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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
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.
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."
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
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
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?
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 ?
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.
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
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.
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.