Post by b***@aol.comOh, right. Drug addiction isn't dangerous. People never die from
drug abuse. People don't have car accidents after getting high. Never
happens. >>>
Lots more drunk people have accidents than sober people. Far more
serious accidents, too. But, what the fuck, who cares about a
ten-year-old girl being crippled for life, as long as you can get
hammered in the middle of the afternoon at your favorite titty bar?
Post by b***@aol.comPeople never rob innocent people to get a fix.
Post by b***@aol.comMostly because it is so expensive.>>>
Nope. You can get a hit of crack for five dollars anywhere in the
inner city. Sure, you can easily drop four hundred dollars on a ounce
of Laotian jungle weed, but if all you're interested in doing is
getting high, there are many, many cost effective alternatives.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comPost by Gary DeWaaySmaller government (you remember, the thingie you pretend to be in
favor of)?>>>>
I'm for smaller government, not anarchy. I feel that keeping drug
addicts off the street is a legitimate use of government power.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comPost by Gary DeWaayName one thing the "war on drugs" has accomplished, besides larger
government.>>>>>
The divorce rate is down.
Teen pregnancy is down.
Teen drug use is down.
Crime is way down.
Violent crime is way down.
Oh, wait, it's just a coincidence that all this happened after the war
on drugs isn't it?
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comPatriot Act = bigger government - see 1 and 2
Post by Gary DeWaayWhy not have it "locally" like you were just suggesting?>>>
Because international threats to American security demand a united
national response. Local traffic laws don't. But, of course, you knew
that.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comThe international security concerns can all be handled with the FAA
and the coast guard.>>>
Ah. You propose sending the Coast Guard to Iran to spy on the
terrorist training camps?
Do you think their little boats across the Pacific? Do they have enough
gas to get that far? Is it possible that their Coast Guard uniforms
will give them away? Why not send the meter maids while you're at
it?
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comHere in South Dakota, a county asked for money for a new SUV from
the federal homeland security. They received the vehicle with the
stipulation that it ONLY be used during terrorist attacks.>>>
So what's keeping South Dakota from collecting money, and buying their
own SUV?
<<<Nope... no reason to make the Patriot Act individual states
business.>>>
Pssst - the Patriot Act has been extremely effective. We haven't had
an attack on American soil since 911. Why do you want to see a law
which works appealed, other than you want dead American bodies to point
to while you scream "see, Bush fucked up."
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.com-flag burning amendment = bigger government - What "flag burning
amendment?"
Post by b***@aol.comThis one: http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0035800.cfm>>>
Ah. So, at the moment, there's no actual flag burning amendment on
the books? Just ome group with a letter head who claims that they
have some senator who's propose an amendment to change the
constitution? Yeah, I can see why you have your panties in a knot over
that.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comIt's a Republican proposal. How can you say it isn't part of the
Republican agenda?>>>
Senator Byrd was a member of the KKK. Does it follow that all
Democrats are now members of the KKK?
Post by b***@aol.comFor the record, I believe that people who burn the American flag
deserve the same respect and consideration that we give neo-Nazis who
march through Jewish neighborhoods, and KKK members that burn crosses
on Martin Luther King day.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comWell so do I. It doesn't mean we have to change our Constitution to deal
with a few idiots.>>>
Which is why most Republicans don't support a flag burning amendment.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comBesides that, our flag stands for freedom. Ironic that a Republican
wants to take freedom away in it's name.>>>
Tell you what, bucky. Burn a cross on Jessie Jackson's lawn, and
explain to the large, surly, heavily armed, needlessly violent fellows
up come tumbling out that this is a celebration of freedom. And do
keep me abreast of what happens next. I'd be curious to know.
Really.
Post by b***@aol.comConsidering that the National Socialist Party (AKA "Nazi")
killedroughly the same number of people a year as American doctors
performabortions, (two million people brutally murdered a year) you may
wishto hold onto the fascism card until it might actually help your
cause.
Help me figure out what you're saying, ok?
Your major premise is that anti-abortion legislation is a sign of big
government.
Your minor premise is that the Nazi's were pro-abortion.
This proves that the Nazi's favored big government. There's a
disconnect somewhere there.
What point might that be? The Nazi's favored legalized abortion. The
modern Democrat favor legalized abortions.
This reflects badly on the Republicans exactly how ... ?
Post by b***@aol.comDo you know what the net result of abortion has been? Fewer blacks,
a social security crisis, and, oh my, a vastly weaker Democratic Party
(see "fewer blacks.) To quote Nelson on "the Simpson's" "...haha."
And well paid for that strangeness, thank you. It doesn't alter the
central concept: Abortion, the cornerstone of the Democratic Party for
three decades, has destroyed the Democratic Party base. Wonder where
all the young Democrats are? You strangled them in their cribs.
Again, I say "haha."
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.com-censorship = bigger government - What censorship?
Post by Gary DeWaayDo you not pay attention to the words of the religious right?>>>
Yes. And your point it...?
Last I checked, Sponge Bob Squarepants was still on the air, the DVD of
his film was selling briskly, and the endorsements were still rolling
in.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comI see. So attempts at censorship is not agenda unless it is
successful?>>>
What attempts at censorship? Who has demanded that Spongebob be taken
off the market? One guy with a letterhead decided that Spongbob was
gay, and suddenly all Republicans agree?
Let me give you a couple of examples of real censorship.
The LA Times carried the comic strip "BC" for decades. A few years
ago, Johnny Hart drew a strip in which a menorah morphed into a cross.
A few cracks complained, and the LA Times dropped the strip.
Rush Limbaugh opined that McNabb was overrated because he was black.
(McNabb made it to the Superbowl, but as Rush predicted, choked).
Three presidential candidates demanded that Rush be fired for
expressing an opinion, and they got their way. Tell me, Mr. First
Amendment, where was your outrage when it happened to Rush? When it
happened to Doctor Laura?
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.com-death penalty = bigger government - how yah figger?
LOL! There is no bigger government than one that decides who should live
or die.>>>
Yup, capital punishment is the big gun all right. But what's the
alternative? Life without parole? Why is that any less an abuse of
government power than killing them?
Post by b***@aol.comBecause we are TAKING A LIFE. Why are you so worried about a fetus and so
uncaring about all actual born people?>>>
Hmmm, that's a tough one, all right. Why do I care more about a
preborn infant than I am some asshole who strangled an old woman to
steal her social security check. Why, why, why?
No, it's a fair question. If the government doesn't have the right to
take a life, then why does it have the right to take away freedom?
Either the government has a monopoly for legal violence, or they
don't.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.com-Homosexual Discrimination Amendment = bigger government - What
"homosexual discrimination Amendment? Please send me to the "HDA
link." Does this amendment take away homosexuals right to vote?
To
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comown property? To produce musicals or smoke on planes? Please
explain.
ÿ >>>To marry, duh. >>>
BTW, where's the link to the "Homosexual Discrimination
Amendment". I haven't been able to find it. Please send a link.
Post by b***@aol.comHomosexuals have exactly the same right to marry that anyone else has
a right that many have taken advantage of. Male homosexuals have
exactly the same right to marry any woman of legal age that any
Post by b***@aol.comheterosexual man has.
Post by b***@aol.comThat's like saying blacks in South Africa had the exact same right to vote
for white people during apartheid as white people did.>>>
No, they didn't have the right to vote at all. That was wrong. They
also didn't have the same right to run for office that white people
enjoyed.
Try to come up with an example that doesn't involve lying.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comPost by Gary DeWaayHas there been any other Amendment that has taken away rights to a
specific segment of society?>>>
What rights have been taken away from the homosexuals? Men don't
have the right to marry other men now - how can an amendment take away
a "right" that doesn't exist in the first place?
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comI think you just answered my question. Slaves didn't have any
rights either, so why did we bother changing anything?>>>
Because slavery was wrong - at least, the religious Right and the
Republicans thought slavery was wrong. The Democrats thought it was
just fine, thank you.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.com-anti-prostitution = bigger government - ? Prostitution is legal
inthe United States, although a few states (49) feel it's not a
greatidea.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comPost by Gary DeWaayAnd the Republicans are staunchly in agreement.>>>>
Nope. Republican tradtionally appeals to men, while single women
tend vote Democrat. Men tend to think legal prostitution is a swell
idea, while women hate, hate, HATE the idea.
I'll send you the info after you send me a link to the "Homosexual
Discrimination Amendment."
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comMove to a place that doesn't have taxes then.>>>>
As I invite you to move to a utopia where you can freebase with
impunity.
Post by b***@aol.comOh, you mean "murder". Gee, how can I be against both big
government, and "murder". Hmmm, tough call.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comThere is a difference between murder and suicide.>>>
Yes. Suicide is something people do to themselves. Murder is when
someone kills another person.
Post by b***@aol.comExactly the opposite. Lawyers have become unelected representatives.
You don't like guns? Hell, just keep suing until you put the gun
manufactures out of business. You don't like fast foods? Draw out the
lawyers. That way, private industry can be closed down all nice and
legal. As a victim of a nuisance lawsuit, yeah, I think Tort reform
is
Post by b***@aol.coma swell idea.
Post by b***@aol.comBigger government though. >>>
Help me understand how nuisance lawsuits help reduce government.
Let's say that an evil fundamentalist Christian decides to sue Tom
Kenney, (the voice of Spongebob Squarepants) because the cartoon turned
his son gay. Tom has to pay for a lawyer. The Christian crackpot
doesn't have to pay a thing - his lawyer is working on commission.
On the orders of a state government, Tom has to fly out to the hills of
Arkansas to explain to the locals that Spongebob isn't gay. If Tom
doesn't do that, the State judge will declare Tom a criminal, and send
state agents to annex his property. Tom has to sit in a state
building, next to armed guards, as waste days, weeks or months.
If the Christian has a sympathetic jury, the network agrees to settle
for an undisclosed sum, the executives at Nickelodeon agree to start
every cartoon with the warning "children, this cartoon does not
encourage homosexuality". If they win, then Tom Kenny is out hundreds
of thousands of dollars for legal fees.
Nothing bad can happen to the Christian crackpot. Nothing good can
happen to Tom Kenny.
Exactly how does this system reduce the size of government?
Why would it be a bad thing for the Christian crackpot to be forced to
write a big, fat check to Tom Kenny for wasting his time and money?
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.com-three strikes = bigger government>>>
Why?
Yeah, why?
Why does three strikes equal bigger government?
Yeah, why?
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comBecause it throws more people in jail,>>>
No, not "people", violent criminals. If you believe that it's a
good idea for violent criminals to walk the street, then, damn it, say
so. Don't hide behind wimp words like "people" and "folks".
3 strikes throws more violent criminals into jail. Because we've done
this, fewer real people (as opposed to violent criminals) wind up being
attacked. I lived at McArthur Park when the 3 strike laws were
enacted. The difference in that area was night and day. Before the
law, people were afraid to walk down the street in broad daylight. A
month later, the area became relatively safe. Certainly far safer than
it was before. Old ladies weren't mugged nearly as often for their
social security checks. Criminals were afraid to threaten children.
Why is this a bad thing? What is protecting the helpless from physical
attack a sign of big government?
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.com...and it handcuffs the people that actually are dealing with the
case.>>>
GOOD! That's why we are a people of laws, instead of a judiciary. I
don't want the judges to have a lot of leeway in deciding cases. When
judges have leeway, innocent people die.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comI thought you were in favor of SMALLER GOVERNMENT?>>>
Yes, I am. I want to government to focus on arresting criminals who
beat up old people, instead of funding sensitivity training.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comDo you think that after the third offense, the government should
simply let criminals run wild? Why is a three strike law any more
odious than any other law for the same crime? The only think different
about these laws is that they work.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comIs that why most judges are against them?>>>
The judges are against 3 strike laws, because it takes power away from
them, and gives it to the American people. Judges are ALWAYS in favor
of grabbing power. It's the nature of the beast.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.com-mandatory minimums = bigger government>>>
OK, so, instead of passing laws by debate by representives, or by
direct vote, it's far better to simply let judges pass any sentence
they feel like? Why is the "Judge Dredd" approach better?
Post by b***@aol.comI know how hard a binary thinking rightie brain has such a problem
understanding this, but there is no "one size fits all" solution to all
of societies problems.>>>
Really? Suppose that some red-neck, right-wing, cracker judge decides
to avoid the "one size fits all" First Amendment, and proclaims that
Spongebob Squarepants does, indeed, encourage homosexuality, and orders
Paramount Pictures to print 10 million copies of John Waynes "She
Wore A Yellow Ribbon", to be distributed free of charge in San
Fransico to undo the damage? Would that be ok with you?
Judges love to throw their weight around - that's why we need laws
to stop them.
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.com-anti immigration = bigger government>>>
Ah. So the government doesn't have the right to protect their
borders?
Post by b***@aol.comWhy not?
Post by b***@aol.comLarger government. Are you, or are you NOT in favor of smaller
government.>>>
You're under the impression that protecting American borders is a
luxury that only bloated governments would indulge? Wow, you ARE
delusional, aren't you?
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.com-mad mothers = bigger government>>>
You're against mad mothers?
What they are trying to accomplish is complete prohibition of
alcohal.>>>
A flat-out lie.
"MADD is not against alcohol advertising as a whole or responsible
drinking for adults over the legal drinking age of 21; our policies
specifically oppose advertising that appeals to or targets youth or
that encourages drinking and driving. "
MADDs FAQ
http://madd.com/aboutus/1,1056,2629,00.html
Post by b***@aol.comPost by b***@aol.comYou have just made it clear you are favor of larger government in
nearly 80% of all cases. Why do you lie about it?>>>
Because I'm not. You cherry picked examples where government
involvement makes sense. The government should protect its weakest
citizens - the unborn, victims of drunk drivers, victims of serial
crime criminals. The government should protect its citizens from
invasion, or attack from overseas. These are good, and fair, uses of
government force. I never said that I was against government at all
times.