USFREEDOM WTF IS THAT PICTURE IN YOUR SIG AND WHY IS IT BLAMING PEOPLE ON DRUGS

Threedee said:
Geography is the best way to select a decent, and responsive member of Congress, because if you piss off you're neighbors, you'll hear about it.

Were there no moronic 17th Amendment, you would literally be able to walk over to the houses of your state representatives and senator, and ask them why the fuck they voted for Senator X, forcing the state congress to elect someone who is at least educated and qualified to be in the US Senate, if not someone who shares your views.
Click to expand...

If we didn't have the 17th I think elections for the state legislatures would become more about who they'd vote for for senate than who they are. This obviously happened pretty quickly with the electoral college, and when federal power started eclipsing state power I think it'd happen there too.

Of course, since no one pays attention to state legislature races these days anyway...
 
Threedee said:
Very few of the laws that Congress weighs in on are attempts to make law, rather than to review laws. Yes, it happens, and it is a tyrannical and oppressive force, but it is rare when compared to everything else.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about "congress weighing in" on laws. I am talking about factions using the courts to legislate usurping the Constitution. I am likewise not talking of courts that have inherited the principle of stare decisis.
 
Wickedjews said:
If we didn't have the 17th I think elections for the state legislatures would become more about who they'd vote for for senate than who they are. This obviously happened pretty quickly with the electoral college, and when federal power started eclipsing state power I think it'd happen there too.

Of course, since no one pays attention to state legislature races these days anyway...
Click to expand...

Which is one reason why I'd like to see the 17th repealed.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Obviously you're unable to read posts and leave your preconceived opinions out of the mix.
I never said that I think liberty sucks or that prohibitin is good.

See, therein lies the problem.
You guys think you can debate an issue; but you are only able to see one side of the issue and everything outside of that view, is automatically wrong.

Go back and try to reread my posts, regarding this; because if you do, you would be able to see that all I did was match RShithead comment for comment.
When he escalated his comments, I met them head on and fired back.

It would be nice, if someone had the honesty and integrity to actually follow the exchange and do so without wearing their hearts on their sleeves; but then what would most of you use, to support your views.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. I came into the thread because you were arguing ad homs, that advocates of mj legalization just want to get high.

You must be joking. Your every view is based on emotion. You have yet to give us any reason mj should be illegal except that is what the majority wants/feels/desires. When asked how it is different from other irrational and unjust wants of the majority you again appeal to emotion by feigning shock that anyone would compare the prohibition of marijuana with racism. But no one made that comparison.
 
As an expert witness for Stringy on the matter, I support MJ legalization, and I have never, nor do I plan to ever get, high. Same is true of Dr. Paul, btw, assuming he has been truthful, as I believe him to be.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
First you claim that such a stance is one that is built upon authority and social norms and then you try to make the case that such is un-American.
Major failure.
Click to expand...

Notta major failure. Americanism or individualism is liberal (not socialist liberal). It is a force for change. It has constantly checked itself to move the cause of the enlightenment and freedom ahead. It does not reject all traditions. It questions all traditions and brings them up to the test of reason.
 
The funny thing is that I may be coming accross as some big rebel, when truthfully I am very traditionalist (especially compared to my peers), and I am extremely pliant in the face of authority. I always joke to my friends that I would live much better under socialism than most of its proponents, and then they laugh nervously, and offer to buy me drugs and hookers.
 
Wickedjews said:
Apparently you're new argument for the existence of natural law is that not believing in it is unAmerican. Are you going to reform the congressional committee and put me in jail for believing so instead of telling me why they are real and not just useful?
Click to expand...

Water, of course there is no way to provide physical evidence of moral principles that establish them beyond all doubt.

Do they seem to form a coherent whole? Do they work?

Those are the only two tests we have. What's the alternative test? Let everybody fight to the death? Freedom will still win, in the long run.
 
RStringfield said:
Water, of course there is no way to provide physical evidence of moral principles that establish them beyond all doubt.

Do they seem to form a coherent whole? Do they work?

Those are the only two tests we have. What's the alternative test? Let everybody fight to the death? Freedom will still win, in the long run.
Click to expand...

I dunno. Do you think that if liberty broke down and society devolved into a slugfest for survival and power in this day-and-age, that liberty would ever re-emerge in human history?
 
RStringfield said:
Bullshit. I came into the thread because you were arguing ad homs, that advocates of mj legalization just want to get high.

You must be joking. Your every view is based on emotion. You have yet to give us any reason mj should be illegal except that is what the majority wants/feels/desires. When asked how it is different from other irrational and unjust wants of the majority you again appeal to emotion by feigning shock that anyone would compare the prohibition of marijuana with racism. But no one made that comparison.
Click to expand...

If that's all you were able to conclude, after all the posts, then there is no help I can give you; except to suggest that you reread them and try to put aside your feelings.

I'm not required to give you a reason to justify the prohibition.
And I've told you that others attempted to make this a civil rights issue and at times you also made attempts to spin it that direction also.
 
Threedee said:
As an expert witness for Stringy on the matter, I support MJ legalization, and I have never, nor do I plan to ever get, high. Same is true of Dr. Paul, btw, assuming he has been truthful, as I believe him to be.
Click to expand...

I never said I was against the legalization.
RS just let his emoltions take control and it's been downhill ever since.
 
RStringfield said:
Notta major failure. Americanism or individualism is liberal (not socialist liberal). It is a force for change. It has constantly checked itself to move the cause of the enlightenment and freedom ahead. It does not reject all traditions. It questions all traditions and brings them up to the test of reason.
Click to expand...

Questioning them is different then breaking them and then whining about the consequence.
 
Ice Dancer said:
In order that individuals could pursue liberty the founder's sought a government that created laws that protect and ensure the common good.

The need to balance that with individual rights is THE bedrock of our Constitution. I submit that is why as a Constitutional republic with a representative government we best ensure this ideal. Individual liberty in a nation of laws does not equal I get my way. Madison tackled this dilema in the Federlalist #10

Substance abuse is a concern of the common good.
Click to expand...

I get my way, might as well be a slogan of majority will. Allowing everyone the freedom to make their own choices so long as they do not initiate force against others, will in no way ensure that you or I get our way.

It's not my desire that anyone engage in homo sex, smoke pot, drink beer, pray to a super ghost, tell others that soy will make them effeminate, etc. Freedom results and even rewards lots of crap I don't want. For instance, Britney Spears, Dane Cook, Glenn Beck, etc.. But so long as I am free to make my own choices I don't much care.

It's really about an irrational desire to control.

Federalist #10 does not support your position. It speaks against the majority will argument and warns about the dangers of unchecked democracy.

How does mj prohibition serve the public good?
 
Threedee said:
The funny thing is that I may be coming accross as some big rebel, when truthfully I am very traditionalist (especially compared to my peers), and I am extremely pliant in the face of authority. I always joke to my friends that I would live much better under socialism than most of its proponents, and then they laugh nervously, and offer to buy me drugs and hookers.
Click to expand...

It's a trap, don't fall for it.
They're probably undercover Government officials who are setting you up.
 
Threedee said:
I dunno. Do you think that if liberty broke down and society devolved into a slugfest for survival and power in this day-and-age, that liberty would ever re-emerge in human history?
Click to expand...

Maybe after a significant period akin to the dark ages.
Liberty usually only occurs, when the people fell free from reprisals or such.
The resulting "slugfest" would have to evolve back into some semblance of society based on freedoms first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top