sleeper;1309728 wrote:I highly doubt people are stealing money or killing people to get marijuana. I don't smoke, but I know people who do and mostly they just hang around and eat food all day. I don't see that as being a problem; at least no different than alcohol.

I highly doubt that as well. That's not the culture with marijuana. Hard drugs on the other hand is a different story.

like_that;1309730 wrote:I highly doubt that as well. That's not the culture with marijuana. Hard drugs on the other hand is a different story.

Sure the harder stuff is worse, but I hate how people associated marijuana with the harder stuff or as a "gateway" drug. Ignorance.

like_that;1309730 wrote:I highly doubt that as well. That's not the culture with marijuana. Hard drugs on the other hand is a different story.

I assumed he was referring to hard drugs and not marijuana.

BGFalcons82;1309569 wrote:Huh?

What is "ITT"?
Spurious evidence? People killing and stealing money for drug use isn't rampant, eh? Whatever you want to believe, I guess.

ITT stands for "In this thread" apologies for the message board lingo.

The piont is that there are bigger things that cause greater harm in society than narcotic use that you would not say justify government intervention/prevention. Alcohol is a good example. It is worse on several metrics than many, many drugs from Marijuana to Anabolic Steroids.

Or, for example, what if it was proven, even for you, beyond all doubt, that man burning fossil fuels makes the earth warmer which makes more moisture available in the atmosphere and is the proximate cause of violent superstorms (I'm sure you dispute this but just go along for a sec). Even in that world where that is an undisputed fact, do you, the unabashed liberty-lover get on board with carbon taxes and carbon caps in order to prevent the greater harm to society...as is your justification for the large anti-drug police state???

I sympathize with libertarians when they ask small government conservative types to reconcile this fact...they have a hard-on for certain drugs and they suddenly become ok with a massive police state that infringes on liberty very greatly and begin talking about "society" (sounds like liberalism). Why do small government conservatives suddenly make appeals to the greater good of society when it comes to drugs but would never do that when it came to health insurance, taxation, climate change, etc.

The onus to me is on the small government conservatives who don't have a coherent, market-based, liberty-based reason for being, essentially, big government liberals when it comes to drugs.

To me, conservatives would see less libertarian insurgency if they'd come to terms with the reality about drugs...they'd go along way if they just got on board with marijuana...a drug way less harmful than alcohol...as there really aren't that many libertarians who wouldn't be satisfied with that show of good faith from conservatives.

The poll is wrong

I voted for Obama in this poll just to have voter fraud

We all know it will be a cold day in hell for me to vote for Obama or any Democrat in this election year.

Obama 10
Romney 13

BoatShoes;1309836 wrote:...

To me, conservatives would see less libertarian insurgency if they'd come to terms with the reality about drugs...they'd go along way if they just got on board with marijuana...a drug way less harmful than alcohol...as there really aren't that many libertarians who wouldn't be satisfied with that show of good faith from conservatives.

That would be a disingenuous move for it doesn't mirror true social conservative beliefs.

BoatShoes;1309836 wrote:ITT stands for "In this thread" apologies for the message board lingo.

The piont is that there are bigger things that cause greater harm in society than narcotic use that you would not say justify government intervention/prevention. Alcohol is a good example. It is worse on several metrics than many, many drugs from Marijuana to Anabolic Steroids.

Or, for example, what if it was proven, even for you, beyond all doubt, that man burning fossil fuels makes the earth warmer which makes more moisture available in the atmosphere and is the proximate cause of violent superstorms (I'm sure you dispute this but just go along for a sec). Even in that world where that is an undisputed fact, do you, the unabashed liberty-lover get on board with carbon taxes and carbon caps in order to prevent the greater harm to society...as is your justification for the large anti-drug police state???

I sympathize with libertarians when they ask small government conservative types to reconcile this fact...they have a hard-on for certain drugs and they suddenly become ok with a massive police state that infringes on liberty very greatly and begin talking about "society" (sounds like liberalism). Why do small government conservatives suddenly make appeals to the greater good of society when it comes to drugs but would never do that when it came to health insurance, taxation, climate change, etc.

The onus to me is on the small government conservatives who don't have a coherent, market-based, liberty-based reason for being, essentially, big government liberals when it comes to drugs.

To me, conservatives would see less libertarian insurgency if they'd come to terms with the reality about drugs...they'd go along way if they just got on board with marijuana...a drug way less harmful than alcohol...as there really aren't that many libertarians who wouldn't be satisfied with that show of good faith from conservatives.

The problem as you described is all about parties. No one should prescribe to blindly supporting every single objective of one single party, be it Libertarian or Republic or Green. That's why I hate parties, and have never declared one for myself.

More specifically, I don't think you can compare the drug issues and things like health care when it comes to "good of society" and government's role. Apples to oranges.

Be sure to tune into Rachel Maddow's election special airing tonight. She will be revealing who she's voting for.

As always, she will be featuring a fair and balanced guest panel, including Reverend Al Sharpton, Sean Penn and an additional crazy African American.

ccrunner609;1312749 wrote:She's Pat!!!



Can you believe she is 5'11"?

HS must of been tough for her to go from this to bull dike.

Oh my god. Lol. The only possible way you would know that's the same life form is the giant mole crawling out of her neck. She is an utter embarrassment to the human race.

Game over!

Is that Lewinsky

QuakerOats;1313355 wrote:Is that Lewinsky

Katie Perry

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332617/romney-s-path-270-robert-costa#

Romney advisor admits they must win Ohio or Pennsylvania to get to 270

Matthew Dowd @matthewjdowd




in the polling averages before election day in 2004 bush was at 48.9%. in polling averages today Obama is at 48.8%. pretty uncanny.

Nate Silver ‏@fivethirtyeight Obama gained an average of 1.5 points between 12 national polls published today. Big sample sizes. That's a pretty big deal.

Nate Silver ‏@fivethirtyeight There's been a pretty clear shift toward Obama in national polls. Based on most recent data, he may lead by 2-3% in popular vote.

Nate Silver ‏@fivethirtyeight A few more polls to add. But Obama at 91% to win Electoral College based on today's data so far.

Tim Tebow ‏@TheTimmyTebow
I'm predicting Obama will take an early lead tomorrow... Until all the Republicans get off work. #RomneyRyan2012

WebFire;1313608 wrote:Tim Tebow ‏@TheTimmyTebow
I'm predicting Obama will take an early lead tomorrow... Until all the Republicans get off work. #RomneyRyan2012

lol'd

ccrunner609;1313617 wrote:Tebow is a huge DB but I like this

You realize that's not his twitter right?

Ben Silver @ninetytwo: based on recent data, Romney has a 150% chance of winning popular vote but only a 110% of winning the electoral college.

Ron Silver: "War on women? Rampage and pillage and plunder!!!"

Ty Webb;1313618 wrote:You realize that's not his twitter right?

Doesn't matter who said it. It's funny shit.

This thing is a complete tossup. I really don't know and honestly have never thought that before