Americans are NOT stupid

[Weave]

Just so you know, America is actually not capitalist, which is a very common misconception.

 

Actually, America supports every form of Burgeouis capitalism and intends to be that way. However, you're right that it is not exactly capitalist.

 

But I think we should all thank the anarchists and communists back in the 1800's because without them... we (America) wouldn't have hardly any socialist benefits such as: Health care, Insurance, Labor laws, Payed Vacations, Social Security, Increased Minimum Wage, etc, etc, etc...

 

Those who dislike it as much as they do are not being forced to live in America, in fact I can highly recommend a move north of the boarder.

 

Sorry to burst your nationalist bubble but... the point of staying in America is to hopefully change it for the better.

"You must be the change you want to see in the world,"

--- Mahatma Ghandi

 

Getting up and moving elsewhere won't fix the problem because everybody has problems no matter where in the world.

 

Well said.

 

The nature of the United States has changed over the years, and the corporations have been able to regulate how we eat, breath, and speak. No one will make a stand. All we do is go online and spew garbage about how we feel, and we don't make a stand in our front lawns. Irony.

 

There are some of us who do take direct action you know. But for the most part, I'd have to agree with you..

ANTI-APATHY: something everyone should have in common.

 

Drug issue:

 

The only drug I would consider legalizing is Marijuana...

Cocaine, Meth, and Heroine however, I think should not be.

Did you know that it's cheaper to make paper out of hemp than it is with the paper from trees? Plus, it's stronger too!

 

 

I'm a firm believer in Sinclair Lewis's warning that "when facisim comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."

 

I, too, am completely anti-fascist. Therefore I agree. I'm also agnostic but I believe religion to be a very good thing... just not the people who make it corruptable (i.e, the followers: Nazis, Islamofascists, Hindu Extreamists, and other wacked out martyrs and nuts). Plus, the church system's pretty chalk full of pharisees too (I used to go to church thank you very much).

 

A Free Market, or total anarchy?

 

Not anarchy comrade.

Anarcho-Syndicalism: The unified organization of labor to both defend the immediate interests of workers and to allow them to operate without capitalist control and to work for their individual needs. Syndicalisme means trade union in French (I think, correct me if I'm wrong). Essentially, trade-unionism without archons (rulers). In non-stateless societies, it is used to prepare for radical social change directed towards Libertarian Socialism (i.e. Anarchism).

 

I'm not pushing for anarchy in any way, shape, form, or fashion here. I advocate laissez-faire capitalism.

 

Why not? hahaha... ever heard of CNT-FAI? or ANTIfa? what about WSA? No? Ever been to a spanish anarchist colony? Ever heard of Emma Goldman? William Godwin? What about the 4 anarchists who were hung simply because they were anarchists?

Not ringing any bells? Let me explain: CNT-FAI: the spanish syndicalist anarchist organization that resisted Fascist Spain during the Spanish Civil War... consists of 1.5 million people (anarchist and otherwise)...

ANTIfa : the american anti-fascist, anarchist orginization

WSA: Workers Solidarity Alliance (they help push for your wages)

Emma Goldman: The Anarcha-Feminist who pushed for birth control rights, labor laws, and the increase of minimum wage.

William Godwin: Anarcho-Individualist who popularized a philisophical anarchism... his neice wrote the book: Frankenstein (I'm sure eveyone knows that book).

We all exhibit some form of anarchism... doing something without being told to is autonomy, which is the root of anarchism.

And don't say anarchism can't work, cause it has. Simply, if you don't believe it will work... it won't... if you do, it will. Mainly because it reflects your tenacidy as an individual and self-control.

Plus, there are many kinds of anarchism... and there is a difference between anarchy and anarchism. Anarchy being the act of mutiny itself (can be considered a bad thing in some cases)... and anarchism being a philosophy of life as well as a political value.

hahaha... Jolee was an anarchist!!! hahahahahaha

 

Conclusion:

I have carpel tunnel now, so i'm stopping... you're all a fun bunch to talk to though... At least you people have interesting political values and can defend them... other people i know can't debate worth a $***.

 

Verbally assault me if you must... but i'm no push-over...

I WELCOME THE CHALLENGE HAHAHA!!! (laughs like cheese-head Malak).

[SilentScope001]

The goal of the Free Market is to have total competition between companies, with the main goal of having consumers benieft. The bad news is that, well, companies would rather work together, at the expense of the consumer. If that happens, it is no longer a Free Market. Instead, it would be...gasp...another form of government-control. As long as we can stop forces that encourage cartels and oligoplies, then the free market can work just fine.

 

NOTE that I believe that if something becomes Truly Free Market, then true power lie with the corporations, and you could make a convicing argument that the corporations, therefore, are the true governments.

 

But total legalization of drugs, and prositution? Er. Well, um, can't we just legalize murder...and just regulate it? Having duel circles where you can kill someone with supervision, making sure that the murder follows guidelines and cause as least pain as possible? But, I personally oppose drugs and prositution, so you lose my support there. But rather than attempt to force all of your viewpoints on someone, choose and pick your battles.

 

At least you can blame the hand of the Free Market rather than some humans when things go south.

[Weave]

The goal of the Free Market is to have total competition between companies, with the main goal of having consumers benieft. The bad news is that, well, companies would rather work together, at the expense of the consumer. If that happens, it is no longer a Free Market. Instead, it would be...gasp...another form of government-control. As long as we can stop forces that encourage cartels and oligoplies, then the free market can work just fine.

 

Very good point, The WTO is an example of another form of public authority.

 

Frankly, I'm starting to realize that most Americans, regardless of their political alignment, are NOT stupid. I do dislike people claiming that their way is the right way and if someone disagree with them, they are well, dumb. The bad news is that liberals and conservatives both commit this sin. Why should I move if I hate this place? And if I shouldn't move, then why should I go and try to get others to see this place as evil and change it? Why can't I do nothing (in order to save my energy for more important tasks), like most Americans, why must I choose to fight the power or run away? And in the end, prehaps, if I choose to leave (notwithstanding civil war), it will not be because society turns into a liberal paradise or a conservative utopia, but because both the left and the right compel me to fight in their battles, and they destroy all that I somewhat like about America.

 

Because everyone feels like they have to wrap everything up in little boxes and label them...

"if you're not this... you're this..."

"why cant i just be me?"

its the sad truth...

 

What burns me is that people don't realize that there is more than just being liberal or conservative.

[Allronix]

But I think we should all thank the anarchists and communists back in the 1800's because without them... we (America) wouldn't have hardly any socialist benefits such as: Health care, Insurance, Labor laws, Payed Vacations, Social Security, Increased Minimum Wage, etc, etc, etc...

 

**Cheers and starts singing "Si, Si Puede (former member of Seattle Labor Chorus, thank you much!)"**

 

Comrade, we're STILL fighting! A lot of it is because we sacrificed so much and look down on unions for being lazy while our jobs go to places with labor laws resembling the ones folks like Joe Hill and Mother Jones worked their whole lives to be rid of.

 

Our distribution of wealth is akin to what it was in the gilded age. Americans work longer hours and take fewer vacations than any industrialized nation. We're always in fear of our jobs vaporizing and going to some overseas sweatshop while the CEO is paid 300 times his average worker and gets a golden parachute even if he runs that company into the floor. The majority live in fear while the few who know how to work the system make out like kings. Some folks will call it "free market," I'll call it a miscarriage of justice.

 

Sorry to burst your nationalist bubble but... the point of staying in America is to hopefully change it for the better.

"You must be the change you want to see in the world,"

--- Mahatma Ghandi

 

I'll see that and raise you with a great American's quote.

 

"Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living." - Mary Harris "Mother" Jones

[Weave]

hahaha... hold fast comrade! Class wars are brutal!

"Ask for work! If the do not give you work, ask for bread! If they do not give you work or bread... take bread! It is your sacred right to survive!"

Emma Goldman.

[Samnmax221]

But total legalization of drugs, and prostitution? Er. Well, um, can't we just legalize murder...and just regulate it? Having duel circles where you can kill someone with supervision, making sure that the murder follows guidelines and cause as least pain as possible? But, I personally oppose drugs and prostitution, so you lose my support there. But rather than attempt to force all of your viewpoints on someone, choose and pick your battles.

Murder takes away someone else's fundamental right to life, as it is the act of killing someone with intent, and without justification. Dueling on the other hand is perfectly acceptable if its consensual, nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to, so wheres the problem?

[Weave]

Murder takes away someone else's fundamental right to life, as it is the act of killing someone with intent, and without justification. Dueling on the other hand is perfectly acceptable if its consensual, nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to, so wheres the problem?

 

Well... if society promotes it... it'll potentially solve global overpopulation.

[Emperor Devon]

nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to, so wheres the problem?

 

Funny, you could say the same thing about suicide, self-mutilation, toddlers swallowing balloons, neo-Nazi rallies, CEOs making obscene amounts of money, deaths from drug overdose...

 

Honestly, by saying that you're operating under the (naive) assumption everyone will know what's best for them.

 

Think of the drug situation this way: since drugs aren't forced underground, they could be distributed from a brick and mortar establishment, and drugs could be mixed and purified to scientific standards,

 

They're lethal substances than can cause brain damage, ruination of the physical appearance and as the lethal part implies, death. There is really only so much purifying you can do.

 

If domestic production was legal, it would reduce drug smuggling from latin america significantly, if not eliminating it entirely.

 

Meh, IMO the deaths that will result from overdose, lives that will be ruined by the now-plentiful and cheap drugs, children that will have their futures blighted, and deaths that will also be caused by impaired senses are more important to prevent than drug smuggling.

 

Under a system like that instead of pushers and dealers we'd have advertisments and store owners, much like the shift from speakeasies and bootleggers back to breweries and bars/liquor stores after the repeal of prohibition.

 

"Drugz drugz, come to us for your drugs! Want some meth? It's cheap and we've got it! Want some cocaine? We've got it too! Club drugs, inhalant drugs, hallucinative drugs, snort-able drugs, we've got 'em all! Bring the whole family, share the high happy feeling our cheap, affordable drugs give you! Share 'em with the kids, give 'em some great childhood memories of gettin' stoned! Yes indeed, drugs: They're no longer a crime, they're the new family time! The PERFECTLY LEGAL new family time!"

 

Needs some shortening and maybe a catchy tune, but the gist is good enough...

 

Basically legalizing drugs would "civilize" them, and possibly return them to a status somwhat reminiscent of that they held in the late 19th/early 20th century.

 

Times if I may point out were much less civilized than our current ones. Perhaps I'm not quite grasping the concept, but please, enlighten me as to the civilized nature of psychotic, out-of-control emotions, severe mood swings, murder, shortened lifespans and all those other wonderful ways drugs can be civilized.

 

Legalizing drugs would simply give the government an opportunity to tax and regulate an activity that occurs despite a disastrous 30-year "war on drugs."

 

A war which I may point out the laissez-faire capitalist system you have advocated below has done little to contribute towards. Look at meth for instance, the prime ingredient in it is pseudoephedrine, something that can be found in everyday cold tablets. It can be obtained legally if purchased in the form of cold tablets. For some inexplicable reason, in recent years producers of it have been packaging them in bottles rather than wrappers, removing the coating of corn starch, (less work if the drug-dealers don't have to bother taking it off themselves - some of the processes involved in that can even be highly flamable) placing poorly enforced limits on the amount of cold medicine people can buy in stores, allowing stores to keep in stock over twice the amount they need...

 

Even funnier, phenylephrine can't be used to produce meth the same way pseudoephedrine does, can still make perfectly functional cold medicine, yet there are no federal laws requiring its usage in the place of pseudoephedrine.

 

My point? For all your claims of laissez-faire capitalism making drugs more civilized (still not quite sure how that is ), it's one of the biggest reasons for why the whole war on drugs has been so disastrous. Capitalists want to actively work against work against the war on drugs, it cuts into their profits, never mind if those profits only come at the expense of the lives of others...

 

I advocate laissez-faire capitalism.

 

I'd like to keep my minimum wage, social security, public works, taxes, public school system, public libraries, payed vacations, health care, minimum working age, public fire department, other labor laws, outlawed substances and all those other great socialist concepts, thanks.

[Samnmax221]

Funny, you could say the same thing about suicide, self-mutilation, toddlers swallowing balloons, neo-Nazi rallies, CEOs making obscene amounts of money, deaths from drug overdose...

First off a toddler's wellbeing is the responsibility of the parent. If (mature) people want to harm themselves they're free to do it. Hurting themselves or getting help is their own decision.

Honestly, by saying that you're operating under the (naive) assumption everyone will know what's best for them.

Rest assured most people have a better grasp of what is to their benefit than you do.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I have to say I am in favor of legalized dueling just because of the sheer amount of badassery that would entail.

 

 

Honestly, by saying that you're operating under the (naive) assumption everyone will know what's best for them.

Meh. Let them kill themselves. Survival of the fittest.

[mimartin]

mimartin: Uh, while I love to have many people serve in the great US (only 33% of people living in the USA actually voted, the 66% number are the ones that bothered to register, but some people don't even register to vote), let face the facts here.

 

This is where I got my data; they played with it to make the numbers appear higher by removing felonies and non-citizens from the general data.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm

 

I do agree with you, whatever number you use the voter turnout rate in the country is pathetic. When a higher percentage of voters turns out in Iraq at risk of death then all I can say is the American people are truly pathetic (including myself).

 

You get to control 0.000000001% of the popular vote! Weeee!

How much more control is that over someone that didn’t vote? We’ve seen election come down to just a few votes in recent years and I feel voting has never been more important than it is right now. Now if we can just get the government to count every vote.

 

Democracy is a great idea, but when you realize that everyone else get to vote as well, you start to feel that you are useless, and the mob is the only thing that matter.

 

I actually like our system. I would be happy if everyone eligible voted, even if they did not agree with my idealist views.

 

Truth is, voting is NOT how you change the government. Getting other people to vote the same way is how you do so.[/Quote]

 

True, but it all starts with the first vote. The PACs is no good if no one in the PACs actually goes to the polls and votes.

 

(Maybe the reason America does not see our grand ideas as perfect is...because...they may not actually believe in them. Hey, look at the title of the thread: Americans are NOT stupid.)

 

And maybe the reason American’s is this way is because everyone is not stupid, but because we only care about one thing, ourselves.

 

Well the strongest/best-armed people would be private security, and if they are thugs, then they get fired and probably would get sued, imprisoned, etc.

 

Law suites are a big deterrent to American corporation today why would that suddenly be a deterrent to these businesses? Just like todays cooperate world, if the bean counters say it is cheaper to pay the suites then it is business as usual until the expense outweighs the gain. It is also kind of hard for a dead person to file said suite.

[JediMaster12]

(Maybe the reason America does not see our grand ideas as perfect is...because...they may not actually believe in them. Hey, look at the title of the thread: Americans are NOT stupid.)

And maybe the reason American’s is this way is because everyone is not stupid, but because we only care about one thing, ourselves.

A simple way to bring to light all our selfish dealings.

 

You have 52 million Americans screaming for something different. The only thing you all seem to agree on is that you don't want higher taxes. The voice of the people my fanny-My Fellow Americans

 

Yes I have my humor mode on but that seems to be the best to address this. To address Silentscope's quote it's not that we don't believe in them it's that we don't care maybe because the specific issue is not one that we choose to address. Mimartin addresses our selfish attitudes which was nice and to the point by the way.

 

The US is a Republic. We practice democracy yes but we are not a true democratic state. A true democratic state is what yo have with the ancient Greek city states. That is true democracy. We here in the US are a Republic because at the size of our land mass, it is nigh impossible to operate as a true democratic state would. We still though take into consideration the principles of democracy. We have our bad days yes and really bad leaders. Heck it makes me wonder where our govt. is heading to if an actor can run for president and win. Still there things that people take for granted here that others from around the world would give their left arm for.

[TK-8252]

pieces of **** who push drugs.

 

Pharmacists?

 

In a free market, everyone's a potential customer.

 

A free market can still have laws and regulations.

 

It hasn't made crime rates go down at all since Prohibition ended.

 

...I'm sorry, but did you just say what I think you said? That crime rates never declined as a result of repealing alcohol prohibition? If you really mean to say that, then you are blatantly wrong. It is one of the most well-known facts about alcohol prohibition that during its era, crime rates skyrocketed, and then dramatically fell after the repeal.

 

People will still rob to get their drugs, no matter what the price is, because they're so stoned they can't keep a job to make _any_ money to buy them.

 

Another very common misconception - that no one with a job uses drugs. And besides, people are robbing people right NOW for drug money, so what has criminalizing the drug done to stop this violence? It has locked up lots of non-violent people who aren't robbing but just want to use the drug. That is injustice.

 

A law, which, I might add, is poorly enforced. Honestly, how rare is it to see teens who've gotten their hands on cigarettes/alcohol? They use both all the time and in half the parties they throw, even though it's totally illegal...

 

That's more of a parental issue. If parents don't want their kids getting drunk at parties, don't let them go to parties.

 

Honestly, by saying that you're operating under the (naive) assumption everyone will know what's best for them.

 

It's not about what's best for people. It's about the freedom to do what you want to do (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else)! Ever see the movie Jackass? Should the stunts in that movie be criminalized because they're stupid and dangerous?

 

They're lethal substances than can cause brain damage, ruination of the physical appearance and as the lethal part implies, death. There is really only so much purifying you can do.

 

I agree with you mostly on this one - although there would be many fewer OD's with it legal than illegal, because people would be educated on what is "proper" use of the drug, as opposed to just being told that ANY use is abuse.

 

Meh, IMO the deaths that will result from overdose, lives that will be ruined by the now-plentiful and cheap drugs, children that will have their futures blighted, and deaths that will also be caused by impaired senses are more important to prevent than drug smuggling.

 

But all of those things happen NOW as it is, WITH the drug smuggling. What's your point?

 

Times if I may point out were much less civilized than our current ones. Perhaps I'm not quite grasping the concept, but please, enlighten me as to the civilized nature of psychotic, out-of-control emotions, severe mood swings, murder, shortened lifespans and all those other wonderful ways drugs can be civilized.

 

It's funny because you have the very same arguments that people used against alcohol during prohibition. That didn't turn out too well.

 

My point? For all your claims of laissez-faire capitalism making drugs more civilized (still not quite sure how that is ), it's one of the biggest reasons for why the whole war on drugs has been so disastrous. Capitalists want to actively work against work against the war on drugs, it cuts into their profits, never mind if those profits only come at the expense of the lives of others...

 

Somehow you've actually made me think more highly of drug companies than I did before. Good for them for sticking it to the man!

 

I'd like to keep my minimum wage, social security, public works, taxes, public school system, public libraries, payed vacations, health care, minimum working age, public fire department, other labor laws, outlawed substances and all those other great socialist concepts, thanks.

 

All of those things suck.

 

(Except paid vacations, I'll give you that. )

[Nancy Allen``]

No, criminals who sell drugs that are supplied to them by terrorists. The people responsible for September 11? The ones behind the London bombings? So you may not like the fact efforts are being made to prevent criminal and ultimatly terrorist elelments from being funded, as well as the problems associated with drugs harming others. Like it or not however you would like a crime being committed against you by someone who needs money for food because they spent it all on drugs or by someone who has lost their mind on drugs even less.

[TK-8252]

No, criminals who sell drugs that are supplied to them by terrorists. The people responsible for September 11? The ones behind the London bombings? So you may not like the fact efforts are being made to prevent criminal and ultimatly terrorist elelments from being funded, as well as the problems associated with drugs harming others. Like it or not however you would like a crime being committed against you by someone who needs money for food because they spent it all on drugs or by someone who has lost their mind on drugs even less.

 

If they were legal and then they'd stop importing drugs from Afghanistan. They could be grown locally (hey, it creates jobs)!

 

(And BTW, a lot of drugs are from Latin America, places like Columbia, so not all drugs give funding to the Taliban and stuff.)

[Emperor Devon]

First off a toddler's wellbeing is the responsibility of the parent. If (mature) people want to harm themselves they're free to do it. Hurting themselves or getting help is their own decision.

 

It all sounds so simple and just when you phrase it that way. If they could confine harming people to only themselves it might even be true.

 

That's more of a parental issue.

 

That many small businesses are willing to sell alcohol/cigarettes to minors is a parental issue? That the law is extremely poorly enforced is a parental issue? Well, I suppose the parents of those store-owners and cops were somewhat at fault for not teaching them better morals.

 

It's about the freedom to do what you want to do (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else)!

 

If you can prove drugs do not harm people other than their users then your argument might have some merit. Since their side effects can range from secondhand smoke with cigarettes to drunk driving with alcohol to aggressive behavior with many others, however, your argument has none.

 

But all of those things happen NOW as it is, WITH the drug smuggling. What's your point?

 

Of course they are happening now, but at least if we don't let people simply buy heroin at their local pharmacy and make them risk running afoul of the law if they want any we can keep it to a minimum.

 

It's funny because you have the very same arguments that people used against alcohol during prohibition. That didn't turn out too well.

 

Not relevant to my argument. I was debating how the side effects of drugs can be considered civilized.

 

All of those things suck.

 

If opinions were facts that would have been very persuasive. Please, try and back up your opinions with some of those.

 

Somehow you've actually made me think more highly of drug companies than I did before. Good for them for sticking it to the man!

 

 

Let me get this straight: You think for the sole sake of being able to sell their products to drug dealers, cold companies should be allowed to use pseudoephedrine rather than phenylephrine despite how the latter is unable to be used in meth, yet can still make just as good cold medicine? This isn't like the prohibition, removing pseudoephedrine from cold medicine and regulating the factories that produce it would kill the meth epidemic completely. Drug dealers would not have the necessary ingredients and would be incapable of making any more. There would be none left for people to even steal or murder for.

 

That you can support the continued existence of such a drug despite the ease in which it could be eradicated and the horrible effects it has I fail to grasp. If you approve of corporations making bigger profits at the expense of the lives of others we obviously have such different moral values there is no further point in even debating this issue.

[Nancy Allen``]

Tell me if this is going too far, but would it be fair to say that if you support something that is clearly harmful you can kiss your creditbility goodbye?

[TK-8252]

That many small businesses are willing to sell alcohol/cigarettes to minors is a parental issue? That the law is extremely poorly enforced is a parental issue? Well, I suppose the parents of those store-owners and cops were somewhat at fault for not teaching them better morals.

 

The stores don't sell to minors. They sell to adults, who then supply the minor with said alcohol or cigarettes. It's not the store's fault, so don't blame them.

 

If you can prove drugs do not harm people other than their users then your argument might have some merit. Since their side effects can range from secondhand smoke with cigarettes to drunk driving with alcohol to aggressive behavior with many others, however, your argument has none.

 

The act of smoking a cigarette, or getting drunk does not directly hurt anyone but yourself. When someone then goes out and gets behind the wheel, that is where the danger begins. But someone getting drunk at a house, and then not going out and driving, how does that hurt anyone? Drunk driving is very wrong and hurts lots of people, but not ALL people drink and drive. Just as how not ALL crackheads and other stoners rob people, so why criminalize ALL of them?

 

Of course they are happening now, but at least if we don't let people simply buy heroin at their local pharmacy and make them risk running afoul of the law if they want any we can keep it to a minimum.

 

And that is, of course, the same argument that people such as alcohol prohibitionists used. That drinking would be controlled if it were illegal, and as we learned, alcohol just got more dangerous when banned. And don't say that this isn't relevant. It is entirely relevant, because drug prohibition is just like alcohol prohibition.

 

If opinions were facts that would have been very persuasive. Please, try and back up your opinions with some of those.

 

Well, I don't feel like going into all that right now. Besides, that comment was meant to be more facetious than I guess it turned out to be.

 

 

Let me get this straight: You think for the sole sake of being able to sell their products to drug dealers, cold companies should be allowed to use pseudoephedrine rather than phenylephrine despite how the latter is unable to be used in meth, yet can still make just as good cold medicine? This isn't like the prohibition, removing pseudoephedrine from cold medicine and regulating the factories that produce it would kill the meth epidemic completely. Drug dealers would not have the necessary ingredients and would be incapable of making any more. There would be none left for people to even steal or murder for.

 

Well of course you're forgetting what all prohibitionists forget, which is that banning something doesn't make it go away. Making the drug companies take the ingredient out of their medicine means that meth cookers would just smuggle the ingredient from other sources. You act as if drug companies had the power to make the meth addiction go away entirely. And, if they really did make meth go away (just for the sake of argument), what would happen to all the meth addicts? They'd need severe medical treatment to get off of a meth addiction cold turkey.

 

Remember, where there is a demand, there will be a supply. No matter what.

 

That you can support the continued existence of such a drug despite the ease in which it could be eradicated and the horrible effects it has I fail to grasp. If you approve of corporations making bigger profits at the expense of the lives of others we obviously have such different moral values there is no further point in even debating this issue.

 

Expense of the lives of others? You mean like tobacco companies or something? Their cigarettes contribute to the deaths of thousands of Americans every year! And they have the power to stop these deaths so easily! They are making profit off these lives they destory! [/Castro]

 

Drug companies have NO power to stop meth in America. If they removed the ingredient from their product then the ingredient gets smuggled in, and the meth addiction goes on as before.

 

Tell me if this is going too far, but would it be fair to say that if you support something that is clearly harmful you can kiss your creditbility goodbye?

 

Aren't cigarettes harmful?

 

And of course I was entirely facetious when I said that about drug companies and meth, which I guess you and Devon didn't realize.

[mimartin]

That many small businesses are willing to sell alcohol/cigarettes to minors is a parental issue? That the law is extremely poorly enforced is a parental issue? Well, I suppose the parents of those store-owners and cops were somewhat at fault for not teaching them better morals.

 

The stores don't sell to minors. They sell to adults, who then supply the minor with said alcohol or cigarettes. It's not the store's fault, so don't blame them.

 

You are both right. Adults give minors alcohol and tobacco. Even some parents give their children alcohol and tobacco. However, kids also buy tobacco and alcohol from stores. They have sting operation all the time here where police officers send minors into stores to purchase alcohol and they issue citations to the stores that fail their sting. They use a hidden camera and show this on the local news along with the name and the address of the violating store.

 

I’ve used alcohol since I was 16 years of age and tobacco since I was 13. I’ve never had an adult by either for me till I was the adult doing the purchasing. It had nothing to do with the clerks’ morals; the only thing they were guilty of was being too lazy to check my ID. It was not their fault or my parents fault, or the governments’ fault the entire responsibility for my action was mine and mine alone.

[Bee Hoon]

I'm running late, so I'll make this really short.

 

The act of smoking a cigarette, or getting drunk does not directly hurt anyone but yourself.

Ever heard of second-hand smoke? Light up around the kids, let them slowly succumb to infections. Or maybe they'll get lung cancer first. But we all lurrrrve kids.

 

You must be joking about the selling to minors. Honestly, is the guy in 7-11 being paid the minimum wage going to give a damn whether you're of legal age to turning your lungs to coal?

 

For taking a liberal attitude to drugs, have a look at the Netherland's policy. I'll post links to articles when I have time.

[TK-8252]

For those saying that store clerks don't care about selling to minors: you bet they care, because during my training to work at a grocery store, they told all the new employees that if you are caught selling cigarettes to minors, YOU personally (as in not the store, but the clerk) will be fined $500.

 

Ever heard of second-hand smoke? Light up around the kids, let them slowly succumb to infections. Or maybe they'll get lung cancer first. But we all lurrrrve kids.

 

Smoking around kids is bad, but outdoors, in bars, etc., seems fine to me.

[John Galt]

"Meh. Let them kill themselves. Survival of the fittest."

Interesting thought. But their survival(to the extent they can ensure it) IS their responsibility, and no-one else's(unless they're children).

 

"But we all lurrrrve kids."

think about that statement for a second... isn't that kinda like saying "I like people, but only for a little while?" /random tangent.

[SilentScope001]

How much more control is that over someone that didn’t vote? We’ve seen election come down to just a few votes in recent years and I feel voting has never been more important than it is right now. Now if we can just get the government to count every vote.

 

Thing is, according to the concept of polls, the counting of every vote is really not that important. A survey of 1000 random people can produce a result that may be accurate with a precentage point error of +/- 4%. The more people you poll, the lower you decrease the error rate, but you don't really need to poll everyone to get what the people really desire.

 

The problem is that voting is not a random sample. Instead, Democrats and Republicans do the "Get out the Vote", and usually people go and tell others to go and do their duty and vote, thereby getting a non-random sample of people to come in, and thereby skew the results.

 

The most important thing is that, due to the margin of error that exist in all elections, if there is only a small gap between the two parties, say, only one vote, then it must be that the election is likely to be wrong, and therefore, an automatic recount is in order, in order to guard against the margin of error. Which means, even if you are quite lucky to have your vote matter, the ensuring recount will mean that new votes will come to go and take away the power of your vote.

 

I actually like our system. I would be happy if everyone eligible voted, even if they did not agree with my idealist views.

 

I can understand that, but I would rather that my voting power does not get diluted by other people voting. It's a matter of primarly self-interest, I admit, but I do like my voice to be heard.

 

True, but it all starts with the first vote. The PACs is no good if no one in the PACs actually goes to the polls and votes.

 

Understood.

 

And maybe the reason American’s is this way is because everyone is not stupid, but because we only care about one thing, ourselves.

 

Hm. Not sure how muh the "selfishness" factor plays into this. I'm thinking that it's the belief that the status quo works fine, why bother changing, but that may be what you mean by that.

 

To explain: Many indepedents wants a Third Party, because they hate the Republicans and the Democrats and want to overthrow them. However, the fact of the matter is, the majority of Americans would be against the Third Party, due to the fact that they are aligned to Republicans or Democrats. Hence, the idea of a "third party", which I can see as a somewhat great idea, won't be accepted...for good reason, the majority would be against it currently.

 

With people proposing grandoise and radical ideas, it must be seen if they actually have the masses supporting that movement. If the masses don't care, or even actively oppose such a movement, it's a goner in American democracy. And, if you become so obbessed with trying to impose such a movement on the rest of society, you could end up doing so without the consent of the American people.

 

You have 52 million Americans screaming for something different. The only thing you all seem to agree on is that you don't want higher taxes. The voice of the people my fanny-My Fellow Americans

 

Strange, I want higher taxes.

 

The US is a Republic. We practice democracy yes but we are not a true democratic state. A true democratic state is what yo have with the ancient Greek city states. That is true democracy. We here in the US are a Republic because at the size of our land mass, it is nigh impossible to operate as a true democratic state would.

 

Prehaps another revelant thing to note is that both Republican Rome and the Founding Fathers feared direct democracy and rule by the mob. A quick look at Revolutionary France and the Great Terror would showcase why they feared the mob, with the many wars and violence. Even Athens ended up falling to demogagues during the Peloponnesian War.

 

The Republic, as invisioned by Rome, was a combination of the three forms of government at the time, Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. In Republican Rome, the Monarchy would be the two Consuls, the Aristocracy would be the Senate, and the Democracy would be the People's Tribunes that are allowed to veto bills. The Monarch would be seen today as the Executive Branch (the Presidency), the Aristocracy element would be the Legalistive and Judicial Branches, and the Democratic wing being the ones that get to elect the Aristocracy and the Monarchy. It was believed that by combing the best of all three governments, the nation would be stable, united under a strong leader (the monarch), his capable advisors (the aristocracy), and the support of the people and the mob (the democracy). Each side will balance against the excesses of the others, leading to a perfect form of government. Republican Rome fell because the aristocracy element (the Senate) primraly dominated over the government, the aristorcracy's feuds end up having them bring in the military (composed of the mob, democracy) to wage their civil wars.

 

The reason I did do that spiel is that I worry about the democraticizing influence a bit. If it succeds, would we end up turning into another Athens, prone to a demogague? Should the aristocracy and the monarchy elements of this Republic be strengthened instead of weakened?

[TK-8252]

I've almost entirely forgotten the original topic of this thread by now. Something about moving to Canada or Europe or something?

 

Oh well, all threads eventually end up about wedge issues!

 

I'll look it over tonight when I get home from work (no internet while at work) and figure out where to split it off into the new topic about pros and cons of legalizing drugs. --Jae

[Nancy Allen``]

Aren't cigarettes harmful?

 

And how much creditbility do cigarette companies have? None. Zippo. 60 Minutes saw to that. Like Constable Evan said we cannot stop people from being stupid. What we can do is our level best to stop people from harming others, as drug pushing does, and besides which it's the law. Come up with some changes to it that make sense and I'll support and enforce it as much as I can.