We should declare 4/20 a national holiday while we're at it...
It will help, but not fix it. Politicians will just see it as more money to spend anyway.It already is an unofficial holiday! I'm sure there would be a large push to make it official. What do we call it?Will legalizing weed fix the economy?
Liberty day maybe?
^^ I was thinking the same about 4/20 ... people who don't even smoke wanna take the day off and get blazed with me
I remember my first job I worked at sonic, and literally everyone asked for 4/20 off... at my current job, one of the MANAGERS of a branch just didn't show up last 4/20
maybe your manager was a nazi. 4/20 is adolf hitlers birthday.^^ I was thinking the same about 4/20 ... people who don't even smoke wanna take the day off and get blazed with me
I remember my first job I worked at sonic, and literally everyone asked for 4/20 off... at my current job, one of the MANAGERS of a branch just didn't show up last 4/20
420 was probably already a holiday before Hitler was born. It was probably a holiday before Christ was born too.
fixed for accuracy
The alcohol and beer companies will fight this to the death and they have a ton of resources to do so. No way the big beer and alcohol companies allow another substance to cut into their piece of the disposable income pie.
There is more to overcome than your typically ignorant religious political bull ter.
The alcohol and beer companies will fight this to the death and they have a ton of resources to do so. No way the big beer and alcohol companies allow another substance to cut into their piece of the disposable income pie.
There is more to overcome than your typically ignorant religious political bull ter.
I'm too lazy to fix that double post
herb if used at all doesn't make you do any of the you just mentioned.
and i'll tell ya what else... lsd and mush never made me want to hurt myself or others and i used to be a big 'cid head back in the day. long live the key to life's door!
By sensibly, I meant not using it while operation heavy machinery, or driving, or any of those other things that you aren't supposed to do drunk either.
As for LSD, it may have never made you want to hurt yourself or someone, but is it a similar trip for everyone? And if it isn't, is it easy to predict who has peaceful vs violent trips?
I disagree. A true social conservative might do as you say, but then he would be authoritarian. He may just as likely promote proper social living standards, but not force them upon others. Conservative and liberal are opposites and can be libertarian or authoritarian. I am a conservative libertarian. President Obama, and many liberals here, are liberal authoritarians.
I disagree. They already have the distribution set in place for regulated intoxicants. They would more likely benefit from becoming the large suppliers, selling to the same retailers they already have.
rofl. If anything, you are a true progressive militarist. You are not even close to being a tory anarchist.
Ah yes, you are a "conservative libertarian" who believes the state should be free to spy on its citizens and torture individuals. And who believes that preemptive wars of aggression are A-OK. There's nothing conservative nor libertarian about such positions.
Not by what progressive means now. And militarist, maybe. I am primarily conservative, and if you consider how old weed is, and was once legal, how is that not being conservative? I am a firm supporter of the cons ution as written. It only asks of basic government functions and recognizes the need of a military. So do I. As for anarchism, that is the extreme end of libertarianism that I do not believe in, nor are very many libertarians that extreme.
You are obviously misinformed, and do not understand the cons ution. I believe the intent of the cons ution should be followed. There was no torture, although the form of waterboarding we used I'm sure was not pleasant. The citizens of this nation were not spied upon as the term suggests. The fourth amendment clearly allows for reasonable searches and seizures. As for preemptive wars, that is the one that is hardest to warrant, but by no way should it be ignored either. As for not being libertarian positions... If you expect someone to be a perfect copy of some stated political position of a party, you are really ignorant. Very, very few people will actually follow any particular party line 100% I'll add a third part I can identify with. The cons ution party. All of my personal beliefs are probably all rooted within the some of the party principles of the three.
"Maybe"? ROFL.
That's right. Most libertarians believe in a military with bases in 180 countries. Silly me.I am a firm supporter of the cons ution as written. It only asks of basic government functions and recognizes the need of a military. So do I. As for anarchism, that is the extreme end of libertarianism that I do not believe in, nor are very many libertarians that extreme.
ROFL. Ah yes, I am obviously not a cons utional scholar of the internets as yourself.You are obviously misinformed, and do not understand the cons ution.
And I'm sure the rack was not pleasant either.I believe the intent of the cons ution should be followed. There was no torture, although the form of waterboarding we used I'm sure was not pleasant.
LOL. So it's not spying unless Uncle Sam actually does something bad to you when he's spying on you.The citizens of this nation were not spied upon as the term suggests.
Ignorance is taking a narrow view of cons utional liberties and a broad view of the federal government's war powers and claiming that jives with a libertarian, classical liberal, anti-statist, or individualist viewpoint. There is nothing libertarian about your views. Stop fouling the term by misusing and misrepresenting it.The fourth amendment clearly allows for reasonable searches and seizures. As for preemptive wars, that is the one that is hardest to warrant, but by no way should it be ignored either. As for not being libertarian positions... If you expect someone to be a perfect copy of some stated political position of a party, you are really ignorant.
LOL. By that notion Obama is a conservative Republican, as plenty of his policies are right in line with the prior administration.Very, very few people will actually follow any particular party line 100% I'll add a third part I can identify with. The cons ution party. All of my personal beliefs are probably all rooted within the some of the party principles of the three.
I think I fit the ideals of the Libertarian Party pretty good. From the Libertarian Party Web site:
Platform
National Platform of the Libertarian Party
Adopted in Convention, May 2008, Denver, Colorado
PreambleI agree.As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
If only through peace can prosperity be realized, then what do we do with those who are not peaceful?We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
I agree.Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
Idiotic statement. To set a goal of world freedom in our lifetime... Get real.In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.
These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.
Yes, the state has too much necessary power.Statement of Principles
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
I agree to the extent that as long as they don't take government resources to support bad decisions they make.We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
I agree except for a small tax. We still need a limited government, and pay for it somehow.Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
Did they purposely leave out taxation after specifying "fruits of labor" in the previous paragraph?We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
I agree.Since governments, when ins uted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
I agree with this. Where preemptive action takes place, is where some other type of action is already initiated against us.1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
Agreed.1.1 Expression and Communication
We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.
Agreed, but I'll add that if people disable themselves with drugs, they cannot expect the tax payer to take care of them. Personal responsibility.1.2 Personal Privacy
We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
I agree with this as written except for military service.1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender iden y should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
I disagree because I see abortion as murder.1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Agreed.1.5 Crime and Justice
Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support res ution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of cons utional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.
Agreed.1.6 Self-Defense
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.
Agreed.2.0 Economic Liberty
A free and compe ive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
Agreed.2.1 Property and Contract
Property rights are en led to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor res ution to the rightful owners.
Agreed.2.2 Environment
We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.
Agreed.2.3 Energy and Resources
While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.
I agree if this is as I assume. They agree to taxation, just not income taxes here. I assume property taxes are not liked either, but something like "The Fair Tax" is. I support The Fair Tax.2.4 Government Finance and Spending
All persons are en led to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Cons ution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Cons ution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.
Agreed.2.5 Money and Financial Markets
We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted compe ion among banks and depository ins utions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.
Agreed.2.6 Monopolies and Corporations
We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.
Agreed.2.7 Labor Markets
We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.
Agreed.2.8 Education
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.
Agreed.2.9 Health Care
We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.
Agreed.2.10 Retirement and Income Security
Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.
Agreed.3.0 Securing Liberty
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is cons utionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.
I disagree with us not being the policemen of the world. We are the stongest nation still, and at times, should intervene.3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
Agree with the intent, but you cannot have transparency and be able to collect intelligence. Disclosure of methods will allow others to keep out intelligence network from working.3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights
The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.
I like the idea, but I don't see it as practical.3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.
I would be in favor of complete free trade ideas if we move to a taxation system that does not tax producers. We need a consumption based tax for this to work.3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.
Agreed.3.5 Rights and Discrimination
We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.
Agreed.3.6 Representative Government
We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.
Agreed.3.7 Self-Determination
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.
4.0 Omissions
Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.
You fit the "ideals" other than your love of war socialism and disdain for civil liberties.
Idiotic and misinformed.
Unless you consider the John Birch Society as the only true indicator of conservatism, you're full of idiotic ramblings that make no sense.
Isolationist conservatism was dead by the time of Eisenhower who called forth the Eisenhower doctrine regarding foreign policy. And if you want to go way back, it was the New Federalist or Whig Party that wanted to carry out manifest destiny.
Neoconservative policy is not anything like Wilsonian philosophy, Wilsonian philosophy on spreading Democracy was very idealistic and desired a third party League of Nations to administer such goal.
Neoconservative today is more about spreading democracy to achieve military advantage and to retaliate against our Cold War rivals who had their own version of Neoconservativism. For infact it was the Communist of the Motherland who wanted to engulf every state with communism leaving the United states to crumble under surrounding pressure and trade boycotts.
NeoConservatism was practiced by JFK, Johnson, Truman, and Reagan. Its not that we're here to promote Topless ty bars, playboy and Britney SPears. Neoconservatism aims to make representative govts out of despotic regimes and introduce free markets. Free Markets allow for everyone to chase money instead of chasing blood. That's the whole point behind it.
So to say that waging war is a Republican or Liberal thing is fallacious. Even the Federalist wanted at one point to choose sides and support the Brits vs the French.
As far as Libertarian views on Military being big Govt. The cons uion specifically states the duty for congress to raise taxes for supporting a standing army.
Supporting a Big millitary is not being liberal, its being cons utional.
lol...
I agree that most of the Libertarian party platforms are things that no party would seemingly argue with. However, on the key things that make a Libertarian a libertarian (isolationist, civil liberties, fiscal independence) WC seems to not be an isolationist at all, is halfway ok with civil liberties, and is full on with fiscal independence. I'd say WC is slightly more libertarian than most conservatives, but still not libertarian enough to be a big L Libertarian.
You need to read up more on your history books. The reason that Congress is forced to vote, EVERY YEAR, on a standing army is to ensure that it is necessary.
If the framers wanted a large and permanent military, they wouldn't make Congress vote every year to keep it going.
This will spell it out easier for you:
http://stason.org/TULARC/society/law...ding-Army.html
I agree with you. Times have changed since then. This is an item that. Voting to fund the military each budget cycle I would say shows all congress' have seen a standing army as necessary. I don't completely agree with a standing Army being compared to the police, but as a police state, yes. We don't have a police state. I would say it's getting close however.
Yawn. Until you are able to follow the conversation, you can return to playing with your Dubya action figure.
Isolationism is not opposition to shooting up half of the Middle East in order to spread "freedom." That's called sanity.Isolationist conservatism was dead by the time of Eisenhower who called forth the Eisenhower doctrine regarding foreign policy. And if you want to go way back, it was the New Federalist or Whig Party that wanted to carry out manifest destiny.
ROFL. It's the same enterprise, right down to the use of a state of war to accomplish goals that would otherwise be unattainable for the state.Neoconservative policy is not anything like Wilsonian philosophy, Wilsonian philosophy on spreading Democracy was very idealistic and desired a third party League of Nations to administer such goal.
Neoconservatism today is about spreading democracy and freedom by force, often by attempting to run out the very despots the US put in place directly or indirectly during the Cold War.Neoconservative today is more about spreading democracy to achieve military advantage and to retaliate against our Cold War rivals who had their own version of Neoconservativism. For infact it was the Communist of the Motherland who wanted to engulf every state with communism leaving the United states to crumble under surrounding pressure and trade boycotts.
Neoconservatism is nothing other than the progressivism of the Roosevelts and Wilson, rediscovered. The amusing thing is that today's "conservatives" fail to grasp that the tradition they uphold is simply the progressive militarism of a century ago.NeoConservatism was practiced by JFK, Johnson, Truman, and Reagan. Its not that we're here to promote Topless ty bars, playboy and Britney SPears. Neoconservatism aims to make representative govts out of despotic regimes and introduce free markets. Free Markets allow for everyone to chase money instead of chasing blood. That's the whole point behind it.
Waging war is a bipartisan affair, as it expands the power of the state at the expense of lost individual liberty.So to say that waging war is a Republican or Liberal thing is fallacious. Even the Federalist wanted at one point to choose sides and support the Brits vs the French.
Wrong, professor.As far as Libertarian views on Military being big Govt. The cons uion specifically states the duty for congress to raise taxes for supporting a standing army.
ROFL.Supporting a Big millitary is not being liberal, its being cons utional.
So you think a company as massive as say Jack Daniels or Miller would risk alienating its core base over the possibilities of distributing a newly legal drug? A drug that if made legal would have a huge following of non-supporters. JD or Miller aren't advocates of cigarettes anymore than it would be of dope. I would think the risk doesn't outweigh the reward until the new product had been on the market and stable for a good decade or so. At that point it seems more logical to oppose it than support it.
Not to mention that dope isn't even remotely related product wise to booze. What other liquor or beer company have cross promoted legal vices? None that I an think of.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
