Silver Stackers logo

Silver Stackers

Discussion forum for those
who love to stack precious metals

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Forum registration is closed. It will reopen on Monday.

#1 2017-02-27 18:03:23

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 15,915
Trades :   102 
Website

6 reasons to reject Le Pen

1. She supports government efforts to ban free speech
2. She wants to ban the freedom to practice religion
3. She supports protectionist trade policies
4. She wants to crack down on immigration
5. She has a zero tolerance on drugs policy
6. She supports an increase in the State's capacity to intervene in economic matters

https://fee.org/articles/6-non-racism-r … ne-le-pen/

So what's the alternative? Possibly the two classical liberal parties http://alternative-liberale.fr/ or http://www.partiliberaldemocrate.fr/ which I assume would be similar to our own LDP in Australia.


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: bordsilver, REDBACK

#2 2017-02-27 19:00:12

willrocks
Silver Stacker
From: Yesterday
Registered: 2012-05-10
Posts: 7,628
Trades :   29 

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

Who is Le Pen?

Sorry I don't watch TV or read much mainstream news.

Last edited by willrocks (2017-02-27 19:01:12)


"You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality." - Ayn Rand

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: mmm....shiney!, REDBACK

#3 2017-02-27 19:14:49

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 15,915
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

willrocks wrote:

Who is Le Pen?

Sorry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#4 2017-02-27 19:56:18

alor
Silver Stacker
From: Pulau Alor ;)
Registered: 2011-06-16
Posts: 4,512
Trades :   39 

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

Le Pen for president.
Lady president will be elected.
smile


Hear Say See -> N o t h i n g
May this stacking hobby be my blessing smile

Offline

The following 4 users say thank you for this post: jnkmbx, millededge, Dogmatix, gingham69

#5 2017-02-27 20:34:52

jnkmbx
Member
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: 2011-04-08
Posts: 1,667
Trades :   
Website

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

mmm....shiney! wrote:

1. She supports government efforts to ban free speech

"While our country is still in a state of emergency, when these demonstrations have systematically sank into violence, hatred and degradation in recent days, it is incomprehensible that the government has not taken the necessary measures To forbid these gatherings and guarantee the republican order, "she denounced.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/ … police.php

It is pretty clear to me that the reason she wants to ban these "protests" are because they are mostly violent extreme left-wing militias rioting.

I know you'd probably just say this (though more eloquently): "well they should arrest them after they start breaking the law" tongue


"If you can't bone it, you don't own it" @_@
Tin Foil Hat Brigade Member

Successful trades with: Ben Bernanke, Con, Poochie, Osama, Masataka Shimizu, Alan Kohler, Alyssa Bustamante and the Scat Man (Ski Ba Bop Ba Dop Bop!)

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: mmm....shiney!

#6 2017-02-27 20:37:05

Big A.D.
Silver Stacker
From: Sydney
Registered: 2009-10-29
Posts: 6,435
Trades :   52 

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

mmm....shiney! wrote:

1. She supports government efforts to ban free speech
2. She wants to ban the freedom to practice religion
3. She supports protectionist trade policies
4. She wants to crack down on immigration
5. She has a zero tolerance on drugs policy
6. She supports an increase in the State's capacity to intervene in economic matters

She is the French version of Donald Trump.


I am the Leafy Sea Dragon.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: bordsilver

#7 2017-02-27 20:37:13

Jislizard
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2011-04-07
Posts: 7,467
Trades :   57 

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

jnkmbx wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:

1. She supports government efforts to ban free speech

"While our country is still in a state of emergency, when these demonstrations have systematically sank into violence, hatred and degradation in recent days, it is incomprehensible that the government has not taken the necessary measures To forbid these gatherings and guarantee the republican order, "she denounced.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/ … police.php

It is pretty clear to me that the reason she wants to ban these "protests" are because they are mostly violent extreme left-wing militias rioting.

I know you'd probably just say this (though more eloquently): "well they should arrest them after they start breaking the law" tongue

No, surely society will shun the rioters and shame them into more acceptable behaviour.

Doesn't trump want to re-brand rioters as economic terrorists and arrest them?


Now stacking: World Junk Silver Coins.
Swap your older, worn, dirty fractional silver coins for fiat, .999 rounds or legal tender. 
Individual coins, mixed lots or bulk. 
Not looking for Australian, bent, holed or damaged coins, thanks!

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: Dogmatix

#8 2017-02-27 21:01:51

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 15,915
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

jnkmbx wrote:

It is pretty clear to me that the reason she wants to ban these "protests" are because they are mostly violent extreme left-wing militias rioting.

Quite possibly.

As some protests have indeed sparked violent riots, one might suggest that Le Pen's concerns are justified. However, please note that when labor law protests turned violent last June, and the government decided to ban all new protests, the National Front leader tweeted:

"The ban on demonstrations against the #LaborLaw is a resignation in the face of thugs and a serious breach of democracy. MLP"

https://fee.org/articles/6-non-racism-r … ne-le-pen/


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#9 2017-02-27 22:49:26

Shaddam IV
Silver Stacker
From: House Corrino
Registered: 2010-03-22
Posts: 6,276

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

mmm....shiney! wrote:

1. She supports government efforts to ban free speech
2. She wants to ban the freedom to practice religion
3. She supports protectionist trade policies
4. She wants to crack down on immigration
5. She has a zero tolerance on drugs policy
6. She supports an increase in the State's capacity to intervene in economic matters

https://fee.org/articles/6-non-racism-r … ne-le-pen/

So what's the alternative? Possibly the two classical liberal parties http://alternative-liberale.fr/ or http://www.partiliberaldemocrate.fr/ which I assume would be similar to our own LDP in Australia.

Overly simplistic and disingenuous.

1. Every elected official tries to ban aspects of free speech. They all suck at this particular issue, not just her.
2. She does not want to ban the freedom to practice religion. She wants to control a weaponised, medieval social control system with a religious wrapping who's stated, unashamed intent is and always has been since it's inception the conquest and domination of other people.
3 What's wrong with an elected leader protecting the economy and trade of the people she is elected to represent?
4. She wants to crack down on illegal, uncontrolled immigration that puts at risk the safety and economic stability of those she is elected to represent.
5. Drugs are an eternal problem whether they are banned or not. There is no right answer to the issue of people wanting to get out of it. There is a right answer to the use of destructive drugs like Ice.
6. That one I have to agree with you, states should only have limited powers to intervene on the free market. Unfortunately trade barriers sometimes seem to be the only way to protect jobs and businesses.

Offline

The following 4 users say thank you for this post: mmm....shiney!, millededge, gingham69, REDBACK

#10 2017-02-27 23:29:38

bordsilver
Silver Stacker
From: The rocks
Registered: 2012-05-23
Posts: 9,588
Trades :   36 

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

Shaddam IV wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:

1. She supports government efforts to ban free speech
2. She wants to ban the freedom to practice religion
3. She supports protectionist trade policies
4. She wants to crack down on immigration
5. She has a zero tolerance on drugs policy
6. She supports an increase in the State's capacity to intervene in economic matters

https://fee.org/articles/6-non-racism-r … ne-le-pen/

So what's the alternative? Possibly the two classical liberal parties http://alternative-liberale.fr/ or http://www.partiliberaldemocrate.fr/ which I assume would be similar to our own LDP in Australia.

Overly simplistic and disingenuous.

1. Every elected official tries to ban aspects of free speech. They all suck at this particular issue, not just her.
2. She does not want to ban the freedom to practice religion. She wants to control a weaponised, medieval social control system with a religious wrapping who's stated, unashamed intent is and always has been since it's inception the conquest and domination of other people.
3 What's wrong with an elected leader protecting the economy and trade of the people she is elected to represent?
4. She wants to crack down on illegal, uncontrolled immigration that puts at risk the safety and economic stability of those she is elected to represent.
5. Drugs are an eternal problem whether they are banned or not. There is no right answer to the issue of people wanting to get out of it. There is a right answer to the use of destructive drugs like Ice.
6. That one I have to agree with you, states should only have limited powers to intervene on the free market. Unfortunately trade barriers sometimes seem to be the only way to protect jobs and businesses.

Kim Jong-Il would agree with all of your first 5 points.


The only good tax is a repealed tax.

Offline

#11 2017-02-27 23:51:33

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 15,915
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

Shaddam IV wrote:

Overly simplistic and disingenuous.

1. Every elected official tries to ban aspects of free speech. They all suck at this particular issue, not just her.

No argument there.

Shaddam IV wrote:

2. She does not want to ban the freedom to practice religion. She wants to control a weaponised, medieval social control system with a religious wrapping who's stated, unashamed intent is and always has been since it's inception the conquest and domination of other people.

She wants to dictate to others how they express their religious affilitiations eg banning burkinis and burqas in public. That's the same thing as banning the practice of religious freedom. If she's got a problem with burqas, if she believes that they truly are a symbol of oppression then it's inappropriate for her to demand that the State passes a ruling on it because opinions about religious garb are entirely subjective. She should enact change with reason not with political power.

Shaddam IV wrote:

What's wrong with an elected leader protecting the economy and trade of the people she is elected to represent?

Because her solution will cause more harm than good.

Shaddam IV wrote:

. She wants to crack down on illegal, uncontrolled immigration that puts at risk the safety and economic stability of those she is elected to represent.

Fair enough, I'll accept that for now. As long as that's all she wants to do rather than stop immigration entirely.

Shaddam IV wrote:

. Drugs are an eternal problem whether they are banned or not. There is no right answer to the issue of people wanting to get out of it. There is a right answer to the use of destructive drugs like Ice.

Drug use is entirely personal, there are already laws in place that protect people and their property from the side-effects of those that choose to use drugs. Therefore it is inappropriate for the State to legislate against drug use.

Shaddam IV wrote:

6. That one I have to agree with you, states should only have limited powers to intervene on the free market. Unfortunately trade barriers sometimes seem to be the only way to protect jobs and businesses.

Trade barriers may protect some jobs and some businesses, but they cause harm and come at the expense of consumer prosperity as they artificially raise the price of goods and encourage inefficient work practices.  As an example https://piie.com/publications/policy-br … -high-cost

smile

Last edited by mmm....shiney! (2017-02-27 23:52:18)


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: Shaddam IV, REDBACK

#12 2017-02-28 00:05:59

Jislizard
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2011-04-07
Posts: 7,467
Trades :   57 

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

mmm....shiney! wrote:

She wants to dictate to others how they express their religious affilitiations eg banning burkinis and burqas in public. That's the same thing as banning the practice of religious freedom. If she's got a problem with burqas, if she believes that they truly are a symbol of oppression then it's inappropriate for her to demand that the State passes a ruling on it because opinions about religious garb are entirely subjective. She should enact change with reason not with political power.

If it is acceptable for one sector of society to refuse to show their face then everyone should be able to, regardless of religious beliefs.

Just as a shop can deny service to someone who comes in wearing a face mask then can't a country deny service to someone wearing a face mask or a school deny service for the same reason, security?



mmm....shiney! wrote:

Drug use is entirely personal, there are already laws in place that protect people and their property from the side-effects of those that choose to use drugs. Therefore it is inappropriate for the State to legislate against drug use.

Didn't I hear that Australian prisons are at 115% capacity, with the sudden surge being put down to increased ICE use. Not for being caught using the drug, but for being caught during break-ins and assaults. So there is plenty of harm to society, the public are not being protected from the side effects, just the guilty may get punishment if they get caught.


Now stacking: World Junk Silver Coins.
Swap your older, worn, dirty fractional silver coins for fiat, .999 rounds or legal tender. 
Individual coins, mixed lots or bulk. 
Not looking for Australian, bent, holed or damaged coins, thanks!

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: mmm....shiney!

#13 2017-02-28 01:29:32

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 15,915
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

Jislizard wrote:

If it is acceptable for one sector of society to refuse to show their face then everyone should be able to, regardless of religious beliefs.

Just as a shop can deny service to someone who comes in wearing a face mask then can't a country deny service to someone wearing a face mask or a school deny service for the same reason, security?

The key is that a shopkeeper can deny service for whatever reason he likes because it is his place. A country on the other hand is not privately owned, any move toward favouring one group over another or discriminating against one group using the power of the State is immoral - and cannot be justified rationally.

Jislizard wrote:

Didn't I hear that Australian prisons are at 115% capacity, with the sudden surge being put down to increased ICE use. Not for being caught using the drug, but for being caught during break-ins and assaults. So there is plenty of harm to society, the public are not being protected from the side effects, just the guilty may get punishment if they get caught.

There are already laws in place regarding theft, as there are against assault and murder. What more do you want? If they choose to use drugs at home and don't bother anybody else your point becomes moot.  smile


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: Jislizard

#14 2017-02-28 01:51:27

Jislizard
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2011-04-07
Posts: 7,467
Trades :   57 

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

mmm....shiney! wrote:
Jislizard wrote:

Didn't I hear that Australian prisons are at 115% capacity, with the sudden surge being put down to increased ICE use. Not for being caught using the drug, but for being caught during break-ins and assaults. So there is plenty of harm to society, the public are not being protected from the side effects, just the guilty may get punishment if they get caught.

There are already laws in place regarding theft, as there are against assault and murder. What more do you want? If they choose to use drugs at home and don't bother anybody else your point becomes moot.  smile

If they don't bother anyone else than you are right, but it looks like they are bothering other people, the victims of the crimes that the drug addicts commit in order to pay for the drugs.

However these laws do not seem to be acting as a deterrent, it is fine to punish people after they have committed the crimes but it would be better if they could be stopped before other people are made victims. So if the laws are not working, then you need new laws. Systems evolve and so should the laws that protect us.  If the current laws are not having any effect on the number of people affected by muggings or break-ins then we need to do something.

This isn't a case of a few people choosing to unwind over the weekend with a couple of joints before going back to work on Monday. It is not going to self regulate and they are not going to be able to continue their habit without bothering anyone else.


Now stacking: World Junk Silver Coins.
Swap your older, worn, dirty fractional silver coins for fiat, .999 rounds or legal tender. 
Individual coins, mixed lots or bulk. 
Not looking for Australian, bent, holed or damaged coins, thanks!

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: gingham69

#15 2017-02-28 02:01:39

Jislizard
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2011-04-07
Posts: 7,467
Trades :   57 

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

mmm....shiney! wrote:
Jislizard wrote:

If it is acceptable for one sector of society to refuse to show their face then everyone should be able to, regardless of religious beliefs.

Just as a shop can deny service to someone who comes in wearing a face mask then can't a country deny service to someone wearing a face mask or a school deny service for the same reason, security?

The key is that a shopkeeper can deny service for whatever reason he likes because it is his place. A country on the other hand is not privately owned, any move toward favouring one group over another or discriminating against one group using the power of the State is immoral - and cannot be justified rationally.

Many people feel a strong bond to the country they grew up in, they might actually see it as their place, they certainly pay for its upkeep through taxes so you can see why they would feel like that. They then elect an individual to run the place for them, like a shop keeper by proxy.

In this instance one group is favoured over another by not having to show their face for identification purposes, which is as you say, immoral and cannot be justified. We don't have very much in the way of stringent identification purposes but Drivers Licenses, Passports, RSL Memberships, Bus passes etc. all require a way to ensure that the correct person is using them.

I feel sorry for those wearing the burqa, they have the full force of the state and much puplic opinion in their adopted countries telling them they can't wear it (often stating that it is for their own freedom) and the full force of family, friends, customs, tradition, fashion and religion telling them that them must wear it (for their own freedom). Puts them in a very difficult position where they pretty much have to side against the state.


Now stacking: World Junk Silver Coins.
Swap your older, worn, dirty fractional silver coins for fiat, .999 rounds or legal tender. 
Individual coins, mixed lots or bulk. 
Not looking for Australian, bent, holed or damaged coins, thanks!

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: fosinator

#16 2017-02-28 02:55:40

JulieW
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2010-10-14
Posts: 11,097

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

The most obvious Muslims are women, because of the head covering. All those racist sub-morons attacking the Hijab wearing women on trains and buses are too cowardly to have a go at any middle eastern man because he's probably 'not muslim' though odds on he is. This is one that really gets up my nose.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: bordsilver

#17 2017-02-28 03:14:12

bordsilver
Silver Stacker
From: The rocks
Registered: 2012-05-23
Posts: 9,588
Trades :   36 

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

Jislizard wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:
Jislizard wrote:

If it is acceptable for one sector of society to refuse to show their face then everyone should be able to, regardless of religious beliefs.

Just as a shop can deny service to someone who comes in wearing a face mask then can't a country deny service to someone wearing a face mask or a school deny service for the same reason, security?

The key is that a shopkeeper can deny service for whatever reason he likes because it is his place. A country on the other hand is not privately owned, any move toward favouring one group over another or discriminating against one group using the power of the State is immoral - and cannot be justified rationally.

Many people feel a strong bond to the country they grew up in, they might actually see it as their place, they certainly pay for its upkeep through taxes so you can see why they would feel like that. They then elect an individual to run the place for them, like a shop keeper by proxy.

In this instance one group is favoured over another by not having to show their face for identification purposes, which is as you say, immoral and cannot be justified. We don't have very much in the way of stringent identification purposes but Drivers Licenses, Passports, RSL Memberships, Bus passes etc. all require a way to ensure that the correct person is using them.

I feel sorry for those wearing the burqa, they have the full force of the state and much puplic opinion in their adopted countries telling them they can't wear it (often stating that it is for their own freedom) and the full force of family, friends, customs, tradition, fashion and religion telling them that them must wear it (for their own freedom). Puts them in a very difficult position where they pretty much have to side against the state.

Jislizard, you've raise two interesting topics at once, both of which I could wax lyrical about.

On this one, a group of people can of course have a common view on excluding people, and I don't have a problem with city states like Monaco doing so. The Classical Liberal position where there is a small government would basically be to minimise it's ability to impose undue restrictions on people's peaceful activities. The State exists to protect people's rights not infringe on them. A ban on "ostensible signs of religion" from public places would constitute such an infringement.

In terms of your specific issue to do with identification using facial recognition, then my response would be along the lines of "Yes, as part of living in a society that is tasked with enforcing your rights it is everyone's civic duty to be willing to put up with the odd inconvenience of providing reasonable assistance to the police etc. However, if identification checks using facial recognition is not an option then another reasonable alternative should be found (which may be more inconvenient for the person being checked, but so be it)."


The only good tax is a repealed tax.

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: mmm....shiney!, Jislizard

#18 2017-02-28 03:19:27

bordsilver
Silver Stacker
From: The rocks
Registered: 2012-05-23
Posts: 9,588
Trades :   36 

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

Jislizard wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:
Jislizard wrote:

Didn't I hear that Australian prisons are at 115% capacity, with the sudden surge being put down to increased ICE use. Not for being caught using the drug, but for being caught during break-ins and assaults. So there is plenty of harm to society, the public are not being protected from the side effects, just the guilty may get punishment if they get caught.

There are already laws in place regarding theft, as there are against assault and murder. What more do you want? If they choose to use drugs at home and don't bother anybody else your point becomes moot.  smile

If they don't bother anyone else than you are right, but it looks like they are bothering other people, the victims of the crimes that the drug addicts commit in order to pay for the drugs.

However these laws do not seem to be acting as a deterrent, it is fine to punish people after they have committed the crimes but it would be better if they could be stopped before other people are made victims. So if the laws are not working, then you need new laws. Systems evolve and so should the laws that protect us.  If the current laws are not having any effect on the number of people affected by muggings or break-ins then we need to do something.

This isn't a case of a few people choosing to unwind over the weekend with a couple of joints before going back to work on Monday. It is not going to self regulate and they are not going to be able to continue their habit without bothering anyone else.

I have a strong belief (which I understand the evidence supports) that if all drugs could be accessed legally like people buy other products, the quality of the products would improve along with significantly better information and awareness which would lead to a reduction in the numbers of serious ice addicts.


The only good tax is a repealed tax.

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: gingham69, Big A.D.

#19 2017-02-28 03:56:29

alor
Silver Stacker
From: Pulau Alor ;)
Registered: 2011-06-16
Posts: 4,512
Trades :   39 

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

please open the wine, win or lost.

the wine would get opened


Hear Say See -> N o t h i n g
May this stacking hobby be my blessing smile

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: JulieW

#20 2017-02-28 05:18:16

Shaddam IV
Silver Stacker
From: House Corrino
Registered: 2010-03-22
Posts: 6,276

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

bordsilver wrote:

I have a strong belief (which I understand the evidence supports) that if all drugs could be accessed legally like people buy other products, the quality of the products would improve along with significantly better information and awareness which would lead to a reduction in the numbers of serious ice addicts.

I can't imagine the moral, legal and ethical implications of selling a drug like ice over the counter when it so quickly and comprehensively cores out its users minds, destroys their and their families lives and then kills them. I would suspect that any store selling that stuff legally would not be left standing for very long, angry parents of dead teens would take it and it's owners to pieces.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: millededge

#21 2017-02-28 06:02:56

southerncross
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2012-07-26
Posts: 3,391

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

Shaddam IV wrote:
bordsilver wrote:

I have a strong belief (which I understand the evidence supports) that if all drugs could be accessed legally like people buy other products, the quality of the products would improve along with significantly better information and awareness which would lead to a reduction in the numbers of serious ice addicts.

I can't imagine the moral, legal and ethical implications of selling a drug like ice over the counter when it so quickly and comprehensively cores out its users minds, destroys their and their families lives and then kills them. I would suspect that any store selling that stuff legally would not be left standing for very long, angry parents of dead teens would take it and it's owners to pieces.

I agree with both point's here. Ice is nothing but detrimental for all concerned, but if legal access to recreational drugs was permitted then in time a replacement would be manufactured that would no doubt give the same high that users are seeking but also be far less damaging to the users. As it is now Ice is freely available anyway and those selling it are seemingly free to do what they want with manufacturing and distribution.
A dedicated industry that is governed and monitored would no doubt be safer for users and also knockout the criminal element in a large way it could also generate a huge windfall in taxes that could be spent on providing medical care for the population instead of lining the pockets of illicit drug importers.

The drugs are already available, it is a multi billion dollar industry, lets face it people just like getting high and have and will continue to do so despite any efforts of the Gov't or the Law.

It's High Time (pun intended) that the Gov't and law enforcement look at this problem another way.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: BuggedOut

#22 2017-02-28 06:14:45

southerncross
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2012-07-26
Posts: 3,391

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

mmm....shiney! wrote:

1. She supports government efforts to ban free speech
2. She wants to ban the freedom to practice religion
3. She supports protectionist trade policies
4. She wants to crack down on immigration
5. She has a zero tolerance on drugs policy
6. She supports an increase in the State's capacity to intervene in economic matters

https://fee.org/articles/6-non-racism-r … ne-le-pen/

So what's the alternative? Possibly the two classical liberal parties http://alternative-liberale.fr/ or http://www.partiliberaldemocrate.fr/ which I assume would be similar to our own LDP in Australia.

Le Pen has support because people are sick to death of their country coming under attack from within. The 'Classical" Parties have not only ignored this problem for years now, but they are the very ones who have instigated the recent problems by importing En-Masse those now wanting to change the very fabric of their society.

Offline

#23 2017-02-28 06:27:57

willrocks
Silver Stacker
From: Yesterday
Registered: 2012-05-10
Posts: 7,628
Trades :   29 

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

So how do I reject her?


"You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality." - Ayn Rand

Offline

#24 2017-02-28 06:32:31

Court Jester
Silver Stacker
From: Gold Coast QLD
Registered: 2012-07-30
Posts: 2,888
Trades :   41 

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

mmm....shiney! wrote:

1. She supports government efforts to ban free speech
2. She wants to ban the freedom to practice religion
3. She supports protectionist trade policies
4. She wants to crack down on immigration
5. She has a zero tolerance on drugs policy
6. She supports an increase in the State's capacity to intervene in economic matters

https://fee.org/articles/6-non-racism-r … ne-le-pen/

So what's the alternative? Possibly the two classical liberal parties http://alternative-liberale.fr/ or http://www.partiliberaldemocrate.fr/ which I assume would be similar to our own LDP in Australia.

that sounds like 6 reasons to VOTE / SUPPORT her

Vote #1 Le Pen


<--------------------------------------------------------- SIDEWAYS --------------------------------------------------------->
quote=sammysilver 25/10/13  ----- PMs will drive silver to over $30 by Christmas with the GSR dropping to sub 50. I've overextended myself at sub $24 but will keep buying up to $30 then sell half my stack at Easter at $36 and buy up on the next dip if there is one.
Running Telly of incorrect to correct Predictions by SammySilver -- 7:1 as of 10/08/16

Offline

#25 2017-02-28 06:33:47

JulieW
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2010-10-14
Posts: 11,097

Re: 6 reasons to reject Le Pen

willrocks wrote:

So how do I reject her?

Text ?

lol

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB