gdp's Comments

Big Government : 'Doobie' Brothers Ron and Barney

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:32:32 +0000

It does matter though. If someone believes in a Creator that denies these individual rights to humanity then the Declaration of Independence is an empty document to them. Some rich, slave-owning aristocrat can write all he wants about what a man should have but if your belief system doesn't back it up then it's pointless. I'm not saying your completely wrong, I'm just saying that even the Diests of the time had a bit of Judeo/Christian ethics in their beliefs and that shines through in the Declaration and Constitution.

Big Government : 'Doobie' Brothers Ron and Barney

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:09:32 +0000

You're right we're not talking about the ancient Greeks or their philosophy. The point I'm trying to make is that not every belief system says humanity has these rights. Even Deists have to believe in a certain amount of benevolence in whatever form they think the Creator takes. If He/She didn't than you'd have a god or gods much like the Greeks believed in.

Big Government : 'Doobie' Brothers Ron and Barney

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:21:50 +0000

Really? If you study Greek mythology I think you'll find that in their religious beliefs the gods didn't even want to give humanity fire. They wanted humanity to have no rights. So in order for your argument to hold up that "creative force" the Greeks believed in would have granted the same rights when in fact they didn't believe that at all.

Big Government : 'Doobie' Brothers Ron and Barney

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:16:37 +0000

I agree with Axion on this one FloppyHippo. You have to see the context the founders were using. If you try and apply these principles with the idea that the creator was someone other than the Judeo/Christian God than you run into insurmountable conflicts.

Big Government : 'Doobie' Brothers Ron and Barney

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:13:02 +0000

I agree with that 100%

Big Government : 'Doobie' Brothers Ron and Barney

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:04:49 +0000

Oh I recognize the founders saw individual rights as "God given", I won't argue that at all. But I also want to point out that even God recognized free will as an essential aspect of humanity. Besides, this whole debate is about whether or not to end the prohibition of marijuana in the U.S. If you want to bring theology into it and the 10 Commandments show me where in that set of laws marijuana use falls. The only one I can see that would have any bearing is Honor thy Mother and Father, but only while you are still a child. Once you become an adult the choice becomes yours.

Big Government : 'Doobie' Brothers Ron and Barney

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:56:41 +0000

That's all fine and dandy but religious laws don't apply here. Yes our nation's laws are based on theological principles but we are not a theocracy. There comes a time when the religious aspects need to be set aside and individual freedoms need to be addressed. Even God exercised that principle in the Garden of Eden. "but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” Genesis 3:3. He said don't (a moral obligation) but didn't make a law preventing it (a legal obligation). He didn't punish Adam and Eve, they punished themselves and God had to deal with what they'd done. It's like telling a child that stoves are hot and not to touch. Sometimes a kid doesn't know what "hot" means until they've actually experienced it. There's no law against it, it's just a bad idea.

Big Government : 'Doobie' Brothers Ron and Barney

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:33:09 +0000

The Founding Fathers said that everyone has the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If someone infringes on those rights of yours then a crime has been committed and can be dealt with through the legal system. Morality only plays into this when there is a conflict between your rights and someone else. Does your "right" take away someone's "right"? If so, your "right" isn't moral and therefore a crime to be dealt with.

Big Government : 'Doobie' Brothers Ron and Barney

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:17:29 +0000

I agree with you in part. There are already a lot of potheads smoking and driving. If they get caught they should be dealt with like drunk drivers. Where I disagree with you is the gateway theory. It's been debunked time and again, recently by the University of New Hampshire, here's a link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-09/uo... Essentially it says that moving from marijuana to harder drugs has more to do with social pressures and lifestyles than that a drug user is desensitized to the effects of marijuana and needs a harder drug to get as high as before. I've heard of another study (sorry I can't find a link for it) that states the percentage of marijuana users who graduate to harder drugs like heroine or meth is close to 0.17%. I may not have that exact though so don't tear me up on that last one. As for having to carry a gun, I'd say do it even if pot becomes legal and the Mexicans are put out of business. It's your right and you should exercise that right whenever possible.

Big Government : 'Doobie' Brothers Ron and Barney

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:01:17 +0000

I agree with you 100% Chief. The federal govt.'s role should be reduced to interstate/international areas, be it criminal or otherwise. Let the states deal with individuals and what they do within their boundaries.

Big Government : 'Doobie' Brothers Ron and Barney

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:58:07 +0000

Yeah but since over half their budget deals with marijuana they can take that part, combine it with the money they spend fighting meth and end that problem. I don't know about where you are but where I live you can't go to the grocery store without some meth addict getting in your way.

Big Government : 'Doobie' Brothers Ron and Barney

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:55:05 +0000

Why not? How does it hurt you if someone smokes pot? Are they getting angry like an alcoholic and beating their family members which brings in the cops our tax dollars pay for? Is a pothead crashing his car into your house at two in the morning? Pot smokers are already out there and the dangers already exist. Ending the prohibition isn't going to miraculously add 300 million new potheads to our nation. We're not talking about legalizing all drugs, we're talking about pot. We're also not talking about forcing states to legalize it, we're talking about letting them make the decision without Federal interference. I think there should be state laws to deal with marijuana should it become legal but I also believe those laws already exist, just add the word "marijuana" to all laws dealing with liquor.

Big Government : 'Doobie' Brothers Ron and Barney

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:44:37 +0000

I don't understand your stance on this. Ending the Federal prohibition of marijuana would not legalize it. That decision would be left up to individual states. Just like alcohol. I doubt this would even take money away from the DEA. They'd probably justify their same budget by redistributing their money to other areas like meth, heroine and interstate/international smuggling of marijuana.

Change.gov : Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team | Join the Discussion: Service

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:06:45 +0000

Absolutely correct. If people only realized that the "trickle-down" theory doesn't really work because the super-rich don't let it trickle to anywhere but their bank accounts then we'd be a lot better off. In the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economi...it's explained that this was tried in the U.S. in the 1890's and then in was called the "Horse and Sparrow Theory" meaning that if you fed the horse more oats then more would pass through and land on the road for the sparrows to eat. An apt description if you ask me