Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 51 to 52 of 52

Thread: UN Official Calls for Marijuana Ballot Rollback

  1. -51
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,567
    vCash:
    40550
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Being indefinitely detained is not an ethereal concept though, itís a tangible reality.
    It's an ethereal concept to anyone who considers themselves a normal, law abiding citizen.

    Suppression of journalism, activism, protesting, & free-speech, are all corporeal realities. Do you recall what Rand Paul said about the possibility of a government that could detain citizens over disagreements? No one wants that. No one should even want that mechanism to be in place.
    Yes, I remember him saying that. I've seen no evidence he is being accurate, though.

    The way the Occupy protesters were treated was horrible. But I'm not sure you can blame the Patriot Act or the NDAA for it. Sad as it is, it's not very far out of line with how large scale protests have been treated throughout American history, no matter how centralized the power of the federal government at the time. Have you ever heard of the Bonus Army?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

    Iím sure you personally though donít believe the government is spying on us in order to protect us; that is such a crock of **** notion. In the words of Stephen Fry; ďThe riotous, chaotic freedom we enjoy, which causes so much of a headache for all of us, is infinitely better than the rigidity of tyranny & controlĒ.
    I don't buy the notion that it actually protects us, but I do think that's the motive. Perhaps I'm just naive, but I don't buy this notion that we're on the way to becoming Eurasia with cameras in our houses watching us every second. I don't buy, in other words, that it's control for control's sake. Many do, but far more people reference 1984 than have actually read it, I've found. It's one thing to believe that John Ashcroft deliberately manipulated the terrorism readiness status for political gain in 2004 (which I think has merit), but it's a whole different thing to believe 9/11 was an inside job, which is just stupid.

    I think what we have is a bunch of people in power extremely concerned about our safety and not so concerned about our freedom. And up to a point, I think the public is behind them. It doesn't speak for where I draw the line but I can empathize. I do have the feeling a sort of critical mass is being reached with the TSA, though. For the first time in years the ratio of drivers to fliers on Thanksgiving actually grew, despite high gas prices.

    I'm with Fry, though, on his general point... though I think he squeezes it somewhat to tilt to his side of the argument. Take it back to gun control, for example. It's inarguable that it's a form of tyranny, yet why do I think Fry is likely to support it? Because it's one thing to be in favor of "riotous, chaotic freedom" when it's all fun and games but quite another when you look at how often guns in the home purchased for "protection" end up killing the people who live there, either purposefully or accidentally, rather than intruders. It's one thing to be glib about it and another to support a freedom knowing how many people will die as a result of it. Seat belt laws are a perfect example of this, the very definition of a "nanny state" kind of law. But how many people would die every year if those laws were repealed?

    The only sensible way to look at these issues is to go one at a time and argue them on the merits. But that also means dropping the sloganeering and notions of adamantine overarching principle I see coming from libertarians all too often.

    Hereís my feeling on this; why even have a constitution if we find ourselves not abiding by it, disregarding, or contradicting it in terms of our policy? Do I personally believe persons with schizophrenia or armed assault charges should be able to buy firearms? No. Does it prohibit this in the constitution? Also no. Should we amend it more frequently to address some of these issues so thatís itís no longer a point of contention or interpretation? Absolutely. I believe it should be respected more than it currently is, & I believe it should be modified to reflect modern concerns with far more frequency.
    It should be easier to amend but beware a Constitution that's too easy to amend. One of the virtues of an independent judiciary and a set of bedrock principles are the check they represent against the mob mentality.

    The appeals process is long and doesn't stop or change the initial act, but once the heat of the moment has passed justice is eventually done. Look at the Korematsu case, which I've referenced before. He was arrested as a fugitive from the internment camps and lived long enough to have the governement apologize to him and die a civil rights hero.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -52
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,542
    vCash:
    9622
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    It's an ethereal concept to anyone who considers themselves a normal, law abiding citizen.
    Journalists, peaceful protesters, political activists, are all 'normal', law abiding citizens; & the tool that is the National Defense Authorization Act threatens freedom of speech & press with the threat of indefinite detention without trial.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Yes, I remember him saying that. I've seen no evidence he is being accurate, though.
    I wonít even get into Bradley Manning, whoís been held in pre-trial solitary confinement for over 900 days. Letís just look at the mechanism itself; you canít always leave it up the the fedís judgement on the matter as to who should be detained without right to trial. Itís a bad mechanism, & I think you would agree with that as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    The way the Occupy protesters were treated was horrible. But I'm not sure you can blame the Patriot Act or the NDAA for it. Sad as it is, it's not very far out of line with how large scale protests have been treated throughout American history, no matter how centralized the power of the federal government at the time. Have you ever heard of the Bonus Army?
    Indefinite dentition by mere suspicion is undoubtedly a power that can be abused, & it shouldn't be allowed to be in the position where it can be abused. Though I donít want this to veer off topic, I will say of the Wall-street protesters, because I know most people here donít sympathize with them; there were provocateurs that infiltrated the mostly peaceful movement, & intentionally started trouble in order to give justification for using force on said protesters. This is certainly not a new tactic for dealing with protesters. I also know that just because this treatment has been historically repetitive, doesn't mean you believe it to be the right course of action.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    I don't buy the notion that it actually protects us, but I do think that's the motive. Perhaps I'm just naive, but I don't buy this notion that we're on the way to becoming Eurasia with cameras in our houses watching us every second. I don't buy, in other words, that it's control for control's sake. Many do, but far more people reference 1984 than have actually read it, I've found. It's one thing to believe that John Ashcroft deliberately manipulated the terrorism readiness status for political gain in 2004 (which I think has merit), but it's a whole different thing to believe 9/11 was an inside job, which is just stupid.

    I think what we have is a bunch of people in power extremely concerned about our safety and not so concerned about our freedom. And up to a point, I think the public is behind them. It doesn't speak for where I draw the line but I can empathize. I do have the feeling a sort of critical mass is being reached with the TSA, though. For the first time in years the ratio of drivers to fliers on Thanksgiving actually grew, despite high gas prices.

    I'm with Fry, though, on his general point... though I think he squeezes it somewhat to tilt to his side of the argument. Take it back to gun control, for example. It's inarguable that it's a form of tyranny, yet why do I think Fry is likely to support it? Because it's one thing to be in favor of "riotous, chaotic freedom" when it's all fun and games but quite another when you look at how often guns in the home purchased for "protection" end up killing the people who live there, either purposefully or accidentally, rather than intruders. It's one thing to be glib about it and another to support a freedom knowing how many people will die as a result of it. Seat belt laws are a perfect example of this, the very definition of a "nanny state" kind of law. But how many people would die every year if those laws were repealed?
    I canít get behind seat-belt laws. I donít think you can enforce intelligence. I believe itís just another reason to give cops a reason to pull you over (in other words, control for controlís sake). For the most part, Government doesnít give a **** about anyoneís health; if they did they wouldn't sell cigarettes on every street corner (a drug that kills half a million Americans every year) & outlaw cannabis (a drug that's never killed anyone).

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    The only sensible way to look at these issues is to go one at a time and argue them on the merits. But that also means dropping the sloganeering and notions of adamantine overarching principle I see coming from libertarians all too often.

    It should be easier to amend but beware a Constitution that's too easy to amend. One of the virtues of an independent judiciary and a set of bedrock principles are the check they represent against the mob mentality.

    The appeals process is long and doesn't stop or change the initial act, but once the heat of the moment has passed justice is eventually done. Look at the Korematsu case, which I've referenced before. He was arrested as a fugitive from the internment camps and lived long enough to have the government apologize to him and die a civil rights hero.
    I believe sloganeering & notions of overarching principles aren't confined to the Libertarian party. Now, when I say with more frequency, I mean more often than every 20 or so years. As evidenced by the lack of action in amending the constitution throughout recent American history, I can surmise that itís probably not that easy to change. However, I still believe it should be modernized, we must account for ever evolving technological circumstances.

    I know you may disagree, but I believe the important things should be included in the constitution, & I believe the rest should be left up to the individual state; as to respect itís unique sovereignty. Part of living in a democracy is that you sometimes don't always agree with said laws, in the same way you don't always agree with what your tax dollars are being spent on. For example, Arizona has a Republican super majority right now, & I know they have some racist immigration laws; & did they make the right move by the supreme court to overrule it? Abso****inlutely. Yet & still, I believe those laws wouldn't have existed that much (relatively) longer anyway. I simply believe the people of Arizona would've had an easier time overruling those laws, than do the general American public would have a time reversing the federally enacted NDAA or Patriot Act. Just my opinion.
    Last edited by rob19; 11-29-2012 at 06:25 AM.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Attorney General candidate calls for legalizing marijuana
    By X-Pacolypse in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-06-2010, 01:45 PM
  2. Cop calls 911 after thinking he OD'd on Marijuana
    By CedarPhin in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-25-2010, 05:11 PM
  3. Official review of the calls in the Texans game
    By Chi-Town FinFan in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 01-01-2010, 03:07 PM
  4. Pro bowl Ballot
    By Mrcarciero in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-19-2005, 10:24 PM
  5. Pence wants rollback of some Bush initiatives
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-07-2005, 11:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •