Limiting Choices

[bobabode]

Private prison labor is a growth industry in the good ol' USofA

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by barbara

Originally Posted by barbara
Candy bars are not a crucial issue in my opinion. But, letting people make their own choices when it comes to legally marrying another consenting adult would be nice.

Oerets responded: Good point, how can one not overlook this simple fact! If you want the Government out of your choices then it should apply here also.


Oerets, I thought everyone had missed that point. Isn't it interesting how people can pick and choose when they stand behind their philosophy or not......

Government also ought not be even involved with marriage. Similarly, they ought not be involved in promoting home ownership or the myriad of other areas where they stick their collective noses.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

When I was first out of law school, I worked for a federal judge as a law clerk. The judge was a person of the highest integrity one could imagine. The most upset I saw him during my two year appointment was when he had to impose a sentence in a drug case. The convict was 24 years old, and he had been convicted for being a very low level gofer in a drug ring. He was a mule. Because of the quantity of drugs he possessed at his arrest, and because he had two prior convictions, the mandatory sentencing guidelines called for life in prison with no possibility of parole. The judge stewed and researched and tried every which way he could to find a way to avoid having to put this 24 year old behind bars for the rest of his life - for being a flunky for drug lord. Unfortunately, the law left him no leeway. He had to bury the young man in the dungeon.

Just say no.

Regards,

D-Ray

I find it inconsistent that the left supports less government interference in the realm of drug enforcement, but seeks government intrusion in other far more benign areas. Of course, I want them out of the so-called "war on drugs." Come to think of it, why do the same people that seek big government solutions find centralized power in corporate entities so abhorrent. Arguably voting with dollars is much more effective than the Morton's fork that is our political party system.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I find it inconsistent that the left supports less government interference in the realm of drug enforcement, but seeks government intrusion in other far more benign areas.

What benign areas? I'll explain it to you.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Government also ought not be even involved with marriage. Similarly, they ought not be involved in promoting home ownership or the myriad of other areas where they stick their collective noses.

I thought we is the gubmint since they gave everyone the vote. Messy and as complicated as it is, it's far better than a corptoccracy or a anarchist system where everybody is on their own and free to do as they please without any external moral compass.
That's my take on the "less governmint is better" crowd, they aren't anything more than anarchists hellbent on some darwinian quest to strip everyone of their hardwon protections and civil rights. and in some cases all of their loot.
The feeding frenzy on the middle class has gone on far too long. How about those so called professionals in D.C. come up with better protection for the citizens instead of the classic Orwellian "Citizens United" ruling. It's even couched in doublespeak straight out of "1984."

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by bhunter
I find it inconsistent that the left supports less government interference in the realm of drug enforcement, but seeks government intrusion in other far more benign areas.

Originally Posted by noonereal

What benign areas? I'll explain it to you.

I see a civics lesson in the offing...

[bobabode]

Nearly evryone agrees that the past and current policies in regards to regulation of psycoactive drugs is a huge mistake. The drug enforcement bureaucracy should be the first to go. Retrain 'em and find 'em much more productive work in our society.

Making the least deserving segment of society extremely rich has always been a fools errand no matter what your intentions are or were. Only an emptyheaded blowhard would advocate a "War On Drugs." Which evolved into the"War on WMDs".I wonder how that's going? Those boys were never all that good at finding contraband so I wish them luck.

Why don't we declare war on the moon? There's a worthy inanimate object to wage war on. I have to give Newt credit for our eventual domination, destruction and colonization of the Peoples Republic of Luna. Maybe he will get a full sized statue out of it. I'm still not voting for the tea sniffin' gopi groupers!

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Private prison labor is a growth industry in the good ol' USofA

Precisely why we need more "tough on crime" Sherriffs running around Shanghaiin' more slav.........Oh, my bad. I meant to say "...roundin' up criminals." So's he can dress them up in pink, make them feed him grapes and call him "Mistress Nancy".

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I thought we is the gubmint since they gave everyone the vote. Messy and as complicated as it is, it's far better than a corptoccracy or a anarchist system where everybody is on their own and free to do as they please without any external moral compass.

Do you think that government bureaucrats are more moral—or better, without bias—than the market? Furthermore, I thought the left didn't like a moral compass, particularly that of the church, but is there an effective replacement? Moral relativism will also lead to anarchy.

That's my take on the "less governmint is better" crowd, they aren't anything more than anarchists hellbent on some darwinian quest to strip everyone of their hardwon protections and civil rights. and in some cases all of their loot.

Considering those rights of which you speak emanated from less centralized government and not more centralized government, I would think that small government, which really means decentralized government, would be supported by the left if they'd vanquish their desire to create preferential systems that treat individuals differently based wholly on perceived differences.

The feeding frenzy on the middle class has gone on far too long. How about those so called professionals in D.C. come up with better protection for the citizens instead of the classic Orwellian "Citizens United" ruling. It's even couched in doublespeak straight out of "1984."

What "feeding frenzy?" Just about everyone is materiallly better off than they once were in the United States. BTW, the SC Citizen United decision is also applicable to groups on the left. Why arbitrarily limit any group of individuals from expressing their political interests based only on the organization's structure?

Obama is putting a medal on Bob Dylan. That was nice. Of course, Bob doesn't speak.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I thought we is the gubmint since they gave everyone the vote. Messy and as complicated as it is, it's far better than a corptoccracy or a anarchist system where everybody is on their own and free to do as they please without any external moral compass.
That's my take on the "less governmint is better" crowd, they aren't anything more than anarchists hellbent on some darwinian quest to strip everyone of their hardwon protections and civil rights. and in some cases all of their loot.
The feeding frenzy on the middle class has gone on far too long. How about those so called professionals in D.C. come up with better protection for the citizens instead of the classic Orwellian "Citizens United" ruling. It's even couched in doublespeak straight out of "1984."

Very well put, Bob. Accolades to you, my friend.