• SeanRenaud said on Jul 26, 2009....

  Wow.  Just wow.  The reality is that nobody is learning (or could have learned anything from the Obama tactics which largely haven't even gone into effect yet) from the Obama tactics.  The reality is that it's the economy stupid as you've previously said.  Obama wasn't supposed to come up with a strategy to improve the strategy that was would take as long (or possibly longer) than the initial downfall.  Nobody cares that the Great Depression lasted over a decade.  Obama was supposed to play his theme song "Barrack the Magic Negro, he came to DC" and wave a magic wand and we were all supposed to be living in mansions.  Since that has failed his numbers are falling.  It has less than nothing to do with his policies.

• ALIENated said on Jul 26, 2009....

  As I have also said before, the Great Depression only lasted ten years in the U.S., and that was mostly due to FDR's socialistic tinkering, trying to make businesses do the wrong things, etc. If you want to stimulate the economy, you cut taxes and let people and businesses spend their own money in a realistic way. Instead, Deathocrats want to be in the big middle of everything, want to control everything, so they raise taxes and then have giveaway programs, which ends up going to crap no one cares about (pork projects) that do not help the common man. What marvels me is that Deathocrats complain about the government all the time a Republican is president and, when a Deathocrat becomes president, they think government can solve our every problem. The truth is that Republicans are RIGHT (not just philosophically) -- government should be as small as possible and as hands-off as possible. We do not need more people working for the government, we need less people working for the government. Government is a very, very expensive middle man that needs to be cut out at every opportunity. Instead of more government involvement in our healthcare system, there needs to be less involvement. Medicare makes some sense because, in general, it helps those who cannot help themselves (older people), but it is a total mess. Just as Deathocrats wanted to make it possible for any deadbeat to buy a house (which lead to our recent financial problems), they now want to make it possible for any deadbeat or illegal immigrant to have healthcare. People need to work for what they get if at all possible. If that is not the philosophy on healthcare then we might as well go total communism on everything else, which makes as much sense. There is always going to be inequities because some people do not pull their weight. We should help those who absolutely cannot help themselves, but we should not punish those that can and do help themselves. Deathocrats want to "level the playing field" by bringing everyone down to the lowest common point. Republicans want to provide an environment where everyone has an opportunity to better themselves if they work hard or at least have a job. Deathocrats are more interested in growing the government to ensure that Americans have to depend on the state for everything. Republicans want people to depend on themselves as much as possible. Deathocrats want to give people fish and Republicans want to teach them to fish. Government should be our servant, not our master. That is what people are not learning.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 26, 2009....

  There is very little evidence to support that FDR's tinkering kept the GD longer than it had to be, and lots to suggest that what he did not only helped improve the situation but in addition kept it from happening again and again and again.  That was twenties/Thirties.  We should have had one in the fiftties and the seventies according to all historical models.  Instead we got a bump at the eighties.

  Dems may have wanted to make it possible but it was Republicans (and Clinton) as he walked out the door that made such a thing possible and Bush had eight years (well really more like three or four) to lock the fucking horse in the stable and didn't.  What's more is even now that the horse is gone nobody is bothering to lock the door just hoping that it'll stay in this time.

  I'm all for punishing those who can and do not.  However they are virtually impossible to separate from those who can't.  As I've said before when you're willing to let old folks die in the streets then come back we'll agree and I'll stand against UHC. Until you are going to be the one to tell grandpa that you personally can't afford his expensive surgery though sorry the rest of your argument is all hollow.

• curmudgeon said on Jul 26, 2009....

  I will try to respond once I am done laughing at "Barack the Magic Negro."
  
  Right now I am lauging myself sick...
  

• ALIENated said on Jul 26, 2009....

  Yes, pretty funny, but I wish he was magic. He is like one of the musicians on the Titanic or Nero fiddling while Rome burns. This is not the time do be fucking with healthcare. Now is the time to be figuring out what will get our economy going again and get people working again. Instead he is scaring everyone shitless with his ploy to take over healthcare. Hitler stepped in when things were bad, too, but people did not know what was going on and what he was all about. He took control before they knew what hit them. We are smarter now (well some of us are) and the media is too swift (well the conservative media anyway) for OhBummer to take over as easily as Hitler did. When will the mainstream media get with the program and start questioning what is going on? How far do we have to sink before they wake up and smell the coffee? Healthcare is not the main problem right now. Why is that taking center stage? Hey, Deathocrats should try to prosecute some of the people that were in the Bush administration. That would take the public's mind off how bad they are fucking up. How about not spending any more of the bailout money to pad more millionaire's pockets or to pay back your political friends.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 26, 2009....

  It's not that the conservative media isn't swift enough it's that they are taking sloppy punches and early punches and discrediting themselves.  It is in no small part because Republicans are literally praying for the downfall of this nation.  They care more, literally about the outcome of the 2012 elections than they do about this country.  America is a Weapon to them and I make no qualms it is a weapon and who wields it is of global importance.  But instead of hoping Obama is right like the nation did with Bush they hope Obama is wrong and we are so fucked that we have no choice but to turn to their tactics.  It is truly disgusting to see one side of the politcal scale hope (not recognice as the the left did in mid 05) the other parties mass failures. 

  I want to live in a country where peoplve love their country.  The truth is most RePUKEulians don't love this country any more than most DEATHocrats.  They just want the power to control the world.

   

• ALIENated said on Jul 27, 2009....

  Now that is what I call a hollow arguement. Republicans do not want OhBummer to be wrong, they just think he IS wrong because his philosophy is socialist, big government, etc. I will admit that I hope what he is doing does not get by the House and Senate because what he is doing is wrong. I do not want big government telling me what to do at every turn. Do you? As someone said, it is not about left and right, it is about right and wrong. I think Borax is taking us in the wrong direction, which is what most lefty Deathocrats usually think about Republicans. That is just the way it is. They want a socialist, nanny state, and we want a free, capitalist society. They want government handouts and government control. We want lower taxes, fewer abortions, the freedom to drill for our own oil. We could turn this country around by using and exporting our own oil. Borax is simply going the wrong way and Republicans would be fools not to point it out at every opportunity. Most of what they have been doing is just assinine and destructive to our way of life. You know that. You just do not want to admit it because you want them to be right so you will be right, not so America will be a better place.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 27, 2009....

  Seeing the abortion, gay rights, pornography debates I'm much more comfortable with the left telling me that this light bulb is wrong vs the right telling me what I can and can't do in my bedroom.  The right is about small government is a lie and you know it.

• ALIENated said on Jul 27, 2009....

  Are you aborting babies in your bedroom? Homos have the same rights as the rest of us. They can marry just as we can marry. They just cannot marry someone of the same gender, or a monkey, or a sheep, or multiple partners. They have the same rights we all have. If you recall, pornography exploded in the Reagan 80s. The light bulb business is as stupid as climate change / global warming. In the 70s, the liberals were all about "The Population Bomb", so now we murder thousands and thousands of babies. What will this climate change crapola cause down the road, an ice age? Who knows. Republicans are not for zero government. They are for smaller government. Liberals want their way and they want it dictated to everyone. You know that if homo marriage was legalized in every state tomorrow, homos would be marching about the next thing on their agenda before the end of the week. They will not be happy until they can blow each other in public and moral people have to smile and nod approval. The abortion crowd is no different because sin knows no limits. Abortion goes further each year to the point our trainee president says let a perfectly healthy baby die if is was supposed to be aborted. The destination of that sin is legally murdering children even after they are born, which used to take place in pagan societies hundreds of years ago.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 27, 2009....

  If gays get the right to marry it'll be over and done with.  Just like when blacks got the right to go to school with whites the mass movements were over and done with.  You get flash points and the occasional stiff up (mostly from people who were still alive when thsi shit went down) but wait another twenty years when the Boomers have all shoved of.  It's done.  They'll sit on the side lines and we'll be able to focus on other important stuff.

  Yeah porn exploded under Reagan, but as I recall that had more to do with VHS reaching saturation and people not having to go to sleazy movie theatres. . .where they couldn't you know get off cus there other people around.  Than Reagan being at all supportive.  And besides Reagan was twenty years ago.  Twenty months ago Bush was still at war with the porn community.  Got one in jail, two more are still in trial now.  I'm sure there's a few I'm not aware of because while I know a guy in the biz we don't talk often or in that kind of depth about the political aspects of the industry.

• ALIENated said on Jul 28, 2009....

  If gays get the right to marry it'll be over and done with.

  I doubt that even you believe that because you know as well as I know that marriage is not the issue. Once marriage is legalized then they move on to neutralizing some other area like teaching homosexuality as a perfectly natural alternative in schools, to pre-schoolers. Then all the Bibles have to be changed to say "significant other" instead of husband or wife, as it does over and over and over. It is not about marriage, it is about making those who know homosexuality for what it is (a sin) declare it not a sin, which will never happen so there is no end to it. I dare say the ultimate outcome will be what it always is -- a return to total intollerance. Check your history book (if you still have one that has not been liberalized). Homosexuality and debauchery made the Roman Empire an easy target and helped to bring it down like it or not. Republicans / conservatives are as tollerant of homosexuality as Deathocrats / liberals / socialists, but not as willing to take it any further than it has already infected our society. I doubt that most Deathocrats would want the ultimate changes that unbridled acceptance would bring.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 28, 2009....

  Marriage is the issue.  The rest of the stuff you're just beliving in this nightmare universe.  Teaching homosexuality as normal to pre-schoolers?  Yeah right, we don't even teach that ordinary sex is natural until around eighteen.  They figure it out on their own but we don't actually tell them shit.  There is nothing to discuss as far as homosexuality in sex ed.  It's two sentences.  Some guys like guys, some girls like girls.  We already teach the basics of oral and anal (not nearly thoroughly enough) so everything else is already covered by existint programs.

  As for Rome you really want to go and read your history.  If debauchery had anything to do with the downfall of Rome it took it a few hundred years to catch up.  There is no debate that Nero and Caligula were the height of sin.  Both names have survived history almost solely based on how nasty they were.  Both reigned over a hundred years before the fall.  Christianity was incharge when Rome fell.  If you look at history, and simply read what is written, instead of trying to find some bullshit the fact is that sin had nothing to do with the downfall.  If we are allowed to grasp for shit that history doesn't really support then we should stick with the much more plausible answer of the great empire found itself under the rule of people who believed that the end times were nigh and as a result ignored obvious signs of decay.  Cus you know it didn't matter. 

  The idea that sin brought down Rome is 100% bullshit.  You'd have an easier time (particularly if OBama is one fourth as bad as you claim.) proving that Abraham Lincoln is responsible for the end of America.

• ALIENated said on Jul 28, 2009....

  Empires fall like a brick wall -- one brick at a time. It does not happen overnight. I said homosexuality and debauchery HELPED to bring down the Roman Empire. If you think textbooks would not be changed to accomodate homosexual teachings, you are the one living in a dream world. Anyway, what I am saying is that there is a point at which everyone will agree enough is enough and there will be a total backlash against homosexuality. I, of course, think it will come from some lefty like Stalin, Hitler, Castro, or OhBummer. Not Newt. Why would I think Abraham Lincoln is responsible for the end of America. He was the first Republican president. The South was filled with Democrats in those days, trying to keep blacks in their place as they still do today.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 28, 2009....

  The same reason you believe debauchery had anything to do with Rome's downfall.  You don't really care on certain things if the facts support you stance.  The empire flourished and grew under the vile empereros and it was so far after their reign that the fall started that blaming it on them is stupid.  It's like I said blaming Lincoln for the downfall, after all had he not freed the slaves we wouldn't have a black President and then we wouldn't have Obama Care leading to the Chinese rulling the nation.

  As far as the text books go, you've got to be joking.  They don't even teach that interacial sex is normal.

• ALIENated said on Jul 28, 2009....

  Inter-racial sex is normal? That is actually why we have OhBummer. Lincoln did not actually give a shit about blacks as I understand it. He was just concerned about keeping the sourthern states from leaving the union. It is actually quite funny that blacks hold a semi-racist, Republican president in such high esteem.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 29, 2009....

  Holy shit.  I don't even know how to respond to that fucking bigotted response other than to assume your first sentence is completely in jest and give you benefit of the doubt and thus leave alone that it was illegal for a black man to touch a white woman for years.

  It's unclear if Lincoln was racist or not though he probably was.  What is clear is that the freeing of the slaves was a side effect not a goal.  Who gives a shit if he was racist, he could have headed the KKK for all I care and taught Hitler his master plan before he died.  Fact is he freed the slaves.

  If you haven't already watched it I want you to go watch a movie called Pitch Black (it's got nothing to do with race, the sequel does a but not Pitch Black)  Point is the good guy is whoever is helping me for whatever reason he's helping me.  If Adolf Hitler defeats the alien invasion because nobody can exteriminate the Jews but him you know what for one shiny moment he's a hero.

• javadewd said on Jul 29, 2009....

  Hey, did you hear Newt was out my way today? Yeah, he got about two seconds on the news out here. It's funny how that works, though, SSM St. Claire hospital is the mid-west prototype of how hospitals will work in the future, but no fucking liberal wants to talk about that... Or that it has a faith-based board (SSM = Sisters of St. Mary's) or that it has graciously covered hospitalizations, operations and other financial burdens of hundreds of thousands of people in this area during their long history. Oh, well. My point is that he got a few seconds and made #36 on Yahoo! News. We conservatives should be so happy...
  

• ALIENated said on Jul 30, 2009....

  Yes, my first sentence was completely in jest (Inter-racial sex is normal?). To me race is a skin tone. To racists (some with dark skin), race determines a lot of things that it really does not determine. My only prejudice against blacks is that most are prejudiced against me. Borax and professor whatshisname just proved that pretty well. Blacks too easily fall for the lies of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The color of your skin neither makes you good nor makes you bad. Your actions determine that. As far as Lincoln, he was just in the right place at the right time. The winds of change rarely respect a single man. Neither can the winds of change be summoned by one man. Mr. Borax is most likely finding that out. He was not elected to promote socialism, which is his goal. He was elected because people were duped by the media and he is an effective liar. Or at least he was during the campaign. Why else would such an incompetitent, inexperienced dolt have been elected president of the United States of America? To disagree with that makes me suspect that you may in fact be the racist, the one that thinks race matters most.

• stopmediabias said on Jul 30, 2009....

  In reading the title of this post Republicans are making a comeback I have to respond with: Fuck the Republicans.  I'll never ever be a Democrat but some of the current crop of Republicans we have are starting to make me ill.  Why aren't they going to filibuster Sotomayor?  Why isn't every Republican in our government taking to the streets with signs and torches protesting this pushing bills through without anyone reading them including the people in the majority who are voting for them?

  Lincoln was one of the most brilliant President's in all of history because he took chances and he didn't wavor.  The start of the Civil war was not about slavery but I think States rights was the burning timber and slavery was the rocket fuel eventually poured on.  Lincoln at first didn't see this but recognized it later and stuck with ending slavery at all costs.  To go through what he did and seeing his country torn to shreds and hundreds of thousands of deaths and still stand firm and succeed in winning the war and ending slavery I think makes him a very remarkable person. 

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 30, 2009....

  I think ALIEN, with all due respect that while I agree that your opinion should be universal (race is a skin tone) it's not.  Whites don't understand because they have been on top and make up a majority of this country. 

  My father, and uncles were there to have dogs and hoses turned on them.  They remember when the United States Army was required for them to go to school with whites.  They remember Rosa Parks getting arrested and MLK and Malcolm X being assassinated.  Yes I was raised by these people (as were nearly if not all African Americans) and yes I bear some of their prejudices towards whites because that was how I was raised.  What's more is I've experienced it first hand a number of times.  I wish I could invite you to my home because I don't hang out with blacks I'm not really a fan of my own race (as if you couldn't figure that out by following my posts regularly) most of my close friends are white and even they will attest that they have been in situations where the cops walked right past them to harrass me.  So I have first hand knowledge and experience and I know mine was mild by all accounts. 

  So yeah most blacks are racist.  Sorry whites enslaves blacks for a few hundred years, treated them as second class citizens for another century and have the audacity to get offended by impotent, harmless (by the large) whining that will be gone in twenty years? 

  SMB:  Fillibustering on Sotomoyor would be suicide.  She's an excelent judge with excelent credentials and a historic first.  The Republicans are wisely for a change taking a step back and letting something go (something that should have been okay to begin with)  Hell as many have pointed out on the only thing that you guys give a shit about (abortion) there is a better than average chance she's on yourside.  The Dems should be the ones kicking her back.

  Lincoln was incredible.  I don't doubt that.

• ALIENated said on Jul 30, 2009....

  There are black people living in my neighborhood and I see black people walking my streets night and day. However, the south side of town (and I live in a big town) is still predominately black folk. I assure you, if I went there and walked the streets at night, I would not be alive tomorrow.

  Slavery is a horrible deal. Blacks are still not over it and Jews are still not over it after all these years.

  I think Sotomayer was a horrible choice, but she is replacing a liberal justice who was chosen to be conservative. Worst case, it is a wash. And I frankly doubt that abortion will ever be outlawed, but hopefully it can be stopped from getting any worse.

  And, yes, I am disgusted with Republicans and Democrats. If Obama really wants to make a difference and accomplish some change, he needs to stop campaigning (it is like comfort food to him) and start coming up with some change that helps instead of just growing government. Washington D.C. would probably have to double in size to house all the new beurocrats that his healthcare legislation will create. All the additional unelected people who have control over our lives. You would think Democrats, those people who love liberty so much (those people who complained about Bush stealing all our liberties), would see this crap for what it is. It is hard to explain it as anything other than "my party right or wrong" because this stuff is just wrong. People like Jon Stewart need to start taking their own advice and stop tearing our country apart with their partisanship. Neither party is right or wrong all the time. Politicians need to try to pick the right and leave out the wrong for all our sakes. Otherwise, we are all going to be speaking Chinese before you know it. We will all be slaves, black, white, red, and brown.

• javadewd said on Jul 31, 2009....

  Hey, SMB, have you enslaved a black man lately? I know I haven't. Hell, my late grandfather in Alabama never enslaved a black man. I'm hard-pressed to say that his father (and perhaps even grandfather, but I guess I'd have to be able to GOOGLE it so that Sean doesn't call me a liar) never enslaved a black man.
  
  Better yet, I have yet to meet an enslaved black man... Where do they live in this country? I'd like to meet one some day, just so I can apologize to them for something that I never did... My father never did... My grandfather never did...
  
  But, I know that my beloved capitalist government has set aside college fund after college fund so that black high school graduates could go to college for free, not to mention a special majority of small business loans for minority owned businesses, and lest not forget the affirmative action laws and all of that jazz.
  
  Yet, the blacks that Sean speaks of are not only racist haters, but are the ones who will gladly accept reparations even though they can't prove that they're owed any. You know, just because you're black in America doesn't mean your forefathers were slaves, much less slaves in America.
  
  If having kids out of wedlock, living off of food stamps, buying and selling drugs, living in low-income housing and otherwise sucking off the government tit makes you a slave, then what do we do with all of these white-trash fuckers in trailer parks?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 31, 2009....

  1.  The majority of blacks in this country are decended from slave stock.  That isn't even debatable though you're right.  Very few of us could prove if pressed, it turns out that people who were not taught to read and write have a difficult time preserving their history.

  2.  Yes there are funds set aside, and they mostly sit and rot.  Same goes with the business loans the only one of those programs that even tried sucessfully to do any good is affirmative action and the simple fact is that affirmative action causes more problems than it fixes. 

  3.  The truth is that the world has two huge problems on this particular subject.  Black culture is corrupt and has been for about thirty years.  Sure it's at least in part because whites didn't (and don't) give a shit and so continue this War on Drugs that keeps one in ten black men in jail.  When Prohibtion had the EXACT SAME FUCKING RESULTS at the beginning of the century we fixed it right quick.  But that was cus white people were in trouble. 

  Still Black Culture is corrupt and the majority of the blame still falls on blacks.  It ultimately is up to blacks to fix themselves and its going to take inspirational leaders.  It's going to take a lot of luck because we still don't have the same opportunities as whites.  Anybody here who's owned a business knows that what you know isn't half as important as WHO you know.  Since we're talking politics (sorta) I'll swing back to the original point.  Is there a black FAMILY in politics?  Like the Bushes who for the last I think three of four generations have been senators and governers?  Or like the Kennedy's  They don't run for office, they pick a state and show up for work one day and nobody questions it.  What about established wealth?  Any Trumps, Hiltons or Rockafellers?  What black money there is highly concentrated in entertainment which can eventually branch out but it takes time.

  It also means that at some point blacks have to embrace education (and take the requisite dump of religion that goes with it) many of their problems stem from that.  When one of us does establish themselves they are cut off from the "tribe" so to speak.  And again blacks are the majority at fault here.  But lets not pretend like ALIEN doesn't grind home every chance he gets that blacks shouldn't back Obama.  He's not black.  Now I know what ALIEN is pointing at and I still disagree.  For that neighborhood you claim you wouldn't survive walking through ALIEN.  Would you survive if you looked like Obama?  IF the answer is yes he's black.

   

• ALIENated said on Aug 01, 2009....

  I am not sure you do get my point. I am mocking those who simply back Borax because he is black (like Rectum Powell and Oprah) when, in fact, he is more white than anything. Hopefully, those otherwise intelligent people are thinking twice about all that. It is just as stupid to back Sonia Sotomayor because she is hispanic. She is an idiot that thinks her opinions based on her experience is more important than the law. I really do not care if some one is blue as long as they care about American and can make wise, good decisions about running this country.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 01, 2009....

  He would pass for black and ergo is not more white.  I have no idea the genetic background of Powell or Oprah.  Sotomayor is 100% correct that her experiences that set her apart are important.  100% right.  She phrased it poorly but she's completely right.

• javadewd said on Aug 01, 2009....

  1. You are in error. Prove it. I can swear that I'm a descendant of Alexander the Great, but without proof it wouldn't hold half as much water as someone in the US who is black swearing that they're a descendant of "slave stock." There were many blacks who came over after slavery was abolished, none of which had ties to "slave stock."
  
  2. And my point here is that we do the same with Native Americans -- who actually take advantage of such monetary benefits -- yet when we do the same with African-Americans they either turn their nose up at it entirely or whine for more without using what we offer.
  
  3. I still don't buy into the idea that the same "race" as George Washington Carver and other great minds of their day can blame their oppression on the laws that prohibit drugs on the streets. That's such a cop-out. I have to go back to meth-heads in trailer parks and shake my head at your statement. It's just too much of a leap.
  
  I think that the opinion of a Latina judge will of course be different from that of an older Caucasian Jewish man. That difference, however, may not help refine the Supreme Court. It's just that simple.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 01, 2009....

  1.  As I said it would be difficult to prove.  Though just by looking at population maps you can see that races tend to self segregate (not to mention interacial sex was illegal in some places) so the ones who came over after probably bred with those who didn't.  But like you said and I've already admited it would be very difficult to prove.

  2.  Native Americans have many advantages, and to be fair they don't so much take advantage of monetary benefits as they do tap into the fact that they have been allowed to have these semi-autonomous lands.  Which is absurd but whatever.  And I already criticized blacks on this subject.

  3. It's not a leap, it's blatant fact.  The modern War on Drugs mirrors Prohibition in every single facet except that the problem doesn't effect whites.

  4.  The reason we have nine of them is so we can get people with different opinions.  So adding people who had different life experiences is definitely better.  Now maybe there are better choices than her, but she brings a lot of experience to the court. 

• javadewd said on Aug 01, 2009....

  1. What are you, a rep for ACORN? You're going to base whether or not someone is a relative to a former slave by grouping population statistics and breeding habits? Dude, that wouldn't be so far fetched if such records still existed from the late 1800's.
  
  I was going to post a wiki article about how a small, yet noticeable percentage of slaves left for Europe and Africa after been made freemen, but I figured you'd log in and edit that wiki article, too.
  
  2. Okay, so I'll say what I meant was "they take the government up on their offer" instead of "take advantage of their offer" so how's that?
  
  3. Where do you get this shit? I'm pretty sure that meth affects more whites than cocaine or heroin and it falls into this whole "Prohibition = Drug laws" argument. Just like most of our laws (take rape for example) they are made to protect people from other people. One in possession of drugs doesn't hold even half the punishment of one who sells the drugs or one who imports them into the country. Prohibition of alcohol didn't have half of the resistance of drug laws!
  
  4. Her experiences haven't exactly been the type of decisions that would be a strength to the current eight. She's been called the queen of the one-paragraph judgment and some very important decisions of hers have been since overturned.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 01, 2009....

  1.  Yeah.  I would.

  2.  The situation is vastly different.  If blacks were allowed to sell Marijuana legally in black neighborhoods we might see a different situation.  Not to mention if they had a culture, a true culture to lean on.

  3.  Because it didn't effect whites.  If the drinking problem had been confined to black communities it would still be on the books. 

  4. Yeah, she's been overturned I believe four times.  Out of the hundreds of judgements that the Supreme Court refused to touch.  It's a silly point to make.  I mean she should be batting 50/50 and she's batting I think 70/30 against her.  Maybe the problem isn't her.

• javadewd said on Aug 01, 2009....

  1. Dude you are such a hypocrite. If you can't find the truth, don't edit the fucking wiki and be a total tool. You want to re-write history, make your own fucking wiki. Don't pollute the minds of those seeking truth.
  
  2, which should be 3, because 2 was taking about Native Americans taking the government up on their college grants, small business grants and etc. -- If blacks were allowed to sell weed legally and whites were not, that would make the black population even more resistant to getting an education, trying to succeed, and well, probably worse than what it is now... Unless they're selling exclusively to whites.
  
  3... Drugs don't affect whites? Since when?? Are whites totally immune to drugs? Oh, please. As far as drinking problems, I don't understand your statement. On the converse, if meth had been confined to white communities... ?
  
  4. You know how you say that the Republicans have bigger fish to fry on more important issues, if you would have mentioned that she was one of the lesser issues, I would agree. They should simple all vote against her (like TARP-2) and just keep going. Making any comments just gives the libs ammo to call them racists.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 01, 2009....

  1.  I didn't touch the wiki. 

  2.  It seems to work for Indians and Casinos.

  3.  Not to nearly the same level and you know it.  But whatever keep living the dream.

  4.  Given her track record it's hard to vote against her without being racist.  Or simply being anti-Obama and party lines.

• ALIENated said on Aug 01, 2009....

  I was pointing out people who backed Borax (like Powell and Oprah) simply because he is "black". BHO may pass the KKK definition of "black", but he is half white and very little black. Anyway, that is a stupid reason to back someone.

  Sotomayor is 100% correct that her experiences that set her apart are important.

  Yes, she would be more understanding when hispanic gang crimes came to the Supreme Court. Oh my god. People are losing their minds to support this bunch of embiciles.

  The modern War on Drugs mirrors Prohibition in every single facet except that the problem doesn't effect whites.

  Alcohol is addictive to some. Drugs are addictive to all. How can you compare the millions who drink responsibly, even if they get a bit tipsy now and again, to drug addicts? The argument for drugs is just the devil whispering in people's ears. That is all there is to it. Legalizing drugs is a mistake and you know it, or you are just not as smart as I think you are. We have a drug problem because drugs ARE addictive. People get hooked and cannot help what they do. Drugs pushers should be treated like horse theives were once treated. If convicted, they are put to death. If encountered by the police, they should be shot on sight. No questions asked. Pushing drugs should cost you your life. Using / buying drugs should cost you a month in a drug program. The second offense should cost you a year in jail. A third offense ... hang em high. I assure you. After a couple of years under that policy, there would be no more illegal drugs in America. Did I mention the $100,000 bounty for turning in drug pushers? There is no drug problem. There are just corrupt politicians who are not up to the challenge and I think we all know why.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 01, 2009....

  1.  Powell backed the winning horse.  He didn't back him because he was black or white he backed the winning horse which is why he waited until it was over to make his position public.  As far as I'm concerned he's a coward and doesn't count one way or another.  His vote was no doubt racist but even then he waited until the game was over.  Oprah saw something special in him.  Back when Hillary was supposed to be president she saw something.  It's not fair to  crate her in that grouping.

  2.  More than hispanic gang crimes.  Immigration laws, future challenges of the 14th amendment (which should be overturned), various bilingual issues.  She brings a wealth of knowledge that no white upper classman can ever have and if she is wrong there are seven others to overturn her (I"m being kind and assuming the black man will vote with her even if it is a vote that it should be legal for hispanics to kill blacks on site which is absurd.)

  3.  Drugs are not addictive to all.  I mean you are starting from a known fallacy particularly when dealing with marijuana.  Legalizing drugs is not a mistake.  It is the only sane decision we can make. 

• javadewd said on Aug 02, 2009....

  Ugh. I give up. It is senseless to keep arguing with somebody who changes the fucking wiki (even people who don't log in can see the history you know) and presenting circular arguments that don't move anything forward except their own ego. Sean, you change the topic to fit your flagellant argument and it's getting beyond my patience to keep having to straighten you out. Call me a fucking liar -- you still beat on that button like a retard playing Jeopardy -- all you want, but you're still a douche bag and a tool for dragging everybody through your perverted version of the truth.
  
  Again, I like buzzing your blog from time to time, and I'm perplexed how the stuff on there makes perfect sense -- so much so that 99.9% of the time I don't even bother to comment -- yet once you step into somebody else's it comes out totally opposite and garbled in comparison. It's a real downer, dude. You don't seem narcissistic enough to make me believe that you somehow have the market cornered on truth, but for Pete's sake would you quit trying to get your jollies by making everybody else dizzy with your bullshit!? FUCK!!
  
  AND WHAT THE FUCK : Drugs are not addictive to all ??? WHAT THE FUCK!?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 02, 2009....

  1.  Drugs aren't, not as a group.  I personally know plenty of people who only occasionally smoke weed.  Same with X.  I don't know anybody who does any of the harder drugs first hand I've just heard the horror stories. 

• javadewd said on Aug 02, 2009....

  So you're of the typical opinion of most southern Californians that weed shouldn't be classified under the same category as cocaine, heroin, PCP, opioids, acid and so forth and its stature and reputation as a gateway drug is unfounded.
  
  Well, good luck with that, too bad it isn't even close to being on-topic!
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 02, 2009....

  No my point is that people should be free to do what they want with their bodies.  I'm all for enhancing criminal charges for being under the influence (which while it is rarely applied that way could easily cover and foreign substance *the way it's worded* instead of mostly just alcohol)

• ALIENated said on Aug 02, 2009....

  Weed is probably in a class with booze. I am talking about hard drugs, cocaine, heroine, etc. Legalizing those is out of the question. I would execute all hard drug dealers. I am not sure about what to do with users. They cannot help themselves once they are hooked. When users get hooked and live only to do drugs, they are a drain on society and a menace to society. That cannot be good parents. Yadda yadda yadda. People cannot be allowed to get hooked on hard drugs. Period. As I have said before weed is a different problem. The government does not want to legalize weed because anyone could grow a year's supply without the narcs (wanting to collect the taxes) even knowing about it. You could plant some with your okra and your neighbor probably would not even know about it. Sure, people bootleg alcohol, too, but it is not nearly as easy and is not worth the trouble.

• javadewd said on Aug 02, 2009....

  Not to get too flippant, but weed is hardly the same idea as letting people eat raw meat or something. There are actual health hazards involved! Also, such a stance also opens the idea of personal euthanasia -- barring the kids in Turkey -- and again, we have laws in place to keep people from not only hurting others, but also hurting themselves. If I get a wild hair up my ass and want to whack off a finger, I'd hope that somebody would step up and put my goofy ass in a mental institution!
  

• ALIENated said on Aug 02, 2009....

  Christians think their bodies are the temple of God. Atheists think people should be free to do what they want with their bodies. That usually translates to ... free to treat their bodies like a garbage can. Of course, most who are in favor of legalizing any victimless crime is usually trying to legalize some sinful behavior.

  I do not agree with legalizing weed, but it is hard to justify keeping it illegal when alcohol is legal. They could outlaw both for all I care. The big problems are not the result of weed being illegal. As far as the health hazards, weed is probably at least as bad as tobacco.

  What surprises me is that some smart drug company has not come up with a safe drug that alters your state without health risks or hazards. Makes me think the big money boyz keep that from happening. Did anyone see The Godfather?

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 02, 2009....

  1. What you said about hard drugs is true.  However WHO CARES.  People are already doing it and because they are doing it underground it comes with all of the other underground problems.  The drug cartels that are choping of the heads of guys down in Mexico.  The entire 80's drug wars.  It also funds the Taliban and Al Queda.  The downsides of the War on Drugs by far outweigh the upsides.  You need to kick the Dare Program up a notch and really educate people, not lies and propaganda because that is part of the problem too.  But actually educate them and it would be over. 

  Its really frightening to hear a man like you who is clearly inteligent and has a relatively firm grip on history even joke about, well they can legalize alcohol for all I care.  They tried, we know the consequences of that action.

  2.  If you want to cut off your finger it's your finger.  Now insanity is another issue but if you rationally came to that conclusion whatever.  Teaching people they should honor their bodies is entirely different from forcing them to.

• ALIENated said on Aug 03, 2009....

  WHO CARES. People are already doing it ...

  No, criminals are already doing it. Prohabition did not work because alcohol is not addictive to most people, just alcoholics. And even alcoholics can function for years without anyone really suspecting anything (look at Ted Kennedy). If you get on hard drugs, you are on hard drugs. Period. It WILL ruin your life and consume you and most likely your family. There is no way any intelligent human would agree to legalize hardcore addictive drugs. We even regulate "good" drugs. Why would we allow people to take "bad" drugs with no supervision similar to alcohol? Watch the movie Clockwork Orange. Not all drugs mellow you out like weed. It always strikes me funny that most of the same people who want to regulate guns do not want to regulate drugs. If we give up on regulating drugs, they better hand out guns to everyone to protect themselves and their possessions from drug-crazed theives trying to pay for their next fix. Look at all the alcohol-related crime we have (drunk drivers, wife bashing, child abuse, etc.) and multiply that by 100 ... or more.

• javadewd said on Aug 03, 2009....

  So now you have my curiosity peaked, Sean, and I have to ask :
  
  
  Which of these things ruin your life more in your opinion (i.e. no wrong answer, I'm just curious on your point of view) unplanned pregnancies or alcohol and weed and drugs (separating them out for clarity)?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 03, 2009....

  1.  The closet I've evee come to supporting gun regulation is stating we need to word it so it means guns.  As it stands I should legally be able to own an F16.

  And yeah Hard drugs ruin lives, but what ever happened to freedom?

  2.  Tough question Java.  It really depends on the person (and we're also assuming that the alcohol, weed and drugs dont' lead to unplanned pregnancies) but I'd have to go with an unplanned pregnancy.  Without experiencing both I imagine its easier to quit drugs than it is to improve yourself to a point where you can provide a good life for a child.  (again this assumes you aren't ALREADY in a good position to take care of a child.  If you are then the opposite is more true because a child might anchor you to your responsibility where as the others might cost you what you already have.

• javadewd said on Aug 03, 2009....

  Okay, well, yeah I didn't really think about the possibility of one leading to the other...

Comment on "Republicans Are Making A Comeback"

Currently tagged	politics Republicans ALIENation Liberal Media health care Newt Gingrich (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment