Posted on 09/16/2004 5:04:47 AM PDT by publius1
SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent September 16, 2004 -- ALBANY
In an unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics, billionaire George Soros poured cash into the Albany County district attorney's race and engineered a stunning defeat of the incumbent because the DA supports the strict Rockefeller drug laws.
The Soros-founded Drug Policy Alliance Network which favors repeal of the Rockefeller laws contributed at least $81,500 to the Working Families Party, which turned around and supported the successful Democratic primary campaign of David Soares.
Trying to become Albany's first black DA, Soares on Tuesday unexpectedly trounced his former boss, incumbent Albany DA Paul Clyne, who has opposed changing the drug laws. The victory was overwhelming: Soares took 62 percent of the Democratic vote.
"This was more than a local race, that's what the [Soros] funding shows," said Assemblyman John McEneny, who supported the challenger's candidacy.
Soros, an international financier and philanthropist who says he is dedicating his life to defeating President Bush, favors legalizing some drugs.
Clyne backers claim that the Working Families Party, using the Soros money, illegally involved itself in the Democratic primary. They charge the Soros cash was used to target Democratic voters with mass mailings and phone calls labeling Clyne as the reason the drug laws were not reformed, as well as highlighting his anti-abortion stance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Rights do not trump each other. They exist.
And there is no "self governance". Otherwise there would be no need for laws since I would reject all yours and self govern myself.
Foreign moneys infringe on the rights of people to self govern, and that is the most fundamental right of a free society.
Soros is not a US citizen? My info has it differently. Free speech is fundamental to a free society.
If you cannot vote for a person, you cannot donate to their campaigns, period.
Thankfully your idea is fringe and not about to be enacted.
"If you can't vote, you can't donate, PERIOD. Free Speech rights do not trump rights of self governance."
What if some politician is campaining to put me out of business? Should a gun manufacturer in Idaho be forbidden from buying time against Sen. Feinstein in California?
McCain is uncomfortable with just about every freedom that I have. He's a menace to the constitution AND THAT AFFECTS ME! Why don't I have the right to donate to a primary challenger? If the AZ GOP isn't up to it, I have every right to protect myself by fighting that little psycho with my time and $$$.
Hail advocate of the Nanny State!
Your arguments are rather Orwellian in nature. Drugs cause its users to commit crimes in order to 'score' more, so we must ban such substances? Ah, no. That is blaming an inanimate object for willful behavior on the part of the user. Charge the user for the burglary, theft, murder, et al, that they have committed, but do not say 'the drugs made them do it'. We are all possesed of free will. These individuals chose to use that free will to get high. Bully for them. I wouldn't do it myself, but hey, that's just me.
Your argments can be used to ban any possibly 'dangerous' substance or object. That makes your argument dangerous to freedom and liberty. Remember, we fought a war based on the concept of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". The dopers have the dumb idea that getting high makes them happy. Whethter that is an illusion or not is not your or my business. Further, no one made the user take the first toke, hit, or snort of those substances. They chose to to so. Don't blame the drug, blame the user.
And I would use the word 'draconian', not tyrannical, to describe the Rockefeller Laws.
Incorrect.
If crack was legalized and prices went down by 50% - which they wouldn't, because even if it were legal it would still be heavily taxed just as alcohol and tobacco are - there would be other problems.
You see, crack addicts can't hold down normal jobs. As I pointed out earlier, alcoholics can often be functional at certain jobs while having a buzz on - but crackheads can't even do the jobs that potheads can do.
They would still, at reduced prices, have to do $200-300 worth of drugs a week and they wouldn't be employable.
That may be much cheaper that the $600-1000 cost of an illegal habit, but to someone with no money there's no real difference.
Also, crackheads tend to be homeless since their rent money is generally one of the first things to go into their pipe.
Foreign meaning from outside the campaign. Anyone who cannot walk into a voting booth and vote for the canidate is a foreigner is this definition.
Rights conflict and when rights conflict yes, one trumps another, you are insane or just ignorant if you don't understand this. RIght to free speach doesn't mean I can yell "FIRE" in a crowded building causing dozens to be trampled to death with impunity.
The right to keep and bear arms does not "trump" the right of private property owners, in fact the right of private propery owners to say you can't bring your firearm on my property wins that argument every time, morally and legally.
You have a very base and poor view of reality if you do not grasp the fact that rights do conflict and when they do come into conflict certain rights do get precident, and always have.
I know my solution will never be implimented, far too many folks way to invested in corrupting local races for national gains to ever let true reform take place, however that doesn't mean that the idea is incorrect.
You can't vote for someone, you can't donate to them, period.
I don't fear him at all. He is known. His ideas are constantly being examined and reported upon on this site and many others.
Current elected officials and others who normalize the anti freedom direction this country is taking are far more dangerous.
Ideas should all see the light of day and be sorted out. Free speech is fundamental to a free society.
Sooooooooooooooo destructive, in fact, that we MAY WELL NEED to take some very energetic steps to block such destructive efforts however we could rationally and properly do so.
What do you suggest? Repealing the first amendment? The current elected officials are working on it and have made significant progress. CFR is one good example.
What will it take for us to wake up and say--enough, turkey, stop it or sit in a very small room for a very long time, or worse.
Imprisoning and executing people with whom you do not agree is a very old tradition in the world. Shutting up your oppponents is popular. This country has so far resisted it for the most part.
In Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432, 436 -437 (1925) the court ruled, "Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other states from the state of origin. In doing this, it is merely exercising the police power, for the benefit of the public, within the field of interstate commerce."
No, says tacticalogic! The spread of evil must be allowed! I'm sure it says so in the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence. Honest! This is America, dagnubbit!
The "definition" is yours. A fine bit of fantasy.
Name calling is popular when you run out of valid points to make. Please refrain from personal attacks.
RIght to free speach doesn't mean I can yell "FIRE" in a crowded building causing dozens to be trampled to death with impunity.
LOL, good stuff!! When in doubt, reach for the most inane old nonsense that ten year olds have fallen for for years. LOL
"You suggested that there was no freedom to destroy families and lives with drugs; alcohol is a drug that has destroyed families and lives."
"No, the question is: Is it tyranny for there to be laws against activities that harm only the participants?"
Both of these sentences come from your same post. Explain to me how you can in one sentence say drugs (alcohol) destroys families and lives and in the next say they harm only the participants?
I have found that very few things we do in life have no impact on others. To believe other wise is to be blind...........or high.
Senator Fienstien cannot take away your gun rights in Idaho by herself, she does not have the power. You ever think that maybe if Fienstien and other in the anti gun crowd couldn't depend on cash from national anti gun lobbyists and groups that she wouldn't win her own election, let alone a majority of senators who would vote for it so it would affect you in Idaho?
Look at the big picture. McCain can't hurt you by himself, no more than Fienstein can. However folks like this not only get elected, but others like them get elected on the backs of money that answers to no one in particular.. pro gun control lobby spends BILLIONS of dollars in hundreds of races over the years to help get a majority into the Senate and THEN you are threatened.
Without that money being able to play in every race, these folks A) could not depend on the cash at election time and B) would be beholden to their contributors which are their constituents, not to large lobbiests or PACS who don't give a damn about local representation, but only care about their national agendas.
We would have a better representative government and far better political system under a simple system. You can't walk into a voting booth and pull the handle to vote for a canidate you can't donate to them, period.
Is that buying the race or informing the voters? The former interpretation means the people are too weak-minded to govern themselves; is that your position?
Thank goodness for the first part. The idea is fatally flawed however and antithetical to a free society.
You can't vote for someone, you can't donate to them, period.
Yes you can, and it will thankfully remain so.
Nice counter, when you can't offer any basis for your arguments... just resort to hollow mocking... Yes, that proves your stand has merit.
Sorry, rights conflict and when they do, certain ones do take precidence. This is historical, moral and legal fact, you choose to reject reality and substitute your own, nothing I can do about that.
Right to keep and bear arms do not trump private property ownership.. private property owner says, sorry you can't have your gun here... Private property owner wins every single time.
As to name calling, Insane is appropriate for one who ignores and rejects reality.. and ignorant is appropriate term for one who does not know about that which they claim to speak. Sorry, if you find that simply unsubstantiated name calling, again, interesting world view you have there.
"No, the question is: Is it tyranny for there to be laws against activities that harm only the participants?"
Explain to me how you can in one sentence say drugs (alcohol) destroys families and lives and in the next say they harm only the participants?
I didn't say all drug use (including the drug alcohol) harms only the participants; I said that current laws ban all drug use, even by non-parents, and are therefore illegitimate.
Now answer the question: Do you favor banning alcohol, a drug that has destroyed families and lives?
I have found that very few things we do in life have no impact on others.
If "impact" is the test for legitimacy of government intervention, we can kiss liberty goodbye; what color I paint my house has an "impact" on others.
Who defines 'immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of evil or harm'? Under that standard, automobiles could be banned because so many accidental fatalities (harm) have occured. TVs can be banned because you can view porno (immoral)on them. Books can be banned because they might show how to cheat on your taxes or your spouse(dishonesty). All of these things cross state lines on their way to a consumer, so the guvernment can ban them, right?
What say you?
"The issue with Soros is that he is using vast sums of money to try to drown out the voices that disagree with him."
The Dems and GOP party hacks are using the force of the state (prison, guns if they have to) to "drown out the voices who disagree".
And you're afraid of Soros?
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.