Sources: Crane Operator In Building Collapse Had Pot, Painkiller In His System
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/0 ... is-system/
Latest drug addict loons.
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
Unfortunately for you, Darklamp, there is no reason to suspect the crane operator was doing any other than executing his instructions.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
TDPerk wrote:Unfortunately for you, Darklamp, there is no reason to suspect the crane operator was doing any other than executing his instructions.
As a friend of mine said about the mother of his friend beating on his vinyl dash which later cracked, "If she hadn't done it, I wouldn't be able to blame the crack on her."
If He hadn't been doing it, we wouldn't be considering it a potentially contributory act. Again, the problem with drug addicts is that they can't help but behave contrary to their and everyone else's best interest.
You need a few drug addict friends coming to you with their problems. That's exactly what you need.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2488
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
There is a reason why heavy equipment operators have the same requirements as airline pilots . Any sensory impairments can cause an accident. Rules made by the NTSB recommendations for a very good reason. Nothing to do with a war on drugs but simple rules of safety.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
paperburn1 wrote:There is a reason why heavy equipment operators have the same requirements as airline pilots . Any sensory impairments can cause an accident. Rules made by the NTSB recommendations for a very good reason. Nothing to do with a war on drugs but simple rules of safety.
What? Are you Kidding? Those rules are merely manifestations of tyrannical prohibitionists intent on forcing their morality on everyone else!
It's a violation of a drug addict's civil rights to tell them they can't operate heavy machinery while using drugs! Didn't you know the cause of all this nation's problems are the laws which ban dangerous intoxicating/addictive substances?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
Needed somewhere to put this, so I figured i'd put it here.
238 Ayn Rand was opposed to the libertarian movement of her time.
In 1971 she wrote:
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs. [“Brief Summary,” The Objectivist, Vol. 10, Sep. 1971]
And in 1972 she wrote:
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see “The Anatomy of Compromise” in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) [“What Can One Do?” The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7]
Posted by: Bob Dole at June 08, 2013 07:15 PM (G6kli)
239 More from Ayn Rand
Q: What do you think of the libertarian movement?
AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement. [FHF 71]
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party?
AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers; but this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern. [FHF 72]
Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party?
AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they shouldn’t rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issues are so serious today that to form a new party on some half-baked and some borrowed—I won’t say from whom—ideas, is irresponsible, and in today’s context nearly immoral. [FHF 73]
Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you do, so why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party?
AR: They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now it’s a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas. [FHF 74]
Posted by: Bob Dole at June 08, 2013 07:16 PM (G6kli)
238 Ayn Rand was opposed to the libertarian movement of her time.
In 1971 she wrote:
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs. [“Brief Summary,” The Objectivist, Vol. 10, Sep. 1971]
And in 1972 she wrote:
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, that subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see “The Anatomy of Compromise” in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) [“What Can One Do?” The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7]
Posted by: Bob Dole at June 08, 2013 07:15 PM (G6kli)
239 More from Ayn Rand
Q: What do you think of the libertarian movement?
AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement. [FHF 71]
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party?
AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis—they’re not as funny as John Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers; but this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. (George Wallace is no great thinker—he’s a demagogue, though with some courage—but even he had the sense to stay home this time.) If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for president—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern. [FHF 72]
Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party?
AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they shouldn’t rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issues are so serious today that to form a new party on some half-baked and some borrowed—I won’t say from whom—ideas, is irresponsible, and in today’s context nearly immoral. [FHF 73]
Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you do, so why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party?
AR: They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now it’s a bad sign for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas. [FHF 74]
Posted by: Bob Dole at June 08, 2013 07:16 PM (G6kli)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
Absent law the market quickly degenerates into everything the left accuses it of being. On the other hand, law much beyond protection of property rights (including the right to self) and enforcement of contracts is stifling, even violating fundamental human rights. A proper fiscal conservative seeks this happy medium of law.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2488
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
Diogenes wrote:paperburn1 wrote:There is a reason why heavy equipment operators have the same requirements as airline pilots . Any sensory impairments can cause an accident. Rules made by the NTSB recommendations for a very good reason. Nothing to do with a war on drugs but simple rules of safety.
What? Are you Kidding? Those rules are merely manifestations of tyrannical prohibitionists intent on forcing their morality on everyone else!
It's a violation of a drug addict's civil rights to tell them they can't operate heavy machinery while using drugs! Didn't you know the cause of all this nation's problems are the laws which ban dangerous intoxicating/addictive substances?
Your right , now I see the light 
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
Mile Marker 420 Becomes 419.99 to Thwart Thieves
http://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/m ... s-21495213
http://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/m ... s-21495213
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
"If He hadn't been doing it, we wouldn't be considering it a potentially contributory act. Again, the problem with drug addicts is that they can't help but behave contrary to their and everyone else's best interest."
So are you pretending he was or wasn't following his instructions? Or are you pretending it isn't material that he was or wasn't following his instructions?
So are you pretending he was or wasn't following his instructions? Or are you pretending it isn't material that he was or wasn't following his instructions?
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
"Absent law the market quickly degenerates into everything the left accuses it of being."
Bullshit. Absent government, it's no worse than average humanity.
With government, it's no better than the worst politicians who can get re-elected.
Bullshit. Absent government, it's no worse than average humanity.
With government, it's no better than the worst politicians who can get re-elected.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
It's easy to get government without law. You just need a bunch of government officials that ignore the law or make it up as they go along.
Law without any government is harder. But you don't need a lot of government to have law.
Law without any government is harder. But you don't need a lot of government to have law.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
Saw this article today, interesting fodder for the debate.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/01/ ... juana.html
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/01/ ... juana.html
CHoff
Re: Latest drug addict loons.
They go with the money. Always will.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe