In reality we are not all equal even under the law. We are not physicly or morally, spritually (or in spelling ) or monetarily equal nor will we ever be. The only equality I will guarentee is we will all die. There is your equality and the only way in society it will ever be equal.
You have a point but that doesn't mean the inequalities should be intentionally perpetuated.
There are no "recreational" drugs just people who want to use that word rather than addiction. If you have ever been around those people who do drugs you will see that drugs are all that is important in their life.
Your experiences differ greatly from mine. I drink recreationally yet I am not addicted to alcohol. I have friends who smoke marijuana recreationally yet are not addicted. I have friends who use cocaine, a couple on a regular basis in lieu of caffiene, yet are still productive members of society.
I guess my seeing it for years doesn't have any meaning to you anymore than my losing family members because of drugs but even you can't believe we don't have a drug problem in this country and it aint because it is illegal it's because people screw their minds up with the crap.
Yeah I've also lost people to drugs, mainly tobacco (which is perfectly legal, by the way). I believe we do have a drug problem but that it should be treated as a public health concern, not a law enforcement issue. The prohibition of the stuff only makes sure that more money goes into the criminal underground and that people who could benefit from medical treatment are instead put in jail for a few months only to be let out and continue feeding their addiction.
Not all drugs ruin the mind. Alcohol kills brain cells but so does sneezing. Marijuana impairs the memory during use and shortly after but only chronic use will cause longer impairment but tends to go away after longer periods of abstinence. Salvia, a completely legal drug, does not seem to have any lasting effects at all after 24 hours. The mental effects of tobacco also dissipate after use has stopped. Stronger drugs have stronger effects but the majority do not "ruin the mind" unless used frequently.
Regardless of all this, it's not your mind. It's their minds to ruin. If they want to destroy their lives then it's none of my business but it's also not my responsibility and thus I, nor you nor anyone else should have to pay for it. The problem is that one camp wants to you to pay for someone ruining his life with heroin while the other camp wants me to pay for the state ruining someone's life for sparking a joint. In both cases the money is doing more to prolong the problem than solve it.
Your kinda funny People all over this world believe in gods they have never seen to the point of killing themselves and you for him. People all over this world would sell their soul and yours for the next dope fix they can get. The world is full of really bad people yet you think a person who spends alot of time on his and his families defense a nut job.
No, not a person who spends a lot of time on his and his family's defense. A peson who spends
all his time on the weapons preferred for that defense but ignoring the original concept of it. I see a guy who buys a new gun with his rent money equally as irresponsible as a guy who buys a pound of hash with his rent money.
Defense of one's life and one's freedom is very important but it's when the guns become more important than the life and liberty being defended that I see it as paranoia. I highly doubt you or anyone else here really fits that mold but there are those who do. On the other hand many here put
their freedom above the freedom of others. That's not cool.
As for the movie I like what O'rielly had in his opinion column. He pointed out what he believed hollywood made the movie just for a political statement. He also pondered what real cowboys would have done if they stumbled upon these sheep herders in the movie I won't see it nor the sequal nor the third remake that I am sure hollywood will put out. They are liberals and undeserving of my money.
I don't doubt that a political statement was part of the movie's intended purpose but it was also meant not only as a form of entertainment but as an eye-opener for people who have misconceptions about gays. And gay cowboys, which do exist.
I've been spending less and less money on movies recently but not because of a political statement...just the simple fact that a lot of crap is being released lately. Every well known movie in the past few years has been either a remake, sequel/prequel, or adaptation from a book. I didn't spend money to see Homo On The Range nor am I likely to spend money seeing the movie that was the original subject of this thread. I prefer to preview most movies at home before deciding whether or not to spend money on them (with the exception of movies made for the purpose of a special effects orgy like the third Matrix movie or Revenge of the Sith) and the former was simply a lackluster flick; the latter will most likely be the same.
