You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Tue, 4th Nov '08 11:10 PM

PRESIDENT OBAMA

!! what an election, what a country!

chickfbref1
Chickfbref1  (Level: 120.7 - Posts: 2012)
Tue, 4th Nov '08 11:11 PM

YIPPEEE!!

Me.

cujgie
Cujgie  (Level: 173.7 - Posts: 754)
Tue, 4th Nov '08 11:12 PM

He has inspired the U.S. to be an US!

sargon
Sargon  (Level: 112.0 - Posts: 1256)
Tue, 4th Nov '08 11:28 PM

McCaom's concession speech was magnificent. I hope he and Obama are able to join forces and lead the country through the difficult times ahead.



sargon
Sargon  (Level: 112.0 - Posts: 1256)
Tue, 4th Nov '08 11:30 PM

McCain's concession speech was magnificent. I hope he and Obama are able to join forces and lead the country through the difficult times ahead.

(Sorry for the typos in the previous post)





suzer22
Suzer22  (Level: 165.6 - Posts: 1982)
Tue, 4th Nov '08 11:34 PM

I agree - McCain's concession speech was very gracious - he's a classy guy!

cujgie
Cujgie  (Level: 173.7 - Posts: 754)
Tue, 4th Nov '08 11:37 PM

Just received in my email (another classy guy who immediately wrote his thank-you notes) --

Carol --

I'm about to head to Grant Park to talk to everyone gathered there, but I wanted to write to you first.

We just made history.

And I don't want you to forget how we did it.

You made history every single day during this campaign -- every day you knocked on doors, made a donation, or talked to your family, friends, and neighbors about why you believe it's time for change.

I want to thank all of you who gave your time, talent, and passion to this campaign.

We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next.

But I want to be very clear about one thing...

All of this happened because of you.

Thank you,

Barack

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Tue, 4th Nov '08 11:40 PM

Nice.

aetrout
Aetrout  (Level: 215.1 - Posts: 76)
Tue, 4th Nov '08 11:57 PM

338 electoral votes- Democracy works!
Let's hope for a better country- and world!

Alyssa

chickfbref1
Chickfbref1  (Level: 120.7 - Posts: 2012)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 12:38 AM

I thought McCain sounded better than he has EVER sounded. Trust me, I don't mean that in a negative way. He was poised, eloquent and I believe finally got through to the voters. Too late.

On to Obama, nuff said.

Me.

rowlanda
Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2856)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 3:22 AM

Yes....John McCain was very moving and generous tonight
and showed what a good man he is ( despite his politics!!!!)
Both he and Obama seem to genuinely respect each other.

I do think Sarah Palin was a good candidate....and as
(erroneously) sincere as John McCain....just not right for the
next four very crucial years.

larefamiliaris
Larefamiliaris  (Level: 135.2 - Posts: 877)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 4:24 AM

Congratulations USA. Irrespective of divisive party politics, you just made another giant leap for mankind - well done!
I also agree with the guys above me about McCain. The concession speech was gracious, eloquent and oozed class and diplomacy - you sure he ain't a Brit?! It's usually us who get to be the plucky and gallant runners up!

Thank (insert appropriate deity/expletive here) it's all over!

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 5:52 AM

A toast to our new President Obama. (Make mine a double, but that's ok).

He is my president now, come inauguration day.

flcyclist
Flcyclist  (Level: 124.6 - Posts: 691)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 8:35 AM

Both of them were/are very gracious. And ditto for what everyone else is saying about us all working together now. Congrats to the new President!

gerryn
Gerryn  (Level: 18.7 - Posts: 141)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 8:44 AM

As an American....not a red or blue person, I feel pride that this election ended in such an eloquent, calm and emboldened manner. Both candidates should be proud...not just one.

and

Have a great day...not matter what your politics.


donden
Donden  (Level: 112.5 - Posts: 2127)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 9:07 AM

Now maybe John and Obama will quit calling me in the middle of a wordpuzzle.

knerd
Knerd  (Level: 99.0 - Posts: 1141)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 10:10 AM

A toast to you Janice! You are a classy lady - I hope that other Sploofusers who didn't vote for this president will follow your lead. Maybe we can all get along now and quit the infighting. Peace out!

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 12:09 PM

While I am glad Obama beat McCain, I will be very surprised indeed if his presidency heralds anything more than a return to the Clinton era in terms of policies. I hope I am wrong, but I will be very surprised if I am.


pennwoman
Pennwoman  (Level: 155.2 - Posts: 2478)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 1:06 PM

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection."


tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 1:43 PM

Of course, the bonds of "affection" were cast assunder by the Civil War. I'm glad to see enough northerners managed to overcome the vestiges of the old Confederacy in Virgina and Florida (and maybe North Carolina.) McCain's support - such as it was - was concentrated in the 11 states of the old Confederacy. I still fantasize about what might have been -- a political environment closer to the European democracies I should think - had Lincoln just said goodbye to these 11 states. The old Confederacy continues to hold back the rest of the nation.

tuzilla
Tuzilla  (Level: 134.1 - Posts: 3779)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 1:53 PM

Uh oh! You don't have to be wearing a gray suit and whistling Dixie to know them is fightin' werds.

(ducking and running for a convenient rabbit hole)

BTW. Chick, that is an excellent and very true point. I was discussing that same thing with another sploofus on Google chat last night after the speeches.

spacecat
Spacecat  (Level: 159.0 - Posts: 667)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 2:42 PM

Truth is there was not much choice. The Bush era is over. PMB is correct, good riddance W, the movie was right, you are a disgrace to the Bush name. I admire Barrack Obama; in the same way one can admire the skill of an athletic star on the opposing team. He may well fix the economy; it is his social agenda that scares me. Anything left of Pat Buchanan is suspect. Enough has been written that if one wants to know what social changes the extreme left desires and will pursue it is not hard to research. Soon President Obama will have to pay for the huge financial backing he got from the far left such as Hollywood by initiating legislation favorable to their beliefs. One thing is certain, there will be change.

garrybl
Garrybl  (Level: 280.2 - Posts: 6643)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 2:42 PM

re the confederacy.
Question from an ignorant Brit:
I thought there was a period of time when the South voted Democrat not Republican; was the change when Democrats started arguing for civil rights (and the odious Strom Thurmond came into his own?)
Has the South ever voted Democrat en bloc since then?

fudypatootie
Fudypatootie  (Level: 197.3 - Posts: 1302)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 2:50 PM

Yes, Garry, you are correct about the change to the Solid South. It began in the Reconstruction Era and ended in the Civil Rights Era. 1976 was the last year that a Dem. presidential candidate gained a majority of Southern votes.

And thanks, Tsk, for your "enlightened" view of the form Confederate states. I love when people dismiss entire classes of individuals - very informed and liberal-thinking.

pepperdoc
Pepperdoc  (Level: 152.5 - Posts: 4286)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 4:12 PM

Tsk, words fail me. I wish you'd stop the bash the south posts.

Congrats to Obama. I wish him well and am looking forward to his Cabinet selections.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 4:24 PM

Fudypatootie, you are welcome. I don't contend all Southerners are hopelessly rightwing nor all Norhterners are politically progressive. What I do contend, based on historical evidence, is that the USA has remained as politically rightwing as it is on a national level because of the influence of the old Confederacy. The USA would have a far different political culture had it let the Confederate states leave. I don't really see how making this observation casts aspersions on my "liberal" credentials. I have yet to advocate throwing the Confederacy out of the United States -- only that Lincoln should have let them leave. I mean, this is a region of the United States that continues to proudly display the Confederate symbols of its slave-holding and racist past.

Fudy -- Do you contend that the United States is not politically much more rightwing than it would otherwise be, but for the 11 states of the old Confederacy? If so, what evidence do you offer in support of this view?

Actually, the solid Democratic South began to fall apart in 1964. With the exception of Arizona, Goldwater won only 5 of the 6 states of the old confederacy. In 1968, Nixon and his advisors specifically devised a southern strategy to capture the South for the Republicans. With the exception of Texas, all of the old Confederacy cast their lot with Nixon. In 1976, Carter -- who was from Georgia -- captured 9 of the 11 old Confederate states. I would say that this was due to regional pride than any actual appreciation for what Carter's policies as president would be. Since 1980, the South has been the republican stronghold.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 4:30 PM

I don't consider offering evidence of how the 11 states of the old Confederacy have rendered the national politics of the USA considerably more rightwing than would otherwise be the case to be Southern "bashing". I'm not going to self-censor on this topic when observations along this line tend to be pertinent to a particular discussion. I am certainly willing to engage in dialoque with anybody who wants to challenge my hypothesis and offer evidence in support of the contrary view.

bleepy
Bleepy  (Level: 140.5 - Posts: 620)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 4:52 PM

I'm not sure that the best candidate won, but I'm ready to get behind the new president. I respect the Office.

fudypatootie
Fudypatootie  (Level: 197.3 - Posts: 1302)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 5:31 PM

"The old Confederacy continues to hold back the rest of the nation."

I don't presume to know all there is to know about the politics of the South. My point was that your comment, as quoted above, seems to indicate that the South is backward and bad for the nation as a whole. While I am not about to say there aren't ignorant, racist people in the South, there are ignorant racists to be found almost anywhere. There also happen to be a lot of well-educated, liberal, tolerant thinkers in the South. Heck, Bill Clinton is from Arkansas, as is my liberal BFF. And since I live about 30 miles from the Missouri-Arkansas border, most people in my town consider themselves Southerners. I simply don't like your casting us all in some "ignorant red-neck" light.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 5:54 PM

That's funny, since you started pointing out your observations about the South TSK, I started to pay attention and did notice, even pointing out to others how it appeared the old confederacy was going to McCain, although you could argue that the Bible Belt went to McCain instead....couldn't you?

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 6:00 PM

It is true when I say "hold back the nation", it is from a particular political and ethical perspective. Those who favor rightwing extremism may argue that the South -- which I usually use to include just the 11 states of the Confederacy -- has saved the USA from being a godless, Socialist nation. As to holding back the nation, I include the racist tradition, leading to the enactment of Jim Crow laws throughout the former Confederate States post-Reconstruction, subjecting blacks to virtual slave conditions, disenfranchisement of blacks, the creation of "separate but equal". And thats just for starts relating to the immediate post-Reconstruction era. As I noted before, the Equal Rights Amendment would have been ratified but for the states of the old Confederacy. There would be no Telcom amnesty for the illegal surveillance of phone conversations but for the near universal support for the concept from the senators and representatives of the old Confederacy. Now, a lot of Americans on this site see little to emulate in the European democracies and these folk might appreciate the regressive politics of the South, but that is not my view.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 6:08 PM

Laddy, I would definitely agree with that observation. Its not that the 11 states of the old Confederacy are the only states with very conservative political traditions, but they are the 11 that left the Union. Without the political power represented in those 11 states, the right in the USA would be very ineffective, and I believe the politics in the remaining states overall would be far closer to the western European democracies at least in terms of the range of acceptable political opinion and that there would be a party to the left of the Democratic Party, which couldn't pass as more than a centrist party by European standards.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 6:25 PM

Tsk Tsk Tsk. The only hate-filled prejudice words in this or any thread have now been spoken by you. You hate a whole group of people you don't even know. That's prejudice by definition. Nobody in these threads has EVER spoken a racist, prejudice word against any one. I personally think your words belie your "enlightenment" and "progressiveness."

How quickly the truth of history is forgotten.

When it came to the civil rights movement and the end of inequality, ahem, it was the REPUBLICANS who enabled the change. It was the dems (uh, Gore's dad for one) who fought the civil rights movement. But you are right. It was the DEMS in the southern block that did everything they could to stop passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The vote went this way:

The original House version (for-against):

Democratic Party: 152-96 (62 more dems than repubs voted against passage. Obviously, Dems were the majority party in the house)
Republican Party: 138-34

The Senate version (for-against):

Democratic Party: 46-21 (15 more dems than repubs voted against passage. Obviously, Dems were the majority part in the senate)
Republican Party: 27-6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

President Lincoln was a Republican.

I think there's enough blame to go around, party wise.

After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, the south has steadily grown in Republican voters and leaders. Looks to me like the south learned its lesson and we have actively fought racism. I don't think you can blame us so blindly any more.

And since the largest voting block of the Republican Party is now the right Christian Fundamentalists, of course we're not going to vote in large numbers for a dem, no matter the color, because we are against abortion - that's our number 1 cause. We have no platform that says, don't vote for people of color, yet you make it sound like that. We just say, don't kill preborn people of color, or any race.

Abortion in the African-American community is much higher than in the non-black community (it almost smells of genocide - but dems are the ones backing abortion on demand all the way to birth). We're fighting for equal rights of the pre-born. Now, I understand a huge number of people don't agree with us on this platform. But you can't use racism as a whip to blame us for not voting for Obama. Color had nothing to do with it. Pro-life had everything to do with it.

I'm trying to be diplomatic and not lower myself to write on the insulting level of your words. After all, I don't know what anyone in the south has done to hurt you. But we certainly didn't do it as a group. And you certainly won yesterday, so I don't see us holding you back.

And if those 11 states had been voting liberal all these years, yes, we'd be more like the Europeans. The founding fathers LEFT Europe because they believed they could build a better nation. I happen to think America is a country that deserves to be loved and respected. If I didn't think so, I'd go find a place to live that i DID love and respect. I don't know of any other country where people all over the world are willing to die to get to, legally or illegally. We must be doing something right.





sargon
Sargon  (Level: 112.0 - Posts: 1256)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 6:28 PM

Isn't CNN based in Atlanta?

Sure was hoping everyone would be red, white and blue after the election.

If anyone believes that bigotry is limited to one section of the country they are deluding themselves. There are good and bad people all over the map. It is great that we have come far enough to be able to elect Obama as president but there is still a long way to go.



caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 6:39 PM

No, Saragon, do not believe bigotry is peculiar to one area nor race. The word "racist" is used to apply to white voters and "pride"to refer to black voters that voted as they did simply on the grounds of color. This a monumental moment for the African-American community.-don't believe anyone will deny that. Even that lable has changed as "political correctness" has changed in my lifetime-Linda

chickfbref1
Chickfbref1  (Level: 120.7 - Posts: 2012)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 7:34 PM

Linda, there is a HUGE difference in those words.

"I'm proud to be Irish"...doesn't mean I don't like anyone that's not. You can be pro one thing but not wish harm on everyone that's not.

Me.



caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 7:57 PM

Yes, but if you voted for someone purely because they were Irish or against them because they were not seems like the same difference. Seems to me there are multiple lables like these "White Supremecy"-very bad - "Black Power" excellent.I am tired of negative lables attached to my actions simply because I am white. I don't know enough about politics to argue them intelligently and don't pretend that I do. Do know there was a big effort to get out the black vote simply because it was a block that was pretty much assured to be pro Obama. I also don't know if his being elected is a good thing or a dangerous thing. I hae a "wait and see" attitude here. Linda

revdodd
Revdodd  (Level: 68.7 - Posts: 775)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 8:07 PM

Dang I'm sorry to have missed this one .....

I won't wade into the disturbing mindset you present by your presntation of the South, Tsk. You likely would simply wirte me off as one of those backwood, cousin-marrying inbred hick redneck hillbillies that you seem to see lurking every below the Mason-Dixon line.

Because I am a Southerner.

I'm proud to be one. I like being one, and I couldn't be anything else, any more than I could change the color of my skin or eyes. This "South" you seem to know so much about is little more than a shadow, a fleeting glimmer that someone thought they saw against a wall. When they actually stop and look for it, they find it doesn't exist.

I've spent a good bit of my adult life hearing the notion that "South" = bigot or reactionary or ultra-right wing. And with names like Tom Watson and David Duke and Ben Tillman and Lester Maddox and Sheriff Bull Clark tossed up, it can be a daunting task to defend.

Sort of like saying that Yanke = mass murderer because John Wayne Gacy and Richard Speck and Ted Bundy all came from the north.

I'd also note that McCain carried states in the South, and the West, and the Midwest. I guess we're wrapping our redneck hillbillies up in white robes and exporting them? BTW, you argument loses a little punch in the fact that the votes for Obama in the South were a higher percentage than any non-southern candidate since FDR.

Folks down here generally are more conservative. They are also more compassionate, more likely to forgive wrongs and remember kindnesses.

And a bunch .... A BUNCH ... of every race were dancing in the streets last night when Obama won.

Come on down sometime and experience the South you thought you knew.





pepperdoc
Pepperdoc  (Level: 152.5 - Posts: 4286)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 8:26 PM

Thanks, Rev, for bringing this thread back around to the spirit of what the originator intended - "what a country"

(and happy birthday, by the way)

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 8:27 PM

Jank: I express no hate toward any Southerner in anything I have posted. I do point out that the politics of the South, in my view, has had an unfortunate affect on the national policies of this country. There is only one person i can think of who it might be appropriate to use the term "hatred". The fact that I am appalled by the rightwing that is centered in the old Confederacy is not hatred, it is a profounf disagreement with the majority of people who live in those states. Did I claim that any Sploofuser posted something racist? No. I admit, few people -- Southerners or otherwise -- feel free to post racist drivel in this day and age. I would appreciate your quoting the specific statement I made that constitutes "hatred". At that point, I could respond to your accusation. As things now stand, you have only provided evidence that the elected representatives of the old Confederacy overwhelmingly opposed the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I suggest that rather than contradict anything I have posted, this provides further evidence of my position that the politics of the USA would be far different than they currently are had those 11 Southern states just been allowed to leave the country.

Also, please quote my "insulting words", the level of which you elect not to succumb to. Everything I have said is supported factually. hell, your post confirms that. If the truth is "insulting" so be it. I refuse to ignore obvious realities because somebody may be insulted when that reality is pointed out. Indeed, i consider your post to be insulting because it implies that i have in some manner been incendiary in my posts, instead of relying on historical evidence that you, yourself, confirm. Yes, until the democrats decided to fight for equal rights for African-Americans, it was supported by the South -- who had a 100 year antipathy to the party of Lincoln. The racism of the South is historical fact. if you elect to be insulted by history, so be it.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 8:38 PM

Revdodd. Although I am sure that some whites -- in both the North and South -- decided not to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin, I don't even claim that Obama lost most of the old Confederacy due to outright racism. I do claim that the 11 states of the old Confederacy have populations that are considerably more rightwing than the population of the USA as a whole -- "rightwing" encompasses more than issues on race. I know nothing of your personal politics, so I can't say if you are representative of what I am speaking about. I'd really like just one person to provide an argument -- supported by some evidence -- that the 11 states of the old Confederacy are not politically far to the right of the country as a whole, resulting in a national politics that is far more rightward tilted than would have been true had the Conderacy been allowed to stand. I don't see how I'm close-minded or hateful for taking a position based on historical evidence.

Any of you folk who think I'm "insulting" the South. Do you really contend that the states of the old Confederacy are not consistently far to the right on political issues than the remainder of the country as a whole? Do you really believe the national policies of this country would not be more "liberal" but for who the 11 states of the old Confederacy sent to Washington? Those were the points I made.

kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 257.0 - Posts: 3936)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 8:45 PM

Just to clear up a few things about the somewhat recent past ...

Nixo ndid not sweep the South in 1968. I'm pretty sure George Wallace took a few states.

Which brings up The Rest Of The Story with regard to the civil rights legislation. Some of you younger people may not remember when we had a much different alignment of the parties, but during the 60s and 70s, the Democratic Party had both the most liberal - particularly in places such as Massachusetts, Rhode Island and the Upper Midwest - and the most conservative - particularly in the Solid South - elements in this country. They made strange bedfellows, often in a power struggle, and occasionally fragmenting (witness 1860 and 1968). Meanwhile, the Republicans sat inbetween, with their mainstream moderate to conservative, but focused on economic, not social issues. Their strength was in such places as upper New England, and lots of the West, including California.

In that environment, the vote totals on civil rights legislation should come as no surprise. The large Southern Demographic bloc, still rising from its segregationist roots, would oppose it en masse, while there was no cause for mass opposition from the Northern Democrats and the Republicans.

During the 70s, the Solid Democratic South began to crack. Socially conservative elements, such as Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority got into bed with the GOP, particularly with the coming of the Reagan administration, allowing some Southern politicians to defect to the Republican Party and outflank their Democratic brethren from the right side. Their influence eventually became so strong that they drove most of the party's moderate/liberal wing to extinction, in turn turning non-Bible Belt states such as Maine, California and New Jersey from solid red to bright blue. Which is how we got to where we've been this whole century so far.

pennwoman
Pennwoman  (Level: 155.2 - Posts: 2478)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 8:46 PM

I was born in Germany to an American father (army brat), to a German mother, we lived in the South -- for six years then moved North --
And this is a great country, because we are free to discuss and have our own opinions... I picked pieces out of one of the articles I found...

As to whether African Americans voted President Elect Obama -- perhaps, but if you look at the information out now -- it seems everyone elected him, not just black or white

Using exit polling data, Ansolabehere determined that whites made up 74 percent of the 2008 electorate. That's down considerably from 81 percent in 2000 because of increase in black and Hispanic voting, he said.
~~~~~~~Breakdown by party voting also shows that Republican turnout rates are down quite a bit, while Democratic turnout rates are up, Gans said.
~~~~~~McDonald suggested the turnout to be about equal to 1964, when Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater, but not higher than 1960 when John F. Kennedy squeaked out a victory over Richard Nixon. The turnout rate then was 63.8 percent.

of course things may change as the sorting gets completed but ....

here is the link to the msnbc article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27552153/

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 8:49 PM

Well, TSK, if you can't see the hatred and insults of your own words.....maybe that's part of the problem. I find "The old Confederacy continues to hold back the rest of the nation," to be insulting. And mean. And moronic. Holding you back from what? You won. We didn't hold you back.

OHHHH - I KNOW!!!!!

Best I can tell from what you put on your profile, the only thing the south is holding you back on is legalizing illegal drug usage. YEP - you betcha! (In the words of another woman you disrespect). And we will continue to fight the illegal usage of drugs and the death of young people and gang behavior from the use of illegal drugs. Too bad you can't see yourself through God's eyes. I bet you break his heart. You were not made to waste your life strung out and messed up.

Maybe there's something there that blinds you to the demeaning, ridiculous meanness of your own words.

I have found that users of illegal drugs often don't see the damage their own actions cause, or the pain they cause their own families. So of course you wouldn't notice the insults you might cast here in this forum.

Before you attack us, get clean and we'll have an honest debate. I won't waste my time debating someone who is under the influence of an illegal substance. It makes you THINK you're all enlightened and smarter than everybody else. But it really just makes you affected and pathetic - and a criminal.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 8:49 PM

And, editors, obviously I understand if you have to delete my post.

kaufman
Kaufman  (Level: 257.0 - Posts: 3936)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 8:52 PM

While North=Left and South=Right is a convenient generalization, it may not be the best one. Look at a county-by-county map of the 2004 Presidential Election. You'll see that there's a lot of Red up north and a fair amount of Blue down south, but even more so, urban areas almost universally racked up big Democratic numbers, while rural ones created a sea of red.

Suburbs were swing zones

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 8:54 PM

I'm not personally bothered by your posts Mr. Tim....

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 8:57 PM

Kaufman: Forgot about Wallace. You are correct, Wallace took four of the old Confederacy states, plus Arkansas. Rather than contradict my central thesis, this reinforces how far right the old Confederacy was as recently as 1968, and I would argue has not really advanced. Nixon did employ a Southern strategy, and it became central to the base Republican electorate since then. I base my views on the current illiberality of the old Confederacy on the voting records of the representatives and Senators from the 11 states of the old Confederacy in the current Congress.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 9:08 PM

Black people certainly can have :"pride" in their elected president but there was a great deal of racism voting simply because of color by blacks more than thre was on the psart of withes. Obama would not habve been elected witout the white vote. Pretty sure the blue collars workerers in the city or near city area do not make up the libeal voters-nor does the small businness man. It is the rich who can remove themselves from the situation as the Kennedys do and the college crowd or those who have thransposed back to the sixities who were the lliberal whites in this election. Doubt many of the congreesmen actually live in and send their children to school in DC -liberal or otherwise. I could go on with this for a very long time without saying things people don't want to talk about although i believe they know thm to be true, Not going to argue politics nor sematicas as believe I have made my point, Chick.-Linda

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 9:09 PM

Kaufman: Forgot about Wallace. You are correct, Wallace took four of the old Confederacy states, plus Arkansas. Rather than contradict my central thesis, this reinforces how far right the old Confederacy was as recently as 1968, and I would argue has not really advanced. Nixon did employ a Southern strategy, and it became central to the base Republican electorate since then. I base my views on the current illiberality of the old Confederacy on the voting records of the representatives and Senators from the 11 states of the old Confederacy in the current Congress.

So Jank, this apparently comes down, in your mind, to my views on drug crimes. I don't particularly think that the War on Drugs is an example of how the South hinders the country in national politics. My views on drug legalization are not popular in the north either. Some issues that would fall into the category of retrograde Southern influence I have previously mentioned. I also include a wide range of laws which make it difficult for labor unions to organize. I also include excessive spending on "defense".

I hope your posts are not deleted on my account. I find it funny that you resort to attacking my position on drug claims as the ONLY issue I have been talking about viv-a-vis the Southern influence on national politics. First, because it was never an issue I had in mind and second because in this very thread i had already mentioned some of the issue i was thinking about. I like the argument though: none of you guys should listen to tsk because he is a conscientious objector in the War on Drugs.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 9:16 PM

I also agree with Kaufman that there are definite differences in urban v rural v suburban voting demographics. That said, I still don't see how anybody can look at the elected delegations from the 11 states of the old Confederacy and conclude that, overall, they are no more to the right than the overall delegations of the remaining 39 states. I focus on these 11 states because they chose to leave the Union, raising the (to me) very interesting historical question of what the USA would be like today had those states been allowed to leave. I know raising such thoughts is tantamount to spewing "hatred" in the minds of some.

revdodd
Revdodd  (Level: 68.7 - Posts: 775)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 9:26 PM

If your contention is that the South is generally more conservative in matters of imporatance of personal faith, family and Constitutional interpretation, I don't have any qualm with that statement. I find it a generalization, but within arguable parameters.

But I do hold you to be an educated enough fellow to know that the enactment of "Jim Crow" laws did not originate in the South. (Folks who don't have an indepth interest in this, feel free to scoot to the end). Of the five cases that led the Supreme Court (none of whom were Southerners at the time) to gut the 13th and 14th Amendment, only one came from the south. The other cases came from New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Topeka, Kansas.

Once the amendments were invalidated, then state lawmakers did what they were prone to do ... consolidate their power base. And remember that the move to disenfranchise was originally aimed as much as poor white populists, the Alliance and the Fusionists, as against the black population. Jim Crow was a minstrel who dance on the rights of many poor folks.

That's why LBJ was so keen on creating enforceable equal rights, though as he noted "It will cost the Democrats the entire region for a decade." He knew the only way things would be changed is if a Southern finally stood up and banished them.

For all his faults, this was hardly the act of a product of a backward region.



tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 9:57 PM

Revdodd: LBJ was not typical of the Old Confederacy. Although I still despise his Vietnam policies, I have great respect for his Civil Rights legislation. I again concede that many, many specific residents of the former Confederate states are politically left, but I again submit that if you look at who these 11 states send to represent them, as a group, they are to the right of the elected officials from the other 39 states. Lots of racist laws were on the books in the North and South, but the Jim Crow Codes were perfected in the South. I also believe that formal legal racial equality would have come more quickly in the USA without the 11 states of the old Confederacy.

sargon
Sargon  (Level: 112.0 - Posts: 1256)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 9:58 PM

The quote was "We have lost the South for a generation,"


oogie54
Oogie54  (Level: 201.5 - Posts: 1120)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 10:03 PM

I, for one, have always wondered what this nation would have been like if we had assimilated with the native culture in a cooperative,humane manner instead of subjugating them as savages and destroying their way of life. Their presence was a minor inconvenience to Manifest Destiny. For that matter, throughout history the white man has always dealt with other cultures and races by devaluing them as humans, often in the guise of the Church. So if ya'll figger out us suthanuhs, maybe you can tell me how proud I should be of our national heritage as conquerors.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 10:03 PM

Does anybody know where there is a by state breakdown of Obama v McCain supporters by age demographic? I am really curious to know how closely the under 30 voters in the states of the old Confederacy tracked the overwhelming support for Obama in the under 30 demographic nationwide.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 10:09 PM

Quite so Oogie, quite so.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 10:24 PM

I'm so sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

You said:

"I like the argument though: none of you guys should listen to tsk because he is a conscientious objector in the War on Drugs"

That's not what I said.

I said you should not be listened to because you are a USER. And if you are a user - then you are iIMPAIRED and your judgment is not clear, by definition of a user. You can't legally drive under the influence, and you can't be seriously respected in a debate under the influence, both for the same reason.

You said:

"I focus on these 11 states because they chose to leave the Union, raising the (to me) very interesting historical question of what the USA would be like today had those states been allowed to leave. I know raising such thoughts is tantamount to spewing "hatred" in the minds of some."

That's not the part I meant, so I'll be more clear for anyone else who misunderstood.

The part that is spewing hatred is "...had Lincoln just said goodbye to these 11 states. The old Confederacy continues to hold back the rest of the nation.

In my world, when you tell someone they're holding back an entire country - that's an insult. And since we're not holding back the entire country (except maybe on moral issues, certainly not racist issues) that makes it also untrue.

You said (and in this is what I think is the meanest, most insulting of all):

"I mean, this is a region of the United States that continues to proudly display the Confederate symbols of its slave-holding and racist past."

Have you ever even been here? Where do you get your information? Or do you just make this stuff up, and think if you say it enough that makes it true?

That's just mean, insulting, bigoted, and not smart (read: uninformed and stup.....not smart). In Texas, nobody is proudly displaying confederate symbols (except Willie Nelson?) or symbols of slave-holding. Were there really many slaves in Texas? What I see in Texas is deep shame and sorrow that there ever was slavery in this country. So you don't know what the heck you're talking about. I call that uninformed hate speech.

You said:

"regressive politics of the South"

I'm sorry. Who made you the judge of what is "regressive" or even that the word "regressive" is a negative?

What is regressive in your drug impaired eyes might not be so negative to us. If progressive is that elitist," I'm so enlightened because I snort cocaine and smoke pot" type of progressive, I'd prefer my family and friends and colleagues and students and the people driving on the freeways at 70 mph stay 180 degrees from your progressiveness. Or people might die.

I have an aunt who had just turned 65. I have another aunt who lived on the other side of town who was sick. Aunt 1 jumped in the car with medicine and a heating pad to take to aunt 2. She was hit almost head on by a car of 4 guys getting off work, who were high on drugs. Their impairment caused them to not be able to know how to stay in their lane. She was thrown out the window. For a year she suffered, paralyzed not just arms and legs. She was paralyzed from the nose down. So she couldn't move. She couldn't talk. She couldn't breathe on her own. But she could suffer.

I have no tolerance for recreational illegal drug usage. None. And neither do others who have been damaged deeply by people like you who think it's ok just to do any thing you want because it feels good to you, and to heck with the rest of the world. That attitude is indefensible.

You kill people, you maim people, you hurt the people who love you. Take your "progressiveness." The south has been working to better itself for decades. While you just sit back and destroy yourself. Who are you to condemn an entire segment of the United States? If you like Europe so much, don't let the door hit you in the butt. I Can't we have ONE country on earth that works to be decent and moral? Or where decency and morality are actually appreciated and something to work toward?

Those 4 druggies - no insurance. Her medical bills were over $1 million before she finally suffered to death. (And there was no need for an additional government run free health care. The system as it already is took care of her till she died.) One Million Dollars of donations and tax money - because 4 guys used illegal drugs and didn't care about anybody but themselves.

Legalize drugs and see how many many times that story is repeated. Maybe they'll hurt YOUR family. What does it take to wake you up to reality?









tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 10:38 PM

Jank: I will respond in detail at some point, but I'm calling it a night. I will end tonight on this. Since I have never said I was a user of any type of drug - legal or otherwise - I would be most appreciative if you would post your evidence to support this claim in this thread. It really is ridicuolus for you to carry on about how I'm insulting you, when you feel free to post the claim that I am a"drug user" with no evidence other than what I have to say on the topic of drug prohibition in my profile.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 10:52 PM

Please - nobody supports legalizing drugs who isn't a user, past or present. Why would they care? And certainly, anybody who's watched anyone else fall into the pain of drug addiction would certainly not support legalizing drug use, either.

But I'll be glad to come up to your progressive home with a healthcare professional who will give you a drug test and we'll prove it one way or another, right now.

oogie54
Oogie54  (Level: 201.5 - Posts: 1120)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 10:59 PM

Yea, like you can't promote abortion unless you've had one man.....

lisap369
Lisap369  (Level: 61.1 - Posts: 992)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 11:05 PM

Yep.. that's what it all comes down to.. the arrogant all important white MAN lol

lucimoore
Lucimoore  (Level: 183.4 - Posts: 1684)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 11:12 PM

These kind of accusations are totally out of line. I realize it can be horribly painful to loose a family member due to circumstances caused by alcohol or drug use, as well as speeding, use of a cell phone, loss of sleep--you name it but to take your hurt and pain out on someone who merely expresses an opinion is wrong. Just because one expresses an opinion concerning a government policy by no means makes him a drug user, present or past. I think talk about spewing hate must be looked at in all directions.

lisap369
Lisap369  (Level: 61.1 - Posts: 992)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 11:27 PM

by the way TSK.. I admire your presentation skills and support your position. You deliver without emotion and present the facts. I have read no attacks or insults, just historical fact.

IMO, to read someone is opposed to the war on drugs and assume that person is strung out on drugs and all statements made by that person should be discounted is just ridiculous. Sorry Jank, the insults and rage seem to be one sided.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 5th Nov '08 11:27 PM

Agreed Luci.

I don't know about all drugs, I haven't thought through all of my opinions as of yet, but I do believe that marijuana should be legalized, and I don't smoke, even when I get that chance.

fudypatootie
Fudypatootie  (Level: 197.3 - Posts: 1302)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 12:02 AM

While I don't agree with Jank's assumption that Tsk is a user, I agree with the rest of what she has to say.

Saying a portion of the country is "holding the nation back" is insulting, no ifs, ands or buts, or need for further explanation.

oogie54
Oogie54  (Level: 201.5 - Posts: 1120)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 12:07 AM

While I don't entirely agree with the premise of the retrogressive nature of the south as a wholesale statement the contention is not without merit. I've lived here all my life, grew up during the 60's and witnessed the derogatory treatment of anyone "non-white", even if it was underhanded rather than blatant. My coworker and I discuss this often, and he says that though things have become universally better in this part of the country for he and his friends, family, etc. the vestigial remnant of Old South thinking is an ever present condition of life. Years ago my dad would have glowered or ranted at me if he met my black god-son, or motorcycle-riding black friend who introduces me as his "Pop". The churches I attended 20 years ago were populated by folks who thought nigro was a proper pronunciation, as in "Tom is a hard-working nigro man". One of my best friends is from Dayton,Ohio, we go relic hunting for Civil War artifacts in the area. There is a tendency in the South to glorify the era, and "heroes" of that conflict that Mike says doesn't exist where he grew up. Where I see this most is in rural areas of the country, where familial, and local cultural tradition is stronger than urban influences. With the advent of global information technology during recent times, I hope that all Americans can expand their personal beliefs beyond the accepted norm.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 3:11 AM

Old me agrees with TSK that the "War on Drugs" should be abandoned as it is so Very costly and so VERY ineffective.. A few of the documentaries I have seen lately like "Cocaine Cowboys" and another one a little further back support this. I, too have liked TSK"s posts going back to the original political threads. He is obviously accustomed to debate-facts without becoming emotionally upset. As always, TsK, glad you came aboard. Linda

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 7:04 AM

Ok. I sit corrected in the accusation of "user" without proof.

I think most of the vestiges of the south have died. It's been 143 years. It's been 44 years since the Equal Rights Amendment. Most of the people who were extremely prejudiced have passed or are up there.

No person ever existed who was more prejudiced than my mother and her family. She has passed and so have most of them. But those little remarks I heard when I was growing up shaped my life to know I would fight prejudice with everything in me. And the people I went to school with felt the same. We lived each day making sure prejudice disappeared in our environment. We did all we could to make sure prejudice ended with the generation before us.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 7:10 AM

(And in my defense, I live in a real world where drugs are rampant. I've NEVER seen anyone argue for the legalization of drugs who wasn't a user - that's my experience. And they're pretty often even keeled iand unemotional n their debate because they're stoned and don't feel much of anything.)

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 7:33 AM

Jank, it is pretty hard to fight a war on drugs by the government. From what I hear the current "drug of choice" can be made simply at home from household chemicals/items. Prohibition was a failure because it tried to legislate morality. It only succeeded in making the producers of alcohol wealthy and causing crime. Any type of values must be instilled in the child growing up and that doesn't always work either. The cost to the taxpayers is enormous and believe that money could be better spent. Linda (ps I am the last to criticize anyone for gettiung emotional in their posts-I've had a
"fit and quit" episode twice now. Many of your points are valid and you express yourself welll!)

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 7:52 AM

I agree with what you said Linda. I will add one caveat - many of our laws are based on morality, including all based on killing, injuring, stealing.

bbear
Bbear  (Level: 161.7 - Posts: 2301)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 10:33 AM

Jank - I am for the legalization of many drugs under state control, and I am NOT a user of any kind. The crime in New Orleans, which is about 99% drug related, would be gone if people could walk up to a state store and just buy it. It doesn't make me an addict or an ex-addict, it makes believe my life would be safer.

I am pro-choice although I personally would not chose an abortion.

I am pro-gay marriage although I am straight.

I am pro abstinance before marriage although I have purchased birth control for my daughters.

I am against assisted suicide but would not blame a person dying in agony from requesting it.

I am sorry for your aunt but keeping drug illegal wouldn't have stopped them.

knerd
Knerd  (Level: 99.0 - Posts: 1141)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 10:47 AM

Linda, sometimes I see your posts and I groan a little - others make me smile - and I think, wow, she's a feisty broad! This post - wow, I totally agree with you and would not have worded it any differently. Does that mean I am a feisty broad also? I am so glad you didn't stay away too long, Linda!

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 11:02 AM

WOW thanks for that, Knerd. It is an amazing thing that once in a while the law of averages kicks in and I post something that someone agrees with LOL-Linda

knerd
Knerd  (Level: 99.0 - Posts: 1141)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 11:03 AM

See, there you go again - you made me laugh out loud - you're on a roll!

lisap369
Lisap369  (Level: 61.1 - Posts: 992)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 12:15 PM

Bbear... my sentiments EXACTLY!!

btsyshsbnd
Btsyshsbnd  (Level: 73.3 - Posts: 61)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 1:10 PM

When Obama was projected the victor the first thought in my mind was that for the first time since it was written 232 years ago the Declaration of Independence is true, ALL men are created equal. As to the north vs. south posts, I'm a white male born and raised in Va. Lucky for me I had parents who taught me to judge people by their actions not their race, religion, sex, or sexual preference. 10 years ago I moved north to Springfield IL and was amazed at how much more blatant racism I found here.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 1:18 PM

All MEN.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 4:03 PM

Jank: Maybe in Texas only users advocate for the end of the War on Drugs. I am curious to know how everybody you know who argues for legalization is a "user". I can't really believe many -- if anybody -- would admit this to you. Since you jumped to conclusions about me, I cannot accept tyour assertion without proof.

Until recently I was a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party. The official position of this party is for the end of the drug wars and drug prohibition. You will find that the majority of members of the Party are traditional conservatives -- many with routes in the Republican Party -- and the idea that these people are a bunch of drug users is really ludicrous. There are many reasons to oppose the War on Drugs that don't involve being a drug user. First, I oppose permanent war of any variety and that is what the War on Drugs is. There will always be people attracted to drugs. The costa of the War on Drugs are a burden on society. We are talking direct costs of enforcement, the costs of trial, the costs of incarceration -- which total billions of dollars every year. In my view, this is not a wise expenditure of tax monies. Second, the War on drugs breeds mistrust of the police in a large number of people. As I have said before, I generally oppose laws that seek to criminalize behavior that a large minority of the public don't have a big issue with. I suggest that many drug users will not cooperate with the police in connection with real crimes. This is the product of fear that getting to close to a cop is going to get them busted and just a general refusal to assist authorities evn in the apprehension of real criminals because of their knowledge that the police could be investigating them. I don't think it is wise policy to adopt laws that actually inhibit the ability of policing authorities to investigate and halt acts that 99% of the public agree should be illegal. These are just two reasons -- other than being a drug user -- that people who oppose the War on Drugs might have.

Also curious about your contention that a drug user is necessarily "IMPAIRED". I don't know of any drugs that, if taken, result in a state of permanent impairment. What drugs are you talking about? Do you believe users of prescription drugs are permanently impaired? Do you believe takers of prescription drugs can exercise good judgment? The acts of taking a drug and killing somebody while impaired on a drug are not the same. If you kill somebody while impaired, you should be punished. Are you an alcohol prohibitionist too? Do you tolerate recreational alcohol use (which, of course, is a form of recreational drug use)?





tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 4:28 PM

Jank: As to my statement to the effect that your's is a region that continues to proudly display the symbols of a racist past, I again say that this is only an insult if you are insulted by fact. In addition to the large numbers of folk in the old Confederacy flying Confederate flags, this symbol remains officially sanctioned in many of the states of the old South. See, for instance, the Wikipedia article, "Flags of the Confederate States of America". I think there is still an on-going boycott of South Carolina with respect to convention business because of that state's display of a Confederate flag at the capitol.

I almost feel like I'm in bizarro world. This section of the country that is the most nationalistic still can't seem to let go of the flags which were their symbols of separateness from the United States -- its independence from the United States. What's the purpose of displaying such symbols except to honor the failed attempt to establish a separate country. And why was that country created? So people in 11 states could own black people.

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 5:06 PM

And I meant to thank those of you who pointed out that advocacy of an end to the War on Drugs doesn't necessarily mean I'm a user whose ideas are unworthy of consideration.

I support programs to improve the conditions of the poor, but i'm not poor. I support a woman's right to choose, but I'm not a woman (or planning to undergo gender reassignment surgery.) I support the right of Nazis, racists, etc., to speak, but I'm not a Nazi or racist. In short, my politics are primarily influenced by what I think would produce the greatest benefit for the greatest number in the country as a whole. Indeed, really even beyond that because my views on national policies are influenced by what impact that will have on the rest of the people on the earth.

chickfbref1
Chickfbref1  (Level: 120.7 - Posts: 2012)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 7:56 PM

Sorry Erin, I think I love Beth (BBear) now.

They're called (drug use and prostitution) victimless crimes for a reason. They only people (for the most part) they hurt are themselves. YES you could argue that drug abuse hurts every family member, etc, but so does ANYTHING that's abused.

The items mentioned under BBear's post fall under my "Why should care if it doesn't affect me" umbrella.

Gay marriage...why the heck not? Why should I care if two adults want to get married. I think anyone that wants to be married and as miserable as I am...HECK YEA...JOIN THE CLUB (ok kids, I'm kidding on the miserable part, don't send me PMs telling me to get out of my marriage, the boy married me 15 years ago, knew full well what kind of sarcastic verbal abuse he was in for).

Abortion...fo SHO pro-choice, not for me, but again, not my place to tell anyone how to live their life. It doesn't affect me, so why should I tell "Suzie in DesMoines" what to do with her life?

Assisted suicide? Geesus we animals "to sleep" to ease their pain. How do we have more compassion for a cat than we do for a human who can CHOOSE what to do. Again, doesn't affect me, not for me to tell someone what to do with their life. It's victimless.

I'm not the moral police of the world. Morality is a personal choice for each person, but the really cool thing about having choices is it teaches you to choose wisely. If you have no choices that's where you cease being a person and become my Golden Retriever.

Me.



oldcougar
Oldcougar  (Level: 220.4 - Posts: 1935)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 8:02 PM

I support Tim/Tsk's stance on the War on Drugs. If you want to read an article which I feel backs up my reasoning, check out this site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States

If that link doesn't work it is in Wikipedia under Incarceration in the United States

I'm not trying to criticize individual Americans, or indeed Americans in general, just what I believe to be bad law for it's people.

Peace





tuzilla
Tuzilla  (Level: 134.1 - Posts: 3779)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 8:19 PM

I want to be your dog.

gerryn
Gerryn  (Level: 18.7 - Posts: 141)
Thu, 6th Nov '08 9:48 PM

You need to wait in line and wag your tail.

fudypatootie
Fudypatootie  (Level: 197.3 - Posts: 1302)
Fri, 7th Nov '08 12:52 AM

"What's the purpose of displaying such symbols except to honor the failed attempt to establish a separate country. And why was that country created? So people in 11 states could own black people."

Actually, no. Like many people, you misunderstand the causes of The Civil War. The main cause was the debate over state's rights and the idea of nullification. Slavery was just one issue which the states wanted control over, taxation being another.

"Prohibition was a failure because it tried to legislate morality."

Actually, no. Prohibition failed because it sought to make illegal something which had been legal and taxed in our nation for years.

"Do you tolerate recreational alcohol use (which, of course, is a form of recreational drug use)?"

Actually, no. I can have a drink or two (if I'm eating) and not be drunk. I couldn't take cocaine or use marijuana without getting high, so there is a difference.


smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Fri, 7th Nov '08 1:12 AM

I've smoked pot without getting high when I was smoking in high school....strange.....

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Fri, 7th Nov '08 10:01 AM

That's probably because you didn't inhale, Jeremy!! Lol Linda

maddy1303
Maddy1303  (Level: 10.3 - Posts: 36)
Fri, 7th Nov '08 10:07 AM

im not sure i really wanna get into this discussion but as Jeremy stated I have also smoked pot without getting high!

maddy1303
Maddy1303  (Level: 10.3 - Posts: 36)
Fri, 7th Nov '08 10:10 AM

i forgot that i would like to add that my father is a parapalegic who has a medical card to smoke marijuana and he has stated many times that it does not make him high it just takes away SOME of his pain because pain meds don't seem to work after being paralyzed for 16 years.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.4 - Posts: 21603)
Fri, 7th Nov '08 10:21 AM

Wasn't trying to start controversy-just a reference to Clinton's famous words. Personally I agree with bBear on these issues. I am certainly not one to judge what is moral or not. Linda

maddy1303
Maddy1303  (Level: 10.3 - Posts: 36)
Fri, 7th Nov '08 10:27 AM

wasn't you caramel! i have been reading the post from what i have read you said that you also thought the war on drugs was very costly for our country which i completely agree with!

tsk9653
Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Fri, 7th Nov '08 10:32 AM

Fudy: That may be what they teach in the South, and surely slavery was a "states right" issue, but slavery was surely the main reason for the Civil War.

Even if were wrong -- which I don't believe, although i know a minority of historians will support your view -- my point stands. If the old Confederacy is so damn proud NOW to be part of the USA, why soes it continue to cling to Confederate flags? I also note that overwhelming majorities of African-Americans in those states of which I am aware where polls were conducted -- see the Confederate flags as symbols of their oppression.

Your observation about prohibition is disingenuous. Why was what had been a legally available and taxed product banned? Because the moralists were successful imposing prohibition. Actually, your observation does support my position as to why laws should not be enacted to prohibit behavior that a significant percentage of the population does not find unacceptable. (In the case of alcohol, I am sure a majority of the public has no problem with consumption.)

My questions were actually posed to Jank. Who seems to have a much different view of drugs then you generally inasmuch as her earlier posts seem to suggest that the mere use of any drug results in impairment and, indeed, impairment that is permanent.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Fri, 7th Nov '08 11:08 PM

In all my 55 years, I've never seen Confederate flags around Texas in the way TSK talks about. That's why I consider that point totally moot.

Boy, just try getting into a debate with a lawyer. I'm just not trained to do so with someone who has made his living doing what we all know lawyers do.

I have my moments of logic. I have my moments of dislodgic, unlogic, mislogic, disslogic.

So sue me?

TSK says things like a lawyer, I said things like a passionate proponant of the war against illegal drugs which have devastated so many people I love or know.

I hate illegal drugs. I wish they didn't exist. I wish no one used them - and that way, the war would be won due to neglect. TSK, i wish no one ever drank or used illegal drugs and then drove, but they do, and between 10,000 and 20,000 die every year in the United States because they did. I'm guessing there are thousands of people here on Sploofus who have family members or friends whose lives have been damaged by someone's illegal drug usage and/or impaired driving.

Even prescription drugs usually have warnings to not take them and operate machinery (my favorite is the warning on sleeping aids - to not drive after taking them until you know how they'll affect you). I don't know if cocaine, crack, ecstacy, heroin or pot have a limited amount you can take and not be impaired, as they measure blood alcohol content at a level over which you are charged with DUI. I've been taught that crack is instantly addictive. Is an addicted person impaired permanently?

I've seen people so addicted they'll buy drugs from someone I wouldn't trust to give me a drink of water or want to touch their hand to shake hands. I don't understand how people can put things in their body that can be laced with anything.

I'm not worried about the logic of it. Logic has nothing to do with it. There's nothing logical about buying something that is illegal from a criminal (because face it, if you're buying drugs, you're dealing with a criminal who is working with bigger, more powerful criminals who are attached with some really REALLY bad people). You're committing a crime buying a substance that has no redeeming quality whatsoever, that you don't even know what might be mixed in with the drug, that may very well destroy your life with addiction, and cause heartache to people who love you. If people were logical, there'd be no illegal drug usage.

Certainly, the people I see around here who are addicted aren't worried about logic either. And I have a couple of acquaintances who have been in and out of rehab several times and have never been able to shake their addiction. They have committed thefts, robberies, and insurance fraud in the attempt to support their habit. And they have destroyed or devastated their own and everybody's lives around them who loved them.

I have nothing but an attacking spirit against support for the legalization of illegal, addictive drugs. And I'm proud that in America, there are still more people who feel that way than there are that don't.

And though I could easily turn my support to rehabilitation of drug users, I've seen too many who just can't be rehabilitated. The addiction is an all consuming fire in their bodies.




Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus