question about "the left wing"

[Miss_Bungle1991]

Kia Ora LS,

It was legal once before So why not now ? 

Metta Zenda

Yes, it was legal in the past and it was a very bad idea.

Should marijuana be legal?

Yes. I'm a non-smoker so I don't even have a stake in it. BUT having went through a childhood and adolescence seeing more than my fair share of drunken violence, I would rather see a stoned populace as opposed to a drunken one. Yeah, you could say both of them are bad ideas but most people that are stoned while driving drive slower instead of faster. Plus, the only fight that you would see between two people that were stoned would be for that last piece of pizza and there wouldn't even be any raised voices, nor any fists flying.

[Emo]

Thought this is relevant and fits into the conversation nicely here.

Saul David Alinsky was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book, Rules for Radicals. He was born January 30, 1909 in Chicago, Il., and died June 12, 1972. He was educated at the University of Chicago, was married to Irene, and wrote the books: Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals. Called "the father of the community-organizing model", he reportedly inspired both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. So, let's take a look at what it takes to create a social state according to Saul Alinsky. There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.

1. Healthcare: Control healthcare and you control the people.

2. Poverty: Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3. Debt: Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes and this will produce more poverty.

4. Gun Control: Remove the ability for people to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.

5. Welfare: Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)

6. Education: Take control of what people read and listen to take control of what children learn in school.

7. Religion: Remove the belief in God from the government and schools.

8. Class Warfare: Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Does this sound familiar?

I once wore a uniform and we stacked the corpses of those following this ideology up like cordwood, so is it any wonder that others here like myself would be in diametric opposition to what seems to be happening right here in the US and elsewhere in western societies?

This is too much conspiracy theoretics for me to believe.

I cant go along with a theory that our government is keeping us down when we are the ones who control it.

[amZo]

Yes, it was legal in the past and it was a very bad idea.

Should marijuana be legal?

Yes. I'm a non-smoker so I don't even have a stake in it. BUT having went through a childhood and adolescence seeing more than my fair share of drunken violence, I would rather see a stoned populace as opposed to a drunken one. Yeah, you could say both of them are bad ideas but most people that are stoned while driving drive slower instead of faster. Plus, the only fight that you would see between two people that were stoned would be for that last piece of pizza and there wouldn't even be any raised voices, nor any fists flying.

I actually like how the debate and law changes are occurring regarding marijuana, it's being done at the state level as it should be.

I suspect Colorado will experience bad consequences for legalizing a mind altering drug, one that tends to make people lazy unmotivated couch potatoes, time will tell. 

[LordKAT]

I cant go along with a theory that our government is keeping us down when we are the ones who control it.

I have issues with this. When was the last time an individual really had much say at all. Many are shot down even at local government unless they have money. Since 28 people have more money than 3.25 million, that leaves very little room for poorer people to have a voice.

[amZo]

I have issues with this. When was the last time an individual really had much say at all. Many are shot down even at local government unless they have money. Since 28 people have more money than 3.25 million, that leaves very little room for poorer people to have a voice.

I will say though, when our government runs as intended, the poorer people have a much greater voice via voting for their representatives in our federal government and on down. And we're about to listen to a State of the Union speech in which it's expected the POTUS will announce how he plans to ignore OUR chosen representatives in congress. Which is odd since he's been doing this for five years. So... yep.

[Emo]

I have issues with this. When was the last time an individual really had much say at all. Many are shot down even at local government unless they have money. Since 28 people have more money than 3.25 million, that leaves very little room for poorer people to have a voice.

Our voice is the elections.
Sure people vote for the same person over and over, but not everybody's interests are the same.  Someone from new york will not want or need the same rep as someone in nowhere, kansas. All these people are elected by us. Personally i dont like any of them. I voted for the curent president because he was the lesser of the 2 evils to me. Didnt help that romney kept switching up what he was going to do as president. But thats another argument for another time.
The point is i am independent for a reason. I dont trust either side. But it is not possible to please everyone, especially in a country like this so how can we really judge them for trying to win a race?
If one of us poor people put enough hard work and dedication, we could do well in an election. Its a matter of will and time.

[MadeleineG]

Our voice is the elections.
Sure people vote for the same person over and over, but not everybody's interests are the same.  Someone from new york will not want or need the same rep as someone in nowhere, kansas. All these people are elected by us. Personally i dont like any of them. I voted for the curent president because he was the lesser of the 2 evils to me. Didnt help that romney kept switching up what he was going to do as president. But thats another argument for another time.
The point is i am independent for a reason. I dont trust either side. But it is not possible to please everyone, especially in a country like this so how can we really judge them for trying to win a race?
If one of us poor people put enough hard work and dedication, we could do well in an election. Its a matter of will and time.

Our political systems would work far better without the parties. If I could change one thing, it would be their disestablishment.

Nebraska, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories have it right. No parties, no party whips. Add in no campaign financing and we're ready to roll.

[dalebert]

I've talked about this often before--this notion that we control our government. I think powerful people control it and we're given a comforting illusion of control at best. It might seem odd when I start talking about evangalizing in this video about politics. The way people encourage involvement in politics is a kind of religion for me. It's something we need in order to feel okay with the status quo, dropping our votes in a box like it means something when we're largely powerless.



As I said, I'm against any laws against possession of some substance. I would love to see a constitutional ruling but I know it won't happen--something like possession alone is insufficient; crimes require an action, i.e. misuse of a substance. I realize it can be scary and there are risks involved, like a criminal possessing a gun. But I feel the need to weigh that against other things. One is that it's VERY hard to enforce these laws without an incredibly intrusive government and the risk of government abuse is really high. Both scenarios are scary but the latter is much more terrifying for me.

This is not just a principle for me. It's what seems most practical. If a person cannot be trusted with a gun then keep them locked away. It's the only way that works because if they're willing to commit a crime with a gun, they will get their hands on one. Gun control is a placebo. It makes us feel safer. I don't own guns or illegal drugs but I don't want to tolerate the invasion of my privacy just for that placebo.

[Shantel]

Our political systems would work far better without the parties. If I could change one thing, it would be their disestablishment.

Nebraska, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories have it right. No parties, no party whips. Add in no campaign financing and we're ready to roll.

That sure sounds like a good plan to me! It's a travesty foisted off on the American people that the usual suspects continually get re-elected primarily on the basis of name recognition and they think they are doing their job by bringing home the bacon to their state constituency when in reality they are driving up the national debt and then are so morbidly inept that they can't agree on a budget for half a decade let alone anything else. Time for a real change, no rhetoric or BS this time, let's fire the lot of them and start over.

[dalebert]

Parties are a natural result of the political process. The U.S. has a winner-take-all process which will always result in two primary parties. Even if one failed, something else would soon take its place. It would actually take a total revamp of our system to make it receptive to multiple parties. There are countries who allocate some political power proportionately based on who got however many votes. Those countries have more than just two primary parties because a small party can still have some impact.

[Shantel]

Parties are a natural result of the political process. The U.S. has a winner-take-all process which will always result in two primary parties. Even if one failed, something else would soon take its place. It would actually take a total revamp of our system to make it receptive to multiple parties. There are countries who allocate some political power proportionately based on who got however many votes. Those countries have more than just two primary parties because a small party can still have some impact.

The Electoral College trumping the popular vote is a turn off too!

[michelle]

The problem with politics today is that structurally the Republican Party has allowed the extremists in their party to gain control in their party.   The extremists in the Republican Party want a strict enforcement of what they believe are Victorian Age Christian Morality both publically and privately for every individual in the United States,  even though in Victorian Times this morality was mostly public while many powerful individuals and their friends, in the privacy of their society,  through this moral code out the window.     These extremists in the Republican Party are antiscience and would declare that the earth is flat, if it got them elected to office.


The other problem with the extreme wing of the Republican Party is that they only care about power for the most extreme individuals, so that the Parties policy goals are constantly shifting to the right of what ever position the Republicans in office already hold.   The Republican Party has the same frame of mind as the extremists in the French Revolution of 1789 when the French Extremists eliminated first the Royalists and then set about eliminating the Revolutionists who were not extreme enough.   

The Media and all the rest of the country should just tell these extremists to shut up,  don't give them air time unless they pay for it, and refuse to vote them into public office.    Modern society cannot function when people declare that the science its technology is based upon is just an opinion.

Yes, over the centuries, as our means of making scientific observations, cataloguing these ideas, and organizing these ideas, and making hypothesis, and deriving laws of nature from this data, there are many changes to the scientifically based paradigms of a societies intellectual understandings of the Universe,   but for any society to function and create new technology, these cannot be viewed as any one individual's opinion, so that they are constantly argued about.    Examples of these changes today are the String Theory, and how we view the nature of gravity and how modern technology is allowing us to explore the very depths of the Universe and the very microcosms of nature.   We are even able to extract DNA from 400,000 year old humanoid bones and are coming up with some very startling clues about the relationships of the many strains of Huminoids interrelated and what physical characteristics these individuals had.

The my way or the highway, that these extremist Right Wing Republicans have needs to be rejected for what it is.    So far the Media instead of rejecting them is claiming that all other parties are just as extreme when they refuse to give into these extremist demands.    Even moderate compromises are being labeled as being uncooperative.   When the fact is that the extremists want total capitulation by their competition no matter what party they are in.  It is not just enough for the non extremists to accept and act upon the extremists demands, then they reject it.   The extremists just expect their competition to resign from their elected offices so that the extremists of the day can take over.   This will not solve anything, because then the extremists will just argue amongst themselves because they really don't have any core set of beliefs.

Because of this the Transgender community and everyone of the individuals that alines themselves with us,  has to stand up and fight for our rights.   We have the right to become who we are,  and have just as much right, to be excentric and outlandish within our community, and to be as plain and simple also.   Just because we are uncomfortable about others in our communities self expressions, we have to realize that they may be uncomfortable with  us, that doesn't mean that we should not respect each other's rights to their individuality.   I realize that each day I am becoming more comfortable with my expression of my individuality,  and each day I am becoming more and more comfortable about expressing my femininity,  even though I am still at a very conservative stage, in my mind,  but perhaps not so conservative in the minds of others.

The fact is that really, Pride Day, should be everyday, and not just come one day a year.    Those of us who can, need to jump into the political fray,  and see that when it comes to politics every day is abnormal, which we can see if we dig deep enough into the politics of each period in United States history.

[Shantel]

As a former Democrat up until the 1970's I am constrained to say that I can no longer relate to that party under any circumstances as it has moved so far to the left since the days of Roosevelt's "New Deal" which was hailed by Republicans even back then as a leftist program even though it was prudent for the times. I will agree that the Republican party has indeed been hijacked by two nefarious factions, one being the "Religious Right" and the other being the "Neocons," and if those congress members weren't like all politicians and leaned whichever way the political winds were blowing like reeds in a swamp, and had a little backbone that wouldn't have happened. Same is true for the Democratic congress which is rife with Marxist leaning activists that are calling the shots.

[Miss_Bungle1991]

I actually like how the debate and law changes are occurring regarding marijuana, it's being done at the state level as it should be.

I suspect Colorado will experience bad consequences for legalizing a mind altering drug, one that tends to make people lazy unmotivated couch potatoes, time will tell. 

Well, it comes down to willpower and personal responsibility. I've known people that smoked until they were comatose and that was all they did. I knew people that smoked a bit here and there and just lived their lives normally. I've known people that did the same with alcohol.

[amZo]

Well, it comes down to willpower and personal responsibility. I've known people that smoked until they were comatose and that was all they did. I knew people that smoked a bit here and there and just lived their lives normally. I've known people that did the same with alcohol.

No doubt. I've done both 'drugs' but always did so within reason, but it's certainly my view alcohol is far less damaging. I'm not necessarily against legalization of marijuana, I just like the idea of allowing states who are desirous to experiment and help prove an unknown as either worthwhile or not. I would hope we all can learn this is a good thing and move many more things out of the Federal government's domain as it was intended by the nation's founders.

[Miss_Bungle1991]

But it's certainly my view alcohol is far less damaging.

Really?

I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

Not looking for a "fight", I'm genuinely intrigued by this.

[Shantel]

Really?

I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

Not looking for a "fight", I'm genuinely intrigued by this.

Perhaps she should have added, "As long as your liver holds up and you do it at home and stay out of the car?"

[amZo]

Perhaps she should have added, "As long as your liver holds up and you do it at home and stay out of the car?"

Couple things though, it's irrelevant what damage these drugs do to the users, just the affect it has on others. So, have you not ever driven high? I would rather be drunk than high. 

[Shantel]

Couple things though, it's irrelevant what damage these drugs do to the users, just the affect it has on others. So, have you not ever driven high? I would rather be drunk than high. 

I don't have any experience with marijuana other than hyperventilating once when I tried a joint while all the a-holes laughed at my misery, so it doesn't appeal to me. One thing that concerns me living here in Washington State is how many dorks high on weed are going to cause auto accidents and kill some innocent folks, and how will the authorities deal with that? I did notice that 99% of those wanting legalization of "Medical Marijuana" were suspiciously retros from the 60's, odd isn't it?!

[Miss_Bungle1991]

Couple things though, it's irrelevant what damage these drugs do to the users, just the affect it has on others. So, have you not ever driven high? I would rather be drunk than high. 

You ever been a kid that had no choice but to ride along with their drunk as hell dad while they flew down country roads at 90 MPH wondering if you were going to make it home alive?

Have you ever watched countless family holiday gatherings be destroyed because of a few drunken comments that led to fistfights between family members that resulted in crying children and screaming spouses?

I doubt that you have. Otherwise, you would know where I was coming from in this argument.

You know what I've seen when people were stoned?

Silly conversations and munching on junk food while listening to the stereo or watching TV.

I know which situation I would rather be in the middle of.