Pot smokers, drug users.

#151
#151
Gannon Goodson said:
But he does make a valid point. You are now officially property (subject) of the federal government... something liberals have been drooling over for quite some time now. They'll have the total power they've craved since childhood once they destroy the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Stop putting embalming fluid in your weed. It makes you think up **** like that.
 
#152
#152
DinkinFlicka said:
Stop putting embalming fluid in your weed. It makes you think up **** like that.
Click to expand...

Now what in the world makes you think I smoke that garbage? I graduated college many years ago.

You still didn't address the main point, though. I'd like for you to take better care of yourself now that I'm responsible for your well-being. Be sure to report to the People's Commissar for your annual check-up!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#153
#153
Gannon Goodson said:
Now what in the world makes you think I smoke that garbage? I graduated college many years ago.

You still didn't address the main point, though. I'd like for you to take better care of yourself now that I'm responsible for your well-being. Be sure to report to the People's Commissar for your annual check-up!
Click to expand...
What does college have to do with drug habits? You must have not been going out with your classmates at night, because when I graduated college (ah ha!), plenty of folks in my class (myself included) were doing all sorts of things of that fashion.

I'm not addressing the main point because there isn't one. I own my lungs, the government just (eventually) insures them.

It still doesn't give you, other sheeple, or the government the right to tell me what I can inhale into them.
 
#156
#156
DinkinFlicka said:
What does college have to do with drug habits? You must have not been going out with your classmates at night, because when I graduated college (ah ha!), plenty of folks in my class (myself included) were doing all sorts of things of that fashion.

I'm not addressing the main point because there isn't one. I own my lungs, the government just (eventually) insures them.

It still doesn't give you, other sheeple, or the government the right to tell me what I can inhale into them.
Click to expand...

Maybe you and the rest of the potheads skipped Civics back in high school. We are a government OF THE PEOPLE. When you say "government" you're referring to me and the rest of the citizenry. They (the morons in Washington) only exist through their ability to tax THE PEOPLE. So now your heroes over in lefty land have made you my responsibility with the ACA, along with Medicaid and Medicare, because we have to pay for it -- and now I have every right to tell you how to live a more healthy lifestyle.

This is one of the consequences of liberalism. It's time to give up the hippy lettuce. Are you a fatty? It's time to lose some weight. I don't want to have to pay for your insulin and dialysis treatments.
 
#157
#157
Gannon Goodson said:
Maybe you and the rest of the potheads skipped Civics back in high school. We are a government OF THE PEOPLE. When you say "government" you're referring to me and the rest of the citizenry. They (the morons in Washington) only exist through their ability to tax THE PEOPLE. So now your heroes over in lefty land have made you my responsibility with the ACA, along with Medicaid and Medicare, because we have to pay for it -- and now I have every right to tell you how to live a more healthy lifestyle.

This is one of the consequences of liberalism. It's time to give up the hippy lettuce. Are you a fatty? It's time to lose some weight. I don't want to have to pay for your insulin and dialysis treatments.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that the American government is a government of the people? The assertion that the American government is a government of the people does not necessarily entail that the American government exists as a government of the people.

When the assertion was originally made, only a tiny fraction of the populous, in the popular sovereignty that was the nascent United States, had any rights of participation: these were landowning white males. Any males that were not white were excluded. Any males that did not own land were excluded. Any residents that were not male were excluded. Yet, all were subject to the laws of the government; thus, the government was not, initially, a government of the people.

Full, participatory rights were not granted and protected by the United States government until the 1960s. By that time, one's effective participatory voice was so infinitesimal (1 representative per 500,000 voters) as to be non-existent. Moreover, legislation that was passed prior to the protection of near universal suffrage remained on the books; much of this legislation was objectionable. Individuals who had no voice in the enactment of such legislation, individuals who had been completely disenfranchised, were still subject to those laws of the government. These were not laws of, by, and for the people; they were simply laws for the people.

Popular sovereignty has never existed in United States, regardless of what your high school civics teacher taught you. Sorry to break it the news to you, but it is a fact of life that one of the founding documents of the United States is inherently hypocritical and that the United States government has unabashedly been hypocritical for most of its existence.
 
#158
#158
therealUT said:
Do you honestly believe that the American government is a government of the people? The assertion that the American government is a government of the people does not necessarily entail that the American government exists as a government of the people.

When the assertion was originally made, only a tiny fraction of the populous, in the popular sovereignty that was the nascent United States, had any rights of participation: these were landowning white males. Any males that were not white were excluded. Any males that did not own land were excluded. Any residents that were not male were excluded. Yet, all were subject to the laws of the government; thus, the government was not, initially, a government of the people.

Full, participatory rights were not granted and protected by the United States government until the 1960s. By that time, one's effective participatory voice was so infinitesimal (1 representative per 500,000 voters) as to be non-existent. Moreover, legislation that was passed prior to the protection of near universal suffrage remained on the books; much of this legislation was objectionable. Individuals who had no voice in the enactment of such legislation, individuals who had been completely disenfranchised, were still subject to those laws of the government. These were not laws of, by, and for the people; they were simply laws for the people.

Popular sovereignty has never existed in United States, regardless of what your high school civics teacher taught you. Sorry to break it the news to you, but it is a fact of life that one of the founding documents of the United States is inherently hypocritical and that the United States government has unabashedly been hypocritical for most of its existence.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. Obama and the rest of his czars, along with the NLRB and a host of other unelected agencies and bureaucrats, do not speak for me, nor do they represent me. The point is that now I'm responsible for the welfare of others through the ACA, so I have a say in how they conduct their lives.

This is a consequence of big government and a rejection of constitutional principles.
 
#159
#159
Gannon Goodson said:
I agree with all of this. Obama and the rest of his czars, along with the NLRB and a host of other unelected agencies and bureaucrats, do not speak for me, nor do they represent me. The point is that now I'm responsible for the welfare of others through the ACA, so I have a say in how they conduct their lives.

This is a consequence of big government and a rejection of constitutional principles.
Click to expand...

You were responsible for the welfare of others prior to the enactment of ACA; I presume that you paid taxes for law enforcement, emergency services, infrastructure projects, education, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc., etc. The ACA has not fundamentally changed anything, and the enactment of the ACA does nothing for your argument in a way that restricts one from simply turning the argument around on you by referencing any number of statutes and legislative decrees pronounced by both federal and state governments over the past two hundred some odd years.

Since my taxes serve to support law enforcement and prosecutions, and maintain penitentiaries, it is in my interest, as a taxpayer with vested financial interest and ownership in these projects, that others not be arrested, prosecuted, and detained for harmlessly breaking arbitrary statutes.

If one wants to break it down in terms of costs and benefits, as opposed to simply respecting an individual's rights to do as he so pleases with his own body, then one has to weigh the costs of enforcement, prosecution, and detention against the costs associated with the negative health effects of using certain drugs.

It is not so evident that the costs of the healthcare would outweigh the costs of enforcement, prosecution, and detention (enforcing drug laws and operating prisons is are expensive endeavors).
 
#160
#160
therealUT said:
You were responsible for the welfare of others prior to the enactment of ACA; I presume that you paid taxes for law enforcement, emergency services, infrastructure projects, education, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc., etc. The ACA has not fundamentally changed anything, and the enactment of the ACA does nothing for your argument in a way that restricts one from simply turning the argument around on you by referencing any number of statutes and legislative decrees pronounced by both federal and state governments over the past two hundred some odd years.

Since my taxes serve to support law enforcement and prosecutions, and maintain penitentiaries, it is in my interest, as a taxpayer with vested financial interest and ownership in these projects, that others not be arrested, prosecuted, and detained for harmlessly breaking arbitrary statutes.

And this is where you enter a gray area. "Harmlessly" and "arbitrary statutes" mean different things to different people.

If one wants to break it down in terms of costs and benefits, as opposed to simply respecting an individual's rights to do as he so pleases with his own body, then one has to weigh the costs of enforcement, prosecution, and detention against the costs associated with the negative health effects of using certain drugs.

It is not so evident that the costs of the healthcare would outweigh the costs of enforcement, prosecution, and detention (enforcing drug laws and operating prisons is are expensive endeavors).
Click to expand...

Cost/benefit analysis is a good point. That's why the government shouldn't be involved in things like health care and education. The federal govenment exists for the common defense of the nation. The other powers are vested in the states. We shouldn't be paying the feds for ponzi schemes like social security, medicaid, and medicare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#161
#161
Gannon Goodson said:
But he does make a valid point. You are now officially property (subject) of the federal government... something liberals have been drooling over for quite some time now. They'll have the total power they've craved since childhood once they destroy the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

I have never seen someone so irrationally scared of losing his guns.
 
#162
#162
Gannon Goodson said:
Cost/benefit analysis is a good point. That's why the government shouldn't be involved in things like health care and education. The federal govenment exists for the common defense of the nation. The other powers are vested in the states. We shouldn't be paying the feds for ponzi schemes like social security, medicaid, and medicare.
Click to expand...

But it's ok for the federal government to define marriage, right?
 
#164
#164
tim said:
If it affects taxes and or any other type of goverment benefit I think it does.
Click to expand...

That is merely a contractual obligation.

Why should the government care if such a contract is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, or a polyamorous couple?
 
#166
#166
PKT_VOL said:
That is merely a contractual obligation.

Why should the government care if such a contract is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, or a polyamorous couple?
Click to expand...
I believe gay couples are not entitled to certain tax breaks.
 
#172
#172
Gannon Goodson said:
Maybe you and the rest of the potheads skipped Civics back in high school. We are a government OF THE PEOPLE. When you say "government" you're referring to me and the rest of the citizenry. They (the morons in Washington) only exist through their ability to tax THE PEOPLE. So now your heroes over in lefty land have made you my responsibility with the ACA, along with Medicaid and Medicare, because we have to pay for it -- and now I have every right to tell you how to live a more healthy lifestyle.

This is one of the consequences of liberalism. It's time to give up the hippy lettuce. Are you a fatty? It's time to lose some weight. I don't want to have to pay for your insulin and dialysis treatments.
Click to expand...
Gold. Truly. Wish I thought of it. Oh well. I was probably too high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top