Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[lurking wierdo]

I wouldn't say "fueled" but that's definitely part of what got it started. The problem that the asshat Tea Baggers can't see is they werent' going crazy over taxes back then...they were going crazy about not having representation to vote on those taxes. People today do.

But the nation they ended up starting was on progressive ideals. Letting the population elect the leaders through fair voting, protecting the rights of its citizens, writing it into the constitution that government shall never get too big, allowing the states to have their own laws, etc......at the time, in 1776, those were all new, progressive ideas. The "Conservative" viewpoint at that time would have been a Monarchy type government with very little regard for the rights of the people.

Again, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive etc don't work. The founders were in essence MEN of varying ideals and schools of thought who put their differences aside and created the least intolerable form of government before or since. The modern liberal ideals of the nanny state, a strong central government and beauracracy are much more akin to Marxist ideals, but the old style Soviet type governments were mainly referred to as Conservative.

[Munson]

The key words of your post are "created....form of government before..."....When old ideas are dropped for new ideas, that is called Progressive.


And no liberal with a brain wants a nanny state. Wanting your fellow American citizens who are worse off then you get a little help isn't a nanny state.

But lol at you trying to insinuate that bureaucracy is only created by liberals in this country.

[lurking wierdo]

The key words of your post are "created....form of government before..."....When old ideas are dropped for new ideas, that is called Progressive.


And no liberal with a brain wants a nanny state. Wanting your fellow American citizens who are worse off then you get a little help isn't a nanny state.

But lol at you trying to insinuate that bureaucracy is only created by liberals in this country.

I am not referring to entitlements when I say Nanny State, I am talking about government intervention into a person's private life.

[Sgt PSN]

Again, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive etc don't work. The founders were in essence MEN of varying ideals and schools of thought who put their differences aside and created the least intolerable form of government before or since.

So let me get this straight....people who thought differently were able to come together, put their differences aside and build the framework of a government that would protect all of their interests and beliefs......um, that would be considered very progressive by today's standards let alone over 200 years ago. 

The modern liberal ideals of the nanny state, a strong central government and beauracracy are much more akin to Marxist ideals, but the old style Soviet type governments were mainly referred to as Conservative.

I'm not going to debate the overall ridiculousness of this post but since you used to term "modern liberal ideals" I would love for you to give me an example of some old liberal ideals. 

[Sgt PSN]

The key words of your post are "created....form of government before..."....When old ideas are dropped for new ideas, that is called Progressive.


And no liberal with a brain wants a nanny state. Wanting your fellow American citizens who are worse off then you get a little help isn't a nanny state.

But lol at you trying to insinuate that bureaucracy is only created by liberals in this country.

I am not referring to entitlements when I say Nanny State, I am talking about government intervention into a person's private life.

You mean like wire tapping or invasive body searches at the airport?  Or maybe a woman's right to choose birth or abortion?  How about gay people getting married....or anyone getting married for that matter?  What about the government telling a bar owner he can't allow smoking in his establishment? 

[phattymatty]

michelle bachman gets john wayne and john wayne gacy mixed up


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsLfL9vMaUY

this lady is gold.

[lurking wierdo]

The key words of your post are "created....form of government before..."....When old ideas are dropped for new ideas, that is called Progressive.


And no liberal with a brain wants a nanny state. Wanting your fellow American citizens who are worse off then you get a little help isn't a nanny state.

But lol at you trying to insinuate that bureaucracy is only created by liberals in this country.

I am not referring to entitlements when I say Nanny State, I am talking about government intervention into a person's private life.

You mean like wire tapping or invasive body searches at the airport?  Or maybe a woman's right to choose birth or abortion?  How about gay people getting married....or anyone getting married for that matter?  What about the government telling a bar owner he can't allow smoking in his establishment? 

Wire tapping has been found legal by the Supreme Court. I am no fan of invasive body searches. Specifically what I am referring to is the "rule by decree" that is practiced by the modern liberal manifesto. Even more specifically, BHO's extreme proliferation of so-called czars.

[Rome]

Paxil?

[Sgt PSN]

michelle bachman gets john wayne and john wayne gacy mixed up


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsLfL9vMaUY

this lady is gold.

Put her and Palin together and they can tell us all about how John Paul Revere warned the Indians that we were coming to invade Iwo Jima. 

[Tomahawk]

Blago found guilty on 17 of 20 counts

[Rome]

michelle bachman gets john wayne and john wayne gacy mixed up


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsLfL9vMaUY

this lady is gold.

Put her and Palin together and they can tell us all about how John Paul Revere warned the Indians that we were coming to invade Iwo Jima.

That's just stupid.  Everyone knows he was the bassist in Led Zeppelin.

[ice grillin you]

yeah but you cant make it legal until that part of it is figured out

Meh, I don't think that's too big of a stumbling block.  People drive stoned by the millions without too much mayhem.  If a cop witnesses reckless/dangerous driving and upon stopping the individual smells marijuana smoke/observes dilated pupils, etc..that ought to be enough for some kind of charges.

what if there is an on the job accident that isnt the employees fault but because he smoked weed the previous weekend he gets blamed for it...so not only does he not gets compensated he gets fired for being high on the job

same scenario but school bus accident...accident is not the bus drivers fault but he/she gets blamed because they have weed in the system

driver runs over a kid who ran out in the middle of the street...completely the kids fault but because the driver has weed in the system they get blamed for vehicular manslaughter

then theres flip side of it...people who do dumb shtein because they are blunted out but claim they havent smoked week for a couple days

how is any of this proved or disproved?

[lurking wierdo]

yeah but you cant make it legal until that part of it is figured out

Meh, I don't think that's too big of a stumbling block.  People drive stoned by the millions without too much mayhem.  If a cop witnesses reckless/dangerous driving and upon stopping the individual smells marijuana smoke/observes dilated pupils, etc..that ought to be enough for some kind of charges.

what if there is an on the job accident that isnt the employees fault but because he smoked weed the previous weekend he gets blamed for it...so not only does he not gets compensated he gets fired for being high on the job

same scenario but school bus accident...accident is not the bus drivers fault but he/she gets blamed because they have weed in the system

driver runs over a kid who ran out in the middle of the street...completely the kids fault but because the driver has weed in the system they get blamed for vehicular manslaughter

then theres flip side of it...people who do dumb shtein because they are blunted out but claim they havent smoked week for a couple days

how is any of this proved or disproved?

I have been espousing this argument for a long time. Tou are absolutely right. And, just some R&D is a nonsense answer. It takes time for new testing protocols to be accepted by the courts.

[Sgt PSN]

yeah but you cant make it legal until that part of it is figured out

Meh, I don't think that's too big of a stumbling block.  People drive stoned by the millions without too much mayhem.  If a cop witnesses reckless/dangerous driving and upon stopping the individual smells marijuana smoke/observes dilated pupils, etc..that ought to be enough for some kind of charges.

what if there is an on the job accident that isnt the employees fault but because he smoked weed the previous weekend he gets blamed for it...so not only does he not gets compensated he gets fired for being high on the job

same scenario but school bus accident...accident is not the bus drivers fault but he/she gets blamed because they have weed in the system

driver runs over a kid who ran out in the middle of the street...completely the kids fault but because the driver has weed in the system they get blamed for vehicular manslaughter

then theres flip side of it...people who do dumb shtein because they are blunted out but claim they havent smoked week for a couple days

how is any of this proved or disproved?

When samples come back from the lab, they show the THC levels in that person's system.  That alone can give you an indication of when the person smoked.  I know I've mentioned around here before, but one of my collateral duties is Substance Abuse Control Officer for my squadron.  I conduct random and company wide urinalysis and in the last 3 years, we've had 11 Marines test positive for mary jane.  One guy probably would have been clean had we tested him 2 or 3 days later...his THC levels barely registered.  This was about 3 weeks after a long holiday weekend which is when he admitted to smoking.  My most recent positive result was a guy whose levels where so high that I jokingly said that he must have smoked up on his way into work that morning.  Turns out I was right. 

Granted, I'm not aware of any proven method that allows you to read a person's THC levels and accurately pinpoint a small window of when they smoked up, but in my experience you can take a fairly accurate guess based on the THC levels.  Of course, there is absolutely no way that would hold up in court.  But if a moderately experienced person such as myself can be make accurate guesses based on THC levels then I'm sure it would not be too hard for science nerds to come up with an accurate way to estimate time of consumption or how long the THC has been in someone's system.  And it doesn't need really be extremely accurate either, it just needs to prove that a person had or hadn't consumed MJ within the previous 12-24 hours, depending on what company policies or guidelines say.  Ex:  Cops, Firefighters, EMT, etc, etc are not supposed to consume any alochol 8 hours prior to the start of their next shift.  If MJ ever gets legalized, companies will have to put similar policies into effect. 

[ice grillin you]

sounds iffy at best