Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 6:21:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2018 20:32:01 GMT -5
Back to pot. I wish sessions would put his effort into the Opiod problem, not marijuana. If he solves that, then we can debate pot. Agreed. Pot should be legal. It's not a "gateway drug" or any other nonsense. It's no worse than alcohol, and in many cases it's actually better than pharmaceuticals. PLUS, it's a personal choice... and the government shouldn't take away personal choice from citizens. Isn't personal choice what freedom and liberty are all about? If "Person X" smokes a joint or has a pot brownie, it hurts no one else. It affects no one else. If they break any other laws BECAUSE they are under the influence (like DUI), then punish them for those infractions... don't punish them for things that affect them only.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 8, 2018 0:36:33 GMT -5
Some information on the Corwin ammendment... which was never ratified Most serious historical overviews of the Civil War contain at least a brief mention of the Corwin Amendment, the last-ditch compromise effort to protect slavery where it existed by enshrining it in the Constitution. They also do so tepidly and seldom acknowledge it as anything more than a historical footnote. Yet for a brief moment in March 1861, it was at the center stage of the secession crisis – the sole realized product of months of desperate compromise attempts in the lame duck winter Congress of 1860-61. It passed the requisite two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate only hours prior to Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration in March 1861, and went out to the states for ratification a week later. Its text is eerily simplistic, not to mention morally unsettling given what it sought to attain: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” The amendment failed to lure back the secessionists or even attain ratification, being overcome by the Civil War and largely forgotten. ..http://philmagness.com/?page_id=398 The amendment was never ratified because it failed to draw back the seceding states BECAUSE the secession was never "about slavery" That's literally all the Corwin Amendment did... it would have authorized slavery in perpetuity, and been unamendable. Had the states remained and made ratification of that amendment a condition of remaining, there would have been no Civil War IF the issue had been "we wanna keep our slaves". The fact that the Corwin Amendment didn't change things PROVES that it wasn't "all about slavery". Your bolding proves my point. Interesting note that you leave out: The Corwin Amendment was ratified by FIVE States. All of those states were NORTHERN states. As there were only 34 states at the time, and adoption of an Amendment requires 3/4 of the existing states to ratify it, all that was required for ratification was 26 states. The 5 Northern states already done, that leaves 21. The 13 Seceding states would have ratified it (if slavery was the actual issue, which it wasn't... but we'll ignore that fact) leaving 8 more needed. To keep the union intact and avoid war, I'm sure that 8 more Northern States could have been persuaded to ratify it.... even if for no other reason than to avoid war. Not going to argue back and forth on something no one can prove... Still feel the differences between the North and South...and slavery definitely was a catalyst...legally having to return recaptured former slaves South..just the moral feelings by so many in the North over the correctness / incorrectness of the slavery question...plus wealth of industrial age in the North vs that of agrarian culture and the cash crops, cotton, rice needed heavy #'s of labor [not cheap but slaves filled the bill] probably would have led to a split down the road. If there was a President who didn't believe as Lincoln did, the dissolution of the Union would lead to a greater breakup of the Union...possible interventions of European powers if we were weak..with new territories coming on line like California , Washington, Oregon not wanting to be ruled by a government 3000 miles away...then possible no civil war but we not being the power we became in the world....which with all the expense and troubles...that strength definitely has been a blessing for us..
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 8, 2018 0:42:45 GMT -5
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 8, 2018 0:45:32 GMT -5
Back to pot. I wish sessions would put his effort into the Opiod problem, not marijuana. If he solves that, then we can debate pot. Agreed. Pot should be legal. It's not a "gateway drug" or any other nonsense. It's no worse than alcohol, and in many cases it's actually better than pharmaceuticals. PLUS, it's a personal choice... and the government shouldn't take away personal choice from citizens. Isn't personal choice what freedom and liberty are all about? If "Person X" smokes a joint or has a pot brownie, it hurts no one else. It affects no one else. If they break any other laws BECAUSE they are under the influence (like DUI), then punish them for those infractions... don't punish them for things that affect them only. If I own a business...if it becomes legal as a recreational drug...am I allowed to insist while employees are working for me they cannot take part in the drug...that means ingesting by any means..being influenced while working for me. Watched a segment today...and I am not against legalizing it...but the segment shows there is no way to tell if one is under influence if driving..walk the line, breathalaters don't work and please don't feed me crap that being high does not affect one who is driving...I've blown enough dope in my early life to know that's not true...wasted is wasted....how do we solve that problem...? One of the reasons I am in favor of....employment and tax revenue...
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 8, 2018 0:49:22 GMT -5
Agreed. Pot should be legal. It's not a "gateway drug" or any other nonsense. It's no worse than alcohol, and in many cases it's actually better than pharmaceuticals. PLUS, it's a personal choice... and the government shouldn't take away personal choice from citizens. Isn't personal choice what freedom and liberty are all about? If "Person X" smokes a joint or has a pot brownie, it hurts no one else. It affects no one else. If they break any other laws BECAUSE they are under the influence (like DUI), then punish them for those infractions... don't punish them for things that affect them only. If I own a business...if it becomes legal as a recreational drug...am I allowed to insist while employees are working for me they cannot take part in the drug...that means ingesting by any means..being influenced while working for me.
Watched a segment today...and I am not against legalizing it...but the segment shows there is no way to tell if one is under influence if driving..walk the line, breathalaters don't work and please don't feed me crap that being high does not affect one who is driving...I've blown enough dope in my early life to know that's not true...wasted is wasted....how do we solve that problem...? One of the reasons I am in favor of....employment and tax revenue... EVER? So no joint on a Saturday night, but a case of beer every weeknight is fine?
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 8, 2018 1:33:49 GMT -5
If I own a business...if it becomes legal as a recreational drug...am I allowed to insist while employees are working for me they cannot take part in the drug...that means ingesting by any means..being influenced while working for me.
Watched a segment today...and I am not against legalizing it...but the segment shows there is no way to tell if one is under influence if driving..walk the line, breathalaters don't work and please don't feed me crap that being high does not affect one who is driving...I've blown enough dope in my early life to know that's not true...wasted is wasted....how do we solve that problem...? One of the reasons I am in favor of....employment and tax revenue... EVER? So no joint on a Saturday night, but a case of beer every weeknight is fine? Not sure what your getting at...I am just asking as a employer, if dope is legalized for recreational use...as a employer, would I have right to insist while my employees are working for me they can't be under the influence...whether they feel they are in 100% control or not... What they do on their own time is their business .....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 6:21:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 3:12:03 GMT -5
Agreed. Pot should be legal. It's not a "gateway drug" or any other nonsense. It's no worse than alcohol, and in many cases it's actually better than pharmaceuticals. PLUS, it's a personal choice... and the government shouldn't take away personal choice from citizens. Isn't personal choice what freedom and liberty are all about? If "Person X" smokes a joint or has a pot brownie, it hurts no one else. It affects no one else. If they break any other laws BECAUSE they are under the influence (like DUI), then punish them for those infractions... don't punish them for things that affect them only. If I own a business...if it becomes legal as a recreational drug...am I allowed to insist while employees are working for me they cannot take part in the drug...that means ingesting by any means..being influenced while working for me.Watched a segment today...and I am not against legalizing it...but the segment shows there is no way to tell if one is under influence if driving..walk the line, breathalaters don't work and please don't feed me crap that being high does not affect one who is driving...I've blown enough dope in my early life to know that's not true...wasted is wasted....how do we solve that problem...? One of the reasons I am in favor of....employment and tax revenue... I don't see why that wouldn't be the case. That's the case with alcohol now. If someone comes back after a "liquid lunch" (as they used to call having a few drinks before returning), you can't tell either... unless they've had so many that it's readily apparent. Plus... what if that's not "Gatorade" in their sports bottle they they take a few sips out of over the course of the day? Plus... I'd be willing to bet that if scientists put their minds to it, they could build a "pot detector" that was as good as a breathalyzer (it might need blood or pee instead of breath though... to cover "edibles"). ETA: a lot of that was opinion, by the way
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 8, 2018 4:25:28 GMT -5
EVER? So no joint on a Saturday night, but a case of beer every weeknight is fine? Not sure what your getting at...I am just asking as a employer, if dope is legalized for recreational use...as a employer, would I have right to insist while my employees are working for me they can't be under the influence...whether they feel they are in 100% control or not... What they do on their own time is their business ..... You said you'd insist that people who work for you could not partake in the drug. You did not say anything initially about "what they do on their own time is their business. It sounded like they couldn't smoke, period, if they worked for you. That's what I was getting at.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 8, 2018 6:22:11 GMT -5
If I own a business...if it becomes legal as a recreational drug...am I allowed to insist while employees are working for me they cannot take part in the drug...that means ingesting by any means..being influenced while working for me.Watched a segment today...and I am not against legalizing it...but the segment shows there is no way to tell if one is under influence if driving..walk the line, breathalaters don't work and please don't feed me crap that being high does not affect one who is driving...I've blown enough dope in my early life to know that's not true...wasted is wasted....how do we solve that problem...? One of the reasons I am in favor of....employment and tax revenue... I don't see why that wouldn't be the case. That's the case with alcohol now. If someone comes back after a "liquid lunch" (as they used to call having a few drinks before returning), you can't tell either... unless they've had so many that it's readily apparent. Plus... what if that's not "Gatorade" in their sports bottle they they take a few sips out of over the course of the day? Plus... I'd be willing to bet that if scientists put their minds to it, they could build a "pot detector" that was as good as a breathalyzer (it might need blood or pee instead of breath though... to cover "edibles"). ETA: a lot of that was opinion, by the way That's fine...so was my question and thoughts...The part where the breathalyzer not being effective or walking a straight line...that is fact , taken from the segment shown on CNN..
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 8, 2018 6:24:25 GMT -5
Not sure what your getting at...I am just asking as a employer, if dope is legalized for recreational use...as a employer, would I have right to insist while my employees are working for me they can't be under the influence...whether they feel they are in 100% control or not... What they do on their own time is their business ..... You said you'd insist that people who work for you could not partake in the drug. You did not say anything initially about "what they do on their own time is their business. It sounded like they couldn't smoke, period, if they worked for you. That's what I was getting at. understand...should have been clearer....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 6:21:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 13:47:33 GMT -5
This is a very interesting issue in how it challenges conservatives on the question of federal government control. It was existing federal law. Obama tried to change it's perception by lack of enforcement. (he's also done this in other area's) It will now be returned to being enforced in his absence from the office. I believe in rule of law. (I also voted "for" legalizing medical pot in Arkansas, the law thing again.) If it's now overruled by existing Federal law, so be it. If I wanted existing Federal law changed, I would apply myself to this avenue of change. So says the conservative.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 6:21:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 13:57:13 GMT -5
If I own a business...if it becomes legal as a recreational drug...am I allowed to insist while employees are working for me they cannot take part in the drug...that means ingesting by any means..being influenced while working for me.Watched a segment today...and I am not against legalizing it...but the segment shows there is no way to tell if one is under influence if driving..walk the line, breathalaters don't work and please don't feed me crap that being high does not affect one who is driving...I've blown enough dope in my early life to know that's not true...wasted is wasted....how do we solve that problem...? One of the reasons I am in favor of....employment and tax revenue... I don't see why that wouldn't be the case. That's the case with alcohol now. If someone comes back after a "liquid lunch" (as they used to call having a few drinks before returning), you can't tell either... unless they've had so many that it's readily apparent. Plus... what if that's not "Gatorade" in their sports bottle they they take a few sips out of over the course of the day? Plus... I'd be willing to bet that if scientists put their minds to it, they could build a "pot detector" that was as good as a breathalyzer (it might need blood or pee instead of breath though... to cover "edibles"). ETA: a lot of that was opinion, by the way I believe it's a urine test. There would have to be some type of implied consent like when operating a motor vehicle which is considered a privilege, or same for employment.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 8, 2018 15:24:47 GMT -5
This is a very interesting issue in how it challenges conservatives on the question of federal government control. It was existing federal law. Obama tried to change it's perception by lack of enforcement. (he's also done this in other area's) It will now be returned to being enforced in his absence from the office. I believe in rule of law. (I also voted "for" legalizing medical pot in Arkansas, the law thing again.) If it's now overruled by existing Federal law, so be it. If I wanted existing Federal law changed, I would apply myself to this avenue of change. So says the conservative. The citizens of several states have declared that marijuana use should be legal. Should the federal law be changed to allow marijuana use to be legal in those states? What says the conservative on that issue? That is the "very interesting issue" to me, not the bureaucratic rule of law that is surrounding the situation now.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jan 8, 2018 19:51:33 GMT -5
I thought the general Republican stance was more power to the states to govern as they see fit with less interference at the federal level. only when it suits their agenda . . . .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 6:21:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 22:05:01 GMT -5
I don't see why that wouldn't be the case. That's the case with alcohol now. If someone comes back after a "liquid lunch" (as they used to call having a few drinks before returning), you can't tell either... unless they've had so many that it's readily apparent. Plus... what if that's not "Gatorade" in their sports bottle they they take a few sips out of over the course of the day? Plus... I'd be willing to bet that if scientists put their minds to it, they could build a "pot detector" that was as good as a breathalyzer (it might need blood or pee instead of breath though... to cover "edibles"). ETA: a lot of that was opinion, by the way I believe it's a urine test. There would have to be some type of implied consent like when operating a motor vehicle which is considered a privilege, or same for employment. As there is for a breathalyzer at work now. But I meant a new test that could tell if levels were high enough to impair function NOW... or if the pot was from the bachelor party three weeks ago. Like a modern breathalyzer can tell if you are at a point alcohol present that you are "impaired" NOW, but doesn't register if you went to the boobie bar and got smashed last Friday.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 6:21:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 12:10:11 GMT -5
It was existing federal law. Obama tried to change it's perception by lack of enforcement. (he's also done this in other area's) It will now be returned to being enforced in his absence from the office. I believe in rule of law. (I also voted "for" legalizing medical pot in Arkansas, the law thing again.) If it's now overruled by existing Federal law, so be it. If I wanted existing Federal law changed, I would apply myself to this avenue of change. So says the conservative. The citizens of several states have declared that marijuana use should be legal. Should the federal law be changed to allow marijuana use to be legal in those states? What says the conservative on that issue? That is the "very interesting issue" to me, not the bureaucratic rule of law that is surrounding the situation now. I don't think of it as a question of "should". More of a question of can it be changed. Yes it can. States can make declarations, but that doesn't give authority to change federal law.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 6:21:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 12:22:20 GMT -5
I believe it's a urine test. There would have to be some type of implied consent like when operating a motor vehicle which is considered a privilege, or same for employment. As there is for a breathalyzer at work now. But I meant a new test that could tell if levels were high enough to impair function NOW... or if the pot was from the bachelor party three weeks ago. Like a modern breathalyzer can tell if you are at a point alcohol present that you are "impaired" NOW, but doesn't register if you went to the boobie bar and got smashed last Friday. If I'm remembering correctly? I think there was a lab in California (Hound Labs?), that was doing testing on a breath device that could show impairment level. I remember reading something about it a couple of years ago. I don't know if it panned out.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 9, 2018 13:26:39 GMT -5
The citizens of several states have declared that marijuana use should be legal. Should the federal law be changed to allow marijuana use to be legal in those states? What says the conservative on that issue? That is the "very interesting issue" to me, not the bureaucratic rule of law that is surrounding the situation now. I don't think of it as a question of "should". More of a question of can it be changed. Yes it can. States can make declarations, but that doesn't give authority to change federal law. difficult question for conservatives
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,436
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 9, 2018 14:43:34 GMT -5
I was listening to or warching something (great source, huh?) and they were talking to a high ranking law enforcement official in probably Colorado (more attention to details that make this a great thing to quote) and they said there is no definitive test, like a breathalyzer, to give to people high on pot. So, they were doing mass amounts of training so their police officers could issue "impaired" drivers tickets and such.
So, if there is anything out there, it hasn't been widely accepted by some guy, in some place that might be in Colorado.
🙂
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 9, 2018 21:32:22 GMT -5
This is a very interesting issue in how it challenges conservatives on the question of federal government control. It was existing federal law. Obama tried to change it's perception by lack of enforcement. (he's also done this in other area's) It will now be returned to being enforced in his absence from the office. I believe in rule of law. (I also voted "for" legalizing medical pot in Arkansas, the law thing again.) If it's now overruled by existing Federal law, so be it. If I wanted existing Federal law changed, I would apply myself to this avenue of change. So says the conservative. " I believe in rule of law." guess that AND since I lean left , I believe in a lot of common sense.... Have u ever realized or seen the book of statutes in your State where ever it is...all laws on the books..to be enforced...Usually all enforced when there is a salary / union dispute and officers start enforcing ALL those laws.....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 6:21:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 12:20:34 GMT -5
It was existing federal law. Obama tried to change it's perception by lack of enforcement. (he's also done this in other area's) It will now be returned to being enforced in his absence from the office. I believe in rule of law. (I also voted "for" legalizing medical pot in Arkansas, the law thing again.) If it's now overruled by existing Federal law, so be it. If I wanted existing Federal law changed, I would apply myself to this avenue of change. So says the conservative. " I believe in rule of law." guess that AND since I lean left , I believe in a lot of common sense.... Have u ever realized or seen the book of statutes in your State where ever it is...all laws on the books..to be enforced...Usually all enforced when there is a salary / union dispute and officers start enforcing ALL those laws..... The common sense thing to do when a law doesn't apply to what you don't think is right, is to work the usual avenue towards changing it. If you can't muster the majority to get it changed, and it doesn't get changed, means that republic/democracy is working correctly.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 11, 2018 12:47:12 GMT -5
" I believe in rule of law." guess that AND since I lean left , I believe in a lot of common sense.... Have u ever realized or seen the book of statutes in your State where ever it is...all laws on the books..to be enforced...Usually all enforced when there is a salary / union dispute and officers start enforcing ALL those laws..... The common sense thing to do when a law doesn't apply to what you don't think is right, is to work the usual avenue towards changing it. If you can't muster the majority to get it changed, and it doesn't get changed, means that republic/democracy is working correctly the big pharma lobbiests are succeeding. Fixed it for you.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Jan 11, 2018 12:54:43 GMT -5
EVER? So no joint on a Saturday night, but a case of beer every weeknight is fine? Not sure what your getting at...I am just asking as a employer, if dope is legalized for recreational use...as a employer, would I have right to insist while my employees are working for me they can't be under the influence...whether they feel they are in 100% control or not... What they do on their own time is their business ..... they can require that now. Im not sure why pot would be any different.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,416
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jan 11, 2018 14:06:24 GMT -5
I thought the general Republican stance was more power to the states to govern as they see fit with less interference at the federal level. only when it suits their agenda . . . . And they are not running for election
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 6:21:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 14:18:59 GMT -5
The common sense thing to do when a law doesn't apply to what you don't think is right, is to work the usual avenue towards changing it. If you can't muster the majority to get it changed, and it doesn't get changed, means that republic/democracy is working correctly the big pharma lobbiests are succeeding. Fixed it for you. No you didn't. I don't see paranoid delusions when I don't get what I want.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 11, 2018 14:48:20 GMT -5
" I believe in rule of law." guess that AND since I lean left , I believe in a lot of common sense.... Have u ever realized or seen the book of statutes in your State where ever it is...all laws on the books..to be enforced...Usually all enforced when there is a salary / union dispute and officers start enforcing ALL those laws..... The common sense thing to do when a law doesn't apply to what you don't think is right, is to work the usual avenue towards changing it. If you can't muster the majority to get it changed, and it doesn't get changed, means that republic/democracy is working correctly. Sounds good...however..reason the laws on books stay there is in practicality very hard to remove...everyone has a agenda...some agendas many people in tune with..others very few but even a few can legally hold things up forever and ever... That's what and why Obama gave direction to his different agencies..u probably hated that.. I liked it..common sense..Example...: When he gave direction to his immigration people...wanted them to put their efforts more into those bad ones who were career criminals...find. arrest, punish, deport...even if it was harder and made their stats of successful deportation less...not really that interested in honest family raising folks...Our present leader thinks differently...get those stats up high..u find a illegal, u arrest, u deport...don't care about any good feeling ..just deport the SOB...u probably love him... Me? LOL...don't ask...Actual my next door neighbor is here illegally, from Peru..u would probably call some one..been here for decades...me..great guy...has key to my place just in case...me too, his. Seems every day I read anotherv story of a deportation...splitting a family...latest , co owner very popular restaurant...piller of community...son is career non com..he big in philanthropy...looks like even with all support, Mayor, community leaders ..he's going back...this is a daily news item...u probably say well he broke the law yadda, yadda...me..., don't want to tell u what I feel.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 11, 2018 14:56:58 GMT -5
No you didn't. I don't see paranoid delusions when I don't get what I want. The unfortunate fact is that corporate lobbiests influence the law making process more than the democratic process, now more than ever. Big pharma and the for profit prison industry have more to do with this change than the voters.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 6:21:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2018 15:06:02 GMT -5
The common sense thing to do when a law doesn't apply to what you don't think is right, is to work the usual avenue towards changing it. If you can't muster the majority to get it changed, and it doesn't get changed, means that republic/democracy is working correctly. Sounds good...however..reason the laws on books stay there is in practicality very hard to remove...everyone has a agenda...some agendas many people in tune with..others very few but even a few can legally hold things up forever and ever... That's what and why Obama gave direction to his different agencies.. u probably hated that..I liked it..common sense..Example...: When he gave direction to his immigration people...wanted them to put their efforts more into those bad ones who were career criminals...find. arrest, punish, deport...even if it was harder and made their stats of successful deportation less...not really that interested in honest family raising folks...Our present leader thinks differently...get those stats up high..u find a illegal, u arrest, u deport...don't care about any good feeling ..just deport the SOB...u probably love him... Me? LOL...don't ask...Actual my next door neighbor is here illegally, from Peru..u would probably call some one..been here for decades...me..great guy...has key to my place just in case...me too, his. Seems every day I read anotherv story of a deportation...splitting a family...latest , co owner very popular restaurant...piller of community...son is career non com..he big in philanthropy...looks like even with all support, Mayor, community leaders ..he's going back...this is a daily news item...u probably say well he broke the law yadda, yadda...me..., don't want to tell u what I feel.But you're telling me what I probably feel ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 6:21:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2018 15:07:45 GMT -5
No you didn't. I don't see paranoid delusions when I don't get what I want. The unfortunate fact is that corporate lobbiests influence the law making process more than the democratic process, now more than ever. Big pharma and the for profit prison industry have more to do with this change than the voters. The voters can only remove the ones responsible at the next election cycle. If they don't, the majority is getting what they want. That is what I meant. We are a Republic.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 12, 2018 15:10:14 GMT -5
Sounds good...however..reason the laws on books stay there is in practicality very hard to remove...everyone has a agenda...some agendas many people in tune with..others very few but even a few can legally hold things up forever and ever... That's what and why Obama gave direction to his different agencies.. u probably hated that..I liked it..common sense..Example...: When he gave direction to his immigration people...wanted them to put their efforts more into those bad ones who were career criminals...find. arrest, punish, deport...even if it was harder and made their stats of successful deportation less...not really that interested in honest family raising folks...Our present leader thinks differently...get those stats up high..u find a illegal, u arrest, u deport...don't care about any good feeling ..just deport the SOB...u probably love him... Me? LOL...don't ask...Actual my next door neighbor is here illegally, from Peru..u would probably call some one..been here for decades...me..great guy...has key to my place just in case...me too, his. Seems every day I read anotherv story of a deportation...splitting a family...latest , co owner very popular restaurant...piller of community...son is career non com..he big in philanthropy...looks like even with all support, Mayor, community leaders ..he's going back...this is a daily news item...u probably say well he broke the law yadda, yadda...me..., don't want to tell u what I feel.But you're telling me what I probably feel ? Ok, telling a bit much...suggesting what I think u think...
|
|