Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[lurking wierdo]

Even though I think you libs on here are iceholes, I do respect most of you as people who put some thought into your opinions. Please let me know your thoughts on this issue.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304665904576385980251033122.html

[Diomedes]

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.

[Diomedes]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?_r=1&hp

Europe>>>U.S.

[Sgt PSN]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?_r=1&hp

Europe>>>U.S.

That's pretty awesome.  I can't understand how this country went from being fundamentally liberal during our founding years to being so extremely conservative and refusing to let go of the past and embrace modern and foreward thinking ideas.  Well, I can because something like this is the last thing that car manufacturers and oil companies want to see, but I'd be willing to be that an overwhelming large number of Americans would oppose such an idea as well.  "Arg, you're violating my right to drive, take up space, waste energy and pollute the environment.  Arg, if I have to take the bus, no one can see me driving my $80,000 car and I might be forced to sit next to someone who works in...gulp...MIDDLE MANAGEMENT!!  Arg!."  (Yes, I beleive that people complaining about this would talk like pirates while doing so.)

Also, I thought this was funny.

Still, there is grumbling. "There are all these zones where you can only drive 20 or 30 kilometers per hour [about 12 to 18 miles an hour], which is rather stressful," Thomas Rickli, a consultant, said as he parked his Jaguar in a lot at the edge of town. "It's useless."

Farg off, elitist snob.  Better invest in some comfy walking shoes.   

[lurking wierdo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?_r=1&hp

Europe>>>U.S.

That's pretty awesome.  I can't understand how this country went from being fundamentally liberal during our founding years to being so extremely conservative and refusing to let go of the past and embrace modern and foreward thinking ideas.  Well, I can because something like this is the last thing that car manufacturers and oil companies want to see, but I'd be willing to be that an overwhelming large number of Americans would oppose such an idea as well.  "Arg, you're violating my right to drive, take up space, waste energy and pollute the environment.  Arg, if I have to take the bus, no one can see me driving my $80,000 car and I might be forced to sit next to someone who works in...gulp...MIDDLE MANAGEMENT!!  Arg!."  (Yes, I beleive that people complaining about this would talk like pirates while doing so.)

Also, I thought this was funny.

Still, there is grumbling. "There are all these zones where you can only drive 20 or 30 kilometers per hour [about 12 to 18 miles an hour], which is rather stressful," Thomas Rickli, a consultant, said as he parked his Jaguar in a lot at the edge of town. "It's useless."

Farg off, elitist snob.  Better invest in some comfy walking shoes.   

In all honesty your statement of how the country started out fundemntally liberal undoubtedly requires some clarification.

[General_Failure]

The Supreme Court decided today that video games are protected by the First Amendment. link

"Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones," wrote Justice Alito in a footnote to Scalia's opinion. "Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy, and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny."

[Sgt PSN]

In all honesty your statement of how the country started out fundemntally liberal undoubtedly requires some clarification.

In 1776, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were extremely radical documents in comparison to the rest of the world.  As far as I know, our legal system was the first in the world to be based on innocence until proven guilty and the burden of proof was placed on the accuser rather than the accused.  I could be wrong on that, but even if I am, it I believe it was still a fairly uncommon legal policy anywhere else in the world at the time.  The thought process that went into forming this country and the laws that govern it were very liberal and forward thinking as it was written in a manner so that it can be modified over time to adapt to the changing world. That's liberal, progressive foreward thinking right there, something that this country doesn't like to do these days. 

[lurking wierdo]

In all honesty your statement of how the country started out fundemntally liberal undoubtedly requires some clarification.

In 1776, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were extremely radical documents in comparison to the rest of the world.  As far as I know, our legal system was the first in the world to be based on innocence until proven guilty and the burden of proof was placed on the accuser rather than the accused.  I could be wrong on that, but even if I am, it I believe it was still a fairly uncommon legal policy anywhere else in the world at the time.  The thought process that went into forming this country and the laws that govern it were very liberal and forward thinking as it was written in a manner so that it can be modified over time to adapt to the changing world. That's liberal, progressive foreward thinking right there, something that this country doesn't like to do these days. 

I kind of think of these concepts as more right wing then left. Specifically the 10th amendment.

[Sgt PSN]

Are you suggesting that limiting federal gov't power over individual states was a conservative idea in the late 1700's? 

[lurking wierdo]

I don't think conservative/liberal labels are applicable. In reallity, those labels and party ideals were a moving target gor the first 150 years of the country. Were Republican/Conservative stalwarts T Roosevelt and Lincoln truly Conservative by today's standards? As Lincoln was the father of the Republican Party his opposition were by definition State's rights advocates and anti-civil rights. I just think that the labelling and the claiming of liberal/conservative founders is painting with a much too broad brush.

[Munson]

Your lumping liberal/conservative in with Democrat/Republican though. They are two seperate things. Just because the Democratic party didn't exist in 1776 does not mean the idea of progress, and thus, liberalism, didn't exist.


Sarge is right. This country was founded on the idea of Progressivism, and Conservatives have been trying to take us backwards for the last 35 years+. It's sad.

[Sgt PSN]

I think I'm just using modern terminology to describe a 200+ year old idea.  Meanwhile, you are clearly stuck in the mindset that being republican and conservative or liberal and democrat somehow go hand in hand and that couldn't be further from the truth. [edit]Even Munson gets it[/edit]  Once upon a time, the GoP was a fairly liberal and progressive thinking party.  Lincoln abolishing slavery was a very liberal move at the time and was essentially the first major step in the civil rights movement....it just didn't get that fancy name until the 1960's.  Over time, the ideas of the Republican party became old hat and Democrats became the new "liberal" party because they're ideas were fresher and newer.  I suspect that sooner or later, Democrats will take the place of modern day republicans and will be considered largely conservative and a party of new, liberal thinkers will step in and take over as the Democrats. 

What we consider liberal today will be conservative thinking in the future.  It's just a natural part of the cycle. 

[lurking wierdo]

I humbly disagree with the notion thaat the founders were liberal in any way. I have often heard the liberal rant the revolution was fueled by rich white men who didn't want to pay taxes.

[Sgt PSN]

If you don't think that freedom of religion and separation of church and state were liberal concepts in the 1700's then either you have idea what the word liberal really means or you are a bigger moron than previously imagined. 

[Munson]

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.