Thanks, your post was well written too...

Liberals, they do at least one good thing, they keep your mind sharp and focused...

 

01 XLT's perfect America: White, uptight and stuck in 1955 when rich, white men were in power, the poor were voiceless, women were slaves to their husbands and coloureds stayed in their own part of town.

We, liberals understand and actually appreciate that people are individuals and that this is what makes life so unique. That every person is different and always will be. We don't have a need to make everyone act just like we do. We actually have the ability to reason and develop our own opinions, rather than following a popular doctrine, based on someone elses outdated, biased beliefs.

Conservatives want and expect everyone to look and behave just like they do. If anyone is different or not understood, they are immediately viewed as an evil threat that needs to be controled. I don't have a problem with people being different than myself. I'm not going to view them as a treat and I'm not going to try to control them or make them just like me. Conservatives actively seek to control what everyone sees, hears, feels, thus thinks, so everyone will be just like them. What is really interesting about the conservatives claim that their view is the right America is that our constitution was specifically written to guarantee individual freedom, yet conservatives want everyone to be exactly the same.

Burt, do you realize that you stated the majority (conservatives) make the rules yet the minority (liberals) enforces them? If the conservatives are such an overwhelming majority, how is it that you can't change our constitution to relect what you see as the real America? You actually said this several times

And of course you again bring your warped view of the world into your definitions Your statements just made me realize that whenever your refer to liberals, you are actually refering to Jesse Jackson. You see, liberals know that, Jesse Jackson is not a liberal. He's just very confused and shouldn't be acknowledged or he may think we're listening

 

You know Aj, I do like debating with you, regardless that we don’t see eye to eye. However if you ever pull some racist BS like that above quote of yours you can forget about every debating with me again.

That quote is a PERFECT example of what liberals revert to when losing a debate, or feeling they are losing their credibility. Debate me on merits or do not debate me at all.

No, I am sorry the majority of liberals do not believe anything you just stated above. They actually believe there are separate classes of Americans based on race, gender, age, income, education level and the list goes on. So pack that one away. It is conservatives like myself who actually believe people are individuals and regardless of race, gender etc, that they are smart and can make it on their own. We also hold ALL people to the same standards. Laws and regulations are written for EVERYONE, not particular classes of people.

Again you’re confusing what conservatives believe. They believe EVERYONE should be treated EQUAL in ALL aspects of life and that includes LAWS on the books. No one gets a break based on race, gender etc. Conservatives have always and to this day believe the Constitution was written to guarantee individual freedom to certain extent. Have you no regards for an orderly society? To have one there are laws, “rules” that must be followed. It is not as you liberals believe which is to “think” that individual freedom means for everyone to do as they wish with no regards for those they live among in society. That is not what the Constitution was written for. If you truly believe that you had better go back and re-read it and study it well.

No that is not what I stated. I stated that the majority of society (which is conservative at different levels) have instituted laws and regulations. It is the majority of society that tries to enforce them. It is the very small minority of society that continually tries to change them through the court system more then likely based on your illusion of the Constitution that individual freedom means it is a free-for-all to do as you please and screw the rest of society and what they want.

It is entertaining to read your rebuttals to my post where you try to sound like a conservative, don’t feel so bad about being a liberal, if that is what you are then so be it, you can always change…

Sounds like you’re trying to with each new post and quoting more and more conservative beliefs but trying to pass them off as liberal beliefs…

 

After re-reading my posts I think I believe why Aj is confused and perhaps thinks I am some kind of racist.

We need to define a few terms that I have been using. The following are liberal terms and conservative terms and this is where I believe Aj is confussed:

Liberal terms:

Majority – White people
Minority – Non-white people

Conservative terms:

Majority – A number more then half of the total number of a given group. Example: You have a conservative group, made of many different races, gender, age, income level etc. that outnumber a smaller group of people made up of liberals. Thus, if you had 2,000 people made up of many different races, gender, age etc and of that total group 1,001 made a statement that The sky is blue, and the other 999 made the statement the sky is orange then the Majority consensus would be – the sky is blue.

Minority – The opposite of the above, which has nothing to do with race, gender, age or any other groups liberals love to place people in…

Does that help?

 

racist

I have never thought that Burt was a racist. And I was born a poor black child raised by a white couple in the deep south. But by the grace of God I have learned to love everybody..............except one banned member, that, one day, will have a day of reasoning with me

 

Gator and Cyntaxx sittin' in a tree....

 

Limbaugh states he began using these pain killers years ago and has sought treatment twice before for his addiction, yet he only now says he wants to be honest with us. Where were all of these admissions before. He absolutely wants people to feel sorry for him. If you sit down and read the entire text of what he said one can come to no other conclusion.

Yes, he stated he wasn't a role model and wanted no one to feel sorry for him, but the entire tone and wording was intended to create just that effect or so he hopes. It is his only defense. Well he hired one heck of a lawyer so I guess thats the actions of someone who knows he is innocent. He could have just showed the cops his prescription and receipts from the pharmacy and ended the whole controversy.

He did not publicly admit his problems nor did he change any of his views about drug use being anything but a criminal problem until he got caught and publicly exposed. He knew what he was doing and he knew that what he was doing is illegal. He knew he was influencial in establishing an atmosphere that demanded tough prison sentences for all who were caught abusing drugs. Now he wants us to pray for him.

Did Rush Limbaugh ever once ask people to pray for drug users during the 15 years or so he was demanding they be locked up?

Did he ever ask if any of the poorer addicts could afford a treatment center?

The answer to the above two questions is a resounding NO.

In my local paper yesterday an entire page in the section behind Rush Limbaughs "I am sorry speech" was about drug busts and the sentences prosecuters were seeking. One woman's case stood out prominently, at least to me. She is getting five years for trying to obtain pain killers without a proper prescription, a Felony. My local Paper is owned by Knight Ridder and is the most right leaning paper in the entire midwest. I wish the drug busts section and Rush's I am sorry speech were at least put in the same section of the paper. There his hypocricy would be in its plainest perspective.

My personal view about our drug laws is that they are archaic and overly punitive. Too many poor and working class people have had their lives ruined because of these laws and Rush is a big reason these laws are as strong as they are. For this reason alone he should get the toughest penalties that can be prescribed by law and he should have to serve his time in a State facility and not a federal country club where so many rich and popular criminals seem to wind up.

I hope the conservatives stand true to their stated principles and make Rush suffer the fullest punishment allowed by law. After He Gets Out, we can all work together for some common sense drug laws.

 

HEY! Some of us might be deaf, you insensitive clod! I'm not, but still....

 

Nick D.

I agree with your point about some of the current drug laws on the books. I feel it is up for debate. As far as drug dealers not debating for them, when caught they should serve big time sentences for their crimes.

The drug user is the one I would be open for debate, and have been for quit some time. I have some opinions, but nothing is solid as far as I am concerned, or in other words my opinion itself is up for debate.

I am thinking something along the lines of:

First time user that is busted gets some type of serious warning and pays a decent fine, like a big speeding ticket if you will. Perhaps $200 to $500 for the first time. The first time counts and remains on their record for 10 years.

Second time busted for drug use or possession (possession not sufficient enough to be considered a dealer, which I have no idea what the amount should be) anyway, second time offense they either face one of two things. One 1 year minimum in jail and a $500 fine OR mandatory rehab. They would be responsible for paying the entire cost if they can afford to do so, or to pay some amount depending on their income. If depending on income they can not afford to pay at least 20% of it then they work it off through community service, or perhaps work the entire amount off through community service, say 1 hour per hundred dollars. This second one counts and stays on their record forever. If this happen before the 10 years is up from the first time.

Third time, three strikes and your out. Minimum of 5 years in jail, no if ands or buts about it…

If your busted for being a dealer (again depending on a defined amount) then regardless if it is a first time or not a minimum of 15 – 20 years in prison, no if and or buts about it.

As I stated it is open for debate to a point. I do not believe someone should be allowed to get away with it time and time again. Also the laws should somehow be uniform throughout the states, not sure how to do that without stepping on states rights.

The laws should apply to everyone equally regardless if they are rich or poor…

 

01XLT Sport, Yeah, a graduated sentencing structure is one good way to go provided it is applied equally to everyone. The types of sentencing should be dependent on the amount of possesion and type of drug.

The community service for recouping re hab costs is a good idea too. However these movie stars and other public figures should not get to have commercials count as community service, that only makes them look "cool" in the eyes of some and gives them free publicity.

I think some sort of amnesty program would be a good idea for society also. Say a user stays clean for a certain period of time, maybe 7 or 10 years, something like that. After that time their criminal record regarding that offense is wiped clean. We have hudreds of thousands of Americans who have been law abiding citizens except for getting caught partying with drugs. They're not burglars or muggers or rapists or anything else that is really bad. With police records they cannot get jobs that take full advantage of what they have to offer society. It hurts their families and in our new global economy we need all of our citizens working at their best capacity to keep our nation competitive.

Did you know that someone convicted of possession of drugs, and no other crime, can lose their right to carry a firearm of any type for any reason for the rest of their lives?

 

I'd just like to add that in your graduated sentencing system it needs to be made clear that if you're caught driving while stoned out of your mind, the penalties are gonna be significantly stiffer than if you were caught standing around smoking weed at a party. I've always held that if you get arrested for drunkeness say while walking home from a party, the punishment shouldn't be a stiff as if you were arrested for DUI. Simple acid test: If your actions put the lives of others at risk or in danger, then the punishment escalates.

Sorry, but up to this point I was actually in agreement with your comments. No way would I advocate wiping away crimes from a person's record. If you started with drug arrests, what would be next? Let's say the guy next door was arrested for a minor case of child molestation 20 years ago, and has since done his time, gone through therapy, and gotten a clean report from his therapist. This guy's cured now, right? As such we should wipe away his past conviction which would make it impossible for the day-care director to know exactly who she's now interviewing for a job. Or how 'bout the guy that was arrested for drug abuse 10 years ago who now wants to work as a pharmacist? Come on now and think this through.

This is a simple issue of personal responsibility for one's actions. Whether a person was young, drunk or just plain stupid when they broke the law and got arrested, they get to deal with the fruits of their actions for the remainder of their days. That's the way it needs to work so that the next guy might think twice before making the same mistakes.

-Mike-

 

Big Deal, I feel that way about possession of drugs but not violent and invasive crimes like the ones you mention. Those should stay to warn people of a certain capability in a person.

Right now we have people working at positions far below what they are capable of because they were caught with marijuana twenty years ago. People who did the same thing but did not get caught now openly admit to the deed yet hold high positions in business and politics. Those without the money for a good lawyer or who just happened to not be as lucky to not be caught are stuck with a background thats holds them and their families back.

It is my feelings that non violent and honest people should not be punished for their entire lives for something they did as a kid,while others openly admit to doing the same things yet go on to prosperous and fulfilling livleyhoods. It is using your litmus test, if you cause no danger to others fine, but if you do then the punishment escalates. If you're busted at a party and hurting no one your life isn't ruined forever. You still have to stay clean for a decade to erase the record so as to prove your worthiness.

I came of age during the seventies and have a very good friend who is one of the smartest people I know. He also would never hurt a soul. His level headedness in even the tightest of situations has boggled my mind. Yet because of a non violent offense more than two decades ago when he was just a kid he cannot get a decent job with a good pension. He can't teach his own son to hunt or shoot for meat with his friends.

He paid his debt to society, to keep our thumb on his head for eternity is just cruel. It makes no one safer, and it only punishes him and his family.

Mike, we have a president who we know was convicted of DUI. Alcohol is a very strong drug and while it is legal, driving under its influence is not. Yet our President has his hands on the nuclear football 24 hours a day. He says there were other past indescretions but will not elaborate. My point is, if it is okay for that, then why does another man have to be held down forever when he was doing no harm to anyone.

 

Big Deal, There is a State Representitive in Illinois. He represents the district next to the one I live in. He is a pharmacist. There was a big discrepency in his inventory and it was found out that he was using some of the drugs he was selling. Well he is a very popular and charming fellow. Everyone felt so sorry for him, it was "awww poor guy." It made me sick. He got to go to re hab. He still has his Pharmacy and he is still a State representitive. Ron Stephens recently won re-election by a large majority. He is very tough on other peoples crimes.

Had that been an average citizen who had the misfortune of not being a good looking or charming fellow(like most of us)he would be facing the loss of his livleyhood and jail. His home would be confiscated and sold and his family just sh*t out of luck.

He should have been punished with some of the laws he helped pass. After he proved clean for a decade I would have no problem with him going back into politics or even getting his pharmacy license back. But he shouldn't get to keep everything and have no punishment because he is popular, while another man cannot have a good job for violating the same law.

 

Well, my initial plan does allow for a person to have the crime taken off their record. Granted it is a 10-year wait, but the opportunity is there. It is during the first time they should receive the warning and be told what the consequences could be if they find themselves arrested for drug use again (such as Nick mentioned, hard to find a good job etc.) Even with a second time offense if it is after the initial 10 years it would be like a first time offense.

Granted this is just something thrown out for debate purposes and may indeed have flaws in it. I do agree with Big Deal that any type of drug possession while in a moving vehicle should face stiffer and harsher sentences.

As far as someone completing community services for repaying for rehab in my plan there would be only one kind of community service, that is actually doing something in the public, cleaning streets, repairing schools etc. There would be NO TV allowed and I don’t care who they are. Public announcements are NOT community services in my opinion, at least done by someone sentenced to community service.

If after say a movie star is finished with their entire community service and they wish to give more of their time making public statements against drug use etc, then great but it would NOT count towards the court time. Then again the movie star would have the money to pay for rehab anyway.

It should be equal treatment regardless who you are. Now those with money won’t necessarily have to do any community service since they could pay for the rehab to begin with. I look at the community service as a way for someone that can’t afford to pay for rehab as a means for paying back society and those that fund the possibility of having a rehab to begin with. Nothing should be free.

 

01
The problem is that you "think" you know what everyone else does or should do. You already have made up your mind about everything and everyone. Your bias shows through. "If" Rush did or didn't do this or that. Hell you were quicker to bite on the "truth" of false information Dubya used to invade Iraq with. A little bit selective in how you view information isn't it? Then again I will give you credit, your spinmeister skills are pretty impressive.


Hmmmm,
I guess that statement doesn't apply to everyone though does it. It will be interesting to see what happens to the big windbag. I don't think it is going to be anything that is equal to someone that doesn't have the $$$$ that he has.
The key phrase in the above statement is key"Conservatives have always and to this day believe the Constitution was written to guarantee individual freedom to certain extent" sums it all up. TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. That is where the control comes in, as long as it is what those conservatives agree with, then it is fine. Telling AJ that he needs to go re-read something and to study it well is what the blowhard Rush would say to somebody who doesn't agree with him. You see that is the difference, you disagree with us and we must be wrong because you obviously are right.