This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Ksero
Also i live in Canada, and we dont seem to have a lot of these serious issues that America does with drugs.
That is the mentality that I witnessed with every single person I knew that used drugs. And like I said, I do know adults that just smoke weed, and they function just as normally as any other adult in society.But in my experience, your numbers end up flip-flopping after some point. Maybe 5% of the adults that I know that use drugs are succesful, and 95% of them are dead, deadbeats, or in prison. My guess is, that in 15 years, if you look at the same 200 friends, you will find my ratio to be pretty accurate, for those that continued to use. Then again, in 15 years, it may be legal, and both arguments go out the window with that.
I could only see 1 or 2 of those 200 dieing or being arrested for drug use in the next maybe 4 or 5 being deadbeats in the next 15 years. just for the simple fact that i know they wont move on to harder drugs, every one of those people who smoke have 90% have parents that know they do it and are ok with it, their parents wouldn't be ok with coke, meth, heroin, or anything else hard like that (obviously).
Post by
gamerunknown
I don't really think so. There were claims infrastructure would be improved massively in time for the games, but it's 69 days away and I've seen no improvements to the tube at all. There are predictions of hour long queues. The public funding could just have easily be spent on social programs or foreign aid.
Post by
Sas148
I don't know on this one... I think that it's a huge honor for these places who host the Olympics, and it's typically great tourism income for the area as well.
Post by
301983
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
As a brit (who was passed by the torch at about 7.30 this morning) I'd say no.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
It won't cost any money, it will cost lives, thousands of lives.
Even in the unlikely event that it does cost lives, I can guarantee you that it will most definitely in every scenario I can think of cost
a lot
of money. I don't really think so. There were claims infrastructure would be improved massively in time for the games, but it's 69 days away and I've seen no improvements to the tube at all. There are predictions of hour long queues. The public funding could just have easily be spent on social programs or foreign aid.
According to a few friends who visited London just a few weeks ago, the infrastructure remains largely the same but the (is it called subway? I seem to recall it being called that, but I'm unsure) has been renovated. It may not, in itself, justify paying the countless millions the Games cost, but it is at least one benefit. That and I reckon it will bring in a lot of money from tourists.
As for my answer, though, I'm still going to go with no: I understand that it is a great honor to host the Olympic Games, but so much money is spent on the Games it becomes overkill.
Post by
Magician22773
Just from a personal view, I don't find the Olympics as huge a deal as their cost entails.
I like wating the opening and closing ceremonies, as they are usually very entertaining. I will maybe watch a few of the sports, especially if something makes tham more important than normal (such as Michael Phelps medal record during the last games).
But overall, I just don't care enough for them to to want to watch. I would not normall watch a gymnastics competition, so why watch the Olympic one? The same goes for nearly all the sports involved.
I realize they are very historical, and that does have value. But I don't know that value is in the millions, or billions that it costs to host the games. I know it would not be the same, but why not build a dedicated olympic facility, with funding from all the major countries, and then allow a different city to be more of a sponsor, than a host. Allow that country to recieve a larger share of the profits from the games, and the recognition of being the "host"
I can see where this idea would be a nightmare in deciding the location. The only way I could see that would be "fair" would be a lottery draw, after narowing it down to a handful of viable locations. Greece would seem to be the obvious location, but with their country in such turmoil right now, I don't know if that would be the best idea.
Post by
301983
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
It's unrevelant question imo
It's just a debate topic... If you don't like this one there will be a new one later tonight.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#7: Should the Fairness Doctrine in the United States be reinstated?
My opinion: No.
Media already has equal time rules, so why do they need the Fairness Doctrine? Businesses in this country have way too many rules and regulations. Some common sense needs to be instilled into the government and many of these type of rules should disappear. The people are the power in this country and they can decided what media outlet they would like to listen to, without government interference. News outlets should be fair and balanced. If I feel they are not, I change the channel.
Definition of
The Fairness Doctrine
for those who do not know.
Post by
Magician22773
Absolutely!
Nothing says "freedom of speech" like telling the media what they have to talk about.
Opps....I had the sacrasm lock on my my keyboard there.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Got my sarcasm key fixed.
The biggest thing that most people who don't follow the details of the Fairness Doctrine don't see it where it would have the most extreme impact.
Political Talk Radio.
The simplified version of the Fairness Doctrine is that all media outlets that are under jurisdiction of the FCC (which is basicly all "normal" TV and radio stations....ie. not satellite radio or cable TV) would be forced to have equal amounts of time for both sides of politics.
Right now, there are no real successful, liberal talk radio programs. There are several successful conservative programs. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Bortz, and Glen Beck, just to name a few.
The radio station I listen to is almost purely conservative talk. Although, I do listen to, and enjoy Dennis Miller's show. He is not really a pure liberal host, but he does lean much more to the left than the others.
Under the doctrine, the station that I listen to would be forced to air equal amounts of liberal shows as they do conservative. Because radio stations survive on ad revenue, and liberal talk radio has proven itself to be unsuccesful (Air America anybody?), it is likely that they would just switch formats rather than lose money due to a lack of listeners. So, in the end, the Fairness Doctrine would put an end to, or greatly limit, access to conservitive talk radio.
Not only is it wrong on the grounds that it attempts to limit, or elimiate, conservative talk shows, but it also applies a governmental control on how a private industry conducts business. And honestly, the second point is a much greater injustice than even the first.
If liberal talk radio was wanted, it would have a station that airs it. I don;t think for a second that the radio station owners are as much concerned with voicing their political opinion, as they are with having a profitable business.
Post by
MyTie
I'd be cool with reinstating the fairness doctrine, but it would need to be truly fair. They need to give equal air to neo nazis, communists, Heaven's Gate, scientologists, UFO enthusiasts, vampires, UFO vampire enthusiasts, neo nazi vampires, neo nazi UFO communist scientologists, and democrats.
All joking aside, the radio should be run based on what people want to listen to, not what the government thinks is fair for everyone.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
But the US government cannot legislate "good media". As soon as it does, it becomes propaganda.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Neal Bortz says it best. He tells every listener to his program not believe a single word he says.....look it up for yourself.
Abd pikey. Polical talk radio is not "news", they are political opinion shows. The fairness doctrine wants to make sure there are equal amounts of opinions, which is not something we need the government doing here.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.