and away from your child, cousin, nephew/niece, sibling, grandson, etc.

No, the WAR ON DRUGS creates a deadly black market. Is there a deadly black marekt surrounding tobacco? No. Alcohol? No.

I'm all for sending violent offenders to jail, but there is no reason to send nonviolent ones to jail because they never did anything wrong.

I don't think we need to be on a commission for "human rights" that offers countries such as Pakistan and the Sudan membership, anyway.

But the fact that we incarcerate 0.7% of our population, as opposed to 0.2% in most free nations, shall that our nation has become fairly oppressive.

No, your logic has run eschew.

In global, international business, if one nation owns a monopoly on a certain business, it throws it to the forefront, which is good for it's national economy.

Of course, and I agree, in small business, and national capitalistic affairs, monopolies can be very damaging to small business.

Incorrect. This was perhaps true to an extent in 1700, and this was the whole idea behind mercantilism and colonialism, but notice that mercantilism and colonialism failed -- all the major colonial powers were not able to retain their monopolies on foreign goods, precisely because they were harmful to their domestic economies.

[LaRevolucion]

tax cuts, securing the country(please don't make any stupid comment on how bush knew about 9/11, when he had just got into office)

Also everyone who is so against Bush, ya'll need to send the 600 dollars back to him since he is such a horrible person.

I didn't make a comment about Bush knowing about 9/11.....and I haven't got my 600 dollars so........


.......seriously, where is my 600 dollars??

[LaRevolucion]

For someone like Bush, it was much easier to get into Yale in 1970 than it is today. There are many stupid people at the Ivies -- Athletes, Legacies, Affirmative Action Admits, etc.

It was a lot easier for Bush to get into an Ivie due to the fact that his father was the president of America.....

Plus....Kerry is better looking than Bush...and Edwards....whoa nelly! He's hot! LOL!

[EmeraldKnight]

Dude.. stop double posting already! Sheesh..

It was a lot easier for Bush to get into an Ivie due to the fact that his father was the president of America.....

Plus....Kerry is better looking than Bush...and Edwards....whoa nelly! He's hot! LOL!

Celebrity status always helps... but erm.. his father wasnt President when Bush was in college

As for the second statement............................. no comment..

Nope, I'm saying that they SHOULD insofar as is possible... especially the Tenth Amendment.

Mr. Constitution.. please remind me what the 10th Amendment is..

You are aware that Bin Laden has been trying to overthrow Hussein right? Religiously fanatical Al-Qaeda and secular Hussein are strongly opposed to each other. Bin Laden's stated three goals in the late 90s were: 1) Destroying Israel, 2) Removing Western Troops from Saudi Arabia, and 3) Overthrowing Hussein. We've done two of those for him.

Minda.. you know too much

Hillary Clinton is a moron, firstly. Secondly, Hussein WAS a bad guy... I agree... but it wasn't our business going in. We don't represent the Iraqi people

Yup.. I totally agree..

But the fact that we incarcerate 0.7% of our population, as opposed to 0.2% in most free nations, shall that our nation has become fairly oppressive

Mr. Statistics strikes again..... Ok then Minda, what do you suggest we do with criminals? Let them roam on the streets?

So why don't we invade North Korea? China? Vietnam? Israel? Carnegie Mellon University? etc.

A threat is not an action. A person walking down the street with a gun threatens the entire community, but it isn't proper to take action unless it becomes imminent or if he actually does something.

Biological and chemical destructive capabilities are not that destructive ... my high school biology lab could count as posessing these sort of weapons. Classifying weapons is really misleading -- especially when you consider that rifles do the ssame thing bio weaposn do.

I agree 100%.. a lot of countries can be considered "threats" to the US.. so what should we do? Invade every damn country that has potential to do us harm?

[LaRevolucion]

Whoops...sorry for triple posting, but I thought this pic was funny!

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,327123,00.jpg


LOL! Yeah, America!

[ComradeRed]

Mr. Constitution.. please remind me what the 10th Amendment is

It basically says that everything the Constitution doesn't mention, the federal government isn't alloowed to do, but is instead the perogative of hte States.

Mr. Statistics strikes again.....  Ok then Minda, what do you suggest we do with criminals? Let them roam on the streets?

No, we should put REAL criminals in jail... not people who decided to try out pot. In a free society, a criminal is someone who, with malice, harms other people. Over two-thirds of our prisoners are nonviolent and have never harmed another human being -- these people are only criminals because of legal fiat and oppressive government, and thus should be released.

[sadolakced acid]

bush isn't bad, but he isn't good either.

the war- it's his fault.

[*Kathleen*]

Okay, so I'm kind of jumping in here from nowhere and have briefly read the long posts from you guys...

No, we should put REAL criminals in jail... not people who decided to try out pot. In a free society, a criminal is someone who, with malice, harms other people. Over two-thirds of our prisoners are nonviolent and have never harmed another human being -- these people are only criminals because of legal fiat and oppressive government, and thus should be released.

Oh so you can't harm someone when you're smoking pot and driving? You know how harmful that is to people who are out on the road with that person?

Whoops...sorry for triple posting, but I thought this pic was funny!

Um...sorry, but that has no relevence to this topic, does it?

the war- it's his fault.

This is a debate. Can you please tell me how it's his fault? Are you saying he caused September eleventh?

[ComradeRed]

Oh so you can't harm someone when you're smoking pot and driving? You know how harmful that is to people who are out on the road with that person?

No, you can hurt someone with malice by actually hitting them. If you smoke pot and drive, and don't cause any accdients, no one is hurt.

You can't harm someone by shooting a gun. It's only harming them with malice when you shoot a gun AT them.

[*Kathleen*]

No, you can hurt someone with malice by actually hitting them. If you smoke pot and drive, and don't cause any accdients, no one is hurt.

Yes, but your vision and state of mind is impaired when you're stoned. You're more likely to cause an accident.

[Spirited Away]

No, you can hurt someone with malice by actually hitting them. If you smoke pot and drive, and don't cause any accdients, no one is hurt.

Are we talking about a physical hurt or an emotional hurt? Because it's possible to emotionally hurt people if their loved ones are destroying themselves by way of addiction.

[ComradeRed]

Yes, but your vision and state of mind is impaired when you're stoned. You're more likely to cause an accident.

Let's see. For argument sake, let's say you are two times more likely to cause an accdient by getting stoned than not.

You are INFINITELY times more likely to cause an accident by getting in a car than not. Should we therefore abolish driving?

[*Kathleen*]

Let's see. For argument sake, let's say you are two times more likely to cause an accdient by getting stoned than not.

You are INFINITELY times more likely to cause an accident by getting in a car than not. Should we therefore abolish driving?

Oh shush. You know I've won this one. What kind of question is that? Alcohol causes tons of accidents...and we did abolish that.

[Spirited Away]

You are INFINITELY times more likely to cause an accident by getting in a car than not. Should we therefore abolish driving?

possibility of accidents without influence of drugs/alcohol
+
possibility of accidents WITH the influence
= BIGGER possibility... doesn't it?

[ComradeRed]

Oh shush. You know I've won this one. What kind of question is that? Alcohol causes tons of accidents...and we did abolish that.

Nope. I just showed that increasing the chance of something bad doesn't make a thing bad in and of itself.

[*Kathleen*]

Car accidents alone aren't the only thing marijuana increases the chance of...