Sep 212014
 September 21, 2014

GOP marijuanaBy John Knetemann

I would like to make it clear that this article is not representative of all conservatives, as there are even conservatives out there that don’t want to rain on someone else’s high, but I think it is fair to say a majority of conservatives on Capitol Hill are not in support of any kind of sensible or logical drug policy. I would also like to make it clear that this does not exclude Democrats or progressives, whose representatives in congress are equally bad in drug policy most of the time. However, there is something especially hypocritical on the conservative-side of anti-drug legislation.

Conservatives pride themselves on being against government regulation in the economy and being pro-free market. Rush Limbaugh, the face of conservatism on the radio, has said “So what is so strange about saying, ‘I want Barack Obama to fail,’ if his mission is to reconstruct and reform this nation so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? I want the country to survive. I want the country to succeed.”

The worst part about this is that I agree with him! But I actually believe in this statement, while Rush Limbaugh is only looking to incite progressives with such statements. If Rush Limbaugh, and all conservatives, actually want to support capitalism and the free-market, they should support complete marijuana legalization. This is the only logical position to take as a free-market advocate.

Conservatives will get up-and-arms about progressives limiting the economy and so-forth, but do they not do the same thing? Marijuana and industrial hemp are economic resources after all. It is easier to convince a conservative of the reasons industrial hemp should be legalized, but the same argument goes for medical and recreational marijuana. After all, legalizing marijuana is all about individual freedom, which is a cornerstone of the free-market.

By regulating and criminalizing marijuana use they take away American jobs, and we all know conservatives are all about ‘good American jobs.’ They have limited the resources of the doctors, the pharmacists, the entrepreneurs, the farmers, the security guards, the schools, the hospitals, and even the stoners! All these individuals could have a job and a place within the market if marijuana were legal. The marijuana industry in Colorado made $14 million just in the first month of legalization. That is a lot of money flowing through Colorado’s economy and stimulating employment. Not to mention, there are over 390 dispensaries in Denver, CO, which means a lot of new jobs. Must I go into the amount of head shops that give jobs to glass makers, salesmen, etc?

Whether or not marijuana usage is healthy or moral is beside the point here (however, there is evidence pointing to the health benefits of marijuana as well). The point is that marijuana regulation inhibits our economy. And if conservatives want to keep blasting progressives on their ‘pinko-commie’ economic regulation, which seems to be their favorite past time, then they will have to take a different stance on marijuana.

To this I say, way to be ‘dirty hippie liberals’, conservatives. Way to put good American jobs at risk. Way to cause unemployment. Way to support expansive government. And way to support a socialistic policy, which you supposedly hate so much. Damn hypocrites.

Comments

comments

About TWB

Dissenting opinions are welcome, insults and personal attacks are discouraged and hate speech will not be tolerated. Spammers and people trying to buy or sell cannabis or any drugs will be banned. Read our comment policy and FAQ for more information

  45 Responses to “Cannabis Is Why Conservatives Are Not Capitalists”

  1.  

    “Democrats or progressives, whose representatives in congress are equally bad in drug policy most of the time.”

    Not even close.

    One of the latest votes…

    http://www.theweedblog.com/us-house-votes-to-allow-banks-to-accept-deposits-from-marijuana-businesses/

    94% of the Democrats voted to prevent the “Treasury Department from spending any funding to penalize financial institutions that provide services to marijuana businesses that are legal under state law.” Only 20% of the Republicans did.

    I can get other votes if you like, but Democrats and especially progressives are not “equally bad in drug policy most of the time.”

    •  

      Arguments like that do not apply much to modern progressives. If you were talking about mid-century American progressives, then I’d be more receptive to the claim.
      Progressives are more ideologically consistent since they arn’t contradicting themselves with “antigovernment” nonsense. It is contradictory to advocate against gubment intervention while instituting it. Republicans need to be honest- they are Statists when they want to be and think they can “get away with it.”

      •  

        “Arguments like that do not apply much to modern progressives. ”

        Arguments like what? The example I gave is from just a few weeks ago… 94% of Democrats voted to keep the feds out of pot banking, only 20% of Republicans did. How does that have anything to do with mid-century progressives?

    •  

      Democrats promptly contradicted themselves by not agreeing to vote on allowing each state to make the call regarding legalization. They talk a good game, but they rarely show up to play when the pressure is on.

      •  

        Can you provide a link to what you’re talking about?

        The question here is if the Democrats are “equally bad in drug policy most of the time.”

        I can show that they are not equally bad. They are considerably better. So, if you want to show them equally bad, you’re going to have to provide a link to whatever it is you’re talking about. Further, if they rarely show up to play when the pressure is on, that’s considerably better than the Republicans, who NEVER show up to play.

  2.  

    Authoritarian conservatives do not support free and fair markets. They rig markets to redistribute wealth and income upward, by cost-shifting negative externalities onto the rest of us and by denying true competition (like supporting Big Pharma through overly-extended patent protection, and the outlawing of cheap alternatives that we could grow at home).

    •  

      How are the concepts of “free markets” and “fair markets” compatible? A “free market” has no rules while a “fair market” does. A “free market” cannot be fair because there are no “rules.” I don’t buy into the concept that freedom is compatible with actual rules.

      •  

        My statement is that conservatives don’t support free markets, because they are for rules that are unfair. Fair markets, while still subject to rules, make the market fair for all by prohibiting rigging and cheating that redistributes upward.

        Markets with no rules are easily manipulated. If manipulated, they are not free. Without rules, we’d be on the honor system. Wonder how long that would last?

        Markets that are fair are more “free” (not rigged toward a certain class of investor) than those that are not fair.

        ” I don’t buy into the concept that freedom is compatible with actual rules.”

        We are free here, under the constraints of laws, as compared to people in authoritarian states that have no rules as to personal freedoms. We have personal freedoms guaranteed by law, but those freedoms are subject to restrictions. Even Scalia agrees we have the right to regulate the militia well. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, etc.

      •  

        The difference rests in individual preferences. Something one person is comfortable doing may not be compatible with another one’s personal comfort level. Imagine how much worse, actually dangerous, roads would be for driving if there weren’t any rules. Consider how chaotic medical treatments from one doctor to another if there were no rules governing their performance.

  3.  

    as long as conservative oppose weed i will always vote democrat….this is my body

    •  

      They don’t. Read the article. Conservatives embody individualism much more so than liberals. But I’ll admit, sometimes they get off track because of stupid ideological confusions.

      •  

        “Conservatives embody individualism much more so than liberals. ”

        Bullshit. 70% of Democrats voted against renewing the Patriot Act, only 14% of Republicans did.

        The GOP is the party of authoritarians. The Democrats have been weeding out our Blue Dogs, meaning now we have more Progressives (who are civil libertarians). Unfortunately, a progressive can’t get elected President running against the authoritarian, scare the hell out of everyone, warmongers… so we nominate moderates like Obama.

        •  

          Obama a moderate? Ha ha! That’s the biggest joke I’ve heard since he was elected.

          •  

            Welcome to the real world.

            http://voteview.com/blog/?p=317

            > Our findings here echo those discussed in a prior post that Republicans have moved further to the right than Democrats to the left in the contemporary period. Indeed, as seen below, President Obama is the most moderate Democratic president since the end of World War II, while President George W. Bush was the most conservative president in the post-war era.

    •  

      Grab a clue, Obama and his handlers haven’t come through on the promise to back off and allow each state to make the decision on whether or not to legalize it. Political parties, both of them, have failed to step up on this issue. This November is the ideal opportunity to invoke term limits and vote for some new faces in DC.

      •  

        I live in a very republican state…the simple fact that while most of the country is trying to takes steps towards a good future for this country in legalization….the republicans are hard at work making it even more illegal so ya….they don’t change their tune…I will be voting democrat….and there is the clue bub!

      •  

        “Obama and his handlers haven’t come through on the promise to back off and allow each state to make the decision on whether or not to legalize it.”

        Bullshit.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/eric-holder-marijuana-washington-colorado-doj_n_3837034.html

        > The United States government took a historic step back from its long-running drug war on Thursday, when Attorney General Eric Holder informed the governors of Washington and Colorado that the Department of Justice would allow the states to create a regime that would regulate and implement the ballot initiatives that legalized the use of marijuana for adults.

        You think Willard “What’s Hemp” Romney would have done that? You think President John “Bomb Bomb Bomb” McCain would have?

        “Political parties, both of them, have failed to step up on this issue.”

        More bullshit. As you can see in my other comments here, Democrats have seriously stepped up. Especially in the US House:

        > 94% of the Democrats voted to prevent the “Treasury Department from spending any funding to penalize financial institutions that provide services to marijuana businesses that are legal under state law.” Only 20% of the Republicans did.

        > 91% of Dems [voted to keep] the DEA out of medicinal programs, and 22% of Republicans [did].

        Also from that other comment, a nation-wide poll:

        > …only about a third of Democrats and independents now oppose legalization, compared to nearly two-thirds of Republicans.

        So, you see, I have a clue, and the facts to back it up. You don’t.

  4.  

    Capitalism is not restricted to “free markets.” If it was, capitalism wouldn’t exist at all.

    Rush Limbaugh wouldn’t exist on a “free market” anyways since he benefits immensely by corporate consolidation of media (will happen without government intervention but is a product of it atm) and is only on the employee list because he promotes their agenda.

  5.  

    Socialism ftw.

    •  

      Like in Cuba where the average wage is $16 per month and weed is still illegal?

      •  

        No, more like Denmark, Norway, or Sweeden.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/14/does-a-higher-minimum-wage-make-people-happier/

        > Thus, the UN 2013 World Happiness Report lists Denmark as the happiest country in the world (with Norway and Sweden not far behind). Denmark’s effective minimum wage is $20 per hour

        And when you show average wages, you really should use PPP (purchasing power parity)…

        The per capita GNI of Cuba using PPP is $3,000 per year, or $250 per month.

        http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/GNI_PPP_of_countries.htm

        •  

          Ahh yes, $250 per month is really living! Sure, it doesn’t quite approach McDonalds wages. But for the socialist bragging rights, it’s well worth it. And it doesn’t matter that weed is illegal because no one could afford it anyway. I see your point.

          •  

            “$250 per month is really living! ”

            So, you admit you just pulled the $16 figure out of your ass?

            “But for the socialist bragging rights, it’s well worth it. ”

            So, you just ignored the thing about Denmark, Norway, and Sweeden. I can name lots of other socialist countries with wage parity above, the same as, or only slightly below ours. They are all happy places. And you would ignore this, because it doesn’t fit into your pre-conceived ideas about what socialism is.

            “And it doesn’t matter that weed is illegal because no one could afford it anyway”

            When weed is legal, one can grow it in their backyard or on their balcony. Doesn’t cost much at all.

            “I see your point.”

            No you don’t. Socialism isn’t an all or nothing thing. Social Security, which is very popular here in the US, is socialism. Medicare, which saved the lives of millions of seniors, is socialism. The 1% of the US budget we spend on welfare is Socialism. The massive corporate welfare system is socialism. The supply-side economic system that’s been upwardly redistributing wealth and income since Ronald Reagan socializes losses and privatizes winnings.

            I suggest you check out a political philosophy class. They have them free on line now. You know, because socialism!

          •  

            Google “average monthly salary in Cuba”. You do know about Google, right? Apparently it’s up to $20 now, so I was off by 4 bucks a month – so kill me. But hey, if it’s so wonderful, go there and live your dream!

            For most people with a modicum of understanding of human behavior, it is easy to see how an economy that favors individualism over collectivism is always more productive than an economy that favors collectivism over individualism.

          •  

            Google PPP. Things are cheaper there.

            Now you’ve changed to favors, eh? So some socialism is Ok?

            I’m living my dream here, thanks. Why don’t you go to Galt’s Gulch? Nice one down in Chile, I hear.

          •  

            ● Changed flavors? Either you don’t know what you’re talking about, or you got stuck and couldn’t think of anything else to say. The base of the political economic struggle in modern times is individualism versus collectivism. Socialism is under the umbrella of collectivism which puts the importance and rights of society ahead of the importance and rights of the individual. Capitalism is under the umbrella of individualism which puts the importance and rights of the individual ahead of the importance and rights of society.
            ● I know many immigrants from Cuba. Things are far less affordable for Cubans in Cuba than they are for Americans in America. Plus, the police can enter your home at any time without notice or warrant. This is a common feature of collectivism around the world.
            ● Individualism and collectivism are not 100% mutually exclusive. We need the cooperation of society for efficiency and because humans are a social animal. But individualism motivates people to use their hard work and ingenuity to produce wealth for themselves. Collectivism says that any extra wealth you produce through hard work and ingenuity shall be kept by the state. It motivates people to be as unproductive as they can get away with being without losing their job. So when an economic system is more individualist than collectivist, the increase in wealth results in a higher average standard of living. It is individual rights that allow us to choose what to put into our body, such as marijuana. The collectivist mindset says that the government will decide what its society shall have or not have.

          •  

            “Changed flavors? Either you don’t know what you’re talking about, or you got stuck and couldn’t think of anything else to say. ”

            Either you can’t read, or you’re just a bullshitter. I SAID:

            “Now you’ve changed to favors”

            I said this because in your first comment, you used Cuba as an example of socialism, when there are many other, much more successful socialistic countries (Cuba, BTW, is communist), and when I tried to straighten you out on that mistake, you come back with:

            “For most people with a modicum of understanding of human behavior, it is easy to see how an economy that favors individualism over collectivism is always more productive than an economy that favors collectivism over individualism.”

            SO, I said you’ve changed from denouncing all socialism, using Cuba as your example, to “favors” individualism.

            Which, of course, means you’re OK with some socialism, as long as we still “favor” individualism.

            Got that, John Galt? FAVORS. Not Flavors.

            “The base of the political economic struggle in modern times is individualism versus collectivism.”

            I have a BA in Philosophy. You’re not teaching me anything here.

            “Socialism is under the umbrella of collectivism which puts the importance and rights of society ahead of the importance and rights of the individual. ”

            Not really. Since the version of socialism we practice just tries to protect the most vulnerable by lifting them up to a very low standard of decency, then we are also worried about those INDIVIDUALS. We are collectively worried about those individuals among us who need help. Also, living in a society that doesn’t have poor people begging in the streets is good for the individuals who live there. So, trying to do things that help some people can actually help all people, and since people are individuals, then the question becomes are we harming the rich by using the 16th amendment to take some of their income and redistribute it MORE than if we weren’t and they had people trying to rob them all the time? What is the point at which we’re taking so much money from them that it harms them more than if we weren’t and lots of poor people kept showing up at their door with pitchforks?

            You know, like people almost did on Wall Street after they caused the Little Bush Depression?

            “Capitalism is under the umbrella of individualism which puts the importance and rights of the individual ahead of the importance and rights of society.”

            Actually, capitalism, as the rich have rigged it to work in this country, privatizes profits and socializes losses. This is known as cost-shifting. Look it up!

            “I know many immigrants from Cuba. Things are far less affordable for Cubans in Cuba than they are for Americans in America. ”

            Honestly… look up PPP. I know things are less affordable to Cubans because the measure of their GNI per-capita, using Purchasing Power Parity, is $250 a month. It sucks! And I don’t advocate a Cuban system. I advocate systems like the ones in the countries you refuse to acknowledge, like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway.

            “Plus, the police can enter your home at any time without notice or warrant. This is a common feature of collectivism around the world.”

            Actually, it’s a common feature of authoritarianism. Libertarianism, the opposite of authoritarianism, can be either right wing, or left wing, economically. It just so happens that most of the experiments on this planet with collectivism (communism) have been by authoritarian governments.

            However, the countries I mentioned, and you ignored, and you continue to ignore, are libertarian and socialistic. They have rights and freedoms, protections from the state, and all the other good liberty stuff we have. Most of Europe is like that.

            ” Individualism and collectivism are not 100% mutually exclusive.”

            Honestly… You’re talking to me like I’m a student. AND, this is exactly what I was saying in the first place, which is why, when you used the example of Cuba, I mentioned those other countries that have more socialism than we do, and yet they also have personal freedoms.

            “But individualism motivates people to use their hard work and ingenuity to produce wealth for themselves. ”

            Socialism can also be a motivating factor in working hard. When all those Rosie the Riveters build airplanes and tanks for WWII, they weren’t making a whole lot of money. They were working for the collective.

            And I work hard for my family. I help my friends. I work hard so I can pay my taxes, donate to causes, etc. If productivity and wealth creation are the only things you care about, I feel sorry for you.

            “Collectivism says that any extra wealth you produce through hard work and ingenuity shall be kept by the state.”

            Marx said: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Socialistic countries do this, but to limited degrees. Most of Europe has single payer health care and high minimum wages. But what the Soviets did was corrupt and doomed to fail. It lead to the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. It wasn’t Ronnie Raygun or the Pope that made the Soviets collapse. It was themselves. Economics tells us the more money that can be made at cheating, the more likely someone is to do it. The Soviet system was full of incentives to cheat. So they did.

            “the increase in wealth results in a higher average standard of living.”

            The problem is, as we can so plainly see now, that raising the people at the top very high increases the average, but the people at the bottom still suffer. The market rigging, upwardly-redistributing cost-shifters have made more and more, at a price to those who’ve made less and less, mainly the middle class. So, sure, we might be able to raise the average wealth (and I’m not so sure we have, considering the trade deficit) but if you do it by making the people at the top more fabulously wealthy by sucking money out of the middle class, then you get a real problem.

            “It is individual rights that allow us to choose what to put into our body, such as marijuana. ”

            Society has an interest in not having heroin addicts lining the streets trying to steal for their next fix. And when someone (Harry J. Anslinger) in government gets overzealous about something MUCH LESS HARMFUL than heroin, then we, as a society, have to push back against that AUTHORITARIANISM and elect people that will be sensible guardians of our liberty.

            And in today’s government, the people who want to protect your liberty, are Democrats. Which is why I post the facts about these votes.

            70% of Democrats voted against renewing the Patriot Act, only 14% of Republicans did.

            91% of Dems voted for keeping the DEA out of medicinal programs, only 22% of Republicans did.

            94% of Democrats voted to keep the feds out of pot banking, only 20% of Republicans did.

            So, see how our moderately “collectivist” Democratic party is protecting our personal liberty while the quite authoritarian Republican party is taking it away?

            For more on how this all works, I recommend:

            http://politicalcompass.org

          •  

            ● “I have a BA in Philosophy”. You shouldn’t have brought that up. If that’s the extent of your education, then you have little to qualify your opinions.

            ● You have this thing where you want to say “Republican Party = bad, Democrat Party = good”. Instead I say, “Republican Party = wimps, Democrat Party = evil”. George W. Bush was a liberal and Obama was the most extremist leftist in the Senate before going to the White House.

            ● The people in the Democrat party (by and large) simply do not have the ability to think deeply enough to correctly consider the consequences of their boneheaded actions. They are too caught up in idealism.

            ● Socialists/progressives/communists or whatever other names you have for them already have the worst human rights records on the planet. Between Stalin, Hitler’s national socialists, Mao & Pol Pot millions upon millions have been slaughtered in the name of collectivism.

            ● Lastly, I’m only here to show support for the passage of Amendment 2 here in Florida. If you’re a Floridian, I hope you vote for its passage. If it passes I may be back to show support for a full legalization measure if one is started. If it fails, I may be back to show support for the next measure that comes forward in Florida. But I’m not going to vote for a Democrat just so that I can smoke a joint prior to his putting a bullet in my head. I’m not a single issue voter.

          •  

            “If that’s the extent of your education, then you have little to qualify your opinions.”

            Really? Compared to what you know about political philosophy, it seems I have quite a bit on which to qualify my opinions. The fact that you don’t understand the political compass tells me that.

            And the fact that you keep changing the flow of the conversation to make an impression about yourself tells me you’re a bullshitter.

            http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html

            “…bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.”

            “You have this thing where you want to say “Republican Party = bad, Democrat Party = good””

            You have this thing where you don’t understand what I wrote. Like favor vs. flavor.

            “Instead I say, “Republican Party = wimps, Democrat Party = evil”. ”

            Of course you do. Because you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

            To wit:

            “George W. Bush was a liberal”

            Actually, he was the most conservative President in the modern era.

            http://voteview.com/blog/?p=317

            “Obama was the most extremist leftist in the Senate before going to the White House.”

            You think the GOP are wimps but you repeat their bullshit talking points…

            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/26/john-mccain/several-ratings-rank-obama-lower/

            > Voteview.com, a site created by political scientists that plots lawmakers on a liberal-conservative scale based on their voting patterns, calculated there were nine senators more liberal than Obama in the current Congress, including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

            And what does how he voted in the Senate have to do with his very moderate record as president?

            And what does any of this have to do with how out of whack you are with the facts about socialism?

            I think the Progressives in the Democratic Party are more libertarian on Civil and Personal liberties than the Daddy Party of Authoritarians that you vote for. I don’t think they’re all good, or that they only do good. I just think they’re better than the authoritarian ideology driven GOP that lied us into war, crashed the economy, expanded privatized prisons, and worsened the drug war.

            “he people in the Democrat party (by and large) simply do not have the ability to think deeply enough to correctly consider the consequences of their boneheaded actions. They are too caught up in idealism.”

            More bullshit. It is the GOP that lets idealism determine their actions. That’s how we got lied into a $2 trillion war that MOST Democrats voted against. It’s how we got the Patriot Act, which MOST Democrats voted against. It’s how we got the Little Bush Depression, massive income and wealth inequality. It’s how we got the southern strategy, private prisons, and the drug war.

            Most Democrats, and especially the Progressives, are pragmatic. That is the opposite of idealistic.

            And, as I showed you, the boneheaded actions to which you refer are things like voting, massively, in the way you want them to vote on issues of personal liberty. So, transitive property of boneheadedness means you’re a bonehead.

            “Socialists/progressives/communists or whatever other names you have for them already have the worst human rights records on the planet. Between Stalin, Hitler’s national socialists, Mao & Pol Pot millions upon millions have been slaughtered in the name of collectivism.”

            You keep mixing up collectivism and authoritarianism. It is authoritarianism–the GOP’s position–that led to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

            And again you’ve left out states that are libertarian and socialist. The fact that you will not acknowledge the existence of Denmark, Sweeden, Norway, and most of Europe, tells me you don’t really care about facts. You just want to keep spewing bullshit for some reason.

            So, before you waste any of my time, go take this test:

            http://politicalcompass.org/test

            And then tell me where you are. I’d bet we’re both libertarian, but you’re to the right, with Friedman, and I’m to the left, with Ghandi.

            Also, note, when you get to the analysis page, that hitler was actually to the right on the economic left-right dimension, over with Thatcher. So, not a “collectivist.”

            ” Lastly, I’m only here to show support for the passage of Amendment 2 here in Florida. ”

            If that was true, then why did you start spewing bullshit about socialism?

            “If you’re a Floridian”

            I’m not, thank goodness. I don’t care for your state. Too many Republicans. And mosquitoes.

            “I hope you vote for its passage.”

            I would. I always vote less authoritarianism.

            “If it passes ”

            I’m not very sure, but I’d bet a little against it if I had to. Too many authoritarians (hippie punchers) in your state. And not enough liberals will get up off their asses to vote.

            “But I’m not going to vote for a Democrat just so that I can smoke a joint prior to his putting a bullet in my head. ”

            Name one elected Democrat that put a bullet in anyone’s head. Most of the Democrats in this country are trying to stop the cops from running out of control and shooting people. It is mostly the GOP that wants to turn cops into soldiers, and police our streets like an authoritarian police state. It is mostly the GOP that wants to keep weed illegal. It’s the GOP that supports the cop that shot the guy in Ferguson. It’s the GOP that supports the cop that shot the guy in a Walmart who was holding a toy gun. It’s the GOP that supported the cops that beat Rodney King half to death. It’s the GOP that supports a death penalty that executes innocent people. It’s the GOP that supports wars like the drug war. And when you vote for them, you’re supporting all those things.

            I imagine that causes some problems for you, but rather than address those contradictions, you try to project onto the Democrats that which you vote for in Republicans.

            “I’m not a single issue voter.”

            Obviously. This is because someone taught you a bunch of bullshit that isn’t true about the difference between Democrats and Republicans. You probably think we want to make guns illegal (when really we want you to stop violating our 2nd amendment right to regulate the militia well). You might be rich and hate the idea of higher taxes to pay for infrastructure and teachers to make this country smarter and more efficient. You might like the idea of bombing the shit out of every brown person in the middle east. You might like the idea of repealing the EMTALA and gutting health coverage for the poor.

            Who knows what your problems are… But I can tell you that you have a really big problem with political philosophy, and as long as you let your other issues get in the way of how you vote, you’re going to keep electing authoritarians who want to limit your freedom.

          •  

            That was an amazingly ignorant diatribe – nothing but regurgitated left-wing talking points. But I’ll take just one point – your ignorant statement about the second amendment “right to regulate the militia well”.

            The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

            The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

            1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

            1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

            1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

            1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

            1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

            1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

          •  

            “amazingly ignorant diatribe”

            If what I said was so ignorant, why are you having so much trouble arguing with it? Because you don’t want to admit that you care more about being part of the authoritarian party’s coalition than you do about personal liberty?

            http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

            > Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court’s most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

            > “It will have to be decided in future cases,” Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

            So, you should go have your ignorant argument with your authoritarian buddy Tony.

            Also, note, as I stated earlier:

            > “…bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner’s capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”

            http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html

          •  

            Wow, it all just went over your head. My guess is that your undergrad GPA was insufficient to get you into grad school. But even so, what respectable grad school program would accept a “BA in Philosophy” degree for their undergrad requirements? Well, hang in there. One day you may advance to the store manager position at McDonald’s. I’ll pass you a doobie through the drive through window. And no, hold the fries. But thanks for asking!

          •  

            “Wow, it all just went over your head.”

            No, I not only read and understood what you wrote, but I’ve heard it from authoritarians before. That’s why I referred you to your authoritarian buddy and noted originalist Tony Scalia.

            What went over your head is the difference between authoritarian and libertarian. And the fact that anyone who says Democrats want to confiscate all the guns, or make guns illegal, is a lying sack.

            “The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:”

            And you give dates! 1709, 1714, 1812, 1848, 1862, and 1894.

            Quick! Which one is closest to the writing of the 2nd, and by how many years?

            Do you think our militia is in “in proper working order” when a 9 year girl old can shoot a fully automatic weapon and kill her instructor?

            Oh, never mind. You don’t care about truth. Or the 9th amendment. Or the 4th… Because you vote for authoritarians who rig the markets in order to empower the police state.

            “My guess is that your undergrad GPA was insufficient to get you into grad school.”

            3.5. Graduated with honors after attending on a full-ride academic scholarship. Didn’t want to go to graduate school.

            “But even so, what respectable grad school program would accept a “BA in Philosophy” degree for their undergrad requirements?”

            Lots! It’s common for people going into law school.

            http://www.gonzaga.edu/Academics/Colleges-and-Schools/College-of-Arts-and-Sciences/Majors-Programs/Philosophy/Undergrad-Program/careers.asp

            > On the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), philosophy majors nationwide consistently achieve among the highest scores of all majors. Philosophy majors have as good a record as Political Science majors for admission to top law schools.
            Philosophy majors outperformed all other disciplines on the verbal portion of the GRE exam, and outside the natural sciences, only philosophy and economics majors significantly beat the national average on the quantitative portion of the GRE.
            As groups, only philosophy and biology majors performed significantly better than the national average on the LSAT and GRE exams, and the highest performers on the GMAT exam (for business school) were philosophy, mathematics, and engineering majors.

            “Well, hang in there.”

            Sure thing.

            “One day you may advance to the store manager position at McDonald’s.”

            I was one of the top stage technicians in the country. I ran automation on the Lion King. Projection and audio at a major regional theater in LA. Lighting for more TV shows than I can remember. I’m retired now, own one LLC, and my wife and I are busy starting another.

            “I’ll pass you a doobie through the drive through window.”

            That’s OK. I don’t want your weed.

            “And no, hold the fries. But thanks for asking!”

            Heh. Again: “…bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.”

          •  

            Give it up Reggie. Some wingers will continue to lick 0bozo’s boots even as he’s kicking them in the teeth.

          •  

            1% of the US Budget ? Who’s pulling numbers out of their ass now ?

          •  

            “Federal TANF spending made up a mere 0.7 percent of the budget.”

            http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/research_desk_tallies_how_expe.html

            Add all welfare programs together, and it’s ~14% of the budget.

            Military spending is the big expense.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

            Anything else?

  6.  

    Rush Limbaugh is not a conservative — he’s a pill-popping joke, and an embarrassment to all Republicans.

  7.  

    It’s time to Legalize Marijuana in the European Union
    http://www.sgoal.org/Legalize-Marijuana-in-the-European-Union

  8.  

    Im pretty conservative, I think imrepublican, but I miss my deisel and my haze. If tou think about it, mj has only been under legal scrutinity for a hundred years or so, therefore wantinting to control and criminilize is really a liberal viewpiint, in the long term viewpoint isnt I r.

 Leave a Reply