Open worm can

lost_sailor · 10-30-2003, 09:21 AM

I'm bringing this to a fresh thread, so the "Why are you..." thread can remain calm.

Quote:

Originally posted by Albacore Tuna Captain:
I'm for less government, less tax, less interference in my life, more for individual control of my destiny and therefore, I tend to vote along the Republican lines.

This is the party that brought us the "Patriot Act" - is outlawing abortion - waging the War on Some Drugs - won't let a comatose Florida woman die a natural death - cut taxes but not spending - is fighting Oregon's "Death with Dignity" and "Medical Marijuana" laws ...

Something seems dis-connected! Enlighten me -

:whazzup:

[typo]

[ 10-30-2003, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: lost_sailor ]

skahorse · 10-30-2003, 09:38 AM

LS,
Just curious, how has the PATRIOT ACT affected you? How has it reduced your civil liberties? Or interfered with your life? Or anyone you know for that matter. I'm not saying this justifies it, I'm just wondering if this has affected anyone here(not in some article you read)? And if it's such a hoopla that everyone is making it out to be...

Quote:

is outlawing abortion

This is a direct lie. They have not outlawed abortion LS, come on. Bush even came out the other day and said that he didn't think the country was ready for an outlawing of abortion. Sheesh

The justification of Partial Birth Abortion outlawing was that it was unnecessary and that it was more of a risk the mother. (and child? :shocked: ) This topic has been discussed, and I do not wish to re-open it. However, if above is true, it only seems reasonable that the government regulate it.

Quote:

waging the War on Some Drugs

Does this really need to be answered? Let's have the country running around on Meth and Heroin, that'll really help the economy.

Quote:

won't let a comatose Florida woman die a natural death

This is a tough one, assisted suicide needs to be decided by the person to be killed. This seems to be more of a whose choice(Parents or Husband). Personally, I would hope that I would have the say when it comes to my wife, however I wouldn't make this choice... I don't really know where I stand on this, though I think ATC was alluding to this(not this subject specifically), "I tend to vote...Repub."(paraphrased) You don't always have to agree.

Quote:

cut taxes but not spending

This one I agress with. We need to reduce spending, however if Bush tried, the Democrats would be all over him [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img] :grin: . So it's a lose-lose.

--Skahorse

[ 10-30-2003, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: skahorse ]

Straydog · 10-30-2003, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by skahorse:
is outlawing abortion

Quote:

This is a direct lie. They have not outlawed abortion LS, come on.

Pretty harsh reaction SKA.......

Note he said "is", not "has". It is a one step at a time deal. Note too that your quote from Bush did not say we should not outlaw abortion, it said we are not yet ready. It is not saying he is philosophically in agreement with pro choice, he is saying that at this period in time it would not hold up politically.... Again, one step at a time.

I worked on two campaigns of Moderate Republican's for the State Houe of Representatives. One was an incumbant. The R party cannabolized these two worthy candidates based on one issue primarily: pro choice vs pro life. The two candidates defeated by their own party had both spoken out against late term or partial birth abortion but would not go all the way to a pro life stance. There-fore the party ate them alive, so to speak.

If you don't believe the long term goal of the current Republican leadership is to outlaw abortion, you are, in my opinion, saddly mistaken.

The R party preaches less government intrusion yet practices more government intrusion into some of the most personal elements of life and death.

[ 10-30-2003, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

10-30-2003, 10:06 AM

LS,

Both the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act. The current administration is not wholly at fault. Both parties are to blame for this unconstitutional law.

Straydog · 10-30-2003, 10:09 AM

Good point, Keta.

It was approved overwhelmingly in both chambers on both sides of aisle.....

[ 10-30-2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

foxer · 10-30-2003, 10:12 AM

Now, I have not read the entire Patriot act, but I would love to see how this has changed anybody's civi rights from before the patriot act? I believe this to be more myth than truth.

skahorse · 10-30-2003, 10:15 AM

I was not trying to be harsh. And maybe I mis-read LS's intentions. If anyone has taken it that way, I apologize. I thought he was trying to pull a tactic used by another poster on this BB, misstating the facts.

I agree that total-outlawing would be thier end goal. However, as was talked about on the abortion thread, some believe it is an issue of human rights. And the government has always legislated human rights. IMO that would be par for the course of gov't intrusion. A 10 yr old can't work in a shop for 10 cents a day. Some don't agree with this though, which is why Bush said he didn't think that America was ready for it.

I don't see them being intrusive about life and death. I see them wanting to promote life and trying to keep people from killing other people. Seems fair to me.

I know, I know, what about the death penalty. This I don't agree with.(Though, I have been known to waver on this subject) But, like I said before, you're not always going to agree with all repubs.

--Skahorse

freespool · 10-30-2003, 02:04 PM

Foxer,try asking someone who hasen't seen the light of day for last year and a half. No lawyer,no charges,just chillin in the hole. They may have a whole different spin on this how has this effected you question.

happybrew · 10-30-2003, 02:11 PM

MMMPHHH MPPH. UGHHHH! Okay, breath deeply.... I will not get into this. I will not get into this. I will not get into this. I will not get into this.

Okay, all better now! [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

happybrew

Tanner · 10-30-2003, 02:12 PM

Quote:

This is the party that brought us the "Patriot Act" - is outlawing abortion - waging the War on Some Drugs - won't let a comatose Florida woman die a natural death - cut taxes but not spending - is fighting Oregon's "Death with Dignity" and "Medical Marijuana" laws ...

Lets see:
1. The Patriot Act.. Protecting Americans from further attacks by terrorists.
2.Outlawing Abortions.. Let's not go there, you definitely don't want to hear my opinion on that.
3.Waging War On Drugs - Yep, my kids should be able to get a bowl of crack at the nearest pharmacy.
4.Letting a comatose woman die a natural death. Skip
5.Fighting Death with Dignity - I believe the hypocratic oath says something about saving lives not ending them.
6. Fighting Medicinal Marijuana - Dude, take another bong hit. I have in-laws who have these permits and believe me, it is a complete joke. Now they can legally do what they have always done and bring their daughter up to be another "upstanding" citizen who can't get her ass off the couch to get a decent job cause she is too stoned and lazy.

[ 10-30-2003, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Tanner ]

skahorse · 10-30-2003, 02:12 PM

Ahh, come on Happybrew. :depressed:

skahorse · 10-30-2003, 02:15 PM

Is that the best you can do Freespool? That's pretty much what I figured... I have not met one person that has in anyway been affected by the PATRIOT Act. Again, by no means justifying it's existance, i just find it interesting.

--Skahorse

DanS · 10-30-2003, 02:23 PM

Quote:

6. Fighting Medical Marijuana - Dude, take another bong hit

I think it's called MEDICINAL maijuana for a reason.

Are the doctors who prescribe it potheads, too?

Tanner · 10-30-2003, 02:33 PM

Dan, thanks for correcting my typo :smile:

One of the inlaws that has it was prescribed it because of asthma (that makes sense, that smoke should really help the lungs) My wife has much worse asthma than this inlaw and she does just fine without it.

10-30-2003, 02:42 PM

Tanner,
It helps cancer patents and those with glaucoma. I would much rather have a Rx for pot than percodan. When I take percodan I can not function. If I was smoking pot I would just be a bit dumber.

Tanner · 10-30-2003, 02:49 PM

Keta,
Wouldn't it be easier to take (and legally regulate) in a pill form. I know that they can make a very concentrated form of THC. I think they used to call it canibanol???

Besides the fact that from what I have seen some doctors seem to be prescribing it liberally.

Dang, there is that L word again.

freespool · 10-30-2003, 02:58 PM

skahorse,so what are you saying? If it only affects a few people it's ok? Or my example was not correct?

DanS · 10-30-2003, 03:01 PM

Quote:

My wife has much worse asthma than this inlaw and she does just fine without it.

Yeah, but that's a patient/patient comparison that doesn't really mean anything. Some patients do fine on an aspirin therapy program, but some don't because of things like ulcers etc.
Same story with chemotherapy. It really ought to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

10-30-2003, 03:02 PM

There are no doctors, that I've heard of, in the Klamath Falls area that will do this. The only person that I know of that does have an Rx got it from an out of town doctor. He was also fired from work for testing positive in a UA. The reason he was using pot was chronic pain from an on the job injury and the company knew it when they made him do the "random" UA.

In my case, having no insurance, it would be nice if I could grow it in one of my outbuildings and not have to pay the pharmaceutical companies big bucks.

Percocet costs about $2.00 each.

DanS,
Why don't we argue about something on another thread. It's kind of embarrassing being on the same side of an issue.

[ 10-30-2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

freespool · 10-30-2003, 03:04 PM

Keta,you don't have to smoke it. A good friend makes cookies out of it,says he can control the doseage better,plus no stigma of fireing up in public.

Tanner · 10-30-2003, 03:07 PM

Guys,
I don't know under what circumstances these people got their prescriptions but I can tell you for a fact I am seeing, first hand, the system being seriously abused.

10-30-2003, 03:10 PM

I have a CDL and have to be on random screening all the time. I can test positive for percodan (or heroin) and it's all right, if I'm not driving. Positive for pot and I loose my license. Makes no sense.

foxer · 10-30-2003, 03:42 PM

Freespool, got an example? Seems that nobody can give one when asked that question.

10-30-2003, 03:57 PM

Jose Padilla

Cato Institute

For those that feel that the CATO Institute too conservative

He should be shot. But only after he's been tried and convicted.

[ 10-30-2003, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

freespool · 10-30-2003, 04:23 PM

Foxer,so your saying hundreds of non citizens have not been detained for long periods of time,denied access to a lawyer. And the government won't devulge any information on these individuals condition or whereabouts to family members? I'am not talking about the combatants at Gitmo. What is your point?

10-30-2003, 04:35 PM

The Bill of rights doesn't pertain to foreign combatants.

It doesn't pertain to any foreigner if they are out of our country. And parts of it shouldn�t pertain to foreign citizens in our country.

Padilla is a US Citizen and he was arrested in the US. His Rights have been goose-stepped on.

The Al Quada should be shot unless they were captured in uniform.

willametteriveroutlaw · 10-30-2003, 05:02 PM

For every person who uses medicinal marajuana in the right way there is atleast another who doesn't. I have an aquaintance who has been prescribed it, now has a grow permit and a new side income. He never needed any pain meds before this law came along.

DanS · 10-30-2003, 05:46 PM

Quote:

I am seeing, first hand, the system being seriously abused.

But you can say the same thing about Oxycontin, Pecodan, and any other number of prescription drugs. That is where the medical boards, FDA and other enforcement agencies are supposed to step in.

Withhold needed medicine because some people abuse the system? That's foolish if you ask me. But, maybe nobody asked me. :grin:

freespool · 10-30-2003, 05:59 PM

For every person using prescripton pain killers there's a Rush Limbaugh abusing them.

10-30-2003, 06:10 PM

I don't think so. Re-check your numbers and try again. The last time I looked there was only one Rush Limbaugh. I know over 20 friends from the cancer center that are on pain meds and think that there are more around.

Quote:

For every person using prescripton pain killers there's a Rush Limbaugh abusing them.

lost_sailor · 10-31-2003, 07:03 AM

Whoa, a lot of worms got out! Rather than get caught up in the specific issues, my concern was more about the gap between the party claiming to favor

"less government, less tax, less interference in my life, more for individual control of my destiny"

but being right there to impose laws restricting personal choice. It guess it's about corporations and not individuals?

skahorse · 10-31-2003, 07:23 AM

FS,

Quote:

skahorse,so what are you saying? If it only affects a few people it's ok? Or my example was not correct?

Read my above statements. Or read them here:

"I have not met one person that has in anyway been affected by the PATRIOT Act. Again, by no means justifying it's existance , i just find it interesting."

I was just wondering what all of the outcry is about, its not affecting anyone that I know. And so far, one American citizen (which is inherently wrong, as a citizen you do have rights) has been affected.

Quote:

so your saying hundreds of non citizens have not been detained for long periods of time,denied access to a lawyer. And the government won't devulge any information on these individuals condition or whereabouts to family members?

I was under the impression that the bill of rights didn't cover non-citizens? I agree a 100% that we should be able to detain those who are here illegally without any equivocation. And not divulge there whereabouts.

So I assume you haven't had you're library records checked yet FS? Or been illegally detained? Or any of your friends? That's what I figured.

--Skahorse

Straydog · 10-31-2003, 07:32 AM

SKA,

No one directly known by me has been the victim of murder, however murder is still wrong.

foxer · 10-31-2003, 08:48 AM

Still waiting for an example that freespool is talking about or are you just regurgitating what the lefty media is crying about..

skahorse · 10-31-2003, 08:57 AM

Stray,
I think you are missing my point, and also not reading what I am saying...

Quote:

No one directly known by me has been the victim of murder, however murder is still wrong.

Nowhere did I say the PATRIOT Act is right. Or that it is necessary. In fact, in the past I have said that I disagree with the PATRIOT Act.

Now, with that said. My point is simply that for all of the outcry that the PATRIOT Act has recieved it hasn't changed our society. Regardless of the what the media tells us, and what the majority of leftys are claiming, we're not living in facism. This has recieved so much attention, and now is bulletin point as to why the republican party, and Bush himself, is so bad, when in reality there's nothing to it. Very few have been affected, and we don't know the reasoning behind those detained. We may have already averted an attack. Wasn't Padilla planning something with nuclear materials?

--Skahorse

Jimmy Carl Black · 10-31-2003, 09:37 AM

Ahhhh...this is where my libertyarian side shines.

Local pharmacy selling bowls of crack to kids?
Nobody wants that I'm sure. However, they are selling much more addictive drugs at present.

I think what most of the pro-legalization crowd wants is for our laws and values to make sense. What's the definition of a drug? an addiction?
How many people do you know that have tried different controlled and legal substances and which ones do you find them addicted to? You can argue that legalizing them will create more addicts but I find that this turns out to be a real chicken-egg argument. We have plenty of crack and heroin addicts right now.

These are just some random points of mine about drugs:

1) Crack is a ridiculous drug created through the prohibition of other less dangerous drugs.
2) People will always find new and creative ways to get high. i.e. for some people crack is not gross enough-they have to dip it in formaldehyde.
3) I can buy enough whip cream right now to keep my whole Halloween party high all night and kill more brain cells than a year of pot smoke.
4) It's no coincidence that alcohol, tobacco and caffeine are legal. They are our most sought after and widely preferred drugs.
5) We know alcohol is dangerous, that's why we prohibited it first (before marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.) but it didn't work so we decided it wisest to leave it up to the INDIVIDUAL to decide what they want to put in their own body.
6) Drugs are neither bad nor good, but they can be extremely dangerous (kind of like guns) and need to be handled as such.
7) Excluding all other substances, it makes no sense whatsoever to prohibit the recreational use of marijuana while allowing 80 proof liquor to be consumed on a regular basis.

Please don't take this post as being pro-pot, pro-drug, and all that. I really think it's about alot more than that. I think our confused policies are endangering the lives of our youth as they send mixed messages about what's right, what's healthy, and what's safe.

Straydog · 10-31-2003, 09:41 AM

JCB,

Very well said!! [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Further proof positive that those familiar with Prine and his work have a greater chance of having their stuff together! :smile:

Jimmy Carl Black · 10-31-2003, 09:47 AM

Straydog,

I didn't know that about Prine fans, but it makes sense. I've always had great times at his shows singing along with everyone and enjoying good simple folk music.

Straydog · 10-31-2003, 10:16 AM

JCB,

Yea, one of those broadbrushed generalizations I get so upset about. :blush:

On the other hand, my experience tells me it is pretty accurate.

Check out Todd Snyder when you get a chance. I was turned on to him when he opened for Prine at a show I attended down here.

He is actually from Portland so you might be familiar with him already. We will be back in Eugene and Portland in December.

He is a down home folksy guy like Prine with a lot of influence from Dillon, Springstein and Prine. Very enjoyable and offers similar insights as Prine.

lost_sailor · 10-31-2003, 12:20 PM

"...and you may see me tonight with an illegal smile..."

OK, now this thread is hopelessly derailed, so:
good points Jimmy Carl. I always say I've smoked weed and I've drunk cheap tequila, and I know darn well which one is more dangerous!

But ... we argued this for weeks one time.

====~~

skahorse · 10-31-2003, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Lost Sailor said:
I always say I've smoked weed

:shocked: Who would have thunk it?!?! :shocked: :grin: :tongue:

[ 10-31-2003, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: skahorse ]

lost_sailor · 10-31-2003, 12:47 PM

:shocked: :shocked:

Yeah ... graduated from college, always been employed, never killed anybody, gave it up without incident.

Now, COFFEE - another story!

freespool · 10-31-2003, 12:58 PM

Foxer,what ever radio personality you listened to that said no ones rights are being violated by the patriot act is wrong. Do I know anyone who is affected by the act? No and neither does anyone else,it's all done behind closed doors. No checks and balances,law enforcement freelancing if you will. Now if you dissagree please tell me why.

10-31-2003, 02:01 PM

Foxer,
Freespool might not know how to post links but I posted some links for him. I will repost two for you to look at.

Cato Institute

Jose Padilla

foxer · 10-31-2003, 03:14 PM

Thanks Keta..From reading both of those links, it doesnt sound to me that this has anything to do with the Patriot act. If it had, he would have either been charged or released after 7 days. From what i have read of the Patriot act, that, plus charging eco terrorists is the only thing different than "normal". What am i missing?

freespool · 10-31-2003, 03:24 PM

Thank you Keta,your correct I do not know how to post links.

Insert head into sand, augh much better. Foxer your right,don't worry be happy.

Free

10-31-2003, 03:40 PM

Freespool,
Can't be too nice :grin:

Just in case you really don't know how to post links look down to the right of the little Icon thingies, see the URL button. Paste the URL for the web page in the field that pops up.

lost_sailor · 10-31-2003, 03:44 PM

I'll be the last to know when MY life is affected by the Patriot Act - as the agents drag me from my home and family.

10-31-2003, 03:48 PM

LS,
Burn your Library Card

happybrew · 10-31-2003, 04:44 PM

LS: the cheap tequila counteracted the dangerous effects of the weed you smoked, thereby saving you from a downward spiral into degeneracy and hedonism. Were it not for the cheap tequila, weed would have been your downfall!

:grin:

happybrew

Silver Hilton · 10-31-2003, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by happybrew:
Were it not for the cheap tequila, weed would have been your downfall!

Or was it, perhaps, the other way 'round?

10-31-2003, 07:09 PM

SH,
On another thread you mentioned that you and some of your well off friends felt you didn't need a tax break.

I have a suggestion; The Klamath/Lake County Food Bank is trying to get stocked up. You could donate food to the hungry people that live in the county with the highest unemployment and hunger in our state. I think it's tax deductible too.

If this doesn't look good too you then how about the "Buy Keta a Boat Fund"? :grin: It's defiantly non-profit but not tax deductible :grin:

happybrew · 10-31-2003, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by happybrew:
Were it not for the cheap tequila, weed would have been your downfall!

Or was it, perhaps, the other way 'round? <hr /></blockquote>Perhaps we need to test this!

I'll do the

and you do the

, and we'll compare notes!

happybrew