I'm ashamed and embarrassed for America that any republican can make the next Presidential election close. It is a sad statement to the rest of the world. Just having a republican close in this election shows the world we haven't learned a thing after 8 years of Bush.

"Yeah! How dare Republicans even participate in our Republic's political affairs! Don't they know we are entitled to win elections?" -- Democrats

Member2586

I didn't say they couldn't participate--or shouldn't participate. I'm all for the KKK, Nazis, Commies, and Jihadists to put up candidates as well, and I would be just as embarrassed and ashamed for our country if the election were this close.

See the difference? Probably not after making such a moronic comment.

Six months out polls showed Hillary Clinton to be the clear winner in the primaries.

Gal Tuesday

Valid response, however there is a flaw. Six months out, the nation didn't know all the candidates and their stance on issues.

Now, the candidates and their stance on issues are known.

Just having a republican close in this election shows the world we haven't learned a thing after 8 years of Bush.

Actually, it show that atrociously ignorant fucks like yourself haven't learned a thing after 100+ years of murderous, Marxist-based public policy.

Collectivism, self-loathing, moral relativity, atheism, and self-flagellation are not American traits.

Quit making them the basis of your party's worldview, and perhaps dipshits like you will earn the ability to eke you miserable little lives out in something other than a state of perpetual outrage.

Bob, true, but the polls have been all over the place and not very accurate during many of the primaries. I don't trust them at the moment. For example, polling in MA shows McCain beating Obama, and I'm not convinced in November it will be that way if Obama gets the nomination. He'll have Kerry, Kennedy and Devall (sp?) all backing him. Seems unlikely to me the state would go for McCain.

"Actually, it show that atrociously ignorant fucks like yourself haven't learned a thing after 100+ years of murderous, Marxist-based public policy."
...
Posted by Pinche_Mao


lol. That's good shit, dude.
...


Well, actually, it was pretty fucking stupid.

Pinche Mao

I see you survived another flush by Murphy.

Congratulations--is that corn in your hair?

Your vote put America in the position it is in now--for uyou to call others ignorant is the height of stupidity.

You have no idea of America or American traits. When you die the world will be a much MUCH better place. Seriously.

IMHO

;-)

Gal Tuesday

Actually current polls show Obama beating McCain 51-39% in Mass.--according to the map in the link. You are correct in that things are sure to change between now and November, the polls simply show that Obama has a more difficult time in November.

Thats fucking over the line Buffalo Bob. God damn man what has happened to You?? Just because Pinche Mao votes for fucksticks doesn't mean You should die for it or that His Death would be beneficial for America. You need a "Vacation" deluxe. I am ashamed that You call Yourself a Liberal.

Larry Mohr

Well, actually, it was pretty fucking stupid.

No, Bill.

It's right on the fucking mark.

Your inability to contextualize and digest reality notwithstanding.

It's a matter of degree, but the unit of measurement is the same.

Obama beating McCain 51-39% in Mass.

Ah.

Massive Two-Shits.

Home of Ted Kennedy.

Now there's a barometer for the nation.

Thats fucking over the line Buffalo Bob. God damn man what has happened to You?? Just because Pinche Mao votes for fucksticks doesn't mean HE should die for it or that His Death would be beneficial for America. You need a "Vacation" deluxe. I am ashamed that You call Yourself a Liberal.

Larry Mohr

corrected typo

Larry Mohr

Thats fucking over the line Buffalo Bob. God damn man what has happened to You?? Just because Pinche Mao votes for fucksticks doesn't mean You should die for it or that His Death would be beneficial for America. You need a "Vacation" deluxe. I am ashamed that You call Yourself a Liberal.

Larry Mohr


Can you read at all dUMmy? I didn't say he should die for his beliefs. I said the world would be much MUCH better off after he dies. That's my opinion. Trying to quash Free Speech Moron?

Larry get with the times. Bob is the new type of liberal. Take no prisoners is the new mantra.

Actually current polls show Obama beating McCain 51-39% in Mass.--according to the map in the link. You are correct in that things are sure to change between now and November, the polls simply show that Obama has a more difficult time in November.

Okay, Bob, thanks. My mistake. I thought I heard some commentator make that claim recently. Maybe I misheard or he misspoke. Either way, I thought it was baloney.

51 Clinton, 49 Obama. Just gets tighter.

Larry get with the times. Bob is the new type of liberal. Take no prisoners is the new mantra.

Posted by messiah at 2008-05-06 11:42 PM


I show no compassion for conservatives--conservatives show no compassion for liberals. Seems fair to me.

Two countries solves the problem.

I'm tired of conservatives attacking liberals on every level and liberals taking it up the ass like they like it. Pudding Pops like Larry can suck Bushs dick like Jeff Gannon, and take turns with Pinche Mao. Not me.

Two countries solves the problem.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

The conservatives would end up having jeebus and incest. They aren't capable of more intelligence than that.

Pudding Pops like Larry can suck Bushs dick like Jeff Gannon, and take turns with Pinche Mao. Not me.

Well aren't you a stoic and brave soul.

That doesn't change the fact that you have a deeply flawed understanding of the human condition and its relationship to public policy.

You're a fucking clown, actually.

Good thing the American government bestowed that right upon you.

CBS=Called Before Stats

CBS=Credibility Begone, Suckers

CBS=Crazy Bat S**t

I feel bad for Bob Schieffer and the folks at 60 Minutes.

The conservatives would end up having jeebus and incest. They aren't capable of more intelligence than that.

Posted by messiah at 2008-05-06 11:50 PM |


Nixon--Reagan--Bush the 1st--Bush the 2nd proves your point. I would have gladly let them have those Presidents of their country if we could have had McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry during the same years.

Conservatives want nothing to do with liberals and attack at every opportunity. Every fucking da of Clintons presidency the conservative press attacked and the liberals just sucked it up. Enough of that shit. Two countries is the only solution. Left as is, America is finished. We are tearing ourselves apart.

Pinche Mao

"Well aren't you a stoic and brave soul.

That doesn't change the fact that you have a deeply flawed understanding of the human condition and its relationship to public policy.

You're a fucking clown, actually.

Good thing the American government bestowed that right upon you."

Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-05-06 11:55 PM


STFU--you voted for Bush. You should apologize to people on the street and never vote again. Your words are meaningless, and your opinion means nothing. You should be embarassed to open your mouth, and should SERIOUSLY think about having your children sterilized.

You are bad for America--don't you get it?

Fookin MaRoons vote for Bush and think they have any credibility left. They think people are actually interested in what ever they have to say about anything.

GET A CLUE

YOU VOTED FOR BUSH--YOU ARE STUPID--YOU HAVE NO FOOKIN BRAINS--STFU

Chuck Todd just said there could be as many as 150,000 uncounted absentee ballots in IN that won't be counted until tomorrow. Hey, maybe CBS won't be wrong afterall.

Enough of that shit. Two countries is the only solution. Left as is, America is finished. We are tearing ourselves apart.

How about free library cards for goofy fuckers like you and America go on about its merry way?

America has done quite well, depsite people like you having been given the opportunity to participate in her civic processes.

Your stupidity is not my country's problem.

Go find another definition for "Democrat" and get back with us.

Thanks!

NC poll was done 4/10. That's the stupid thing about www.electoral-vote.com and needs to be noted. Some of those polls are way old.

Georgia was March 20.

Any bets on if Hillary's campaign will go to court for a recount in IN if she loses? Will Obama do the same if he loses by a slim margin? Oy vey.

Is BB on his broken record again?

Don't you have anything to contribute except your diatribe, inane, blather about nothing?

Get a new line--your presence is really old.

Murphy

Pinche Mao

STFU--you voted for Bush. You should apologize to people on the street and never vote again. Your words are meaningless, and your opinion means nothing. You should be embarassed to open your mouth, and should SERIOUSLY think about having your children sterilized.

You are bad for America--don't you get it?

Fookin MaRoons vote for Bush and think they have any credibility left. They think people are actually interested in what ever they have to say about anything.

GET A CLUE

YOU VOTED FOR BUSH--YOU ARE STUPID--YOU HAVE NO FOOKIN BRAINS--STFU

Did anyone see the national map by Rove? He has HIllary almost beating McCain--and Obama losing to McCain--

He must be in cahoots with Rush and Operation Chaos!

Murphy

Apparently, Bob thinks he has a hook.

Pinche Mao

Apparently you think anyone gives a shit what you think. Did you see this yet? Did you get any kind of hint? Read close--read slow--focus.

STFU--you voted for Bush. You should apologize to people on the street and never vote again. Your words are meaningless, and your opinion means nothing. You should be embarassed to open your mouth, and should SERIOUSLY think about having your children sterilized.

You are bad for America--don't you get it?

Fookin MaRoons vote for Bush and think they have any credibility left. They think people are actually interested in what ever they have to say about anything.

GET A CLUE

YOU VOTED FOR BUSH--YOU ARE STUPID--YOU HAVE NO FOOKIN BRAINS--STFU

Hey B-Bob, I agree with you somewhat. Democrats HAVE TO WIN in November or else.

If the democrats do not win, that just goes to show that the vast majority of Americans are far more conservative than you think.

Even though Bush Sucks beyond belief, the vast % of americans believe democrats suck even worse.

Can you believe americans think democrats suck worse than Bush?

if democrats dont win, thats why. Well, and the fact that congress is lowest approval rating in history, and its democrat controlled.

Democrats is a shitty party. They are fucking terrible.

If they cant win, I would suggest starting a whole new party to do what you guys want, because they suck badly.

Bush sucks, democrats suck even worse. How can that be?

Kuma

Thats fucking over the line Buffalo Bob. God damn man what has happened to You?? Just because Pinche Mao votes for fucksticks doesn't mean You should die for it or that His Death would be beneficial for America. You need a "Vacation" deluxe. I am ashamed that You call Yourself a Liberal.


This is nothing new Larry.

A year ago, Boob said that I should have my right to vote revoked and be stoned to death for not buying into Al Gore's version of global climate change.

Bob represents the worst of liberals. The "If you're not with us, you're against us" crowd, if you will.

Axiom

You are a liar. I never said anything like that.

However you are correct that I think there should be two countries. One for dipshits who think Bush/McCain are good Presidents and another for the rest of us. I think the people who put Bush in office have no idea of what America is all about.

America isn't about accepting everyone--America is about Freedom. People who are against Freedom are not Americans. People who voted for Bush fall into that category.

If America becomes a country where freedom is just another word, a country like Russia for instance, that uses the word loosely, America will be dead. We'll just have the name left. That is what Bush brought to the table. The splitting apart of America. If you aren't with us you are against us. Well--I'm not with "us". I don't think killing people who are no danger to America is the American way. If you do, you should be a citizen of another country, because you sure aren't an American.

Conservatives hate liberals and attack at every turn--when a liberal like myself does the same to them, people like you, Axiom, twist my words and outright lie. I guess you didn't see my response to Larry---or like most conservative, choose to ignore the truth. That's because you are an asshole in case you were curious.

Let's take a look at the exchange asshole, and see what it really looked like.

Larry Mohr:
"Thats fucking over the line Buffalo Bob. God damn man what has happened to You?? Just because Pinche Mao votes for fucksticks doesn't mean You should die for it or that His Death would be beneficial for America. You need a "Vacation" deluxe. I am ashamed that You call Yourself a Liberal."

Buffalo_Bob:
Can you read at all dUMmy? I didn't say he should die for his beliefs. I said the world would be much MUCH better off after he dies. That's my opinion. Trying to quash Free Speech Moron?

Proving you to be a lying punk is enough for now.

;-)

Democrats don't deserve to win the election.
Neither do Republicans.

Deserve is the wrong term.

Expect may be, but not deserve.

If you pull one lever in November, then I hope you really believe that every candidate in that party should be elected.

For myself, this country needs more than two parties. We flip coins and choose the lesser of evils. It is the same evil either way.

Neither party is fiscally responsible. Neither party has really done anything to change the status quo. Take a good look at the past 50 years.

These two parties have not cut spending, abuse the welfare clause, the National Debt is outpacing any attempt to pay it down, we continue to borrow, we don't understand the difference between isolationist and non-intervention, we still hold to the UN charter which is a worthless piece of paper compared to our Constitution and the UN members are extremely guilty of more crimes than those they point out, etc.

Deserve? No.
Expect? Yes.
Do we deserve better? Yes.
Do we expect better? No.

Bob represents the worst of liberals. The "If you're not with us, you're against us" crowd, if you will.
Posted by Axiom

Sounds like they've (liberals) learned from the (conservative) Bush/Cheney/Neocon "Israel-first" crowd.

Then again, it only goes to show, there honestly is no two-party system, merely the illusion of one in order to keep the masses passified.

Bread and circuses for all!

Bobotto

Using the same tactics does not mean the goals are the same. The Allies and Axis powers both used the same tactics.

Just having a republican close in this election shows the world we haven't learned a thing after 8 years of Bush.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-05-06 10:57 PM

Did you ever think that after 8 disasterous years of the Bush BS that we have a Republican anywhere near close in this election because the Democrats picked two loser candidates to run!

Out of the millions who could have run the Democrats pick a limosine liberal who spent 20 years with a radicial preacher as his spiritual mentor who babbles "God HATES America" from the pulpit not to mention this limo lib gets caught putting down half of America's blue collor workers who just happen to like their guns and God OR we get to pick a former first lady that most Republicans and even a portion of the Dems consider a snake oil saleswoman.

I blame the Democrats for not giving us better choices than the two they did leaving us with the very real chance we'll have 8 more years of McBush.

However you are correct that I think there should be two countries.

Why is it the only people on the DR who want to split this great country in two or give part of it away are liberal?

Califchris

I thought "the people" chose the nominees.

Goatman

Why do you want liberals in your country? What do they offer that you want in your country?

Why do you want liberals in your country? What do they offer that you want in your country?

Because my country is all inclusive. It does not discriminate against its citizens. Also a healthy society consists of both liberals and conservatives. If the country was all one or the other it would not work.

quid pro quo: Why is it that the people on the DR who want to divide this great country of ours or give part of it away are liberals?

I thought "the people" chose the nominees.

You should familiarize yourself with your party of choice, bOoB. They let "the people's" vote count for 80% and an elite group count for 20%. I think they should call themselves the Elitist party.

11 Ties. Obama with one more electoral vote than McLame.

The coroporate media and their elitist masters get their 49/51% solution yet again!

Quelle suprise./snark>

Fer now.

As Gal sez six months is a long way off and anything could happen yet.

Most Americans think they know McCain but they don't.

They will though if Spud has anything to do with it.

(heh heh) ^_^

Be Well.

Goatman

"Because my country is all inclusive."

That isn't America.

"It does not discriminate against its citizens."

That isn't America

"Also a healthy society consists of both liberals and conservatives."

Not according to every rightist radio talk show host I've ever heard--they all want liberals out of their country.

"If the country was all one or the other it would not work."

Sure it would.



quid pro quo: Why is it that the people on the DR who want to divide this great country of ours or give part of it away are liberals?

I don't know about anyone else--I just don't want conservatives in my country. I think they are shit human beings, and they fuck everything up.

My country isn't all inclusive. No commies--no fascists, no KKK, no Nazis, No religion, no skinheads, republicans, no conservatives, no drug dealers, no mafia, no corrupt politicians.

My country has its focus on education, and getting off this planet. If you aren't with us in our goals, you can go to your all-inclusive country.
You dream about your country--I'll dream about mine.

BuffaloBob

Califchris

I thought "the people" chose the nominees.

Sorry, BBob, that's the way it's suppose to be but the Democrat Party (and Republican Party) "elite" and their media cohorts "choose" the nominees -- not the people.

Prime example - John Edwards. He could have beat McCain hands down, was the best and most honest candidate yet he intentionally was pushed to the side during the debates, given very little press, and little chance for the public to get to know him. He had already lost but I voted for hyim in the California primary just to make my point to show I was so angry he was already out of the running.

The Dem elite and the media wanted their Obama "walks on water" Barack to be the "chosen one" and that was that. Hillary only has gotten as far along in the media fighting against the media's "Golden Boy" Obama as she has because she's a tough as nails fighter and has an awesome political machine behind her -- not to mention years of "in the trenches" experience running for office.

I know you all swoon for Obama but he has NOT been vetted yet to shove him into frontrunner place. You KNOW the Republicans have more up their sleeves to throw out about Obama (Hannity admitted as much) close to the November election and then our country will end up with McCain -- another four years of Bush - Part 3. If that happens because the Democrats threw a still unvetted Obama into the ring I will personally smack each of you DR Obama Democrats myself.

I do not want John McBush for President. (God knows, too, who he would pick as his VP - probably Jeb Bush!). The scenario goes from bad to worse.

Admit what I am saying is true -- unless you can't because too are one of the Obama cultists?

I don't know about anyone else--I just don't want conservatives in my country.

Oh I see. You want to live in a country where everything is cookie cutter exactly like you. What a coward! It is diversity that made this country great and diversity that keeps it great in spite of shitty little cowards like you who want to kick out anyone who is not like you.

Glad you're not in charge!

BTW, when I meant all inclusive, I meant all inclusive within the confines of the law you idiot! What a shock you could not figure that one out.

You dream about your country--I'll dream about mine.

There I definitely have the advantage over you. I live in my dream country already. Yours will only ever remain a dream and never reality. But then again, you've proven manyfold that reality is not a place you choose to be. *grin*

HAHAHA!

I don't know about anyone else--I just don't want conservatives in my country. I think they are shit human beings, and they fuck everything up.

- BuffaloBob

I'm way more conservative (registered independent) than a staunch liberal and I don't feel I have done anything to fuck up my country (other than my vote for Bush in 2000 - mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

I'm nice to you.
You wouldn't want me in "your" America, BBob?
Or would you just allow me to come there only for a short visit -- maybe 2 weeks or so? (grin)

You don't think that the repubs have literally libraries full of crap to through at Clinton? There could be a different smear every single day until the general election.

bOoB -- you never did answer my question:

Why is it that the people on the DR who want to divide this great country of ours or give part of it away are liberals?

If you don't want to answer it, just say so. You told me you don't want conservatives 'cause they're shitty people, etc., but you never answered the question: Why is it only liberals on the DR that want to divide this great country? I've never seen a conservative or moderate here make that suggestion or say they would desire it.

As I said, if you don't want to answer it, at least have the balls to say so.

Califchris

The decision is your. The parameters are laid down. We are a bunch of liberals. If you don't want to be around a bunch of liberals don't be a citizen.

Our main goal is to get off the planet. All citizens get all the education they can handle in order to meet that goal.

We have no drug problem or prisons. All citizens get free medical care, and there is a graduated tax system.

Also a healthy society consists of both liberals and conservatives."

Not according to every rightist radio talk show host I've ever heard

Since when did you start believing them?

Goatman

"bOoB -- you never did answer my question:

Why is it that the people on the DR who want to divide this great country of ours or give part of it away are liberals?"

I answered your question, as usual you weren't bright enough to understand the words you were reasing. try your PAGE UP to find it. Just kidding, I'll cut and paste it.


"quid pro quo: Why is it that the people on the DR who want to divide this great country of ours or give part of it away are liberals?

I don't know about anyone else--I just don't want conservatives in my country. I think they are shit human beings, and they fuck everything up."

That means I can't answer your question about anyone elses point of view. That is the answer.

Should I spam it? Would that help? What makes you think I speak for other liberals? Do you speak for all conservatives?

;-)

Our main goal is to get off the planet. All citizens get all the education they can handle in order to meet that goal.

We have no drug problem or prisons. All citizens get free medical care, and there is a graduated tax system

Oh, and don't forget streets covered with rose petals and perpetually perfect weather.

It's exactly as you said, bOoB: "You dream about your country". The rest of us will keep our feet on the ground wrapping ourselves around this little concept we call "reality". *grin*

Do you speak for all conservatives?

Not being one, I'd make a shitty spokesman for them.

I think they are shit human beings, and they fuck everything up."

Yeah, Lincoln -- that bastard. If not for him, you'd have the two countries you dream of.

BuffaloBob

We are a bunch of liberals. If you don't want to be around a bunch of liberals don't be a citizen.

Our main goal is to get off the planet.

Well, Stargazer, I've got your spaceship in countdown mode -- 10, 9, 8, 7,... -- so get ready to leave for travel to your new "Planet Liberal."

I'll keep my U.S. citizenship right here on planet Earth, thank you. Wave goodbye and smile down at me as your spaceship blasts off.

Should I spam it? Would that help?

Are you really such an uninformed idiot that you think spamming helps?

wow. You're far worse off in the head than I thought.

Clue, bOoB: If someone did not understand the gist of your post the first time, copying it verbatim does not help. Not a bit. If you didn't get the point across the first time and you still want to get the point across, you have to say it in a different way. Repeating it verbatim will leave the reader with the exact same impression you sent the first time.

Hope this helps. It is really a simple concept to grasp.

All citizens get all the education they can handle in order to meet that goal.

We have no drug problem or prisons. All citizens get free medical care, and there is a graduated tax system.


Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-05-08 05:32 PM

I didn't know an actual utopia existed as a place to which I could actually
travel -- outside of my dreams, that is.

I'll keep my U.S. citizenship right here on planet Earth, thank you. Wave goodbye and smile down at me as your spaceship blasts off.

And don't get too close to the moon. Those smokestacks might be higher than you think and I did not see any red flashing aviator warning lights such as the FCC requires here on earth.

Califchris

I agree with your 5:17 post, and I think Kucinich was the best for the job and Edwards next.

But it comes down to my point of the people not havinbg much to do with running the government. We don't choose our President except in the very minor factor of voting for whoever they put in front of us.

They also decide who is going to be our senators and congressmen, our mayors and councilmen, judges and police.

"I'll keep my U.S. citizenship right here on planet Earth, thank you. Wave goodbye and smile down at me as your spaceship blasts off.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-05-08 05:47 PM"

That's fine for now, but in the long run that won't cut it. Especially if people keep defining "progress" as "growth." If, in order for your community to progress, it must grow, then we are doomed in the long run.

I didn't know an actual utopia existed as a place to which I could actually
travel -- outside of my dreams, that is.


Posted by CalifChris at 2008-05-08 05:50 PM

Check behind the gated communities of the rich.

"I didn't know an actual utopia existed as a place to which I could actually
travel -- outside of my dreams, that is."

Check behind the gated communities of the rich.

The rich have no drug problems? They get free medical care? All their citizens are getting an education to reach the goal of leaving the earth?

Interesting stuff, bOoB, interesting stuff.

Goatman

Do you think you would have your job if you were a fat muslim woman who had to wear a veil and burka to work and pray to Mecca five times a day?

You live in a dream world if you think "Because my country is all inclusive. It does not discriminate against its citizens."

America is not all inclusive, and America does discriminate against its citizens.

Do you think you would have your job if you were a fat muslim woman who had to wear a veil and burka to work and pray to Mecca five times a day?

No, I would not. You have to wear coveralls on my oil rig and there are weight requirements. I don't think the praying thing would be an issue, though.

America is not all inclusive, and America does discriminate against its citizens.

Indeed, bOoB. But there are laws against it. I did not realize your dream world of all liberals never broke any laws at all.

Your little dream country is becoming more and more impossible to achieve, bOoB. People have broken laws for thousands of years and they always will.

How will your dream world achieve this goal? brain implants? Chips that are controlled by a central force? Honestly, how are you going to keep people from breaking laws, especially if your little dream world has not prisons?

If you think otherwise, you are an idiot.

Dream on, dude.

My country isn't all inclusive. No commies--no fascists, no KKK, no Nazis, No religion, no skinheads, republicans, no conservatives, no drug dealers, no mafia, no corrupt politicians.

Another question, bOoB: When you divide the USA up in your little dream scheme, what will you do with the fascists, KKK, Nazis, skinheads, drug dealers, mafia, and corrupt politicians if the Conservative country doesn't want them?

Also, no religion? So the religious liberals will not be allowed in either, huh? Do they have to believe in smokestacks on the moon to get into this little utopian paradise of yours?

Another question, bOoB: When you divide the USA up in your little dream scheme, what will you do with the fascists, KKK, Nazis, skinheads, drug dealers, mafia, and corrupt politicians if the Conservative country doesn't want them?

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-08 06:21 PM


I thought your country was all inclusive--maybe even a few liberals.

;-)

Also, no religion? So the religious liberals will not be allowed in either, huh? Do they have to believe in smokestacks on the moon to get into this little utopian paradise of yours?

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-08 06:24 PM


There would be no religion because the people know all the gods preached on the planet are false. The few who really did believe in sky fairies would be too small as to make any concerted effort at organization. My country is based on logic, not religion. The goal is to get off the planet, and religion is a waste of resources that could be put to better use. Religion wouldn't be banned--it would be discarded. Liberals believe in freedom, and the only people excluded are people who don't share that value--as mentioned--No commies--no fascists, no KKK, no Nazis, No religion, no skinheads, republicans, no conservatives, no drug dealers, no mafia, no corrupt politicians. Religious people exclude others and don't believe in freedom---so they get excluded from my country.

"Indeed, bOoB. But there are laws against it. I did not realize your dream world of all liberals never broke any laws at all."

I didn't say that the liberals wouldn't break any laws. How about a cut and paste where I said liberals won't break any laws?

"Your little dream country is becoming more and more impossible to achieve, bOoB. People have broken laws for thousands of years and they always will."

Nice little strawman--it is built out of your inability to understand the words you read. Pay attention--read close--focus. I didn't say there wouldn't be laws broken--I said there would be no prisons.


"How will your dream world achieve this goal? brain implants? Chips that are controlled by a central force? Honestly, how are you going to keep people from breaking laws, especially if your little dream world has not prisons?"

Where did I say I was going to keep people from breaking laws? You keep jumping to conclusions and they are always wrong. That should be a clue to you about your faulty thinking. Poor logic.

I didn't say people would be kept from breaking laws--I said there would be no prisons.


"If you think otherwise, you are an idiot."

I would say that not understanding what you read qualifies you in that category.



"Dream on, dude."

Thanks, I intend to. This country is till free enough for that--barely.

Posted by dUMmY at 2008-05-08 06:10 PM |

I thought your country was all inclusive--maybe even a few liberals.


Yes there are a lot of liberals in my country, including you. Who said there wasn't? Certainly not I as you imply.

oops -- I forgot your aversion to reality. My bad

My country is based on logic, not religion.

What an irony. You will not be able to be a citizen of your own country.

--No commies--no fascists, no KKK, no Nazis, No religion, no skinheads, republicans, no conservatives, no drug dealers, no mafia, no corrupt politicians. Religious people exclude others and don't believe in freedom---so they get excluded from my country.

What will happen to them when you split the country up? WIll there be a third country for these people?

I didn't say people would be kept from breaking laws--I said there would be no prisons.


I see. I didn't realize that in this little utopian paradise that murderers and other lawbreakers would be allowed to roam the streets. Glad I don't live in your version of utopia.

....and the only people excluded are people who don't share that [liberal] value..., no drug dealers, no mafia, no corrupt politicians

Your little utopia becomes more and more convoluted and more and more contradictory.

The only people excluded are those who don't share liberal values you say. Yet you say there would be no drug dealers, no religion, no corrupt politiscians. There are indeed liberal drug dealers, liberal religious people, and liberal corrupt politicians.

How do you reconcile this discrepancy. Or do you plead insanity?

I would say that not understanding what you read qualifies you in that category.

Yeah, well you would also say there are blue ghost angels hanging around Cincinatti gas stations. So I guess we know the worth of what you would say.

I see. I didn't realize that in this little utopian paradise that murderers and other lawbreakers would be allowed to roam the streets. Glad I don't live in your version of utopia.

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-08 07:41 PM


Ho-hum--again you jump to the wrong conclusion, again demonstrating your inability to comprehend the words you read. I didn't say they would be roaming the streets. I said there would be no prisons.

I also said there would be no drug problem.

;-)

So do you want to let us in on your little secret of what happens to the criminals, or would you rather I keep guessing so that you can call me your idiot names and innuendos when I don't guess correctly?

I also said there would be no drug problem.

How do you prevent the drug problem?

Ahhh, bOoB, your little ruse has fallen apart. You set up this utopian society yet won't provide the details on how to make it work. When people guess you get your child-like thrills in calling them names or use your trite, overused innuendos. But when asked specifics, you are strangely silent because you know any answer would be torn to shreds.

Though childlike, calling people names seems to be the only joy you get out of life. So if you would like me to keep guessing what you do with the criminals and how you ensure there is not a drug problem in liberalland so that you can call me duMmY and say things to me like, "again you jump to the wrong conclusion, again demonstrating your inability to comprehend the words you read, I'll be glad to oblige because I firmly believe in helping the mentally disadvantaged like you. Life is so pathetic for your kind you need all the thrills -- no matter how childlike they are -- that you can get.

Shall I keep guessing?

Do me a favor, though. Rein in the use of the word "again". You grossly overuse it.

Goatman

You should have asked first. Keeping a person in prison costs about 50 thousand a year.

As stated, all citizens that want an education can get all they want for free. That doesn't mean that all citizens will go to college.

Problems with the current prison system aside from the 50k a year cost is that the prisoners that are released back on society often resume their life of crime because they have no choice--no skills and a prison record make good jobs and rehabilitation hard to find.

It seems a better way would be to have the criminals returned to society as productive members, or not at all.

If a person is found guilty of a crime, the judge and jury decide whether society could ever accept him back in society again. If it is decided that he will never fit into society--like Manson, or Bundy---they are given lethal injection.

If it is decided they are to someday be released back into society, they get a leg bracelet that alerts authorities when they leave the premises. They stay where they currently live. They get free food--free cable--free education. Only they can't ever leave until they get an education. Depending on the crime--how much education they have to get before they get out.

Say you rob a gas station--you have to get a bachelors degree before you get out of the house on your own again. If they run off--the decision has to be made on whether to allow them back into society or not.

If they complete the sentence, their record is erased and when they find a job, they start with a clean slate. Only the government would have access to their records if they are arrested again.

If arrested again and found guilty, again the decision on whether to eventually accept them back into society is made, and if the decision is yes, now they have to get a masters, or even a PHD before they get out again.

That's enough for now, I'm sure you have questions, and as long as they are sincere, I'll answer them.

Lethal injection for unreformable petty thieves seems like a very unliberal trait, but will admittedly work.

How do you solve the drug problem?

I also said there would be no drug problem.

How do you prevent the drug problem?

Posted by goatman at 2008-05-08 08:07 PM


The drug problem has a relatively simple solution. It can be reduced to a one generation problem if you look at it from a different prospective.

The reason why a person stands outside of schools in the rain to sell drugs is money. The reason drugs are sold is money. The reason friends get their friends to try drugs is money. Drugs are spread and will continue to spread forever because of money. There doesn't seem to be a way around it.

We have tried punishment for 50 years, spent billions on punishment, and we still have the problem. If it hasn't worked for the last 50 years, chances are it won't work for the next 50 years or 500 or 5000. The drug problem will be passed from one generation to the next until the end of time until something different is tried.

Legalization isn't the answer. It just perpetuates the problem with government. The only way to end the drug problem is to remove the motivation for its spread. You have to get the money out of drugs. All the money. How do you do that? Simple. Give drugs away--no--not to anyone who wants them.

If you can prove you are on drugs, you get whatever drugs you are on free. You get whatever your current usage is, and if it increases, you get more. You can take the drugs with you and use them at home. However, if you give your drugs to anyone else, or try to sell them, you go to prison, (Or get the ankle bracelet) and no more drugs. If the person you gave or sold the drugs to became addicted, they get their drugs free also.

Those on drugs can opt to get treatment and counseling free at any time, but it is optional.

That's enough for now, and again I'd be glad to get into details if your questions are sincere.

prospective=persepctive

BuffaloBob

I also said there would be no drug problem.

Do you consider just a recreational joint or popping a couple of uppers on rare occasion to get one through the day to be a "drug problem"? Guess that leaves me out as a future citizen of your Planet Liberal. Or would you solve it by your stated plan tjat would have me thrown into jail until I had earned the "Prisoner's PHD" you spoke of? And what major would you suggest? Pharmaceuticals?

BuffaloBob

I was writing my 9:46 p.m. post when I just now saw your post at 9:45 p.m.

You answered my question with your response --

If you can prove you are on drugs, you get whatever drugs you are on free. You get whatever your current usage is, and if it increases, you get more. You can take the drugs with you and use them at home...,

Is there room for one more on your spaceship to Planet Liberal? (grin)

whatever

BbOB

Curious -- is there an age limit for your drug plan or would you let very young children have access to drugs - under age 18. That would be totally wrong. You never addressed how you would handle young teenage kids messing around with drugs. Well? How liberal are you?????

BBOB

I agree with you that's it's wrong to imprison those whose only crime has been to have been taking drugs (not selling them, but taking them only for their own use) and who also have not committed any crime nor have hurt others by their own drug usage. Incarceration would not help them and since in prison access to drugs is quite easy it might just make them more of a drug addict.

Take away the profit in the sale of drugs thru legalization and controlling the usage and you take away the incentive to sell drugs and hence solve a lot of major crime issues.

whatever

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I'll take that as a "yes" -- I'm honored. : )

If you can prove you are on drugs, you get whatever drugs you are on free. You get whatever your current usage is, and if it increases, you get more. You can take the drugs with you and use them at home...,

OK. That takes care of the drug enforcement problem. But I asked what you would do in liberalland to take care of the drug problem. Or do you not see drug usage as a problem in society?

But I asked what you would do in liberalland to take care of the drug problem. Or do you not see drug usage as a problem in society?

How did Singapore fix their drug problem?

How did Singapore fix their drug problem?

They behead their pot smokers.
Well, I guess that's one way of getting them not to inhale pot anymore.

whatever

Posted by Buffalo_Bob



I'll take that as a "yes" -- I'm honored. : )


Posted by CalifChris at 2008-05-08 09:58 PM | Reply


Actually my "whatever" referred to my attempt to spell "perspective". But you would make a good citizen.

Do you consider just a recreational joint or popping a couple of uppers on rare occasion to get one through the day to be a "drug problem"? Guess that leaves me out as a future citizen of your Planet Liberal. Or would you solve it by your stated plan tjat would have me thrown into jail until I had earned the "Prisoner's PHD" you spoke of? And what major would you suggest? Pharmaceuticals?


Posted by CalifChris at 2008-05-08 09:46 PM | Reply


If you can show that you are addicted to the drug, you get them free.

Selling drugs or giving your drugs to someone else is what would get you in trouble. If drugs weren't in your system, you couldn't get free drugs. If you got drugs from someplace else, whoever sold or gave them to you would be in trouble if caught--but you would get your drugs free if you were addicted.

BBob


If you got drugs from someplace else, whoever sold or gave them to you would be in trouble if caught -- but you would get your drugs free if you were addicted.

As I asked:

Do you consider just a recreational joint or popping a couple of uppers on rare occasion to get one through the day to be a "drug problem"?

Curious -- is there an age limit for your drug plan or would you let very young children have access to drugs - under age 18. That would be totally wrong. You never addressed how you would handle young teenage kids messing around with drugs. Well? How liberal are you?????

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-05-08 09:51 PM | Reply


If they are addicted, they get their drugs for free. If they don't have drugs in their system, they would not have access to any drugs. They get counseling if they want it.

It is a war on drugs--and in any war there are casualties--losses--deaths. Regrettable, but inescapeable. Limiting the losses to one generation is better than dooming all future generations to the same problems. There will be addicts in the future also--doctors hooked on their drugs--patients that get hooked on pain medication. The same rules would apply. But it would keep the guy from standing in the rain to sel drugs after school.

Califchris
"I agree with you that's it's wrong to imprison those whose only crime has been to have been taking drugs (not selling them, but taking them only for their own use) and who also have not committed any crime nor have hurt others by their own drug usage. Incarceration would not help them and since in prison access to drugs is quite easy it might just make them more of a drug addict."

I would say that if they only sold drugs or used drugs and hurt no one, that they should be released. After all--they won't be selling drugs in the future.


"Take away the profit in the sale of drugs thru legalization and controlling the usage and you take away the incentive to sell drugs and hence solve a lot of major crime issues."

You can't legalize the sale of drugs or allow drugs to be legal if you want to get rid of the problem. I'm talking about the addictive drugs except alcohol, even though this same program would work for alcohol. It would still be illegal to sell or give drugs away, and carry stiff penalties since there is a lot more prison space or ankle braclets available.
But without a cash return incentive, few would try to sell or give away their drugs if they were addicted.

As I asked:



Do you consider just a recreational joint or popping a couple of uppers on rare occasion to get one through the day to be a "drug problem"?

I don't consider that an addiction by any stretch.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-05-08 10:44 PM | Reply


If you are buying the drugs illegally and regularly, they would show up in your system, and you could get them free. Some things stay in your system for thirty days and more. As a user you would never face punishment. The point isn't to punish people, the point is to stop the problem.

The only people who would be punished would be those who tried to sell or give their drugs away, and with no chance of making money from selling drugs no one would be trying to sell them. Even then, in the beginning, there wouldn't be any arrests for sellers until the program was well in place. There would be no public record of the drug users, and most of the business could be taken care of over the phone.

BBob

if you are buying the drugs illegally and regularly, they would show up in your system, and you could get them free. Some things stay in your system for thirty days and more.

The key word here is "occasional." It would certainly have to be a rather strong drug to stay in one's system for 30 days wouldn't it? I doubt a couple of uppers and/or one joint would qualify as drugs lasting in your system until 30 days later.

BBob

The point isn't to punish people, the point is to stop the problem.

We're talking apples and oranges.
I don't consider only very occasional use as a "drug problem" and being the same as some guy shooting up heroin every day or smoking crack all the time being the same as what I mentioned -- sharing a joint and maybe taking a couple uppers once in awhile. Crack and heroin and meth -- those are what I consider hard core drugs.

Califchris

Marijuana would be legal and taxed. It isn't addictive, and doesn't hurt anybody. What you are talking about as far as the uppers goes, take one and go in and get them for free. If you take them once a month or so, then you can get them when you want them. No money can be involved in illegal drugs.

If the goal is to get rid of drug use, and the drugs you are talking about would be considered a potential part of the problem--then they would be on the list that gets given away to users. If it is once every two years, you get what you need. But there will be a cut off on those things--a person born two years from now couldn't use your reason 20 years from now.

I don't consider your description to be addictive, but it is drug use. The goal is to eliminate all illegal drug use in the future. If it were cut down to people like you and me I would consider it a success. Elvis started with peanut butter and banana sandwiches and look what happened to him.