Comments on: What feds might do to counter states legalizing pot

By: Brice Stotz

Brice Stotz — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:19:36 +0000

Xbox Kinect has more distinctive technology using the controller-free Kinect, so that it is all the more frustrating that Microsoft’s own games felt more derivative than the third-party Dance Central. Even worse , the most awe-inspiring Kinect game introduced this week, Child of Eden, wasn’t playable, and contains no release date announced.

0 0

By: Tomeka Sawyer

Tomeka Sawyer — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:54:48 +0000

This posting is right to the point.

I’ll be stopping back to check outmore in the future.

0 0

By: agentbong138

agentbong138 — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:23 +0000

hey zag you should send me that plans too! message them to me on okvw

0 0

By: BruceM

BruceM — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:40:43 +0000

I agree the constitution is not meant to be constantly reinterpreted to suit the whims of the now. I do believe some sections of the constitution, like what “cruel and unusual punishment” means, were meant to change by the times, though, as it’s inherently subjective and undefined. It’s a tough distinction sometimes. But “interstate commerce” only means one thing, and that meaning does not change over time.

I see the biggest problem as the rich being able to buy laws to harm their competition. Happens all the time. Big companies can afford to buy legislation that basically outlaws their competition (you know, for the children). How did healthcare insurance ever get an exemption from antitrust laws? They bought it.

We could solve the entire healthcare crisis right now by merely making the helathcare companies subject to the antitrust/anti-collusion/anti-price-setting laws like all other companies. Then they’d actually have to compete against each other with better rates, better coverage, and less wrongful denial of coverage. They should be paying out 90 cents on the dollar, not keeping 90 cents on the dollar (and they’d still make a profit).

We could fix the entire healthcare problem with a one-sentence statute.

It’s things like that which show how corrupt the government is. And it’s become anti-capitalistic. I think it would be a lot harder if big companies had to buy of 50 legislatures instead of only one, and state legislatures would inherently favor in-state companies who can keep paying them off on a closer, more frequent basis. So I wouldn’t imagine too many companies would be able to buy 50 laws that outlaw their competition, or otherwise give them an unfair, uncompetitive advantage.

Cracks me up when we (especially Republicans) say they are capitalists. They HATE capitalism. It means they have to compete. The illusion of capitalism is far more preferable to them.

0 0

By: links for 2010-02-02

links for 2010-02-02 — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:02:53 +0000

[...] What feds might do to counter states legalizing pot You end up punishing people for non-existent offenses, and create a perverse system of incentives. For example, if someone smoked pot yesterday and wants to drive today, from a legal perspective they might as well toke up right before driving. Either way, if caught, it’s considered drugged driving. The people most likely to be deterred by “per se” standards are those who would have been responsible anyway. It’s touted as a way to increase driving safety, but it does no such thing. [...]

0 0

By: Just me

Just me — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:04:17 +0000

BruceM
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:49 am

In short yes. It is also easier to fight one srewing government than two.

0 0

By: Just me

Just me — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:02:11 +0000

LOL…now to mention the dog(our government) has had puppies and they are outof control too.

0 0

By: Just me

Just me — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 06:58:31 +0000

BruceM
February 1st, 2010 at 2:13 pm

What I ,as a regular guy, see these days is government using, bending or making law suit their agendas to keep their power supreme and keep their boot on our necks.

I see the Constitution as a static document, not a living thing to be changed. If you see it as a thing to be changed, then theres no reason to have it. Our founding fathers made it to try keep people free from tyranny. Many in government see this a an obsticle to their agenda therefore try make it seen as such, a living thing to be changed.

I say no. If they say this is so then all laws could be twisted to fit OUR daily life as living documents but, you dont see this, they would lose control again. They want it all thier way for their power.

Central government needs to be controlled like that of a pitbull on a leash. Dangerous to any crimnial or neighbor that would violate our borders but strictly under our(states) control. Right now it is off its leash and threating all around it.

0 0

By: BruceM

BruceM — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 06:49:04 +0000

Just Me: I think we can sum it up by simply saying that it’s better to be screwed, abused, violated, and fleeced by one government rather than two.

0 0

By: Just me

Just me — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 06:38:25 +0000

BruceM
February 1st, 2010 at 12:54 pm

I have to agree, we would be better off without,or at the very least, a strictly controlled central government.

If people look very close , if it werent for our cenral government, the people and the states would have much more resources(money) to take care of our selves. We dont need them to take our money then use it as they see fit for us(or themselves). Who better to decide what our state needs or for that matter our families need.

Also fraud, greed/corruption is all our central government knows now. we dont need that. Im not saying state government doesnt have these things but it is much easier for the people to watch state government than it is to watch federal government.

There are many fighting to see this collapse happen. Not to ruin our way of life , but to bring it back to its roots of liberty for free people. I for one am for a very small central government ,for defense and alike, but very controlled to keep from whats happening now from ever happening again.

0 0