Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Kinda cool but he should have placed officers in the house and had the criminals come through the front door, get arrested and taken to jail out the back door. Still kind of funny.


https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-sher ... r-business

That’ll put a serious dent in the drug problem for sure. Hope they get to celebrate and knock back a few shots when they get off duty.

Looks like they may have caught the dealer at the barber shop?

There should be no such thing as "illegal drugs." People should have a right to do drugs if they want to.

JohnStOnge wrote:There should be no such thing as "illegal drugs." People should have a right to do drugs if they want to.

Agreed. Let them kill themselves and get it over with. We spend so much time, effort & money in this country on a losing cause. Addicts are addicts. They will always be addicts. Just let them shoot up, snort, whatever into oblivion.

mainejeff wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:There should be no such thing as "illegal drugs." People should have a right to do drugs if they want to.

Agreed. Let them kill themselves and get it over with. We spend so much time, effort & money in this country on a losing cause. Addicts are addicts. They will always be addicts. Just let them shoot up, snort, whatever into oblivion.

Some can get back on the straight and narrow, for instance Cris Carter, former Vikings WR, comes to mind.

mainejeff wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:There should be no such thing as "illegal drugs." People should have a right to do drugs if they want to.

Agreed. Let them kill themselves and get it over with. We spend so much time, effort & money in this country on a losing cause. Addicts are addicts. They will always be addicts. Just let them shoot up, snort, whatever into oblivion.

I suppose that's true but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about has to do with the fact that it is quite possible to partake in mind altering substances and succeed in life. I think of my own experience. I smoked pot every day when I was in college. I'd get up in the morning and have my coffee while taking a hit or two off the bong. Then I'd carry a Dr. Grabow pipe to school and smoke pot between classes. Meanwhile I was working a 40 hour per week job to support myself and put myself through.

BTW I also did LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, quaaludes, cocaine, yellow mollies, black mollies, blue and clears, etc., while partying.

After I graduated I continued to do drugs recreationally while I did other things that I was at first more specific about in this post but decided to delete. I'll say that I can look out at the world and say that I had an impact. I'll also say that some of my best ideas came while I was cruising down the highway smoking pot. And I'll say that my personal experience has convinced me that the puritanical "drugs are bad" thing is nonsense.

This is supposed to be a free country. If people want to get high, let them get high.

JohnStOnge wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
Agreed. Let them kill themselves and get it over with. We spend so much time, effort & money in this country on a losing cause. Addicts are addicts. They will always be addicts. Just let them shoot up, snort, whatever into oblivion.

I suppose that's true but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about has to do with the fact that it is quite possible to partake in mind altering substances and succeed in life. I think of my own experience. I smoked pot every day when I was in college. I'd get up in the morning and have my coffee while taking a hit or two off the bong. Then I'd carry a Dr. Grabow pipe to school and smoke pot between classes. Meanwhile I was working a 40 hour per week job to support myself and put myself through.

BTW I also did LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, quaaludes, cocaine, yellow mollies, black mollies, blue and clears, etc., while partying.

After I graduated I continued to do drugs recreationally while I did other things that I was at first more specific about in this post but decided to delete. I'll say that I can look out at the world and say that I had an impact. I'll also say that some of my best ideas came while I was cruising down the highway smoking pot. And I'll say that my personal experience has convinced me that the puritanical "drugs are bad" thing is nonsense.

This is supposed to be a free country. If people want to get high, let them get high.

Absolutely.....and if kills them so be it.

mainejeff wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I suppose that's true but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about has to do with the fact that it is quite possible to partake in mind altering substances and succeed in life. I think of my own experience. I smoked pot every day when I was in college. I'd get up in the morning and have my coffee while taking a hit or two off the bong. Then I'd carry a Dr. Grabow pipe to school and smoke pot between classes. Meanwhile I was working a 40 hour per week job to support myself and put myself through.

BTW I also did LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, quaaludes, cocaine, yellow mollies, black mollies, blue and clears, etc., while partying.

After I graduated I continued to do drugs recreationally while I did other things that I was at first more specific about in this post but decided to delete. I'll say that I can look out at the world and say that I had an impact. I'll also say that some of my best ideas came while I was cruising down the highway smoking pot. And I'll say that my personal experience has convinced me that the puritanical "drugs are bad" thing is nonsense.

This is supposed to be a free country. If people want to get high, let them get high.

Absolutely.....and if kills them so be it.

Ever the humanitarian.

Ivytalk wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
Absolutely.....and if kills them so be it.

Ever the humanitarian.

The more druggies, fetuses and Conks we eliminate....the better.

I'm all for you doing more drugs.

You should try drinking battery acid or snorting mercury.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
Agreed. Let them kill themselves and get it over with. We spend so much time, effort & money in this country on a losing cause. Addicts are addicts. They will always be addicts. Just let them shoot up, snort, whatever into oblivion.

I'll also say that some of my best ideas came while I was cruising down the highway smoking pot.

Judging from the quality of your posts on this board, I’d say you need to start smoking lots more pot.

JohnStOnge wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
Agreed. Let them kill themselves and get it over with. We spend so much time, effort & money in this country on a losing cause. Addicts are addicts. They will always be addicts. Just let them shoot up, snort, whatever into oblivion.

I suppose that's true but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about has to do with the fact that it is quite possible to partake in mind altering substances and succeed in life. I think of my own experience. I smoked pot every day when I was in college. I'd get up in the morning and have my coffee while taking a hit or two off the bong. Then I'd carry a Dr. Grabow pipe to school and smoke pot between classes. Meanwhile I was working a 40 hour per week job to support myself and put myself through.

BTW I also did LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, quaaludes, cocaine, yellow mollies, black mollies, blue and clears, etc., while partying.

After I graduated I continued to do drugs recreationally while I did other things that I was at first more specific about in this post but decided to delete. I'll say that I can look out at the world and say that I had an impact. I'll also say that some of my best ideas came while I was cruising down the highway smoking pot. And I'll say that my personal experience has convinced me that the puritanical "drugs are bad" thing is nonsense.

This is supposed to be a free country. If people want to get high, let them get high.

You should have put down the bong and picked up an Economics book.

AZGrizFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I suppose that's true but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about has to do with the fact that it is quite possible to partake in mind altering substances and succeed in life. I think of my own experience. I smoked pot every day when I was in college. I'd get up in the morning and have my coffee while taking a hit or two off the bong. Then I'd carry a Dr. Grabow pipe to school and smoke pot between classes. Meanwhile I was working a 40 hour per week job to support myself and put myself through.

BTW I also did LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, quaaludes, cocaine, yellow mollies, black mollies, blue and clears, etc., while partying.

After I graduated I continued to do drugs recreationally while I did other things that I was at first more specific about in this post but decided to delete. I'll say that I can look out at the world and say that I had an impact. I'll also say that some of my best ideas came while I was cruising down the highway smoking pot. And I'll say that my personal experience has convinced me that the puritanical "drugs are bad" thing is nonsense.

This is supposed to be a free country. If people want to get high, let them get high.

You should have put down the bong and picked up an Economics book.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I'm all for you doing more drugs.

You should try drinking battery acid or snorting mercury.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

As you know people did sniff glue back in my day. I never did that though.

AZGrizFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I suppose that's true but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about has to do with the fact that it is quite possible to partake in mind altering substances and succeed in life. I think of my own experience. I smoked pot every day when I was in college. I'd get up in the morning and have my coffee while taking a hit or two off the bong. Then I'd carry a Dr. Grabow pipe to school and smoke pot between classes. Meanwhile I was working a 40 hour per week job to support myself and put myself through.

BTW I also did LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, quaaludes, cocaine, yellow mollies, black mollies, blue and clears, etc., while partying.

After I graduated I continued to do drugs recreationally while I did other things that I was at first more specific about in this post but decided to delete. I'll say that I can look out at the world and say that I had an impact. I'll also say that some of my best ideas came while I was cruising down the highway smoking pot. And I'll say that my personal experience has convinced me that the puritanical "drugs are bad" thing is nonsense.

This is supposed to be a free country. If people want to get high, let them get high.

You should have put down the bong and picked up an Economics book.

I picked up a statistics book. That's why I know that there is not sufficient evidence to say there is an association between Trump getting elected and/or taking office and a change in the direction of the economy.

JohnStOnge wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I'm all for you doing more drugs.

You should try drinking battery acid or snorting mercury.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

As you know people did sniff glue back in my day. I never did that though.

Are you sure about that?

JohnStOnge wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
You should have put down the bong and picked up an Economics book.

I picked up a statistics book. That's why I know that there is not sufficient evidence to say there is an association between Trump getting elected and/or taking office and a change in the direction of the economy.

You are all over the place (no consistency) with how you require and use evidence.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Trump changed "the direction of the economy.' His accomplishment was keeping it chugging along into a head wind. AZ has presented sufficient evidence that Trump kept the economy going strong.

You require more evidence for Trump's positives (the economy) than you do for his negatives (collusion/obstruction).

You hate Trump and your bias has infected you analysis.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
You should have put down the bong and picked up an Economics book.

I picked up a statistics book. That's why I know that there is not sufficient evidence to say there is an association between Trump getting elected and/or taking office and a change in the direction of the economy.

You should have actually READ it.

UNI88 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I picked up a statistics book. That's why I know that there is not sufficient evidence to say there is an association between Trump getting elected and/or taking office and a change in the direction of the economy.

You are all over the place (no consistency) with how you require and use evidence.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Trump changed "the direction of the economy.' His accomplishment was keeping it chugging along into a head wind. AZ has presented sufficient evidence that Trump kept the economy going strong.

You require more evidence for Trump's positives (the economy) than you do for his negatives (collusion/obstruction).

You hate Trump and your bias has infected you analysis.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

AZ hasn't presented any evidence at all. He's just made assertions.

On the collusion/obstruction thing:

I have said that the Mueller report does not say "no collusion." And it does not. The Mueller report explicitly said that it did not use a "collusion" paradigm. That is not a "data" thing. It's what they said.

Similarly, I have not said I know Trump violated the law with respect to obstruction of Justice. What I've said is that I do not trust Barr to make that call. And, obviously, Mueller explicitly said he would not make a call.

I am not stretching things at all when I say that the Mueller report does NOT say that there was "no collusion" and it does NOT say Trump did not obstruct Justice.

It doesn't. That's just the truth.

AZGrizFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I picked up a statistics book. That's why I know that there is not sufficient evidence to say there is an association between Trump getting elected and/or taking office and a change in the direction of the economy.

You should have actually READ it.

You have already admitted to what I've posted in terms of what the data said and resorted to the basic argument that things would have gotten worse instead of continuing on the same basic trajectory if Trump hadn't been elected. You have presented absolutely zero evidence to support that assertion. But that's been your basic line of argument. Your basic argument has been that Trump has had to overcome the Fed raising historically low interest rates to still historically low interest rates in order to keep the economy doing about the same as it was doing.

JohnStOnge wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
You are all over the place (no consistency) with how you require and use evidence.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Trump changed "the direction of the economy.' His accomplishment was keeping it chugging along into a head wind. AZ has presented sufficient evidence that Trump kept the economy going strong.

You require more evidence for Trump's positives (the economy) than you do for his negatives (collusion/obstruction).

You hate Trump and your bias has infected you analysis.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

AZ hasn't presented any evidence at all. He's just made assertions.

On the collusion/obstruction thing:

I have said that the Mueller report does not say "no collusion." And it does not. The Mueller report explicitly said that it did not use a "collusion" paradigm. That is not a "data" thing. It's what they said.

Similarly, I have not said I know Trump violated the law with respect to obstruction of Justice. What I've said is that I do not trust Barr to make that call. And, obviously, Mueller explicitly said he would not make a call.

I am not stretching things at all when I say that the Mueller report does NOT say that there was "no collusion" and it does NOT say Trump did not obstruct Justice.

It doesn't. That's just the truth.

AZ has presented his qualitative opinion based on his expertise in banking. We're talking about economics and the economy is a complicated thing that can not be studied in isolation.AZ knows more about this than you do. You can disagree with him but you can't just dismiss his opinion and be considered honest and well-reasoned.

I know it's difficult for you but you need to open up your mind to the possibility that Trump while a buffoon and a loose cannon is so far not the abomination that you thought he would be.

UNI88 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
AZ hasn't presented any evidence at all. He's just made assertions.

On the collusion/obstruction thing:

I have said that the Mueller report does not say "no collusion." And it does not. The Mueller report explicitly said that it did not use a "collusion" paradigm. That is not a "data" thing. It's what they said.

Similarly, I have not said I know Trump violated the law with respect to obstruction of Justice. What I've said is that I do not trust Barr to make that call. And, obviously, Mueller explicitly said he would not make a call.

I am not stretching things at all when I say that the Mueller report does NOT say that there was "no collusion" and it does NOT say Trump did not obstruct Justice.

It doesn't. That's just the truth.

AZ has presented his qualitative opinion based on his expertise in banking. We're talking about economics and the economy is a complicated thing that can not be studied in isolation.AZ knows more about this than you do. You can disagree with him but you can't just dismiss his opinion and be considered honest and well-reasoned.

I know it's difficult for you but you need to open up your mind to the possibility that Trump while a buffoon and a loose cannon is so far not the abomination that you thought he would be.

I can see his basic argument. His basic argument is that, (for example) the unemployment rate would not have continued in the downward trend it'd been in for years RIGHT about when Trump took office if Trump hadn't taken office because the Fed raised interest rates a little and if TRUMP hadn't been elected the downward trend would've stopped. And he presented zero data to support that argument.

88, let me establish a premise. I've mentioned it many times before. Statistics transcends any particular discipline. If you understand statistics, you are qualified to evaluate the use of statistics in ANY discipline. You don't have to be an environmental scientist to critique the use of statistics in environmental science. You don't have to be a climate scientist to critique the use of statistics in climate science. So on and so forth. And you don't have to be an economist to critique the use of statistics in economics.

JohnStOnge wrote:88, let me establish a premise. I've mentioned it many times before. Statistics transcends any particular discipline. If you understand statistics, you are qualified to evaluate the use of statistics in ANY discipline. You don't have to be an environmental scientist to critique the use of statistics in environmental science. You don't have to be a climate scientist to critique the use of statistics in climate science. So on and so forth. And you don't have to be an economist to critique the use of statistics in economics.

John, the worlds is complicated and statistics only show part of the picture and that picture is based on that point in time. For example, you like to state that based on demographics, the future of the Republican Party is bleak. And you're right it is. But it only is if none of the other factors that contribute to party membership change. But there is no guarantee that nothing will change. Will Republicans come to their senses and adjust to their policies to appeal to immigrants (Hispanics tend to be more religious and conservative, can the Republicans recruit bring them into their tent)? Will Trump's policies win over minorities because of their historically low unemployment numbers? Will evangelicals increase their "breeding" to offset immigration? Will something that I can't predict or consider change the trend? Will the Republican Party die out to be replaced by a new conservative party (Whigs to Republicans to ______)?

The economy, voting patterns, etc. are not occurring in a vacuum where you have one variable and everything else is static. They are complicated with lots of variables and statistics only tell a part of the story. It is a valuable part of the story but it isn't the whole story.