…………….This is a public service announcement..

……….Dr. James Dobson will be on Hannity & Colmes tonight at 9:00 eastern

This discussion isn’t about me, because I haven’t advocated anything. It’s about the destruction of our society that you libertarians are advocating because you can’t curb your apatite for drugs.

I have little appetite for drugs. I have less appetite for big government.

You want to change from the nanny state we have to the nanny state that allows you to take whatever drugs you want whenever you want and you hide behind the guise of being a libertarian. You don’t want to be responsible for your actions, yet you hide behind the demand for unlimited freedom.

I want less of a nanny state. I’m not hiding. It seems I’m posting my views in a public place.

The question you types refuse to answer is WHY should I have to pay for it? When you kill an innocent who should be responsible? ME?! I think not! You want to take drugs, then you must shoulder all the responsibility.

If you scroll up I think you’d find I’ve answered this specific point a couple of times. 1.) I think the cost savings in ratcheting down the war on drugs would result in a net-savings. 2.) In your hypothetical if I had to sign a waiver, similar to when I go skiing, where I accept all responsibility and forfeit everything for being an idiot, then so be it.

dedalus on October 8, 2007 at 11:44 AM

This discussion isn’t about me, because I haven’t advocated anything. It’s about the destruction of our society that you libertarians are advocating because you can’t curb your apatite for drugs.

You want to change from the nanny state we have to the nanny state that allows you to take whatever drugs you want whenever you want and you hide behind the guise of being a libertarian. You don’t want to be responsible for your actions, yet you hide behind the demand for unlimited freedom.

You are being intellectually dishonest. You refuse to address this point:

The question you types refuse to answer is WHY should I have to pay for it? When you kill an innocent who should be responsible? ME?! I think not! You want to take drugs, then you must shoulder all the responsibility.

No… I chose not to dignify your non sequitur rant with an answer.
Maxx on October 8, 2007 at 12:28 PM

If the message doesn’t get out, then what is the point of any public service endeavor?

So why not support Huckabee? With the exception of the smoking thing, he seems….. right on other issues and I think he might be electable if he got the nomination. We could fight him on the smoking ban if he ever got around to pushing that.
Maxx on October 8, 2007 at 12:05 PM (revised)

So if you didn’t know that (stupid smoking ban idea) about him….what other things are there?

That’s my point, exactly…. It’s the little things that begin from the get go…. that matter. The idea that John Q. Public wasn’t informed enough is ludricous.
He, or any other candidate had all the opportunity in the beginning to demonstrate leadership in getting his message out, which is the most critical of all skills. If not, then why is the most common complaint about president Bush his lack of getting the message out?

If the message doesn’t get out, then what is the point of any public service endeavor?

You didn’t comprehend what I just said:

Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 10:14 AM

No… I chose not to dignify your non sequitur rant with an answer.

Those of you who think that conceding a short-term loss for a long term gain better re-think their position. After 8 years of Hillary, with millions upon millions of illegals being ushered into the US, and being reminded that it is because of the Democrats that they are there…voila, the GOP will be rendered permanent minority status and no amount of opposition by the far Christian right will be able to offset that.
awake

Agreed. That is why I posted that the Democratic base is growing faster then the GOP base. Next year might be the last time for a while when we can elect a Republican.

Huck? When hell freezes over, his call for a National Smoking Ban is exactly the kind of stupid, abusive Nanny Statism I rail against.

Bad Candy on October 7, 2007 at 11:57 PM

You know what…. I did not know that. And it’s exactly the kind of stupid, abusive Nanny Statism I rail against too ! So I take back everything nice I said about Huckabee, I’m serious! I hate that kind of crap, I doubt I could support him on that account alone. That leaves us with Tancredo, who is actually my favorite, and he smokes cigars, but I don’t think he’s electable.

Wait a minute… I’m having second thoughts. It seems to me the Democrats are much bigger “Nanny staters” than any Republican. And Huckabee could not get a national smoking ban without Congressional legislation, which he may or may not get. Democrats may very well push for the same thing. So why not support Huckabee? With the exception of the smoking thing, he seems right on other issues and I think he might be electable if he got the nomination. We could fight him on the smoking ban if he ever got around to pushing that.

1) No, I want a limited nanny state.

You are advocating for more of a nanny state than the others here who are suggesting that we decrease the $50B or so per year that we spend on the drug war.

2) Who pays when the tax money from drug sales is all gone?

$50B goes a long way (SCHIP, for instance, is about $7B) even if the tax revenues from drug sales were minimal. We could borrow less money from China, and maybe the US$ would be worth something again.

3) Legalizing drugs would exponentially increase it’s use and abuse.

It would increase, by how much would depend on what was done. Ultimately, though I don’t think we elect a government to protect us from our own cravings. An additional consideration is that the increase in drug abuse might be offset by the drying up of a lucrative revenue stream for gangs and other organized crime.

4) We do take care of people now, but we aren’t living in a libertarian society. We are expected to help the less fortunate even if it is their own fault that they are in the situation they are in.

A lot of nanny staters advocate restrictions on tobacco, liquor, and trans fats with the same argument.

Those of you who think that conceding a short-term loss for a long term gain better re-think their position. After 8 years of Hillary, with millions upon millions of illegals being ushered into the US, and being reminded that it is because of the Democrats that they are there…voila, the GOP will be rendered permanent minority status and no amount of opposition by the far Christian right will be able to offset that.

With the current infiltration of the Islamists, the reality of foreign affairs, border control and immigration reform, this election is quite possibly, the most important in the last 50 years or so.

And the social conservatives are considering sitting this one out effectively de-railing the pro-choice Republican candidate and handing over the Presidency to the pro-choice Democrat??

That type of idiocy is nothing short of astounding.

There’s precious little difference between Rudy and Hillary.

spmat on October 8, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Puhlease. If Hillary had been Mayor of New York people would still be running around urinating on the streets, the subways would still be covered with graffiti, the Unions would be running the city, taxes would be sky high, and a glorious mosaic theme would be part of the “I love New York” ad campaign.

And I think it’s possible that Republicans will catch on to Huckabee’s campaign, at least I hope so. He is what most people on the Right are looking for.

Maxx on October 8, 2007 at 12:38 AM

You didn’t comprehend what I just said:

It is up to the candidate to show us, the public, that he/she is worth it, not the other way around.

.
What you missed is my whole point of, “if he was so great” why didn’t people throw their weight behind him from the beginning in ever increasing numbers?

This…….

Huck? When hell freezes over, his call for a National Smoking Ban is exactly the kind of stupid, abusive Nanny Statism I rail against.
Bad Candy on October 7, 2007 at 11:57 PM

………….. explains why.
…Who the hell is going to support someone like Huck, from the grassroots level you so praise, when so many people are so outspoken against government controls of smoking?
John Q. Public is smarter than that. And your insinuations are an insult to our intelligence.

That’s why your …If onlys….. are really just whining and wishy washy emotions, since Huck as a candidate really just hasn’t shown us, the public, that he is worth of our consideration.

We’ll see how you feel when the first Supreme Court replacements come up during the Democrat administration.

Check back with us.

Oh, you mean the nomination that a center-left, hawkish Nixon-clone like Giuliani would submit? Like Blackmun, the one that wrote RvW? You aren’t convincing anyone with that shinola. Political blackmail only works if you’re coming from a position of strength. There’s precious little difference between Rudy and Hillary.

And to all of the Rudy fans out there how does it feel to vote for a person that you know is going to take you rights away?
F15Mech on October 8, 2007 at 2:16 AM

That is a crock.

Later on when we were mingling more than one couple announced their kids would not be going over there to play and seemed generally horrified at the thought of someone owning a gun.
Dash on October 8, 2007 at 8:21 AM

They’d wouldn’t invite your kid over if you didn’t believe in Global Warming either.

And I agree about Federalism.

Many of them are not; rather, they are liberal supporters of these things.

If you legalize and tax, the tax dollars can be used on prevention and rehabilitation programs. There’s your ‘nanny state’ situation that you are afraid of. But the fact is America already takes care of those who OD, but we still pay for it with tax dollars. At least if it were legalized, regulated, and taxed, we’d have more revenue to do what we already do.

Legalizing drugs is fiscally responsible.

ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 12:09 AM

1) No, I want a limited nanny state.
2) Who pays when the tax money from drug sales is all gone?
3) Legalizing drugs would exponentially increase it’s use and abuse.
4) We do take care of people now, but we aren’t living in a libertarian society. We are expected to help the less fortunate even if it is their own fault that they are in the situation they are in.

And again, I couldn’t care less if you want to ruin your life with drug use. The question you types refuse to answer is WHY should I have to pay for it? When you kill an innocent who should be responsible? ME?! I think not! You want to take drugs, then you must shoulder all the responsibility. If you are forced to forfeit all you own and all you ever will own and you don’t have a nanny state to fall back on, then you shoulder the responsibility of YOUR actions. If you choose not to work and become homeless, then you will die on the streets like a dog. Fitting I think because of the havoc you wreaked on the victim and their family.

You types NEVER think this through. You want all freedoms and no responsibility. BULL$HIT! Drug use is destructive. PERIOD. You demand the right to engage in destructive behavior and I demand that you take responsibility for that behavior. That’s just too real for the drug legalization crowd.

Hillary – way out in front, everyone loves her, Bush already making plans to hand over power
Giuliani – may have trouble because the Christian Coalition doesn’t like him
Thompson – may have trouble because he is lazy and has a trophy wife and once lobbied for a group that supported abortion
Romney – may have trouble because he is Mormom and a flip-flopper

Auto insurance should not have anything to do with whether or not someone has used drugs either. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Drugs have to do with health not driving ability.

I guess the underlying point is the war on drugs has done nothing to help the situation. It has gotten a lot of cops killed, and it has made a lot of bad people rich. It costs us a lot of tax money. There has to be a SOLUTION other than ‘spend more money and have no effect’.

Alcohol was a linchpin for organized crime when it was prohibited. Prohibition was the best thing that could have happened to the mafia. Prohibition on drugs does the same thing to organized crime gangs in America. If you legalize it, you take away their only source of revenue that they use to do bad things in society.

Just because you CAN does not mean you WILL. I CAN drink alcohol legally because I’m 35. I don’t very often because I don’t like it.

My point is that the ‘war on drugs’, which is a Reagan thing, does not do anything but cost a crap load of money. I can still get whatever drug I want right now (I don’t). But if we are going to throw so much money at something, I would hope that it would work better than making people ‘feel better’ that their government is wasting money on a soundbite like ‘war on drugs’.

In a perfect world, nobody would use drugs. But government prohibition does nothing to take that desire away. It only makes users criminals, puts cops in danger, costs a lot of money, and gives a lot of bad people a lot of revenue they otherwise would not have to do bad things.

Later on when we were mingling more than one couple announced their kids would not be going over there to play and seemed generally horrified at the thought of someone owning a gun.

To contrast, I have family in Alabama and Georgia who think nothing of it. This is why federalism is a win ;) and it’s also why I give Rudy some slack on the issue.

Lets see, Rudy anti gun, check. Good luck losing the NRA vote.
Rudy pro illegal immigration, check.
Rudy pro abortion, check. Good luck losing the religion vote.
Rudy pro gay marriage, check. See last point.
Rudy’s record as mayor and appointing judges? Majority liberal.
Yeah, ignore the record and believe the words.
Those that disagree with most of you posters are denigrated on a personal level in the grand traditions of the Kos Kids.
The proof is in the posts.
When the Republicans lose you can blame the religious.
I, for one wear that label proudly and would never vote for a pro abortionist.
Let the denigration continue in 3..2..1

rockdalian on October 7, 2007 at 10:03 PM

A more apt analogy would be comparing the people looking to boot Rudy to the Kos Kids who booted Lieberman.

Don’t let you be the reason I have to watch a criminal take the oath of office January 2009.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on October 7, 2007 at 8:58 PM

Well said. I may have to hold my nose next year when I vote, but I will vote against HER.