Oh, bollocks. Before the Jesus-squeezers started meddling in this country, you could buy a gun from one of many shops with no paperwork or background checks (heck, you didn't even have identification), you could walk down the street to the local betting parlor, where you could place a bet on any of a number of sporting events, you could buy some cocaine to pick you up as you headed over to the brothel where you could enjoy the services of a buxom brunette for a while, whereupon you'd head back to the betting parlor to check on your winnings, and the local constabulary would stay out of all of it or get taught a quick lesson in freedom.
Republicans are opposed to all of what Real America was. Try any of that, and the first rat will be a Republican, doing his damndest to destroy your fun and freedom.
What passes for a Republican, today, is a freedom-hating religious meddler who doesn't like his fellow man and wants to to impose a view of the world on him. Lots of war, too.
At least Obama smokes some dope, doesn't care with whom you sleep, and doesn't ride around with the Ten Commandments shoved up his arse.
I simply don't buy that the Republicans are riding in on a horse of freedom.
All this over health insurance? Seriously? This from the same people that cheered a tax being slapped on everyone to build a needless football stadium?
Bush did far more to attack freedom and destroy the nature of this country than Obama has. Where was the outrage? Clinton actually left the White House running surpluses, and everyone hated him.
This is why the appeal of Republicans is limited. They fail to see the evil of their own big government, but hate anyone else's big government.
If you'll spend some time looking around INGO, my opinion is that you'll find that many/most posts DO reflect a difference between the labels "Republican" and "Conservative". I have also not read a chorus of individuals singing the praises of the Republican party as the salvation to our political problems. Most of what I see are members writing that voting "R" instead of "D" is seen to be the lesser of two evils - not a pleasant choice, but necessary at times.Oh, bollocks. Before the Jesus-squeezers started meddling in this country, you could buy a gun from one of many shops with no paperwork or background checks (heck, you didn't even have identification), you could walk down the street to the local betting parlor, where you could place a bet on any of a number of sporting events, you could buy some cocaine to pick you up as you headed over to the brothel where you could enjoy the services of a buxom brunette for a while, whereupon you'd head back to the betting parlor to check on your winnings, and the local constabulary would stay out of all of it or get taught a quick lesson in freedom.
Republicans are opposed to all of what Real America was. Try any of that, and the first rat will be a Republican, doing his damndest to destroy your fun and freedom.
What passes for a Republican, today, is a freedom-hating religious meddler who doesn't like his fellow man and wants to to impose a view of the world on him. Lots of war, too.
At least Obama smokes some dope, doesn't care with whom you sleep, and doesn't ride around with the Ten Commandments shoved up his arse.
I simply don't buy that the Republicans are riding in on a horse of freedom.
I just don't see it as time to fly the Flag inverted. We're in a time of concern, not distress. To me, flying the Flag inverted is the same as waving a white flag (no disrespect meant toward SE, just differing views), and I'm not doing that any time soon.
Show off "Old Glory" as she was intended!
I know it's fun to say that in America, but the reality is that Western European countries, e.g., France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, etc. are socialistic and a lot freer than America.
Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence, yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation, may be included within the following descriptions. Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak men, who cannot be see; prejudiced men who will not see; and a certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation will be the cause of more calamities to this continent, than all the other three.
Smoking357 said:
"Further, Americans really need to drop their claim to freedom. We have far and away the highest per capita prison population in the world."
What has the "prison population" have to do with anything? Those in prison CHOSE to break the law (violate the rights of others) and put themselves in prison. ("Do the crime, do the time!") That was their choice to make - no one forced it on them.
As an aside, why were the "surpluses" under Clinton that you wrote about a good thing? To me, personally, a government that runs a surplus is a government that is collecting too many monies from the citizens.
Prometheus said:
"Over half the people in prison are there for DRUG related crimes. Someone smoking pot or snorting coke does nothing to violate my Rights. They may be breaking some big brother laws, but that doesn't mean jack."
So long as the person using works at a legal job and legally earns the money to purchase his dope.
But, too many "dopes" steal in order to get the money for their drugs. (stealing from family is still stealing, even if family doesn't have him/her arrested for the theft.)
Also, it also depends on what the person on drugs does under the influence.
In other words, the user isn't the only one involved. So, it may not interfere with YOUR rights, but it may interfere with another's rights.
("No man is an island".)
Prometheus said:
"Over half the people in prison are there for DRUG related crimes. Someone smoking pot or snorting coke does nothing to violate my Rights. They may be breaking some big brother laws, but that doesn't mean jack."
So long as the person using works at a legal job and legally earns the money to purchase his dope. AND as long as he/she isn't supporting a dealer that hasn't harmed someone in supplying the dope (for the dope).
But, too many "dopes" steal in order to get the money for their drugs. (stealing from family is still stealing, even if family doesn't have him/her arrested for the theft.)
Also, it also depends on what the person on drugs does under the influence. Is he/she driving? Does he/she get violent? Does he/she risk the health/wealfare of his/her child(ren)? Who might have been harmed/killed in order to grow/manufacture/deliver those drugs? The buyer is just as responsible because he/she provides the incentive for the continued "sale". (If there were no buyers, there would be no reason for the crime. Good luck with that!)
In other words, the user isn't the only one involved. So, it may not interfere with YOUR rights, but it may interfere with another's rights.
("No man is an island".)
Why can't we prosecute them for the theft(s)?
I think if you kill someone while driving a car (drunk, stoned or sober), you should be punished accordingly.
Does it mater if a sober man kills a child crossing the street anymore than a drunk man? Is she any more dead because the driver was drunk? Responsibility.
If a actual crime is committed, prosecute for that crime. If you can't show an actual victim, there is no crime.
Legalize most drugs and treat them like cigarettes and alcohol today and current drug dealers would be out of business before the midterms.
Same thing happened when prohibition was repealed.
You seem to be living in a dream world, not all drug users are unemployed thieves. I'd say at least 1/3 of the Ft Lauderdale PD in 1999 smoked pot. I know many MD's who smoke it, let alone nurses.
It's pretty common. I prefer the occasional rum and coke myself. I'm not sure what rock your living under but marijuana use is very common.
I don't think people should be working in most jobs under the influence of pot anymore than alcohol, but on their own time? Why should anyone care?
Liberty. Look it up.
First off who is going to supply drugs if they are legalized?
I'LL GROW IT!!! If it's legalized of course.
Are you also going to deal with all the lawyers who will sue you for providing a product known to cause harm to it's consumers?
Nope. The company that I sell it to that packages and distributes it will. You don't see farmers dealing with those lawyers do ya?