Posted on 06/22/2011 5:21:01 PM PDT by hamboy
I don’t think you understand: your rights do not depend on the 10th Amendment. They are endowed by G_d. The 10th Amendment underscores the fact that government does not have a legitimate place in most of our daily activities.
People, in the form of government, may only interfere when someone else is actually infringing those rights, as in the case of dueling.
The 10th recognizes it's a right of the people.
I'm not looking to convert anyone. You've already proven you're set in your prohibitionist ways and nothing anyone says is going to change your mind.
I am all for banning strokes and Alzheimer's.
How do you feel about banning old folks, such as yourself with failing eyesight?
You're going to have to be more specific. Reagan did quite a few things that libertarians hate. Firing the air trafic controllers, for example. The war on drugs was a centerpiece of his presidency, and, again, a majority of conservatives approve of it.
Well, then you're going to have to discuss this with a libertarian because I am not one.
More specific? I'll let Reagan speak for himself:
"And why do we have deficits? It's not because of a lack of revenues," Reagan told his appointees in December 1988. "Federal revenues have grown by $375 billion since 1981, but spending has grown by $450 billion."
As for asset forfeiture, again, I'll let the creator, former judge, John Yoder, Reagan's choice for the Asset Forfeiture Office speak for himself:
“When I set up the Asset Forfeiture Office, I thought I could use my position to help protect citizens’ rights, and tried to insure that the U.S. Department of Justice went after big time drug dealers and big time criminals, rather than minor offenders and innocent property owners. Today, overzealous government agents and prosecutors will not think twice about seizing a yacht or a car if they find two marijuana cigarettes in it, regardless of where they came from. I am now ashamed of, and scared of the monster I helped to create.”
Personally, I'm glad Reagan fired the ATC strikers. As civil servants with guaranteed employment, they had no right to strike.
No, dueling usually came after someone thought he'd been insulted or his honor has been impugned.
Infringement of rights had nothing to do with it.
The outlawing of dueling infringes on people's right to self-determination, same as prohibition laws.
“to start making some logical arguments. And stay off these threads until you do.”
You appear to avoid logical arguments, kind of a pointless statement. Perhaps you should stay off these these threads until you recognize logic?
The “statistics”/anecdotes you offer re: “Horrible, horrible crimes” absent backing do not rise above the level of opinion. Including all drugs in a discussion about MJ is a desperate tactic, much like including 18 year old gang members in firearm statistics re children. IMO, yours would be the least relevant opinion on this matter based on the content of your posts, going further your attitude would lead me to discount your opinion on other matters as well. Your assumptions on what percentage of people believe current laws are unjust is self serving nonsense.
“I could go on, but I think you’re starting to get the point.”
Unless your point is that you are the only “true” or real conservative, no. I would be curious as to how other Freepers score on your test.
I have always been skeptical of polling, and weight them appropriately, but not to the point of assuming everyone is ignorant as you have. Nor do I pretend to know others better then themselves or attempt to define them to suit my views.
“Go right on thinking that the Conservative position is on the losing end of public opinion.”
16 states now have medical MJ laws with pending legislation in 10 more. Your position would seem to be the losing one in at least some areas. Note I did not state the conservative position, as I do not believe you speak for conservatives.
Actually, dueling, like other forms of homicide and attempted homicide, most likely would fall under the realm of the States.
In any case, when two people plan to harm one another (especially in conspiracy with “seconds” and witnesses), government may legitimately interfere.
A quote posted on another thread (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2739813/posts?page=27#27 )seems appropriate, here, since we are talking about the “War on Drugs.” I know that Mencken was flawed, but truth is truth, and he was right in this case.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken
I prefer C. S. Lewis:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Truth will out,
Certainly dueling doesn't need to harm anyone ~ provided everybody avoids "offending" others' personal sense of safety and well being.
It's the same sort of duality found in the MJ arguments. Plus, the FOUNDERS themselves approved of the practice and participated in it!
I have yet to read of their involvement in the use of MJ.
I say we give dueling a chance to remove petty quarrels over lifestyle choices from the courts and return them to the private venues where they really belong.
I’ve been watching this debate for 2 decades. Here’s a simple personal observation: peers who still smoke herb are generally NOT attuned to politics, policy, rhetoric and calm debate. It seems to hurt their heads. Sorry.
This makes them perfect targets for simplistic, mob-targeted messages. The most dangerous aspect of the drug culture in America is that it created a huge block of uncritical voters. Just try introducing “new information” an any sticky topic to someone who took too much acid back in the day. Their eyes glaze over immediately.
All I have done on this thread is post logical responses to your incoherent rants and accusations. The “statistics”/anecdotes you offer re: “Horrible, horrible crimes” absent backing do not rise above the level of opinion.
Um, that comment was accompanied by the picture of a drug addict who murderd four people in cold blood for no apparent reason. Is the best you've got?
Unless your point is that you are the only “true” or real conservative, no. I would be curious as to how other Freepers score on your test.
The only reason you and I are talking is because you suggested that people who want to legalize drugs are the only real conservatives. You can't handle the fact that the opposite is true for conservatives, and that legalized drugs is strictly a libertarian position. There is nothing to debate there, it is simply a fact. And yet you continue.
16 states now have medical MJ laws with pending legislation in 10 more. Your position would seem to be the losing one in at least some areas. Note I did not state the conservative position, as I do not believe you speak for conservatives.
Loopholes aside, drug legalization remains a federal issue, with precedent back to the Washington Administration.
Got me there. Let's explore the meaning of this term "prohibitionist." Are you referring to 18th Amendment, which has since been repealed, or are you referring to other controlled substances? Personally, I don't drink and could care less if alcohol remained illegal, but, as we've established, equating marijuana with alcohol is a fantasy. Putting aside the historical ties alcohol has to our culture, mature non-alcoholic adults generally control their drinking to a drink or two (or three), and only drink in social situations. The only point in smoking marijuana is to get stoned. The two substances are simply not used the same way. And based on your logic, if marijuana needs to be legalized, so do heroin and methamphetamine, right? Right?
How do you feel about banning old folks, such as yourself with failing eyesight?
First, you are ignoring the point of our discussion, so I'll restate it for you: Nobody suggested that we ban any type of people with poor judgement. Infants to old people. Actually, you did suggest it, but I chose to ignore it. The point was that firearms and drugs are not the same thing, because the firearm has no effect on poor decisions, and drugs do. I assume your second point refers to the fallacy that marijuana is the best way (or even a good way) to treat glaucoma. According to the AMA, and any reputable doctor, it is neither. Again, drug dosages are tightly controlled, and drugs can be administered orally, topically, through inhalants, intravenously, or via suppository. There is no regonized drug that is administered via smoke.
Thanks for being more specific with your Reagan analysis. I see no problem for Conservatives with either his first analysis or the policy of seizing assets from from people who break federal law, in many cases abetted by those assets in doing so. However, it is incorrect to qoute former admistration members in an attempt to discredit any president. Especially if you can't name a specific case where those nasty feds seized (and kept) a yacht over two marijuana cigarettes. Libertarians like yourself love to cite specific examples, but they generally come up short when you look at the whole story.
“The only reason you and I are talking is because you suggested that people who want to legalize drugs are the only real conservatives.”
This is false. If you have to make stuff up, you have already lost.
You are dismissed.
Um, I'm not looking to "win" anything here. I'm just (correctly) pointing out that libertarians have no business on this Conservative website. Like most libertarians, you lack an understanding of the meaning of the word "lie. The real only reason you and I are talking is because I you pinged me with your libertarian nonsense, and I pinged you into a response that said the only true conservatives are people who favor drug legalization. You proclaim your political "independence," then advocate for libertarian causes on a conservative website, and yet are too much of a coward to identify yourself correctly.
Based on the logic of your argument, I'm sure you believe that heroin and methamphetamine should also be completely legal in this country. Right?
“said the only true conservatives are people who favor drug legalization”
False.
Coward?
Not hardly.
Done with you.
And BTW, much of post 125 is outright lies and fabrication. -post 125
My response to this post asked you to give me specific examples. As you were unable to do so, the logical conclusion is that you were lying to change the subject (a favorite libertarian tactic). Just like you keep making statements along the lines of "done with you" and then continuing to post to me. Now, personally, I have come to expect lies from both drug addicts and libertarians, but since this appears to be such a big issue with you, how about we skip the next twenty five predictable posts and get directly to the crux of the matter: Based on the logical conclusion to libertarian philosophy, I assume you also favor legalization of heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine, right? Right?
Also, your next door neighbor recently told me that he intends to begin producing mustard gas in his garage. From what I gather, he is a responsible chap, and he has no intention of ever using the product or selling it to others. I'm sure you support his new hobby as it could never possibly harm anyone and it is his constitutional right, right? Right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.