monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Baldimo,

I wouldnt have said it so sloppily.
The "wall" will, Im sure, have a huge King Kong gate on it.
Arent you the least embarrassed at the entire concept? Weve just thrown up our collective hands and have authorized the Great Wall of China.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
the majority are not for the hard drugs that get consumed.

Some people do screw up their lives on drugs. That's a fact that cannot be remedied with laws. Education and help for them would be a far better use of the ~$40 Billion a year we spend on drug enforcement and imprisonment.

Portugal decriminalized ALL drugs a decade ago and has seen no runaway drug problem and does see many benefits (lower HIV rates, fewer people in jail, etc).

And from a human rights perspective, I don't give a damn what 'the majority' thinks about what an individual adult chooses to consume. This is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic where individual rights are protected from mob rule, even if the mob is a majority.

I've never done a drug in my life outside of alcohol but even I can agree with you on this one.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Some people do screw up their lives on drugs. That's a fact that cannot be remedied with laws. Education and help for them would be a far better use of the ~$40 Billion a year we spend on drug enforcement and imprisonment.

I will partially agree on this one. There does come a time and place where regardless of what drugs they were on, they have to take responsibility for their actions. If they are only caught with drugs that's one thing, if they were caught with drugs while robbing someone's house so they could buy more drugs, then that is another.

Quote:

Portugal decriminalized ALL drugs a decade ago and has seen no runaway drug problem and does see many benefits (lower HIV rates, fewer people in jail, etc).

For drug related crimes. I haven't seen anything about overall crime rate though.

Quote:

And from a human rights perspective, I don't give a damn what 'the majority' thinks about what an individual adult chooses to consume. This is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic where individual rights are protected from mob rule, even if the mob is a majority.

I would agree if we just left them to their own devices, but that isn't the case. If someone wants to sit around and do heroin, then fine, just don't reach into my pocket and expect me to pay for the needles, food and rent while that person wastes their life. I won't contribute to needless waste of taxpayer money.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

I won't contribute to needless waste of taxpayer money.

other Americans feel the same way about the American military and the wall

none of you get everything you want just because you want it

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Death from opiates are on the rise.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

O what's his name made that happen.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

The US must abolish it's prohibition on Cannabis BEFORE Marijuana can truly become legal.

1 Reply

Interesting article in Esquire back in May/June re the border wall:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a44782/donald-trump-the-wall/

I learned a lot about what US people who live by the border are thinking about it. Good photos in the article too.

The author is John H. Richardson.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

The difference being, I can point to the Constitution for my support. Can you point to the Constitution and where it says I have to pay for someone's illegal drugs?

2 Replies

@Frugal1,

Quote:

@Baldimo,

The US must abolish it's prohibition on Cannabis BEFORE Marijuana can truly become legal.

It's going to have to happen from the state level. Once enough states pass it, the federal govt will have no choice. Many pot shops here in CO are getting around the banking laws by doing business with Credit Unions, the shop down the street from my house takes credit cards.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

The ability to grow your own legally should be the goal.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

The difference being, I can point to the Constitution for my support. Can you point to the Constitution and where it says I have to pay for someone's illegal drugs?

Freedom and pursuit of happiness?

I know it's a reach, but actually not much more of one than the wall....

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

The Constitution supports illegal invasions of other countries?

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

The Constitution supports illegal invasions of other countries?

Do you want to discuss actions taken by the Military and it's leaders or the how things are funded by the Constitution? All you have done is dodge the issue at hand. Where in the Constitution does it say that I have to pay for someone else's drug habit?

Are you suggesting we not fund the Military or not fund illegal wars? I would agree with you on that one, but you seem to quiet on the fact that Obama left office bombing more countries than Bush did, from 2 to 7. Silence when a Dem is dropping bombs but outrage when a Dem is doing it?

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

Freedom and pursuit of happiness?

I know it's a reach, but actually not much more of one than the wall....

It's a reach? That is an understatement, based on that someone should be able to kill someone if it makes them happy...

How is a wall not covered in the Constitution? Defense of the nation and the ability to control immigration are all listed as responsibilities of the govt in the Constitution.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

The Constitution supports illegal invasions of other countries?

What is an "Illegal invasion" What Law governs such actions?

We did invade Canada in 1812, soon after enacting the constitution. The results weren't very good, but we were just getting started.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

To be honest, of all the military actions taken over the last 60 or 70 years, the only real declaration of war and action was WWII. Nothing since that time has had honest Congressional War backing. Sure Congress voted to give Bush some powers to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, but they were not honest war declarations.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Don't make us teach you the lesson a second time.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

You are a relentless nag, and consumed with picking apart everything others say. It wasn't enough for you that I admitted I forgot the low key visit by Bush, you have to label it "SO, YOU WERE WRONG WERENT YOU". Congrats, you must be a ball to live with. How tiresome, and tedious you are. But kudos for keeping me honest because you know how desperately I strive to deceive you.

And of course you insinuated I'm a hypocrite, you always call everyone a fabricator or insinuate they are dishonest....That's your game, skippy, nothing new to see here. I don't really get angry with you, your more like that annoying little brother who is keen to prove how smart he is by pointing out how careless and lazy his older siblings are.....you are just annoying, like mosquitoes in August in New Orleans. Sheesh

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

I'd posted a WP story on state department leadership resigning. That piece got a bunch of stuff wrong. Here's a Vox post that give a better set of facts
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/27/14405542/washington-post-state-department-resignations

Well kudos for posting the followup. It goes most opf the way in correcting the rather astounding headlines in the WP article coupled as they were with mist reported "facts" and exaggerations that even with them still failed badly to substantiate the headlines. The headline was transparently false, - an exapmple of fake news - even based on the scanty and innacurate ingormation provided, and I responded to that element ditrectly.

The salient facts here (and in other reports) are that Kennedy and others of his rank submitted resignations as is customary in such changes in Administration as a way of smoothing such departures for both parties involved. I recall the WP and other articles reported that at one point observers believed that Kennedy had separately expressed a desire or perhaps expectation of staying on, though I don't know that for sure.

In any event departures of such political appointees are the norm not the exception in such Transitions. In the Case of Mr Kennedy, who was responsible for Department Adminisrttration and facilities in this and other countries the fiasco over security ar our consulate in Bengazi (and other merely luckier stations as well); the long term track record of slow walking FOIA requests; the likelihood of either collusion or mere incompetence regarding the former Secretary's private e mail server - all combined to create a compelling case for any responsible sucessor to get rid of him on day one.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know