The liberals are on to something

Just because the filter blocked out you language does not mean the mods will turn a blind eye to blatant violations of rule #2. Pashion can be expressed without profanity.

The libertarian party would not be a spoiler if republicans like you(and democrats) knew when to aboandon ship. Both parties are devastating our liberties. People like you who don't care as long as it is not your liberties affected are ruining this country.

Samuri,
This is L&P. Discussion is not limited to gun related topics.
 
libertarian party sucks because it undermines the real parties, ya i said it, REAL PARTIES, libertarian party is never going to amount to anything more than a spoiler for either side. i have no problem with libertarian values, but honestly, pick a party and push your values through that party rather than ****ing everyone else.

and what the **** is up with liberals wanting to ban smoking, but legalize pot, pot is unfiltered, hallucenogenic (sp?) cigarettes, dont try and tell me thats good for you. amsterdam has gone to **** because the legalized pot. and dont even try and put alcohol in the same league as other drugs, its a lot different, and you know it. I have family members whose whole lives are ****ed up becuase of pot, whose pot-smoking friends are all dead, and who still think that pot is "harmless" **** THAT. and I really and truely dont have a problem with gay, or interracial, or whatever relationships, I am against gay marriage cause I dont think its healthy for kids to grow up in an environment without both parents, not that single parenting is wrong, I was raised by a single mother, but the government doesnt have to endorse a home without both parents. think of it this way, do you, as a father/mother, think you have something unique to offer your kid that could not be offered by a spouse of the opposite sex? most people would answer yes.

thats enough for one post, dont take my language as offensive or a personal attack, Im just passionate about politics
Click to expand...

cliffs:

1. Marijuana cannot kill. THC has no known lethal toxicity level, iirc. Medically, it's impossible because the body simply can't absorb enough of it. It's also not a strong hallucinogenic, it's a depressant with mild psychoactive properties.

2. Those lives that were messed up due to pot were messed up by the individuals. The drugs were not responsible any more than guns are responsible for crimes. The people you know screwed up their own lives.

3. You're right, alcohol and pot are a lot different. Many people die each year from alcohol. None from pot.

4. Amsterdam has not suffered due to its drug laws. Saying so is akin to saying Florida has suffered due to its castle and stand-your-ground laws.

5. Two men or two women qualify as two parents. You don't want kids growing up with only one parent yet you'd rather see a child with a single mother than two loving mothers? Makes little sense to me.

6. Two men or two women can raise a child as well as a man and woman can. It's not even a liberal thing, it happens in numerous other species. Example: http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
 
edited out language, my bad on that, anyways

im not saying thc killls you, but inhaling smoke it unhealthy any way you slice it

marijuana had more than a little to do with what happened to them, of course they made their own bad decisions, but i would say their judgement was impaired by pot

people die from pot, maybe not directly, but it affects a person's entire life

amsterdam has suffered due to its drug laws, its become a mecca for druggies, and subsequently a pit

im saying a single mother is not ideal but two moms is the government saying, I agree that kids dont need moms and dads, there is a government endorsemen when you have gay marriage, not the case with single parents
 
I think divorce should carry with it a criminal penalty.

Obviously it erodes family values, and divorce has reached epidemic levels here in the U.S. And don't get me started with those couples that get married and DON'T have kids? That is a MOCKERY of marriage. That is no better than a homosexual union.
</end tongue obviously in cheek for the humor impaired>

What liberals are clearly wrong about are their stand on gun laws. Not because of the constitution, but because of practicality. If they argued guns the same way they argued illegal substances, or gay rights, etc, they would end up at the same conclusion... i.e. the owner of the gun needs to be responsible and it ain't the gov'ts job to restrict that.

Of course, all these liberal bashing threads do a FANTASTIC job of speaking your position and encouraging them to think correctly on the issue.
</end sarcasm tag, which somehow turned on again>
 
Last edited:
What if there is good grounds for the divorce like you married a guy that beats you or or maybe your wife develops a gambling problem and puts you under ? Who are you sir to think you have the right to tell anyone what thier marrige should be about ? I cant for the life of me even figure out why homosexuality is an issue. About the gay thing and freedom ... either we are all drinking from the same fountin or we are not. If your not willing to defend every mans freedoms than you have no right to whine when yours are taken.
 
edited out language, my bad on that, anyways

im not saying thc killls you, but inhaling smoke it unhealthy any way you slice it
Click to expand...
Yet smoking is not the only way to use pot. You can cook with it and you can vaporize, both methods completely remove the unhealthy effects of smoking and both methods are very popular. Both would be even more popular if things were not taboo discussion.

Besides, are you pushing for a ban on cigarettes as well?
marijuana had more than a little to do with what happened to them, of course they made their own bad decisions, but i would say their judgement was impaired by pot

people die from pot, maybe not directly, but it affects a person's entire life
Click to expand...
Your judgement is impaired by pot while you're high. That's it. It wears off after a couple hours. If they made all their stupid decisions while high then they were still completely 100% at fault because they chose to get high again. The drug is not to blame.
amsterdam has suffered due to its drug laws, its become a mecca for druggies, and subsequently a pit
Click to expand...
Sorry but no, it's not.
im saying a single mother is not ideal but two moms is the government saying, I agree that kids dont need moms and dads, there is a government endorsemen when you have gay marriage, not the case with single parents
Click to expand...
By your logic simply allowing single mothers to raise children is also the government saying "kids don't need moms and dads". First of all, it's simply not true. Single parents can raise children just as well as two parents but obviously two parents gives them a better chance to do so. Two gay parents or two straight parents doesn't matter. The problem is the idea that men and women must fit into these gender roles, that dad must teach the kid how to fix engines and mom must teach the kid how to cook. Bull.
 
What liberals are clearly wrong about are their stand on gun laws. Not because of the constitution, but because of practicality. If they argued guns the same way they argued illegal substances, or gay rights, etc, they would end up at the same conclusion... i.e. the owner of the gun needs to be responsible and it ain't the gov'ts job to restrict that.
Click to expand...
Somebody give this man a gold star. :) Absotively posilutely correct, good sir. If we're going to rip on the liberals for something this is the issue to focus on.

They're also wrong on how the economy should work but that's a far more complex issue than the plain and simple logic that we all have the right to defend ourselves in any manner we see fit. :p
 
Damn my short sighted mind. Now this will degrade into a religous discussion. Back to the topic. What Liberals did in the past is not relevant. What matters is what is going on now. I.E. Just because slavery was "Moraly acceptable" 200 years ago it does not imply it still is.


Edited to fix grammar
 
Last edited:
Damn my short sighted mind. Now this will degrade into a religous discussion. Back to the topic. What did in the past is not relevant. What matters is what is going on now. I.E. just because slavery was "Moraly acceptable"200 years ago it does not imply it still is.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Yet the point still stands that liberals still have the right idea on some issues and the wrong idea on others in about equal ratio to the conservatives. Conservatives are generally right on the money with guns, economics, national defense (not offense), border control and freedom of religion. But I do believe they're very wrong on such issues as religion in science class, abortion, gay rights, the environment and freedom of speech.

Ya win some ya lose some. :o
 
What matters is what is going on now. I.E. just because slavery was "Moraly acceptable"200 years ago it does not imply it still is.
Click to expand...
I point you to http://www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html

In some parts of the world there is still slavery. A LOT of slavery. So to someone it is morally acceptable.

Here, we as a country have moved on and come to all agree that it is not morally acceptable. You seem to be saying that this change was inevitable over time, but I suggest that current slavery figures paint a different picture.
 
the point still stands that liberals still have the right idea on some issues and the wrong idea on others in about equal ratio to the conservatives. Conservatives are generally right on the money with guns, economics, national defense (not offense), border control and freedom of religion. But I do believe they're very wrong on such issues as religion in science class, abortion, gay rights, the environment and freedom of speech.

Ya win some ya lose some.
Click to expand...

While I agree 100% with your sentiment, I disagree on the issue you bolded. Possibly it is due to my ignorance or that you had something particular in mind. Could you please specify the conservative vs liberal positions on national defense?
 
In some parts of the world there is still slavery. A LOT of slavery. So to someone it is morally acceptable.

Here, we as a country have moved on and come to all agree that it is not morally acceptable. You seem to be saying that this change was inevitable over time, but I suggest that current slavery figures paint a different picture.
Click to expand...

Ok, sorry to reply to myself, but the argument against raising the minimum wage (it is at it's lowest buying power in 50 years) is same as for slavery.

You'd think that the people wanting to pay crap wages to people would also be the first in line wanting illegals in the country to whom they can pay so little.
 
While I agree 100% with your sentiment, I disagree on the issue you bolded. Possibly it is due to my ignorance or that you had something particular in mind. Could you please specify the conservative vs liberal positions on national defense?
Click to expand...
It often seems that liberals are too eager to appease and take pacifist positions. Cutting the military budget I have no problem with; we do not need another aircraft carrier nor do we need multiple squadrons of F22s when our current stock is still decades ahead of anyone else's. However I do feel that liberals tend to hold this fantasy ideal of a world without war, without conflict.

But you're right, ignore that part of what I said because I don't really know how to define the differences between the two positions. I'm not against war (I'm against this retarded war) since I realize it can be necessary but it should also be reserved as a last resort.
 
Gotcha.. looks like more and more of the US is aligning according to polls about this war of last resort.

I think that hippies and their free love scared the hell out of conservatives. But then, that is history, and we live in the today.

Sadly, there is very little coverage of North Korea right now. This is a situation where the six nation talks worked. Yes, it may turn out very clintonion, in that NK may just be lying and reverse course, but for right now, it looks like diplomacy still has a place and needs to be exhausted before the choice of war is made.

N. Korea and Iraq were treated very differently.. I'm not totally certain why. Is it because N. Korea may have bigger guns (nukes) and thus demanded more respect? I do believe that there was a credible threat made against the western shores of the US.
 
call me crazy, but i think long term use of pot has long term effects on the brain, im not doctor, but I've seen it happen

and the government is not endorsing single moms, its just a reality, marriage is a governmental institution in a legal sense, so the government granting gay marriage license is basically a seal of approval
 
call me crazy, but i think long term use of pot has long term effects on the brain, im not doctor,
Click to expand...

As opposed to Tobacco or Alcohol right?

The terrorists are destroying our buildings, killing our troops and we are worried about what a a person chooses to inhale, ingest or otherwise put into their own bodies. Maybe it's me but something seems to be severly out of wack. As a final thought. Prohibition did not work in the 1920's and 30's why should we believe it is working now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top