Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 81

Thread: Positive Trend

  1. #1

    Default Positive Trend

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/25/t...izing-pot.html

    Ann Lee, a Texas Republican and devout Catholic, thought marijuana was the “weed of the devil.” Like so many Americans, Lee believed pot was a dangerous “gateway” drug that tempted the unwary into a dissolute existence. But when Lee’s son, Richard, suffered a severe spinal injury two decades ago and became paralyzed from the waist down, she was given a crash course in the devil drug. “I had to open my eyes, and I also had to pray a lot and believe in Richard’s integrity,” says Lee, now 81. “When I saw the good it did for Richard’s spasticity, I said, ‘Well, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead.’?” Since then, Lee and her husband have been steadfast in their support of Richard as he opened a California medical-marijuana dispensary and founded a trade school in Oakland devoted to the study of pot, aptly named Oaksterdam University. Today Richard, 47 and a millionaire thanks to his pot business, is leading the charge for passage of Proposition 19, the controversial California ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana for personal use. And Mom and Dad, now avid Tea Partiers, are manning the phones in support of their son and his efforts.

    You’d expect aging flower children to fight for the right to get high. But aging conservatives? As the ideals of the Tea Party’s most vocal libertarians infiltrate the Republican ranks, and state and federal officials slash budgets even as they pump cash into an expensive war on drugs, some conservatives are making the case for legalizing marijuana. It isn’t Nancy Pelosi who’s speaking out in favor of legalized pot—she’s been careful not to take a position on Prop 19—but rather her Republican challenger in California, John Dennis. And in Massachusetts, Barney Frank’s Tea Party–backed Republican opponent, Sean Bielat, has said he leans libertarian on the issue, and it hasn’t hurt his race against the longtime congressman, who strongly supports decriminalization of pot. “As you see the liberty wing of the Republican Party grow, you’ll see more support for legalization,” says Dennis, who drew cheers during a campaign stop recently at the International Cannabis and Hemp Expo in San Francisco, where his staff altered his campaign sign to sport Rastafarian colors and a pot leaf. Republican power broker Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, points out that legalization can make sense from a conservative perspective because it touches on issues of national security and fiscal prudence. “First, there is the mess that is Mexico. Narcoterrorism is made possible by our drug prohibition in the U.S. Then there is the cost of incarceration,” he says. Gary Johnson, the Republican former governor of New Mexico and a putative presidential candidate for 2012, says he believes that “Proposition 19 has the opportunity to be the domino that could bring about rational drug policy nationwide.”

    Pundits like Fox News’s Glenn Beck and former judge Andrew Napolitano have also joined in the debate, on the pro-legalization side. “You know what, I think it’s about time we legalize marijuana. Hear me out for a second…” Beck told viewers in April. “We have to make a choice in this country. We have to either put people who are smoking marijuana behind bars, or we legalize it. But this little game we’re playing in the middle is not helping us, is not helping Mexico, and is causing massive violence on our southern border.” Even Sarah Palin, who’s opposed to legalization, has called pot a relatively “minimal problem,” telling Fox Business Network this summer, “I think we need to prioritize our law-enforcement efforts. And if somebody’s gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society.” (Palin has copped to trying pot during the time it was decriminalized in Alaska, but said she didn’t like it.)

    Legalization may not carry the day in California: in a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, support has fallen to 44 percent in favor of Prop 19 from 52 percent in September. Yet Prop 19 has sparked a surprisingly sober national discussion lacking in the hyperbole that has long surrounded marijuana. In the 1930s, “marihuana” was the insidious villain of Reefer Madness, the propaganda film that helped pave the way for Congress to outlaw the substance in 1937. In the 1960s, smoking dope was a symbol of hippie rebellion, a litmus test that determined on which side of the generation gap you belonged. By the 1970s, pot become the munchies-inducing punchline for stoner comedies like Cheech and Chong’s Up in Smoke, and in the ’90s it morphed into a hip-hop status symbol, with rappers singing the praises of “chronic.” The inevitable backlash came when George W. Bush’s administration declared marijuana public enemy No. 1 in its war on drugs. Through it all, the partisan battle lines have stayed fairly consistent: liberals want the right to light up; conservatives want to snuff it out. Which makes the fact that so many conservatives are speaking up in favor of legalization all the more remarkable.

    Certainly, the Republican Party is a long way from becoming the Pot Party. Although a handful of conservative thinkers like Milton Friedman, George Shultz, and William F. Buckley have argued the merits of legalization over the years (Buckley even mocked those who called marijuana a gateway to addiction, saying it was “on the order of saying that every rapist began by masturbating”), most Republicans still oppose the idea. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, only 25 percent of Republicans nationwide favor legalization of pot in their state, compared with 55 percent of Democrats.

    Nonetheless, conservative attitudes are changing at the grassroots level (no pun intended). The percentage of Republicans in favor of legalizing marijuana has risen quickly since 2005, jumping 7 points. And as their constituents have moved on the issue, more Republican candidates and lawmakers are refusing to toe the party line. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who was Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter during the “Just Say No” years, scoffs at the notion that marijuana leads to harder drugs. “Every person I’ve ever known to go onto harder drugs started with alcohol,” says Rohrabacher, who supports legalization from a state’s-rights perspective and is cosponsor of a bill to legalize hemp, the durable fiber derived from the same cannabis plant as pot. “Shall we balance the budget a bit? Quit this nanny-state idea that Americans can’t even grow a cash crop?”

    The libertarian Cato Institute just issued a detailed statistical analysis on how ending “prohibition”—a favored term for supporters of pot reform—could help America’s budget woes. According to the much-discussed study, legalizing all illicit drugs would save the government $41.3 billion a year in law-enforcement costs and generate some $46.7 billion in tax revenue; marijuana would account for $8.7 billion of the savings, and another $8.7 billion in taxes. Legalized marijuana would certainly help fatten state coffers in debt-crippled California, where pot is the biggest agricultural crop, with $14 billion a year in sales that never appear on tax returns. Cost considerations aside, “the strongest argument is simply the question of liberty, or ‘consumer sovereignty’ as the economists would say,” says the Cato study’s coauthor Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard lecturer who recently penned a column for the Los Angeles Times titled DRUGS AND CONSERVATIVES SHOULD GO TOGETHER. The Cato Institute itself does not take a position on legalization, but spokesman Chris Kennedy tells NEWSWEEK that “all of our scholars definitely support an end to drug prohibition.”

    A popular joke has it that “a libertarian is a Republican who smokes pot.” That may or may not extend to the Tea Party, which is made up of several different conservative strands and includes many people, especially social conservatives, who would oppose legalization. The cofounder of the National Tea Party Federation, Mark Skoda, doubts that many in his group are pro-pot, saying, “Legalization as a question isn’t what animates or motivates Tea Partiers.” Still, it’s becoming increasingly hard for conservative candidates and lawmakers to square libertarian Tea Party catchphrases like “fiscal responsibility” and “limited government” with the government’s war on drugs, especially when their constituents might prefer to see a war on joblessness. Marijuana arrests accounted for more than half of all drug arrests in the United States, with an American nabbed on marijuana charges every 37 seconds, as indicated by the FBI’s 2009 Uniform Crime Report. Yet 88 percent of the arrests were for possession, not sale or manufacture, which means that many more recreational users are getting snared than growers or dealers.

    At the same time, the war on drugs has grown increasingly bloody, with more than 28,000 people killed in Mexico since President Felipe Calderón began his crackdown on the drug cartels. Calderón, who opposes Prop 19, has had his victories: last week, Mexican officials in Baja California made the biggest drug bust in the nation’s history, seizing 134 tons of pot (the equivalent of about 334 million joints) after a shootout with traffickers. Nonetheless, many believe a lot less blood would be shed if America were to legalize pot, which according to some estimates accounts for 60 percent of Mexico’s drug trade with the U.S., in much the same way that ending Prohibition in 1933 cut short the careers of tommy-gun-wielding gangsters. As Pat Buchanan, adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, wrote in a column last year: “How does one win a drug war when millions of Americans who use recreational drugs are financing the cartels bribing, murdering, and beheading to win the war and keep self-indulgent Americans supplied with drugs?” Buchanan tells NEWSWEEK that he doesn’t support legalization, but he mused in his column, “There are two sure ways to end this war swiftly. Milton’s way and Mao’s way. Mao Zedong’s communists killed users and suppliers alike, as social parasites. Milton Friedman’s way is to decriminalize drugs and call off the war.” Of course, plenty of conservatives think Friedman was smoking something.

    Karl Rove says the vast majority of Republicans rightly stand against full legalization of marijuana. “I believe that the social cost to the United States of legalization of drugs would be enormous, and would be something that would deeply harm our society, particularly those least equipped to deal with the ravages of drug dependency,” he says. “We’re not talking about the marijuana of the ’60s. We’re talking today about a marijuana that in many instances is far more potent, far more addictive, and—as a gateway drug—far more pernicious than it was in the ’60s.” And then there’s the issue of where legalization stops. At cocaine? At meth? At heroin? William Bennett, who was drug czar under George H.W. Bush and now hosts a conservative talk show, says, “When I give commencement addresses, I tell the students, ‘Don’t keep your mind so open your brains fall out.’ You’ve got to understand how much harm these drugs cause.” Ann Coulter says pot is a “gateway to being a complete loser,” and “the only possible argument for conservatives is that maybe more liberals will get stoned and forget to vote.” Yet despite their opposition, conservatives who are anti-pot just don’t seem to be getting as fired up about it as they used to. During an unlikely interview with Coulter and Cheech and Chong last November, Geraldo Rivera expressed surprise that he gets no hate mail on legalization but is bombarded when it’s any other social issue, like gay rights. “Why aren’t conservatives angry about this?” he asked Coulter. “Are they secretly potheads?”

    Conservatives’ mellowness may simply be generational. Few Americans today can say they’re complete strangers to marijuana; they either had stoner friends in high school, or they got a contact high at a Guns N’ Roses concert, or they themselves have inhaled. Marijuana use among Americans increased 8 percent last year, with 16.7 million people smoking pot in the past month alone, according to an annual report released in September by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. In the 14 states that allow medical marijuana, middle-aged baby boomers talk quite freely about filling their prescriptions at the local dispensary (of which there are nearly 1,400 in California alone). Republican strategist, columnist, and Denver-based attorney Jessica Corry, who has drawn attention to groups like the Women’s Marijuana Movement and describes herself as a “pro-pot Republican mom,” says that after she appeared on Fox News last year discussing legalization, she was deluged with e-mails of encouragement from both sides of the aisle. Some came from evangelical home-schoolers and Vietnam vets who’d never voted Democratic, “all just saying, ‘We’re with you.’ I was stunned.”

    Still, there’s a big difference between a Weeds-watching Republican helicopter mom talking about pot legalization and her congressman doing the same. “If you talk to a bunch of Republicans in Congress, they’ll say it’s a good idea, but they won’t stick their head up and get shot at,” Norquist says. Democratic officials are gun-shy as well. Marijuana-law reformers had expected that California’s Democratic Party would endorse Prop 19. But the party, not wanting to put its candidates in an awkward position in a tough election year, declared itself neutral. The Obama administration pledged to end the raids of medical-marijuana facilities that flourished during the Bush years; however, the Justice Department has been clear that it will continue to enforce federal marijuana laws in California even if Prop 19 passes. “The Democrats are just so squeamish about this, that’s the problem,” says Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. “This issue is wide open for Republicans to take. If Meg Whitman held a press conference tomorrow and said she supports Prop 19 and would defend the state against federal interference, she would probably win.”

    It’s the Nixon-goes-to-China phenomenon: people who might ignore a Democrat talking about legalization will give a fair hearing to a Republican. Mason Tvert, executive director of SAFER, the leading marijuana-reform group in Colorado, is no longer surprised when a Republican candidate answers a questionnaire saying he or she favors legalization. He was in the room at the Lincoln Club earlier this year when former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo, now running for governor of Colorado on the Constitution Party ticket, told the elderly Republican crowd that even though he might be committing “political suicide,” the time had come to think about legalizing drugs. In a September debate, Tancredo went even further, declaring, “Legalize it. Regulate it. Tax it.” After lagging in the race for months, the candidate saw his poll numbers jump 10 points this month, bringing him close to his Democratic opponent, who is against legalization. Asked by NEWSWEEK about his official stance, Tancredo was more circumspect than he has been, saying in a statement: “With regard to marijuana, I have no plans to push for its legalization. I simply believe that taking money away from the drug cartels, taking the incentive out of pushing marijuana to kids by imposing the most serious penalties possible on those who do so, focusing our resources on stopping illegal aliens and hard drugs from entering the country, and reducing the corruption now eating away at our law-enforcement establishment has merit and deserves to be debated.”

    The conservative argument for marijuana legalization didn’t begin with Prop 19. Nor is Prop 19 the nation’s first pot-legalization initiative. In the 1970s, many states decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, but the Reagan administration put an end to the loosening of drug laws. Then came the medical-marijuana movement, which helped soften anti-pot sentiment among those on the right who favored compassionate conservatism. California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana, in 1996, followed by 13 others that allow medicinal use and 26 that have “therapeutic research program” laws. Voters in Washington, D.C., passed a medical-marijuana initiative in 1998, but Congress blocked implementation until just this year. On Nov. 2, voters in Arizona and South Dakota will decide whether to legalize medical marijuana, and Oregonians will vote on improving current medical-marijuana laws. In red-state Arizona, recent polling shows a majority supports medical marijuana.

    “We are two years away from reaching a tipping point,” says Johnson, the former New Mexico governor. He recently told Tea Partiers at the 9/12 FreedomWorks rally on the south lawn of the Capitol that with so much money going to prosecute and incarcerate marijuana users, the time to end pot prohibition is now. “There were plenty of boos,” Johnson says, but nonetheless, he sparked a discussion. And that dialogue will continue no matter what happens in California on Nov. 2. Richard Lee, the wheelchair-bound force behind Prop 19, vows that if marijuana legalization fails this time, “we’ll work towards a 2012 initiative.” And his conservative parents will be right by his side, continuing to make the case for legalization. “Abraham Lincoln said prohibition ‘attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes,’?” Richard’s mom says, citing a popular quote among pro-legalization types. Not surprisingly, some in the anti-pot camp reasonably question whether the father of the Republican Party ever said those words. But whatever his stance, Lincoln would be pleased to see America having such a civil discussion over the rights of a free people.

    **************************

    All I can say its about time the party of freedom got on the right side of this issue! Prohibition doesn't work and this is one of the better influences the Tea Party is going to have on politics. The Libertarian wing of the Republican party needs to own this issue. This isn't much of a start but at least there is some positive momentum finally.

  2. #2
    Two impressions: 1) yes, Lewk and I strongly agree on this (we always have).
    2) Isn't this typical? Ann Lee can be characterized as a selfish dumbshit who only converts to a cause when her nose is rubbed in it because somebody dear to her faced the issue. Like so many conservative who hate on gays until one of the children ends up gay (coughdickcheneycough). Let's be thankful that at least some people in our society can use empathy to imagine how difficult somebody else's situation might be, and imagine how that situation could be ameliorated. It's called walking in somebody else's shoes. Somebody famous did that. Who was it?

  3. #3
    Mohammed?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  4. #4
    No, no. Jim Morrison?

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    All I can say its about time the party of freedom got on the right side of this issue!
    The party of freedom? Give me a break. The Right side of the GOP wants to ban same sex marriage, repeal Roe v Wade, privatize SS, dismantle the Dept. of Education and EPA, repeal the 14th Amendment, scrap minimum wage, and remove social safety nets. They don't want to regulate industries like Insurance, Banking, Wall St., Pharmaceuticals, Oil or Mining. Because regulation is a bad word. But those same people want to legalize pot in order to regulate and tax it, "balance the budget a bit", and get profits back from Mexico. It's got nothing to do with freeeeedom.

    Maybe that way, when millions find their pension or 401-K is gone, they can't afford to retire or can't find a job, and health care, medications, and housing are too expensive......a dime bag, a can of beans and a bag of pork rinds will be their best recourse. They'll still be in a bad situation, but stoned just enough not to notice. Cheaper all the way around! Or

    Ann Coulter says pot is a “gateway to being a complete loser,” and “the only possible argument for conservatives is that maybe more liberals will get stoned and forget to vote.”


    Prohibition doesn't work and this is one of the better influences the Tea Party is going to have on politics. The Libertarian wing of the Republican party needs to own this issue. This isn't much of a start but at least there is some positive momentum finally.
    The Tea Party people that'll be elected aren't the libertarian wing of the GOP. They're far right hypocritical extremists who got co-opted by the GOP for their own agenda, and their cronies who want power.

    In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, only 25 percent of Republicans nationwide favor legalization of pot in their state, compared with 55 percent of Democrats.

    Maybe that will change once millions of Republican baby boomers turn 65. Bootstraps and weed are all they'll need.

  6. #6
    The party of freedom? Give me a break.
    Yes. Economic freedom is one of the greatest freedoms we have.

    The Right side of the GOP wants to ban same sex marriage,
    Thats -1 for GOP.

    repeal Roe v Wade
    Do you want the freedom to kill newborns? In addition Roe v Wade is a bad court decision even if you support allowing mothers to terminate their children.

    privatize SS
    You mean give people the option? Thats choice, that's freedom. +1

    dismantle the Dept. of Education and EPA
    Dept. of Education is a federal program mandating what locally elected school boards can do. Again +1 for freedom. EPA again is additional regulation, rules and restrictions. Getting rid of that. +1

    repeal the 14th Amendment
    Source? I want to see where this is part of the GOP platform.

    scrap minimum wage
    Do you not understand what freedom is? The government is saying that two private citizens can not come to a mutually agreed upon wage without government interference. +1 again for GOP supporting freedom.

    remove social safety nets
    Social safety nets created by the government is FORCED wealth transfer. Again the government would not be saying no social safety nets, if each individual citizens want them they can donate to charity. +1 for GOP and freedom again.

    By my count that is a lot more for freedom then against freedom. Sure not every issue they are pro freedom (which is disappointing) but for the majority of issues the Republican party stands for freedom and individualism.

    The Tea Party people that'll be elected aren't the libertarian wing of the GOP. They're far right hypocritical extremists who got co-opted by the GOP for their own agenda, and their cronies who want power.
    Rand Paul is pretty libertarian. Christine is more evangelical but she's not getting elected.

  7. #7
    I don't think you understand that freedom is not always a good thing. We have certain laws so that people don't have the freedom to murder, rape, or steal. We also have other laws so that people don't have the freedom to dump potentially toxic chemicals into our air, water, and earth, or just leave it lying around (EPA), or so that certain people don't have the freedom to teach children potentially life damaging or socially harmful ideas as facts (Department of Education) like white people are superior to black people, the Sun revolves around the Earth, or that Gil Gerard used a time machine and went back and ejaculated into the primordial ooze as an explanation for the existence of humans and all Earth's creatures. Then there are also laws so that businesses don't have the freedom to employ workers for less than it costs those same workers to stay alive.

    I'm also getting pretty damned tired of you conflating abortion with the murder of newborns and children. The very definition of those two terms excludes what is actually being terminated in legally allowed abortions. Your continued ignorance and repetition of it is staggering seeing as we've had these very debates with you before.
    . . .

  8. #8
    Lewk, where are your quote tags?

    You don't seem to have read much about how certain Tea Party factions want to "influence" the GOP. They claim to love the Constitution, until they don't. Look it up, or read some news if Fox hasn't covered it fully. Rand Paul and Sharron Angle are on record for repealing Amendments, too. Just one link from Google:

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told “The Hill” on Monday that Congress “ought to take a look at” changing the 14th Amendment, which gives the children of illegal immigrants a right to U.S. citizenship.

    There is growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

    Senator McConnell said: “I think we ought to take a look at it — hold hearings, listen to the experts on it,” McConnell said. “I haven’t made a final decision about it, but that’s something that we clearly need to look at. Regardless of how you feel about the various aspects of immigration reform, I don’t think anybody thinks that’s something they’re comfortable with.”

    Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) has said: “There is a constitutional provision in the 14th Amendment that has been interpreted to provide that, if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what. … And so the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?” Kyl went on to say: “We should hold some hearings and hear first from the constitutional experts to at least tell us what the state of the law on that proposition is.” Kyl’s Remarks were made on CBS’s “Face the Nation” last Sunday.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has said: “birthright citizenship is a mistake.” We should change our Constitution and say if you come illegally and you have a child, that child is automatically not a citizen.” Read the entire article here: ("THE HILL")

    If you are a regular reader of our rants, then you know we have been calling for an end to the practice of “Anchor Babies” for a good long while now.....
    continued @ http://teapartyamerica.blogspot.com/...re-anchor.html

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    No, no. Jim Morrison?
    I used to love Jim Morrison. I wouldn't have blown myself up for him though.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    I don't think you understand that freedom is not always a good thing. We have certain laws so that people don't have the freedom to murder, rape, or steal. We also have other laws so that people don't have the freedom to dump potentially toxic chemicals into our air, water, and earth, or just leave it lying around (EPA), or so that certain people don't have the freedom to teach children potentially life damaging or socially harmful ideas as facts (Department of Education) like white people are superior to black people, the Sun revolves around the Earth, or that Gil Gerard used a time machine and went back and ejaculated into the primordial ooze as an explanation for the existence of humans and all Earth's creatures. Then there are also laws so that businesses don't have the freedom to employ workers for less than it costs those same workers to stay alive.

    I'm also getting pretty damned tired of you conflating abortion with the murder of newborns and children. The very definition of those two terms excludes what is actually being terminated in legally allowed abortions. Your continued ignorance and repetition of it is staggering seeing as we've had these very debates with you before.
    Gil Gerard! You remember Gil Gerard!?! Went back in time and.... that is funny.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  11. #11
    Meant to add this to Lewk: next time you mess up your quotes and leave out a name, don't also leave out big chunks of the post. You ignored this part--

    "They don't want to regulate industries like Insurance, Banking, Wall St., Pharmaceuticals, Oil or Mining. Because regulation is a bad word. But those same people want to legalize pot in order to regulate and tax it, "balance the budget a bit", and get profits back from Mexico. It's got nothing to do with freeeeedom.

    Maybe that way, when millions find their pension or 401-K is gone, they can't afford to retire or can't find a job, and health care, medications, and housing are too expensive......a dime bag, a can of beans and a bag of pork rinds will be their best recourse. They'll still be in a bad situation, but stoned just enough not to notice. Cheaper all the way around!"


    Economic freedom, you say? Free Market Capitalists understand that only works with some Regulations and federal oversight. You know darn well the minimum wage exists to protect vulnerable workers' economic freedom, so they aren't exploited for $2/day. Which you also know would happen if some greedy employers could get away with it legally.

    You also know the DoE exists to set shared standards between states, so students can transfer between states K-12 and not have to repeat grades or start over. Also so they can graduate and transfer their knowledge between states cohesively, for college or jobs; that's an economic freedom. You can call it spreading wealth around or forced wealth transfer (code for sssocialism?), but that's a distraction from what it really is --- sharing prosperity and investing in the future of our country.

    Social safety nets exist because we're a civilized first world nation. We don't tell the disabled, veterans, elderly or ill to just panhandle on the streets, or beg at churches. We don't expect kids born into poverty to work for $2/day in a sweatshop instead of going to school. Was that concern you had for babies and children only to mischaracterize abortion?

    It wouldn't work so well for your economic freedom model, even from a merchant's or homeowner's perspective, without some safety nets for others. What you describe is a class of people working 60 hrs/week but still well below poverty level. Kids that can't go to school and still go hungry. Elderly that literally have to work until the day they drop dead. Sounds like Oliver Twist or something.

    Before you know it, desperate people might resort to stealing toothpaste and get shot in the back. Oh, wait......

  12. #12
    Do you want the freedom to kill newborns? In addition Roe v Wade is a bad court decision even if you support allowing mothers to terminate their children.
    Say Lewk, what do YOU know about Roe v. Wade?

  13. #13
    Even i know that was a silly thing to post, norton. Might as well go slam your cock in a door for the next 2 hours because this previously interesting thread is now going to become an old-school shitfest.
    "Son," he said without preamble, "never trust a man who doesn't drink, because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.

  14. #14
    Did Lewk just try to give the Tea Party credit for the pot initiative?

  15. #15
    You know darn well the minimum wage exists to protect vulnerable workers' economic freedom, so they aren't exploited for $2/day. Which you also know would happen if some greedy employers could get away with it legally.
    Good luck finding workers at that wage. Just guess, GUESS what percentage of jobs are paying minimum wage. That means that every single other job that pays one cent over minimum wage is providing a wage better then what the government makes them do. Why do you think that is?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Good luck finding workers at that wage. Just guess, GUESS what percentage of jobs are paying minimum wage. That means that every single other job that pays one cent over minimum wage is providing a wage better then what the government makes them do. Why do you think that is?
    And why do you suppose employers have such a hard time finding people willing to work on slave wages? It wouldn't have anything to do with the union movements, crushing the dominance of fascist hate-mongers such as Henry Ford and granting basic rights to workers, now would it? No, every CEO, the wisest and best of creatures on this here Earth, took their Bibles, read them and saw that they had to be just and gracious towards their workers. Isn't that what happened, Lewk?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Good luck finding workers at that wage. Just guess, GUESS what percentage of jobs are paying minimum wage. That means that every single other job that pays one cent over minimum wage is providing a wage better then what the government makes them do. Why do you think that is?
    Not that the percentage of workers has anything to do with the conversation, but in 2008 it was 3% of hourly paid workers who made at or below minimum wage, unsuprisingly it was the young who were exploited the most.
    Arguably thats over 2 million people who only make as much as they do because the government has to step in and protect them.

    EDIT:
    It increased to 4.9% for the same population in 2009, 3.6 million workers who barely make a living wage.

  18. #18
    Arguably thats over 2 million people who only make as much as they do because the government has to step in and protect them.
    Protect them from a job? You do realize that some people are simply not employed because its not cost effective with a higher minimum wage right? And of course if certain segments of business who have to have unskilled labor will then have to charge more for their prices to everyone to make up for the higher labor cost. Which of course means its more expensive to do certain things.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Protect them from a job?
    Keeping it simple, yes. I know thats hard for you to understand when you can't get past the mindset of "have job, be happy." The government protects workers in several ways, a living wage being only one of them. OSHA is a bitch to deal with, but its another example. Sure company X could hire more welders by using outdated fire suppression and PPE systems, doesn't mean that they should be allowed the freedom to do so.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 10-31-2010 at 07:19 PM.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Keeping it simple, yes. I know thats hard for you to understand when you can't get past the mindset of "have job, be happy." The government protects workers in several ways, a living wage being only one of them. OSHA is a bitch to deal with, but its another example. Sure company X could hire more welders by using outdated fire suppression and PPE systems, doesn't mean that they should be allowed the freedom to do so.
    Don't you mean the government is protecting those workers who'll manage to keep their job? Or do you reject the idea that artificially raising wages leads to unemployment?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  21. #21
    They claim to love the Constitution, until they don't. Look it up, or read some news if Fox hasn't covered it fully. Rand Paul and Sharron Angle are on record for repealing Amendments, too.
    Attempting to appeal an amendment through the process outlined in the constitution IS loving the constitution. Legislating from the bench and reading more/less into an amendment on the other hand is using the constitution as your toilet paper.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Don't you mean the government is protecting those workers who'll manage to keep their job? Or do you reject the idea that artificially raising wages leads to unemployment?
    I reject the idea that unemployment is solely and exclusively influenced by a mandated living wage. I know the ILO has stated before they couldn't be linked, and everyone was watching when the UK introduced a minimum wage in 1999, and they saw no discernible impact on employment

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    I reject the idea that unemployment is solely and exclusively influenced by a mandated living wage. I know the ILO has stated before they couldn't be linked, and everyone was watching when the UK introduced a minimum wage in 1999, and they saw no discernible impact on employment
    That's not the question I asked. Do you think artificially increasing the minimum wage would increase unemployment for people who used to receive below the new minimum wage?

    Good to know that your main source on this is the ILO and that you think one can figure out the effect of an economic policy by simply looking at the national unemployment rate after it's passed.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Good luck finding workers at that wage. Just guess, GUESS what percentage of jobs are paying minimum wage. That means that every single other job that pays one cent over minimum wage is providing a wage better then what the government makes them do. Why do you think that is?
    You are an ignoramus and you are now ignored.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  25. #25
    Alright, we'll do this another way (since my other post apparently is going to be ignored)...

    Lewk, do you think I should have the freedom to buy property next to your house and construct on it a large array of sound producing equipment aimed directly at your house, set to play loud enough that it drowns out a vacuum cleaner, and run it 24/7?

    Do note though if you cite laws saying I wouldn't be allowed to do this, and that is that, then you're essentially agreeing with laws that tell me I can't. Just stating this so there isn't a weasel way out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    It wouldn't have anything to do with the union movements, crushing the dominance of fascist hate-mongers such as Henry Ford and granting basic rights to workers, now would it?
    Interesting fact, Henry Ford actually paid his workers quite well at $5 per day...
    . . .

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Attempting to appeal an amendment through the process outlined in the constitution IS loving the constitution. Legislating from the bench and reading more/less into an amendment on the other hand is using the constitution as your toilet paper.
    You asked for the source of GOP wanting to repeal the 14th Amendment. I provided one of many available. You ignored it, along with everything else about economic freeeedom that isn't so black and white. Then you pick one sentence from others' posts, don't use the damn quote button, and give your standard pat answer that teh gummint is bad. Oh, except if it's the extreme right wing within the GOP, then gummint is good.

    As OG said, you're trying to give credit to the Tea Party for the pot initiative, which is ridiculous cherry-picking. Looks like this is just a GOP rally after all.

  27. #27
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    As OG said, you're trying to give credit to the Tea Party for the pot initiative, which is ridiculous cherry-picking. Looks like this is just a GOP rally after all.
    Only a pot head would read that and think Lewk was giving credit to the Tea Party for the pot initiative...now that is cherry picking.

    He is suggesting that the Tea Party is part of the shift in stance on the Right for this issue. And that is possibly true...part of the Tea Party is made up of Libertarians and Libertarians are generally for legalization. In this one small way, their voice is being heard.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  28. #28
    It's true. One good consequence of the Tea Baggers is that they may drag the GOP into the 20th century on social stuff. Too bad we're now in the 21st century, but hey! It's a positive trend!

  29. #29
    Dept. of Education is a federal program mandating what locally elected school boards can do. Again +1 for freedom. EPA again is additional regulation, rules and restrictions. Getting rid of that. +1
    Just because there are regulations doesn't mean it's bad. Roe v. Wade gave more options, but they weren't good ones. I think before you're against something you should see what their mandates are, because we do need to have standards in education, and priority for spending the people's tax money when it comes to schools. There is need for flexibility for each states and districts situation, but there is also certain things that need to be met if we our to have a successful system.

  30. #30
    As OG said, you're trying to give credit to the Tea Party for the pot initiative, which is ridiculous cherry-picking. Looks like this is just a GOP rally after all.
    I'm not crediting the Tea party with the pot initiative but the basic facts are this: Liberals are more likely to support drug legalization and for a long time conservatives have been against drug legalization. The Tea party is moving the Republicans toward a more freedom oriented party and that includes legalizing things like pot. THAT is the positive trend.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •