You're dwelling on something that might have happened 100 to 300 years ago. Get over your drug obsessions. Then and now.
"might have happened"?
the drug laws were inacted less than 100 years ago.
and the war on them isn't that old.
people are in prison for it....right now.
it's a freedom obsession
look, if you can't actually speak to the subject, just say so. I know you want to talk about me so you can get your name-calling and slander fix, but if you can't speak to the subject, why do you even bother to post?
BTW, the history of hemp goes back not some 300 years, but many centuries.
so, you don't think that education for EVERYONE provides national security?
Never have I said I don't support education for everyone.
you allow the State to support a Religion & you divide the country and disefrancise a part of the citizens.
That argument could be used for any social program. I suppose we should cut off welfare for Christians? I mean, that is indirectly supporting religion.
so, you don't want to be forced to educate everyone but you want to force me to pay for someone's Religious education?
I don't want shit from you. I would never ask anything of you. I don't need you. I simply want use of what I am already paying for.
If you can come to that conclusion [We have welfare for CITIZENS...if they happen to be Christians is of no concern to me], why can't you come to the same conclusion in regards to schooling?
already have...Public schools are for CITIZENS...if they happen to be Christians is of no concern to me. They can't, however, use the public schools to promote being Christian. Just as the CITIZEN who believes in Buddha can't use the public schools to promote being a Buddist. Keep Religion out of PUBLIC education...because the PUBLIC have DIFFERENT beliefs about Religion.
To set up a "non-Christian" versus "Christian" public school system would not be unlike setting up separate schools for blacks and whites. Taking out your part of the public monies for public shools and putting it into Christian schools will result in just that. You don't get out of paying for PUBLIC education just because you are a Christian, sorry.
same deal with welfare....I am not for making CITIZENS who need welfare declare their love of Jesus (or Mohammad or Buddha or Vishnu or....) to participate in the CITIZENS welfare.
and BTW, it takes two to agree. you never agree with me either.
say something I agree with and I will agree.
of course that won't be much of a conversation, because conversations where everyone agrees are pretty boring....and, at least in the drug threads, most people agree that the war on drugs is wrong and that's the end of that and the drug thread falls silent for long stretches at a time.
If I don't like the responses I get, I look at the responses, not the responder.
I've tried to discuss drug issues with you.
you haven't tried to "discuss" anything with me other than me....what you are trying to claim is an attempt at "discussing" is actually just you being a dick and attacking me instead of the issue at hand. The post that this is a response to is a perfect example of this.
You're own arguments contradict each other all the time, depending on the issue.
You're all for "Freedom" if it includes abortion at will or smoking a crack pipe, but if it comes to a parent educating their own child, you won't have it and want to play dictator.
OMG crabs you're a hoot! Someone disagrees with you and you see them as a dick and attacking. Typical liberal.
Most people agree that the war on drugs is wrong? I don't think so. Maybe to the point that the laws aren't tough enough.
A citizen is anyone in "the" society? Then you have no problem with sending the people who are illegally in this country back to "the" society from which they came.
Most people agree that the war on drugs is wrong? I don't think so. Maybe to the point that the laws aren't tough enough.
actually yes, most drug threads wind up with everyone agreeing that the war on drugs is wrong. It's one of the few issues where conservatives and liberals often find themselves in agreement on.
you are among the handful of people I have ever seen on boards who aren't for at the least the decriminalization of marijuana.
"The notion that the government can tell an organization like the ACLU when and how it should address important civil liberties issues is a form of censorship masquerading as campaign finance reform," ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero declared after the ruling.
Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, said the ruling is "the most significant change in the First Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which tried to make it a crime to criticize a member of Congress."
I find the sudden concern for the First Amendment from the Right to be the epitome of smarminess; anyone who has dared to criticize the Bush administration has done has been labeled a hater, a traitor, a nutcase or all three, but suddenly the pundits of the Right are champions of the right to criticize elected officials.
jethro, how do you people hold these contradictory positions without your heads exploding? I'm also surprised to find you agreeing with the ACLU on anything; could this be a sign of maturity?
Legally, no; that would be unconstitutional. However, any critic of the basis for or conduct of the war in Iraq is immediately labeled "Saddam's best friend," accused of treason (not by Federal prosecutors, but by members of the media, the Congress and the Bush administration), and so forth. Give us a break here, OK?
You're kidding, right? You haven't noticed that, even on this very thread?
Ari Fleischer on Bill Maher's assertion that it takes a certain amount of courage (albeit misguided) to fly a plane into a building, perhaps more than it takes to push the button to launch a cruise missile: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010926-5.html
And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.
Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who left both legs and an arm there, ran for re-election to the Senate in 2002. Beacuse he stressed the importance of building consensus against Saddam, he was blasted by his opponent as "soft on terrorism," and was portrayed side-by-side with Saddam and Osama in campaign ads.
Ann Coulter writes a book which says that every Democrat and some centrist Republicans are traitors, and still gets invited on all the major talk shows.
When Tom Daschle said that President Bush had "failed miserably" by not being able to persuade our traditional allies to join us against Saddam, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert said that his words "may not give aid and comfort to the enemy, but they come mighty close." In case you've forgotten, "aid and comfort" is part of the Constitutional definition of treason.
The current theme of the conservative punditocracy is that they've never seen hatred of a political figure like they're seeing directed at GW Bush; where have they been for the last ten years? I do not see the National Council of Churches selling videotapes accusing the President of being a serial killer and a drug runner, but Pat Robertson, who's still considered respectable by a lot of people, was selling a tape called "The Clinton Chronicles" which did just that.
You haven't noticed that, even on this very thread?
I've noticed some of it on these threads, but this isn't the news media, nor is it the Bush administration.
Fleischers comment from your link:
I'm aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.
I don't disagree with the above statement. I see no one being called a traitor, a hater, a nutcase.... I see no one being called Saddams best friend, nor do I see anyone being accused of treason.
I got no horse in this race...except to point out that the patriot act went a long way toward being able to start calling people who disagree with their government "traitors" and "terrorists"
Thanks to his federal government, Mike Thompson of St. Helena, in the Napa Valley of California, traveled overseas as a young man. The year was 1970, and 18-year-old Mike Thompson was in Southeast Asia, a paratrooper with the 173rd Army Airborne.
It was there in combat where he earned the Purple Heart for the permanent wounds he suffered.
He left the Army as a staff sergeant in 1973, went home, worked in the wine business, earned bachelor's and master's degrees and in 1990 became the first Vietnam vet elected to the California legislature. In 1998, he was elected to the Congress. I failed to mention that Mike Thomson is, according to the 2 million messages sent by the Republican National Committee quoting President George W Bush, one of those miscreants "not interested in the security of the American people" -- a Democrat!
The Democratic leadership (not you rank-and-file members) are drowning in hatred. It's made them totally irrational, to the point where they can't refrain from attacking George W. Bush even when they know doing so will hurt them more than it does him.
Daschle's statement
"I’m saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war."
is characterized hereas a "vicious attack" and "irrational, unexplainable and inexplicable." The article goes on to say that Democrats had been "standing in the way of creating the [Homeland Security] department for a year," when the creation of said department was in fact a proposal by the Democrats resisted by the White House until polls showed the American people firmly behind it.
Members of Congress last week proposed elevating the Office of Homeland Security to a Cabinet-level department to better fight terrorism, but the Bush administration is lukewarm about the idea, which it says will expand government.
Reorganization plan gains bipartisan support on Hill
Although the Bush administration staunchly resisted early congressional efforts to create a Cabinet-level homeland security agency . . . GOP sources dismissed notions that the administration had done a turnaround in issuing its own proposal Thursday.
The Homeland Security act was signed in November 2002.
Oh, I almost forgot. This is yesterday's editorial cartoon from the "ultraliberal" Los Angeles Times. This is not a guest cartoonist, this is the regular, everyday guy. Now I'll admit, if you're parsing closely, that he doesn't literally say that Howard Dean is Saddam's "best friend," but the implication is clear.
I find the sudden concern for the First Amendment from the Right to be the epitome of smarminess; I find such a statement to be a typical lie from the jackass left.anyone who has dared to criticize the Bush administration has done has been labeled a hater, a traitor, a nutcase or all three, but suddenly the pundits of the Right are champions of the right to criticize elected officials. There is a right to call the jackass left haters and traitors because some are.
jethro, how do you people hold these contradictory positions without your heads exploding? They are not contradictory. Just because a dimwit like yourself can't understand it doesn't mean they are contradictory.I'm also surprised to find you agreeing with the ACLU on anything; could this be a sign of maturity? I didn't agree with anything. I simply posted the article, dip.
I didn't agree with anything. I simply posted the article, dip.
Well, if you copy and paste articles under your own name without dissenting comment, a reasonable person assumes that you agree with what you copied and pasted.
well, you are a facist for not supporting the alcohol prohibition.
You're dwelling on something that might have happened 100 to 300 years ago. Get over your drug obsessions. Then and now.
Snide but the truth hurts you.
"might have happened"?
the drug laws were inacted less than 100 years ago.
and the war on them isn't that old.
people are in prison for it....right now.
it's a freedom obsession
look, if you can't actually speak to the subject, just say so. I know you want to talk about me so you can get your name-calling and slander fix, but if you can't speak to the subject, why do you even bother to post?
BTW, the history of hemp goes back not some 300 years, but many centuries.
how does not wanting my tax dollars used for Religious schools "impose" anything on anyone?
Schooling is mandatory. Financing of public schools is mandatory. It creates an educational monopoly....
You figure out the rest.
so, you don't think that education for EVERYONE provides national security?
because I don't think the Feds supporting any Religion does.
you allow the State to support a Religion & you divide the country and disefrancise a part of the citizens.
It's why the separatation of Church and State is such a rockin' good idea.
so, you don't want to be forced to educate everyone but you want to force me to pay for someone's Religious education?
can't have it both ways.
so, you don't think that education for EVERYONE provides national security?
Never have I said I don't support education for everyone.
you allow the State to support a Religion & you divide the country and disefrancise a part of the citizens.
That argument could be used for any social program. I suppose we should cut off welfare for Christians? I mean, that is indirectly supporting religion.
so, you don't want to be forced to educate everyone but you want to force me to pay for someone's Religious education?
I don't want shit from you. I would never ask anything of you. I don't need you. I simply want use of what I am already paying for.
I sincerely hope that we don't currently have welfare for Christians.
We have welfare for CITIZENS...if they happen to be Christians is of no concern to me.
Being Christian should certainly not be a requirement for admission to what all CITIZENS pay for.
then use the public schools.
but don't make the public monies pay for your Religious schools.
We have welfare for CITIZENS...if they happen to be Christians is of no concern to me.
If you can come to that conclusion, why can't you come to the same conclusion in regards to schooling?
Goodnight Crabby. Time for me to go to bed.
so, I can stop paying taxes now?
already have...Public schools are for CITIZENS...if they happen to be Christians is of no concern to me. They can't, however, use the public schools to promote being Christian. Just as the CITIZEN who believes in Buddha can't use the public schools to promote being a Buddist. Keep Religion out of PUBLIC education...because the PUBLIC have DIFFERENT beliefs about Religion.
To set up a "non-Christian" versus "Christian" public school system would not be unlike setting up separate schools for blacks and whites. Taking out your part of the public monies for public shools and putting it into Christian schools will result in just that. You don't get out of paying for PUBLIC education just because you are a Christian, sorry.
same deal with welfare....I am not for making CITIZENS who need welfare declare their love of Jesus (or Mohammad or Buddha or Vishnu or....) to participate in the CITIZENS welfare.
As you well know crabs, I've tried to discuss drug issues with you.
As you well know crabs, IT and any other issues of discussion here are a lost cause with you. You can't agree on anything with anyone.
Your goal here is to pimp people into meaningless arguements.
If you don't like the responses you get, look at yourself.
And don't forget about the illegal aliens who receive welfare and public schooling. I suppose they are also U.S. CITIZENS in crab's world.
nonsense.
I agree with ideas, not people.
look at the subject.
and BTW, it takes two to agree. you never agree with me either.
say something I agree with and I will agree.
of course that won't be much of a conversation, because conversations where everyone agrees are pretty boring....and, at least in the drug threads, most people agree that the war on drugs is wrong and that's the end of that and the drug thread falls silent for long stretches at a time.
If I don't like the responses I get, I look at the responses, not the responder.
you haven't tried to "discuss" anything with me other than me....what you are trying to claim is an attempt at "discussing" is actually just you being a dick and attacking me instead of the issue at hand. The post that this is a response to is a perfect example of this.
to me, a citizen is anyone in the society.
Well Torp, I'm done arguing with him/her.
you don't have an argument
No, you're just nuts.
You're own arguments contradict each other all the time, depending on the issue.
You're all for "Freedom" if it includes abortion at will or smoking a crack pipe, but if it comes to a parent educating their own child, you won't have it and want to play dictator.
You've got everything fuckin' backwards.
OMG crabs you're a hoot! Someone disagrees with you and you see them as a dick and attacking. Typical liberal.
Most people agree that the war on drugs is wrong? I don't think so. Maybe to the point that the laws aren't tough enough.
A citizen is anyone in "the" society? Then you have no problem with sending the people who are illegally in this country back to "the" society from which they came.
actually yes, most drug threads wind up with everyone agreeing that the war on drugs is wrong. It's one of the few issues where conservatives and liberals often find themselves in agreement on.
you are among the handful of people I have ever seen on boards who aren't for at the least the decriminalization of marijuana.
Speaking of dicks and attacking, crabs.
Why don't you scurry on over to the religion board. Then come back, be a dick, and attack me for things i've posted there.
Oh that's right! I've NEVER posted there!!
no, you are a dick because you are a dick. Just you torp, not someone else...just you. If you agreed with me, you would still be a dick.
THX isn't a dick. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he's not a dick.
Scurry crabs. Hurry up!
see what I mean?
I'm waiting.
waiting to be a dick again?
I know.
Since you're a liberal, you have to have compassion for me. Afterall, it's not my fault i'm the way i am. It's society's fault.
I have to go now crabs and you should get back to work.
since you are a Christian, you have to forgive me.
wheee!
you are my work.
since you are a Christian, you have to forgive me.
No he doesn't. He can just ask God to forgive him for not forgiving you.
"The notion that the government can tell an organization like the ACLU when and how it should address important civil liberties issues is a form of censorship masquerading as campaign finance reform," ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero declared after the ruling.
Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, said the ruling is "the most significant change in the First Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which tried to make it a crime to criticize a member of Congress."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20031212.shtml
I find the sudden concern for the First Amendment from the Right to be the epitome of smarminess; anyone who has dared to criticize the Bush administration has done has been labeled a hater, a traitor, a nutcase or all three, but suddenly the pundits of the Right are champions of the right to criticize elected officials.
jethro, how do you people hold these contradictory positions without your heads exploding? I'm also surprised to find you agreeing with the ACLU on anything; could this be a sign of maturity?
Nobody has tried to legally limit criticism of the administration.
Legally, no; that would be unconstitutional. However, any critic of the basis for or conduct of the war in Iraq is immediately labeled "Saddam's best friend," accused of treason (not by Federal prosecutors, but by members of the media, the Congress and the Bush administration), and so forth. Give us a break here, OK?
but by members of the media, the Congress and the Bush administration
Could you provide specific examples of this happening?
You're kidding, right? You haven't noticed that, even on this very thread?
Ari Fleischer on Bill Maher's assertion that it takes a certain amount of courage (albeit misguided) to fly a plane into a building, perhaps more than it takes to push the button to launch a cruise missile: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010926-5.html
Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who left both legs and an arm there, ran for re-election to the Senate in 2002. Beacuse he stressed the importance of building consensus against Saddam, he was blasted by his opponent as "soft on terrorism," and was portrayed side-by-side with Saddam and Osama in campaign ads.
Ann Coulter writes a book which says that every Democrat and some centrist Republicans are traitors, and still gets invited on all the major talk shows.
When Tom Daschle said that President Bush had "failed miserably" by not being able to persuade our traditional allies to join us against Saddam, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert said that his words "may not give aid and comfort to the enemy, but they come mighty close." In case you've forgotten, "aid and comfort" is part of the Constitutional definition of treason.
The current theme of the conservative punditocracy is that they've never seen hatred of a political figure like they're seeing directed at GW Bush; where have they been for the last ten years? I do not see the National Council of Churches selling videotapes accusing the President of being a serial killer and a drug runner, but Pat Robertson, who's still considered respectable by a lot of people, was selling a tape called "The Clinton Chronicles" which did just that.
You're kidding, right?
Not at all.
You haven't noticed that, even on this very thread?
I've noticed some of it on these threads, but this isn't the news media, nor is it the Bush administration.
Fleischers comment from your link:
I'm aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.
I don't disagree with the above statement. I see no one being called a traitor, a hater, a nutcase.... I see no one being called Saddams best friend, nor do I see anyone being accused of treason.
you sound like the fat guard in Hogan's Heroes...
I zee noh-ting!
I zee noh-ting!
When trapped in a corner, deflect.
I got no horse in this race...except to point out that the patriot act went a long way toward being able to start calling people who disagree with their government "traitors" and "terrorists"
Remember this great line from President Bush himself?
Typical Dems: 'Not interested in security of American people'
As Democrats run out of excuses, we have to wonder what their motivations truly are. Trent Lott asks: "Who is the enemy here, the president of the United States or Saddam Hussein?" Unfortunately, to men like Gore and Daschle, the answer may not be obvious.
Haters and nutcases
Daschle's statement
is characterized hereas a "vicious attack" and "irrational, unexplainable and inexplicable." The article goes on to say that Democrats had been "standing in the way of creating the [Homeland Security] department for a year," when the creation of said department was in fact a proposal by the Democrats resisted by the White House until polls showed the American people firmly behind it.
A bit of Homeland Security history
Administration finally gets on board
The Homeland Security act was signed in November 2002.
For the record, I don't like the Patriot Act, and I despise John Ashcroft.
The only point I have here is, I don't think anyone in the Bush administration, nor in the mainstream media is calling anyone traitors, nutcases...
I didn't know fold was on Hogan's Heroes?
So Ann Coulter, despite her frequent apearances on "news" shows, is not part of the "mainstream media"?
The Speaker of the House doesn't check with the administration before calling a fellow congresscritter's remarks tantamount to treason.
President Bush, when he said Democrats "don't care about the security of the American people" was not speaking for the administration.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Oh, I almost forgot. This is yesterday's editorial cartoon from the "ultraliberal" Los Angeles Times. This is not a guest cartoonist, this is the regular, everyday guy. Now I'll admit, if you're parsing closely, that he doesn't literally say that Howard Dean is Saddam's "best friend," but the implication is clear.
I find the sudden concern for the First Amendment from the Right to be the epitome of smarminess; I find such a statement to be a typical lie from the jackass left.anyone who has dared to criticize the Bush administration has done has been labeled a hater, a traitor, a nutcase or all three, but suddenly the pundits of the Right are champions of the right to criticize elected officials. There is a right to call the jackass left haters and traitors because some are.
jethro, how do you people hold these contradictory positions without your heads exploding? They are not contradictory. Just because a dimwit like yourself can't understand it doesn't mean they are contradictory.I'm also surprised to find you agreeing with the ACLU on anything; could this be a sign of maturity? I didn't agree with anything. I simply posted the article, dip.
For the record, I don't like the Patriot Act, and I despise John Ashcroft.
Ashcroft is a stand up guy. Quite admirable, in fact.
Well, if you copy and paste articles under your own name without dissenting comment, a reasonable person assumes that you agree with what you copied and pasted.