close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Romney won the debate - but

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by G19G20, Oct 4, 2012.


  1. G19G20

    G19G20
    Expand Collapse
    Status Quo 2014

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    2,004
    0
    The correct term for them is "neo-conservatives" or "neocons". The folks that aren't able to accept that much of the Republican platform is actually inventions of the far left, such a federal drug prohibition and interventionist foreign policy. But hey, wrap it up with some Jesus sprinkled in and a big American flag and suddenly it's conservative!
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. G19G20

    G19G20
    Expand Collapse
    Status Quo 2014

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    2,004
    0
    What if those same patients said they wanted to legally use cannabis as pain medicine or appetite stimulant for their ailments because they think it works? What would you say to them?
     

  3. series1811

    series1811
    Expand Collapse
    Enforcerator.
    CLM

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2003
    11,385
    13
    Location:
    Retired, but not expired.
    I don't know. What would he say to them if they needed a transplant and said they wanted to buy an organ from China from a prisoner?

    Stinking laws.
     
  4. G19G20

    G19G20
    Expand Collapse
    Status Quo 2014

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    2,004
    0
    I'd rather hear Cav's reply since I asked him.

    But for the sake of argument, if there were no organs available for a dying patient, would you have a problem with the patient getting the organ from a Chinese prisoner? Just because something may be against the law doesn't mean the law is just.

    In fact, there's an entire legal principle surrounding this question that has been seeing a resurgence, to the chagrin of the justice industry. It's called jury nullification. Jurors have the legal right to decide not only whether a law was broken but whether the law itself should exist.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jury_nullification
     
    #264 G19G20, Oct 8, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012
  5. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds
    Expand Collapse
    Tewwowist

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    51,573
    4,085
    Location:
    Houston
    Jefferson said no free man should be disallowed gun ownership.

    The fact that we've accepted restrictions on gun Ownership is a perfect analogy.
     
  6. G29Reload

    G29Reload
    Expand Collapse
    Tread Lightly

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    13,286
    362
    No, it doesn't. Apples and oranges. There are plenty of legit uses for firearms starting with your own personal safety.

    Having LSD around, or heroin does not compare.
     
  7. G29Reload

    G29Reload
    Expand Collapse
    Tread Lightly

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    13,286
    362
    Because alcohol could and was also being consumed responsibly but it was arguable as to how much trouble it was causing.

    LSD, Heroin, not so much. Pretty much clear that's not up for debate. I agree pot is arguable, but the view of it back when was pretty much agreed on by society, though it was inflamed by films like reefer madness.
     
  8. G29Reload

    G29Reload
    Expand Collapse
    Tread Lightly

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    13,286
    362
    No, they don't. apples and oranges again.

    Healthcare is a perfectly legitimate pastime and part of our pursuit of happiness. The .gov has no business regulating it or forcing us to purchase it, John roberts be damned.

    HEalthcare is a good thing, no one is against it, we just think the .gov should stay out of it.

    Drugs, which are perceived to be and at times demonstrably ARE dangerous in an uncontrolled environment, do deserve restriction in their sale and use in order to provide for public safety. The .gov does has the right to establish an ordered society. Someone that's whacked out on drugs can harm you or your family, and are practially guaranteed to with their dangerous effects…falls under your rights stop where mine begin. Drugs are not the victimless crime some make them out to be.

    Guns have legit uses.
    Healthcare has legit uses.
    Drugs in an uncontrolled environment taken by people NOT ill and not prescribed by a doctor…do NOT have legit uses.

    Pretty much why things are the way they are. Don't see the issue here.

    Pot I do see in a somewhat grey area, I know people who have enjoyed it responsibly over the years and I've seen folks who made me glad its not legal. Marihoochee is a discussable item, just about all else is not…not heroin, meth, coke, etc.
     
  9. G29Reload

    G29Reload
    Expand Collapse
    Tread Lightly

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    13,286
    362
    Imagine him saying, no free man should be disbarred from drug use!


    And he invented the dumbwaiter so he could get his wine up from the cellar faster. Not like he was stick in the mud ya know?

    If you ever visit I'll drive you down to Charlottesville to show you his place. Its a treat.
     
  10. G19G20

    G19G20
    Expand Collapse
    Status Quo 2014

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    2,004
    0
    Please point out where the Constitution gives the federal government the right to "provide for public safety" and/or to "establish an ordered society".
     
  11. countrygun

    countrygun
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    17,069
    17
    Preamble,

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


    I realize that it may be complicated for you to figure out how public safety and "oredered society' couls possibly be realted to those principles in the preamble. It is probably too abstract for you
     
  12. G19G20

    G19G20
    Expand Collapse
    Status Quo 2014

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    2,004
    0
    The Preamble is not law, never mind that it doesn't mean what you are claiming it means. Article I Section 8 is the section that carries the weight of law regarding the limits on federal government. I realize it may be complicated for you to understand that the Preamble has no legal impact but it is true. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
     
    #272 G19G20, Oct 8, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012
  13. DOC44

    DOC44
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    15,429
    4,262
    Location:
    in my recliner
    what a load of stupid, bias crap.

    Doc44
     
  14. countrygun

    countrygun
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    17,069
    17
    Odd from a Constitutional Libertarian (at least you claimed that once) to dismiss the outlined intentions and priciples the Founders laid down with the preamble, I guess you don't love the Constitution, just the parts that make legalizing weed a possibility.
     
  15. G19G20

    G19G20
    Expand Collapse
    Status Quo 2014

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    2,004
    0
    The Preamble is not law. It also doesn't mean what you think it means. Are you suggesting the federal government operate based on the Preamble and not Article I Section 8? Look, you don't have any understanding of constitutional law so just save yourself the embarrassment of trying to defend a legally inaccurate statement.
     
  16. DOC44

    DOC44
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    15,429
    4,262
    Location:
    in my recliner
    Hey Countrygun, you got to smoke a lot more dope to understand stuff as much as some people.

    Doc44
     
  17. countrygun

    countrygun
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    17,069
    17
    Funny YOU of all people trying to exert intellectual superiority, and especaially on Constitutional interpretation. I won't even bother to qiuestion you on the lack of knowledge you have displayed on this very topic in the past.

    So, if you want to talk about legally accurate, has the Supreme Court struck down Any of the laws you are talking about, therefore making enforcement of them an illegal act?


    Assuming the asnwer is "no" then they DO stand as Laws (you know, legally) ergo, and until SCOTUS says different you are out there with only your interpretation, and no legal leg to stand on.
     
  18. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds
    Expand Collapse
    Tewwowist

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    51,573
    4,085
    Location:
    Houston
    Many believe guns "left unchecked" are a risk to public safety.

    If leaving something unchecked is a risk to public safety, is a justification for federal power not granted to it in the COTUS, you have to accept it everywhere.
     
  19. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds
    Expand Collapse
    Tewwowist

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    51,573
    4,085
    Location:
    Houston
    Is that the "if it is consumed responsibly" clause of the Constitution?

    Cannabis was cultivated here in 1776 and was consumed responsibly.
     
  20. countrygun

    countrygun
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    17,069
    17
    Gawd, no kidding. "The Constitution makes dope legal but it makes the laws outlawing it legal too, oh man one more bong hit and I'm going upstairs to the kitchen and see I Mom brought the Ho-Hos an Doritos while I figure this out. Man what a bummer"