109 replies to this topic

[LordEmperor]

LE... thank you Sir. I was afraid you just resorted to having friends protect you. I'm very happy that was not the case.

+1 respect for LordEmperor

 

Nah. It's not in my nature to hide. I rather try hard first and get beaten than to hide. I just don't check non-Milcom threads too often.

 

Thanks for understanding.

 

Have a good weekend!

[Niels]

 

Ok Lys, I'm going to ask you the same question I've asked on Facebook and have yet to receive any kind of real answer:

I want to know how the Republicans are going to be SO much better than what's in place now. Be specific. Campaign rhetoric isn't allowed.

 

Repeal the Federal laws that criminalize marajuana. This way the states can deal with this as they see fit and they are not openly breaking the law as they are dealing with it. It's happening already and they won't stop it, so open the door and let it play out. I don't smoke that shit myself but I know many that do... and none of them are criminals.

 

Remove marriage from the law. Some idiots back in the day made a huge mistake by tying marriage to the law. It has just become a big war against the church. Everyone should file civil union papers with their state. Done deal.

 

 

On the first of these two points, I'm curious as to why you think conservatives and/or Republicans have not taken the legalization position (or at least not in any particularly meaningful way) at any level of government.  Sen. Rand Paul's statements in favor of decriminalization being a notable, if someone lonely, exception for members of his party.
Obviously, marijuana criminalization is not a small-government conservative position, since it requires additional state resources to (attempt to) enforce and persecute, and probably in an appreciable way adds to welfare costs by making it more difficult for people to get good jobs due to a prior conviction for something that really ought not to be a crime.

 

N.B.: At least this write-up had Republican voters at 61-37 in opposition to marijuana legalization in their state: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-divide-between-republican-and-democratic-voters-on-major-issues/

 

 

Regarding the second, isn't the situation you are describing as ideal what we have in place?  Presently there exist two separate associative arrangements, civil marriage and religious marriage, which are identical to "civil union" and "holy matrimony" in terms of their properties.  Each can only be formed or dissolved by permission of one type of organization, and each is only recognized as conferring rights/responsibilities by one type of organization, governments and religious institutions respectively.  Do you see this issue as one of disambiguation of labels because common discourse in the US doesn't sufficiently distinguish the two types of associations?

[Lysistrata]

Thank you Niels for your very thoughtful analysis of this discussion.

I am an avid Nate Silver reader as well... he may be a leftie but he's a brilliant an honest leftie.

 

The fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats are simple. Republicans for the most part are traditionalists at their core. Democrats have this need to change things, and more often than not these days they try to force these changes that are not just about moving from horses to cars. They are changes that attack their very lives... how they raise and teach their children, what job they work, what their preacher can talk about, what they can use to defend themselves, what they eat, how much of their money can they keep, what they have to buy with that money, what they can't buy with that money... I can go on and on... and it's nothing that has anyting to do with our Constitutional rights to live in freedom.

 

Every time Democrats do something to make Republicans live the way they dictate... it's a step closer to destruction.

It's really to a breaking point and we have to do some small, really pointless things to get most of the good and well meaning Democrats to see that the Socialists are trying to take their freedom. If you allow the government to control your life, you will no longer be living.

 

The marijuana issue can easily be taken care of. The way things are now, it's headed for a crash. There are Federal laws on the books that criminalize marijuana in many ways. There are states that are passing laws to allow use and sale, and the Federal laws are not being enforced. All you need is an Attorney General that decides to enforce the law... and they all get shut down and most can go to the Federal Penn. Republicans are big "states rights" people... and repealing a Federal law is right up their alley. Let the states decide what they want to do, and it will sell with Republicans. Their are many that still believe marijuana is a dangerous, gateway drug. They don't understand that when someone gets baked the last thing they want to do is drive around and beat people up.

 

I didn't marry my wife for the legal benefits of being married... so why is the legal parts of marriage causing so much grief?

If you make laws forcing churches to marry gays, the churches will stop marrying anyone. Is that what Democrats really want?

Churches should be able to continue marrying anyone they want... and if you want the law to recognize a relationship, you file union papers with the state. People can go have all the rituals they want and the law has nothing to do with it. Everyone's happy.

 

If we as Republicans, can do some stupid little things like this... maybe the Socialists can't make us look like assholes.

[Niels]

 

The fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats are simple. Republicans for the most part are traditionalists at their core. Democrats have this need to change things, and more often than not these days they try to force these changes that are not just about moving from horses to cars. They are changes that attack their very lives... how they raise and teach their children, what job they work, what their preacher can talk about, what they can use to defend themselves, what they eat, how much of their money can they keep, what they have to buy with that money, what they can't buy with that money... I can go on and on... and it's nothing that has anyting to do with our Constitutional rights to live in freedom.

 

 

Some of this is undoubtedly true, but it is not really restricted to one political party.  That Republicans are traditionalists at their core can get in the way of promoting general freedom.  For example, we can use your analysis that in general Republicans have this wrong and out-dated notion on marijuana, which has impeded federal or state efforts and decriminalization or legalization.  This touches on what people can eat/consume, what people can buy with their money, and for some who might seek employment in a legalized marijuana industry, what job they can work.  Similarly, the socially conservative blue laws in place in many states interfere with what jobs people can work and how they spend their money - from not being able to buy alcohol in half of Mississippi to preventing used car dealerships from opening on Sundays in Texas.
Certainly, these can be understood in terms of Republicans being a pro-states' rights party, but they do not maximize freedom and limit government action.  I'm personally not swayed by the 10th amendment suggestion that certain types of tyranny can be okay as long as perpetuated by a state government, and I'd wish the Republican Party wouldn't be either.

Then there is of course the PATRIOT Act and the Dept. of Homeland Security - truly a massive and bipartisan mess from the perspective of civil liberties.  I'm waiting for some small-government Republicans or ACLU-influenced Democrats to come and stop this, but I won't hold my breath, since in 2011, the GOP-run House and Dem-run Senate happily agreed to extend the government's powers, the latter by a unanimous consent voice vote.

[Lysistrata]

The Patriot Act has some issues. I don't believe that the Federal Government has any business in many places that it has firmly set up house... but one job they do have is keeping us safe. This is a huge responsibility in today's world, and enforcing that law breaks other laws, and that's the rub. Whenever there is a required time to suspend enforcing a law for the common good and security of the country, it should have an absolute end date. If you want it back... start over and do it again.

 

I live in Nevada and it's the opposite. New car dealerships cannot open on Sundays. It's local law to give the used car dealerships a chance... I guess they had a hard time compeating. Like I said it's a local law and I have no problem with it. If you don't like it you can move.

 

I feel that way about everything. Federal minimum wage laws are rediculous and it's only a Democrat talking point to touch on the human condition called "greed". Living conditions in Montana are much different than California. They all have their own laws and they know their situation much better than Nancy Pelosi does in San Francisco... or Washington DC. This is a rich idea... how about creating an atmosphere to bring the cost of living down? Much better than getting on the treadmill we've been on with wages trying to pay for the ever higher costs that government itself forces ever higher. It's insanity.

 

That pesky Constitution. Democrats have been trying to get around, or dissolve it, for decades. It gets in their way of "progress". Gets in their way so much that they fear it. You see, they want to force their ideals on everyone... and they can't do that with the 10th and 2nd amendments standing in their way. So every time a crazy guy shoots up a school or a theatre... we have to take away those guns. They have to take away those guns because if they ever make ground on their quest to destroy the Constitution... that 10th amendment kicks in and that 2nd amendment blows their head off. That's why the founding fathers gave us the Constitution.

 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

[Rhizoctonia]

LE... thank you Sir. I was afraid you just resorted to having friends protect you. I'm very happy that was not the case.

+1 respect for LordEmperor

 

 

FYI...Had things been vise versa, I would of said the same thing if LE said it, you said it, or any member, hell even if it was Samus .

[LordEmperor]

I loled when you said even if it was Master Samus.

[onbekende]

oi, I "helped" LE first, and I don't consider him friends with me >_>

 

I want recognition!

 

*screams*

 

WHAAAAAAA

[Lysistrata]

Yeah I concede... this guy up here that has no friends drew first blood.

[LordEmperor]

oi, I "helped" LE first, and I don't consider him friends with me >_>

 

I want recognition!

 

*screams*

 

WHAAAAAAA

 

Betsy!!! I wouldn't desert you! xD

 

Frankly, I didn't read the pages in between. :3 Sorry about that! <3

 

Thanks!!!

[onbekende]

Yeah I concede... this guy up here that has no friends drew first blood.

 

wait, I had my backstabbing dagger out? weird

[Lysistrata]

 

Yeah I concede... this guy up here that has no friends drew first blood.

 

wait, I had my backstabbing dagger out? weird

 

[Samus]

 

LE... thank you Sir. I was afraid you just resorted to having friends protect you. I'm very happy that was not the case.

+1 respect for LordEmperor

 

 

FYI...Had things been vise versa, I would of said the same thing if LE said it, you said it, or any member, hell even if it was Samus .

 

boi how dare you

[Shahenshah]

NSA mass eavesdropping isn't on the agenda? What happened to personal liberties?

[emudevelopment]

The Republicans have made it very clear that they don't want to do anything while Obama is in office. No laws are getting passed, congress is barely in session. Nothing is going to be happening until the republican party can shed the Tea Party's grip or a Republican is in the White House, which I don't see happening anytime in the near future due to the ultra-right pandering during primary season (looking at you Mitt)

 

Hi Lysistrata. you should visit me in the TOP embassy sometime

I'm sorry but that is a mistaken position. The GOP cant do anything while obama's in office as they do not posses the required 'Super'

Majority to pass bills in the senate nor the house therefore they can be filibustered. They also cant overturn a veto even if they do get past the floor. But the question you have to ask your self is if the GOP's position on the law requires we do anything important at all other than shrink the government and insitigate a flat tax rate. The system of checks and balances where created to insure nothing ever got done not the other way around. If it was nesscecary it was bipartisan. So I give congress a pat on the back for fulfilling there purpose. To do nothing important.

[Lysistrata]

Hey emudevelopment, Welcome to the conversation. You are the first person I have read anything from in a long time that understands why our government is set up the way it is. Laws were never intended to be easy to pass. It was supposed to be extremely hard. Whenever a law is passed it always has something to do with taking away, or limiting, someone's liberty. It's encouraging to find that this is not completely lost in our current world of instant gratification, entitlements, and the stupidity of those that believe there is a government fix to every inconvenience.

 

On current events, Obama appears to not be happy with the amount of damage he has caused so far. He intends tonight to tear apart whatever we have remaining of our civility. This speech tonight about his entirely illegal executive order, combined with the overblown Grand Jury decision that will most obviously come out of Ferguson, could very well begin a slide into widespread violence. Whatever you believe... say a prayer for the coming weeks. I have never seen a President that hates the United States... until now.

[Lysistrata]

I always have trouble getting these to embed... sometimes it works, not this time.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0

Edited by Lysistrata, 23 November 2014 - 07:08 PM.

[Lysistrata]

 

I think Jeb will run, and if Jeb runs I don't think Mitt will.

Paul Ryan is a legislator and an animal of the House... if Scott Walker runs, which I think he will... Ryan will not run.

I like Rand Paul alot. He has a problem... if he runs he has to give up his Senate seat. I think he will run, but he'll have trouble.

He has a strong Libertarian streak and many of the base are afraid of pulling the plug on influence of the world stage.

Chris Cristie should have run in 2012 when we needed him. I think his time has passed and he'll be easily painted as a bully.

Ted Cruz is too Tea Party for the general... he's a lawyer and can't shake that "win at all cost" attitude, but I love his conviction.

Rick Perry will run again but will have trouble shaking off his horrible performance in 2012 debates. Governors make the best Presidents, so they always have an advantage with Republicans. Perry should not have run in 2012.

Rick Santorum will run again but that's a loser from the gun... his entire platform is social conservative and that can't win anymore.

Ben Carson will test the water, but he has no political or governing experience and the guys above, will kill him with it.

Watch out for my Governor here in Nevada... Brian Sandoval won re-election last night with 71% of the vote. A former Federal Judge, he is hispanic, very likeable, brilliant, and a great Republican. He would be a good President... but unknown so far.

 

Personally, I would like to see Mike Huckabee consider running again.

 

Just a quick post in here for our dear President.

 

I believe we will be getting our wish. Governor Mike Huckabee is announcing tonight that this evening will be the last show of "Huckabee" on the Fox News Channel. This is normal procedure for anyone FNC employs that will be seeking a political run.

 

The Warrior, Sir... Mike Huckabee will be running for President of the United States.

[Niels]

I think Jeb will run, and if Jeb runs I don't think Mitt will.

Paul Ryan is a legislator and an animal of the House... if Scott Walker runs, which I think he will... Ryan will not run.

I like Rand Paul alot. He has a problem... if he runs he has to give up his Senate seat. I think he will run, but he'll have trouble.

He has a strong Libertarian streak and many of the base are afraid of pulling the plug on influence of the world stage.

Chris Cristie should have run in 2012 when we needed him. I think his time has passed and he'll be easily painted as a bully.

Ted Cruz is too Tea Party for the general... he's a lawyer and can't shake that "win at all cost" attitude, but I love his conviction.

Rick Perry will run again but will have trouble shaking off his horrible performance in 2012 debates. Governors make the best Presidents, so they always have an advantage with Republicans. Perry should not have run in 2012.

Rick Santorum will run again but that's a loser from the gun... his entire platform is social conservative and that can't win anymore.

Ben Carson will test the water, but he has no political or governing experience and the guys above, will kill him with it.

Watch out for my Governor here in Nevada... Brian Sandoval won re-election last night with 71% of the vote. A former Federal Judge, he is hispanic, very likeable, brilliant, and a great Republican. He would be a good President... but unknown so far.

 

Brian Sandoval looks like a decent guy, but don't you think being pro-choice and the first Republican governor to have expanded Medicaid under the ACA will doom him in the primaries?

[Lysistrata]

Brian Sandoval will be running against Harry Reid for the Senate in 2016... if Harry has the sack to run again.