Can We Agree On These Few Things?

Ok Folks, lets take a true common sense approach and look at some issues and cut to the chase and come to some common ground in the name of common sense to be had by all.

The Earth is billions of years old, and not 6,000?

Whether the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be left up the person carrying the baby and the male counterpart?

Some people are born as homosexuals and some choose homosexuality, but some accomodation needs to be made to those who choose to live in long term relationships as homosexual couples?

It is time for the rise of a viable third party in American politics?

The war on drugs has been a huge policy failure?

Im curious to see what comes of this. Please post away

 

Debate away...

The Earth is billions of years old. There is lots of proof for it, the only proof the Earth is 6,000 years old is the word of a bunch of men who wrote a book 2,000 years ago based on the ramblings of a preacher.

A baby should really only be brought into the world if it is going to be wanted and looked after, but people should really try to avoid abortion. But its not up to me to infringe their rights.

Accomidation needs to be made for homosexuals, because they are just the same as us in every way, and we don't discriminate against people who prefer black women, white women etc.

In the UK a third party is a remote possibility within a few years if it gets its act together. I don't think America is anywhere close to that.

The war on some drugs has been a total failure, namely cannabis and ecstasy.

 

See you are already in principal agreement on every issue. If we take a step back and have a common sense approach to these issues, real progress can be made on them.

 

And?

Unborns are human beings. In the US, our entire legal system is based on the fact that we come into being with certain rights and among those is a right to live. Denying any segment of the population the most fundamental right that we have without due process is a blatant violation of our constitution. All rights and privileges that anyone may claim are secondary, in this country, to your right to live. It has nothing to do with your sex, race, or citizenship but is based entirely on the fact that you are a human being. Prove that unborns are not human beings and you will prove that killing them without legal consequence is constitutional. Fail to prove it, and you have lost the argument before you even begin.

Civil unions are a reasonable accomodation. A nation can not, however, go about granting special rights based on the sexual preference of 2 or 3% of its population.

As soon as one comes along, it will find a place in the mainstream. That you might agreee with the philosophy of one, does not make it viable.

Roll back all of the other intrusions into my life based on what is "best" for me and then we might be able to talk about a change in drug policy but so long as some people think that they have the right to make law and force me to behave in what they call a responsible manner (for my own good) the question of legalizing drugs is off the table for me.

 

Why not take off one of the intrusions and legalise a couple of drugs? To be honest, some drugs should be illegal. Drugs that are highly addictive, and have very bad health effects such as heroin and crystal meth should be illegal.

Cannabis prohibition hasnt worked, and it will be more beneifical it terms of its gateway status, and that the government can tax it, if it is legal.

Ecstasy does more harm being illegal than legal. The prohibition of ecstasy too has failed, with 2 million pills being taken every week in the UK alone. But the fact is they are more often that not contaminted and cut with other chemicals, and the user does not know the potency increasing the probablity of overdose.

By standardising the strength, and with a guarnateed purity, nobody is going to die from anything apart from an allergic reaction to the MDMA, an accident whilst using MDMA, mixing it with other drugs, or from a problem with antidiurectic hormones, which means people get very dehydrated or drink far too much and drown the brain.

Most ecstasy deaths come from what else is in the pill, or what people do on the pill, not MDMA itself. In fact only 90 deaths had ever been recorded in the UK from ecstasy in 2001, whilst 75 people a year die from glue sniffing, and over 8,000 died in 2005 from alcohol overdose. Imagine if people didnt know the strength of alcohol because it was an illegal drug?

 

Bunz, I think these issues are too complex to simplify to this extent. For instance, I could ask the same of people on the left:

- Abortion is killing. It's a baby. It kicks, moves, has a heartbeat and brainwave, and when allowed it can grow. Abortion kills human beings and should therefore be prohibited.

- Gun control gives law-abiding citizens means to defend themselves and their families. There will always be illegal weapons in the world and gun control only takes way the guns from those unwilling to illegaly buy weapons. Absence of gun control makes people and societies safer.

- Americans should be allowed to keep much more of what they earn and the government should not punish entrepeneurship, ambition, job and wealth creation with heavy taxes.

- State and federal governments are now spending way more than constitutionally mandated and government spending should be slashed.

- Government schools in this country are an absolute failure and if education was turned over to the private sector, a much better job would be done at a fraction of the cost.

- Our strategy with Islamic terrorism should be what Reagan's cold war strategy was: "we win, they lose".

- We should not award illegal immigrants who steal across our borders and live here on our dime with American citizenship. A physical and technological border should be constructed to keep them out, both for economic and national security reasons.

I have no idea how old the Earth is, to be perfectly honest.

Palerider has me convinced until someone can unconvince me that a woman's right to not be inconvenienced should outweigh a child's right to live.

I personally don't really care though I believe it should be left up to the state.

I would prefer to get ride of political parties like Washington requested in his Farewell Address.

I'll give you that it certainly hasn't been effective in slowing the flow of drug sale and use.

 

i know what yer saying.

4.5 billion to be exactumundo

hahaha, didn't you get enough of the other 500 page threads about this? we're gonna have to wait for our kids to agree about that. or maybe our kids kids. we sure aint gonna do it.

its 2007 for christ sake. stop the discrimination.

Al Gore hes our man.

Just say no to marijuana man! but feel free to drink that case of Budweiser. thats ok.

Know what I'm saying?

 

Palerider and others, since I can seem to figure out how to multiquote a message, Ill do a little copy and paste.

From Palerider:
And?
OK again common sense prevails

Unborns are human beings. In the US, our entire legal system is based on the fact that we come into being with certain rights and among those is a right to live.
Ah the Due Process argument, a very good one, I am curious how Roe V Wade made it past that. One thing I will point out is that we recieve our US citizenship and therefore that right upon our birth. They dont give SS#s to fetuses. I dont like the idea of abortion, especially as a method of birth control, but I believe if someone else wants to undertake those demons, I wont stop them.

Civil unions are a reasonable accomodation.

Thats all I was looking for.

As soon as one comes along, it will find a place in the mainstream.

I agree, and I dont have a particular one in mind, it is just that the two we realistically pick from are far from representative and have become entities on thier own and have lost thier focus.

Roll back all of the other intrusions into my life based on what is "best" for me and then we might be able to talk about a change in drug policy but so long as some people think that they have the right to make law and force me to behave in what they call a responsible manner (for my own good) the question of legalizing drugs is off the table for me.

For Example? I think a reversal or modification of much of the drug policy is a good place to start. It would go along way in changing the other laws. But those for instance like seat belt laws are just as much there as an ability to raise revenue as it is for safety.

USMC, I intended to make this about actual common sense and not about left or right to speak of. But Ill bite regardless.

Gun control gives law-abiding citizens means to defend themselves and their families. There will always be illegal weapons in the world and gun control only takes way the guns from those unwilling to illegaly buy weapons. Absence of gun control makes people and societies safer.

Although I might be left leaning, I agree, I am a gun totin, pistol carrying, trap shooting, hunter. I will say that some people shouldnt have them, as is obvious in the mass killings or any unjustifiable homicide with a gun. But the actions of those people should not reflect on those of us who use them responsibly.

We should not award illegal immigrants who steal across our borders and live here on our dime with American citizenship. A physical and technological border should be constructed to keep them out, both for economic and national security reasons.

I have said before, I am a fisherman, we cant begin to bail the boat until the leak is stopped.

From: ACG.
hahaha, didn't you get enough of the other 500 page threads about this? we're gonna have to wait for our kids to agree about that. or maybe our kids kids. we sure aint gonna do it.

I hope not, I dont even bother to look at those threads with more than about 40 posts, to much background reading to bother with.

Just say no to marijuana man! but feel free to drink that case of Budweiser. thats ok.

I am looking at this purely from a financial standpoint. Im not a user myself, but it makes little sense with all this half-assed enforcement and then locking away people who are more sick than criminals. I think trafficers should pay heavy prices, but users, send them to rehab or let them do it in thier own homes.

 

palerider wrote: "Roll back all of the other intrusions into my life based on what is "best" for me and then we might be able to talk about a change in drug policy but so long as some people think that they have the right to make law and force me to behave in what they call a responsible manner (for my own good) the question of legalizing drugs is off the table for me."
So, what you are saying is, you support intrusions into my life based on what is "best" for me as long as they are based on Conservative values, but not Liberal ones?

 

No, I think paleriders saying once some other laws trying to tell me how to look after myself are abandoned, I will consider legalization of drugs.

 

The prohibition against murder hasn't worked either, should we abandon that one as well? Just because people continue to do a thing that is against the law is not sufficient reason to make that thing legal.

 

Is this a rhetorical statement?

I'm curious. Could you provide another example of a "special right," and then why it is negative to grant such things?

For that matter, could you reason out to me how it is the government "grants" rights? I was under the impression that our rights are naturally endowed and the government is just there to protect them.

But can you at least agree that the excess and corruption of our two major parties is a serious detriment to America today?

What are these "intrusions?" I'm sure I'd agree that removing them would be a good thing. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that seatbelt laws are on your list but undoubtedly there are more. If you can find one that I can't honestly say I'd be okay with repealing then I might have some respect for this position you've taken; otherwise it just looks like you're dodging the issue.

 

If you read roe v wade, it is clear how they got around due process. Way back in 1972, it was possible to make an argument of sorts that unborns were not, indeed, human beings. In his majority decision, justice blackmund acknowledged that should the argument ever be made that unborns are human beings, roe falls because they (unborns) would be protected by the 14'th amendment.

The fact that we receive citizenship after we are born has no bearing on the question as one doesn't need to be a citizen in this country to have the right to live. The 14th amendment protects everyone regardless of their citizenship status, that is why it is called the equal protection clause and numerous cases have made it clear that one need not be a citizen to have one's basic rights protected.

If you care to try this, go out and kill someone who doesn't have a SS## and you will find that you will be just as guilty of murder as if you killed a citizen of the US.

It is hypocritical in the extreme to insist that I buckle up for safety and fine me if I do not do so and then legalize a drug that will most certainly result in highway deaths.

 

And if that were the only reason than we probably wouldn't be having this discussion anymore. The revocation of its gateway status is a big plus for me. The possible economic benefits are another.

You compare marijuana with murder? Prohibition is a much, much more apt comparison, as both center on recreational substances.

 

Yes. I don't know of anyone who actually argues that the earth is 6,000 years old.

No I can't and that is exactly the point.

Tell me. Where, exactly, would you draw the line with regard to marriage? Would you allow anyone to marry anyone or anything? And once you grant one group to marry based on no more than their sexual preference, how do you justify denying ANY other group who want to marry based on any preference?

Show me a right to marry in the constitution. Marriage is what it is. A nation can't go about redefining the meaning of institutions based on the sexual preference of some of its citizens either.

So you think 3 corrupt parties or 5 corrupt parties will be better?

My position is that it is hypocritical to force me, by the power of law to do anything for my "own good" and then legalize a drug that is most certainly not good for me or anyone else.