Posted on 04/04/2010 6:51:11 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Oh, absolutely. Let's just keep on with our current policy, education and making making its use less rewarding having worked out so well over so many years. That is a an ignorant statement; Doing something that doesn't work, over and over again, hoping for a different result, is the mark of a stupid person. You can write, even if you end a sentence with a verb, so I'll give you that you are not stupid. So please rethink your position on this. Do you have another idea that just... might.... possibly.... have some chance of working? Our war on drugs has NOT helped out country in any way, however it does support a vast bureaucracy intent on taking out liberties. Is that a goal you can support?
I need more info re: what you are talking about. If I missed it, I apologize for that.
I guess my point is that if drugs are legal, who will be the role models for the kids? When my son was in public school, two of the teachers were named as un-indicted co-conspirators when their son, an 18 year old senior was arrested on federal international drug charges, and were allowed to keep their jobs. The principal had a cocaine problem, the athletic teams were all snorting ritalin between quarters and the parents and teachers all did drugs together.
It's entirely possible to claim to be against "living document" interpretations of the Constitution and still engage in them.
The test is whether the end result is consistent with what is known about the intent of people who wrote and ratified it. That's what "original intent" means. If you don't have that, you got zilch.
You keep saying “this” or “that” negatively affects “society.”
For those of us who believe this country is about individual liberty, not some socialistic collectivist view of what is good for “society,” your arguments sound exactly like any other collectivists. “Any individual may be sacrificed for the good of society.” Works for communists, but not for Americans.
Hank
I don’t say this lightly, so you should be honored when I tell you that you’re an idiot. As such, I won’t argue with you. Feel free to think whatever you want. I really don’t care.
The generation who wrote and ratified the Constitution are long gone. Their views on the commerce clause are not easily applicable to our modern economy.
That is the essence of the "living document" argument.
Eva, don't think with you heart, this is a rational matter. There is such a thing called a Bell curve, you may remember if from school where you were graded 'On the curve'. The reason I mention this is that that will always be a right and left, some who excel and and some who fail to thrive. If you turn the Bell curve for any population to the vertical, you will see some at the top who are extremely wealthy, weathy, handsome, successful, whatever, most in the middle (In a healthy society) and some at the bottom who, well, they are at the bottom for a reason, SOMETIMES through no fault of their own.
You may not like it but it is just math and reason to see that if you chop off the bottom of the vertical Bell curve, through your good-intentioned meddling, all you do is make a new bottom, much larger than the original. You make a small problem bigger by you efforts, that then require more meddling to fix, and you feel so-o-o good that you are'Helping'. However, you can not mess with nature or mathematics with all the tears you shed or the tears of all the women and girly-boys who just want to 'help'. Do try to think this though.
“I don’t say this lightly, so you should be honored when I tell you that you’re an idiot. Feel free to think whatever you want.”
Well, no, I’m not interested in “honor” conferred by anyone, only in that honor which depends on my personal integrity and decency. I do feel free to think whatever I choose, and you should also. If you feel that way about freedom truly (and you should), your other views are very confusing.
Hank
No, it is a simple statement of fact. The commerce clause is barely mentioned in the Federalist Papers and Madison’s Notes on the Convention. This leaves courts with little on which to fashion rules of decision and limiting principles.
“(…) the spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought” P.B. Medawar, Micro-biologist.
So tell us, then, how an activity that does not involve commerce or interstate movement - namely, California medical marijuana - would still be subject to Fed control when you think that the health insurance mandate would not. Not to rake you over the coals, more to point out the inconsistency of SCOTUS (and note that Scalia, in his concurring opinion with the majority in Raich, fell back on the Necessary and Proper Clause to butress his claims).
Sanity is not a common commodity in this area... What I am proposing would probably eliminate 80% of all urban crime in North America within two years. You might also want to look around post 75 or thereabouts, somebody noted several of the real world things which drive the drug war including prison worker unions. The thing would be hard to dismantle at this juncture but it needs to be done.
Because he's right.
In this thread I have posted writings from Madison and Joseph Story. Have you read them?
He appeared on numerous talk shows - touting that position, at the same time that the left began claiming that the war in Kuwait had been about oil, and not treaty obligations the terrified Saudi's had embarrassed HW Bush into fulfilling. This was the first time I had ever heard of him.
The fourth paragraph of my post 175 will take you to a thread that outlined the incidents. The thread also links to a photo copy of a newsletter that Ron Paul sent out to his supporters - with a condensed version of what he was saying in his TV interviews.
I fought in that war. I went into Kuwait with a TOW company as part of 2nd MEF.
I liked the dearth of casualties on our side.
Yes troops get terrified when the battle comes to the clashing point. Some break. That is war.
The Iraqi fear at the end of the line when it was too late to surrender is something Ron Paul has used as a tool to gain populist support from the one issue anti war crowd.
To this day, he has never recanted what you read in this page of his news letter -
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc289/LSUfanFR/?action=view¤t=Troops.jpg
His words - "also hidden: the apparent fact that many of the rag-tag teenage soldiers were trying to surrender as they were entombed"
This was hardly a secret - it is one of those Duh things yes many troops break at the final moment. During a pitched battle quarter is no longer an option UNTIL the area is secured. That is how it is.
He never did explain how he would clear a trench line differently without the result being more dead American fighting men.
So yeah, I'm not letting this go, and yeah, I am unapologetic about it.
Some positions are unacceptable to the point you don't get a second chance - not that he has ever retracted anyway.
Why not just say that if there was a drug war that the guys in power could just close their eyes and wish all the drugs would just go away. That's about as plausible as the simplistic scenario you just listed there. closing the borders would not make much of a dent in the supply. You do realize we have thousands of miles of border and coastline in this country, right? Have you ever looked at a map in your life before?
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.