I understand that you are challenged in the perception of reality department
you believe so much that isn't true and so little that is.
Maybe you should look at yourself, crabs. I don't do the drugs you profess to enjoy. Some of those drugs can alter perception. Your posts are probative evidence that has happened to you.
WASHINGTON -- To watch the entire commercial-free, three-hour version of the "The Reagans" on the Showtime cable television network this week was an ordeal. The cartoon character presented as Ronald Reagan does not resemble the real president. But this assault on a beloved conservative icon does relate to the 2004 presidential campaign now underway.
You appear to be saying "those nasty conservative judges" and "those nice non-political liberal judges". I know, I am exagerating what you actually said
If "exaggerate" = "twist" in your vocabulary, you're right. I made a plain, simple statement of what I consider the Court's makeup to be. You took it as me calling the three conservative Justices "nasty." If you're not going to deal with what I actually write, there's not much point in discussing it. Read Kennedy's dissent in Texas v. Johnson and tell me that he's not fairly conservative.
If "exaggerate" = "twist" in your vocabulary, you're right. I made a plain, simple statement of what I consider the Court's makeup to be. You took it as me calling the three conservative Justices "nasty."
O.K., I will make a plain and simple statement also.
Four justices are liberal activists -- Breyer, Stevens, Kennedy and Ginsburg. Three are moderately conservative -- Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Two are in the middle -- O'Connor and Souter.
You see how that statement makes the liberals look like extremist or "activist"? See also how it makes it look like there is a strong tilt to the left? That is what I saw in your post, the attempt to tilt to the right what the make up of the judges is. I may be wrong on this and maybe that is your honest opinion, but I have seen so many people around here try to exagerate and twist things into their favor to not be questioning it now.
If you're not going to deal with what I actually write, there's not much point in discussing it.
I was dealing with what you wrote. Those who are "conservative" in your mind are "activist" which makes them appear as extremist and those that are liberal are "moderate" which makes them appear more centrist.
Read Kennedy's dissent in Texas v. Johnson and tell me that he's not fairly conservative.
If you are talking about the appeal of a flag burning crime and the constitutionality of such a law, the "dissent" by Kennedy can be found here.Let's take a look at the last 2 paragraphs:
With all respect to those views, I do not believe the Constitution gives us the right to rule as the dissenting Members of the Court urge, however painful this judgment is to announce. Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt.
For all the record shows, this respondent was not a philosopher and perhaps did not even possess the ability to comprehend how repellent his statements must be to the Republic itself. But whether or not he could appreciate the enormity of the offense he gave, the fact remains that his acts were speech, in both the technical and the fundamental meaning of the Constitution. So I agree with the Court that he must go free.
So he did not "believe the Constitution gives us the right to rule as the dissenting Members of the Court urge." Now that is not a dissent, but rather a concurring statement.
If you consider upholding "both the technical and the fundamental meaning of the Constitution", as well as the "beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit" and that the "flag protects those who hold it in contempt" to be conservative and not liberal opinions, then so be it.
By the way, that "conservative activist" Scalia also agreed with him on this.
He is a strict constructionist. The extreme left wing has painted those that believe the constitution should be strictly construed as extremists. But strict construction was the intent of those that drafted it and the intent of those that ratified it. Strict construction of the constitution leaves a lot more to the political process than does the concept of the constitution as a "living document."
For change by a majority vote of the people/states. Not to be changed or read into by judges and politicians. This is what is happening now. People are changing the meaning of the Constitution without going through the process.
In the simplest of terms, you are somewhat correct. Each branch does however have different jobs as I am sure you know. The Judicial branch has the job of interpreting the laws and applying them in court. The Judicial Branch was not designed to make laws and can only determine whether or not a law is legal under the constitution.
As an obvious example, say that there is a law passed that newspapers must have their stories approved by the government. The justices could then be petitioned to look at this law and should determine that it violates our freedom of speech rights. They most likely would rule that the law would no longer be in affect. In this case, they did not make a law, but rather determined that it violates our rights guaranteed to us in the constitution.
So yes, there is somewhat equal power as well as checks and balances, but there is totally different job descriptions.
As far as what can be done, if a judge is bad enough they can be impeached.
They can do as they please, according to those rules when a case comes before them, like their decisions or not, and there isn't really anything that any of us can do about it.
Judges are not supposed to do as they please. They are supposed to interpret the statutes and the constitution. To do that correctly they need to at least attempt to determine what the intent of the legislature and the drafters of the constitution and amendments intended. If they do not do that, they risk legislating and taking issues out of the political process that taking away control from the people. The constitution and amendments were intended to rectify only certain problems. When the courts interpret the constitution to control issues that were never addressed or intended to be addressed by the people through the document the Courts are legislating and making those value choices instead of leaving them to be addressed in the legislature. Since it is hard to change bad court rulings it is imperative that judges strictly construe the constitution so the people can decide the issues not already resolved themselves.
The Massachusetts Constitution was written by John Adams, who was quite religious. It is the most explicitly Christian document since the New Testament, with lots of references to "the great Legislator of the universe." Adams certainly would have been astonished to discover that the constitution he wrote provided for gay marriage – though one can see how a reference to two men marrying might get lost among the minutiae about the common good and "duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."
I spoke to soon. Now I must say, stick a fork in the U.S. we are done!!!!!
WASHINGTON — A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld key features of the nation's new law intended to lessen the influence of money in politics, ruling Wednesday that the government may ban unlimited donations to political parties.
..........
The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.
The ACLU has successfully stopped Santa from visiting public schools in Baldwin, Kansas because his presence constitutes illegal proselytizing by the school, reports the Baldwin City Signal.
After receiving a letter of complaint from the American Civil Liberties Union, the school board there voted to put a stop to the nefarious activities and said it will re-examine how it treats all religious holidays in the schools.
The ACLU complained that in a visit to an elementary school last year, Santa gave out candy canes and asked the kids why Christmas is celebrated. The kids had the nerve to pop up and answer Jesus’ birthday.
I would prefer to keep you and your ilk out of government, crabs. You are antidemocratic. You want to keep people from having a voice in their government simply because they are religious.
crabs, your positions have an element of fascism about them. Because of your utter ignorance you believe that everything about religion is "superstitious." Quit being such a damn moron.
your positions have an element of fascism about them
how do you figure this?
Just look at your positions, crabs. It is all about what you want. You would impose your views on others if you could without regard to ANT democratic process. Just reexamine your position on drugs.
you want to pretend that it's all sacremantal wine and roses and just not look at the ugly side of it.
I have little regard for ritual. You can't say I don't look at the ugly side of things, crabs, I look at you on nearly a daily basis.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling upholding virtually all of the McCain-Feingold law limiting contributions to political campaigns and proscribing television advertisements close to elections is a serious attack on the First Amendment.
I think Crabby's stance on school choice (vouchers/tax credits) is a better example of his intolerance & dictatorial attitude.
I think you may be right.
At least with legalizing drugs, Crabby isn't forcing anyone to use said drugs.
I suspect you are correct that crabs does not support forcing people to use drugs, although he has not expressly said so. But he wants to prevent the people through the democratic process from prohibiting their use. In this regard he shows no respect toward the democratic process. I know he says that somehow there is some amorphous inalienable right to partake of them and to possess them. But I know of no constitutional provisions that support this idea.
it's about want I don't want...and that is for you to force your religion on me with our government.
You would impose your views on others if you could without regard to ANT democratic process.
I'm not talking about imposing anything on anyone....that's you.
Just reexamine your position on drugs.
how does not wanting to throw people in jail for something that "imposes" nothing on anyone qualify as "imposing my views" on anyone?
I think Crabby's stance on school choice (vouchers/tax credits) is a better example of his intolerance & dictatorial attitude.
how does not wanting my tax dollars used for Religious schools "impose" anything on anyone?
or don't you think we should have schools that are for everyone?
I suspect you are correct that crabs does not support forcing people to use drugs, although he has not expressly said so
these are the choices? If you don't want to throw people in jail for not doing anything to anyone but themselves you are trying to force people to take drugs?
But he wants to prevent the people through the democratic process from prohibiting their use.
no...you want to throw people in jail for doing NOTHING to to anyone but themselves.
you want to impose your beliefs on me, not the other way around.
if you don't want to do drugs, don't. I have no desire to have you do otherwise. It's you who want to tell others what they can and cannot do.
let's say that the people actually DID pass a law saying that drug use was mandatory? would you then take drugs, bodine? Or would you break that law?
I know he says that somehow there is some amorphous inalienable right to partake of them and to possess them
there was a time in THIS COUNTRY when growing hemp was MANDATORY for farmers.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
as long as I don't prevent you from getting yours, you should not prevent others from getting theirs.
how does not wanting to throw people in jail for something that "imposes" nothing on anyone qualify as "imposing my views" on anyone?
Because other people disagree with you and believe that people should be put in jail for drug possession. This has been decided through the political process and you want to disregard the fact that the people have decided.
It's you who want to tell others what they can and cannot do.
No it's the people through the political process that have told you you cannot do certain drugs.
there was a time in THIS COUNTRY when growing hemp was MANDATORY for farmers.
When was this? I am not aware of them being required to do so although at one time it was a profitable enterprise.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Nice words that have no substance.
as long as I don't prevent you from getting yours, you should not prevent others from getting theirs.
You live in society and to do so you give up absolute and total freedom to do whatever you want whenever you want to live in it. But what is given up is put into the hands of the people, you could say the collective. Now do you feel better?
Yes you do. You propose forcing people to allowing drug use. This despite they have said no.
actually, they have said yes to medical marijuana in several places....and yet you still want to throw them in jail.
that you propose that people be able to imprison others not because they did anything to anyone is chilling.
It takes away a choice that the people were intended to have by the Constitution.
you don't want to give me the choice of not paying for Religious schools.
You live in society and to do so you give up absolute and total freedom to do whatever you want whenever you want to live in it. But what is given up is put into the hands of the people, you could say the collective. Now do you feel better?
facist.
the duty of the government is to protect the rights of the individual against the oppression of the masses.
When was this? I am not aware of them being required to do so although at one time it was a profitable enterprise.
Mandatory hemp? Yeah, ok crabs. Life liberty and the pursuit of hemp!!
mandatory...yes. it was.
Hemp Equals Freedom In The New World
Hemp was already in the new world when the first European colonist arrived, thought to have been introduced from China by explorers, migrating birds from across the Bering Strait, or possibly drifting shipwrecks.
It is reported that the colonist were not eager to grow hemp, however the European motherland wanted hemp, and cultivation was deemed mandatory. The Puritans at Jamestown grew hemp, as part of their contract with the Virginia Company. Jean Talon at the order of France Quebec colony minister, confiscated all thread the colonist possessed and forced them to buy it back from him with hemp. Talon supplied the seeds to farmers, which had to be reimbursed after hemp crops were harvested. Mandatory cultivation of hemp continued throughout the New World, the General Court in 1637 at Hartford Connecticut, and the Massachusetts courts in 1639 ordered all families to plant one teaspoon of hemp seed. “that we might in time have supply of linen cloth among ourselves.” Several colonies passed legal tender laws, hemp was so valued it was used to pay taxes.
Until 1776 many colonies passed laws to encourage farmers to produce hemp, Virginia designed laws to compel farmers, fining those who did not comply. Lobbyist were hired to promote, and education the public about the importance of hemp. Books were published that wanted to establish hemp as America’s trademark product.
Colonies under the crown, were banned from spinning and weaving hemp, this fostered dependence to England, which was demanding raw materials from the colonies as a way to increase its labor forces. The exported fibers, were then bought back as finished products from England. As the market was flooded with hemp, immigrant weavers from Ireland arrived in Massachusetts, setting up shop and passing their skills to the peasantry. What may have seem a small movement, grew into self-sufficiency from the British Crown, to the extent of a boycott of English fabric products. These were some of the conditions which lead into the War of Independence from the British. The American paper industry was born of hemp, linen, and cotton rags which provided writing materials throughout the war, essential for communication.
In 1777, Edward Antil wrote in his introduction of Observations on the Raising and Dressing of Hemp, “hemp is one of the most profitable productions the earth furnishes in northern climates; as it employs a great number of poor people in a very advantageous manner, if its manufacture is carried on properly: It ... becomes worthy of the serious attention...of every trading man, who truly loves his country.”
The Importance Of Hemp And The War Efforts
In preparation of war, mandatory cultivation laws were passed, and colonist increased their production of hemp, for paper and clothes. Colonist were convinced to take up arms, as they read pamphlets published on hemp paper. Thomas Paine in 1776 encouraged colonist to fight for freedom with Common Sense he writes “in almost every article of defense we abound. Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage.”
The founding fathers of this nation George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both promoters of hemp, as noted in their farm diaries spoke of their experiences as hemp farmers. Throughout Washington’s farm diary he spoke about the quality of seeds, always taking care to sow seeds in best areas on his farm. He documented the importance’s of cultivating seeds at the proper time taking care to pull the male plants from the females. In 1790’s Washington began cultivating “Indian hemp” which he said produced the best quality of plant, and noted its superior quality to common hemp mostly grown during that time. Both Washington and Jefferson disliked tobacco, and on occasion they would exchange gifts of a smoking mixtures, Washington reportedly enjoyed smoking hemp flowers, however there is no hard evidence.
Jefferson, was also a promoter of hemp, and during his tenure as Governor of Virginia he kept reserves of hemp, and in May of 1781 used hemp as currency when money from the government was in short supply.
Jefferson believed hemp to be a superior crop to tobacco, which he said exhausted the soil, used to much manure, provided no nourishment for cattle. Hemp on the other hand “was of the first necessity to commerce and marine, in other words to the wealth and protection of the country.” Around 1815 Jefferson received the first US patent for his hemp breaking machine, which reportedly did the work of ten men.
Kentucky was a large supplier of hemp, primarily because the soil would not sustain a grain crop. In 1792 its legislature levied a tax of twenty dollars per ton on imported hemp, this worked to Kentucky’s advantage and by 1850 domestic hemp crops increased and the amount of imported hemp dramatically decreased.
Hemp Production In The 19th & 20th Centuries
The belief that hemp was one of the most important crops to the common wealth, continued throughout the 19th century. As production increased, more states like Illinois, California, and Nebraska began to grow hemp, with more domestic hemp available, creative ideas for hemp use increased. In 1841, Congress ordered the Navy to buy domestic hemp, and in 1843 they appropriated fifty thousand dollars to purchase American hemp.
Hemp Production was a hard and tedious process, its production was always relegated to the slaves in this countries. After the Civil War when labor was no longer free, there was a great decline in the domestic cultivation of hemp. In 1861 G.F. Schaffer of New York patented the Hemp Dresser, used to prepare hemp for manufacturing. After Schaffer invention, many improvements to his machine followed.
By the early 20th century, industrialization, lead to inventions, of machines that would do the work of many, this was caused by the abolition of slavery. One of the most important inventions to the hemp industry was the Decorticator machine, it was hailed as the invention to revolutionize the hemp industry. In an article from Popular Mechanics magazine dated February 1938 spoke of hemp as a cash crop soon to be worth a billion dollars. [See the Popular Mechanics article “New Billion Dollar Crop.”]
Unfortunately its praises came one year to late, the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act HR 6385 was enacted, this required a $100 transfer tax on the sale of marihuana. The issue for those in opposition of this tax related to the underhanded manner in which this tax was enacted. Those thought to gain the most were Hearst who owned large timber holdings which feed the paper industry. DuPont who dominated the petrochemical market, which manufactured plastics, paints, and other products of fossil fuels and the Secretary of the Treasury and owner of Gulf oil Andrew Mellon who pushed legislation through congress giving tax breaks to oil companies. The Conspiracy was against hemp, it threaten certain vested financial and industrial interest especially those in the paper and petrochemical industries.
Through the Hearst newspaper chains racist propaganda messages were abound, it was Hearst that coined the phase “Marihuana Madness” this was related to Mexicans, African Americans, and jazz musicians, use of marihuana said to caused excessive sex, and violence, and threatened the safety of white women and children. Following this campaign against hemp it was not long before the complete prohibition of hemp was enacted.
You live in society and to do so you give up absolute and total freedom to do whatever you want whenever you want to live in it. But what is given up is put into the hands of the people, you could say the collective. Now do you feel better?
so tell me bodine, do you regret the repeal of the Jim Crow laws?
was repealing laws agains blacks a fasict ploy to prevent people from telling blacks what they could and cound not do?
You have to really wonder about about a guy who keeps this stuff on file. Or worse, off the top of his head.
I wonder about a guy who can be actually sitting in front of a computer connected to the internet and thinks that he doesn't have vast quantities of information "on file" right in front of him, available whenever he likes.
So, when you can't address the issue, you just attempt to make a snide comment about those you don't agree with...since you can't actually address what is being talked about.
correct, crabs. you can't trust anyone!!!!!!
I hope you don't really believe that?
That's really cynical, and just plain sad.
Remember JT, Dennis went off to preach to the choir.
Good old Dennis. He was nutty, but man he had some funny ass stories.
not unless you have actual friends
I can't believe a person such as yourself could have any friends, crabs.
I understand that you are challenged in the perseption of reality department
you believe so much that isn't true and so little that is.
I understand that you are challenged in the perception of reality department
you believe so much that isn't true and so little that is.
Maybe you should look at yourself, crabs. I don't do the drugs you profess to enjoy. Some of those drugs can alter perception. Your posts are probative evidence that has happened to you.
WASHINGTON -- To watch the entire commercial-free, three-hour version of the "The Reagans" on the Showtime cable television network this week was an ordeal. The cartoon character presented as Ronald Reagan does not resemble the real president. But this assault on a beloved conservative icon does relate to the 2004 presidential campaign now underway.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031204.shtml
If "exaggerate" = "twist" in your vocabulary, you're right. I made a plain, simple statement of what I consider the Court's makeup to be. You took it as me calling the three conservative Justices "nasty." If you're not going to deal with what I actually write, there's not much point in discussing it. Read Kennedy's dissent in Texas v. Johnson and tell me that he's not fairly conservative.
Read Kennedy's dissent in Texas v. Johnson and tell me that he's not fairly conservative.
Fairly conservative for someone with the political views of Bernie Sanders.
and you can stand that someone has altered their perceptions, can you?
you use perception altering drugs so stop kidding yourself.
and you can stand that someone has altered their perceptions, can you?
I CAN and do stand people with altered perceptions, but I don't take them seriously.
so, what drug do youalter your perception with, bodine?
so, what drug do you alter your perception with, bodine?
why do you think that I do?
because nearly everyone on the planet uses some drug or another.
If "exaggerate" = "twist" in your vocabulary, you're right. I made a plain, simple statement of what I consider the Court's makeup to be. You took it as me calling the three conservative Justices "nasty."
O.K., I will make a plain and simple statement also.
You see how that statement makes the liberals look like extremist or "activist"? See also how it makes it look like there is a strong tilt to the left? That is what I saw in your post, the attempt to tilt to the right what the make up of the judges is. I may be wrong on this and maybe that is your honest opinion, but I have seen so many people around here try to exagerate and twist things into their favor to not be questioning it now.
If you're not going to deal with what I actually write, there's not much point in discussing it.
I was dealing with what you wrote. Those who are "conservative" in your mind are "activist" which makes them appear as extremist and those that are liberal are "moderate" which makes them appear more centrist.
Read Kennedy's dissent in Texas v. Johnson and tell me that he's not fairly conservative.
If you are talking about the appeal of a flag burning crime and the constitutionality of such a law, the "dissent" by Kennedy can be found here.Let's take a look at the last 2 paragraphs:
So he did not "believe the Constitution gives us the right to rule as the dissenting Members of the Court urge." Now that is not a dissent, but rather a concurring statement.
If you consider upholding "both the technical and the fundamental meaning of the Constitution", as well as the "beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit" and that the "flag protects those who hold it in contempt" to be conservative and not liberal opinions, then so be it.
By the way, that "conservative activist" Scalia also agreed with him on this.
Scalia is NO "Moderate".
He is a strict constructionist. The extreme left wing has painted those that believe the constitution should be strictly construed as extremists. But strict construction was the intent of those that drafted it and the intent of those that ratified it. Strict construction of the constitution leaves a lot more to the political process than does the concept of the constitution as a "living document."
For change by a majority vote of the people/states. Not to be changed or read into by judges and politicians. This is what is happening now. People are changing the meaning of the Constitution without going through the process.
In the simplest of terms, you are somewhat correct. Each branch does however have different jobs as I am sure you know. The Judicial branch has the job of interpreting the laws and applying them in court. The Judicial Branch was not designed to make laws and can only determine whether or not a law is legal under the constitution.
As an obvious example, say that there is a law passed that newspapers must have their stories approved by the government. The justices could then be petitioned to look at this law and should determine that it violates our freedom of speech rights. They most likely would rule that the law would no longer be in affect. In this case, they did not make a law, but rather determined that it violates our rights guaranteed to us in the constitution.
So yes, there is somewhat equal power as well as checks and balances, but there is totally different job descriptions.
As far as what can be done, if a judge is bad enough they can be impeached.
They can do as they please, according to those rules when a case comes before them, like their decisions or not, and there isn't really anything that any of us can do about it.
Judges are not supposed to do as they please. They are supposed to interpret the statutes and the constitution. To do that correctly they need to at least attempt to determine what the intent of the legislature and the drafters of the constitution and amendments intended. If they do not do that, they risk legislating and taking issues out of the political process that taking away control from the people. The constitution and amendments were intended to rectify only certain problems. When the courts interpret the constitution to control issues that were never addressed or intended to be addressed by the people through the document the Courts are legislating and making those value choices instead of leaving them to be addressed in the legislature. Since it is hard to change bad court rulings it is imperative that judges strictly construe the constitution so the people can decide the issues not already resolved themselves.
The Massachusetts Constitution was written by John Adams, who was quite religious. It is the most explicitly Christian document since the New Testament, with lots of references to "the great Legislator of the universe." Adams certainly would have been astonished to discover that the constitution he wrote provided for gay marriage – though one can see how a reference to two men marrying might get lost among the minutiae about the common good and "duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20031204.shtml
LOS ANGELES — Teens these days are more conservative than the generation before on many issues, including the matter of abortion.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105215,00.html
Well there is a glimmer of hope.
I spoke to soon. Now I must say, stick a fork in the U.S. we are done!!!!!
WASHINGTON — A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld key features of the nation's new law intended to lessen the influence of money in politics, ruling Wednesday that the government may ban unlimited donations to political parties.
..........
The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105353,00.html
Read the full details on how the United States committed suicide:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf
The Liberals blame Dubya for the faltering economy. Seems the economy was going in the tank even before the elections.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105346,00.html
The ACLU has successfully stopped Santa from visiting public schools in Baldwin, Kansas because his presence constitutes illegal proselytizing by the school, reports the Baldwin City Signal.
After receiving a letter of complaint from the American Civil Liberties Union, the school board there voted to put a stop to the nefarious activities and said it will re-examine how it treats all religious holidays in the schools.
The ACLU complained that in a visit to an elementary school last year, Santa gave out candy canes and asked the kids why Christmas is celebrated. The kids had the nerve to pop up and answer Jesus’ birthday.
The ACLU needs to be taken down a few rungs.
thank god for the aclu
thank god for the aclu
God? YOU'RE thanking God?
Oh I see that's a little "g".
Nevermind.
keep the big "G" out of my government
I would prefer to keep you and your ilk out of government, crabs. You are antidemocratic. You want to keep people from having a voice in their government simply because they are religious.
too bad...it's for everyone...not just your particular brand of beliefs.
you can have a voice all you like. just don't make laws that effect me based on your superstitions.
and besides, you just said you want to keep citizens from having a voice if they don't believe the same superstitions that you do.
you can't have it both ways.
crabs, your positions have an element of fascism about them. Because of your utter ignorance you believe that everything about religion is "superstitious." Quit being such a damn moron.
how do you figure this?
no, parts of "Religion" are all too real.
you want to pretend that it's all sacremantal wine and roses and just not look at the ugly side of it.
your positions have an element of fascism about them
how do you figure this?
Just look at your positions, crabs. It is all about what you want. You would impose your views on others if you could without regard to ANT democratic process. Just reexamine your position on drugs.
you want to pretend that it's all sacremantal wine and roses and just not look at the ugly side of it.
I have little regard for ritual. You can't say I don't look at the ugly side of things, crabs, I look at you on nearly a daily basis.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling upholding virtually all of the McCain-Feingold law limiting contributions to political campaigns and proscribing television advertisements close to elections is a serious attack on the First Amendment.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20031211.shtml
Just reexamine your position on drugs.
I think Crabby's stance on school choice (vouchers/tax credits) is a better example of his intolerance & dictorial attitude.
At least with legalizing drugs, Crabby isn't forcing anyone to use said drugs.
I think Crabby's stance on school choice (vouchers/tax credits) is a better example of his intolerance & dictatorial attitude.
I think you may be right.
At least with legalizing drugs, Crabby isn't forcing anyone to use said drugs.
I suspect you are correct that crabs does not support forcing people to use drugs, although he has not expressly said so. But he wants to prevent the people through the democratic process from prohibiting their use. In this regard he shows no respect toward the democratic process. I know he says that somehow there is some amorphous inalienable right to partake of them and to possess them. But I know of no constitutional provisions that support this idea.
not at all.
it's about want I don't want...and that is for you to force your religion on me with our government.
I'm not talking about imposing anything on anyone....that's you.
how does not wanting to throw people in jail for something that "imposes" nothing on anyone qualify as "imposing my views" on anyone?
how does not wanting my tax dollars used for Religious schools "impose" anything on anyone?
or don't you think we should have schools that are for everyone?
these are the choices? If you don't want to throw people in jail for not doing anything to anyone but themselves you are trying to force people to take drugs?
no...you want to throw people in jail for doing NOTHING to to anyone but themselves.
you want to impose your beliefs on me, not the other way around.
if you don't want to do drugs, don't. I have no desire to have you do otherwise. It's you who want to tell others what they can and cannot do.
let's say that the people actually DID pass a law saying that drug use was mandatory? would you then take drugs, bodine? Or would you break that law?
there was a time in THIS COUNTRY when growing hemp was MANDATORY for farmers.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
as long as I don't prevent you from getting yours, you should not prevent others from getting theirs.
it's about want I don't want...and that is for you to force your religion on me with our government.
And exactly what religion is being forced on you? Communion? Confession? What?
I'm not talking about imposing anything on anyone....that's you.
Yes you do. You propose forcing people to allowing drug use. This despite they have said no.
how does not wanting to throw people in jail for something that "imposes" nothing on anyone qualify as "imposing my views" on anyone?
Because other people disagree with you and believe that people should be put in jail for drug possession. This has been decided through the political process and you want to disregard the fact that the people have decided.
how does not wanting my tax dollars used for Religious schools "impose" anything on anyone?
It takes away a choice that the people were intended to have by the Constitution.
no...you want to throw people in jail for doing NOTHING to to anyone but themselves.
No the people have decided through the politcal process. You don't like it and you want to overthrow that choice.
It's you who want to tell others what they can and cannot do.
No it's the people through the political process that have told you you cannot do certain drugs.
there was a time in THIS COUNTRY when growing hemp was MANDATORY for farmers.
When was this? I am not aware of them being required to do so although at one time it was a profitable enterprise.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Nice words that have no substance.
as long as I don't prevent you from getting yours, you should not prevent others from getting theirs.
You live in society and to do so you give up absolute and total freedom to do whatever you want whenever you want to live in it. But what is given up is put into the hands of the people, you could say the collective. Now do you feel better?
Mandatory hemp? Yeah, ok crabs. Life liberty and the pursuit of hemp!!
anyone else have trouble getting in here?
5K
actually, they have said yes to medical marijuana in several places....and yet you still want to throw them in jail.
that you propose that people be able to imprison others not because they did anything to anyone is chilling.
you don't want to give me the choice of not paying for Religious schools.
facist.
the duty of the government is to protect the rights of the individual against the oppression of the masses.
mandatory...yes. it was.
Hemp Equals Freedom In The New World
Hemp was already in the new world when the first European colonist arrived, thought to have been introduced from China by explorers, migrating birds from across the Bering Strait, or possibly drifting shipwrecks.
It is reported that the colonist were not eager to grow hemp, however the European motherland wanted hemp, and cultivation was deemed mandatory. The Puritans at Jamestown grew hemp, as part of their contract with the Virginia Company. Jean Talon at the order of France Quebec colony minister, confiscated all thread the colonist possessed and forced them to buy it back from him with hemp. Talon supplied the seeds to farmers, which had to be reimbursed after hemp crops were harvested. Mandatory cultivation of hemp continued throughout the New World, the General Court in 1637 at Hartford Connecticut, and the Massachusetts courts in 1639 ordered all families to plant one teaspoon of hemp seed. “that we might in time have supply of linen cloth among ourselves.” Several colonies passed legal tender laws, hemp was so valued it was used to pay taxes.
Until 1776 many colonies passed laws to encourage farmers to produce hemp, Virginia designed laws to compel farmers, fining those who did not comply. Lobbyist were hired to promote, and education the public about the importance of hemp. Books were published that wanted to establish hemp as America’s trademark product.
Colonies under the crown, were banned from spinning and weaving hemp, this fostered dependence to England, which was demanding raw materials from the colonies as a way to increase its labor forces. The exported fibers, were then bought back as finished products from England. As the market was flooded with hemp, immigrant weavers from Ireland arrived in Massachusetts, setting up shop and passing their skills to the peasantry. What may have seem a small movement, grew into self-sufficiency from the British Crown, to the extent of a boycott of English fabric products. These were some of the conditions which lead into the War of Independence from the British. The American paper industry was born of hemp, linen, and cotton rags which provided writing materials throughout the war, essential for communication.
In 1777, Edward Antil wrote in his introduction of Observations on the Raising and Dressing of Hemp, “hemp is one of the most profitable productions the earth furnishes in northern climates; as it employs a great number of poor people in a very advantageous manner, if its manufacture is carried on properly: It ... becomes worthy of the serious attention...of every trading man, who truly loves his country.”
The Importance Of Hemp And The War Efforts
In preparation of war, mandatory cultivation laws were passed, and colonist increased their production of hemp, for paper and clothes. Colonist were convinced to take up arms, as they read pamphlets published on hemp paper. Thomas Paine in 1776 encouraged colonist to fight for freedom with Common Sense he writes “in almost every article of defense we abound. Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage.”
The founding fathers of this nation George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both promoters of hemp, as noted in their farm diaries spoke of their experiences as hemp farmers. Throughout Washington’s farm diary he spoke about the quality of seeds, always taking care to sow seeds in best areas on his farm. He documented the importance’s of cultivating seeds at the proper time taking care to pull the male plants from the females. In 1790’s Washington began cultivating “Indian hemp” which he said produced the best quality of plant, and noted its superior quality to common hemp mostly grown during that time. Both Washington and Jefferson disliked tobacco, and on occasion they would exchange gifts of a smoking mixtures, Washington reportedly enjoyed smoking hemp flowers, however there is no hard evidence.
Jefferson, was also a promoter of hemp, and during his tenure as Governor of Virginia he kept reserves of hemp, and in May of 1781 used hemp as currency when money from the government was in short supply.
Jefferson believed hemp to be a superior crop to tobacco, which he said exhausted the soil, used to much manure, provided no nourishment for cattle. Hemp on the other hand “was of the first necessity to commerce and marine, in other words to the wealth and protection of the country.” Around 1815 Jefferson received the first US patent for his hemp breaking machine, which reportedly did the work of ten men.
Kentucky was a large supplier of hemp, primarily because the soil would not sustain a grain crop. In 1792 its legislature levied a tax of twenty dollars per ton on imported hemp, this worked to Kentucky’s advantage and by 1850 domestic hemp crops increased and the amount of imported hemp dramatically decreased.
Hemp Production In The 19th & 20th Centuries
The belief that hemp was one of the most important crops to the common wealth, continued throughout the 19th century. As production increased, more states like Illinois, California, and Nebraska began to grow hemp, with more domestic hemp available, creative ideas for hemp use increased. In 1841, Congress ordered the Navy to buy domestic hemp, and in 1843 they appropriated fifty thousand dollars to purchase American hemp.
Hemp Production was a hard and tedious process, its production was always relegated to the slaves in this countries. After the Civil War when labor was no longer free, there was a great decline in the domestic cultivation of hemp. In 1861 G.F. Schaffer of New York patented the Hemp Dresser, used to prepare hemp for manufacturing. After Schaffer invention, many improvements to his machine followed.
By the early 20th century, industrialization, lead to inventions, of machines that would do the work of many, this was caused by the abolition of slavery. One of the most important inventions to the hemp industry was the Decorticator machine, it was hailed as the invention to revolutionize the hemp industry. In an article from Popular Mechanics magazine dated February 1938 spoke of hemp as a cash crop soon to be worth a billion dollars. [See the Popular Mechanics article “New Billion Dollar Crop.”]
Unfortunately its praises came one year to late, the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act HR 6385 was enacted, this required a $100 transfer tax on the sale of marihuana. The issue for those in opposition of this tax related to the underhanded manner in which this tax was enacted. Those thought to gain the most were Hearst who owned large timber holdings which feed the paper industry. DuPont who dominated the petrochemical market, which manufactured plastics, paints, and other products of fossil fuels and the Secretary of the Treasury and owner of Gulf oil Andrew Mellon who pushed legislation through congress giving tax breaks to oil companies. The Conspiracy was against hemp, it threaten certain vested financial and industrial interest especially those in the paper and petrochemical industries.
Through the Hearst newspaper chains racist propaganda messages were abound, it was Hearst that coined the phase “Marihuana Madness” this was related to Mexicans, African Americans, and jazz musicians, use of marihuana said to caused excessive sex, and violence, and threatened the safety of white women and children. Following this campaign against hemp it was not long before the complete prohibition of hemp was enacted.
and now it's illegal.
this isn't a free country, just a hypocritical one.
Like I said before. You have to really wonder about about a guy who keeps this stuff on file. Or worse, off the top of his head.
so tell me bodine, do you regret the repeal of the Jim Crow laws?
was repealing laws agains blacks a fasict ploy to prevent people from telling blacks what they could and cound not do?
I wonder about a guy who can be actually sitting in front of a computer connected to the internet and thinks that he doesn't have vast quantities of information "on file" right in front of him, available whenever he likes.
So, when you can't address the issue, you just attempt to make a snide comment about those you don't agree with...since you can't actually address what is being talked about.
got it.
I prefer the Jim Beam Laws.