Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bodhi on April 26, 2007, 10:40:03 AM
-
Money.
Excerpt taken from:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1614886,00.html?cnn=yes
" As her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, discovered, Obama "works the phones like a dog. He probably did three to four times the number of events she did" in the first quarter. "No matter who I call," McAuliffe says, "he has already called them three or four times." So Clinton is stepping up the pace of her cash raising. Instead of big galas, she will be doing more fund raisers in smaller settings that offer extra attention from the candidate — especially for those contributors who can pony up the maximum $4,600 total allowed by law for the primary and general elections. Whereas her forces once warned donors that it would be seen as an act of disloyalty to contribute to anyone but Clinton, they are now inviting Obama's fund raisers to consider hedging their bets by helping her too. And they are reassuring a new and younger generation of fund raisers that despite the size of her operation, there will be plenty of room at the table for them and their ideas. "
Kind of sad when the only way your "ideas" can be heard is if you give money to a politician during their run to the presidency... Sad, very, very sad state of affairs that this has come to. Disgusting really as it is so bipartisan it is not funny.
-
votes for sale, fresh new votes for sale , get them before they are all gone.
-
I don't think that 8 years and any amount of money will be enough for people to forget the scandals of her husbands' administration. And I'm not talking about Monica Lewinsky, I mean the Whitewater deal, and the still-mysterious death of Vincent Foster. I really don't think that Hillary Clinton is going to be our first woman president. And as far as Obama...This is going to be a bad time to try to elect a muslim to power in the U.S. With our involvement in the middle east, and all of the problems we may yet encounter, I'd think that the voting public will steer clear of him, as well.
-
I've felt that it's because enough people don't speak softly and carry a big stick.
Kinda like Rosie O'Donnel.
-
Just in passing last night I heard a bit, on ABC I think, about the dems and their claims about doing away with influence peddling. They went and filmed folks arriving at a party for pelosi where the minimum entrance price was $10k last week. Their comment during the story was that it's still business as usual in Washington with the dems and that influence was definitely for sale.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
And as far as Obama...This is going to be a bad time to try to elect a muslim to power in the U.S.
What makes you think Obama is a Muslim? Are you confusing him with Congressman Keith Ellison?
-
You show me a politician and I'll show you a crook.
-
Originally posted by rpm
You show me a politician and I'll show you a crook.
Ditto!! Almost every single one of them, Democrat and Republican. If they don't "play ball" they don't last.
-
I couldnt agree more.
The primaries have been moved earlier and earlier to squeeze out anyone who cant pony up the bucks - no matter how good his ideas are. The political parties are only interested in advancing themselves, the person that is the frontman doesnt matter.
We have become a short attention span nation. We hear soundbytes on the news and think we know what's going on. People come on the scene with good ideas but now if you do not have the cash to last you are written off by the parties and whatever ideas you have for good government are quickly forgotten.
This campaign season got underway over 6 months ago (Yes, the 2006 interim elections were a setup for 2008) We are STILL 19 months away from the general election!!! This not only applies to the presidential election but also all elections, chiefly the House and Senate. It is a shame that our elected leaders have to and DO spend more time raising money for the next election than they spend working for us.
I truly believe that no campaigns should be allowed to begin until 9 months from the election - we live in the information age, no-one can say there is not sufficient time to get a message out in that time. All primaries should take place between 3 and 6 months before the election, 2 months to 6 weeks out, the conventions.
I am ALREADY so sick of hearing the mudslinging and campaign rhetoric (From ALL parties) that I wanna barf. All of the news is focused on which candidate has more money or has the support of whomever. Frankly, we shouldnt be exposed to any of this for a long time now.
Being bombarded the way we are, for as long as we are flooded with this garbage is why there is so much voter apathy, by the time the elections take place, we are all SICK of them all. Our forefathers never intended us to have this mess, professional politicians or political machines. It sickens me to think of the grotesque amounts of money, time and energy that is wasted because of the lack of common sense governing our elections. I have been a volunteer county elections official for 13 years now and this has only gotten progressively worse - 2008 is infinitely worse.
It is far too late to do anything about this next election cycle but i encourage each and every one of you to write your Congressman and Senators about Election reform. Maybe one day we will have real choices in the primaries and general elections other than each respective parties "Chosen One".
-
Originally posted by rpm
You show me a politician and I'll show you a crook.
Isn't that the truth RPM.
Personally I am so sick of the whole political sytem. It is depressing to think that the country no longer can or will hear the ideas of those that are trully desiring to serve the country for the good of the country. It seems that today it is all about se4rving their political party and their own best interests.
-
The Founding Fathers made a big mistake when they allowed Congressmen, Senators and Presidents the ability to benifit economically from their positions in government. FFs also screwed up by not limiting the number of times any one person could serve public office. This would have prevented the career politican from gaining a foothold and would have allowed for a much broader representation of Americans by keeping the office in rotation.
Congressmen, Senators and Presidents (any elected position for that matter) should never make more than the median average income of the taxpayers, up or down as the economy goes.
Money is indeed the greatest corrupting factor of democracy.
-
I always chuckle when I hear America referred to as a Democracy. Obviously, those that do do not know the literal definition of the term.
At best, the United States of America was a Constitutional Republic with Democratic ideals, or maybe a "Representative Democracy" (rather than a full Democracy), but those days are more in the past than the present.
Today, the United States of America is quickly slipping toward Oligarchy. Possibly even a Plutocracy.
Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small, elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military prowess). The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγον óligon) and "rule" (ἄρχω arkho).
In this case, money buys you access to the politicians. Special Interest Groups and Big Industry have the money.
Americans, in general, can only blame themselves (of course, they won't blame themselves, they'll blame others) --- the societal apathy and generally very low turnouts to vote year-in and year-out have only encouraged special interests, big industry, and the bought-and-paid-for politicians to continue down this road of usurping the "will of the people".
Many elections still have the popularity contest aspect to them; if you really screw up badly in public relations, you can lose your office or lose an election. But all the potential players need special interest, big industry, and big money, just to get into the game in the first place.
Welcome to the Second Act of the Fall of Rome.
-
What makes you think Obama is a Muslim? Are you confusing him with Congressman Keith Ellison?
Mickey, I'm gonna start this in another thread, if we go into it here, It would definately be a hijack.
Tedrbr right on that it's kinda like the mega-industrial complex that pulls all strings. Which of course, is where Bodhi's right, too.
If you have million to spare lying around, you can start to make things the way you want them. Why else would something like NAFTA go through both the Republican and Democratic administrations, if they have opposing viewpoints on our economy? Especially since NAFTA torpedoed the American worker, But made the large businesses' huge bucks? And, it did'nt improve Mexico's economy one iota. It doesn't let the Canadian pharmaceutical company's compete down here, although wasn't that the spirit of NAFTA to begin with?
-
term limits
-
Originally posted by john9001
term limits
Just rotates the talking heads. Doesn't cure the base problems of who's spending money to put their talking head in the seat in the first place. I support term limits, but doesn't solve the more serious problems.
Better that no politician takes any money to run for election. You get enough signatures on a ballot to be a serious contestant in an election, you get access to a pool of election campaign money from Federal funds. Not by party affiliation. Funds divided equally among those in the running.
Level the playing field, and kick special interests and big money out of the ring (or at least to the side a bit.... big money is still big money).
-
Originally posted by rpm
You show me a politician and I'll show you a crook.
not our fault the mafia doesnt accept non-italians.
-
A strict, two term limit for all positions and all political donations go into a fund for all the candidates to draw from.
That is the only way it changes.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Just rotates the talking heads. Doesn't cure the base problems of who's spending money to put their talking head in the seat in the first place. I support term limits, but doesn't solve the more serious problems.
Better that no politician takes any money to run for election. You get enough signatures on a ballot to be a serious contestant in an election, you get access to a pool of election campaign money from Federal funds. Not by party affiliation. Funds divided equally among those in the running.
Level the playing field, and kick special interests and big money out of the ring (or at least to the side a bit.... big money is still big money).
I have to agree with the first part of your post here.
I disagree on the last part. The so called campaign reform that was passed has obviously not stopped big money from doing anything. Now it just comes in larger amounts but from areas much harder to track. The fact that the dems are actually raising far more in funds (1.5 times more than the repubs to date) this early in the election process is proof that the reform was a fraud to begin with.
Keep funding open and REQUIRE contributions to be acknowledged. At least you'll know who's trying to buy the election rather than it is now. Either that or simply allow Federal funding only (no private or public contributions) for the cantidates and each is limited to 1.5 million period.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Either that or simply allow Federal funding only (no private or public contributions) for the cantidates and each is limited to 1.5 million period.
Essentially, that's what I'd look for. If you get enough signatures (and otherwise qualify), to get on a ballot, you get advert dollars from a federal fund. Everyone gets a equal slice and equal time.
Now, big money will still get their say, as I'm sure they'd still take out ads, run stories, or do whatever else they could to influence the vote. No way to get away from the effect of big money altogether from trying to influence the voters after all. But, keep it away from the candidates as much as possible.
Don't ever see it happening though.
-
Originally posted by john9001
votes for sale, fresh new votes for sale , get them before they are all gone.
:o too true
Sick and tired of the same old incompetent fools getting re-elected term after term, because the drive-by media paints their fave Lib as a Saint. If only more than 25% of the population would vote their conscience, instead of the damned T.V. and Radio tripe. :mad: :furious
-
didn't read the thread, but the underlying problem with politics in America is that the majority of Americans are stupid.
(I'll read the thread now and see if I have anything more constuctive to add...)
-
If Hilary get's elected (pause for cold shiveer going down my spine) that would mean that for the last 20 years we've had the same two familys in presidency.
That to me alone just scares me.
-
I would pin the underlying problem with politics on people like Lazs. They believe in one thing, but vote the way they hate the least so as not to lose the election.
Once this herd mentality ceases, then you'll see the future of American Politics.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I would pin the underlying problem with politics on people like Lazs. They believe in one thing, but vote the way they hate the least so as not to lose the election.
Once this herd mentality ceases, then you'll see the future of American Politics.
that's definately a big part of the problem, but IMHO people with principals who vote for the "lesser of two evils" isn't as big of a problem as those who simply buy in to campaign lies and media hype and don't even think about the broader, underlying issues, or pay attention to things like voting records. Look at how much attention Obama's getting, it's like he's the second coming or something... and nobody knows anything about him! (where he stands on the important issues)
it starts with public schools, we're indoctrinated into believing that the fedgov is "the answer" and historical facts are whitewashed
the media plays a HUGE part. the mainstream media simply ignores third party candidates, or in Ron Paul's case, major party candidates who buck the system. of course, if Americans in general weren't so stupid they'd
ballot access is an issue, the deck is stacked against third party candidates. (maybe not the "underlying issue", but it sure is making it harder to fix.)
and then you've got to consider the "american idol" effect. Americans in general are content with knowing more about who's next to go on that stupid show than they do about the the people who are running (ruining?) this country.
still comes down to the fact that most Americans are stupid, IMHO... maybe stupid's not the right word, but shortsighted doesn't quite cover it. how 'bout gullible? we've alowed the Constitution to be degraded bit by bit, like the proverbial frog in a pot. is the frog stupid? works for me...
-
I blame teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I would pin the underlying problem with politics on people like Lazs. They believe in one thing, but vote the way they hate the least so as not to lose the election.
Once this herd mentality ceases, then you'll see the future of American Politics.
There is also the cases where, the voters (the few that do actually vote) would love to "vote the bums out"....except their bum... their representative that brings home the pork every year. Their crook that their union supports year-in and year-out. Their rep that has all the seniority for important committees in D.C.
Self destructive self interest. What a way to run a country.
-
Keep in mind that the govt. rep / senator, Pres. etc. is SUPPOSED to represent the interests of their constituancy. If their interest is not also yours, too bad, particularly if they are not in your political geographical boundary.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Keep in mind that the govt. rep / senator, Pres. etc. is SUPPOSED to represent the interests of their constituancy. If their interest is not also yours, too bad, particularly if they are not in your political geographical boundary.
Senators were originally supposed to be elected by the state legislators, their mission was to go to Washington and represent the interests of their state. The Constitution envisioned a "House of the People" and a "House of the States", the 17th ammendment (direct election of senators) ruined that balance and caused BOTH houses to be subject to the whims of the majority (need their votes), with noone looking out for states' rights.
check this out: Undermining The Constitution - A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (http://www.barefootsworld.net/nortonuc.html)
long and somewhat dry, but worth the read if you're interested.
-
i think we need to seriously put down the people who only care about getting rich of of our blood, for to long we have been killing innocent people, getting killed for bull**** lies,oh ya the Taliban really hit the towers, if you believe that, then you should truly do some research, on how controlled demolition works, then watch the towers fall, use your mind.
-
Originally posted by ink
i think we need to seriously put down the people who only care about getting rich of of our blood, for to long we have been killing innocent people, getting killed for bull**** lies,oh ya the Taliban really hit the towers, if you believe that, then you should truly do some research, on how controlled demolition works, then watch the towers fall, use your mind.
Rosie,
We do not post on your board, please do not post on ours. Step away from the Kool-Aid.
:noid
-
ink there's the door, don't let it hit you on the butt on the way out. --->
-
rumor is don imus will replace rosie on the view. he's not as controversial.
-
Originally posted by ink
i think we need to seriously put down the people who only care about getting rich of of our blood, for to long we have been killing innocent people, getting killed for bull**** lies,oh ya the Taliban really hit the towers, if you believe that, then you should truly do some research, on how controlled demolition works, then watch the towers fall, use your mind.
Controlled demolition? Oh brother....use your mind? :huh
Here's an idea; use yours. It's a miracle those towers withstood the initial impact, to suppose someone knew they would withstand that sort of impact & pre-plant explosives to finish taking them down is ludicrous. (& no one saw the demolition crews in the weeks before the planes hit?? It takes a long time to prepare a building for demolition.)
And I suppose you think Bush blew up the canals in New Orleans too huh?
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Controlled demolition? Oh brother....use your mind? :huh
Here's an idea; use yours. It's a miracle those towers withstood the initial impact, to suppose someone knew they would withstand that sort of impact & pre-plant explosives to finish taking them down is ludicrous. (& no one saw the demolition crews in the weeks before the planes hit?? It takes a long time to prepare a building for demolition.)
And I suppose you think Bush blew up the canals* in New Orleans too huh?
*Levies.
-
Originally posted by ink
i think we need to seriously put down the people who only care about getting rich of of our blood, for to long we have been killing innocent people, getting killed for bull**** lies,oh ya the Taliban really hit the towers, if you believe that, then you should truly do some research, on how controlled demolition works, then watch the towers fall, use your mind.
Wow. Such insight (or is it incite?) in post #3.
Yes. The footage of the planes hitting the towers were made in Hollywood, and the people of NYC were all hypnotized and implanted with false memories.
Also, I don't need to research controlled demolitions: I've got 20 years as a Army Combat Engineer and have played with more shocktube, C4, MICLICs, and cratering charges than many. And like Brenjen stated; someone would have noticed all the work a demo job would have required for a drop like that.
You may want to research metal fatigue in the high temperature environment of a JP-fueled fire.
In closing: /.squelch ink
(http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/sign0003.gif) (http://www.thesmilies.com)
-
Originally posted by ink
i think we need to seriously put down the people who only care about getting rich of of our blood, for to long we have been killing innocent people, getting killed for bull**** lies,oh ya the Taliban really hit the towers, if you believe that, then you should truly do some research, on how controlled demolition works, then watch the towers fall, use your mind.
Is this a counterattack from the PETAwars?
-
i think we need to seriously put down the people who only care about getting rich of of our blood, for to long we have been killing innocent people, getting killed for bull**** lies,oh ya the Taliban really hit the towers, if you believe that, then you should truly do some research, on how controlled demolition works, then watch the towers fall, use your mind.
Honestly, I'd thought that people realized that this was one of the first conspiracy theories debunked and thrown in the trash after 9/11.
You would have been better off admitting that the jetliners hitting the WTC towers were a definate fact, but that Mohammed Otta and his gang were trained, directed, and enabled to do this by the CIA. That was the only conspiracy theory that even remotely held water. ( The silliest was that an F-117 launched two tomahawk Cruise missles and hit each tower. Plain fantasy.)
P.S. Ink, if they were going to drop the buildings with explosives, they would have started at the bottom, not 2/3 of the way up. The 'controlled demolition' theory is almost as bad as the ALCM one.
-
no laser... the problem is people like you who allow the worst to get in with your idiotic protest votes.
The politicians do the polls.. they know why you vote the way you do.. your protest is meaningless to all but the party who laughs at you letting the worst of the two evils win.
Democrats like to see a strong libertarian or right wing candidate to siphon off votes from the republican and republicans love to see a strong left wing or environmental whacko candidate so that he will siphon off votes from the democrat.
You give me a viable libertarian candidate and I will vote for him.
You are the problem with your silly naive BS allowing democrats to get in.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no laser... the problem is people like you who allow the worst to get in with your idiotic protest votes.
The politicians do the polls.. they know why you vote the way you do.. your protest is meaningless to all but the party who laughs at you letting the worst of the two evils win.
Democrats like to see a strong libertarian or right wing candidate to siphon off votes from the republican and republicans love to see a strong left wing or environmental whacko candidate so that he will siphon off votes from the democrat.
You give me a viable libertarian candidate and I will vote for him.
You are the problem with your silly naive BS allowing democrats to get in.
lazs
dem or rep, don't really matter. they're both spending us into bankruptcy, both have a vision of an imperialistic American foreign policy, both have a disdain for the Constitution. But hey, keep voting the chumps in, can't get any worse, right?
only difference between the two is how they want to spend our money. One's leading us towards the Socialist States of America and the other's leading us towards the Facist States of America.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
dem or rep, don't really matter. they're both spending us into bankruptcy, both have a vision of an imperialistic American foreign policy, both have a disdain for the Constitution. But hey, keep voting the chumps in, can't get any worse, right?
only difference between the two is how they want to spend our money. One's leading us towards the Socialist States of America and the other's leading us towards the Facist States of America.
Another problem with politics in the US is the american people's clear misunderstanding of economics.
-
you are correct so far as it goes... You will indeed vote for socialism if you vote for democrats but.. so will you if you vote for republicans.
It is just that the democrats are running toward it while the republicans are walking.
spending? do you want to spend it on worthless social programs that grow every year or wars that get paid off? that is really the choice.. almost every dollar we spend in taxes is going to some worthless social program that democrats have put in over the years.
so... while not much of a choice.. there is a choice... it amounts to survival.
What is the alternative? to "protest" vote for some libertarian and play right into the hands of the socialists?
Say everyone who agreed with libertarian policies including open borders... making all drugs legal and prostitution legal... say we all did... what would they get? like 7% of the vote?
most of us agree with libertarian principals till it gets to the nitty gritty... not enough want open borders or legal heroin.
lazs
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ink
i think we need to seriously put down the people who only care about getting rich of of our blood, for to long we have been killing innocent people, getting killed for bull**** lies,oh ya the Taliban really hit the towers, if you believe that, then you should truly do some research, on how controlled demolition works, then watch the towers fall, use your mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rpm
Is this a counterattack from the PETAwars?
No... Ink = Rosie...
Fire cannot melt steel either. Any steelworker can tell you that.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Fire cannot melt steel either. Any steelworker can tell you that.
Fire does not melt steel. Heat melts steel.
And intense heat over a relatively short period of time can degrade the structural integrity of steel (and rivits) in beams and rebar to the point it can no longer support the forces that have been placed on it. This happens LONG before any melting takes place.
Especially when a number of supports in the overall structure have been sheered, bent, or deformed by several tons of mass flying into it at a couple hundred MPH.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Fire does not melt steel. Heat melts steel.
Sorry, next time I sit around a cold campfire I will keep that in mind.
I am aware that steel changes it's crystaline structure at somewhere near 725C, and when it moves above that, it's elastic properties are lost.
The fact that the one tower stood for the better part of an hour and the first one hit lasted more than an hour after impact shows that the two towers did not fall due to impact damage. The fire (excuse me) heat (from fire) weakened the remaining structure and caused collapse.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Say everyone who agreed with libertarian policies including open borders... making all drugs legal and prostitution legal... say we all did... what would they get? like 7% of the vote?
that's one way to put it, but I must say I'm suprised to hear you resort to slinging FUD. I prefer: Say people start to wake up and see past scare-tactic comments like "Libertarian policies including open borders... making all drugs legal and prostitution legal" and realize that it's a choice between respecting the respecting the Constitution and surrendering to the slow death of the America the Founders envisioned. Say these people realize that it's a choice between freedom and slavery and I think we'd win in a landslide. The problem is getting past the scare tactics, 'cause they're very effective on the sheeple. Jefferson said, "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." Hitler said, "How lucky for rulers that men do not think." See the connection?
See past the scare tactics and answer yourself these questions: Do you agree with the principal of a fiscally responsible fedgov? Do you agree with the principal of a non-interventionist foreign policy? Do you agree with the principal that an individual's rights overrule concerns over the groups safety?
most of us agree with libertarian principals till it gets to the nitty gritty... not enough want open borders or legal heroin.
lazs
not all libertarians agree on the border issue. Just look at Ron Pauls stance. And as to the War on Drugs in general, I think more and more people are waking up to the fact that IT'S NOT WORKING! Opinions on what to do about that vary.
-
The tanker truck fire, fueld by a load of gasoline weakened the span of the overpass to the point thast it collapsed.
Here is the text from the AP article at Yahoo.
An interchange connecting highways to the busy Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge collapsed early Sunday after a tractor trailer hauling 8,600 gallons of gasoline caught fire, authorities said.
The truck's driver suffered second-degree burns, Officer Trent Cross of the California Highway Patrol told KGO-TV.
The tanker ignited after crashing into a pylon on an interchange connecting westbound lanes of Interstate 80, which includes the Bay Bridge, to southbound I-880 in Oakland, officials said.
The fire led to the collapse of a second interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 located above the first interchange, Cross said.
The Bay Bridge's heavily traveled double decks run about two miles across the San Francisco Bay.
I suppose some squid will be claiming it was a demo blast that dropped the span sometime soon.
:rolleyes:
-
Politics in this country will not change until there is a catalyst that initiates the "Sheep dog citizens" into open action against the "wolves" (government). Continued erosion of our freedoms, continued free living to non-participants in society, and further departure of American jobs are all coming together to force the hands of both sides. Which side that moves first is the big question. Yet, it is fast becoming evident that the "show-down" is coming faster every day.
The question that remains is; What side will you be on?
-
Origanally posted by Bodhi
Politics in this country will not change until there is a catalyst that initiates the "Sheep dog citizens" into open action against the "wolves" (government). Continued erosion of our freedoms, continued free living to non-participants in society, and further departure of American jobs are all coming together to force the hands of both sides. Which side that moves first is the big question. Yet, it is fast becoming evident that the "show-down" is coming faster every day.
The question that remains is; What side will you be on?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bodhi, I'd say judging by voter turnouts, that American society is now either too divided, or too Apethetic for such action. Hell, you'd think that with the way things went over the last 2 administration's, a third party would have been established by now. But now anyone who's gotten into politics have learned, that being self-serving and taking money from special interest groups to vote the way they want, versus actually representing the people whom you were elected to serve, is far more profitable.
-
Frode,
It is not the formation of a third party that is going to force these changes. It will be open confrontation between elements of our government and citizens who have "had enough".
People may think this is a far fetched rediculous idea, but I feel that it is going to happen. Many people choose not to be very vocal about their problems with the way American Society is deteriorating. Specifically many people in those rural red areas whose lives are vastly different from those of the lives in the urban blue areas. The blue areas continue to either remain silent sheep (with the, "as long as I have my 2.2 kids, a paid off home, and $50k in th bank everything is all right." attitude) or they dictate nonsense and growth of the "nanny state" while electing officials based on their belief of the utopian urban society.
Meanwhile the red area people are becoming more fed up with a tax burden pushed on them that increasingly seems to them as their out right support of the blue areas. Couple that with the ever present possibility that the blue areas will probably elect an administration that further attacks on our rights as guaranteed by our constitution and you have a recipe for further erosion of trust for the government. Mind you, the catalyst will either be gun control, or further taxation with misrepresentation.
Both sides of the political mess that helped to create this know about it as well. Some are smart and fear our population right now. They fear the ability of the population to rise up and say, "Enough!" Others blindly move forth in their sheep like metality blindly following a pack that is leading to open confrontation. They watch events from the VT massacre and think only punishment of the population by removal of rights is the way to prevent further tragedies. They push for more "gun free zones" while plotting to remove more freedoms and further erode the Constitution, forgetting that personal responsibility is the bottom line problem. This is causing the "sheep dog" citizens to sit up and watch closely. For they know that something is amiss... that something is definitely very wrong.
For me, the only question that remains is the one of how many will act?
-
with ya 100%, Bodhi. One of the reasons I'm excited about Ron Pauls candidacy is that he's probably our last hope at turning things around peacefully.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you are correct so far as it goes... You will indeed vote for socialism if you vote for democrats but.. so will you if you vote for republicans.
It is just that the democrats are running toward it while the republicans are walking.
spending? do you want to spend it on worthless social programs that grow every year or wars that get paid off? that is really the choice.. almost every dollar we spend in taxes is going to some worthless social program that democrats have put in over the years.
so... while not much of a choice.. there is a choice... it amounts to survival.
What is the alternative? to "protest" vote for some libertarian and play right into the hands of the socialists?
Say everyone who agreed with libertarian policies including open borders... making all drugs legal and prostitution legal... say we all did... what would they get? like 7% of the vote?
most of us agree with libertarian principals till it gets to the nitty gritty... not enough want open borders or legal heroin.
lazs
Making drugs legal makes too much sense for republicans or dems to figure out... why note for for an Independent thinker who hasn't made up their mind on almost every issue and isn't a party slave?.. just because you dont see them on TV, doesnt mean they dont exist.
Why not make drugs legal?, the rep / dem supported war on drugs in just another failed big gov program... in the 50s just over 2% in the US were drug addicts... after trillions spent, thousands jailed and the advent of "no knock" warrants.. today just over 2% in the US are addicted to drugs.
Corporate America could get stimulant & opiate beverages with a known drug content & purity, to market for pennies on the dollar putting almost every drug dealer out of business. Rather than ripping you off, a junkie can feed his addiction by going to 7-11 like alcoholics / smokers do. Tax these nefarious items similar to cigarettes, rehab, treatment and anti drug campaigns would pay for themselves.
Remember when Alcohol was illegal? people cooked up their own, there was no control on purity or alcohol content and people went blind, and got sick and /or died buying illegally. The exact same circumstances apply to opiates / stimulants, if the .gov were to regulate & control the dosages & purity JUST LIKE THEY DO WITH ALCOHOL, people would no longer be getting home cooked drugs that yield massive dosages that leads to a much faster addiction... but they could buy a 6 pack of opiate / stimulant drinks with much lower dosages and known purity, take it home and down it like beer catching a buzz.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
... but they could buy a 6 pack of opiate / stimulant drinks with much lower dosages and known purity, take it home and down it like beer catching a buzz.
Yes, but what about the children... I mean has anybody studied the effects of second hand opiate buzz?
-
put the coke back in coca-cola.
-
Lasz....anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view is a socialist. Bit narrow thinking.
Ravs
-
Legalisation of drugs is not going to change American Politics.
On the hijack though, the only way to ensure a drop in illicit drugs in this country and stop the strangle hold it has on so many lives is to ensure the actual punishment of suppliers, dealers, tracfficers, and the buyers.
Slaps on the wrist are not working.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
On the hijack though, the only way to ensure a drop in illicit drugs in this country and stop the strangle hold it has on so many lives is to ensure the actual punishment of suppliers, dealers, tracfficers, and the buyers.
Slaps on the wrist are not working.
Prison is an excellent place to have your drug habit go from troubling to insurmountable.
...
Anyway, I'll tell you what the problem with politics in this country is. Each side, and every person, chooses to take indefensible positions on certain issues.
Saying we should enact higher gun control is an indefensible position. Anyone who looks at it logically realizes that tighter gun control laws solve no problems and make no sense.
On the same hand, advocating the war on drugs is another indefensible position. Anyone with real experience with people hooked on drugs knows that the war on drugs is a waste of money and lives.
If people around the country could just bring themselves to say "Ok, you've got THIS right, and I believe I've got THAT right," our country would be a whole lot better.
That'll never happen in politics for the same reasons such epiphanies almost never happen in here. People, from both sides of the aisle and including myself, are just too set in their ways on certain things. You can lay it out for us as logically and sanely as possible, but we just aren't going to come around.
Some issues just aren't gray. It's either black, or white, and usually half or so of us are on the mistaken side. The fact that we as a whole (and again, including myself) generally have a heck of a time realizing that is the big problem with politics in America today.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Prison is an excellent place to have your drug habit go from troubling to insurmountable.
One of my highschool buddies was a heroin-addicted drug dealer... He was a mess, lost his legit job, a very good one... his wife and mental health... Took what little money (very little) his parents had managed to save over the years... He had to spend 5 years in prison and has been clean for 15 years if you count the time he was in prison. Prison clearly saved his life.
-
ravs.. anyone who has socialist views is a socialist.. not narrow thinking at all. why does the word offend you? I find that telling... socialists hate to be called socialists.
bsaddict and xmarine... you guys are perfect examples of why libertarians can't win.
I am on your side. I believe in almost all libertarian principles and you guys went off on me. All I did was show make soundbites out of the parties stands on issues.. That is how the press will hit you and you will come unglued...
You guys come off like you are ashamed of your parties stance and like you are hiding something.
I am saying that your parties stance has so many radical ideas that will turn off one segment of the population or another that the rivals will eat you alive. Libertarians always struck me as impotent eggheads.. they stirike others as 666..
The problem is that in order for any of the libertarian platform to work it all has to be in place.
For instance.... Open borders would work if there was no welfare.... Making heroin legal would work if it were not restricted and taxed to the point that the criminals could still make a buck on illegal drugs.. It is way too much to bite off all at once.
Every stance the libertarians have offends some percentage of the population... to the point that only a few percent can stomach their complete platform... and their platform if full of "make or break" issues that are as controversial (indeed, include) as abortion and gun control... every one of their issues is that charged and makes it impossible for some large portion or another to vote for em.
If you try to sideskirt these issues... You come off as being sneaky and dishonest (as you should).
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
One of my highschool buddies was a heroin-addicted drug dealer... He was a mess, lost his legit job, a very good one... his wife and mental health... Took what little money (very little) his parents had managed to save over the years... He had to spend 5 years in prison and has been clean for 15 years if you count the time he was in prison. Prison clearly saved his life.
Your buddy is the exception, and you should feel lucky. Prison does very few drug users any good. It's like putting all the messups from local highschools together into one "special school" and expecting them to do well.
All prison does for many people is give them more tricks, more connections, more ideas, more problems. Sending a drug user to prison is a waste of life more often than not, and it's certainly a waste of money.
Glad to hear about your friend, though. I also have a friend who did benefit from jail time... Although he certainly chalks more of the credit up to the rehab he went to before and after it...
-
Most of the prison systems in this country are a sham.
Prisoners have more rights than guards. They live better than people below the poverty level that are trying to make good. They are treated as though they are special with all their wonderous benefits. What we really need to do is hire the sheriff in Arizona that has the tent city jail. His percentage of repeat offenders is very low, because the prisoners work, live in tents, and have no benefits like television for that matter. Unfortunately the "nanny state" will not allow that.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Most of the prison systems in this country are a sham.
Prisoners have more rights than guards. They live better than people below the poverty level that are trying to make good. They are treated as though they are special with all their wonderous benefits. What we really need to do is hire the sheriff in Arizona that has the tent city jail. His percentage of repeat offenders is very low, because the prisoners work, live in tents, and have no benefits like television for that matter. Unfortunately the "nanny state" will not allow that.
I'm not really disagreeing with you here, but I would say that if we're going to be sending drug addicts to these places, we might as well start shipping off everyone with an STD or cancer as well.
Drug use might start off as a crime, but there does come a point where it is very much an illness.
There was, once, a lot of good in many of these people. A different approach and they might just turn out to be some of our most upstanding citizens. Many certainly know what living at the bottom feels like. Kind of like their own personal Great Depression.
Throwing them in prison is just a giant waste of everyone's time and money, and, unless you're a socialist, there really isn't any way to pay for anything else without legalizing the very drugs that would send them to rehab. This way at least they're paying their own way, albeit in a roundabout manner.
I think I'm going to stop hijacking your thread now, though. Sorry, just a subtopic I have a lot of experience with as of late. I'll save the rest for the next drug thread :aok
-
I agree with you. The addicts (while they do create a demand) are not the underlying problem. Dealers, trafficers, and production are the priamary problem. Start locking those people up for real prison terms, and their might just be a difference over the long term. As for addicts, if you are caught buying, then mandatory drug treatment, and a prison sentence for however long society deems it. 2nd offense gets you rehab again and a longer prison sentence. 3rd time, sorry, you are in rehab again and back to prison.
-
Bodhi, Arpajo is not the kind of guy you would want to have in charge. He is no less corrupt than the politicians everyone is sick of in most threads here.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I agree with you. The addicts (while they do create a demand) are not the underlying problem. Dealers, traffickers, and production are the priamary problem. Start locking those people up for real prison terms, and their might just be a difference over the long term. As for addicts, if you are caught buying, then mandatory drug treatment, and a prison sentence for however long society deems it. 2nd offense gets you rehab again and a longer prison sentence. 3rd time, sorry, you are in rehab again and back to prison.
Start locking them up?... we have been by the thousands and it accomplishes zero. I worked a multi agency "narc" unit, we made a lot of arrests, put peeps in stir and took a few expensive items via asset seizure... nothing changed.
Take a dealer to jail, another takes his place.. we could have taken the whole block to jail and they'd still be dealers there the next day. Sending them to prison is equal to a free ride scholarship at "Criminal College" where professors of deviant behavior preach to eager pupils... and believe it or not the drugs available in prison are often better than street quality, they sneak in smaller more pure amounts.
The War on drugs is a failed big gov policy that repubs and Dems are too scared to tackle, forget the fact its failing to curb drug use / sales... heck weed is the "biggest" cash crop in California... all of our rights have been eroded and we've criminals out of non violet people looking for a buzz.
Vote in a handful of Independent thinkers who are not party slaves, people that can at least address issues, such as this, with fresh ideas and common sense.. rather than the preferred method of the loser chickenspackle repubs & Dems who are way too scared of losing "team points" for trying something new... they'd rather line up in lock step like clones to support a failed policy than fix it.
Here's my new group:
http://leap.cc/
Law Enforcement against prohibition; retired cops, DAs, DEA, FBI, judges who have "been there done that" fighting the drug war who have personally witnessed with intimate detail our failed drug policy.
-
Interesting site, xmarine... I'll send it to a few friends :aok
-
I do not agree Xmarine.
Drugs are a scourge on society. We need to change the prisons and the way people are incarcarated. Stop allowing these prisoners to have benefits, and make them work to grow their own food and pay for the cost of their incarcaration.
I would be willing to see Marijuana legalised and regulated by the government like cigarettes.
As for the war on drugs being a waste, I agree. It is being fought poorly organised and is amongst a mass group of poorly managed programs and agencys across the board, both state and fed. It needs to be changed significantly and switftly. Unfortunately it is probably going to remain the same until the Government changes. That I am afraid is not going to happen until some pretty catastrophic events happen and then, all bets are off that the country will even survive intact.
-
We are not guards, we are C/Os. :p
And there are more drugs in prison then there is on the street.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
What we really need to do is hire the sheriff in Arizona that has the tent city jail. His percentage of repeat offenders is very low, because the prisoners work, live in tents, and have no benefits like television for that matter.
Sherriff Joe is great. He treats prisoners like they should be treated. He often says his goal is to make sure his prisoners never come back. If you want freedom to be worth something, the absence of freedoms should not be made out to be a picknick.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I do not agree Xmarine.
Drugs are a scourge on society. We need to change the prisons and the way people are incarcarated. Stop allowing these prisoners to have benefits, and make them work to grow their own food and pay for the cost of their incarcaration.
I would be willing to see Marijuana legalised and regulated by the government like cigarettes.
As for the war on drugs being a waste, I agree. It is being fought poorly organised and is amongst a mass group of poorly managed programs and agencys across the board, both state and fed. It needs to be changed significantly and switftly. Unfortunately it is probably going to remain the same until the Government changes. That I am afraid is not going to happen until some pretty catastrophic events happen and then, all bets are off that the country will even survive intact.
Its none of your business if we drink beer & smoke cigarettes at home, just like it would be none of your business if we legally purchased an opiate / stimulant beverage... why would you care? as a free adult I'm allowed abuse myself if I so choose.
I'm allowed to legally purchase lethal amount of alcohol and drink myself to death, or smoke till my lungs turn black... but I shouldn't be allowed to do these other things because somebody in the gov says their bad.
These drug laws operation under the supposition people are so weak, stupid and unable to control themselves that should opiate / stimulant beverages become legal, millions of zombie junkies would result... is that the case with addictive drugs like alcohol & nicotine?
Last time you took a few of prescription pain pills, did you become an addicted junky caving in the heads of old ladies to support your habit?.. probably not because unlike someone on the street looking for a buzz who gets home cooked concoctions, you got a gov regulated dosage / purity.
-
Sheriff Joe's traffic patrols are systematically pains in the ass. Sheriff Joe had a pretty much innocent football player inmate killed in his facilities, in his presence.. Tips of the iceberg by all accounts.
No one I've ever heard talk about Sheriff Joe's had something good to say.. A few of them were nearly indifferent, but none of them favorable to him.
I also knew a particularly misanthropic taekwondo teacher that (surprisingly enough) got along with Joe like giddy schoolgirls.
-
even if the government legalized drugs... they would do it in such a way that the drug dealer would not be endangered..
They would restrict and nanny and tax to the point that most people would simply buy their drugs from a dealer rather than the hassle of the government.. Hell... they get all worked up about smoking and too much fat fer chrisakes...
So long as we live in a nanny state we better keep building more and more prisons to house more and more of the population.
We could call em gulags.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
even if the government legalized drugs... they would do it in such a way that the drug dealer would not be endangered..
They would restrict and nanny and tax to the point that most people would simply buy their drugs from a dealer rather than the hassle of the government.. Hell... they get all worked up about smoking and too much fat fer chrisakes...
So long as we live in a nanny state we better keep building more and more prisons to house more and more of the population.
We could call em gulags.
lazs
If corporations were purchasing opiates / stimulants from the farmers / producers, what motivation would there be to sell to dealers? the only reason illegal drugs carry the price tag they do is due to the risk and inefficient chain of supply, are there any illegal alcohol / tobacco dealers still offering home cooked alternatives?
If I could purchase a pack of 20 weed smokes for lets say as much as $15 @ .5G per cigarette, why would I go purchase an 1/8th from my old dealer for $70?
The drug companies already offer 'legal" opiates / stimulants to the market (prescription pain / diet pills) which is why a bottle of 100 750mg Vicodens (opiate) that will last a few weeks, are a heck of a lot cheaper than scoring a hit of heroine (opiate) that will last a few hours.
Some dude looking for an opiate high on the street usually gets somewhere around 20 to 30 times the amount of drug he needs for a "buzz", hardcore addiction comes very easy at these amounts to where people commit crimes to avoid withdrawals.... sometimes just a few hits.
OTOH it takes a little effort to become addicted to legal pain pills, taking them daily for weeks usually only results in minor withdrawals, such as a runny nose, insomnia, jitters.. not exactly worth rolling a few old ladies over.
Would allowing adults over 21 to purchase a 6 pack of opiate brew that packs the kick of 3 or 4 Vicodens really cause the downfall of western civilization the legalization crowd claims to see in their crystal balls? a desperate hype can go to 7-11, buy a case of opiate brew and drink till hes buzzed for 1/4 the cost of buying it illegally.
Employers would still be free to drug test, existing laws regarding felony public stupidity while under the influence still apply.
BTW have you guys even considered how much more police work would be done catching violent rapists, car thieves, molesters et al?; rather than playing an endless game of "whack-a-mole" with the dealers / users, cops could be hunting down burglars, rapists, child molesters and car thieves... unlike drug dealers these guys cant continue their trade while locked up... but drug dealers can and do.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
the only reason illegal drugs carry the price tag they do is due to the risk and inefficient chain of supply, are there any illegal alcohol / tobacco dealers still offering home cooked alternatives?
Moonshine (sometimes known as Poitín, mooney, moon, creek water, hooch, Portuguese grape juice, white lightning, and many others)
-
xmarine... some drugs would be sold to the big companies who would produce a superior product... but... it would be very pricey. Drugs can be grown and made from chemicals that are obtainable here and... for cheap... drugs will be stolen from the manufacturers and sold for half the price of government blessed ones because they won't have the taxes on em. There is a huge stolen cigg industry for instance and moonshine for another.
High taxation creates crime.
If drugs stay expensive.. addicts and kids will still break into your house and car to pay for em.
lazs