Rep. Barney Frank Educates George Will and Paul Ryan on Marijuana Legalization

No, you are the one doing the assuming.
really?

mott said:
Watch the video, use your head and be objective. He not only schooled them he pwned them. Frank was dead on right with his criticisms. The Repelican party is far more for big government then liberals and are far more invasive of our personal liberties too.

rana said:
So, besides hating on Barney, do you as a libertarian agree with him or not?

George Wills, how many more studies do we need on marijuana, could alcohol also be a gateway drug, I believe it could by George's definition, give it up, already, there is no good reason not to makes this drug legal.

I know you agree.

so you explained this away as rhetorical.........k.

mott said:
Hey I'm not giving liberals a pass. I'm pointing out to you that Frank was spot on accurate and dead on right in pointing out the Republican Party's (the party of small government) hyporcrisy

dune said:
Hack attack! Frank is entirely correct on this issue and you can't stand it.

dune said:
Even Alias admits Frank is right...

so all three of you assumed I was dissing Frank in this thread when in fact I flat out said he schooled both wills and his idiot partner.

rana said:
No, you are the one doing the assuming.

I believe that was the three of you, not I.
 
so you explained this away as rhetorical.........k.







so all three of you assumed I was dissing Frank in this thread when in fact I flat out said he schooled both wills and his idiot partner.



I believe that was the three of you, not I.

Rana:


I know you agree.


Assume away on what I stated. You have a bad habit of twisting peope's words. I see you do it with not only myself but others. It is one of the reason I rarely address you, lately, you are a fringer.
 
Homosexuality is not "normal sexual practices". Homosexuality is not the "norm". We are born with male OR female sex organs.
You moron. In the first place homosexuality is considered normal behavior just ask any psychiatrist or psychologist. Only wingnut bigots think that it's abnormal. Which brings me to my second point you nitwit. I was refering to sodomy laws prohibiting any people, including heterosexuals from having oral sex or anal sex or having sex with someone outside of marriage.

You took God out of our public schools. No example needed.
No one took God out off our Public Schools. The Supreme Court ruled that you violate the Seperation of Church and State and violate other peoples religious Freedoms when you proselytize them and coerce them to practice YOUR religious beliefs in our public schools

You have lost no rights by govt protecting you from terrorists. Show an example.
Have you been hiding under a fucking rock? Are you not aware of the abuses to our personal Freedom and Liberty committed under the USA Patriot Act? Like citizend being arbitrarily declared enemy combatants by the government and then denied their habeous corpus rights? How's that for a fucking example.

No one is telling you that you can't read a certain book. Please show your example.
Really? Ya'll haven't tried to have Hustler magazine banned? Give me a fucking break dude.

No one is telling you that you can't have a mosque. You can't have a mosque with people in it that support Islamic terrorism. There's a difference.
What bullshit. According to right wing circular logic anyone who believes in Islam supports terrorism. Yea....you did try and tell American citizens that they could not build a mosque.

So try again cowboy. You're wrong, as usuall, on all counts.
 
Rana:


I know you agree.


Assume away on what I stated. You have a bad habit of twisting peope's words. I see you do it with not only myself but others. It is one of the reason I rarely address you, lately, you are a fringer.
BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! now I know you're more than a bit mental.
 
Have you been hiding under a fucking rock? Are you not aware of the abuses to our personal Freedom and Liberty committed under the USA Patriot Act? Like citizend being arbitrarily declared enemy combatants by the government and then denied their habeous corpus rights? How's that for a fucking example.
Alias does not see this as losing rights, since he likens it to Lincoln ignoring the constitution in order to save the union, then the feds can ignore the constitution to save us from terrorists.

it's totally wrong and ass backwards, but it just goes to show that he's more of a public policy person than he is a constitution supporter.
 
Alias does not see this as losing rights, since he likens it to Lincoln ignoring the constitution in order to save the union, then the feds can ignore the constitution to save us from terrorists.

it's totally wrong and ass backwards, but it just goes to show that he's more of a public policy person than he is a constitution supporter.
Are you implying that public policy and the constitution are always mutually exclusive?
 
I don't see liberals telling me that I can't smoke pot....
That's...
I don't see liberals telling me I have to give up my rights to be protected from terrorist....
Because....
I don't see liberals telling me that I can't read certain books....
You're blind.

Now that aint to give liberals a pass. It's pointing out that Frank is right and the facts are on his side.
And it's ignoring or lying about things like the NDAA, or the expansion of Patriot Act powers, F&F, the DEA, the ESRB, and so on and so forth. Democrats are just as likely to jail innocent people as Republicans.
 
Homosexuality is not "normal sexual practices". Homosexuality is not the "norm". We are born with male OR female sex organs.

You took God out of our public schools. No example needed.

You have lost no rights by govt protecting you from terrorists. Show an example.

No one is telling you that you can't read a certain book. Please show your example.

No one is telling you that you can't have a mosque. You can't have a mosque with people in it that support Islamic terrorism. There's a difference.


Quit, this thread is about marijuana, not your gay fantasies, quit pooping on the thread, go back to the other one where your ass was being handed to you by most everyone, including Freedom.
 
I honest to god wish that was true. Otherwise we wouldn't need jails or prisons.

That isn't quite true. A portion of responsibility lies in understanding consequences. However, it is my position in a free society laws should be made only if there are direct victims.

In this case. I rob you, I should be sent to jail. I buy some smoke, light myself up, forget the football game and eat a bunch of Cheetos, not so much.
 
public policy and the constitution should be like the same sides of two magnets. about as far apart as they can possibly be. they are not compatible.
Well there we would have to agree to disagree and this position of yours is a reason why many people view libertarians as anarchist in drag.

I personally don't have a problem with public policy. The idea of the constitution is to place limits and contraints on the scope and reach of public policy. Not eliminate it all togther. As long as public policy focuses on the big rocks of government it usually works well to the peoples advantage. It's when public policy focuses of the little rocks, pebbles and sand that it becomes problematic.

I do really understand the position of libertarians. I just don't see it as realistic. Is there really a way that one can govern affectively outside of a utilitarian philosophy? Tyranny never succeeds in the long haul because, as we know, Governments can only govern with the consent of the governed. I've seen no other governing philosophy, outside of the utilitarian philosophy, that has ever really been proven to work.

That's a major problem Libertarians have beside their lack of leadership. They have not demonstrated that their philosophy can govern competently.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top