Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
And who makes it contraband? Authoritarian laws that have little concern with the personal habits of a large portion of the population! And once again, you haven't dealt with my objection to these laws -- they are eroding the civil rights of everyone, including those of us who don't use illegal drugs in the first place!

But that's all right by conservatives, because conservatives don't trust the majority of people having too much personal freedoms.

Civil rights come and go...but dopers are forever! :lol:

And you conservatives are the very ones who dig up the Founding Fathers whenever it is convenient as a rhetorical device. But, in this case, the American Revolutionaries were not only revolting against the King of England, they were also rebelling against the trade corporations established by the Crown, and that's why it took over a hundred years before corporate rights were firmly established.

Nonsense....corporatism was alive and well in the colonies. If you must behave as an American wannabe...get the story right.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Ah, so you are trollin.

Just like you...only me trollin' be dope free.

Treating crime and treating desieses are two completly different things. And for whatever reason my doper logic can distinguish the difference between the two.

Bingo! I think you have it....now we'll have no more silly talk about a "cure".

One can make that extrapolation. Oh wait. It's the drugs. I hear pot can give you extreme paranoia. Well, that is what I am told. Or is it the voices in my head.

No...even dope isn't that stupid.

It would make it a lot harder to obtain. And many would give up after some time. Of course you can find a seller in prison. How do you think he got there in the first place?

So your rock solid theory has been refuted.....in only minutes.

Craptastic analogy, and not everything that is complicated needs a complicated solution.

It's not complicated at all. Even my kid figured it out.

Many risk it for the simple reason the police don't really have a desire to pursue this type of criminal activity. Those that buy for personal are simply not on the radar. I am not risking a heck of a lot. 70% of the people I know would be doing jail time if it was up to you. I get all this right from the cops mouth.....

This is just more doper rationalization. The cops aren't looking for Sarin Gas either, but that doesn't mean I should buy some.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted
Just like you...only me trollin' be dope free.

Bingo! I think you have it....now we'll have no more silly talk about a "cure".

No...even dope isn't that stupid.

So your rock solid theory has been refuted.....in only minutes.

It's not complicated at all. Even my kid figured it out.

This is just more doper rationalization. The cops aren't looking for Sarin Gas either, but that doesn't mean I should buy some.

AWH --- I'm getting sleepy.

Posted
Civil rights come and go...but dopers are forever! :lol:

Maybe that statement has some meaning to you.

Nonsense....corporatism was alive and well in the colonies. If you must behave as an American wannabe...get the story right.

THE STORY:

In 1776 we declared our independence not only

from British rule, but also from the corporations

of England that controlled trade and

extracted wealth from the U.S. (and other)

colonies. Thus, in the early days of our country,

we only allowed corporations to be chartered

(licensed to operate) to serve explicitly as a

tool to gather investment and disperse financial

liability in order to provide public goods, such

as construction of roads, bridges or canals.

After fighting a revolution for freedom from

colonialism, our country's founders retained a

healthy fear of the similar threats posed by corporate

power and wisely limited corporations

exclusively to a business role. These state laws,

many of which remain on the books today,

imposed conditions such as these:

? A charter was granted for a limited time.

? Corporations were explicitly chartered for

the purpose of serving the public interest--

profit for shareholders was the means to that

end.

? Corporations could engage only in

activities necessary to fulfill their chartered

purpose.

? Corporations could be terminated if they

exceeded their authority or if they caused

public harm.

? Owners and managers were responsible

for criminal acts they committed on the job.

? Corporations could not make any political

contributions, nor spend money to influence

legislation.

? A corporation could not purchase or own

stock in other corporations, nor own any property

other than that necessary to fulfill its chartered

purpose.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, citizens

and legislators tightly controlled the corporate

chartering process. Having thrown off

English rule, the revolutionaries made certain that

legislators issued charters one at a time and for a

limited number of years and authority was wielded

through laws like those summarized here in

each state. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/hi...ate_history.pdf

Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

-- Kenneth Boulding,

1973

Posted
Maybe that statement has some meaning to you

You might want to brush up on the history of "civil rights" too.

THE STORY:

The story is that corporatism was alive and well, just as I stated.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted
You might want to brush up on the history of "civil rights" too.

The story is that corporatism was alive and well, just as I stated.

Corporatism is just small buisness in ultimate bloom..it's called the pinicle of the American dream - the highlight of the affair called contentious capitalism. Of course it is alive and well - but like with all corporations - once the founder retired or passes away the purpose of success leaves and all that is left are these big mindless monsters that eat anything in their path. I always imagine the full height of allied international corporatism as being the rule of the mythical beast - a huge dragon with a very very small brain - but a huge powerful and dangerous swaggering body.

Posted
Corporatism is just small buisness in ultimate bloom..it's called the pinicle of the American dream - the highlight of the affair called contentious capitalism. Of course it is alive and well ....

Absolutely....anyone who bemoans the corporatists and reckless capitalism is bemoaning the very essence of what America was about, from slavery (an economic system) to cell phone contracts. They can bitch all they want, but any changes would mean the end of the road for an authentic America.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted
The Republicans may be looking at her for 2012, but they told her she has to go back to "school" and learn more about politics.

Politics? Add history & foreign affairs to the list, or generally any knowledge outside the realm of moose-hunting.

She could always make a fine speech (re: 2008 GOP convention), but ask her what the capital of Somalia or Turkmenistan is and she'd be clueless i'm sure.

That NBC interview showed nothing. It was a prepared question about Alaskan energy, they showed a FREAKING MAP GRAPHIC OF THE OIL LINE DURING HER LIVE INTERVIEW AS SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT IT for pete's sake!! As for the Letterman stuff, again she obviously had a prepared stance on that as well

Her problem isn't her public speaking, it's her knowledge of U.S. civics, world politics, history etc. She is just not well informed, but she has a few years to cram for her exam. IMO conservatives deserve much better for a leader.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted (edited)
Her problem isn't her public speaking, it's her knowledge of U.S. civics, world politics, history etc. She is just not well informed, but she has a few years to cram for her exam. IMO conservatives deserve much better for a leader.

Obama is supposedly "well informed" yet he compleetely backed himself into a corneer on Iran and up until about 48 hours ago had no idea what to say....or put more correctly "what the correct thing to say" was. On Iran, the "world's best speech giver" was speechless and completely taken by surprise by the events. This whole "uprising" thing was getting in the way of him cutting a deal with the thugs in power, so he had to re-evaluate which is why he said nothing for days while the rest of the world condemned the regime's actions.

By contrast, Palin may not be able to tell you where Tehran is on a map, but she knows damn well who to side with in a dispute between a murderous theocracy and an uprising of unarmed citizenry protesting in favour of democracy.

I think alot of people are realizing this about Obama. He always goes for the "correct" answer.

But it's not always the RIGHT answer.

Most people fundamentally know the difference between political stickhandler and someone who stands up against what is wrong.

This is why Palin will always fair better than what the leftist elites at the New York Times and NBC are hoping and why Bush was a two termer against every pundit's expectations.

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Posted

Obama certainly tries to pander to everyone too much instead of going with "what's right". However, i can't bash him on how he's handled what's going on in Iran. He didn't want to incite things further, or give some Iranians cause for violence in the name of Anti-American/anti-west sentiment.

If Obama condemned Iranian leaders it would have done nothing to help the situation. That;s not to say covert U.S. operations aren't well underway in Iran ready to take advantage of this situation.

Once things settle i'm sure he'll have more to say about it. Just freakin let the Iranians do their thing.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted
Obama certainly tries to pander to everyone too much instead of going with "what's right". However, i can't bash him on how he's handled what's going on in Iran. He didn't want to incite things further, or give some Iranians cause for violence in the name of Anti-American/anti-west sentiment.

If Obama condemned Iranian leaders it would have done nothing to help the situation. That;s not to say covert U.S. operations aren't well underway in Iran ready to take advantage of this situation.

Once things settle i'm sure he'll have more to say about it. Just freakin let the Iranians do their thing.

No need to state publically who the bad guys are - we all know - and the bad guys know - why feed the fire?

Posted
No need to state publically who the bad guys are - we all know - and the bad guys know - why feed the fire?

Well, as per Ronald Reagan, leader of the free world and acted like it, he inspired those inside the "evil empire" to rebel.

The thugs in Iran have already come out and condemned Obama for "meddling". They're liars anyway. As the beacon of the free world, to not publically, agressivley come down on the side of freedom for fear of being misrepresented by thug regimes is an absurd stance to take.

It truly show's Obama's lack of experience, which we all feared about this thin resume 1/2 term junior senator from Illinios, let us not forget.

I'd rather have McCain in power right now.

Posted
...It truly show's Obama's lack of experience, which we all feared about this thin resume 1/2 term junior senator from Illinios, let us not forget.

I'd rather have McCain in power right now.

President Obama never had "gravitas"....that's why Biden was added to the ticket. VP Biden warned early on that the world would test such a rookie rightv away. He is still learning the job; that's why we have seen the unexpected embrace of the previous administrations policies.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted (edited)
President Obama never had "gravitas"....that's why Biden was added to the ticket. VP Biden warned early on that the world would test such a rookie rightv away. He is still learning the job; that's why we have seen the unexpected embrace of the previous administrations policies.

Bush was close to perfection. Basically no interest in invading the people of America's lives wanting to be benign...until they were attacked. And he knew EXACTLY what to do. And took action.

Obama is the polar opposite.

MAJOR interest in invading people's lives. Higher taxes, more government bureaucracy.

But when an international situation presents itself (of major consequence, by the way) he has NO idea what to do.

Never confuse a Harvard education with a right/wrong compass.

One thing wrong with academics: there is no right answer, becasue everything is a study.

The world is looking to Obama, and Obama is looking to inspire without conviction.

Strange.

Edited by JerrySeinfeld
Posted
The story is that corporatism was alive and well, just as I stated.

Do you have a literacy problem or something? There were a lot of conditions attached to obtaining a corporate charter 200 hundred years ago that have been scrapped (as shown in the article cited), and the concept of "corporate personhood" is continually expanded upon.

Unless you're a CEO or a major shareholder, you're a fool for blindly shilling for the system we have now, that rewards people gamble with other people's money. This unbridled capitalism that you are cheerleading for, is responsible for debt monster that will likely swallow up the U.S. economy in the next five years.

Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

-- Kenneth Boulding,

1973

Posted
Bush was close to perfection.

You set a mighty low bar for perfection!

Basically no interest in invading the people of America's lives wanting to be benign...until they were attacked. And he knew EXACTLY what to do. And took action.

What colour is the sky in your fantasy world? Bush, like any social conservative, was intent on invading the personal lives of citizens with his "family values" policies. He was benign to the Saudis, the source of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 plotters, because his family had a long friendship with the Bin Laden brothers and other Saudi potentates. So Bush and Cheney were asleep at the switch, since they ignored warnings of a possible attack on U.S. soil http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/911_wido..._over_1006.html And after 9/11, Bush wasn't shy about invading the people's lives when the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, suspension of habeus corpus, torture and secret prisons, went into effect.

Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

-- Kenneth Boulding,

1973

Posted
You set a mighty low bar for perfection!

Limbo lower now .. how low can you go!

What colour is the sky in your fantasy world? Bush, like any social conservative, was intent on invading the personal lives of citizens with his "family values" policies. He was benign to the Saudis, the source of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 plotters, because his family had a long friendship with the Bin Laden brothers and other Saudi potentates. So Bush and Cheney were asleep at the switch, since they ignored warnings of a possible attack on U.S. soil http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/911_wido..._over_1006.html And after 9/11, Bush wasn't shy about invading the people's lives when the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, suspension of habeus corpus, torture and secret prisons, went into effect.

How quickly some forget these few very important facts.

Posted
Limbo lower now .. how low can you go!

How quickly some forget these few very important facts.

The internet has provided us with a useful and effective means to factcheck suspicious claims, but at the same time, most people seem to blindly follow claims they hear by groups they support; so I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that many Republican supporters are already at work creating the "Bush wasn't so bad" meme.

Rightwingers are already acting like the economic collapse was Barack Obama's fault, and trying to erase the memory of the man who doubled their national debt to finance wars and keep the economy from collapsing during his presidency.

These Republicans have convinced enough Americans that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president, that they are building statues and dedicating public buildings to the man who tried to destroy the federal government. Reagan tripled the national debt to help finance that much ballyhooed economic growth of the 80's (that sputtered to a halt when George the First inherited it); and an entire mythology has been created that the Soviet Union collapsed because of Reagan's push for new military spending, including the failed 'Star Wars' programs. He is always referred to as a "godly man" by the religious right, in spite of his divorce and the fact that he rarely attended a church service during his two terms in office (contrast that with FoxNews obsession over Obama's spotty church-attendance record)

These are just a few bullet points that show 20 years is a long enough time for myth to overtake reality. Twenty years ago, even conservatives wouldn't have claimed that Reagan was the greatest all-time president -- now Republican presidential candidates try to conjure up his ghost when they hit the campaign trail.

Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

-- Kenneth Boulding,

1973

Posted
....These are just a few bullet points that show 20 years is a long enough time for myth to overtake reality. Twenty years ago, even conservatives wouldn't have claimed that Reagan was the greatest all-time president -- now Republican presidential candidates try to conjure up his ghost when they hit the campaign trail.

Yep, just as the Democrats do with JFK or FDR. So what?

Even your American wannabe Liberal party leader Ignatieff invokes American presidents past and present for political advantage and book advances.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted
Yep, just as the Democrats do with JFK or FDR. So what?

Even your American wannabe Liberal party leader Ignatieff invokes American presidents past and present for political advantage and book advances.

I never said the Democrats or liberals don't also create myths from hero-worship, but the right has built a political ideology around emotional religious appeals and extreme nationalism. How does anyone have a rational debate with crackpots like O'Reilly and Glenn Beck? The conservative movement could use a new 'William F. Buckley' right about now; otherwise their hysterical approach to politics, combined with a possible economic collapse under the new Obama Administration, will make the Republicans a fascist party by any other name!

Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

-- Kenneth Boulding,

1973

Posted
I never said the Democrats or liberals don't also create myths from hero-worship, but the right has built a political ideology around emotional religious appeals and extreme nationalism. How does anyone have a rational debate with crackpots like O'Reilly and Glenn Beck? The conservative movement could use a new 'William F. Buckley' right about now; otherwise their hysterical approach to politics, combined with a possible economic collapse under the new Obama Administration, will make the Republicans a fascist party by any other name!

Beck and O'Reilly are radio talk show hosts. This is akin to wondering how one can oppose a bill in the Senate with crackpots like Rhandi Rhodes working at Air Am.

We're Paratroopers Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded - CPT Richard Winters

Posted
I never said the Democrats or liberals don't also create myths from hero-worship, but the right has built a political ideology around emotional religious appeals and extreme nationalism.

As have the Liberals....Canada's "natural ruling party"...LOL!

How does anyone have a rational debate with crackpots like O'Reilly and Glenn Beck? The conservative movement could use a new 'William F. Buckley' right about now;

Christopher Hitchens or Keith Obermann are not very hard to compete with either.

otherwise their hysterical approach to politics, combined with a possible economic collapse under the new Obama Administration, will make the Republicans a fascist party by any other name!

Not your concern...you really can't do anything about it either way.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted
The conservative movement could use a new 'William F. Buckley' right about now; otherwise their hysterical approach to politics, combined with a possible economic collapse under the new Obama Administration, will make the Republicans a fascist party by any other name!

Or another 911.

We're Paratroopers Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded - CPT Richard Winters

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,904
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    TheGx Forum
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dave L earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Ana Silva earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Political Smash went up a rank
      Rising Star
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...