Author Topic: Hillary's Bush  (Read 1809 times)

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,648
Hillary's Bush
« on: September 20, 2016, 09:43:14 AM »
Bush 41 is allegedly going to vote for Hillary, according to a story in Politico and headlined at Drudge.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/exclusive-george-hw-bush-to-vote-for-hillary-228395
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2016, 09:46:24 AM »
Bush 41 is allegedly going to vote for Hillary, according to a story in Politico and headlined at Drudge.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/exclusive-george-hw-bush-to-vote-for-hillary-228395

No surprise.  The Bush's are of the same ilk as the Clintons: Big government, war, entitlements, wasteful spending, authoritarian policing.
Entitlements and the Bush family are what got us the "compassionate conservative"  [barf] bullshit that has finally killed the GOP as any sort of opposition party.
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2016, 10:03:02 AM »
No surprise.  The Bush's are of the same ilk as the Clintons: Big government, war, entitlements, wasteful spending, authoritarian policing.
Entitlements and the Bush family are what got us the "compassionate conservative"  [barf] bullshit that has finally killed the GOP as any sort of opposition party.

Kind of like the "limousine liberals"
Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

TommyGunn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,956
  • Stuck in full auto since birth.
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2016, 10:26:03 AM »
No surprise.  The Bush's are of the same ilk as the Clintons: Big government, war, entitlements, wasteful spending, authoritarian policing.
Entitlements and the Bush family are what got us the "compassionate conservative"  [barf] bullshit that has finally killed the GOP as any sort of opposition party.

Yea.....it was the Elder Bush who said President Reagan's economic policies were "voodoo economics."
And Trump has,  to be fair,  pretty much trashed the younger Bushes.
But the Elder Bush didn't have to support Clinton.   That's just treasonous!  He could  and should have just abstained from supporting either candidate.
Now,  those who claim "there's not a  dime's worth of difference between the two parties"  have this arrow in their quiver. :facepalm: :facepalm:
MOLON LABE   "Through ignorance of what is good and what is bad, the life of men is greatly perplexed." ~~ Cicero

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2016, 01:03:19 PM »
Yea.....it was the Elder Bush who said President Reagan's economic policies were "voodoo economics."
And Trump has,  to be fair,  pretty much trashed the younger Bushes.
But the Elder Bush didn't have to support Clinton.   That's just treasonous!  He could  and should have just abstained from supporting either candidate.
Now,  those who claim "there's not a  dime's worth of difference between the two parties"  have this arrow in their quiver. :facepalm: :facepalm:

Because it's essentially true.  Both parties support:
Authoritarian government.
Hawkish foreign policy including regime change.
Prohibition/war on drugs.
Extreme social spending.
Police state.
Surveillance of Americans in our country.
Excessive taxation.

Don't forget, McCain proposed during the debates with Obama EXACTLY what Obamacare became.  A *expletive deleted*ing tax. 
Romney was laughed at for calling Russia a threat.  Whoa now Obama calls them one of our biggest threats?

We can dither on gun control, sure. 
But in the end, do you think there will be some mass uprising of the people with or without their arms when they've sold their rights out to the party of their choosing for decades? Bullshit.  Nobody's fighting no tyranny.
Abortion if you lean that way.  Throwing an authoritarian candidate your vote because they side with you on one moral issue?   :rofl:

You can flip and flop (D) and (R) ideas, policies and platforms for the last 30 years and you'll find that what one party is against today, they'll be for in four years.  How do they get away with this?  Because people are tribal and stupid.

JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

wmenorr67

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,775
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2016, 01:16:50 PM »
When both sides are getting money from the same people that should be a big indication that there is no difference between them anymore.
There are five things, above all else, that make life worth living: a good relationship with God, a good woman, good health, good friends, and a good cigar.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier.  One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Bacon is the candy bar of meats!

Only the dead have seen the end of war!

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2016, 01:28:14 PM »
Because it's essentially true.  Both parties support:
Authoritarian government.
Hawkish foreign policy including regime change.
Prohibition/war on drugs.
Extreme social spending.
Police state.
Surveillance of Americans in our country.
Excessive taxation.

Don't forget, McCain proposed during the debates with Obama EXACTLY what Obamacare became.  A *expletive deleted*ing tax. 
Romney was laughed at for calling Russia a threat.  Whoa now Obama calls them one of our biggest threats?

We can dither on gun control, sure. 
But in the end, do you think there will be some mass uprising of the people with or without their arms when they've sold their rights out to the party of their choosing for decades? Bullshit.  Nobody's fighting no tyranny.
Abortion if you lean that way.  Throwing an authoritarian candidate your vote because they side with you on one moral issue?   :rofl:

You can flip and flop (D) and (R) ideas, policies and platforms for the last 30 years and you'll find that what one party is against today, they'll be for in four years.  How do they get away with this?  Because people are tribal and stupid.



I concur
Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2016, 01:41:01 PM »
Because it's essentially true.  Both parties support:
Authoritarian government.
Hawkish foreign policy including regime change.
Prohibition/war on drugs.
Extreme social spending.
Police state.
Surveillance of Americans in our country.
Excessive taxation.

Don't forget, McCain proposed during the debates with Obama EXACTLY what Obamacare became.  A *expletive deleted*ing tax. 
Romney was laughed at for calling Russia a threat.  Whoa now Obama calls them one of our biggest threats?

We can dither on gun control, sure. 
But in the end, do you think there will be some mass uprising of the people with or without their arms when they've sold their rights out to the party of their choosing for decades? Bullshit.  Nobody's fighting no tyranny.
Abortion if you lean that way.  Throwing an authoritarian candidate your vote because they side with you on one moral issue?   :rofl:

You can flip and flop (D) and (R) ideas, policies and platforms for the last 30 years and you'll find that what one party is against today, they'll be for in four years.  How do they get away with this?  Because people are tribal and stupid.

WRT abortion, I see two pro-abortion parties. 

As with immigration, if the GOP was really pro-life, it would have actually done something about it:
* During Reagan's admin and especially when the GOP had the Senate
* During GWB's admin when he had both houses GOP
* During any time GOP had the House and the power of the purse
* During any time GOP had the white house and could improve things via executive order.

I do appreciate teh GOP for fighting gun control. 
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

zxcvbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,246
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2016, 04:35:49 PM »
WRT abortion, I see two pro-abortion parties. 

As with immigration, if the GOP was really pro-life, it would have actually done something about it:
* During Reagan's admin and especially when the GOP had the Senate
* During GWB's admin when he had both houses GOP
* During any time GOP had the House and the power of the purse
* During any time GOP had the white house and could improve things via executive order.

I do appreciate teh GOP for fighting gun control. 

If they actually ended abortion, they wouldn't have anything to demagogue about.
"It's good, though..."

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,882
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2016, 07:43:03 PM »
Bush = Clinton

GW was the best actor of the Bush clan. He was elected saying he was against nation building abroad. He is a liar of the same character as Hillary.

9/11, Homeland Security, TSA and the economic crash all happened on his watch.  

I believed the Republican lie machine and voted for him twice, God forgive me.
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

TommyGunn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,956
  • Stuck in full auto since birth.
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2016, 07:59:11 PM »
Because it's essentially true.  Both parties support:
Authoritarian government.
Hawkish foreign policy including regime change.
Prohibition/war on drugs.
Extreme social spending.
Police state.
Surveillance of Americans in our country.
Excessive taxation.

Don't forget, McCain proposed during the debates with Obama EXACTLY what Obamacare became.  A *expletive deleted*ing tax. 
Romney was laughed at for calling Russia a threat.  Whoa now Obama calls them one of our biggest threats?

We can dither on gun control, sure. 
But in the end, do you think there will be some mass uprising of the people with or without their arms when they've sold their rights out to the party of their choosing for decades? Bullshit.  Nobody's fighting no tyranny.
Abortion if you lean that way.  Throwing an authoritarian candidate your vote because they side with you on one moral issue?   :rofl:

You can flip and flop (D) and (R) ideas, policies and platforms for the last 30 years and you'll find that what one party is against today, they'll be for in four years.  How do they get away with this?  Because people are tribal and stupid.


Quote
  ....  do you think there will be some mass uprising of the people with or without their arms when they've sold their rights out to the party of their choosing for decades?

Perhaps not in some parts of the country, but I know more than a couple of rednecks 'round here that aren't about to surrender their guns, no matter.   They might not win, but they'd throw a nasty wrench in someon'es gears.

It seems to me that the republican party used to be a lot more conservative, but then I remember Reagan, who atleast tried to downsize government.
The repubs have seemed to gone over to the "big govt." mode ("but we can do it RIGHT") rather than just being classic conservative "the government that governs least governs best" type of a party.  To that extent, you're right, and my comment about the thing being "another arrow in the quiver" was not really intended to debate the point so much as being a regretable surrender to its truth.

AS to the other points...... while the "war on some drugs" has been perceived as a failure, I doubt legalization will help society;  in states that have gone soft on marijuana, car accidents involving DUIs are up....and other problems are surfacing.  I don't want that where I live; we have enough problems with beer & muscatel and other cheap liqours.
Other points ....maybe I'll get to later.  If I think up some worthy arguments.   Which is questionable.  =|
MOLON LABE   "Through ignorance of what is good and what is bad, the life of men is greatly perplexed." ~~ Cicero

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2016, 09:06:35 PM »
If they actually ended abortion, they wouldn't have anything to demagogue about.

Gotta keep some teasers around to keep part of the population interested in voting for you.
Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,782
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2016, 11:45:00 PM »
Honestly, Reagan met a great deal of resistance from the same Republicans.  There were some Repub Congressmen who seemed to side with Reagan but they were all gone by the 2000's and control on govt growth and spending went with them. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2016, 06:33:53 AM »

Perhaps not in some parts of the country, but I know more than a couple of rednecks 'round here that aren't about to surrender their guns, no matter.   They might not win, but they'd throw a nasty wrench in someon'es gears.

It seems to me that the republican party used to be a lot more conservative, but then I remember Reagan, who atleast tried to downsize government.
The repubs have seemed to gone over to the "big govt." mode ("but we can do it RIGHT") rather than just being classic conservative "the government that governs least governs best" type of a party.  To that extent, you're right, and my comment about the thing being "another arrow in the quiver" was not really intended to debate the point so much as being a regretable surrender to its truth.

AS to the other points...... while the "war on some drugs" has been perceived as a failure, I doubt legalization will help society;  in states that have gone soft on marijuana, car accidents involving DUIs are up....and other problems are surfacing.  I don't want that where I live; we have enough problems with beer & muscatel and other cheap liqours.
Other points ....maybe I'll get to later.  If I think up some worthy arguments.   Which is questionable.  =|

1)  My point being, fat lot that supporting pro gun republicans has done us.  We're taxed at an effective rate of half our income when you add up everything that our dollar is taxed on from the moment we earn it to when we spend it. 
2) war on some drugs:  We've given up rights wholesale (and see point 1) for an expensive unwinnable "war".  Period. 
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

TommyGunn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,956
  • Stuck in full auto since birth.
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #14 on: September 21, 2016, 09:59:42 AM »
1)  My point being, fat lot that supporting pro gun republicans has done us.  We're taxed at an effective rate of half our income when you add up everything that our dollar is taxed on from the moment we earn it to when we spend it.  
2) war on some drugs:  We've given up rights wholesale (and see point 1) for an expensive unwinnable "war".  Period.  

1.  In the past few years,  we have acquired many more states with ccw and even open carry than  before.  Sometimes our best friends exist in state governments.  Taxes are going to be an eternal battle unless we get rid of the income tax as we know it and the amendment that enabled it in 1913.

2.  I admit I have no viable solution, really, to drugs.   Nancy Reagan's "just say no" program,  though lampooned by many,  did see a reduction in drug use, so perhaps propoganda campaigns would be useful.  Given what I hear is happening in those states which have legalized Marijuana  I don't want those consequences here:  WHERE I LIVE.
Saying the "war" on drugs is unwinnable has always seemed a bit absurd to me.   We don't say "the war on murder" is unwinnable, because we've laws against it,  so let's  just legalize murder. No; we all agree that murder is anathema to organized society and support those laws.  
I argue that making psychoactive drugs legal will also be detrimental to organized society.
We are losing our rights.....yes, but not because of a "war on drugs."
It's because we stopped worshipping liberty a long time ago.
Now we worship the god of security.
MOLON LABE   "Through ignorance of what is good and what is bad, the life of men is greatly perplexed." ~~ Cicero

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,648
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2016, 10:06:42 AM »
Bush = Clinton

GW was the best actor of the Bush clan. He was elected saying he was against nation building abroad. He is a liar of the same character as Hillary.

9/11, Homeland Security, TSA and the economic crash all happened on his watch.  

I believed the Republican lie machine and voted for him twice, God forgive me.
9/11? Well, Bush kept Clintonista Norman Mineta on as Transportation Secretary. Mere WEEKS before 9/11, Mineta sent out a directive to the airlines PROHIBITING extra scrutiny of Moslems. Hmmm . . .

Homeland Security and TSA are huge bureaucratic boondoggles that Bush deserves blame for. AND . . . he spent too much money. WAY too much.

But as I recall, the economy didn't really tank until late in GWB's second term, when Dems had taken over both the House and Senate - Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, and Frank deserve even more blame than Bush 43.
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,782
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2016, 10:15:33 AM »
If you are looking only at the Washington Elite people in both parties, yes, they are the same.  But what do the rest of the parties look like?  As TommyGun pointed out, at the state level, there are a lot more differences.  And at least some of the Washington representatives are okay. 

The problem I have with the "they are all the same" argument is there is never any solution.  I don't really have one either, but broad brushing the whole thing is counterproductive.  If you went out and formed 3rd party, it wouldn't take long before the same Washington Elite types started taking over the inner workings of that party also.  Those type of people are always going to be attracted to power wherever it rests.  As has been said before, voters (as a whole) deserve the Govt we get when we fail to vote for the right reasons.  That is where the term limits are supposed be coming from.  That is who is sending the same people back to D.C. who are screwing things up.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2016, 07:28:53 AM »
1.  In the past few years,  we have acquired many more states with ccw and even open carry than  before.  Sometimes our best friends exist in state governments.  Taxes are going to be an eternal battle unless we get rid of the income tax as we know it and the amendment that enabled it in 1913.

2.  I admit I have no viable solution, really, to drugs.   Nancy Reagan's "just say no" program,  though lampooned by many,  did see a reduction in drug use, so perhaps propoganda campaigns would be useful.  Given what I hear is happening in those states which have legalized Marijuana  I don't want those consequences here:  WHERE I LIVE.
Saying the "war" on drugs is unwinnable has always seemed a bit absurd to me.   We don't say "the war on murder" is unwinnable, because we've laws against it,  so let's  just legalize murder. No; we all agree that murder is anathema to organized society and support those laws.  
I argue that making psychoactive drugs legal will also be detrimental to organized society.
We are losing our rights.....yes, but not because of a "war on drugs."
It's because we stopped worshipping liberty a long time ago.
Now we worship the god of security.

1) And our ever increasing gun rights have gotten us....what?  We can shoot muggers/rapists/murderers?  yet my kids can't have a lemonade stand?  I must pay tens of percents of my income to the government?  If my kids miss too many days of school I go to jail?  I can't fly to LA without getting my balls fondled by government stooges?  The NSA is collecting my phone data just because? 

2)  The federal government spends over 15 Billion a year on the "war on drugs". States spend combined more.  And we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.  Speeding is illegal, yet we're not wholesale tossing people in jail for driving 10 over.  Just because it is or should be (another debatable topic for another time) illegal doesn't mean that we should turn our country inside out fighting a "war" against it.


If you are looking only at the Washington Elite people in both parties, yes, they are the same.  But what do the rest of the parties look like?  As TommyGun pointed out, at the state level, there are a lot more differences.  And at least some of the Washington representatives are okay. 

The problem I have with the "they are all the same" argument is there is never any solution.  I don't really have one either, but broad brushing the whole thing is counterproductive.  If you went out and formed 3rd party, it wouldn't take long before the same Washington Elite types started taking over the inner workings of that party also.  Those type of people are always going to be attracted to power wherever it rests.  As has been said before, voters (as a whole) deserve the Govt we get when we fail to vote for the right reasons.  That is where the term limits are supposed be coming from.  That is who is sending the same people back to D.C. who are screwing things up.

Isn't that the discussion?  The heads of both parties are corrupt mirrors of each other.
However, my experiences with local politics, while somewhat limited, were that active republicans I knew were gung ho for bullshit like CHIP and no child left behind, but muh abortionz and muh Gunzzz!!!  They were mirrors of the bigger cancer.
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

TommyGunn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,956
  • Stuck in full auto since birth.
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2016, 11:23:26 AM »
1) And our ever increasing gun rights have gotten us....what?  We can shoot muggers/rapists/murderers?  yet my kids can't have a lemonade stand?  I must pay tens of percents of my income to the government?  If my kids miss too many days of school I go to jail?  I can't fly to LA without getting my balls fondled by government stooges?  The NSA is collecting my phone data just because?  

The laws on self defense are generally well established. They differ from place to place, like those laws about kids and lemonade stands.  That problem is addressable as well.  We didn't get our ccw laws altered without a fight and if your kids' inability to sell lemonade offends you, make a big stink with your local authority.  
Our founders knew that when they established America it would be a "forever war" to maintain our freedom.  Ben Franklin told a lady, who'd asked him what they'd done, "we gave the people a republic .... if you can keep it."   I believe it was Jefferson who once stated his belief that we'd need a bloody revolution every twenty years to keep our freedom.
Getting tired of fighting for your rights every time you turn around?  Tough.  You don't get to rest; the men who govern you may be Mr. Nice Guys but THEY DO MEAN TO GOVERN.  And they all have these wonderful ideas about some new social program or entitlement that will make you so much happier so long as you just fork over a little bit more $$ -- just a few pennies -- to make it happen.  You'll be nickel & dimed to death but hey, you WILL die HAPPY!  Wanna stop that from happening?  You don't get to rest.  Every day of your life you will spend attacking windmills like Don Quixote, or fighting off City Hall, or writing some letter to your kongresskritter in D.C. where some aide will file it in a circular file aside her desk.
You still don't get to rest.   Because you need to find a way to make those Washington libtards and repukes LISTEN.
There's  "no rest for the wicked,"  as they say.    Stay awake or wake up as a pod person.
You worry about the NSA collecting your phone data.  Have you heard of echelon, a program to collect phone & internet data a generation prior to 9/11's resultant "Patriot Act.?"  It's been going on longer than you might think, and without a terorist war to justify it.
Are you willing to prevent NSA and others from collecting data even if it hogties them with regards to fighting ISIS/Al Qaeda?  Are you willing to see a terrorist act that could have been prevented had the NSA been able to interdict it kill your wife or children?  Just asking ... and making it personal, since a lot of people will happily sacrifice the lives of unknowns.   There's no right answer though,
Just remember the lengths we went to in WW2 to collect the communications intel on our enemies -- even within this country.  I don't recall too many complaints about it.  Had I the willingness to go into it I can relate one helluva nasty SNAFU with regards to it which could have cost us dearly, had not both our side and the Japanese not responded with other equally unbelievable SNAFUS as well.  

2)  The federal government spends over 15 Billion a year on the "war on drugs". States spend combined more.  And we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.  Speeding is illegal, yet we're not wholesale tossing people in jail for driving 10 over.  Just because it is or should be (another debatable topic for another time) illegal doesn't mean that we should turn our country inside out fighting a "war" against it.  ......  

Speeding is not, in itself, a violation punishable by incarceration.  
I will be blunt; I don't give a ****** about whether we incarcerate fewer people than other nations, the same as other nations, or more than other nations.
That's right.  I do not care.  Period.  Don't like it?    Too bad.  
Look, we have a population of > 300 million.  Do you think we might naturally jail more people than, say, Belize?   What's Belize's population?  An account of prisoners as opposed to the % of population might be a better indice ... but we're also a more mixed society  than Belize, or many other nations and that often accounts for more social instability and thus more criminality.
I've already said I don't have a great solution to the problem of illegal drugs.  I know there  is a libertarian ethic that states as long as they don't hurt others, then why shouldn't they be able to inject, swallow, inhale whatever they want?
The problem is, they DO affect others.  "No man is an island" -- an old canard.  But people on drugs (yes like alcohol too) cause traffic accidents and kill people.  People turn themselves into drug zombies and wind up unemployed & unemployable, and on the public doll, and from there, into medical facilities where they drain monies from the public treasury --- where your taxes go.  You know, those monies removed from your wallet under threat of force by Uncle Sam and his subordinate nephews in local state governments.
You want the drugs legalied?  OK.
Prove to me that won't result in even more drug zombies, and let's see the laws then changed to prevent them from being sent to medical facilities to drain off our tax dollars.  I want to see you do that.  You may be hard hearted enough to.  Hell, I'M "hard hearted" enough.  I'll stand right next to you while you argue your case.  But now let's get America to buy that hard heartedness.  Heck, the Chinese once solved their heroin problem by outright execution of heroin users and pushers; it ought to work here, we're NOT ACTUALLY arguing to KILL them .... just let 'em die out in some gutter somewhere.
You know that's not going to happen.
I will admit that perhaps incarcerating them might not be that good of a solution.  Perhaps confining them in a treatment facility to get them off their poison will work, with the qualification that you only get three times up at bat and the forth time, back to the whoosgow you go.  
I am open to other ideas....I'm just not very hopeful.
Because, IMHO, as humans, I think we are, in general, a pretty f****d up kind of species.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 11:45:37 AM by TommyGunn »
MOLON LABE   "Through ignorance of what is good and what is bad, the life of men is greatly perplexed." ~~ Cicero

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2016, 12:32:42 PM »
Quote
2)  The federal government spends over 15 Billion a year on the "war on drugs". States spend combined more.  And we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.  Speeding is illegal, yet we're not wholesale tossing people in jail for driving 10 over.  Just because it is or should be (another debatable topic for another time) illegal doesn't mean that we should turn our country inside out fighting a "war" against it.

The reason we had crime go down from the peak in the 80's & 90's is because of mass incarceration.  Mass incarceration is a feature, not a bug, and necessary to keep crime down & manageable.

If we want to keep crime down, but don;t want mass incarceration, we have other alternatives:
1. Mass exile
2. Mass executions
3. Mass corporal punishment (though this may not prevent future crimes unless disabling, as in amputations).

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world because:
1. Relative to industrialized countries, we have the largest or a very large proportion of non-asian minorities who offend at many multiples of euro-white and oriental folks. 
2. Relative to unindustrialized dungholes, who cares?  They kill and rape each other with abandon and take "justice" into their own hands. 

I was all anti WoSD for a goodly while and still not am happy about it.  But I realized it is merely a proxy/tool to keep high-rate offenders (of other, violent, crimes) behind bars.  Now I am more "meh" than anything else.  Can't catch the guy everyone in the 'hood knows murdered his rival dope-slinger because no one will testify?  Catch him slinging dope and put him away for a few years at least and call it a day.  It is about the best you can do in our wonderfully "diverse" country, these days. 
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

BlueStarLizzard

  • Queen of the Cislords
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15,039
  • Oh please, nobody died last time...
Re: Hillary's Bush
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2016, 12:45:44 PM »
I find it funny that the people who are pro gun are all opposed to legalization of drugs when our primary federal alphabet soup enemy was created when a drug was made illegal.

Ain't prohibition grand?
"Okay, um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm angry, and I'm armed, so if you two have something that you need to work out --" -Malcolm Reynolds