Trolling the ship channel?

[slickfish]

Originally Posted by "W"

Tolling.......is a lazy mans sport of fishing!!! Zero skills

Just couldn't stand it. So predictable :screwy:

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Pull n Pray

But have you ever done all that stuff ON WEED???

I just graded my son's geometry. Hard enough without the weed. My daughter will be along in a few minutes for help with her physics and then later for pre-Calculus. Are you really suggesting that somehow I'd be a better home school teacher on weed? This stuff is hard enough while stone cold sober. I suffer from seasonal allergies, and I've often noticed how much harder some physics and calculus problems can be on certain allergy medicines. I could not even imagine trying to do this stuff on weed.

Most of the bull reds we catch are from a boat. Our current boat is a 16 foot aluminum boat and our favorite spot is right outside of the western cut in the Calcasieu jetties. When a bull red hits it is a pretty big fight and a challenge to land simultaneously keeping the boat balanced and everything else. It's a lot of fun and a huge adrenaline dump, but nothing I would recommend while chemically impaired. Getting the boat back to the ramp safely in various conditions of weather and boat traffic is not something I would ever recommend for one who is chemically impaired.

Even in more protected waters without the big ships (like Caminada pass) I'm regularly dodging shrimp boats and jet skiers and we've also had thunderstorms come up quickly calling for good, quick decision making and some skill handling the boat. Boating and dope smoking just do not mix.

[Lake Chuck Duck]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I just graded my son's geometry. Hard enough without the weed. My daughter will be along in a few minutes for help with her physics and then later for pre-Calculus. Are you really suggesting that somehow I'd be a better home school teacher on weed? This stuff is hard enough while stone cold sober. I suffer from seasonal allergies, and I've often noticed how much harder some physics and calculus problems can be on certain allergy medicines. I could not even imagine trying to do this stuff on weed.

Its ok Buzz, its just a movie quote...

["W"]

Originally Posted by slickfish

Just couldn't stand it. So predictable :screwy:

Did it just for you so that your post about me could keep going!!

I knew I could get my duck to quack before 10am

Lmao what a duck!! Dude you decoy like a spoonbill

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by "W"

Did it just for you so that your post about me could keep going!!

I knew I could get my duck to quack before 10am

Lmao what a duck!! Dude you decoy like a spoonbill

LOL!

[Finfeatherfur]

And I thought being a cop on this site drew attention!!!!!

Jordan, pass the popcorn!!!! LOL!!!!!

Get em'

[Jordan]

rating this post 5 stars... here "Brain"... assing popcorn:

went from trolling ship channel to smoking weed to being a math professor to politics to... i lost track

[Finfeatherfur]

I think it's going back to smoking weed here in a minute......standing by!

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

WHAT? Of course, we need to judge potential leaders based on their personal choices.

Gary Johnson CHOSE to smoke weed in violation of Federal law and knowing it would set a horrible example to the nation's youth!

Gary Johnson CHOSE to divorce his wife of 27 years.

As a presidential candidate, he CHOSE to run on a platform advocating that the US unilaterally abandon longstanding international commitments promised under duly passed treaties. As a presidential candidate, he CHOSE for the LP platform to exclude clear delineations of state and federal powers.

He's a man who chooses not to keep his promises and does not believe it is necessary for the US to keep our longstanding, duly passed agreements.

This is a character problem. The President should be more than a good manager. The president should be a person deeply committed to the oath of office, a person who keeps promises.

Are you REALLY OK with what Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office and how he lied about it under oath? Do you really believe these kinds of choices do not matter?

So your version where we label people based on personal biases is better?

The founder's of this nation CHOSE to break from their sworn allegiance with Britian. Shall we judge them as harshly as you choose to judge a modern day person who is not willing to accept the status quo?

I do not agree with many of the policies that were enacted in the Clinton years (Nafta is quite possibly the most henious example of our governments stupidity)

However i could give exactly two ****'s less where Bill Clinton's **** and his cigar's have been.

I am not interested in attempting to get a reincarnated jesus christ to run for office in this country, Because the fact's are when a perfect candidate is found that has the moral's of a Saint, He will still happily follow the current blue and red policies of selling the american people out to corporate interests.

I am very interested in someone running for office who has shown his ability to restrict government, encourage free trade and industry (without sucking off big business and their lobbying groups), and enact policies which strongly benefit his constituants.

Ron Paul is not a bad guy either, The concerns that i have of him stem more from his close relationship with mega business.

I have little or no doubt that if the "closets" of america's presidents were collectively "aired" out... there would be more than enough scandal. I simply prefer the scandal and the scoundrel that i know... rather than the one who is best able to hide his past.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I just graded my son's geometry. Hard enough without the weed. My daughter will be along in a few minutes for help with her physics and then later for pre-Calculus. Are you really suggesting that somehow I'd be a better home school teacher on weed? This stuff is hard enough while stone cold sober. I suffer from seasonal allergies, and I've often noticed how much harder some physics and calculus problems can be on certain allergy medicines. I could not even imagine trying to do this stuff on weed.

Most of the bull reds we catch are from a boat. Our current boat is a 16 foot aluminum boat and our favorite spot is right outside of the western cut in the Calcasieu jetties. When a bull red hits it is a pretty big fight and a challenge to land simultaneously keeping the boat balanced and everything else. It's a lot of fun and a huge adrenaline dump, but nothing I would recommend while chemically impaired. Getting the boat back to the ramp safely in various conditions of weather and boat traffic is not something I would ever recommend for one who is chemically impaired.

Even in more protected waters without the big ships (like Caminada pass) I'm regularly dodging shrimp boats and jet skiers and we've also had thunderstorms come up quickly calling for good, quick decision making and some skill handling the boat. Boating and dope smoking just do not mix.

My goodness, how do you ever manage to do the mental gymnastics on those nights where you and the wife choose to share some wine?

Oh that's right... Marijuana is the DEVIL.... and it will cloud your mind for AGES!!!! And you won't be able to make rational choices about when to use it...

lol okay :*****:

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Jordan

rating this post 5 stars... here "Brain"... assing popcorn:

went from trolling ship channel to smoking weed to being a math professor to politics to... i lost track

It's the gift that keeps giving!!!

.....well it is almost the holiday's... need to get in the spirit..

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Jordan

rating this post 5 stars... here "Brain"... assing popcorn:

went from trolling ship channel to smoking weed to being a math professor to politics to... i lost track

You got any cajun spice to sprinkle on that popcorn?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

However i could give exactly two ****'s less where Bill Clinton's **** and his cigar's have been.

To me, Clinton's behavior was much more despicable than the typical adulterous politician on several counts:
1. The behavior occurred at work.
2. The behavior occurred with a subordinate.
3. He lied about the behavior under oath.
These facts make his behavior far worse than simple unfaithfulness to his marital vows.

Is it OK to lie under oath, if you are only lying about sex?

If you are only lying about sex at work?

If you are only lying about sex at work with a subordinate?

Is it OK to lie under oath if it is about something else you think should be OK but some authority has a problem with? Like drug use? At work?

Originally Posted by AceArcher

I am very interested in someone running for office who has shown his ability to restrict government, encourage free trade and industry (without sucking off big business and their lobbying groups), and enact policies which strongly benefit his constituants.

Somehow, when push comes to shove, I think libertarians will advocate for much more than drug legalization. I think they will want drug use to become a protected status and use governmental power to restrict the liberties of employers, insurance companies, and individuals in choosing not to hire drug users, choosing not to insure drug users (or charge them more), and choosing to require drug tests as a reasonable condition of voluntary association or business of any type.

A true libertarian would not restrict an employer's rights to test for drug use or make employment decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private school's rights to test for drug use or make admission and retention decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private insurer's rights to test for drug use or make coverage decisions based on drug use.

Are you really a true libertarian?

[Jordan]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

You got any cajun spice to sprinkle on that popcorn?

just bought a 2 pack from Sam's

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

To me, Clinton's behavior was much more despicable than the typical adulterous politician on several counts:
1. The behavior occurred at work.
2. The behavior occurred with a subordinate.
3. He lied about the behavior under oath.
These facts make his behavior far worse than simple unfaithfulness to his marital vows.

Is it OK to lie under oath, if you are only lying about sex?

If you are only lying about sex at work?

If you are only lying about sex at work with a subordinate?

Is it OK to lie under oath if it is about something else you think should be OK but some authority has a problem with? Like drug use? At work?



Somehow, when push comes to shove, I think libertarians will advocate for much more than drug legalization. I think they will want drug use to become a protected status and use governmental power to restrict the liberties of employers, insurance companies, and individuals in choosing not to hire drug users, choosing not to insure drug users (or charge them more), and choosing to require drug tests as a reasonable condition of voluntary association or business of any type.

A true libertarian would not restrict an employer's rights to test for drug use or make employment decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private school's rights to test for drug use or make admission and retention decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private insurer's rights to test for drug use or make coverage decisions based on drug use.

Are you really a true libertarian?

If you're math skills are in line with your logic, you should consider changing your name from MathGeek to AriopsisFelis.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1384539237.404731.jpg

Logic - instead of honing my skills to catch redfish with artificials (hard heads rarely take compared to natural baits), let's do a study on what to throw that will deter them. Conclusion? Magnetized Hooks.

None of your fears are backed by any legitimate evidence, just like your arguments on legalizing pot.

Do any libertarians advocate eliminating age limits for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco?

Do any libertarians push to eliminate all breathalyzers and field tests for those that show evidence of alcohol intoxication?

Do any libertarians advocate decriminalizing marijuana and making it rampant and accessible to youths?

Do any libertarians support eliminating drug tests in industries where they are most needed? No, the only push is for drug tests that are accurate in determining safe levels that can prove drugs weren't done on the job, or in a time frame that proves the effects are hazardous. Anyone in the oilfield is susceptible to alcohol tests on site, and I don't hear anyone opposed to them. I've had random breathalyZers done for a crew of 100 and never thought of it as an infringement.

Get real mg, and leave your emotions at home where they belong.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Goooh

Do any libertarians support eliminating drug tests in industries where they are most needed? No, the only push is for drug tests that are accurate in determining safe levels that can prove drugs weren't done on the job, or in a time frame that proves the effects are hazardous. Anyone in the oilfield is susceptible to alcohol tests on site, and I don't hear anyone opposed to them. I've had random breathalyZers done for a crew of 100 and never thought of it as an infringement.

So you've skillfully avoided answering most of my questions, but you are making a case that government power should be exerted to force employers to prove their drug testing requirements and policies are reasonable and needed.

So your vision is for a government bureaucrat or court decide what drug policies and testing practices are reasonable. The employer has the burden of proof that drug use occurred at work or is impacting performance. Drug users get to be a protected class. Private insurers and employers are not at liberty to decide on their employment and insuring policies, but are subject to government control, because drug users are a protected class.

This is not true libertarian government. This is pothead utopia. The government will end up forcing private employers and insurance companies to employ and insure drug users. Insurance companies will have to prove to some government bureaucrat or court that certain behaviors and drug use increases risks rather than relying on their own risk assessment practices and policies.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

To me, Clinton's behavior was much more despicable than the typical adulterous politician on several counts:
1. The behavior occurred at work.
2. The behavior occurred with a subordinate.
3. He lied about the behavior under oath.
These facts make his behavior far worse than simple unfaithfulness to his marital vows.

Is it OK to lie under oath, if you are only lying about sex? Because politicians don't lie about anything do they?

If you are only lying about sex at work?

If you are only lying about sex at work with a subordinate?

Is it OK to lie under oath if it is about something else you think should be OK but some authority has a problem with? Like drug use? At work?

Politicians that DON'T lie under oath, have sex at work with subordinates (and or conduct various other innappropraite things, are the Rule now a days... not the Rarity..) Lie, Deception, Misuse of government power... those are are rules.. not exceptions.

Thus my like of Gary Johnson, He has shown that he is not from that same mold.



Somehow, when push comes to shove, I think libertarians will advocate for much more than drug legalization. I think they will want drug use to become a protected status and use governmental power to restrict the liberties of employers, insurance companies, and individuals in choosing not to hire drug users, choosing not to insure drug users (or charge them more), and choosing to require drug tests as a reasonable condition of voluntary association or business of any type.

So your disdain for the libertarian party comes from a "hunch"? Well so much for the old scientific method arguement.

A true libertarian would not restrict an employer's rights to test for drug use or make employment decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private school's rights to test for drug use or make admission and retention decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private insurer's rights to test for drug use or make coverage decisions based on drug use.

Are you really a true libertarian?

I believe i am a true Libertarian, I view the the platform to be one of less government involvement, but when there is a need for government involvement it is of a nature to protect the People from other interests ie. (Mega business lobbying, squandering of the nation's national resources for the financial benefit of a few rather than the good of the whole country) etc.

As far as your drug arguments above i never stated any of those things in our other discussion.. and to the best of my recollection no one else said so either... so what the heck is your point.

Are we once again degraded to your viewpoint that potheads are incapable of contributing to society in any meaningful way whatsoever?

Do i agree 100% with every single point listed in the Libertarian Platform.... no.... but by and far they represent a very large percentage of what changes could occur that would quickly bring this country back to it's rightful position as leader of the free world.

For example... i will even give you a freebee.... i'm sure you will happily use it to call me a commie socialist or something.

The libertarian policy in regards to Healthcare is that the insurance industry market should be stripped of government and protectionism. Selling over state lines should be allowed as should collective bargaining agreements with groups of like minded consumer... ie. switch to a true free market system with a Laissez faire mindset toward the economic's portion of it.

I do believe that would work to some extent.... and it would certainly be a HUGE improvement over the joke that is our current healthcare system.

However... My personal belief's differ from the LP on this subject, I believe that we should in fact switch to a 100% socialized health care system. With appropriate governmental regulation. Set up in similar fashion to successful socialized health care plans currently in place in many of this worlds countries.

I believe this because personally i believe basic solid healthcare (no boobjobs or such allowed) is a human right. I also believe it because these countries have shown that they can provide more doctors and more hospital beds and better service accross the board resulting in longer healthier lives for their countries citizens.

Honestly i could care less which route we take, as long as we quickly extricate ourselves from the current quagmire of health care law which has been written by the health care and pharma lobbying groups.

I quite seriously doubt that you or any one else will ever agree with any party's opinion 100%.....

But you go with what most closely matches your mindset. Yes?

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Jordan

just bought a 2 pack from Sam's

Nice.. i will throw some more popcorn in the microwave.. will pass it around.

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

So you've skillfully avoided answering most of my questions, but you are making a case that government power should be exerted to force employers to prove their drug testing requirements and policies are reasonable and needed.

So your vision is for a government bureaucrat or court decide what drug policies and testing practices are reasonable. The employer has the burden of proof that drug use occurred at work or is impacting performance. Drug users get to be a protected class. Private insurers and employers are not at liberty to decide on their employment and insuring policies, but are subject to government control, because drug users are a protected class.

This is not true libertarian government. This is pothead utopia. The government will end up forcing private employers and insurance companies to employ and insure drug users. Insurance companies will have to prove to some government bureaucrat or court that certain behaviors and drug use increases risks rather than relying on their own risk assessment practices and policies.

L M A O

Just like employers are forced by government to hire alcoholics?

Where the hell do you get this?

The push is for methods, not requirements. The government does not force drug testing now, but it's done freely just as it would be if pot were legalized.

Since alcohol was legalized prior to your existence, and people developed methods to test for intoxication in that time frame, that makes it ok? But the same road can't be taken for marijuana?

I actually quit reading your regurgitations a long time ago, and just reply based on how predictable you are. Seems my intuition is still on point.

Pothead utopia... LMAO, what a joke.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

So you've skillfully avoided answering most of my questions, but you are making a case that government power should be exerted to force employers to prove their drug testing requirements and policies are reasonable and needed.

So your vision is for a government bureaucrat or court decide what drug policies and testing practices are reasonable. The employer has the burden of proof that drug use occurred at work or is impacting performance. Drug users get to be a protected class. Private insurers and employers are not at liberty to decide on their employment and insuring policies, but are subject to government control, because drug users are a protected class.

This is not true libertarian government. This is pothead utopia. The government will end up forcing private employers and insurance companies to employ and insure drug users. Insurance companies will have to prove to some government bureaucrat or court that certain behaviors and drug use increases risks rather than relying on their own risk assessment practices and policies.

No sorry MG... he hasn't skillfully evaded your questions at all..

he answered them fairly and squarely.

There are tests in place to determine if a person is under the influence.

Ask triple F.... i'm sure it goes along the line of ... field sobriety test fail... then a med test to determine if you are under the influence.

pretty simple really... you choose to party at the job site... get caught... lose your job.... pretty much the same as with alcohol.

This isn't rocket science.