Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

2008 Presidential Election

Recommended Posts

Drizzt`    0

if you're not 18 yet but want to vote, as long as you will be before the presidential election, you can vote in the primaries (at least in SC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Boss Nigger   
Guest Boss Nigger

hilary's a goddam psycho. obama or bust.

How about we someone who doesn't suck (aka Rudy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

hilary's a goddam psycho. obama or bust.

How about we someone who doesn't suck (aka Rudy)

Please kill yourself. Rudy is basically a clone of Cheney.

Ron Paul is the only one who can save the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34687

Iunno man, Kucinich can sound like a raving idiot sometimes,b ut he raves like an idiot about valid points no one picks up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BiPi    1032

i like kucinich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

I am registering as a Republican and voting for Ron Paul in the primaries. Ron Paul, like myself, is conservative towards the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34687

the second amendment is still bullshit : ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769

It's not a question of why we have the Amendment in the first place - quite literally, it's the duty of a rational, righteous people to throw off a Government that refuses to do its job, and at the time of the conception of our country, that would have had to have been through arms.

It's moreso a question of whether or not we need such anymore - keeping the Amendment is merely the "rather safe than sorry" approach.

As for improper use of arms and weapons, well, if people want guns that badly, they should be prepared to face massive consequences for misuse. The proper method of Gun Control in my opinion would not be to regulate the market so much as really bring down the fucking hammer on idiots who r doing it rong with their guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D'Haiti    4

It's not a question of why we have the Amendment in the first place - quite literally, it's the duty of a rational, righteous people to throw off a Government that refuses to do its job, and at the time of the conception of our country, that would have had to have been through arms.

It's moreso a question of whether or not we need such anymore - keeping the Amendment is merely the "rather safe than sorry" approach.

As for improper use of arms and weapons, well, if people want guns that badly, they should be prepared to face massive consequences for misuse. The proper method of Gun Control in my opinion would not be to regulate the market so much as really bring down the fucking hammer on idiots who r doing it rong with their guns.

like we did with crack and the war on drugs? o wait, that didnt work.

we're never gonna have that, nor guns restricted in a greater sense then we are now; the nra's been up our ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a question of why we have the Amendment in the first place - quite literally, it's the duty of a rational, righteous people to throw off a Government that refuses to do its job, and at the time of the conception of our country, that would have had to have been through arms.

It's moreso a question of whether or not we need such anymore - keeping the Amendment is merely the "rather safe than sorry" approach.

As for improper use of arms and weapons, well, if people want guns that badly, they should be prepared to face massive consequences for misuse. The proper method of Gun Control in my opinion would not be to regulate the market so much as really bring down the fucking hammer on idiots who r doing it rong with their guns.

like we did with crack and the war on drugs? o wait, that didnt work.

we're never gonna have that, nor guns restricted in a greater sense then we are now; the nra's been up our ass.

Crack and the War on Drugs is completely different. It's against the Constitution to say what we can and cannot insert into our own bodies, and what he said would still allow people to own guns. He just wants an even more strict punishment for the idiots who make gun control seem like a decent option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D'Haiti    4

same principle though: both are/would be ineffective on a grand scale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BiPi    1032

same principle though: both are/would be ineffective on a grand scale

yah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Hillary because you get the Bill too.

2 For fucking 1

Ron Paul is infinitely better than both combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D'Haiti    4

Hillary because you get the Bill too.

2 For fucking 1

you're fucking dumb. hilary =/= bill, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769

same principle though: both are/would be ineffective on a grand scale

We live the ineffective status of the War on Drugs every day. However, how would turning up the intensity of sentences be ineffective, if done in certain ways?

Please point me to some arguments that I may read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Legalizing all drugs would solve so many problems. The crime rate would drop to nearly 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BiPi    1032

Legalizing all drugs would solve so many problems. The crime rate would drop to nearly 0.

the legalization of drugs is not an implication of the crime rate. even if it were, there's no reason to suggest that the crime rate would would be any better. if they legalized drugs, the government would still be required to set regulations on the production of drugs, which would result in a black market for drugs with illegal compositions, and would just result in crime.

making drugs illegal solves the problem of having to differentiate between the scopes of legal and illegal drugs. making drugs illegal solves the problem of having to put funding into federal programs that create guidelines of the creation of new drugs and whether or not they are in the scope of legality.

i don't see how you can support a candidate who is in favor of completely eradicating government-funded programs, and yet you're entirely in favor of passing legislation that would only create more of those programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Legalizing all drugs would solve so many problems. The crime rate would drop to nearly 0.

the legalization of drugs is not an implication of the crime rate. even if it were, there's no reason to suggest that the crime rate would would be any better. if they legalized drugs, the government would still be required to set regulations on the production of drugs, which would result in a black market for drugs with illegal compositions, and would just result in crime.

making drugs illegal solves the problem of having to differentiate between the scopes of legal and illegal drugs. making drugs illegal solves the problem of having to put funding into federal programs that create guidelines of the creation of new drugs and whether or not they are in the scope of legality.

i don't see how you can support a candidate who is in favor of completely eradicating government-funded programs, and yet you're entirely in favor of passing legislation that would only create more of those programs.

I didn't say new programs should be set up to regulate anything. All substances should be legalized. The crime rate would drop since most crime is drug related. Gangs wouldn't exist without illegal drugs. Instead of the edgy group associated with dealing drugs and the voilence there, you would have Wal Mart instead. People wouldn't have to steal jewelry, rob banks, and steal cars and pawn them off to buy an overpriced powder when you can get it at Wal Mart for $5 an ounce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BiPi    1032

but that's the thing --- even basic products like corn are regulated. heck, canned foods have a rat-hair regulation, thus, being realistic of circumstances of producing those goods.

so you have the following concerns:

-whether certain drugs should have a regulation on the level of intoxication induced by the drug (due to its composition)

-if there are NO regulations, then having a standardized classification of the different levels of intoxication of one product. for instance, having a number range of 1-5 of intoxication for weed and making sure that the package it is in is labeled with its intoxication level grading. this is the same kind of regulation for alcoholic beverages and their proof percentages (which works extremely well).

-going off the reference to alcohol, what age drug users should be to responsibly do so.

-if there is COMPLETELY NO REGULATION AT ALL, then it would, firstly, be a responsibility of the producers and, eventually, a responsibility of the government to have an informational basis of the hazards of certain level of toxicity of the drugs.

so as you can see, either way, you would need government-funded programs to make sure the market for drugs is controlled.

producers don't want to have to pay extra money to create different gradings of drugs only to discover that certain grades are at a much higher demand than others. producers also don't want to have to pay extra money to inform people of the toxicity gradings of their product especially when they don't want to have to make multiple gradings of the drug anyway. if the government doesn't force them to, then you have an even bigger problem: lots of people dying and people suing producers.

so, it's obvious that the government WILL and must have some control over the market, which increases cost for producers. producers who can't make the cut under the scope of legality will enter the black market, which, furthermore, results in crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Boss Nigger   
Guest Boss Nigger

Hillary because you get the Bill too.

2 For fucking 1

Hilary =/= bill, ever.

True because Hilary is worse than Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D'Haiti    4

same principle though: both are/would be ineffective on a grand scale

We live the ineffective status of the War on Drugs every day. However, how would turning up the intensity of sentences be ineffective, if done in certain ways?

Please point me to some arguments that I may read.

because intensifying another area in our criminal system would create even more people in our overcrowded justice system.

more people = more food, transportation, police, prisons, janitors, lawyers and etc.

more food = more transportation (also associated with more people)

more transportation = more gas, buses

more police = more police training, more needed in recruitment, more paychecks, more

more prisons = more necessary land, more materials, more paychecks (construction workers, contractors, etc)

more lawyers = more paychecks

now, if these construction workers, contractors, policemen, cafeteria workers, janitors, lawyers and etc. working towards building and maintaining an institution that helped to make either our economy or society a better place, then shit, i'd support it. however, the short term effects of this are fucking catastrophic, especially for a country drowning in debt. and with our prison system working less towards rehabilitation of criminals and more towards merely housing them, adding MORE people would only fuck up the prison system even more, as well as putting more debt into our country for such a dumb "benefit," if you can call it that. especially when the black market will simply rally after that. also, creating more anger in the pro-gun community is just asking for trouble, esp with the nra up everyone's ass.

cliff notes: its rly dumb cuz we don't have the money for it, and it'd be circumvented in x ways.

also: i like kucinich too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×