"Those who would give up essential Liberty..."

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by stupidmonkey246@aim.

republican, democrat, conservative, liberal. it basically stands for the opposite of wut our country is supposed to be. your supposed to vote for who you think would be best fit to run this country, not whos in your favorite party.

Who says how we're suppose to vote? What makes prospective voting better than retrospective voting, voting for the general interest of the country or your own personal self-interest, voting because of issue x or issue y? And who exactly decided what our country is suppose to be and how we are suppose to vote? Can't be our founding fathers, contrast the positions of Jefferson and Madison to Hamilton and there is no grand consensus, but a rather large gap in belief in how our government should run. And who is to say that voting for your favorite party is wrong? Contrast the American political party system and many European ones and you can see there is quite a bit more power in European parties (as in it not only gets more straight ballet voting, but they stretch outside of the political life and into the social life of many of it's constituents. Though this is a gross generalization, the huge difference merits one).

I have no problem with anyone saying that they believe the government or political activities should be run in a certain way, however to definitively answer a subjective question like this without even anything remotely capable of being viewed as a consensus from our own history, founding fathers, and the beliefs of the various political philosophers from which we draw much of our Constitution and ideas in regards to political issues.

and as for all that wire tapping, its the CIA they can do wut they want, according to them they were only wire tapping suspected terrorists. its not like your talking to grandma and the government is listening. unless your last name is bin laden, u own a construction bussiness in saudi arabia, migrated to the US from afgahnistan and make frequent calls to the same person tlaking about bombs. i dont think theyre gonna listen to your conversations.

So just cross a right off of the Bill of Rights because it is convenient? Warrants must be such a hassle and giving the CIA a new unchecked power to just wave the right of a person can't possibly have any possible potential for abuse. And if there is such a pool of evidence to give someone the status of 'suspected terrorist' why not just get the warrant? It's not a long or hard process.

if just one of their laws prevents another 9/11 then im all for it, which it already has stopped a plot to bomb (i forget, some bridge, theres to many to keep track of).

I don't disagree here, but there are other ways to keep wiretapping at basically the same speed and efficiency with FISA, and if that isn't fast enough Congress can update it. I don't have a problem with wiretapping, just circumventing rights and creating any unchecked power in any part of our government regardless of who is in power.

Originally Posted by TheJanitor

Oppression from what?
because you're going to have a civil war with the government? The politicians are going to come after you with Uzis and kill you?

The government. One can't always count on idealism and assume that the political processes of a country will always work out. And though I doubt you were being serious about the politicians coming after people, but to answer it, there is more to the government than just the politicians; the employees, the money, etc.

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

Who says how we're suppose to vote? What makes prospective voting better than retrospective voting, voting for the general interest of the country or your own personal self-interest, voting because of issue x or issue y? And who exactly decided what our country is suppose to be and how we are suppose to vote? Can't be our founding fathers, contrast the positions of Jefferson and Madison to Hamilton and there is no grand consensus, but a rather large gap in belief in how our government should run. And who is to say that voting for your favorite party is wrong? Contrast the American political party system and many European ones and you can see there is quite a bit more power in European parties (as in it not only gets more straight ballet voting, but they stretch outside of the political life and into the social life of many of it's constituents. Though this is a gross generalization, the huge difference merits one).

I have no problem with anyone saying that they believe the government or political activities should be run in a certain way, however to definitively answer a subjective question like this without even anything remotely capable of being viewed as a consensus from our own history, founding fathers, and the beliefs of the various political philosophers from which we draw much of our Constitution and ideas in regards to political issues.


So just cross a right off of the Bill of Rights because it is convenient? Warrants must be such a hassle and giving the CIA a new unchecked power to just wave the right of a person can't possibly have any possible potential for abuse. And if there is such a pool of evidence to give someone the status of 'suspected terrorist' why not just get the warrant? It's not a long or hard process.


I don't disagree here, but there are other ways to keep wiretapping at basically the same speed and efficiency with FISA, and if that isn't fast enough Congress can update it. I don't have a problem with wiretapping, just circumventing rights and creating any unchecked power in any part of our government regardless of who is in power.

ill agree it wouldve been better if they did it with a warrant, but its not like they monitored YOUR phone calls, it was international calls that showed some kind of pattern, and! they didnt even listen to the conversation, they just used the patterns to see who may be a potential suspect. so think about it? is it really that wrong, you wouldnt let people see who u call, NOT WHAT U SAY, and rather have the chance of another terrorist attack. its already helped foil a few.

and as for the voting thing, thats jut my opinion, some people are just always going to vote democrat or republican, no matter wut, and my veiw is that isnt wut this country is about. u should vote for who you think is most capable of running the country, not for whos running in ur party, which is wut alot of people do. but then again i think they whole political campaigns are retarded. who cares how many purple hearts you have, can u manage a country is the question.

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

And who is to say that voting for your favorite party is wrong?

the fact that that doesnt always mean your voting for who would benefit this country the most, it just means u like the republicans. ok this is wut im saying the problem is, u could have liked kerry more then bush, but u always vote republican, so u voted republican, im just saying it would make more sense to have everyone be an independant, then thered be no congressmen voting with their party everytime, and not for what would benefit the country the most. people wouldnt vote for people cuz because of their party, theyd vote for people becauze of their values

[Tipsy]

ill agree it wouldve been better if they did it with a warrant, but its not like they monitored YOUR phone calls, it was international calls that showed some kind of pattern, and! they didnt even listen to the conversation, they just used the patterns to see who may be a potential suspect. so think about it? is it really that wrong, you wouldnt let people see who u call, NOT WHAT U SAY, and rather have the chance of another terrorist attack. its already helped foil a few.

What possible justification could they have to not get a warrant? The current law right now even gives them the power to obtain the warrant up to 72 hours after a wiretap is in place. This gives the same speed and efficiency as the current system - if you don't have time to get a warrant at the moment of the wiretap, you still have 72 hours! And what does it matter if it was my rights infringed upon or not? Just because I won't feel any repercussion because the right of another is taken away doesn’t make it any less wrong. Just because it's easy to ignore another person’s rights being infringed upon doesn’t make it right.

and as for the voting thing, thats jut my opinion, some people are just always going to vote democrat or republican, no matter wut, and my veiw is that isnt wut this country is about. u should vote for who you think is most capable of running the country, not for whos running in ur party, which is wut alot of people do. but then again i think they whole political campaigns are retarded. who cares how many purple hearts you have, can u manage a country is the question.

The thing is, however, a lot of people don’t view voting as an altruistic practice, but as one that promotes self-interest. I'm trying to get across the point that many people don’t vote with the purpose of making the country better, but rather their own personal situation. Just because we don’t agree doesn’t make it wrong because it is a completely subjective criteria.

the fact that that doesnt always mean your voting for who would benefit this country the most, it just means u like the republicans. ok this is wut im saying the problem is, u could have liked kerry more then bush, but u always vote republican, so u voted republican, im just saying it would make more sense to have everyone be an independant, then thered be no congressmen voting with their party everytime, and not for what would benefit the country the most. people wouldnt vote for people cuz because of their party, theyd vote for people becauze of their values

Let’s look at the parties for a moment and then consider this in context. When you think Republican and Democrat, the term conservative and liberal come to mind. I'll use Republicans for my example. Their generalized platform is thought of as social and fiscal conservatism and small government. The thing is, this doesn’t actually unify the party. Take Giuliani. He definitely does not qualify as social conservative. Take Bush. With his wonderful budgets fiscal conservatism definitely isn't his thing and the warrantless wiretapping, in that it gives unchecked power that increases the power of the government, definitely doesn’t qualify as supporting small government. In more general terms, compare southern Democrats to Republicans from the north east. The Republicans in the north east are much more liberal than Democrats from the south. Not much really unifies political parties in regards to ideology.

The point of this? Political parties are merely groups of people that come together to control the government through public elections. That’s how both Democrats and Republicans can be defined. Some people endorse this line of thinking and can actually gain by putting people of whatever party into power in order to gain favors such as jobs.

What I’m trying to get across by saying all of this is that looking at people to ignore their self-interests and vote truly altruistically is idealism without any practical application. Even at that, many congressman view themselves as trustees to their constituents first and the nation a distant second. It may be best for the country to get project x up and running however, if some congressmen make some deals and call in some favors they can get project y in their district and help both their constituents and their ability to stay in office for taking crediting for bringing federal money to their district.

[RuneyPoo]

Freedom, look at all the pothead's out there for one. What do they do that is so wrong to other's. What is the bad thing about marijuana that makes the government want to obliverate every bit of it. They say it slows your reflex's, makes your stupid by killing brain cells, and it's also somehow a date rape drug according to police in Lockport, NY. It slows your reflex's, yes. But it slows you all together, so your reflex's have nothing to do with it, your slow, your reflex's are kept up with them. All drugs can have that side effect, even ibueprophen (prescription bottles have labels on them saying May Cause Drowsiness, use caution when operating an automobile or machinery.) What's the difference? Now killing your brain cells, yes may be true. But you lose so many brain cells in a day doing normal stuff, what's the difference. It doesn't make you stupid, and yes, I have proof of that. Me and my X-GF Brianna used to smoke close to two ounces a week, alone. A Blunt in the morning, blunt after she got out of school, blunt at night before we passed out. She went to school in the morning, every morning, and did fine. She is a High Honor's student at Lockport Highschool. Me, may sound stupid but. I wasn't in High School for a year and a half (close to two) and I tried going back, they wouldn't let me, I took my GED instead. They said I wouldn't be able to cuz I need to take classes, because I wasn't in school for awhile. I said I wanted to take the test without the classes, I did. I scored a 2700, which you just need a 2200 on the test. I smoked pounds and pounds and pounds between those time periods, and I still have my smarts.

There is stuff out there that will kill people way faster, that is legal. Such as Alcohol, if I'm not correct, that kills most of the people in the United States, drunk drivers and people drinking to much and choking on their vomit. Legal to buy at 21 though. Then, Cigarettes, millions of people across the world each year (if I'm not mistaken) because of Lung cancer, legal at 18. Cough syrup's and over the counter drugs, kids like these because of the lights they see, they walk into on coming traffic, or maybe even OD? Fast food, one of the U.S.'s top reasons for our high blood pressure rate, which millions of americans have heart attacks because of. But yet, marijuana, a drug that people get MIND addicted to, there is no addictive substances inside of marijuana. It's all in people's minds, the ones who do get addicted. And yet, it's not even a drug. It's grown out of the grown, picked off of the plant, dried, and sold. Alcohol, processed and processed and processed. Cigarettes, thousands of poisons put into these things. Cough syrup, who the hell knows?

Marijuana, a simple little plant, being labeled as a drug. A drug that harms no one. A drug that people like to just sit around and do while they chill with one another, playing video games, watchin tv, just talking with each other.

Yes, that's one of my freedom's I wish I could have without worrying about going to jail over. Me and my friend's do nothing wrong by doing it, we like to chill and have fun and smoke twenty blunts in a three hour period. Just sitting, talking, playing video games. How are we out there causing trouble? We don't get loud, no one does, because of the cops. Alcohol makes people loud, makes people stupid, makes people rapists, makes people murderers... It's rediculous...

[little-cheeze]

they cant just make alcohol illegal now dude its too late so stop crying about how ur marijuana isnt legal because alcohol is

[RuneyPoo]

Originally Posted by little-cheeze

they cant just make alcohol illegal now dude its too late so stop crying about how ur marijuana isnt legal because alcohol is

Sucks that you don't know what crying is. Crying is when, nevermind I cannot flame here. I'll save it...

They can make anything illegal though, they banned smoking in restraunts, bars, and soon to be your own car. So that's illegal. It's illegal to talk on cell phones in most states now. But yet, they still don't stop drinking, oh the irony.

[little-cheeze]

im sorry but your wrong

[RuneyPoo]

Originally Posted by little-cheeze

im sorry but your wrong

I'm wrong and yet you wont even care to explain why I am wrong. Don't post in here if you don't know how to debate.

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

Originally Posted by RuneyPoo

Freedom, look at all the pothead's out there for one. What do they do that is so wrong to other's. What is the bad thing about marijuana that makes the government want to obliverate every bit of it. They say it slows your reflex's, makes your stupid by killing brain cells, and it's also somehow a date rape drug according to police in Lockport, NY. It slows your reflex's, yes. But it slows you all together, so your reflex's have nothing to do with it, your slow, your reflex's are kept up with them. All drugs can have that side effect, even ibueprophen (prescription bottles have labels on them saying May Cause Drowsiness, use caution when operating an automobile or machinery.) What's the difference? Now killing your brain cells, yes may be true. But you lose so many brain cells in a day doing normal stuff, what's the difference. It doesn't make you stupid, and yes, I have proof of that. Me and my X-GF Brianna used to smoke close to two ounces a week, alone. A Blunt in the morning, blunt after she got out of school, blunt at night before we passed out. She went to school in the morning, every morning, and did fine. She is a High Honor's student at Lockport Highschool. Me, may sound stupid but. I wasn't in High School for a year and a half (close to two) and I tried going back, they wouldn't let me, I took my GED instead. They said I wouldn't be able to cuz I need to take classes, because I wasn't in school for awhile. I said I wanted to take the test without the classes, I did. I scored a 2700, which you just need a 2200 on the test. I smoked pounds and pounds and pounds between those time periods, and I still have my smarts.

There is stuff out there that will kill people way faster, that is legal. Such as Alcohol, if I'm not correct, that kills most of the people in the United States, drunk drivers and people drinking to much and choking on their vomit. Legal to buy at 21 though. Then, Cigarettes, millions of people across the world each year (if I'm not mistaken) because of Lung cancer, legal at 18. Cough syrup's and over the counter drugs, kids like these because of the lights they see, they walk into on coming traffic, or maybe even OD? Fast food, one of the U.S.'s top reasons for our high blood pressure rate, which millions of americans have heart attacks because of. But yet, marijuana, a drug that people get MIND addicted to, there is no addictive substances inside of marijuana. It's all in people's minds, the ones who do get addicted. And yet, it's not even a drug. It's grown out of the grown, picked off of the plant, dried, and sold. Alcohol, processed and processed and processed. Cigarettes, thousands of poisons put into these things. Cough syrup, who the hell knows?

Marijuana, a simple little plant, being labeled as a drug. A drug that harms no one. A drug that people like to just sit around and do while they chill with one another, playing video games, watchin tv, just talking with each other.

Yes, that's one of my freedom's I wish I could have without worrying about going to jail over. Me and my friend's do nothing wrong by doing it, we like to chill and have fun and smoke twenty blunts in a three hour period. Just sitting, talking, playing video games. How are we out there causing trouble? We don't get loud, no one does, because of the cops. Alcohol makes people loud, makes people stupid, makes people rapists, makes people murderers... It's rediculous...

mind addicted? theres no such thing. once ur boby gets used to something its like it needs it on a regular basis, once u dont get it, you go through wihtdrawls. and wut u dont point out is that pot is something like 20 times worse for your body then cigs. and as for alchohol, u can do that exact same thing with pot as with alchohol, chocke on vomit, blah blah, pot kills ur lungs faster then ciggaretes, and kills more brain cells then anything legal. they couldnt ban alchohol ever, u must not be that smart cuz i guess uve never heard of prohibition and how that failed miserably. and u wanna ban fast food? or over the counter drugs, theres a reason u need a prescription. pot can do everything alchohol does but worse, it depends how much and wut kinda u smoke. so uh, in conclusion, pot will never be legal for use unless u have a prescription.

[RuneyPoo]

Originally Posted by stupidmonkey246@aim.

mind addicted? theres no such thing. once ur boby gets used to something its like it needs it on a regular basis, once u dont get it, you go through wihtdrawls. and wut u dont point out is that pot is something like 20 times worse for your body then cigs. and as for alchohol, u can do that exact same thing with pot as with alchohol, chocke on vomit, blah blah, pot kills ur lungs faster then ciggaretes, and kills more brain cells then anything legal. they couldnt ban alchohol ever, u must not be that smart cuz i guess uve never heard of prohibition and how that failed miserably. and u wanna ban fast food? or over the counter drugs, theres a reason u need a prescription. pot can do everything alchohol does but worse, it depends how much and wut kinda u smoke. so uh, in conclusion, pot will never be legal for use unless u have a prescription.

Sorry sir, but Alcohol kills your liver. I know at least thirty people who are sixteen years old that have went through liver failure because of drinking. Robotesium(sp?) two bottles can make you OD and kill you, people do it all the time and its legal to buy everywhere. And pot kills more brain cells then anything legal? Boxing is legal. Wrestling is legal. Cops can beat people over the head, its legal. You bash your head into a wall, thats legal. Sorry sir, but you have no clue on what pot does because you don't smoke it. You take what the government says, and uses it on this. But yet, the government also says that the war in Iraq should have been done by the year 2006, is it done? The government said that talking on cell phones is a hazard to everyone else, do you believe so? And just for your information, Renu eye drops kills 20 brain cells each drop put into your eye. THATS LEGAL!!! Man, get your facts straight.

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

Originally Posted by RuneyPoo

Sorry sir, but Alcohol kills your liver. I know at least thirty people who are sixteen years old that have went through liver failure because of drinking. Robotesium(sp?) two bottles can make you OD and kill you, people do it all the time and its legal to buy everywhere. And pot kills more brain cells then anything legal? Boxing is legal. Wrestling is legal. Cops can beat people over the head, its legal. You bash your head into a wall, thats legal. Sorry sir, but you have no clue on what pot does because you don't smoke it. You take what the government says, and uses it on this. But yet, the government also says that the war in Iraq should have been done by the year 2006, is it done? The government said that talking on cell phones is a hazard to everyone else, do you believe so? And just for your information, Renu eye drops kills 20 brain cells each drop put into your eye. THATS LEGAL!!! Man, get your facts straight.

boxing isnt a substance dumbass. ok u get ur facts straight, cops can only use force when their in danger, pot is worse for u then anything else, prescription drugs have warnings on them and it says how much to take. theyre ment for something else, pot is ment to get high, prescription medicens arent. and when did u hear this renu bullshit, it was recalled cuz it can cause some disease in your eye (cancer i think it was). that doesnt have an affect on ur brain. "The government said that talking on cell phones is a hazard to everyone else, do you believe so?" yes, cuz its true to a small extent, it gives off radiation, just like a tv, or even the computer ur working at. and how do u know i dont smoke pot, just cuz im not a big anti government hippe like your ass, and wut i say makes sense, unlike you. u want them to outlaw boxing, they sign a waiver saying they agreed to it. want them to outlaw achohol? ur retarded if u think thats gonna hapen, and if u think it could happen then u need to stop smoking pot and go back to school. pot is always going to be illegal, pot is worse then anything else, it kills your lungs faster then ciggarettes, and ppl that are 16 withn liver failure, gimme a break, ur a dumbass were they drinking since they were 7, liver failure takes a lot longer then a 16 year old would be drinking if they had liver failure it was because of something else. you have no clue wut ur talking about hippe, u get ur facts straight.

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

Originally Posted by RuneyPoo

Sucks that you don't know what crying is. Crying is when, nevermind I cannot flame here. I'll save it...

They can make anything illegal though, they banned smoking in restraunts, bars, and soon to be your own car. So that's illegal. It's illegal to talk on cell phones in most states now. But yet, they still don't stop drinking, oh the irony.

o god, ur a retard, they can ban smoking in certain places, they wont in the whole state, u want them to ban alchohol, PROHIBITION FAILED!!!! it will never work, and there s no state anywhere that banned cellphones, maybe while driving, or something like that. no state has banned cell phones entirely, or even really at all. get ur facts straight, again hippe.

[RuneyPoo]

Originally Posted by stupidmonkey246@aim.

o god, ur a retard, they can ban smoking in certain places, they wont in the whole state, u want them to ban alchohol, PROHIBITION FAILED!!!! it will never work, and there s no state anywhere that banned cellphones, maybe while driving, or something like that. no state has banned cell phones entirely, or even really at all. get ur facts straight, again hippe.

Double posting, edit your posts next time. And I never said they need to ban alcohol, alcohol does kill brain cells btw. I like drinking, who doesn't. I never said they banned cell phones. Government can ban smoking anywhere they want, thank you. And btw, I guarantee in the next ten years Marijuana will be legalized, just like Canada. If I'm not mistaken, you cannot carry more then 3.5 grams on you at a time? And no I'm not an anti-government hippy, I'm for my rights, a person should be able to do as he pleases, as long as it isn't harming other people. Pot smoking is not worse then cigarettes, theres no adictive substance inside of pot. Anyone can stop smokin pot as they please. And go to any landscaping, roofing, plumbing, tree cutting company, they all smoke pot. Even the bosses. And Renu, it kills 20 brain cells each drop you put into your eye, ask any lawyer. Call one if you need to. People who didn't even get harmed by it, made money.

And hell yeah, green team for win.

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

u just said its illegal in some states to talk on cell phones, and yes they could ban smoking, they never will in our lifetime, and nooooo never ever will marijuana be legalized, and definately not in 10 years. yes alchohol does kill brain cells its a poison, pot is worse, thats a fact.

[RuneyPoo]

Originally Posted by stupidmonkey246@aim.

u just said its illegal in some states to talk on cell phones, and yes they could ban smoking, they never will in our lifetime, and nooooo never ever will marijuana be legalized, and definately not in 10 years. yes alchohol does kill brain cells its a poison, pot is worse, thats a fact.

Ok fine then, dont smoke pot... Eat it... Plain and simple if you dont wanna lose brain cells, EAT IT...

[little-cheeze]

Its still illegal

[RuneyPoo]

Originally Posted by izon

Its still illegal

In your little 13 year old frame of mind.

[stupidmonkey246@aim.]

wow u just proved ur a moron, no, its just illegal in his mind, its illegal in the real word, and how the **** do u know wut kills brain cells and wut doesnt, how do u know eating doesnt kill brain cells too, alchohol does, pot has THC, a poison.

[RuneyPoo]

Originally Posted by stupidmonkey246@aim.

wow u just proved ur a moron, no, its just illegal in his mind, its illegal in the real word, and how the **** do u know wut kills brain cells and wut doesnt, how do u know eating doesnt kill brain cells too, alchohol does, pot has THC, a poison.

Ok then your body creates poison then what you are sayin is your body creates poison? Nice one...