The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[nsplayr]

4 minutes ago, brawnie said:

...long gone are the days where republicans were the "deficit hawks"

No worries mate, the GOP deficit hawks will be spreading their wings once again on exactly January 20th, 2021.

*And I am not a deficit hawk regardless of the party in charge, just making a prediction that if we go Red to Blue at 1600 Penn they’ll be many who do change their tune right away

[SurelySerious]

20 minutes ago, brawnie said:

So go ahead, convince me as to your issues and why the republican party will deliver better results.

Sounds suuuuuuper receptive to other ideas. 

[brabus]

29 minutes ago, brawnie said:

o go ahead, convince me as to your issues and why the republican party will deliver better results.

I wish we we would shitcan almost all of both parties and take a libertarian approach. But, there is so much batshit crazy, anti-American bullshit from the left that I have to vote the other way just to stop them from tearing this country down and turning into a socialist wasteland. Unfortunately the people I consider “true Dems” (I don’t mean that term negatively) have had their party overrun by the far left. Honestly they should just break it up and all these far left people should become part of a different party. Bernie is an idiot, but I do respect the man for being honest about his stance on things and outwardly acknowledging he’s a socialist. Until the Dems can either dissolve into two parties, or shut down the radicals, there will be lots of Americans who aren’t huge Trump fans, but they’ll still vote for him/his party (or abstain from voting) because the other option is just ludicrously out to lunch. It’s a sad state of “lesser of two evils.”

[dream big]

51 minutes ago, brawnie said:

Since this is an anonymous forum where people share anonymous thoughts, I'd like to hear why you all are planning on voting red this year? Specifically, what policies are actually making you interested in the republican platform? Because I can't find many convincing ones? I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and McCain in 2008, but since ~2009, I feel republican views have shifted out of line with my own.

Important issues for me where I think dems have a better plan than reps:

1) Infrastructure development/maintenance - a large pointed investment in the Army Corps of Engineers plus an actual plan for future technologies (battery tech at the DoE, renewable energy) seems like a better plan than just saying "We'll put $1T towards infrastructure" and not having a detailed vision

2) Finding a way to deal with the inevitable dystopia as machines displace workers who can't easily retrain (truck drivers, factory workers, manual laborers, single parents with kids, etc) - you have to have strong job retraining programs and a social safety net like never before seen or else society will not handle this transition. This is a legitimately insane thing happening right now with no plan to fix it - even to your jobs (commercial pilots likely won't exist in 50-100 years), and the republican plan is to let the unbridled free market sort this out.

3) A plan to deal with the increasing economic bullshit that we have now seen twice where losses are socialized and gains are privatized. CEOs and stockholders say they take all the risk, but have you ever seen a billionaire go bankrupt when their company didn't save any money and then were hit with a period of economic stability? Oh, all of the airlines and many other companies that just did stock buybacks over the last decade as opposed to having any reserves? Oh, okay. If we keep the system we currently have, we are keeping a system, which has proven to be catastrophic to the average person now twice in the last 12 years. Increase marginal tax rates of the upper echelons, a wealth tax on money over a huge amount of dollars is not that insane, increase worker protections, and let businesses fail.

4) Global warming action - the current Admin's plan to just let free with coal and fossil fuels is a short-sighted terrible one. But I guess that's what happens when you don't believe 99% of scientists and can just say "fake news" to everything that you don't like. It's real, sorry homies.

5) BLM/police brutality/social issues/gay rights/etc - Republican strat is just to not care, democrat strat is to at least talk about the issues. Whether you like it or not, a large part of bringing stability back to the nation is mediating between groups that feel marginalized. It's not effective to just say "suck it up, buttercup"

Others: universal healthcare, budget deficit (both sides have no plan here, long gone are the days where republicans were the "deficit hawks"), military action (we don't need to be in Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan/Israel/Saudi, we need to come home and focus on developing future weapons to maintain parity with China), and a bunch more.

So go ahead, convince me as to your issues and why the republican party will deliver better results.

Tax policy, foreign policy, America first, military revitalization, freedom, smaller government, less EPA like regulations 

But if nothing else, just listen to Joe Biden attempt to talk for 6-9 seconds....

 

 

[brickhistory]

1 hour ago, brawnie said:

Si
So go ahead, convince me as to your issues and why the republican party will deliver better results.

[Negatory]

I really am receptive, sorry for the last line. Legitimately would love to discuss issues.

[Sua Sponte]

16 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

You guys won the terrible decisions in Citizens United v. FEC and Bush v. Gore. Don't really know one Associate Justice of the SCOTUS stops an entire political party? 

[Breckey]

The Republicans also blocked Merrick Garlands nomination for 10 months prior to an election. I do not believe for a second that the Senate would block the nomination of a new SCOTUS justice if RBG kicks the bucket prior to Jan 2021.

[Negatory]

3 hours ago, brabus said:

I wish we we would shitcan almost all of both parties and take a libertarian approach. But, there is so much batshit crazy, anti-American bullshit from the left that I have to vote the other way just to stop them from tearing this country down and turning into a socialist wasteland. Unfortunately the people I consider “true Dems” (I don’t mean that term negatively) have had their party overrun by the far left. Honestly they should just break it up and all these far left people should become part of a different party. Bernie is an idiot, but I do respect the man for being honest about his stance on things and outwardly acknowledging he’s a socialist. Until the Dems can either dissolve into two parties, or shut down the radicals, there will be lots of Americans who aren’t huge Trump fans, but they’ll still vote for him/his party (or abstain from voting) because the other option is just ludicrously out to lunch. It’s a sad state of “lesser of two evils.”

I see your point. I’m not a proponent of socialism whatsoever, and, yeah, sometimes it’s hard having to go with the party that includes viewpoints that are so outside of my own.

Joe Biden is not nearly what or who I would select if I could choose, but he’s more closely aligned than the alternatives.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Breckey said:

The Republicans also blocked Merrick Garlands nomination for 10 months prior to an election. I do not believe for a second that the Senate would block the nomination of a new SCOTUS justice if RBG kicks the bucket prior to Jan 2021.

Pay back for Bork and what they did to Thomas. 

The hypocritical Democratic party can eat a bag of flaming dog shit for what they've done to decent and honorable men all while protecting gigantic POS's like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

if a vacancy comes up, they should return the favor for what they did to Kavanaugh and not have even have hearings which are not constitutionally required, just a vote in the Senate.  

[HU&W]

5 hours ago, brawnie said:

So go ahead, convince me as to your issues and why the republican party will deliver better results.

As said above, odds are RBG will retire her gavel in the next 4 years, perhaps others too.  My views are more aligned with Kavanaugh/Gorsuch than with so many appointments before them.  I prefer legislation that originates in the legislature, not the courtroom.  I appreciate that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch anger both sides by ruling according to the law instead of predictably aligning with the party that had them appointed. As much as the media likes to point out Trump’s flaws, those two appointments were outstanding.  

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Pay back for Bork and what they did to Thomas. 

The hypocritical Democratic party can eat a bag of flaming dog shit for what they've done to decent and honorable men all while protecting gigantic POS's like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

if a vacancy comes up, they should return the favor for what they did to Kavanaugh and not have even have hearings which are not constitutionally required, just a vote in the Senate.  

So Kennedy and Clinton are POS's, but yet you leave out Newt Gingrich. Interesting. It's almost like he wouldn't help your narrative. Read up on the "Biden Rule" and what they did with Garland's nomination. Where does the Constitution say the Senate has to have a vote for a nominee? While that my have been customary, there is no requirement per the Constitution that they have too. 

[Breckey]

Can we actually have Congress do their job and pass legislation instead of relying on rule making by executive agencies? This has been going for decades and IMO is one of the reasons the SCOTUS has been "legislating". Poorly thought out or arbitrary EOs are prime territory for lawsuits that eventually make it to SCOTUS.

 

Hell can we just get a new AUMF for our many overseas adventures? I don't think Congress ever intended on us fighting a SMG 20 years after 9/11 using the same justification as that against AQ.

 

 

[Sua Sponte]

1 minute ago, Breckey said:

Can we actually have Congress do their job and pass legislation instead of relying on rule making by executive agencies? This has been going for decades and IMO is one of the reasons the SCOTUS has been "legislating". Poorly thought out or arbitrary EOs are prime territory for lawsuits that eventually make it to SCOTUS.

 

Hell can we just get a new AUMF for our many overseas adventures. I don't think Congress ever intended on us fighting a SMG 20 years after 9/11 using the same justification as that against AQ.

Congress, just like the rest of federal/state/local politics, is too busy with protecting their partisan tribalism than to do what's best for Americans.

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

So Kennedy and Clinton are POS's, but yet you leave out Newt Gingrich. Interesting. It's almost like he wouldn't help your narrative. Read up on the "Biden Rule" and what they did with Garland's nomination. Where does the Constitution say the Senate has to have a vote for a nominee? While that my have been customary, there is no requirement per the Constitution that they have too. 

Yes Kennedy was especially awful human being, I never said the Republicans didn't have some questionable fellows on the team but let me know when they cover up something like this for a hypocritical pontificating bloated awful piece of shit

Even after this he never cleaned up his act, reference this annectodote from a 16 year old page in the 80s

It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy's limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No. How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off. Kennedy, the formal page said, made no overt sexual overtures and was "very careful to make it seem like nothing out of the ordinary." It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and, as such, were under the protection of Congress, which serves in loco parentis. Nevertheless, the former page said she did find Kennedy's invitation surprising. "He didn't even know me," she says. "I knew this kind of stuff happened, but I didn't expect it to happen to me."

https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-ted-senator-profile

Gingrich has an interesting personal life and a few other problems/issues (draft deferrals when he espoused hawkish military policy in his adult professional life) but pretty much light years away from anything even like that....

So I put my best foot forward when making an argument and conveniently don't bring up points that would undercut my argument?  On check rides do you tell the evaluator what your weak on and advise him/her to pick at that scab?  Tell me what school of argument and debate you went to so I won't send my kids there.

As to the Constitution requiring Senate approval:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Constitution doesn't specify the method of Senate approval just that POTUS must have it to fulfill an appointment.

[Breckey]

Yes Kennedy was especially awful human being, I never said the Republicans didn't have some questionable fellows on the team but let me know when they cover up something like this for a hypocritical pontificating bloated awful piece of shit

Even after this he never cleaned up his act, reference this annectodote from a 16 year old page in the 80s
It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy's limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No. How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off. Kennedy, the formal page said, made no overt sexual overtures and was "very careful to make it seem like nothing out of the ordinary." It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and, as such, were under the protection of Congress, which serves in loco parentis. Nevertheless, the former page said she did find Kennedy's invitation surprising. "He didn't even know me," she says. "I knew this kind of stuff happened, but I didn't expect it to happen to me."
https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-ted-senator-profile
Gingrich has an interesting personal life and a few other problems/issues (draft deferrals when he espoused hawkish military policy in his adult professional life) but pretty much light years away from anything even like that....
So I put my best foot forward when making an argument and conveniently don't bring up points that would undercut my argument?  On check rides do you tell the evaluator what your weak on and advise him/her to pick at that scab?  Tell me what school of argument and debate you went to so I won't send my kids there.
As to the Constitution requiring Senate approval:
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Constitution doesn't specify the method of Senate approval just that POTUS must have it to fulfill an appointment.

Advise and consent does not mean refusing to bring it to a vote for 10 months.

[Clark Griswold]

Advise and consent does not mean refusing to bring it to a vote for 10 months.

Agreed it was a political WMD with a lot of collateral damage, lingering effects and may have been overkill but it kept him from getting a Supreme, in that point I’m not upset

I know this is a bad loop for us to be in but I don’t think making the first move to exit will be interpreted as anything but weakness to taken advantage of, I do t know how it ends or if can end well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sua Sponte]

49 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yes Kennedy was especially awful human being, I never said the Republicans didn't have some questionable fellows on the team but let me know when they cover up something like this for a hypocritical pontificating bloated awful piece of shit

Even after this he never cleaned up his act, reference this annectodote from a 16 year old page in the 80s

It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy's limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No. How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off. Kennedy, the formal page said, made no overt sexual overtures and was "very careful to make it seem like nothing out of the ordinary." It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and, as such, were under the protection of Congress, which serves in loco parentis. Nevertheless, the former page said she did find Kennedy's invitation surprising. "He didn't even know me," she says. "I knew this kind of stuff happened, but I didn't expect it to happen to me."

https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-ted-senator-profile

Gingrich has an interesting personal life and a few other problems/issues (draft deferrals when he espoused hawkish military policy in his adult professional life) but pretty much light years away from anything even like that....

So I put my best foot forward when making an argument and conveniently don't bring up points that would undercut my argument?  On check rides do you tell the evaluator what your weak on and advise him/her to pick at that scab?  Tell me what school of argument and debate you went to so I won't send my kids there.

As to the Constitution requiring Senate approval:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Constitution doesn't specify the method of Senate approval just that POTUS must have it to fulfill an appointment.

Yeah, Gingrich just led the charge for Clinton to be impeached for lying about an affair with an intern while he was having an affair of his own. Oh, and had ethics violations as Speaker of the House, which was a first. He resigned before the House Republicans had a mutiny due to having one of the worst midterm elections of all time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/us/politics/09brfs-GINGRICHSAYS_BRF.html

If you’re going to talk shit of a pretty well known fact, then at least acknowledge the other side with the same problem. You look like a hypocrite when you don’t. As someone who’s given years of checkrides, your analogy is flawed, but that probably explains your ad hominem attacks.

[SurelySerious]

49 minutes ago, Breckey said:

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yes Kennedy was especially awful human being, I never said the Republicans didn't have some questionable fellows on the team but let me know when they cover up something like this for a hypocritical pontificating bloated awful piece of shit

Even after this he never cleaned up his act, reference this annectodote from a 16 year old page in the 80s
It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy's limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No. How about the other? The girls said no thanks and the senator zoomed off. Kennedy, the formal page said, made no overt sexual overtures and was "very careful to make it seem like nothing out of the ordinary." It is possible that Kennedy did not know that the girls were underage or that they were pages and, as such, were under the protection of Congress, which serves in loco parentis. Nevertheless, the former page said she did find Kennedy's invitation surprising. "He didn't even know me," she says. "I knew this kind of stuff happened, but I didn't expect it to happen to me."
https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-ted-senator-profile
Gingrich has an interesting personal life and a few other problems/issues (draft deferrals when he espoused hawkish military policy in his adult professional life) but pretty much light years away from anything even like that....
So I put my best foot forward when making an argument and conveniently don't bring up points that would undercut my argument?  On check rides do you tell the evaluator what your weak on and advise him/her to pick at that scab?  Tell me what school of argument and debate you went to so I won't send my kids there.
As to the Constitution requiring Senate approval:
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Constitution doesn't specify the method of Senate approval just that POTUS must have it to fulfill an appointment.

Advise and consent does not mean refusing to bring it to a vote for 10 months.

Probably not. To play devil’s advocate: it is a form of not giving consent. 

[Clark Griswold]

10 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Yeah, Gingrich just led the charge for Clinton to be impeached for lying about an affair with an intern while he was having an affair of his own. Oh, and had ethics violations as Speaker of the House, which was a first. He resigned before the House Republicans had a mutiny due to having one of the worst midterm elections of all time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/us/politics/09brfs-GINGRICHSAYS_BRF.html

If you’re going to talk shit of a pretty well known fact, then at least acknowledge the other side with the same problem. You look like a hypocrite when you don’t. As someone who’s given years of checkrides, your analogy is flawed, but that probably explains your ad hominem attacks.

Fair enough but I disagree on your hypocrisy charge, do you expect the other side to give you their flaws and acknowledge them openly?  I'm not talking shit, I'm making a legitimate point about the Democratic party.  You can make yours about the Republican party if you want, I don't have to make it for you.

As for checkrides and evaluator and evaluatee experience, I'll stand by statement to hide weak areas if possible from evaluators.  Given years of checkrides myself, evaluator in 3 different platforms, if you don't know it and don't have to let anyone else know you don't know, don't.  Don't lie, don't embellish but don't show your ass for sure if you don't have to.

[Clark Griswold]

12 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Probably not. To play devil’s advocate: it is a form of not giving consent. 

True - but they (Senate Republicans) should have manned up and just had a vote, go straight line party vote and be honest about it.  We will reject any nominee of the sitting Democratic President because we think there will be a Republican President who will nominate a conservative justice.

That sets up the precedent for extreme dysfunctionality as an opposing Senate could block appointments for everything and I'm not saying that they should do that but in reference to Garland they should have just had an up or down vote and get it over with.

[Breckey]

True - but they (Senate Republicans) should have manned up and just had a vote, go straight line party vote and be honest about it.  We will reject any nominee of the sitting Democratic President because we think there will be a Republican President who will nominate a conservative justice.
That sets up the precedent for extreme dysfunctionality as an opposing Senate could block appointments for everything and I'm not saying that they should do that but in reference to Garland they should have just had an up or down vote and get it over with.

Agree.

[pawnman]

20 hours ago, brawnie said:

Since this is an anonymous forum where people share anonymous thoughts, I'd like to hear why you all are planning on voting red this year? Specifically, what policies are actually making you interested in the republican platform? Because I can't find many convincing ones? I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and McCain in 2008, but since ~2009, I feel republican views have shifted out of line with my own.

Most likely voting libertarian based on:

1.  Ending the war on drugs.  It has cost us so much time, money, resources, and destroyed so many lives.  Just make marijuana legal everywhere and tax it.  It's a policy that actually generates revenue while allowing us to slash costs.  I'm more extreme than many...I'd go so far as to legalize every drug.  Then the FDA can regulate the quality, doseage, make sure it isn't cut with drain cleaner or scouring powder, it deprives gangs and cartels of their largest revenue sources, and it frees up the Coast Guard and DHS to handle things that are actual threats to national security.

2. Ending the war in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq.  Places are shitholes.  They were shitholes before we got there.  They will be shitholes when we leave.  So let's stop investing time, people, and money into trying to make them less shithole and focus on the high-end fight, the way the CJCS and SecDef are telling us we need to.

3. Immigration reform.  I'm a fan of border security, but I'm also a believer in the idea that America was created by immigrants.  I would remove all limits on legal immigration and put the full force of modern technology behind the necessary background and safety checks.  It should not take months or years to immigrate to the country legally.  It should take a day, maybe a week if you have a complex case.  Welcome anyone who wants to come here and make a better life for themselves.  And yeah...that includes amnesty for people who are here illegally but haven't committed any other crimes.  However, I fully support getting rid of anyone who has committed a violent crime while here illegally.  Make the legal immigration process easy and fast enough, and you can really focus border enforcement on criminals...because they will be the only ones with an incentive to cross the border illegally.

 

[Magnum]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Most likely voting libertarian based on:

1.  Ending the war on drugs.  It has cost us so much time, money, resources, and destroyed so many lives.  Just make marijuana legal everywhere and tax it.  It's a policy that actually generates revenue while allowing us to slash costs.  I'm more extreme than many...I'd go so far as to legalize every drug.  Then the FDA can regulate the quality, doseage, make sure it isn't cut with drain cleaner or scouring powder, it deprives gangs and cartels of their largest revenue sources, and it frees up the Coast Guard and DHS to handle things that are actual threats to national security.

2. Ending the war in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq.  Places are shitholes.  They were shitholes before we got there.  They will be shitholes when we leave.  So let's stop investing time, people, and money into trying to make them less shithole and focus on the high-end fight, the way the CJCS and SecDef are telling us we need to.

3. Immigration reform.  I'm a fan of border security, but I'm also a believer in the idea that America was created by immigrants.  I would remove all limits on legal immigration and put the full force of modern technology behind the necessary background and safety checks.  It should not take months or years to immigrate to the country legally.  It should take a day, maybe a week if you have a complex case.  Welcome anyone who wants to come here and make a better life for themselves.  And yeah...that includes amnesty for people who are here illegally but haven't committed any other crimes.  However, I fully support getting rid of anyone who has committed a violent crime while here illegally.  Make the legal immigration process easy and fast enough, and you can really focus border enforcement on criminals...because they will be the only ones with an incentive to cross the border illegally.

 

1. Legalize every drug? Most drugs are not safe. The FDA regulates them and they become less potent and sold in restrictive quantities and now those who have become dependant on them find other ways to get them. The cartels still exist to meet the "needs" of these people. Drugs are not illegal because they are some innocent taboo thing. They are illegal because they are dangerous and destroy lives.

2. Yep, agree with you there.

3. I'm sure there are ways to speed up the immigration process as it is currently ridiculously slow. Amnesty will only serve to encourage illegal immigration in the future. One of the biggest things that pisses me off is when I see immigrants complaining about America or their "rights" when they are here illegally while waving another country's flag. We need to get back to assimilation and not making our country into 100 other countries. If people want to come here, they need to understand the "why"  behind their desire, and understand that America is awesome because it is the opposite of most places people come from, not the same.

[Sua Sponte]

13 hours ago, Magnum said:

1. Legalize every drug? Most drugs are not safe. The FDA regulates them and they become less potent and sold in restrictive quantities and now those who have become dependant on them find other ways to get them. The cartels still exist to meet the "needs" of these people. Drugs are not illegal because they are some innocent taboo thing. They are illegal because they are dangerous and destroy lives.

 

I grew up with my parents smoking weed, they are great parents. I've seen alcohol ruin more lives than people that smoked weed, yet alcohol is legal minus all the "blue laws" Southern states have. If weed was so dangerous, then why is it legal in multiple states?