look, say you have a horrible catastrophe that cost you a million dollars to deal with.
now, you haven't paid a million dollars into your insurance, but you expect to use some of the money that others (who haven't had a million dollar problem) have paid in in order to deal with it, don't you?
or do you tell the insurance company that you only want to receive back what you have paid in, and if that's not enough, it's just too bad for you?
it should be mentioned that we are right now spending OUR money to support the "them vs us" mentality.
We think of Iraq as "them and Iraq thinks of us as "them" and so we are spending OUR money to destroy each other.
Those bombs won't send anyone's kid to school.
Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide? A: $900+ billion
Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.? A:50%
Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according the the UN? A: 10% (that's about $40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund our retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).
You can't be that stupid? What sort of job should I have gotten at 12 years old? I did get my own job @ 16 and have been supporting myself and my family ever since.
There's some on this board who would love to see us live strictly by the Constution. and I mean literal word, by literal word.
I always thought if there were ever another revolution, it would be if this country was governed by strict constutionalists.
I know it's no place I'd want to live. Those Founding Fathers that we hold up as dieties. They didn't have all the answers. I think some of them lied to themselves.
Another example of how the Constitution is misunderstood. Things would be just fine, Rick. You could work to get your state to impose all of those socialists programs that you crave. Of course, a lot a people might move out of the state once they got the tax bill, but hey you you would have your utopia.
I'm an American...and am willing to work together with OTHER AMERICANS to make OUR lives better. I care about ALL of US. You, apparently do not.
and have been supporting myself and my family ever since.
your family?
what, you don't make them pay their own way? Sounds like you think your family is communist or something.
And no, I did not build the school, that's just moronic
so, where do you get off using OUR building?
No, on my dime, via taxes
that's my dime too.
You're obviously ignorant on how life insurance works
you obviously are reading something that isn't there, because my post said nothing about lifeinsurance...and indeed it couldn't have since it talks about YOU getting benefits to deal with a catastrophe. You wouldn't be around to get them if you were dead. Maybe you should hold off on the "ignorant" shit until you prove you can actually read what it is you claim is ignorant.
Let's try this again. Let's say you have a new $40,000 car. You get the insurance for it and pay your premium. 6 months later you have an accident and total the car. Now, you have only paid in to the insurance plan maybe, say, $1000 at this point. Now, are you gonna file a claim for $1000 or for $40,000?
If you file it for a new car, you are gonna use some of MY insurance premium (if I insure with the same company. That's makes us a "we", doesn't it?) money to get a new car. And you know, that's okay with me. So now I guess we are both Communists, huh. Of course we are both driving those cars on those Communist roads that WE ALL built together, aren't we?
BTW did you read my post on the importance of the individual yet?
I'm an American...and am willing to work together with OTHER AMERICANS to make OUR lives better. I care about ALL of US. You, apparently do not.
You maybe an American but you ARE a communist. Take your care and....
Let's try this again. Let's say you have a new $40,000 car. You get the insurance for it and pay your premium. 6 months later you have an accident and total the car. Now, you have only paid in to the insurance plan maybe, say, $1000 at this point. Now, are you gonna file a claim for $1000 or for $40,000?
That is how it works in the private sector. Because the insurance companies take into account what they will have to pay out in order to reach their projected profit. Government does not work that way. It doesn't care about profit, efficiency or anything other than power. All government becomes a bureaucratic nightmare no matter how good the intentions.
That is how it works in the private sector. Because the insurance companies take into account what they will have to pay out in order to reach their projected profit. Government does not work that way. It doesn't care about profit
exactly...and if you remove the need for profit, the premium is less.
All government becomes a bureaucratic nightmare no matter how good the intentions.
This is entirely up to us. It's OUR government. We decide how well it works.
All government becomes a bureaucratic nightmare no matter how good the intentions.
This is entirely up to us. It's OUR government. We decide how well it works.
No it doesn't work that way. Inefficiency is caused by lack of motivation. Since there is very little motivation for government to do much most of the time, very little gets done. What does get done is usually poorly done or done well but at a much higher cost than necessary. It is the nature of the beast. As I said above: you have a profound lack of understanding of human nature.
It wouldn't be that way if only we could get rid of conservatives, who insist on screwing everything up.
No. If you got rid of conservatives you would simply have more inefficient and wasteful government agencies. It simply is nature of the beast. It is due to the limited number of motivating factors in government.
1) Generate a defict somehow. The easiest way to do this is to cut taxes. Alternate methods exist, the most popular being increasing defense spending.
2) Now that you have a deficit, you have an excuse to cut funding to social programs.
3) Now that the social programs have had their funding cut, they cannot possibly do what they are supposed to do.
4) Since social programs are no longer working properly, now is the time to emphasize that social program's "don't work", and should have their funding cut or be privatized.
5) Go back to step 3 and repeat until there aren't any more social programs. But be sure that the deficit never gets under control, because if it does, people might start thinking that social programs are "affordable".
1) Convince people that government is the only way to solve anything. The minute a problem arises, propose a program and throw some money at it. After all it's easier than doing something yourself about it and heck, why not it's easy to feel generous when it's not your money and it will make you feel good.
2) Once step one is accomplished make sure to keep people dependant on the programs that were supposed to help.
3) If anyone challenges step 2 or sheds light or even hints or dares say that a program isn't working, tell them they're mean spirited, selfish or don't care. Make sure to include children in whatever you do.
4) Make sure you always classify everything as a crisis. It's always a crisis, remember that.
5) Once all these steps have been completed you might hear some complaints about having to work until May to pay taxes for all these swell ideas. In fact congratulate them. Since 89,000 per year for a family of 4 is considered rich, tell them what a good job they did. And they should be proud, hey they are rich so they can afford it anyway. Who cares how they got it, we just want 34,843 of it. Make sure to insert the term "working families" into the mix. It will confuse them since most families work.
6) Follow all the above steps and see how much more power you'll have. A dependant populace has gratitude for the things that keep them going. Don't worry about those who disagree, it's not like we'd end up in the majority, it hasn't happened since the Eisenhower admin. So disregard their concerns. If addressed by one refer to step 3.
7) Lastly and most importantly the rules don't apply to us.
what THX isn't getting is all I'm doing is waiting to see if he will make an argument for individual rights.
That's what conservatives are supposed to be all for.
and this is where the conservative movement fails to live up to it's ideals.
Just listen to Scalia talk about how he should pare back individual rights to their bare minimum. Where is the conservative thinking that people should be free as possible, particularly from the government messing with you....and where is the individual right that one has to do whatever one likes with one's own body?
and so I finally come around to being on-topic.
why, when confronted with "us" being forced on them, do they not notice that they are embracing the "us", via drug laws, in order to take away our individual liberties?
don't conservatives want less laws? less government interference with our lives and how we choose freely to live them?
I tried to give THX the argument when I made a post about how important individual rights are, but THX didn't comment on it, much less affirm it; while rejecting the "us" system when it's being used not to take away our individual freedom (quite literally, the jails are full of non-violent drug offenders), but to provide us something as basic as health care.
exactly...and if you remove the need for profit, the premium is less.
This is just false, crab. Competition is the single best driver for cutting cost and price. Not to mention that there would be ridiculously less new drugs developed without the profit motive.
The best way to get everybody health care would be to have those who can and want to pay for it do so, and create voluntary social mechanisms to facilitate the flow of wealth into a deregulated health market on behalf of the less fortunate. Most employers would still provide health care in their benefits packages, it would just be cheaper. Doctors and hospitals would be unburdened from so much extra cost and paperwork that providing charity care (again...like they used to) would look like a birthday present compared to what they're currently being forced to comply with. The cost of new drug development would drop radically, allowing pharmaceutical companies to provide even more free treatments to Third World countries than they do already, and making it financially feasible to develop small-market drugs, like for rare diseases.
Crabgrass (and susan maybe), do you recognize that transferring roles such as these (be it health care or the drug war) to the government -- society's agent of force -- is, by design, guaranteed to make that situation an us and them situation? That government (with religion and race/clan running a distant second) has been the most predominant and damaging us/them axis in human history?
Just listen to Scalia talk about how he should pare back individual rights to their bare minimum. Where is the conservative thinking that people should be free as possible, particularly from the government messing with you....and where is the individual right that one has to do whatever one likes with one's own body?
You misunderstand the system, crabs. In general, the Constitution sets out those rights that the federal government cannot infringe. The same prohibition has been extended to the states for several specified Constitutional protections. There is no Constitutional provision for an individual "to do whatever one likes with one's own body." Get with the program. Understand what is going on and why it is going on. What America is supposed to be about is following a set of rules that applies to everyone. Those rules are contained within the Constitution. If you don't like them then try to change them. To do that you must understand them. What is "American" is that you operate within those rules. Much of what you advocate, at least the premises upon which you base your positions, are not within those rules.
why, when confronted with "us" being forced on them, do they not notice that they are embracing the "us", via drug laws, in order to take away our individual liberties? Where is the right to use drugs written in the Constitution?
Where is the right to use drugs written in the Constitution?
where is the right to deny individuals a right to their own bodies written in the Constitution.
The rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inherent and inalienable, not something that needs a constitution to grant...the Constitution (indeed, our government itself) exists to protect these rights, not to grant them.
crabs, it is painfully clear that you have absolutely no grasp of how the system works or how the Constitution applies. But even if I agree with you that the federal government does not have Constitutional authority to impose sanctions for drug possession, the states do have such power. Apparently you seem to think that the federal government is the only government to which you are subject.
Jethro, the states do have that power, and they also have the power to make drugs legal. The feds are overriding the states that have done so, and I believe that is unconstitutional.
But even if I agree with you that the federal government does not have Constitutional authority to impose sanctions for drug possession, the states do have such power. Apparently you seem to think that the federal government is the only government to which you are subject.
tell that to the California medical marijuana grower who's in jail.
the states do have such power.
what part of "inherent and inalienable" don't you understand?
it is painfully clear that you have absolutely no grasp of how the system works or how the Constitution applies
you keep saying this, but you never back it up.
Apparently you seem to think that the federal government is the only government to which you are subject
the federal government is supposed to protect my "inherent and inalienable" rights when the state tries to deny them
what I don't understand is why the "conservatives" have this backwards. In California, when the State decides that medical marijuana is okay, why did the "conservative" administration intercede to take away those State rights?
Hey, I am not arguing with you Muskwa. I am just making the point that crabs does not have a firm grasp on how the system works. I have made the point many times that the federal government has exceeded its authority in several other areas, as you know. I have not put much attention on the drug issue because there is not enough time to get into every issue.
what part of "inherent and inalienable" don't you understand?
Where did you come across such a concept? You mean you have actually read something other than the preamble of the Constitution? Bravo, for you! We should have a party! But seriously exactly what are those "inherent and inalienable" rights? Who decides which rights are "inherent and inalienable", you?
I wrote: it is painfully clear that you have absolutely no grasp of how the system works or how the Constitution applies
crabs responded: you keep saying this, but you never back it up.
Crabs, I have posted often in the past my view of how the Constitution applies on specific issues. I don't have time to give a dissertation on the matter. If you want to read up on the matter I suggest reading Rotunda and Nowak's Treatise on Constitutional Law.
the federal government is supposed to protect my "inherent and inalienable" rights when the state tries to deny them You are badly mistaken. First not all rights specified in the Constitution are applicable to the states. Some are but I believe most that have been applied were applied through intentional misrepresentation of the Constitution by activist judges. But then there are the "inherent and inalienable' rights that you refer to that are not defined. Imposing those unspecified rights through judicial fiat is not American.
In California, when the State decides that medical marijuana is okay, why did the "conservative" administration intercede to take away those State rights? I didn't say that there was legitimate Constitutional authority for the federal government to do so. I have not put much time into that particular issue. I do know that the federal government has steadily increased its power and control, rightly or wrongly, over the states throughout U.S. history.
translation: i have not put much attention on the drug issue because i actually agree with the federal government's stance on it.
Let's say I agree with result. I can't say that I agree with the method. But you liberals have determined that the federal government knows best and that they have the power to impose its will. If you don't like it in this particular issue you only have other liberals to blame.
you haven't really made any points about much of anything, least of all my understanding of the system or lack thereof.
No your posts indicate that you don't have a firm grasp of how the system works, crabs. Now I probably should admire your interest in the political system and your apparent desire to perform your civic duty. However, you need to apply not only your heart to the matter but your mind, too. That really is the problem with socialists. They don't want to apply the mind to civic duty but only the heart.
but you aren't addressing my posts, you are making conclusions about me without addressing what I have said. What you have said indicates your poor grasp of the matter. I don't need to respond to your statements that are clearly based on error. I have pointed out your underlying error. I have told you where you can find information to correct your error. I think that is enough.
just stick to what is being said. prove or disprove it the best you can. (and saying "that's wrong" without saying why isn't proving anything) I have pointed out quite often how you are wrong. If you don't understand that is something you will have to live with.
how do you account for the Constitutional provision for depriving a person of life, liberty and property? The Constitution provides for the taking of two of your so called "inherent and inalienable" rights. If a person can be deprived of them how are they inherent and inalienable?
well, spit it out...say what it says about a person's rights. don't just say it's there, just say it. Say where it says it provides for the taking of an inalienable right, say what right it is and why it's being taken.
tell my about how our inalianable rights aren't inalienable. Don't just say they are, tell us why.
well, spit it out...say what it says about a person's rights. don't just say it's there, just say it. Say where it says it provides for the taking of an inalienable right, say what right it is and why it's being taken.
You make no sense. "Inalienable right is not a legal term. Inalienable rights aren't protected by the Constitution. Inalienable rights is a term used in philosophy not law.
tell my about how our inalienable rights aren't inalienable. Don't just say they are, tell us why. I pointed you to a specific provision of the Constitution that states that the government can take your life, your liberty and your property. Now the term "inalienable right" has a specific meaning. It means a right that can't be taken away. The Constitution, however, says that they can be taken away. Therefore, those rights you claim are inalienable are not inalienable under the law of this nation.
I pointed you to a specific provision of the Constitution that states that the government can take your life, your liberty and your property.
I must have missed that, because I don't recall you pointing to a specific provision of the Constitution.
The Constitution, however, says that they can be taken away
where is this again.
I understand that you want to just sorta snip off the preamble, which of course only states the intention of the document. just so we are clear, what other parts of it you want removed as being "not legal"?
There is no Constitutional provision for an individual "to do whatever one likes with one's own body."
Yes there is. There are two, actually:
Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be contrued to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people"
Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are resrved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Not to mention the few other Amendments that have been violated in the pursuit of the War on Drugs, which don't directly give the people rights to do what they want with their body, but which should prevent the government from doing most of what it does in attempts to stop that activity.
Where is the right to use drugs written in the Constitution?
Aside from those two Amendments, it's also in the preamble, which says that the Constitution was adopted to "secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
The right to use drugs is one of the blessings of Liberty.
I hope you paid all your rent for all those years.
look, say you have a horrible catastrophe that cost you a million dollars to deal with.
now, you haven't paid a million dollars into your insurance, but you expect to use some of the money that others (who haven't had a million dollar problem) have paid in in order to deal with it, don't you?
or do you tell the insurance company that you only want to receive back what you have paid in, and if that's not enough, it's just too bad for you?
on OUR dime, no doubt.
I mean you didn't build the school and hire teachers just for yourself, did you?
it should be mentioned that we are right now spending OUR money to support the "them vs us" mentality.
We think of Iraq as "them and Iraq thinks of us as "them" and so we are spending OUR money to destroy each other.
Those bombs won't send anyone's kid to school.
Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?
A: $900+ billion
Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.?
A:50%
Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of
life to everyone in the world, according the the UN?
A: 10% (that's about $40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested
to fund our retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).
there is your "us vs them" financial sheet
it's wasting a buttload of OUR money.
On topic
I don't like the "War On Drugs".
me neither.
crabgrass 3/19/03 7:47pm
You're nothing but a Communist.
crabgrass 3/19/03 7:48pm
You can't be that stupid? What sort of job should I have gotten at 12 years old? I did get my own job @ 16 and have been supporting myself and my family ever since.
crabgrass 3/19/03 7:53pm
Yes, I did pay the mortgage during those years. If you had read my post I stated 90% of my income went to support the family.
crabgrass 3/19/03 7:57pm
You're obviously ignorant on how life insurance works.
crabgrass 3/19/03 8:06pm
No, on my dime, via taxes.
And no, I did not build the school, that's just moronic.
There's some on this board who would love to see us live strictly by the Constution. and I mean literal word, by literal word.
I always thought if there were ever another revolution, it would be if this country was governed by strict constutionalists.
I know it's no place I'd want to live. Those Founding Fathers that we hold up as dieties. They didn't have all the answers. I think some of them lied to themselves.
Another example of how the Constitution is misunderstood. Things would be just fine, Rick. You could work to get your state to impose all of those socialists programs that you crave. Of course, a lot a people might move out of the state once they got the tax bill, but hey you you would have your utopia.
I'm an American...and am willing to work together with OTHER AMERICANS to make OUR lives better. I care about ALL of US. You, apparently do not.
your family?
what, you don't make them pay their own way? Sounds like you think your family is communist or something.
so, where do you get off using OUR building?
that's my dime too.
you obviously are reading something that isn't there, because my post said nothing about lifeinsurance...and indeed it couldn't have since it talks about YOU getting benefits to deal with a catastrophe. You wouldn't be around to get them if you were dead. Maybe you should hold off on the "ignorant" shit until you prove you can actually read what it is you claim is ignorant.
Let's try this again. Let's say you have a new $40,000 car. You get the insurance for it and pay your premium. 6 months later you have an accident and total the car. Now, you have only paid in to the insurance plan maybe, say, $1000 at this point. Now, are you gonna file a claim for $1000 or for $40,000?
If you file it for a new car, you are gonna use some of MY insurance premium (if I insure with the same company. That's makes us a "we", doesn't it?) money to get a new car. And you know, that's okay with me. So now I guess we are both Communists, huh. Of course we are both driving those cars on those Communist roads that WE ALL built together, aren't we?
BTW did you read my post on the importance of the individual yet?
I'm an American...and am willing to work together with OTHER AMERICANS to make OUR lives better. I care about ALL of US. You, apparently do not.
You maybe an American but you ARE a communist. Take your care and....
Let's try this again. Let's say you have a new $40,000 car. You get the insurance for it and pay your premium. 6 months later you have an accident and total the car. Now, you have only paid in to the insurance plan maybe, say, $1000 at this point. Now, are you gonna file a claim for $1000 or for $40,000?
That is how it works in the private sector. Because the insurance companies take into account what they will have to pay out in order to reach their projected profit. Government does not work that way. It doesn't care about profit, efficiency or anything other than power. All government becomes a bureaucratic nightmare no matter how good the intentions.
exactly...and if you remove the need for profit, the premium is less.
This is entirely up to us. It's OUR government. We decide how well it works.
exactly...and if you remove the need for profit, the premium is less.
you have a profound lack of understanding of human nature.
All government becomes a bureaucratic nightmare no matter how good the intentions.
This is entirely up to us. It's OUR government. We decide how well it works.
No it doesn't work that way. Inefficiency is caused by lack of motivation. Since there is very little motivation for government to do much most of the time, very little gets done. What does get done is usually poorly done or done well but at a much higher cost than necessary. It is the nature of the beast. As I said above: you have a profound lack of understanding of human nature.
jethro bodine 3/20/03 8:01am
It wouldn't be that way if only we could get rid of conservatives, who insist on screwing everything up.
It wouldn't be that way if only we could get rid of conservatives, who insist on screwing everything up.
No. If you got rid of conservatives you would simply have more inefficient and wasteful government agencies. It simply is nature of the beast. It is due to the limited number of motivating factors in government.
I'm very busy today so I'll make this short.
One thing you're missing in the whole equation Crabby, is that I would continue to make premium payments even after filing a claim.
So the insurance company will eventually get their money out of me.
Also, I had no choice as to where to go to school as a child so, you'll have to take that up with my parents. Those selfish bastards!
The Republican Masterplan:
1) Generate a defict somehow. The easiest way to do this is to cut taxes. Alternate methods exist, the most popular being increasing defense spending.
2) Now that you have a deficit, you have an excuse to cut funding to social programs.
3) Now that the social programs have had their funding cut, they cannot possibly do what they are supposed to do.
4) Since social programs are no longer working properly, now is the time to emphasize that social program's "don't work", and should have their funding cut or be privatized.
5) Go back to step 3 and repeat until there aren't any more social programs. But be sure that the deficit never gets under control, because if it does, people might start thinking that social programs are "affordable".
Interesting anaolgy C.E.
The Democrat plan.
1) Convince people that government is the only way to solve anything.
The minute a problem arises, propose a program and throw some money at it. After all it's easier than doing something yourself about it and heck, why not it's easy to feel generous when it's not your money and it will make you feel good.
2) Once step one is accomplished make sure to keep people dependant on the programs that were supposed to help.
3) If anyone challenges step 2 or sheds light or even hints or dares say that a program isn't working, tell them they're mean spirited, selfish or don't care. Make sure to include children in whatever you do.
4) Make sure you always classify everything as a crisis. It's always a crisis, remember that.
5) Once all these steps have been completed you might hear some complaints about having to work until May to pay taxes for all these swell ideas. In fact congratulate them. Since 89,000 per year for a family of 4 is considered rich, tell them what a good job they did. And they should be proud, hey they are rich so they can afford it anyway. Who cares how they got it, we just want 34,843 of it.
Make sure to insert the term "working families" into the mix. It will confuse them since most families work.
6) Follow all the above steps and see how much more power you'll have. A dependant populace has gratitude for the things that keep them going. Don't worry about those who disagree, it's not like we'd end up in the majority, it hasn't happened since the Eisenhower admin. So disregard their concerns. If addressed by one refer to step 3.
7) Lastly and most importantly the rules don't apply to us.
what THX isn't getting is all I'm doing is waiting to see if he will make an argument for individual rights.
That's what conservatives are supposed to be all for.
and this is where the conservative movement fails to live up to it's ideals.
Just listen to Scalia talk about how he should pare back individual rights to their bare minimum. Where is the conservative thinking that people should be free as possible, particularly from the government messing with you....and where is the individual right that one has to do whatever one likes with one's own body?
and so I finally come around to being on-topic.
why, when confronted with "us" being forced on them, do they not notice that they are embracing the "us", via drug laws, in order to take away our individual liberties?
don't conservatives want less laws? less government interference with our lives and how we choose freely to live them?
I tried to give THX the argument when I made a post about how important individual rights are, but THX didn't comment on it, much less affirm it; while rejecting the "us" system when it's being used not to take away our individual freedom (quite literally, the jails are full of non-violent drug offenders), but to provide us something as basic as health care.
This is just false, crab. Competition is the single best driver for cutting cost and price. Not to mention that there would be ridiculously less new drugs developed without the profit motive.
The best way to get everybody health care would be to have those who can and want to pay for it do so, and create voluntary social mechanisms to facilitate the flow of wealth into a deregulated health market on behalf of the less fortunate. Most employers would still provide health care in their benefits packages, it would just be cheaper. Doctors and hospitals would be unburdened from so much extra cost and paperwork that providing charity care (again...like they used to) would look like a birthday present compared to what they're currently being forced to comply with. The cost of new drug development would drop radically, allowing pharmaceutical companies to provide even more free treatments to Third World countries than they do already, and making it financially feasible to develop small-market drugs, like for rare diseases.
Crabgrass (and susan maybe), do you recognize that transferring roles such as these (be it health care or the drug war) to the government -- society's agent of force -- is, by design, guaranteed to make that situation an us and them situation? That government (with religion and race/clan running a distant second) has been the most predominant and damaging us/them axis in human history?
It's a beautiful ballet...I'm getting weepy just thinking about it.
Actually Crabby, I did bring up my rights being infringed upon in a couple of posts.
you haven't offered any argument for the defense of individual rights, outside of "I don't wanna be forced to pay for your health care"
I take it you are against drug laws, if you support the rights of the individual...and if not, why not?
Just listen to Scalia talk about how he should pare back individual rights to their bare minimum. Where is the conservative thinking that people should be free as possible, particularly from the government messing with you....and where is the individual right that one has to do whatever one likes with one's own body?
You misunderstand the system, crabs. In general, the Constitution sets out those rights that the federal government cannot infringe. The same prohibition has been extended to the states for several specified Constitutional protections. There is no Constitutional provision for an individual "to do whatever one likes with one's own body." Get with the program. Understand what is going on and why it is going on. What America is supposed to be about is following a set of rules that applies to everyone. Those rules are contained within the Constitution. If you don't like them then try to change them. To do that you must understand them. What is "American" is that you operate within those rules. Much of what you advocate, at least the premises upon which you base your positions, are not within those rules.
why, when confronted with "us" being forced on them, do they not notice that they are embracing the "us", via drug laws, in order to take away our individual liberties? Where is the right to use drugs written in the Constitution?
where is the liberty in not having control of your own body?
where is the right to deny individuals a right to their own bodies written in the Constitution.
The rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inherent and inalienable, not something that needs a constitution to grant...the Constitution (indeed, our government itself) exists to protect these rights, not to grant them.
all over the place.
crabs, it is painfully clear that you have absolutely no grasp of how the system works or how the Constitution applies. But even if I agree with you that the federal government does not have Constitutional authority to impose sanctions for drug possession, the states do have such power. Apparently you seem to think that the federal government is the only government to which you are subject.
Jethro, the states do have that power, and they also have the power to make drugs legal. The feds are overriding the states that have done so, and I believe that is unconstitutional.
tell that to the California medical marijuana grower who's in jail.
what part of "inherent and inalienable" don't you understand?
you keep saying this, but you never back it up.
the federal government is supposed to protect my "inherent and inalienable" rights when the state tries to deny them
what I don't understand is why the "conservatives" have this backwards. In California, when the State decides that medical marijuana is okay, why did the "conservative" administration intercede to take away those State rights?
do you?
Hey, I am not arguing with you Muskwa. I am just making the point that crabs does not have a firm grasp on how the system works. I have made the point many times that the federal government has exceeded its authority in several other areas, as you know. I have not put much attention on the drug issue because there is not enough time to get into every issue.
'kay :~)
I have not put much attention on the drug issue because there is not enough time to get into every issue.
translation: i have not put much attention on the drug issue because i actually agree with the federal government's stance on it.
you are making the assertion
you haven't really made any points about much of anything, least of all my understanding of the system or lack thereof.
what part of "inherent and inalienable" don't you understand?
Where did you come across such a concept? You mean you have actually read something other than the preamble of the Constitution? Bravo, for you! We should have a party! But seriously exactly what are those "inherent and inalienable" rights? Who decides which rights are "inherent and inalienable", you?
I wrote: it is painfully clear that you have absolutely no grasp of how the system works or how the Constitution applies
crabs responded: you keep saying this, but you never back it up.
Crabs, I have posted often in the past my view of how the Constitution applies on specific issues. I don't have time to give a dissertation on the matter. If you want to read up on the matter I suggest reading Rotunda and Nowak's Treatise on Constitutional Law.
the federal government is supposed to protect my "inherent and inalienable" rights when the state tries to deny them You are badly mistaken. First not all rights specified in the Constitution are applicable to the states. Some are but I believe most that have been applied were applied through intentional misrepresentation of the Constitution by activist judges. But then there are the "inherent and inalienable' rights that you refer to that are not defined. Imposing those unspecified rights through judicial fiat is not American.
In California, when the State decides that medical marijuana is okay, why did the "conservative" administration intercede to take away those State rights? I didn't say that there was legitimate Constitutional authority for the federal government to do so. I have not put much time into that particular issue. I do know that the federal government has steadily increased its power and control, rightly or wrongly, over the states throughout U.S. history.
translation: i have not put much attention on the drug issue because i actually agree with the federal government's stance on it.
Let's say I agree with result. I can't say that I agree with the method. But you liberals have determined that the federal government knows best and that they have the power to impose its will. If you don't like it in this particular issue you only have other liberals to blame.
you haven't really made any points about much of anything, least of all my understanding of the system or lack thereof.
No your posts indicate that you don't have a firm grasp of how the system works, crabs. Now I probably should admire your interest in the political system and your apparent desire to perform your civic duty. However, you need to apply not only your heart to the matter but your mind, too. That really is the problem with socialists. They don't want to apply the mind to civic duty but only the heart.
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Read much?
no one "decides"...that's what "inalienable" means.
so, you agree with increased violent crime, the creation of a huge underground market and the racist application of a law?
I'm not surprised.
The "results" are that we imprison more of our own people than pretty much any other nation in history. And you agree with it. So much for liberty.
swell.
but you aren't addressing my posts, you are making conclusions about me without addressing what I have said.
just stick to what is being said. prove or disprove it the best you can. (and saying "that's wrong" without saying why isn't proving anything)
hey, I thought I was a communist! Just ask THX, he seems to think that there isn't any difference.
Nothing substantial.
That would make it hard to enforce those particular rights, don't you think?
but you aren't addressing my posts, you are making conclusions about me without addressing what I have said. What you have said indicates your poor grasp of the matter. I don't need to respond to your statements that are clearly based on error. I have pointed out your underlying error. I have told you where you can find information to correct your error. I think that is enough.
just stick to what is being said. prove or disprove it the best you can. (and saying "that's wrong" without saying why isn't proving anything) I have pointed out quite often how you are wrong. If you don't understand that is something you will have to live with.
Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
well, spit it out...say what it says about a person's rights. don't just say it's there, just say it. Say where it says it provides for the taking of an inalienable right, say what right it is and why it's being taken.
tell my about how our inalianable rights aren't inalienable. Don't just say they are, tell us why.
everyone is a little bit communist...been to a National Park lately?
we, as a group, can preserve nature, but not all of our people's health?
well, spit it out...say what it says about a person's rights. don't just say it's there, just say it. Say where it says it provides for the taking of an inalienable right, say what right it is and why it's being taken.
You make no sense. "Inalienable right is not a legal term. Inalienable rights aren't protected by the Constitution. Inalienable rights is a term used in philosophy not law.
tell my about how our inalienable rights aren't inalienable. Don't just say they are, tell us why. I pointed you to a specific provision of the Constitution that states that the government can take your life, your liberty and your property. Now the term "inalienable right" has a specific meaning. It means a right that can't be taken away. The Constitution, however, says that they can be taken away. Therefore, those rights you claim are inalienable are not inalienable under the law of this nation.
I must have missed that, because I don't recall you pointing to a specific provision of the Constitution.
where is this again.
I understand that you want to just sorta snip off the preamble, which of course only states the intention of the document. just so we are clear, what other parts of it you want removed as being "not legal"?
Yes there is. There are two, actually:
Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be contrued to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people"
Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are resrved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Not to mention the few other Amendments that have been violated in the pursuit of the War on Drugs, which don't directly give the people rights to do what they want with their body, but which should prevent the government from doing most of what it does in attempts to stop that activity.
Aside from those two Amendments, it's also in the preamble, which says that the Constitution was adopted to "secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
The right to use drugs is one of the blessings of Liberty.