onegoodguy1959 Forum Posts (75)

RE: Should drugs, ALL drugs be available and free for anyone who wants them?.................

OK Trish.
So, What was the point of asking me what my degree was in?
Where did I say I blame anyone or anything for the decisions I made?
What makes you think I am wallowing in self pity?
What makes you think I am not moving on with my life?
Who, exactly, is laying guilt trips?

And I stick by statement that if you think that the marijuana available today is not more potent than what was commonly available in the 60's and 70's then either your tolerance has increased or you need to find a better connection.

RE: Should drugs, ALL drugs be available and free for anyone who wants them?.................

Here is the link

RE: Should drugs, ALL drugs be available and free for anyone who wants them?.................

I'm not going to address your points one by one. I will just say that I know hundreds of people who are living proof that you are wrong on all points.

As for draconian laws, I'm not advocating that.
And like I said in an earlier post, recreational users rarely go to jail or prison. It is theoretically possible and occassionally happens when there is a horrible miscarriage of justice. But that is true with all laws. That doesn't prove the laws are bad, it just proves that the justice system is imperfect.

RE: Should drugs, ALL drugs be available and free for anyone who wants them?.................

".....when drugs are made legal they cease to be glamourized...."
This could not be further from the truth. If it is legal, it will be advertised with gorgeous looking people living what appear to be sophisticated lives. Even if you eliminate advertising, corporations will find a way. Look at Camel cigarettes - clearly targeted at young people and children.

And unless you are talking about legalization without age limits, it will still be illegal for minors to purchase.

HG, I'm sure your intentions are good, I just believe you are buying into stories provided by misinformed or disingenuous people.

RE: GOD IS A WOMAN

".....and shelving would be lowered."

But then you wouldn't have the opportunity to ask that strapping young man "Could you reach up there and get that for me?"

Of course, if it were lower I would have more opportunity to ask "Could you bend down and reach that for me sweetie?"

RE: I Kissed A Girl

This is the song that never ends
It just goes on and on my friends
Some people started singing it
not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it
forever just because
This is the song that never ends......


Works for me every time

RE: Most of the ways that Humans have ...

If individuals have a right to make decisions for themselves based on their own moral standards, as someone said, and if you believe that goverments should be held to the same moral standards as humans, then why can't governments make decisions based on their own moral standards?

Or, conversely, if we expect governments to make decisions based on the greater common good, then why can't we expect all individuals to do the same?

I believe the answer is that there are different rules for governments, corporations, societies etc, than there are for individual people. Which takes me back to my original point.

I believe there IS a single, universal standard for individual morality. But when we start trying to apply this standard to governments, etc, we really should be talking about what is the PURPOSE of these entities, not "are they moral."

These entities are created by people to accomplish a purpose. If they are not accomplishing that purpose the way we want them to, we can change or re-create them. The same can't be said about individual people.

So.....like I said, different rules apply.

Am I making any progress explaining myself?

RE: Most of the ways that Humans have ...

"It is however, impossible for a govermnent to harm someone unless SOMEBODY makes a decision then supervises it being carried out ... "

Agreed. And in my view it is reasonable to hold individuals accountable for what they do in the operation of a government, corporation, etc.
I even believe that individuals should be held to a moral standard, which I have already described. I just don't believe that it makes sense to talk about "governments" being moral.

RE: Most of the ways that Humans have ...

I'm afraid I must disagree. Governments, etc., are not people. They are run by, operated by, occupied by people, but they are not people. My car is owned, operated and occupied by a person (me) but it is not a person.

Now, as a person, I have an obligation to behave in a moral fashion i.e. not use my car to harm another individual for my personal pleasure or perceived benefit. You can hold me accountable for the actions I take. It is unreasonable to hold my car accountable.

Does that make sense?

RE: This is terible :(

Terrible story. Not exactly true though. This is an amalgamation of several internet petitions that have been circulating for many years.

Here is a link with more information.

RE: Taking Our Country Back!

"They are supposed to vote according to what the people have requested."

I believe you misunderstand the intent of a representative democracy. Elected representatives are supposed to represent the best interest of their constituency, not necessarily the majority wishes. Our system of government was designed to avoid the "tyranny" of majority rule. The majority is notoriously fickle, shortsighted and ill-equipped to make decisions regarding the long-term collective well-being of our country.
That being said, I respect your passion for educating the electorate as to their responsibilities. If one is unhappy with the way one's representative represents them, then that person has a civic duty to vote to replace that representative. Our government was designed and intended for regular turnover of representatives.

I believe that politicians, like diapers, should be changed frequently and for the same reason.

RE: Taking Our Country Back!

"Do you know what an executive order is?"

Yes, I do. Here is a brief, and I believe good, explanation.

Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.

Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.

A Brief History and Examples
Executive Orders have been used by every chief executive since the time of George Washington. Most of these directives were unpublished and were only seen by the agencies involved. In the early 1900s, the State Department began numbering them; there are now over 13,000 numbered orders. Orders were retroactively numbered going back to 1862 when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation by Executive Order. There are also many other Executive Orders that have not been numbered because they have been lost due to bad record-keeping. Such is not the problem today. All new Executive Orders are easily accessible (see below).

Controversy
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.

Congressional Recourse
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.

In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.



For the record, I am in favor of the constitution.

RE: Most of the ways that Humans have ...

I don't think individual morality is that hard to define. If I harm someone else for my pleasure or my perceived benefit, that is wrong.
I think the issue becomes clouded when we start trying to apply the concept of morality to governments or societies. The problem is that we are trying to apply a human concept, morality, to a non-human entity.
Governments, societies, corporations are not people. They are designed for a specific purpose. Different rules apply.
I think many of our arguments about morality are really arguments about the purpose of government. I believe that the government which governs least governs best. Others disagree.

And that's where the fight begins.......

RE: Taking Our Country Back!

Taking our country back from whom?

RE: God vs. Science

God does not need me to defend Him.
Yes you did take those quotes out of context.
They were specific directions given to specific people at a specific time for a specific purpose.

And don't wag your finger at me, it just makes you look childish.

RE: God vs. Science

Well.....I think love and hate are two sides of the same coin.
I'd say apathy is the abscence of love.

RE: God vs. Science

RE: So, happy campers...

Phone number....yes
Address and bank account.....no

RE: what is your biggest memory problem

I think I was behind you in line that day. Sorry about all the mean things I said.

RE: The Customer Service Hall of Shame

I had a similar experience with Charter. Only they failed to cancel the service even though I returned all the equipment, got a receipt for it. Now they are trying to collect for three months of service after the cancellation date. AAArrrgggghhh.....

RE: What would make you stay in a bad relationship?

Denial

RE: In some circles, it is known as "Rule 62"..

12X12 Trad 4

RE: In some circles, it is known as "Rule 62"..

Wish I had taken Rule #62 to heart a lot earlier in life. I could have spared myself and others a lot of heartache.
But you know what they say....It takes what it takes.

One of my other favorite sayings:

We get what we get
'cause we do what we do.

RE: Thought to Consider . . .

Agreed. Tired of running into walls.

RE: Thought to Consider . . .

It temporarily bolsters our false sense of superiority.
Wait.....I suppose that's not really a benefit then is it?
My illusions may be grand, but, afterall, they are still illusions.

RE: SUPERHERO'S - Who would you be?

Underdog

RE: Your Favorite Deadly Sin

I think that comes under sloth, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

RE: Your Favorite Deadly Sin

That's me...too lazy to lie.

RE: A Contest!!

When you are sleeping, you look so serene,
Then you wake up and you're so damn mean.

RE: Your Favorite Deadly Sin

Sloth.
I am laaaazy.