So, we should ban everything that causes higher insurance rates?

Swimming pools? SUVs?

Do you even know how many people drown a year in pools?

How many people die a year from medical mistakes? Maybe we should ban doctors?

Heck, maybe we should ban alcohol, after all, it worked out so well the last time.

Do you learn nothing from history?

Kids have no entitlement to be cared for. Thus, they are about as close to being "victims" as I am because nobody came up to me and gave me $1,000,000 for no reason whatsoever.

People killed by DUI are killed by the driver, not by the drug. Drinking does not necessitate DUI and related deaths. You may as well say that eating is not a victimless crime because people who eat get the strength to drive and sometimes, while sober, run people over.

Healthcare should be totally privatized. The current drain is the fault of the politicians who take our money and waste it on deadbeats. Place the blame where it belongs, please.Drugs don't cause actions. People are the ones who choose to perform those actions. Place the responsibility where it belongs. If we go down your path, we'll be blaming mothers for giving births to people who sometimes turn into murderers.Of course there is. Especially when your position is one of contortions and arbitrary responsibility reassignments.Uh, why are you telling me that? You're the one who supports anti-drug policies that have led to the creation of meth you so enjoy whining about. Can't stand the responsibility, can ya? You can't stand the truth, either, apparently.I'm merely pointing out that an injustice has been committed, that's all. And what's to stop the next politician from lying to the masses, while the honest guy gets the boot? I say, treat it like a contract. If the politician breaks a serious promise intentionally, he should be removed from office via legal proceedings. Then, he should be fined with the amount difference. For instance, if Obama promised to remove the troops by mid 2010, and removes them by the end of 2011, he should be fined the difference between keeping the troops out of action in the US and keeping them in Iraq, mobilized for action, for 1.5 years. This would obviously go to his personal account.Once again, contracts need not be written to be valid. Oral contracts can be just as binding.No, I don't remember that being a clause of the contract. I do remember a certain number of months being given from a specific period in time.

It's the "there ought to be a law" crowd, to whom the answer to everything is passing another law, or maintaining the status quo.

Sure it has. Which is why i think the guys an ass and why i voted for Ron Paul. The problem with being able to get rid of your leader because he over stated a campaign promise (using your example his estimation was off by a year or so) is that then we'd have to elect a new one. or worse we'd be stuck with bidens half retarded ass

Well, we don't know if he actually WILL withdraw the troops. Hell, he might do it in 2010. It's just that early estimates from liars tend to predict things earlier than it will actually happen, if that something happens to be something the Pres. doesn't want to do.

However, I don't think you're being fair when you say how bad it will be with picking a new leader. If you buy something on eBay, pay the money, and never receive it, is it better to buy it again, earlier, AND to somehow get your money back from the asshole cheater, or do you prefer to not have any way to get your money back and wait 4 years to try and but the item again from someone else (who will likely screw you AGAIN)? I prefer to have some power to get it back. And if the Pres. knows that he will be held liable for broken promises, guess what? HE WON'T MAKE THEM AS OFTEN!

That's why, most of the time when you buy something in America, you get the item. That's because the owner knows he is liable if he doesn't send it! Because Presidents are not legally liable, we get screwed practically every time.

Interesting analogy.

Actually, what we pay out in enforcing pot prohibition, court costs, transporting and imprisoning pot offenders is far more then any minuscule amount spent on pot user health care. Plus, pot doesn't affect your driving like alcohol. If anything you drive slower and more carefully. It's people who fall victim to media anti pot propaganda (like yourself) that is costing me money. Knock it off!

Imprisonment doesn't have to cost that much money. This guy does it for a really good price. We should have all our prisons like this.

Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, all prisoners should be forced into labor to help save the state money on much needed maintenance of different infrastructures and provide services needed by the state. I bet we could end up actually saving money.

This is completely incorrect and you might have the worst analogies I've ever heard.

You may be able to save money on imprisonment that way, but much of law enforcement has little to nothing to do with prisoner housing. Take the monetary drain that is the DEA. All those assholes have an income from the government.
What's incorrect? This?
LEAP - Blogs

fishjoel,

First of all, I would like to say you are doing a great job keeping your composure, even though you are outnumbered.

Second of all, I will say that better run prisons are not the answer.

Third of all, you ignored my questions.

Should we make alcohol illegal again? Why, or why not?

Do you realize that almost half of all high school kids try pot before they graduate high school? Do you realize that in the last NIDA survey, seniors said they could get pot easier than beer, or tobacco? Do you realize that 30% of high school students have been offered, or have seen drugs sold on school property?

You simply will never be able to stop drugs. In China, at least 100 people are executed every year for drug trafficking, yet their drug problem continues to get worse. Do you get it yet? YOU WILL NEVER, EVER, NOT IN A FUCKING MILLION YEARS, STOP DRUGS.

The only logical solution is to legalize them and regulate them.

got logic?

The problem is youre comparing ebay and government. The weakness of democratic (or representative republican) governments is the leadership isn't very secure. Sometimes people in government (executives mostly) have to make decisions that are going to be wildly unpopular. For instance FDRs actions trying to force the country out of isolationism to fight with hitler. Not alot of popular support for that but he did it anyway because he knew the nazis would come over here eventually. Now i don't want to support or defend obama *puts on devils advocate hat* but perhaps he has access to information that is not public knowledge that points to leaving the troops where they are? He is the president after all and gets briefed by the CIA and the Military etc *throws away hat*.
The point is this: If you can just summarily terminate your executive because he does something unpopular, or because when he gets into office he finds that he wasn't quite so well informed as he thought, youll never get anything done. Politicians are ALREADY too concerned with losing their jobs to make the hard decisions. This would make it worse

In the case of market based morality, all good people of morals need to do is - nothing.

Money based markets tend to take care of the themselves, for the sake of mere lucre. Some people call it laissez-faire.

Simply regulating and taxing Commerce among the several States should be enough.

But now you're making an argument against democracy/representation system, which isn't necessarily bad. The way I see it, you either have a representative system and hold your representatives accountable for your promises, or you abandon such a system altogether. Having an "in between" like we do, where there is the guise of democracy, but where leaders are not held accountable, only ensures that the most corrupt, biggest liar is the winner of elections, which further ensures that the most powerful with enough money to hire the biggest liar maintain power. I find that unacceptable.We didn't have to fight Hitler. We could have probably stayed on the sidelines and let the Europeans fight it out. He also didn't need to imprison people for being of Japanese descent. All in all, he was an utter scumbag. If that's the true manifestation of our political system, then thanks, but no thanks.Really? How did he know that? What was it based on? The Nazis couldn't even handle the USSR, but they were just going to drop everything and swim to America? Maybe, but I'm not willing to bet the future of America and myself on some devil's advocate's wishful thinking about the supposedly good intentions on some lying devil that is Obama.But that's not what is being said here. My complaint is the breaking of promises made by him, not that he did something I didn't like (which is quite a lot, by the way).ROFL! Give me a break! He didn't know that withdrawing the troops had no consequences? Politicians can't lose their jobs. Not really, anyway. Obama can be impeached, but who the hell is going to do it? They're probably too worried of legal against against themselves to gang up on someone else. Besides that, Obama is in office until his term expires. He might not be re-elected, but he can always pull a George W Bush, lying before an election to get a quick boost in time for the voting, and then when it is uncovered, who cares if his popularity drops to single digits. The election would already be over.

Yes, the first resource the uniformed go is NIDA, which is a notoriously biased resource. The DEA's "factsheets" are even worse, in that they quote mine scientific journals out of context. These organizations propagate misinformation and down right lies that the law reform movement has to reverse on an individual, one person at a time basis. For example the majority of people do not know that:

Cannabis (marijuana) is non-toxic and never resulted in a cannabis only overdose, or any other direct casualty in medical history.

The compounds in cannabis do NOT kill brain cells or damage brain structure in developed adult brains.

Cannabis is not only significantly less addictive than alcohol and tobacco, it is also regarded by experts as having an addictiveness equal to or less than caffeine.

According to several driving studies, cannabis' peak impairment is between a 0.05-0.07%BAC, yet in many states you can lose your license for months just for possessing it, even if the charge is not driving related.

Cannabis smoking, even long term heavy use is not positively associated with tobacco related cancers of the mouth, head, neck or lungs in cannabis only smokers. Not to mention there are over 5 ways to use cannabis without combustion taking place, and do not involve any of the harms of smoking.

This is according to studies done by John Hopkins, Kaiser Permeate, and UCLA. No studies have contradicted their findings.