OT Political Humor

Page 3 of 5  


I can overlook some of the problems in a platform if the overall message is more of a match with my personal point of view than another party's overall message. But, what stops the Libertarian Party from getting anywhere, in my opinion, is the lack of _local_ and _state_ elected offices being run for. If they're running, they're pretty quiet about it. They need to get those positions in place first, get their people some exposure to the public, build support that way. Going for the top, without a foundation to build on, will doom them to the 1 or 2% range forever.
Dave Hinz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

anywhere,
That's a good point...hadn't thought of that before. The drug thing is still a deal breaker though, kind of like the democrat litmus test on abortion for judges.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:30:55 GMT, "Dan White"

Just because Dave overlooks the fact that there are nearly SIX HUNDRED Libertarians serving us in local office doesn't mean you have to. http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php A truly -major- problem is that the Libertarians don't feed at the public trough, so they don't accept the millions of tax dollars (which ARE used by the greedy bastards in the other parties) to get elected. That limits their visibility. The second is that the two other parties don't want the Libertarians to become elected. Think how much money is at stake for them to lose if Libertarians take over and end their feeding frenzy! A perfect example is the media blackout regarding two Presidential candidates being ARRESTED for trying to join the last debate. I still haven't gotten over that one. My country is as full of propaganda and restrained freedoms now as the Communist countries my father warned me about while I was in school. And the Shrub wants more. That truly and deeply saddens me.

That's a false fear which you really should overcome, Dan. Some dialog on that: http://badnarik.org/plans_warondrugs.php I really like Michael Badnarik's take on most issues.
The time for change is NOW. Vote or forever hold your peace.
--
"Given the low level of competence among politicians,
every American should become a Libertarian."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:50:56 GMT, "Dan White"

That's too bad, because it's a monetary breaker for the country. Our laws are keeping the prices up, which keeps all the dealers in business. They'd go find some other illegal business if it weren't for our lameass attempts at interdiction. SWAG: 1/10 of the funds being spent on interdiction (or taxes on legal drugs) would safely pay for drug rehab for those who want/need it while taking the glamour out of the illegality of the drug trade. The end effect would be fewer, not more, drug addicted people. To prove the concept, look at alcohol. See how Prohibition actually caused a rise in its use.
Please rethink that stance, Dan. It's time for a BIG change.
--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
calmly ranted:> >I like much of the Libertarian party, but drug legalization is a deal

Well despite what some probably think I do believe in reevaluating things from time to time. It would take a lot for me on this one though. I completely understand the benefits of legalization but I believe the risk is way too high. These drugs are too deadly to be laying around like loaded guns for kids to take up, and at such cheap prices you know cocaine, etc. would be easy to find.
I haven't followed the model in Holland very closely but I recall they had some major problems with it.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net says...

One solution I've seen suggested is that addicts would have to register and could get only so much and only from a pharmacy. They would also have to attend rehab classes.
That might avoid a lot of the "cheap drugs laying around" but there will, as always, be those who figure out how to beat the system.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

etc.
Yes, I think it would be literally rampant. Look at the underage drinking epidemic. Now you've got kids on cocaine acting 10 times more zoned out than with alcohol, and probably causing serious brain damage in the process.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you'll find (or maybe better you won't that one of the problems with cocaine is that it doesn't "zone out" the user, there is strong rendency toward aggressive behaviour. Kids on coke are probably more likely to get into violent confrontations, high speed chases etc, than on alcohol. But let's not understimate the toxicity of alcohol. Alcohol does brain damage and acute alcohol poinsoning kills the vicitm just as dead as acute cocaine poisoning.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt notes:

I read somewhere, sometime, that each drink kills something like 10,000 brain cells. The brain is a marvelous mechanism, and the above may be en exxageration (or on the low side, I don't really know), but I have noted there seem to be more drinking relating deaths among youngsters lately. Swilling an entire fifth or quart of whiskey is a fast way to meet your local undertaker. I don't know if it is just more publicity, but when I was younger, I think I heard of exactly NO incidents of someone under 21 dying from alcohol poisoning (ingestion in one sitting at least).
Lots more sharp edges out there for today's kids, or so it seems.
Charlie Self "Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

drinking
process.
Well zoned out was the wrong image to give. I was just trying to be brief. We all know what alcohol can do, but I think comparing the potential risk of recreational alcohol use to recreational cocaine use is like comparing firecrackers to mortar rounds.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 02:49:41 GMT, "Dan White"

Just as children should be schooled in the proper use of a firearm if one is available in the home, they should be taught to stay out of harmful chemicals, whether they be under the kitchen sink or on Mom or Dad's dresser. That takes parental control, as it should.

That may continue to be a problem in ADDICT's homes, but legality of substances has nothing to do with it.
--
"Given the low level of competence among politicians,
every American should become a Libertarian."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It's perhaps a gentler rape of current taxpayers and a rather more stringent attack on future generations (note the plural).
Renata
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:25:40 -0700, Larry Jaques

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes, though there are sneakier ways to lie such as by taking documents that are known to be forgeries and submitting them to the IAEA as though they were genuine.
Don't be confused by the fact that Bush/Blair weren't respnsible for the forgery. If they didn't know the documents were forged they were being lied to by their subordinates.
Don't be confused by the fact that some are sticking to the story despite the fact that the documents were exposed as forgeries. They do NOT dispute that the documents were forged, rather they argue that they have other, independent sources to support the story. That's fine with me, but lets keep in mind that these are the same folks who foisted the forged documents on us in the first place. "I wouldn't lie to you AGAIN." isn't very reassurring.
Then there is misrepresentation of fact like the Medusa 81 missles and the 'fermenters' which look a lot more like chemical reactors for generating hydrogen.

Wrong. The best available inteligence was from HUMINT on the ground in Iraq:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4122113 /
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2004/inspectionsiraq20040202.html
Bush ignored the best intelligence available in order to proceed with the invasion he had planned all along.
It is one thing to argue that the pre-2003 intel showed cause for concern, though there remains the troublesome problem that the CIA had concluded that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent danger. But Bush stuck with the invasion plan after that intel was disproven.
The obvious conclusion is that his motivation was not the intel in question.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Flop
whether
Are you really arguing that Kerry hasn't changed his position on Iraq? Are you that gullible? How about the interview, when asked point blank, "Knowing what we now know about Iraq and it's lack of WMDs, knowing all of what we know now, do you still think it was the right thing to do in going into Iraq?" Kerry answered, "Yes." Now apparently you are not aware of this little exchange which has been downplayed ever since he said it about 3 months ago. If you can hear this sound clip will you finally drop this ridiculous position that Kerry isn't a lying opportunist? (Somehow I doubt it). Are you conveniently forgetting this one?
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:21:14 GMT, "Dan White"

Bush has changed his position on Eyeraq a hell of a lot more than Kerry has. And he's responsible for some 10,000 maimed, blinded, crippled, and dead Americans while doing so. So why this fetish of yours with Mr. Kerry ? Need to have someone else to divert attention from the real problem ?? Or is it that you haven't been satisified yet with the amount of blood shed on behalf of this administration's fantasies ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GregP wrote:

You Sir, are *grossly* misinformed.
If you talked to some Iraqis as I do, you'd learn that as of today:
1. more kids are going to school than ever before in Iraq's history 2. more homes have electricity than ever before in Iraq's history 3. more homes have running water than ever before in Iraq's history 4. more Iraqi's are now working than ever before in Iraq's history
Having a cousin (more like my brother; we grew up together) who's directing special ops, he says the crap you see on TV is *not* what's happening over there. He says you have 3 groups of nutjobs who are mostly from other countries that are using religion as an excuse to kill people (much like our own KKK did in the 20th century). He says all the Iraqis he met over there are grateful to America but they are impatient for their own government. He also says the Iraqi men want to preserve their freedom so badly, that they wait in lines at Police Stations and Military Stations so they can sign up to help. These are the folks you mostly hear about getting blown up at police stations by these nutjobs.
Freedom is in the air, and I can guarantee you that the Iraqi people will not be denied.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You, sir, are in fantasy land.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He's changed his positiotn about as much as Bush has.
Befor the invasion Bush was declaring that "The dictator of Iraq will be disarmed." Shotly after the invasion he declared that the dictator fo Iraq ahs been disarmed. Then somone finally got though to him that the dictrator of Iraq was unarmed so he's been puting the emphaisis on his other reasons since.

AFAIK he still insists he would have invaded Iraq. He does not contend that he would have invaded Iraq in April 2003. He contends that he would have invaded with more international support, and more and better equipped American troops and a plan for winning the peace.
Contrary to what you seem to think Kerry has not admitted that the invasion itself was a mistake, he argues that Bush botched the execution.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I snipped all the stuff about Bush lying and flip flopping as much as Kerry. You're just going to have to get over that Fred. Nobody's really buying it. Bush out polls Kerry by a mile when it comes to protecting the country.

"Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" - John Kerry, says all you need to know. Please don't bother spinning that statement into something it isn't.
thanks, dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because you cannot refute it.

Interesting that you would write that considering *I* didn't write anything about Bush or Kerry flip flopping.

So is that your new standard for determing truth? Polls?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.