Republicans and marijuana

[JBlaze]

Republicans are a joke. Rush and O'Riley have more temporal power in their party then their elected politicians. They can have the sheep remove anyone who doesn't play ball within their team. The GOP had their chance, had everything lined up but decided that warmongering is more important then fiscal policy.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

1. If the government does the people's bidding... doesn't that help us? If so, isn't that exactly what I was saying?

We can get into Clintonesque semantics about the word "help", but it would not be the point. The Constitution tells us exactly what "help' we should be getting from the Federal government. Being the peoples voice is not "helping" anything, it is what our elected officials are supposed to be doing, and being paid well to do so to boot.

2. Is the government doing our bidding by not legalizing mmj when a clear majority of the citizens want it?

Where is this clear majority? Is this a perception of yours, or do you know where we can sign up for the poll?

3. Is the government doing our bidding by ignoring our basic human rights, or at least putting legislation in place that allows them to do it?

The government is not supposed to put any legislation in place, per se. It is our congressmen and senators who are to enact law, and the government to do what it is prescribed to do by the Constitution.

4. Are our voices being heard? It appears we vote people in and then just hope and pray that our voices will be heard in between election years.

I don't have a clue as to your age or how many elections you have seen, but I can tell you that this election was one exactly as you described it..vote em in then hope and pray. See, that is the problem. What we are supposed to do is find out where each candidate stands on issues, and what they state they will do as a result of our giving them the charter to be our voice. Then after we elect them, it is our duty to make certain they hold true to what they stated they believed and would do to be elected. And if they don't then we take the action needed to take them out of the process. There is no hope and pray for a better tomorrow...that is namby pamby campaign ad bullshit.

If the government's duty is to fulfill the wishes of the people, then it's still a failure as it stands.

No, the failure falls on the people when they continue to let such things happen. And any government is only as good as the people it governs.

Edit: Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by that quote, probably because you think I'm a liberal and I think like liberals. What I meant was that government is supposed to provide a convenience to the governed. It is supposed to be a good thing in their lives. I don't know what you thought I meant, but I meant it in the sense that government arose because people were killing people and there was lawlessness and we wanted to live more civil lives.

The government is in no way supposed to provide any sort of convenience for anyone. And the government was not put in place as a "good time" social center, but rather to carry out the business of the Nation, as prescribed by the Constitution.
Government arose because people were killing people and there was lawlessness....dewd..have you really had any history courses?
Our government was formed after we declared independence from strict law. There was not lawlessness, but quite the contrary.
The kings very strict and demanding laws.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Republicans are a joke. Rush and O'Riley have more temporal power in their party then their elected politicians. They can have the sheep remove anyone who doesn't play ball within their team. The GOP had their chance, had everything lined up but decided that warmongering is more important then fiscal policy.

Makes you feel good to chime in, doesn't it?
Fiscal policy...lol...I suggest you do google that word and then get back to us.
No, you are a joke. But I'm sure you are just trying to be stylish and really don't know any better. Typical.

 

[Unsane]

Whenever a right wing politician declares all government wasteful, criminal, and corrupt you should pay close attention, because he is announcing his plans

 

[xfargox]

We can get into Clintonesque semantics about the word "help", but it would not be the point. The Constitution tells us exactly what "help' we should be getting from the Federal government. Being the peoples voice is not "helping" anything, it is what our elected officials are supposed to be doing, and being paid well to do so to boot.

Where is this clear majority? Is this a perception of yours, or do you know where we can sign up for the poll?

The government is not supposed to put any legislation in place, per se. It is our congressmen and senators who are to enact law, and the government to do what it is prescribed to do by the Constitution.

I don't have a clue as to your age or how many elections you have seen, but I can tell you that this election was one exactly as you described it..vote em in then hope and pray. See, that is the problem. What we are supposed to do is find out where each candidate stands on issues, and what they state they will do as a result of our giving them the charter to be our voice. Then after we elect them, it is our duty to make certain they hold true to what they stated they believed and would do to be elected. And if they don't then we take the action needed to take them out of the process. There is no hope and pray for a better tomorrow...that is namby pamby campaign ad bullshit.

No, the failure falls on the people when they continue to let such things happen. And any government is only as good as the people it governs.

The government is in no way supposed to provide any sort of convenience for anyone. And the government was not put in place as a "good time" social center, but rather to carry out the business of the Nation, as prescribed by the Constitution.
Government arose because people were killing people and there was lawlessness....dewd..have you really had any history courses?
Our government was formed after we declared independence from strict law. There was not lawlessness, but quite the contrary.
The kings very strict and demanding laws.

I'm not here to argue, and I think you're here only to that end, so this is my last post in this kind of thing.

As for the clear majority, I was looking for the Zogby poll about mmj but couldn't find it. Here's a 52% vs 37% poll for total legalization though

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/majority-of-americans-wan_n_198196.html

If you're going to say Zogby isn't credible or that 15% isn't a clear majority, go for it.

I agree that the Constitution declares our rights and the such... the problem is it has to be followed. If you're going to say our government follows the Constitution's every word, I have to point no further than the Patriot Act, which allows the government to bypass a part of the Constitution. It does not matter whether the government does or does not actually bypass it, the problem is that the power is there and we don't know if they do or don't. And uhh, the seizing of AT&T's phone records w/o any kind of warrant sure sounds like violation of due process.

As for your response to the hope and pray thing, you're dead wrong. People voted Obama in and he's already changed his stance. I remember that he said that marijuana "should be left to the doctors" before his election and that he would like to see decriminalization. However, I haven't seen him follow through on that stance even in words. This kind of thing happens all the time. It's more of a russian roulette because you don't know WHICH stances or beliefs the congressman will abandon. If you're going to say that just doing our due diligence in voting senators, reps, delegates, etc into office will make everything alright, then okay, but I think history would suggest that's completely wrong.

As for my comments on government being a convenience... I wasn't talking about the US Gov't. I was talking about the concept of government. Laws came into effect to protect the citizens of a community. Domestic tranquility and the such. If government isn't for the people's convenience, why would we have it? If something doesn't help people then it is either neutral or detrimental. In either of the latter cases, why would we put effort into a system that doesn't benefit the people?

I still think you're interpreting what I say as if I'm a typical liberal who expects gov't to solve my problems. I don't. I'm in favor of small government (if any at all) because I believe that we should handle our own problems (that's a huge oversimplification but w/e). Government is here to do what an individual cannot. It has an army to protect its people from other states (as in other governments/nations). It has taxes to run centralized programs that would be too costly/inefficient to do individually. It has laws to protect people from one another. These all benefit the governed.

However, I don't think a secretive government that spies on its own people and bypasses parts of the Constitution that were specifically enacted to limit the bounds of the government's power is of benefit to the people. I don't think fighting a war overseas benefits the people (in this context). We were at war for the WMDs, because of Hussein, and to liberate the Iraqis. WMDs weren't there. Hussein's dead. And as for the Iraqis, if we're supposed to liberate all the oppressed people, why aren't we at war with parts of Africa as well as Cuba and everyone else whose government we don't like?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

before you go off......

before you go off......

....about responding to others, remeber I don't typically get juvenile with you. I just attempt to point out perception, misunderstanding and (sometimes) hypocrisy.

We can get into Clintonesque semantics about the word "help", but it would not be the point.

Thanks for bringing Clinton, I'd like to make a W reference later on. Neither biddding nor help appear in the Constitution. You're free to demonize "help" in a governance sense but "Clintonesque" is just more perception based on political division and unjustified context.

You're free to think whatever you want. But when you apply your own interpretation to words that don't appear in the document, others are free to do the same. You may debate your peers in this context but you're unqualified to correct. Maybe you could supplement your perceptions with accepted historians, historical quotes, yada yada. But realize you're simply saying

"I'm right and you're wrong because I say so."

The Constitution tells us exactly what "help' we should be getting from the Federal government. Being the peoples voice is not "helping" anything, it is what our elected officials are supposed to be doing, and being paid well to do so to boot.

Why are you even quoting help? It doesn't appear in the document. Check out Webster for a definition of help.

Main Entry: 1help
Pronunciation: \ˈhelp; Southern often ˈhep also ˈheəp\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English helpan; akin to Old High German helfan to help, and perhaps to Lithuanian šelpti
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb 1 : to give assistance or support to <help a child with homework>
2 a : to make more pleasant or bearable : improve, relieve <bright curtains will help the room> <took an aspirin to help her headache> b archaic : rescue, save
3 a : to be of use to : benefit b : to further the advancement of : promote
4 a : to change for the better b : to refrain from : avoid <we couldn't help laughing> c : to keep from occurring : prevent <they couldn't help the accident> d : to restrain (oneself) from doing something <knew they shouldn't go but couldn't help themselves>
5 : to serve with food or drink especially at a meal <told the guests to help themselves>
6 : to appropriate something for (oneself) <helped himself to the car keys>intransitive verb 1 : give assistance or support —often used with out <helps out with the housework>
2 : to be of use or benefit
synonyms see improve
— so help me : upon my word : believe it or not

.hlcomplexityorange { color:#CC6600; } a.hlcomplexityorange { text-decoration:none; } a.hlcomplexityorange:hover { text-decoration:underline; }

Learn more about "help" and related topics at Britannica.com

I'm not gonna battle over semantics but a half debater could easily argue the government helps the society it governs. To do the opposite would require providing relative context, not just repeating perception over and over.

For example, cash-strapped road crews just plowed my road and applied slag. That helps the area, community, state, whatever. In fact, it's federal park land, one could easily argue it helps the country. You too may visit this particular national park now that it's passable. I don't see any bidding here. In fact, the annual slag budget is busted and the roads were cleared with help from stimulus funds. Again.....help....no bidding.

Where is this clear majority? Is this a perception of yours, or do you know where we can sign up for the poll?

Check your latest poll data. Some polls are nefarious but don't worry, we'll let you know if you bring a skewed poll. Skewed polls are often pointed out by the nature of the questions and/or the conclusion based on questionable assumptions. Polls have to be scientific in order to meet the respective margins or error and provide valuable data. Garbage-in polls produce garbage-out results.

Avoid polls that are typically associated in favor of one side or the other. That way you get the most objectionable data and outcome.

The government is not supposed to put any legislation in place, per se. It is our congressmen and senators who are to enact law,

Let's take a look here. Government doesn't but congressmen and senators do. That sounds like more word twisties. Care to draw the distinction......if any distinction exists?

I don't have a clue as to your age or how many elections you have seen, but I can tell you that this election was one exactly as you described it..vote em in then hope and pray. See, that is the problem. What we are supposed to do is find out where each candidate stands on issues, and what they state they will do as a result of our giving them the charter to be our voice. Then after we elect them, it is our duty to make certain they hold true to what they stated they believed and would do to be elected. And if they don't then we take the action needed to take them out of the process.

Well done. IMO, not a thing wrong with that.

There is no hope and pray for a better tomorrow...that is namby pamby campaign ad bullshit.

That might qualify as a view, a pessimistic view at that. An optimist would have a hard time accepting your no hope outlook. I'm remember the great optimist actor lamenting the shining city on the hill. Sounds like hope to me because when he said it there was lots of pessimism.

You're part right, though. Hope is a phrase picked up because voters are tired of the word change when we don't get it. In other words, hope of change (in the best direction.)

The government is in no way supposed to provide any sort of convenience for anyone.

Google your state contributions versus federal returns. If you're getting back more than you're putting in (like Texas, Alaska and many more) you're getting a convenience, even if you don't like the word. Feds don't just give away with no regard. They have economic indicators that factor what monies are distributed to the states. Without these funds, states couldn't provide infrastructure, pay for their state, county and municipal government workers and services. Especially states that get more than they give. Some of our states would be in the red (worse than they are now w/o federal assistance.

For example, the governor of Texas declared his state wasn't a victim of the recession, touting a 3 billion dollar surplus. However, when he was courting secession, he conveniently bypassed the fact he received 9 billion in federal stimulous. So without federal governments help, Texas would have been 6 billion in the red and the good governors thought of secession would have been overwhelmed with requests for federal assistance of billions of dollars.

And the government was not put in place as a "good time" social center, but rather to carry out the business of the Nation, as prescribed by the Constitution.

Unlike perception, the US follows it's constitution. However, it's an 18th century document, written on a single piece of paper. Sorry, but the sometimes vague document doesn't address all the requirements of our contemporary society. Even if we attempted to only do what the Constitution dictates, it's sometimes vague aspects are interpreted differently, depending on political persuasion among other things. Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution isn't a detailed road map to constitutionality, just like the bible isn't a road map to the afterlife. Even members of the same political and religious persuasions argue the literal context of these documents. Add differing philosophies and you can see where folks get the idea we're unconstitutional. It depends on perception as to what side of the fence you land on.

However, there were two demonstrative acts of unconstitutionality in 21st-century, American governance. SCOTUS appointed an administration and I believe I remember this particular administration referring to the Constitution as "a goddamn piece of paper." Now one could argue the idea that sunset laws justify TPA. However, it's just perception. It was a law forced on us, backed by the perception of the acting administration and Congress was bitch-slapped into compliance with threats and division. Anybody that was against all this was whipped with the "weak on terror" bs.

Government arose because people were killing people and there was lawlessness....dewd..have you really had any history courses?

Hoosier, check out the problems associated with the Articles of Confederation, the federal document the preceded the Constitution. The AOC lacked the necessary teeth to arbitrate interstate commerce.

In May 1786, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina proposed that Congress revise the Articles of Confederation. Recommended changes included granting Congress power over foreign and domestic commerce, and providing means for Congress to collect money from state treasuries. Unanimous approval was necessary to make the alterations, however, and Congress failed to reach a consensus. The weakness of the Articles in establishing an effective unifying government was underscored by the threat of internal conflict both within and between the states, especially after Shays' Rebellion threatened to topple the state government of Massachusetts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Revision_and_replacement

It wasn't just the wild west aspect of killing and lawlessness. Even the states couldn't get their collective governance together and requested intervention by the federal government. We got the Constitution. Big troubles threatened to tear us apart not 2 decades after we got the AOC ball rolling and legal compromise was enacted.

BTW, the Constitution wasn't 100% ratified. Why is it considered gospel? If compromises were made to ratify the document, what stops compromise when the country faces more crisis?

This is not unlike the folks that get whacked out over the NWO. Global trade requires law. Who is the arbiter in global commerce? Certainly not any sub-entity that attempts to impose unfounded will on others. Just the way the early states argued over interstate concerns and requested an official arbiter.

Our government was formed after we declared independence from strict law. There was not lawlessness, but quite the contrary.
The kings very strict and demanding laws.

I think the more correct idea is we were against taxation without representation. We asked for representatives before the tide of revolution washed over our former arbiter.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Republicans are a joke. Rush and O'Riley have more temporal power in their party then their elected politicians. They can have the sheep remove anyone who doesn't play ball within their team.

I agree. I would caution against being blind to that same reality in your own party though.

Sitting around rationalizing failure and pointing fingers doesn't address what is going on. That's what they want you to do. It's an impossible crossword puzzle they give us to play with.

Both parties have failed to adhere to Federalist policy and have decided amongst themselves they would control our behavior through religious, instead of natural, morality and Government.
(Natural morality IMO being you can't physically hurt or steal from others)

Honestly, the whole two party Democrat vs Republican narrative makes me want to barf.

We'll go down a sicking ship if we can't crawl outside the box they put us in.

 

[growclean]

Didn't read the thread... But the word "Republicans" always make me laugh anymore...

By the way... not a democrat....

... Post Script... Sarah Palin!

 

[SpasticGramps]

Didn't read the thread... But the word "Republicans" always make me laugh anymore...

By the way... not a democrat....

... Post Script... Sarah Palin!

Man, talk about being caught with your pants down dude lmao.

Read the thread. Please.

She's just another Propaganda Figure. She can't reconcile any sort of philosophical stance. Anyone ever wonder why she looks brainwashed even when prepared for TV?!

She's not the only one. It's one giant narrative.

I just went and picked up the Federalist Papers by Madison and Hamilton.

They don't even teach this stuff in school anymore in the US hardly. Ever wonder why you don't hear someone with such a radical point of view around?

My view is not supposed to be radical. It was supposed to the conversation of the day to protect liberty and Federalism.

All the Federal Funded text books start with modern era history. Our roots are lost. What good is a plant with no roots?

Biology is as much a part of our political philosophy as the natural world around us IMO.

We've let the Feds control our Education system?!?! And we wonder why we are lagging behind the world.

Federal, centralized power conducted through men holds a vested interest in keeping the population handicapped. Physically and mentally.

This connect four the power hungry people. Once you give them the ability to enter your mind, it's game over for generations to come.

It's progressive instead of revolution. Revolution is too obvious.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Gramps, how are you doing lately?

I tripped out the other day when Paul won the CPAC straw-poll by such an incredible margin. Was also a little let down at some of the boos but there was also lots of cheering. I didn't get a chance to hear him speak and was interested if there was anything new? I watch CSPAN and it's usually like watching paint dry until folks like Paul, Kucinich and maybe Fiengold (on a good day) speak.

I also think Billo shares your sympathies for Palin....not much, that is. Do you think he hurt her chances (if she decides to run) when he said she needed to go to political college on the factor? I thought he sounded a little opportunist but maybe he doesn't give her much credit.

 

[SpasticGramps]

And, if there are any ladies reading this thinking that I'm chauvinistic because I use "men" all the time instead of his/her, people, or whatnot.

You deeply misunderstand. I use "men" all the time because the reality of the situation is that the world is run by males and this is the mess we make.

I'm intentionally leaving you out and not saying "people" as more of a condemnation of how Alpha male behavior seems to fester on violence and ends up fucking everything up.

Feminist historiography makes for an interesting narrative. Males acting as a collective species just can't seem to muster up the nurturing aspect of our beautiful females.

Sorry girls, we are a bunch of dumb animals.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Gramps, how are you doing lately?

I'm doing great buddy. I'm totally blazed and just got home from seeing one of my good buddies.

I decided to have a little glass of wine and am blowing brain farts.

I saw that about Ron Paul. I'm curious see how this all plays out. I think I'm thinking along some of his line, but I really need to analyze what his views are more before I crawl in his camp.

I'll have to say, the history books that are going to be written are going to be fascinating over the next decade.

 

[growclean]

Man, talk about being caught with your pants down dude lmao.

Read the thread. Please.

She's just another Propaganda Figure. She can't reconcile any sort of philosophical stance. Anyone ever wonder why she looks brainwashed even when prepared for TV?!

She's not the only one. It's one giant narrative.

I just went and picked up the Federalist Papers by Madison and Hamilton.

They don't even teach this stuff in school anymore in the US hardly. Ever wonder why you don't hear someone with such a radical point of view around?

My view is not supposed to be radical. It was supposed to the conversation of the day to protect liberty and Federalism.

All the Federal Funded text books start with modern era history. Our roots are lost. What good is a plant with no roots?

Biology is as much a part of our political philosophy as the natural world around us IMO.

We've let the Feds control our Education system?!?! And we wonder why we are lagging behind the world.

Federal, centralized power conducted through men holds a vested interest in keeping the population handicapped. Physically and mentally.

This connect four the power hungry people. Once you give them the ability to enter your mind, it's game over for generations to come.

It's progressive instead of revolution. Revolution is obvious.

Yo, Gramps... (That was fun to say!)

We probably agree (probably not!) on alot of stuff. Sarah Palin...

Yeah... not a fan...

Regulation is key though. Regulation through concerned parties. There’s the rub. People like myself, or possibly you are dissuaded from entering politics. I myself could make an extreme difference locally, if only I could make a difference locally. I have fought the regime for here for years now (not on this issue of ours) to no avail. I have been shown that our leaders are nothing but job hunters….

Regulation by real leaders could help.

By the way, Obama is as close to a real leader as I could hope. Our current problems were not imposed by him. Our current problems COULD be solved by him… but not given the current environment…. Do I believe that HE believes?

Yes…

He speaks… I cry…

 

[SpasticGramps]

By the way, Obama is as close to a real leader as I could hope.

He speaks… I cry…

This is going to be a nasty to pill to swallow and you may not like me after this, but....

I must submit that you clearly attribute more to celebrity than philosophy.

We've got to get past that if we want to get past what is making our country sick.

 

[growclean]

This is going to be a nasty to pill to swallow and you may not like me after this, but....

I must submit that you clearly attribute more to celebrity than philosophy.

We've got to get past that if we want to get past what is making our country sick.

Ah... No my friend. But I do recognize the ability to lead and the combination of a want to help.

I myself have a want to help but no desire to navigate the BS that is politics, and therefore lack the wont to lead....

Obama displays both... we need him...

 

[SpasticGramps]

I myself have a want to help but no desire to navigate the BS that is politics,

Apathy and complacency causes the downfall of liberty my friend. Such reads the narrative the of the proletariat.

 

[growclean]

Apathy causes the downfall of liberty my friend. Such reads the narrative the of the proletariat.

Yeah, I hear ya...

But what to do? I am spent, three year fighting the "man" and realizing that most (90%, more?) are there for a job, and no energy or time to run myself... what to do?

Check this qoute from a local politician, "Well, it sounds like what you are after is justice... and there isn't alot of that going around..."

Well Fuck Me, and you, and you, and you...

Apathy is the GREAT killer, what to do?

 

[growclean]

Have you seen Idioacry? The dumbest/most provoking movie of our time?

 

[growclean]

Gramps,

Come on.... Guide me, help me, teach me...

Seriously I am bored, so waiting for a reply. But what do you expect? I want to move Bali. Give me your idea for making the US better instead...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Apathy and complacency causes the downfall of liberty my friend. Such reads the narrative the of the proletariat.

As Edward Gibbon writes in the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage”

.