The Politics Thread

[alphanguy74]

Max, Medical marijana is not used to heal any disease, it's used to calm symptoms, primarily nausea. There are medications for nausea, and I can tell you, they don't work for most people. and the side effects can be far worse that anything pot can deliver (nightmares/hallucinations). Cigarettes really have no medical purpose, but banning them? i'd like to...or at the very least put a tax on them of 1$ a pack to make up for the rise in health care costs they cause. But that's being a "nanny state", and I thought conservatives are against that?

[DRW50]

Another example of the nature of "family" groups.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/walsh_gets_pro-family_award_despite_child_support.php?ref=fpb

Meanwhile, Michigan is on the way to passing a law that says it's fine to bully someone as long as you have moral reasons for doing so. Isn't that nice.

http://michiganmessenger.com/53702/senate-passes-license-to-bully-legislation

[Roman]

THANK YOU! I can see everyone else in this forum acting like an adult, but you. NOBODY HERE should have to explain something to you all the time. Then, hell, you flip-flop more than a dying fish in a boat with how you post your comments. I've seen others here make a real effort to change the garbage we all were a part of 3 years ago...except you. You can have whatever views yuou have (too bad i never figured out what they were), and the rest of us will talk grown up talk.

Have a blessed day, Max.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/bofa-foreclosure-missing-1-already-sold-home_n_1074538.html

Wasn't this the same WS that Cain told us not to blame for our ills? Sorry, I guess he has other things on his mind right now. LOL!

[Roman]

I'll say this, Alpha. I think moderate conservatives are against that. But, that party has been hijacked by the ultra-right. The Limbaugh-Coulter-O'Reilly-Fox News wing of the party. I would love to see moderate Republicans take back hold of the party, so we can truly have some bi-partisan legislation being past. You see how it's already started...Boehner made some comment about Norquist. They are doing the same thin they have done in the past...backing away from all their previous stances. If we can get some common sense Republicans in there, who really do want to work with this POTUS on behalf on the people, every one wins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/larry-taylor-jew-them-down-insurance-company_n_1076482.html

[Roman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/steve-israel-impeach-brewer-arizona-redistricting_n_1076157.html?ref=politics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/solyndra-subpoena-obama-administration_n_1076871.html?ref=politics

He should have accepted the subpoena. If he talks transparency, then step up to the plate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/republicans-defense-cuts-job-creation-spending_n_1076010.html?ref=politics

[GoldenDogs]

Total agreement...

Getting back to the hippies... LOL... A coworker today mentioned that he had seen the individuals picketing here downtown and among those out there was a guy he knew who worked at the local cable company. He tried to figure out why that guy was out there when he's gainfully employed and making GOOD money... We saw this morning two sets of protestors... there were four on one corner and another unrelated group of protestors picketing with very nice signs in front of a law firm's office. I have no idea what their deal was since their very nice signs had very small print and it was very hard to read from a very far distance... :-)

Very sincerely,

Brian

[Max]

I may not politically agree with the hippies who are out of work, but I can certainly empathize with them, since I am unemployed myself. (The company I previously worked for was acquired, and all former employees in an overhead capacity were terminated.) In the Obama economy, the prospect of finding another job seems absolutely hopeless.

Based on anecdotal evidence, companies get hundreds of resumes for most accounting positions that come up. I'd like to be able to go get a CPA (to give me a competitive edge), but the elisists who run the state board of accountancy have decided that one must earn 30 graduate credits in order to be certified (as if passing the hellish CPA exam wasn't enough). Unfortunately, I don't have anywhere near the money to pay for an extra year of school (nor can I afford to take out a loan).

According to Obama and his supporters, the solution for the jobs crisis is more government stimulus. Of course, most of the jobs created from a stimulus would be hard labor in nature (such as building bridges and digging ditches). So, how the f*ck would this help the millions of white-collar professionals who are out of work? Obviously, things have changed drastically since the 1930's when most Americans never went to college (yet Democrats still believe the same solutions that worked then will work today).

Not surprisingly, Democrats say any opposition the evil Congressional Republicans have to Obama's jobs bill must be purely partisan in nature.

Thanks for the explanation about medical marijuana, Alphanguy. Although this seems to be very upsetting to Roman, I'm not a "consistent conservative," so I have no problem when the government steps in to protect people from harm (whether it means banning a harmful substance or requiring people to wear seat belts). Hell, even so called "red-meat conservatives" have no problems with government intervention when it comes to banning abortions.

If we don't ban cigarettes, I'd have no problem with putting a huge tax on them as well. We should also raise the taxes on alcohol.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Max

[GoldenDogs]

Thanks Alpha... makes sense now to me. I can see where one drug company decides to go for it, then another, then another... soon the market would be diluted. But the first company to dive in WOULD make some big bucks, at least in the short term.

My think about legalizing marijuana is more about that magic invisible line... if that, then what next? Why not cocaine? Some clever person somewhere could likely rationalize why they need it...

[GoldenDogs]

With overcrowding the way it is in most prisons, I agree 100% with you, Alpha... Especially given the "three strikes" law we have here in California. So, technically, you could have some guy busted for smoking a joint go up the river forever while some perverted molester gets the minimum and gets out in short order to do it again... Another well-intended law gone awry...

[GoldenDogs]

If we ban cigs then we've got to ban alcohol, too... That's where we get into a gray area with these things. For the record, I'm not in favor of banning cigarettes because if people want to ingest smoke to their own detrement, let 'em. We've educated the world to death on the dangers of substance abuse... if people refuse to listen, who is society to force them against their will?

If we ban cigs... and alcohol... then we must ban fast food. It's bad for you! Take it all away... fruit cup all around, no fries!

Just gets into an area that concerns me... But I can see where someone might nail me, as a person who leans right, the inconsistency in my "nanny state" viewpoint, Alpha... for example, why am I so opposed to banning things yet willing to refuse all abortions on demand. Yeah, I can see both sides of that one... Which, I guess, is why these arguments aren't all so black and white...

[Max]

Although probably less than one percent of Americans would agree with me on this, I think we should ban alcohol as well. I know that Prohibition had many bad consequences, but alcohol consumption still went down during this period (a fact that is seldom known); if a shady underground market arises as a result of banning a substance, it's a necessary evil that I think is worth it. (I concede that rehabilition efforts--as opposed to punishment--would likely be more effective for those who break the law when it comes to using illegal substances.)

While I apologize for again being inconsistent, fast food--or any other type of food--should not be banned because of an important distinction: one can go cold turkey on alcohol, nicotene, or drugs (aside from essential medications) and still live, but one has to eat. Responsible eaters shouldn't be penalized by the government if they care to eat junkfood once in a while.

[GoldenDogs]

Ahhhhh... but why must one eat a greasy burger when there is fresh fruit and vegetables at the ready? Why, Max, "responsible eaters" are a myth - people need some guidance to ensure healthy eating. I can tell you from experience how difficult it is to avoid lapsing into unhealthy eating habits, what with ice cream and cookies and chocolate of any sort! If the stuff was banned, it would be a lot easier to stay on a healthy diet, right?

Of course, I'm being facetious here. I truly believe it is up to an individual whether or not they wish to engage in some unhealthy vice, as long as harm isn't brought to another individual as a result of their actions. Of course, this brings to the surface some complicated issues... We prosecute those who drink and drive and hurt or kill others as a result... What about a smoker whose second-hand smoke results in asthma or worse in another person? Or the parent who cooks lots of sweets for a kid who ends up obese or suffers from diabetes in later life as a result?

My head hurts now.

[alphanguy74]

Max and Brian... that's why I support banning smoking in all public areas at the very least. With liquor, at least THAT won't travel hrough the air and enter my body... while smoke will. Even now, I still get a whiff when some moron is smoking a cigarette at the stoplight in front of me, it drives me nuts. So I say keep em legal, and tax the hell out of them. Even tax soda pop and junk food (like 5 cents) and let that pay for healthcare. My point about prisons is that I feel prisons should ONLY be for people who are a physical danger to society. White collar criminals, potheads, shoplifters... they should not EVER go to prison. all it does is make us taxpayers pay through the nose to clothe and feed them. Like Martha Stewart, for instance.. she should ahve never went to jail, there should have been a legal machanism to sentence her to a forfeiture of like 80% of her total assets... and that would have been her sentence. so instead of costing the taxpayers money to keep her in jail, the money from her sentence would PAY to house the violent criminals.

[alphanguy74]

It's not quite like that, Brian... you see, one company would have to foot the bill for R&D, get FDA approval, and spend those millions prepping the product for market, but they couldn't legally patent it, so therefore, one company would spend all the money getting it to market, and a bunch of other companies can just take it and sell it, too... since it's not patented. that's what's stopping it. If this had been done decades ago, however...Marijuana tablets would now be as common as Pamprin.

Edited November 5, 2011 by alphanguy74

[GoldenDogs]

But, Alpha, a drunk driver is mobile and can nail you when you least expect it. We have the ability to move away from second hand smoke, but an impaired driver (whether it be alcohol or another mind-altering substance) will come out of nowhere. I feel alcohol is as dangerous as cigarettes in that respect.

I just can't get on board with that. With so many businesses on the edge and people tightening their belts due to rising prices across the board, increasing costs still more in this environment is a poor choice, in my opinion. I don't buy soda and buy very little "junk food" - for both dietary reasons AND for cost. A freakin' 12-pack of soda is higher than a cat's back! Sure, others are still buying soda... but what is their personal price threshold? And if we tax everything to death, at what point do individual price thresholds take hold and purchases drop to a point where manufacturers just can't continue on? Jobs lost... unemployment rises... the economy takes an even bigger dump. Staples are a necessity - eggs, milk, etc. But when times are tough, the first thing most people do away with are the extras...

Agree with this 100%.