Yeah Baby, YEAAAH

[tfarny]

It's so cute to see SL get so excited about a meaningless gesture like this to placate the wingers - but where was the concern among the right over federal abuses of power when the government was tapping our phones and arresting citizens and holding them without trial indefinitely? Oh, I forgot, that was when they were in power. Funny how being on the outs changes your perspective on things a tad, ain't it?

btw, Obama has told the DOJ not to prosecute medical marijuana sales / use in California anymore - that was the most obvious recent violation of the 10th amendment I can think of, and perpetrated entirely by Republicans. I forget the name of the guy - he was a professor or something, got a license to grow medical marijuana from the city of Oakland and was producing it for them when he got raided by the feds. The judge didn't allow the jury to learn that he was growing for the city government during the trial - it was 'inadmissible evidence".

 

[tfarny]

Oh, and I just can't resist: Have a Ball at your teabagging party, I hope you get a chance to meat with lots of other conservatives!  :toothy12: :toothy12: :laughing3: :laughing11: :laughing3: :laughing11:

 

[Superlizard]

but where was the concern among the right over federal abuses of power when the government was tapping our phones and arresting citizens and holding them without trial indefinitely?

Wow - the gov't arrested citizens and held them without trial indefinitely?  Who, pray tell, are these poor bastards?  And where are they keeping them, Castle Greyskull?  :laughing11:

(Maybe I need to don my tinfoil hat for this one; should be a real doozy..........)

 

[JohninSC]

Earlier in the thread I was just talking about the political implications, not the philosophical ones.  I have mixed opinions on the specific programs that are affected.  I think the drinking age is not only stupid but totally unconstitutional.  The US constitution doesn't give the goverment the power to tell people what they can and can't drink, ANYWHERE.  (Even the 18th Amendment aka "Prohibition" doesn't ban drinking anything.)  As far as I know this is true of our state constitutions, too.  So on what authority does the government ban underage drinking?  Similarly, on what authority does the gov't ban consumption of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, crack... whatever?

Speed limits just kinda seem like a good idea.   :help:  The streets are regulated for public safety.  And the feds reward states that enforce speed limits with highway funding.  Or you could say they withhold it from the rest... same dif

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I just laughed for a good 5 minutes straight! You think enforcing the speed limit is good for public safety, but banning marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, and crack is not.

Spend some time watching A&E, particularly a nice show called "intervention." Then tell me that that crap isn't dangerous.

 

[dbw]

Fine, sensible regulation of the sale of drugs is one thing.  I AM in favor of keeping it away from children, of course.  But that should be a parent's responsibility to deal with.  How does sending users to jail help? 

 

[Lucky #7]

tfarny,

The wire taps were warily accepted by conservatives.  They were not so accepted when they rather quickly started expanding when they believed they could use them.  You'll be hard pressed to find a true conservative that is happy with any politicians, the supposed conservative ones included.  We've ended up with far too many RINO's who aren't reflecting their constituents beliefs.  Hell, we had Bush talking about amnesty for all illegals.  Believe me, he took a lot of criticism from conservatives on that.  Most of us aren't lock step.

Dammit, I keep agreeing with dbw.  I feel dirty.  Drug control should absolutely be left to the states and the war on drugs is one of, if not the, most costly feel good BS programs in our nation's history.  We are not ever going to stop it.  Living in a state with borders right next to these extremely violent cartel wars, they need to take the criminal effort out and tax the ever living hell out of it.  I think in the end you'd see use declined if it wasn't such a draw to kids just because they're not supposed to do it and could go to jail if they get caught.  Clogging our prisons with addicts does nothing but cost the tax payer money taking care of them.  If these folks are hell bent on killing themselves then so be it.  Might sound uncaring, but most have been given more chances than they deserve by family and everyone else.  If they're going to be a giant waste of life we may as well get some tax dollars off of them.

 

[tfarny]

SL, you should get out more, this was major news for quite a while (unless you watch Fox, apparently).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/jose_padilla/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Esam_Hamdi
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/politics/01terror.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/washington/19legal.html

Hope you read those! They took about two minutes to dig up, I work much faster when the tin foil is blocking those mind rays....

Oh, and Lucky, I so totally agree, that's why it was nice to see Obama upholding state's rights in the CA medical marijuana thingy. It's tough for you guys to give him some credit, I know....

 

[Orpheo]

Earlier in the thread I was just talking about the political implications, not the philosophical ones.  I have mixed opinions on the specific programs that are affected.  I think the drinking age is not only stupid but totally unconstitutional.  The US constitution doesn't give the goverment the power to tell people what they can and can't drink, ANYWHERE.  (Even the 18th Amendment aka "Prohibition" doesn't ban drinking anything.)  As far as I know this is true of our state constitutions, too.  So on what authority does the government ban underage drinking?  Similarly, on what authority does the gov't ban consumption of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, crack... whatever?

Speed limits just kinda seem like a good idea.   :help:  The streets are regulated for public safety.  And the feds reward states that enforce speed limits with highway funding.  Or you could say they withhold it from the rest... same dif

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I just laughed for a good 5 minutes straight! You think enforcing the speed limit is good for public safety, but banning marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, and crack is not.

Spend some time watching A&E, particularly a nice show called "intervention." Then tell me that that crap isn't dangerous.

where I live, marihuana is legal, and we have a lot less addicts, abuse and drug-problems than the countries around us, even than the USA. The use is legal, growing it is illegal, which is ofcourse, bullshit.

suppose that these substances are legal; the government has to maintain control and quality over this stuff, just as with alcohol. everything that is being sold, has VAT over it. so many users, so many tax, new jobs are created (farming and distribution). people will keep on using this stuff, legal or illegal. its not wise to ban it. Its also not wise to make drinking illegal under 21, because that will result in a lot more drinking problems afterwards than when drinking is legal from 16, as its here.

too bad people won't see that this is a major solution for a lot of problems.

 

[GoDrex]

In the USA, instead of thinking rationally about a problem, we just declare war on it. And then someone makes a shite ton of money. But it's not you. hahahah

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=40

 

[Orpheo]

In the USA, instead of thinking rationally about a problem, we just declare war on it. And then someone makes a shitee ton of money. But it's not you. hahahah

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=40

oh, thats the case here too. It took, literally, some battles between the politicians (who are there to represent us, but in fact, only want to make their star shine a bit briter, over the backs of the normal citizens), to get where we are now; abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, legal marihuana. and now, those christian parties try to make that undone. We have here, in the parliament, 3 christian parties, 2 socialist parties, and 5 liberal/right parties. a bit different than in the USA

but those christians try to get rid of that; by tricks and schemes, they turned into the biggest party here, with the biggest voice. but less than 10% is christian here!!!so, the other 90% is fucked up with this, because we have to obey their legislation, their rules, their philosofies, their ideas: AND I DONT WANT TO!!!!!

 

[Superlizard]

SL, you should get out more, this was major news for quite a while (unless you watch Fox, apparently).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/jose_padilla/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Esam_Hamdi
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/politics/01terror.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/washington/19legal.html

Hope you read those! They took about two minutes to dig up, I work much faster when the tin foil is blocking those mind rays....

Jose Padilla - Taliban sympathizer? 

On August 16, 2007, José Padilla was found guilty, by a federal jury, of charges against him that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism.

Yaser Hamdi - member of the Taliban? 

In late November 2001, after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Hamdi was captured by Afghan Northern Alliance forces in Konduz, Afghanistan, along with hundreds of surrendering Taliban fighters who were then sent to the Qala-e-Jangi prison complex near Mazari Sharif.

Among the surrendering Taliban forces, Afghan Arabs instigated a prison riot by detonating grenades they had concealed in their clothing, attacking Northern Alliance guards and seizing weapons. The prison uprising was quashed after a three-day battle which included heavy airsupport from U.S. AC-130 gunships and Black Hawk helicopters. One American was killed and 9 were injured along with about 50 Northern Alliance soldiers. Between 200 to 400 Taliban prisoners were killed during the prison uprising. Two American prisoners, Hamdi and John Walker Lindh, were among the survivors.

Hamdi surrendered on the second day of fighting, with a group of 73 surviving prisoners after Coalition forces began flooding the underground basements where the remaining prisoners had hidden themselves.

These 2 POS's were not innocent American civilians who were ungraciously thrown into prison.  Poor example, tfarny.

You're obviously not familiar with the severity of war.  You're also obviously not familiar with the fact that the Taliban are the enemy of the Western world.

All things considered, they got off easy... they should both be 6 feet under.

 

[Superlizard]

I AM in favor of keeping it away from children, of course.

Yeah?  How are you gonna do that?

But that should be a parent's responsibility to deal with.

What if the parent uses them?

Better yet, what if the parent uses them, and tells their kids that it's okay to do?

Haven't thought this through much, eh?  :icon_thumright:

 

[Superlizard]

10th Amendment - states' rights is a good thing; however:

Should one state allow murder because some people do it?

Should one state allow heroin use because some people do it?

Should one state allow Octomoms because some people live off the state?

How is any of that reasonable?

Let's not get all stupid with freedoms here - don't forget, you cannot have freedoms without the corresponding responsibility.  That's a responsibility both to yourselves and to your society.  If you want to have a decent one, that is.  Otherwise, start your own hippie counter-culture anarchist farm and see where that gets ya.  :icon_thumright:

 

[Xplorervoodoo]

Otherwise, start your own hippie counter-culture anarchist farm and see where that gets ya.   :icon_thumright:

Hey, if that gets ya nude chicks on custom choppers, I'm in.

 

[GoDrex]

Let's make alcohol illegal again.

look how much smoking costs:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicalnews/a/smokingcosts.htm

we should make smoking illegal

I think all people who smoke should be sent to Gitmo.  :laughing7:

 

[taez555]

SL, you should get out more, this was major news for quite a while (unless you watch Fox, apparently).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/jose_padilla/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Esam_Hamdi
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/politics/01terror.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/washington/19legal.html

Hope you read those! They took about two minutes to dig up, I work much faster when the tin foil is blocking those mind rays....

Jose Padilla - Taliban sympathizer? 

On August 16, 2007, José Padilla was found guilty, by a federal jury, of charges against him that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism.

Yaser Hamdi - member of the Taliban? 

In late November 2001, after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Hamdi was captured by Afghan Northern Alliance forces in Konduz, Afghanistan, along with hundreds of surrendering Taliban fighters who were then sent to the Qala-e-Jangi prison complex near Mazari Sharif.

Among the surrendering Taliban forces, Afghan Arabs instigated a prison riot by detonating grenades they had concealed in their clothing, attacking Northern Alliance guards and seizing weapons. The prison uprising was quashed after a three-day battle which included heavy airsupport from U.S. AC-130 gunships and Black Hawk helicopters. One American was killed and 9 were injured along with about 50 Northern Alliance soldiers. Between 200 to 400 Taliban prisoners were killed during the prison uprising. Two American prisoners, Hamdi and John Walker Lindh, were among the survivors.

Hamdi surrendered on the second day of fighting, with a group of 73 surviving prisoners after Coalition forces began flooding the underground basements where the remaining prisoners had hidden themselves.

These 2 POS's were not innocent American civilians who were ungraciously thrown into prison.  Poor example, tfarny.

You're obviously not familiar with the severity of war.  You're also obviously not familiar with the fact that the Taliban are the enemy of the Western world.

All things considered, they got off easy... they should both be 6 feet under.

Regardless of whom they sympathized with, whether or not they were members of a terrorist organization, whether or not there is a war, or even if they were guilty or not, they were US citizens, detained by the United States government without being charged with a crime for over 3 years.      The 6th amendment to the constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial.  Being held for 3 years without being charged doesn’t seem very speedy.

 

[GoDrex]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization  - those crazy Portuguese hehehehe


the government should just kill anyone they suspect of a crime - or hold them in a cell for years on end. Because we all know the government never makes a mistake. They always catch guilty people, never innocent ones. If you're a white person with a white person name, you should have nothing to worry about. Because white people aren't terrorists - - well except for Tim McVeigh, and the anthrax guy and the Atlanta Olympics guy and all those abortion bombers (threats and actual attacks) and  the Klan (America's original right-wing terrorist organization) :laughing7:

 

[tfarny]

See, you don't even pay attention to the main point - nobody ever said they were innocents falsely accused. What you're doing is making up a ridiculous version of what you'd like your debate opponent to have said, and then arguing against that.
What those guys were, clearly, is US citizens. Their guilt or innocence is therefore determined by a jury trial, to which they have a speedy right. The Constitution is really, extremely clear about this!  The tough question is, can your elected leaders uphold the laws of the land when it's inconvenient or difficult?
Padilla was eventually found guilty and will spend his life behind bars, and that's great. Hamdi was guilty of nothing, apparently, but hating his country - the government never charged him with a specific crime! The government, who claimed he was so dangerous that trying him would endanger national security, eventually released him to Saudi Arabia !!
Picking people up off the streets and holding them in solitary for three years without accusing them of a crime, is NOT supposed to be the American way.

Anyhow, I've enjoyed pooping on your winger thread once again, but I'm going to bail out here because we've been down this road before. See ya.

 

[GoDrex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc - -why do these cops hate America? :laughing7:

 

[dbw]

What if the parent uses them?

Then they might lose their kids, like alcoholics do today.  That's why we have social services.  But sending a parent to prison because they're on drugs can't possibly help the child in any way.

Better yet, what if the parent uses them, and tells their kids that it's okay to do?

Parents are well within their rights to tell their kids that even now... so what's your point  :icon_scratch: