Senator Barney Frank (D-MA) calls for decriminalization of marijuana

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Codyyy, Mar 24, 2008.

  1. JBroll

    JBroll Hard-On For Freedom™ Contributor

    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    531
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    "Do that look like someone mess'n with Texas to you, too, Jerry?"

    "I reckun we got ahselves a mess'r."

    "Git mah brandin' iorhn."

    Jeff
     
  2. Zepp88

    Zepp88 Arktanian Diplomat Contributor

    Messages:
    22,540
    Likes Received:
    833
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Location:
    A Technological Deadzone
  3. jacksonplayer

    jacksonplayer The Fusion Guy! Contributor

    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    481
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    Legalize it. Don't tax it. Remove the taxes from alcohol. Defund most police SWAT teams. Eliminate the DEA and the offending portions of the FDA. Eliminate any aspect of federal criminal law and law enforcement that does not concern truly interstate or international activity.

    That's a start.

    I believe this is about the first time I agree with the quasi-socialist Rep. Frank on, well, most stuff other than civil liberties.
     
  4. noodles

    noodles Contributor

    Messages:
    18,493
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Woodbridge, VA
    I'll never understand how fiscal conservatism got mixed up with social conservatism. The former is based on sound financial and political principals, while the latter is an excuse for the religious right to conduct unconstitutional attacks on our civil liberties.

    What is really sad is that the modern Republican party fails on both counts. They spend far more money that the former, and one of the most liberal, administrations ever, and they have made it a point to aggressively attack our civil liberties in the name of morality and some stupid war on terrorism.
     
  5. JBroll

    JBroll Hard-On For Freedom™ Contributor

    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    531
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    Not only do they fail at both counts, adding social conservatism requires failure at conservative government - unnecessary government intervention in anything is supposed to be avoided. Oh, well...

    Jeff
     
  6. noodles

    noodles Contributor

    Messages:
    18,493
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Woodbridge, VA
    Agreed. The modern Republican party is more theocratic fascism than anything else.
     
  7. ohio_eric

    ohio_eric Contributor

    Messages:
    9,224
    Likes Received:
    1,225
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Location:
    Ohio
  8. drshock

    drshock Street-good guy

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    14
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    rochester ny
    Thats why I get really pissed when some people I know mindlessly say things like are like f- conservativism right wing etc.

    Real true conservativism is supposed to be in favor of the bill of rights no exceptions. The war, the patriot act, the u.n., gun control, prohibtion etc. are all liberal acts whether or not a "conservative" has voted for them.
     
  9. noodles

    noodles Contributor

    Messages:
    18,493
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Woodbridge, VA
    Well, I wouldn't call the liberal acts, either. I'd call them tyrannical acts.
     
  10. JBroll

    JBroll Hard-On For Freedom™ Contributor

    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    531
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    Tyrants rarely attempt to conserve their power.

    Jeff
     
  11. noodles

    noodles Contributor

    Messages:
    18,493
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Woodbridge, VA
    My point was it is not a simple left/right, conservative/liberal view. You cross the point where it doesn't matter anymore, because you're just a tyrant. Hitler and Stalin are on opposite sides of the graph, after all.
     
  12. jacksonplayer

    jacksonplayer The Fusion Guy! Contributor

    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    481
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    Politically, it basically started with Nixon's "Southern Strategy," but the ideological justification back in the day was that the old-school fundamentalists of the '60s and '70s wanted, more than anything, to be left alone to practice their beliefs (home schooling, etc.). A few, like Falwell, always had an activist, illiberal bent, but it was when the fundamentalists got a whiff of power in the '80s that more of them started thinking they could reorder society along their own lines.

    That's where the neocons come in. The term has mutated into a pejorative term for someone favoring an aggressive foreign policy, but it's real meaning is a small group of '60s leftist radicals and their Old Left parents who adopted conservative ideals in the '70s, but maintained their belief in the transformative power of government. In other words, the traditional Republican has a thorough distrust of the government, albeit not to the extent of us libertarians, but the neocons merely redirected their grandiose, statist theories from socialism/communism to nationalism/religion. The ends might be different, but the means are the same.

    As an old-school fiscal conservative, I don't personally see anything "conservative" about neo-conservatism. Fortunately, they seem to have fucked things up so badly over the last seven years that they are discredited. The bad thing is that the only alternative being put forward at the moment is Eurosocialism. I think the GOP is going to suffer until it rediscovers what actual conservatism means.
     
  13. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    29,978
    Likes Received:
    5,978
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Actually, to nit pick a bit, liberalism simply means the belief in a codified, written book of law. The sense "liberal" has come to aquire, more or less a synonym for "progressive," is slightly misleading, but can be thought of as an offshoot of the fact that before the liberal movement, law was whatever the king wanted it to be. Writing laws down for all to see and making everyone follow them is if nothing else more fair, and was most likely seen as progressive in it's day.
     
  14. Rodney

    Rodney Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Location:
    Hollywood
    An astute observation. Most people don't realize that the neocons were actually from the democratic party. The movement started during carter's run for president. The radical left fought against him and when they lost infected the republican party.

    It's obvious the Republican party isn't truly conservative anymore. Look at the heart attack they had over Ron Paul. They hired Democrats to change parties and run against him in his own congressional district to keep him out of government!

    The smear campaign, media suppression of his candidacy, and vote fraud was unprecidented. Many have said this primary will go down as the most corrupt in US history.

    Real Republican ideals are what used to be called classical liberalism in the vein of Thomas Jeffersons writing. Personal liberty before all else, limited government, states rights and minimal taxation. It's a shame most people don't realize that. the bigger shame is that most have had the government in thier lives so long, taking care of themselves and personal responsibility are a nightmare to them. Don't even get me started on the ones that blame capitalism for all evils not realizing we haven't had it in a long time and that we live under corporatism.

    Just makes the slide to socialism / fascism that much easier
     
  15. jacksonplayer

    jacksonplayer The Fusion Guy! Contributor

    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    481
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    Oh, it started before that. Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol from the Old Left are pretty much the godfathers of the movement, and they became "conservatives" around 1970, if not earlier. For the younger neocons (including their sons John Podhoretz and Bill Kristol), their epiphanies were driven in large part by the increasing violence and mania exhibited by the New Left at the end of the '60s. A few of them went back to Goldwater's campaign, but that was mostly a different crowd.

    The younger neocons became footsoldiers in Reagan's campaigns and took junior staffer positions in his administrations. This helps point out that conservative resurgence started by Goldwater in 1964 started to evaporate almost from the moment that Reagan took office. The GOP became good at holding the White House, but quickly forgot its reason for being. And this was driven by the neocons, who had no real interest in Golderwater-style western conservatism.
     
  16. Rodney

    Rodney Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Location:
    Hollywood
    When you look back on events it's scary how one thing can turn the tide. Had Goldwater kept sway with the party I can only imagine what would have followed.

    I realize the neocons were around before them, but the actual term and identification as a group was, as you said, the movement by Kristol to the conservative side and the label being used as a smear by other democrats.
     
  17. drshock

    drshock Street-good guy

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    14
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    rochester ny
    Well of course yes- my whole point was just to illustrate the fact that conservatives today arent really any bit conservative at all and that the meaning of the name has been pretty much warped and forgotten. (Kind of like the bill of rights. :noplease:)
     
  18. noodles

    noodles Contributor

    Messages:
    18,493
    Likes Received:
    2,343
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Woodbridge, VA
    Then that would mean we haven't had a real Republican party...well, ever. Lincoln was the first president the Republican party ever fielded, and he didn't even come close to fitting the Jefferson mold. Jefferson was not a nationalist who would condone the suspension of habeus corpus in support of war, and would not condone forcing states to remain in the union with military force. In short, the Republican party started out by being everything that Jefferson was not. As a matter of fact, the first wave of "radical" Republicans, who rose to power during the Reconstruction, took a very similar, heavy handed approach to those who disagreed with their principals.

    Teddy Roosevelt was probably the only true Republican the GOP ever put in the White House. He is exactly the kind of man I would vote for, if one of the two exclusive clubs we call political parties would field him.
     
  19. Rodney

    Rodney Member

    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Location:
    Hollywood

    If were gonna talk about officials that follow party platform we've never had a real democrat either. I disagree about Roosevelt though. Taft was deserving of the title as well. His greatest contribution to the party not being his presidency as much as his son Roberts career.
     
  20. JBroll

    JBroll Hard-On For Freedom™ Contributor

    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    531
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX, USA
    So, long story short, American politicians fail at politics. Anything new?

    Jeff
     

Share This Page