Libertarians Rule, Ds And Rs Drool...

[YesMichigan]

Well,.. Libertarian is a great philosophy that absolutely doesn't work in reality. ;-) 

 

 

Also, individualism was not what this country was really founded on.  That would be a bit of a misnomer.

 

 And the second someone starts preaching about the second amendment, I instantly realize they have no idea what the other 20+ are.  Typically they can get freedom speech as part of the first amendment.  Drug users tend to know a bit about the 4th, 5th and maybe 6th,...Slavery sympathizers tend to get the tenth amendment(sorta) but from there,... notta.

 

:-)

 

Without looking(for shiiits and giggles, What is the 3rd amendment? 16th? and 22nd?

 

 Everyone claims to love the constitution but they have no idea what it says. ;-)

 

Discourse meets arguing.

 

Well,.. Libertarian is a great philosophy that absolutely doesn't work in reality. ;-)   Notice the authoritarian statement with no support or backing? No mention of ways that Libertarians have advocated for expanding the War on Drugs or have stood in the way of medical marijuana. This comment pretends to stay on topic but offers no evidence, just the poster's opinion that is to be accepted as fact. Remember, the original post offered two facts regarding the reason Democrats hate you also. They have stood in the way of medical marijuana and even expanded the prosecution of medical patients in California. Clinton AND Obama.

 

 

Also, individualism was not what this country was really founded on.  That would be a bit of a misnomer. - Now we are to believe that the purpose of the Bill of Rights wasn't to enumerate personal freedoms and create the rights of the individual. No evidence - just conjecture. As the OP perhaps I should have listed the pertinent phrases that lead me to believe that Individualism is a stalwart principle of The Republic. This is the closest to "on-topic" the poster was and creates the opportunity for productive debate.

 

 

And the second someone starts preaching about the second amendment, I instantly realize they have no idea what the other 20+ are.  Typically they can get freedom speech as part of the first amendment.  Drug users tend to know a bit about the 4th, 5th and maybe 6th,...Slavery sympathizers tend to get the tenth amendment(sorta) but from there,... notta. - Now it is to the dismissive tone. "the second someone starts preaching" notice the loaded words? Notice the closed-mindedness? Thus a simple question regarding the second amendment is "preaching". If it was Sotomayor talking about the second amendment the poster would instantly realize the Honorable Justice knows nothing about the Constitution. Interesting - he has taken his random sample size and now dismisses anyone who mentions a specific amendment of the Constitution (the second).

 

 

Without looking(for shiiits and giggles, What is the 3rd amendment? 16th? and 22nd? - still off-topic, still hasn't answered a single question of the original post and yet now feels entitled to answers to a random quiz of amendments. This is the type of argumentation that is seen each night on the talking head shows (Fox, MSNBC, et. al.) don't discuss the topic because you hate the answers, change the topic and do all you can to belittle on another subject where you think you have advantage. This follows a Sun Tzu philosophy of "Always fight on the ground of your choosing." Hannibal of Carthage was a master of this strategy and still ranks as my personal favorite General. Advanced trolling tactic for sure.

 

 

Everyone claims to love the constitution but they have no idea what it says. ;-) - And now a universal declaration that everyone EXCEPT him has no idea about the Constitution. Words like "everyone" or "always" will often indicate a hyperbolic statement. Avoid using absolutes unless you are 400% certain it is an absolute, that is as close as I can get to saying "Never use absolutes".

 

 

I'll admit I don't read what this poster writes (because of their lack of respect for the thoughts of others) but I saw the post quoted. For people following at home I hope you can see the difference between debate and argumentation by looking for these warning signs. I speak only for myself in that I will not argue online or in-person. I'll discuss any topic. In closing: Don't mistake arrogance for intelligence - the arrogant will desperately hope you will. They'll call you stupid until you do.

 

DISCLAIMER:

This isn't created out of acrimony but instead so the post wouldn't go unanswered without explanation and to assist the community in recognizing the difference between discourse and arguing. There are too many brilliant people posting here to have ANY person being silenced or ridiculed. To the person whose post I dissected I have no animosity and I respect your knowledge but loathe the autocratic dismissive tone. I avoid threads where you are active but you chose to engage me directly on a topic I created. This is a great message board and I won't sully it with a urination distance contest. To all, be safe.

[+Malamute]

Hahaha,... and urself did not make one single point to address that libertarianism is anything.  You are only mad at the way I said it and a little butt hurt from a different thread.

 

:-)

 

Also, maybe if you had included my second post, I cover issues about libertarianism and why it doesn't work.

 

tragedy of the commons

the prisoners dilemma

 

And that libertarianism doesn't work because of human nature.

 

I obviously truncated what I was saying because of health reasons which I stated in the post. ;-p

 

I thought those two minor points would help start the conversation for when I was feeling better.

 

Is the problem you simply do not understand my points?  Do you understand why Libertarianism always ends in Feudalism int he real world(Somalia as one minor example)?  Do you or anyone you know have the ability to name the 27 amendments to the constitution? I highly doubt it nor have I ever met anyone except my fellow constitutional students during their final exams that could.  It is rather easy to blanket my statement knowing how inadequately informed and taught the public is.

 

 I suppose I should have prefaced those statements I made with "In my experience" and "in my research" to qualify yourself to give an answer or rebuttal, and not simply state you do not like how I said something.  :-)

 

As far as the individualism goes,... The constitution is creating a collectivist approach to government(republic), while doing their best to preserve individual rights in the Bill of rights which was carrying over concepts created in the magna carta.  The bill of rights goes past the magna carta principles of due process, procedure, trial by jury, and cruel and unusual punishment;  and the bill of rights opens up to what we call "natural rights"(speech, religion, press, privacy in marriage).  So I guess my point is,... The declaration of Independence is our founding document which does address "Life,liberty and pursuit of happiness", which is the basis for individual rights,  but doesn't cover the majority of what we were founded upon.  It deals more with collective morality to protect from oppressions of government.   Stating that our country was founded on individualism is a bit of a misnomer in my opinion.  Does it exist?  Naturally. 

[+Malamute]

Excuses, excuses.  He can "do" whatever he wants.

 

could he release marijuana possession offenders from federal prisons ?

 

Well, no. The president cannot do anything he wants by any means. That Is just a silly statement.

 

Could he release federal marijuana offenders?  Technically,.. he could commute or pardon everyone. 

 

 But what I point out is that Obama is the first to reverse any trend in the drug war.  He has revised sentencing guidelines for drug offenders, he has let many many people out of prison early by restructuring penalties on certain drug crimes thus allowing early release of offenders,  he has instructed his justice department to quit convicting simple marijuana patients(which he has) and had several legal memos released reigning in federal prosecutors to the extent a president can. Also he has just put out a policy to curb drug forfeitures.  *shrug*  It's a start.

[Norby]

It's in parentheses, only you think it's a silly statement.  he's the most powerful man in the world.  He could think outside the box and do fireside chats.  He hasn't done anything more than bush as there were more dispensary raids under Obama than Bush. Spin it however you want, he isn't doing nearly enough and all those things have helped who? People are let out of prison early from overcrowding.  Stick up for him if you want but you are not fooling anyone.  More people were arrested for MMJ under Obama than Bush, from what I've read(no I didn't count myself).

[+Malamute]

Well,... there are over 500 times as many dispensaries now.  Percentage wise,... busts are WAY down.

[+Malamute]

I mean,... how many dispensaries were in Michigan in 2008?

 

Hehehe.

 

Colorado only had a handful at that time. Calfornias were splattered in Liberal zones.

 

Now,.. they cover the west coast comnpletely,.. they are all over in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Heck even Michigan now,.. east coast has a ton now.

 

And much of that momentum was created by Obama getting elected and the release of the Justice department Memo.  *shrug*

[+Malamute]

I am also not saying by ANY means that it can't be much much much better.

 

 But one must show some appreciation for where we were, where we are going,.. and the steps taken towards that end.

[GregS]

We can and should look at our leadership institutions and wag our fingers and tongues at them. That is precisely what is going on. Much of the media is on board with the issue, we have turned the corner, and are coming up to a full head of steam, if we are not there already. Prohibition policies and practices are falling like the dominoes we know they are. Our shouts are overwhelming the establishment (Oops. I'm showing my age). They are coming around kicking and screaming, but they are coming. It is not that leadership is not making headway with things. The nature of democracy, or if you wish to split hairs, constitutional republic, is a wild ride. Hell. I've paid good money to hoot and holler on some pretty famous roller coasters. This is not really very much different.

Edited January 19, 2015 by GregS

[slipstar059]

Harry Anslinger was a Dem, and the Republicans fought for the abolishment of Slavery, while the Dems fought to keep it around.

 

Recently the Republicans have had Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr., so it seems like kind of a wash.

 

If Rand Paul didn't feel so strongly about abortion he might have made a great president.

 

Bush and Clinton are best friends now, Goerge has said Bill is his brother. So now his brothers wife is going to be running against his biological brother? This isn't staged? Random thoughts.

Edited January 19, 2015 by slipstar059

[Norby]

Well,... there are over 500 times as many dispensaries now.  Percentage wise,... busts are WAY down.

Change the statement so you can fight on your own ground?  I didn't say percentage wise.  There ARE more busts.  That there are more dispensaries does not make that untrue.  The #'s should've gone down to prove forward motion.

[Norby]

Harry Anslinger was a Dem, and the Republicans fought for the abolishment of Slavery, while the Dems fought to keep it around.

 

Recently the Republicans have had Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr., so it seems like kind of a wash.

 

If Rand Paul didn't feel so strongly about abortion he might have made a great president.

 

Bush and Clinton are best friends now, Goerge has said Bill is his brother. So now his brothers wife is going to be running against his biological brother? This isn't staged? Random thoughts.

It's a monarchy.  If either wins that will be 20 some years of the last 30?

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Just saw this on the news: the richest 1 percent are projected to own 1/2 of all the world's wealth by 2016.

 

It seems like maybe that Trickle Down Economics theory doesn't work.

 

Reagan's Trickle Down Economics theory is the idea that allowing the wealthy to keep more of their money by reducing taxes on them will benefit the middle class. It's kind of funny that, in the face of contradictory evidence, the Republicans continue to advocate this approach. But then, Republicans do have a history of being fact-based-logic impaired.

 

I don't mean to besmirch Republicans here. I mean, disregarding facts and inventing your own is a perfectly fine way to win arguments and form your own world view. It's all about being happy, right?

Edited January 19, 2015 by amish4ganja

[Restorium2]

I am also not saying by ANY means that it can't be much much much better.

 

 But one must show some appreciation for where we were, where we are going,.. and the steps taken towards that end.

Never ever thought we would be growing legally in Michigan in my lifetime. It's a game of inches and that was a first down conversion. Once in a great while you see the inches push us across a line. That's the only time that the forward progress seems substantial. Most of the time you can't tell if we are going forwards or backwards. When all of us got together, caregivers, patients, dispensaries, every cannabis advocate you could imagine, and asked each and every member of the Michigan Legislature (by hand delivered letters) to vote a certain way for us only the 4 DEMOCRATS in my signature did what we asked. That meant a lot to me and showed who doesn't hate us as a whole. All the rest use us as a political football to get votes without any thoughts about us as people. 

[+Malamute]

Change the statement so you can fight on your own ground?  I didn't say percentage wise.  There ARE more busts.  That there are more dispensaries does not make that untrue.  The #'s should've gone down to prove forward motion.

 

 

 I am not changing your statement,  I am giving it perspective.

[phaquetoo]

could he release marijuana possession offenders from federal prisons ?

he could pardon each and every one of them!

 

Peace

[Norby]

 I am not changing your statement,  I am giving it perspective.

That is not perspective,it is trying to make it look as if we are getting more than we actually are.   You are trying to twist the perspective.

Is the pres opening any dispensaries?  No, he is still fighting them. and appointing people who would fight them.  Not doing anything is not helping.  It's the SAME as Bush(worse considering his party line).

[cristinew]

Rand Paul  wants us all in JAIL<<   Paul told a group of Northern Kentucky University law students last month that he wouldn't support lifting the federal ban on marijuana use, -   so i guess we have  new kind of libertarian  ,

[cristinew]

 

California Democrats Back Marijuana Legalization In Party Platform  ..  Now tell us what republican party platform does the same?

 

[Restorium2]

That is not perspective,it is trying to make it look as if we are getting more than we actually are.   You are trying to twist the perspective.

Is the pres opening any dispensaries?  No, he is still fighting them. and appointing people who would fight them.  Not doing anything is not helping.  It's the SAME as Bush(worse considering his party line).

Exactly. Everyone knows it whether they want to admit it or not, the democrats have a better point of view on cannabis. Period. Can't refute it. Proof comes often, like my signature implies. 

[Norby]

Exactly. Everyone knows it whether they want to admit it or not, the democrats have a better point of view on cannabis. Period. Can't refute it. Proof comes often, like my signature implies. 

Don't get too high on it.  The bar isn't that high comparing to the republicans.

  And they still haven't done anything.  Where has one med law come from the gov't?   It's all been put in by the people and the D's here voted overwhelmingly to put people in court for having MJ anywhere but in there trunk. Look what Cuomo did in NY siding with the R's when we had the most control ever in the legislature there.  And look at what NY got because of it?  I still can't go back to my home state and medicate because of ONE D switching sides when it mattered.  they can LOOK like they're doing something all day and still drag heels and get the repubs way, or just come out and BE an R when it REALLY matters.  Open your eyes.

 

D's are frenemies at best.  We'll never get where we want if you accept them as "working for us" now.  You are just more afraid of the other side.  Which means you are right where they want you.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Norby

[+Malamute]

Well, yes.

 

 But democrats do have the "what about the children" syndrome to deal with.

 

 In general,  2/3rds dems support marijuana, 1/3 republicans do.

 

The more liberal the Democrat, the more they support. The more conservative the Republican, the less they support.

 

 

 Now, when we talk about actual elected officials,... that is where the skew occurs to the extreme.  Democratic support falls off to under 50%, and republican support crumbles to low teens, or even less.

[+Malamute]

Don't get too high on it.  The bar isn't that high comparing to the republicans.

  And they still haven't done anything.  Where has one med law come from the gov't?  

 

 

 Rhode Island, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New mexico, New York, Vermont.

 

I am offering a double check on it, but iam pretty sure I have the right states that legislatively passed their laws.

 

Slightly democratic states. ;-)

[Norby]

 Rhode Island, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New mexico, New York, Vermont.

 

I am offering a double check on it, but iam pretty sure I have the right states that legislatively passed their laws.

 

Slightly democratic states. ;-)

I read NY was THE first in the nation for med to come from other than a vote to the people.  And look what that one is.  Nothing for another year and a half best est.  Only oil, u know the law they passed.  Since I read mine in a publication I'll wait for your links to where these were passed by legislature.

 

And NY did it for the control because they knew it coming.  so did IL. and I wouldn't tout either NY or Il as they are preliminarily restrictive.  So what do you think about those laws in the grand scheme?  Are they better or worse than the ones the people voted for.  Because if Dems are just trying to shore up control with the rep. that don't look good.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Norby

[+Malamute]

Sniffle sniffle cry.

 

 Rhode island passed theirs legislatively, a couple times, and I consider it the best or second best medical marijuana state in the country.

[+Malamute]

 Since I read mine in a publication I'll wait for your links to where these were passed by legislature.

 

 

 

 

I think you should do your own homework and take the time to realize I am almost always right. ;-p