Did You Ever See Batshit Crazy?

SmarterthanYou said:
thank you for the cases. I'll have to classify these decisions as nothing more than capitulation to an overbearing and unconstitutional furtherance of federal power that the framers, except hamilton, categorically denied. that and the other BS new deal cases.
Click to expand...

Of course. You want to return our country to pre-revolutionary days.

Ain't gonna happen. But you do live in the craziest, backwoods and ignorant state of them all.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no, it does not 'enlarge current powers or include additional things'. that stupid line of thinking has you sounding like Scalia in Gonzalez v. Raich. you do not want that.
Click to expand...

Marijuana has, for a very long time, been regulated. They've had "tricks" where one government (Federal) allowed it if taxes were paid on it but then they'd inform the other government that outlawed it (California) they had received taxes on it. (http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_ca...=Gonzales+v.+Raich.&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1) The point being along with Nixon's "War on Drugs" surely everyone knew there would be a problem unless those laws were retracted.

this 'reasoning' is 180 degrees opposite of the founders intent. they sought to LIMIT a central government, not allow unfettered power using interpretation.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether the government is limited it has the right to enact laws which enable it to carry out the laws it currently has a right to enforce. Put another way one can not obstruct the government from carrying out law enforcement by doing a run-around. While marijuana is currently the flavor of the month the people growing it must have realized there would be a problem.

I don't use marijuana. The strange thing is I find it far stronger than other well-known narcotics as far as a head buzz is concerned. The only solution is to change the laws. If anything else was involved or if it wasn't a matter of medical reasoning there would be a lot less rancor going on.

As for my reasoning being 180 degrees opposite the Founding Fathers the contrary is the case. The Founding Fathers stated their intent in the Preamble. Surely they realized situations would arise of which they had no idea so the Preamble is a guide. As I mentioned prior as new developments occur new laws are necessary to deal with them. There was no need for speed limits when dealing with the horse and buggy just as there was no mention of health care where there was no such thing as health care. However, the Preamble makes it clear the Founding Fathers wanted a country where the citizens flourished. No one would suggest getting rid of all speed laws and having people driving past schools and playgrounds at 80 MPH. It seems logical no one would want an absence of laws enabling people access to health care.

Getting back to marijuana the laws are absurd just on the premise it's medicinal. I doubt the Founding Fathers would have approved of the government denying citizens medication. However, society being what it is they have to devise a quick test so people are not driving and working stoned. I think that's the main reason for it's ban.
 
apple0154 said:
Marijuana has, for a very long time, been regulated. They've had "tricks" where one government (Federal) allowed it if taxes were paid on it but then they'd inform the other government that outlawed it (California) they had received taxes on it. (http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_ca...=Gonzales+v.+Raich.&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1) The point being along with Nixon's "War on Drugs" surely everyone knew there would be a problem unless those laws were retracted.
Click to expand...
im not sure what you're trying to say here. that the power to tax is the power to destroy?

apple0154 said:
Regardless of whether the government is limited it has the right to enact laws which enable it to carry out the laws it currently has a right to enforce. Put another way one can not obstruct the government from carrying out law enforcement by doing a run-around. While marijuana is currently the flavor of the month the people growing it must have realized there would be a problem.

I don't use marijuana. The strange thing is I find it far stronger than other well-known narcotics as far as a head buzz is concerned. The only solution is to change the laws. If anything else was involved or if it wasn't a matter of medical reasoning there would be a lot less rancor going on.

As for my reasoning being 180 degrees opposite the Founding Fathers the contrary is the case. The Founding Fathers stated their intent in the Preamble. Surely they realized situations would arise of which they had no idea so the Preamble is a guide. As I mentioned prior as new developments occur new laws are necessary to deal with them. There was no need for speed limits when dealing with the horse and buggy just as there was no mention of health care where there was no such thing as health care. However, the Preamble makes it clear the Founding Fathers wanted a country where the citizens flourished. No one would suggest getting rid of all speed laws and having people driving past schools and playgrounds at 80 MPH. It seems logical no one would want an absence of laws enabling people access to health care.

Getting back to marijuana the laws are absurd just on the premise it's medicinal. I doubt the Founding Fathers would have approved of the government denying citizens medication. However, society being what it is they have to devise a quick test so people are not driving and working stoned. I think that's the main reason for it's ban.
Click to expand...
here is the error in your theory. the framers wrote the constitution to restrict the government. using the constitution to allow prohibition of a weed that can grow in a ditch along the road is far beyond any power the founders intended for the feds.
 
apple0154 said:
I never said the government should provide everything. If you want to nit-pick the fact is the government can't provide anything unless they get the money from the taxpayers so the taxpayers do the actual providing. The government does the promoting. They suggest/promote something, get the taxpayers to go along, then it is made available for the people.

Happy now?
Click to expand...

Yes you did say it.
You said it every time there was a discussion about what the Government should or should not "provide" and you kept referring to the word "promote"; which you then tried to put your own explanation on, as to what the word implied.
 
Rana said:
Alaska has a wonderful VA program
Click to expand...

I never post anything that's not the truth. I receive excellent care from the VA.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html

The story of how and why the VHA became the benchmark for quality medicine in the United States suggests that much of what we think we know about health care and medical economics is just wrong. It's natural to believe that more competition and consumer choice in health care would lead to greater quality and lower costs, because in almost every other realm, it does. That's why the Bush administration—which has been promoting greater use of information technology and other quality improvement in health care—also wants to give individuals new tax-free "health savings accounts" and high-deductible insurance plans. Together, these measures are supposed to encourage patients to do more comparison shopping and haggling with their doctors; therefore, they create more market discipline in the system.

But when it comes to health care, it's a government bureaucracy that's setting the standard for maintaining best practices while reducing costs, and it's the private sector that's lagging in quality. That unexpected reality needs examining if we're to have any hope of understanding what's wrong with America's health-care system and how to fix it. It turns out that precisely because the VHA is a big, government-run system that has nearly a lifetime relationship with its patients, it has incentives for investing in quality and keeping its patients well—incentives that are lacking in for-profit medicine.
Click to expand...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
im not sure what you're trying to say here. that the power to tax is the power to destroy?
Click to expand...

That's a given. My point was the law needs to be changed. Ignoring the law is not the way to go.

here is the error in your theory. the framers wrote the constitution to restrict the government. using the constitution to allow prohibition of a weed that can grow in a ditch along the road is far beyond any power the founders intended for the feds.
Click to expand...

So the Founders would have no problem with kids toking up before school? Have a joint then hit the highway at 75 MPH which is the speed limit in one State but I forget which one?
 
apple0154 said:
That's a given. My point was the law needs to be changed. Ignoring the law is not the way to go.



So the Founders would have no problem with kids toking up before school? Have a joint then hit the highway at 75 MPH which is the speed limit in one State but I forget which one?
Click to expand...

Wyoming, but it is because there is nothing to run into ;)
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Yes you did say it.
You said it every time there was a discussion about what the Government should or should not "provide" and you kept referring to the word "promote"; which you then tried to put your own explanation on, as to what the word implied.
Click to expand...

I said there are things the government should provide. Should. Not that they have to by law. And there are things the government is mandated with promoting. Two separate things, yet connected.

For example, if there was a massive crop failure, a famine, then it would be impossible for the government to provide food for the poor. That doesn't mean the government shouldn't try to promote and provide for the poor. It means the government is not legally responsible to do so but should do so.

I don't know how else to explain it.
 
apple0154 said:
That's a given. My point was the law needs to be changed. Ignoring the law is not the way to go.
Click to expand...
if the law has no real basis under the constitution, other than the tortured and twisted visions of a lying authoritarian, then that law is null and void as if it never existed.

apple0154 said:
So the Founders would have no problem with kids toking up before school? Have a joint then hit the highway at 75 MPH which is the speed limit in one State but I forget which one?
Click to expand...
ad absurdum.
if you want a real answer, ask a real question.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
ad absurdum.
if you want a real answer, ask a real question.
Click to expand...

You wrote,
SmarterthanYou said:
here is the error in your theory. the framers wrote the constitution to restrict the government. using the constitution to allow prohibition of a weed that can grow in a ditch along the road is far beyond any power the founders intended for the feds.
Click to expand...

So I asked,
apple0154 said:
So the Founders would have no problem with kids toking up before school? Have a joint then hit the highway at 75 MPH which is the speed limit in one State but I forget which one?
Click to expand...

Don't ridicule my questions because you're unable to answer them. Do you think the Founding Fathers would have ignored the problems I mentioned? Do you believe they would have said the government doesn't have the power to do anything about them?
 
apple0154 said:
I said there are things the government should provide. Should. Not that they have to by law. And there are things the government is mandated with promoting. Two separate things, yet connected.

For example, if there was a massive crop failure, a famine, then it would be impossible for the government to provide food for the poor. That doesn't mean the government shouldn't try to promote and provide for the poor. It means the government is not legally responsible to do so but should do so.

I don't know how else to explain it.
Click to expand...

You can "explain" it, by being honest and admitting that you wanted to make it appear that the word "promote" meant "provide", according to the founders.
 
apple0154 said:
Is that money put on the EBT card?



Yes, I do want to see where I mentioned your mother.



You replied in msg # 57

As you can see I never mentioned your mother in the post you addressed. You're a fucking lunatic. A nutter. :)
Click to expand...
Nice editing liar!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top