Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

What is wrong with you?

I have listened to people bitch about broken campaign promises my entire life. It has been going since this country was first founded, yet the sheeple still support the two ruling parties. If you vote for, or support either party, in any way, then you are part of the problem.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I think Commerce among the several States of the Union should be well regulated and taxed to defray that expense.

Originally Posted by Slon

An oral, recorded statement can be just as valid as a contract. You're confusing it with the statute of frauds, which requires some agreements to be in a certain format in order to avoid fraudulent claims that the agreement took place later on. However, it really doesn't apply here since Obama was serious when making the claims and since they were well-document (often with a video camera).I don't think that's what happened, though.He is the commander-in-chief of the military. While he does not control funding or declarations of war, he does control the military.But, if I remember correctly, his promises are within his legal power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the President (CinC of the military) can decide to withdraw the troops.
And people violate contracts. Doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce contracts.

Originally Posted by reality

o boy here we go. dan youve got a thread specifically dedicated to this

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I think Commerce among the several States of the Union should be well regulated and taxed to defray that expense.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

MY question is why is it still illegal now?

Originally Posted by danielpalos

That is why I have to question the ethics and morals of our elected representatives to office. We would not have the expense of a drug war, if our elected representatives to office were more moral.

Most of our elected representatives to office claim the morals and ethics of Christians, but without any moral test requirement. If, as is said by some, that affirmative action leads to sloth or corruption, then how can affirmative action for Morals be any better?

I believe that is one reason for our secular Constitution being the supreme law of the land, and not the Ten Commandments.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Ethics does not employ the concept of good versus evil in the same manner as religious morals.

It is more ethical to comply with our Ninth and Tenth Amendments along with the rest of our US Constitution, than it is to outlaw a defenseless plant and burden us with that tax expense.

It is already ethical and moral to regulate and tax Commerce.

Originally Posted by reality

You preach to the choir fella. However not everyone believes as we do that it would be better to legalize it. Lotsa people think its the devil in plant form ready to steal your soul away. Or that it makes you so lazy youll not hold down a job (which is untrue cause i need the job for things like living and eating. and buying pot. and getting laid. all very important things).
The problem is you can't convince them of it by using standard arguments.
Just like a Bible Thumper can't convince you of the existance of God by citing the Bible as a sourse. Its circular. Same basic principle.

Originally Posted by Slon

Where did I say I did?
I don't get it. I should stop complaining because the injustice has been happening for a while now? If only Hitler had kept his camps running a bit longer. Then, he'd have people like you telling everyone to just stop complaining.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

As a form of private property and Commerce, I only view recreational drugs for their perceived value and marginal utility.

As a moral argument, however, how can any Judeo-Christian believe that pot is bad, when their own God claimed it was Good.

Originally Posted by reality

Arguments can be made left and right. For instance the one i hear touted most often is "your body is a temple" etc. They consider drugs to defile said temple. But so do fatty foods.
Others claim getting intoxicated is spoken out against in the bible. Still others claim that its only use should be medicinal.
Point is it doesn't matter. Youve got to find a way, within their beliefs to change their mind. I usually go with hate the sin love the sinner, and let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Also "what you don't light incense in your temple?". And the general argument of "its none of your fucking business". i like that one alot. Doesn't get good results though.