mom (can I call you that?),



I see, and to a large extent agree with where you are coming from. What prohibitionists need to do is realize the difference between actions caused by intoxicants and actions performed by people using intoxicants. I've taken some pretty gnarly stuff in my day, and let me assure you -- no matter what you're on, if you are still conscious, the choices you make are coming from you, not the substance. Granted, alcohol 'blackouts' do occur, and many substances have similar such capabilities; still, I'd say the onus is on the user to know their limits and to know when to stop. You can't blame the alcohol for taking the fifteenth shot (the one that finally KO'd your conscious mind). Similarly, you cannot blame the acid for dropping three tabs at once (<u>not</u> recommended, even with adequate babysitting!).


That said, drunks who commit crimes (even ones in a total unconscious stupor) are tried and convicted for the crimes themselves, not for the fact that they happened to be drinking at the time -- rightly so, I'm sure you'd agree. I'm not sure of your point about recidivism and rehab. It's been my experience, however, that alcohol is a much harder addiction to kick (and nicotine harder still) than cocaine. Heroin is supposedly the hardest of all because of the physical nature of withdrawal -- convulsions and vomiting make just one more nod really, really hard to turn down -- still, it is doable if a person wants to. If such a person doesn't want to kick their habit (and again, in my experience, very few users actually have 'habits' much like most people you see at clubs are not alcoholics) that's their problem. Wouldn't it be better for the rest of us if they could at least afford their eighth-a-day habit on the salary they'll make in one of the few places which would still employ them? Breaking into houses and robbing stores is risky and takes time. Better to sweep up at Chucky Cheese bombed out of your gourd. Cheaper drugs will only be realized by the elimination of the prohibition-based profit structure.


Finally, when you talk of more freedom and less government, I must ask you, what could possibly be more intrusive than the government taking a personal interest in what you eat and drink, what you spend your money on, and what you do in your leisure time, associating only with like-minede individuals? You speak of guaranteed "protection from harm". I assume this means you will welcome the Gestapo when they break down your door to confiscate your potato chips (might cause cancer, better safe than sorry), guns (goodness gracious, the ways in which you might hurt yourself or -- god forbid -- someone else!), scissors, and knives (you might run with them, you never know. They guarantee protection from harm). Even granting your claim that your neighbor's smoking angel dust somehow harms you (which I don't, but for the sake of argument...), are you sure that's one of the things the government is meant to do?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2002-07-11 21:59 ]</font>

Interesting that we share a "secondary Libertarian Left Delta," the "melding quadrant (this isn't related to a Vulcan mind meld, is it?)" I suppose that explains why the 4T web site hasn't turned into one big flame-though it's fun to watch the current match between Eric and justmom.

"At least the Democrats are honest about it. Therefore, in my estimation, this Bush crowd occupies an even lower rung of the human ladder than Clinton (who himself as a "New Democrat" was a corporatist funded by precisely the same people...meet the new boss, same as the old boss).

So George W. Bush has gotten through some pathetic joke of a tax cut designed to never take effect anyway. Fine, but did he DEVOLVE POWER? No? Then he can take that "theoretical" tax cut and shove it up his you-know-what! --Stonewall Patton


Let's see if I've got this straight: Clinton promised a tax cut during the campaign, in 1992, but then raised taxes right after he took office. This, according to Mr. Patton, is at least being "honest" about it.

On the other hand, Bush promised a tax cut during the campaign, in 2000, then cut taxes right after he took office, but not to the satisfaction of Mr. Patton. This according to Mr. Patton, is grounds for Bush to now occupy "an even lower rung of the human ladder than Clinton".

Hummm. That's pretty strange logic, Mr. Patton. Toking on the bong early this morning, were we? :smile:

"justmom"...do I smell a troll?

Nah, she seems pretty sincere. To me anyway. :smile:

I know people (like my own mom -- is that you, ma?) who think just like her. I say non-troll. Besides, I'd hate to think I wasted my time coming up with long posts for a cave-dwelling heliophobe...

On 2002-07-11 07:14, Marc Lamb wrote:


"When Eric mentioned the less frequent posters, I thought - that might say a lot in itself. Is there a different balance among the "lurkers" than there is among the more active?"

Judging from the number of "views" compared to the number of posts on each thread (given that a typical post requires several views to edit and such), I have figured that about 20-25 people are either posting or just lurking at this site on a daily basis.

And I think I'm being generous on that.

Of course, people such as myself frequently post and lurk, but this is not reflected in my numbers because I only joined in June.

On 2002-07-11 13:44, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-11 10:33, justmom wrote:

So my question.... "Stonewall Patton" 2 of Americas greatest generals, and VERY pro military agression, what's the beef with Bush?

Where do I begin? In general, I stand for restoration of the constitutional republic or at least implementation of some form of constitutionally limited government (i.e. powers restricted to those specifically enumerated). This Bush crowd has done exactly what I knew they would as soon as this puppet was thrust forward back in 1999: consolidate federal power like never before. No surprise at all and nothing that I could even support on my deathbed.

I was a Reagan Republican 20 years ago and I still want government to do precisely the same thing today: DEVOLVE POWER. The only reason I have opposed the Democrats all these years is because they openly admitted that they wished to consolidate power. On the other hand, we were always led to believe that the Republicans stood for "less government" (i.e. DEVOLUTION OF POWER) However this Bush crowd, being corporatists as opposed to capitalists, has a vested interest in consolidating governmental power to their advantage every bit as much as the Democrats. At least the Democrats are honest about it. Therefore, in my estimation, this Bush crowd occupies an even lower rung of the human ladder than Clinton (who himself as a "New Democrat" was a corporatist funded by precisely the same people...meet the new boss, same as the old boss).

So George W. Bush has gotten through some pathetic joke of a tax cut designed to never take effect anyway. Fine, but did he DEVOLVE POWER? No? Then he can take that "theoretical" tax cut and shove it up his you-know-what! I would continue the list but I cannot think of anything else he has done which advances the alleged "conservative agenda" which we have heard so much about all these years. But any window dressing presented by Machiavellian scumbag Karl Rove, like this stupid tax cut, should be ignored. The only thing that matters at this point is whether Junior has DEVOLVED POWER in any way whatsoever. He hasn't? Then Junior can take himself and whatever crowd he fronts for and go to hell!

That is the reason I support Bush so much; I am apt to be mostly conservative on most personal issues, but I am quite near center socially, and I don't mind the size of government that bad.

Justmom, wasn't General Stonewall from the Confederacy (not american)? Not that it matters, but...

On 2002-07-11 16:55, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2002-07-11 16:44, Justin '77 wrote:



You let bovine-americans drink, eat chocolate, and gamble? You MONSTER! :grin:

It is "free choice" feeding in the bovine world. I fear the USDA will come down with zero-tolerance schedules soon.


How do you think Carnation produced product from Contented Cows for so many years? Were they perhaps stoners?

<font size=-6>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-07-11 16:59 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-07-11 17:02 ]</font>

I live in Western Wisconsin. What is Wisconsin known for other than Cheese (therefore Cows) and Beer? A LOT of Bovine-Americans drinking...

On 2002-07-11 17:21, Agent 24601984 wrote:

On 2002-07-11 17:18, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-11 16:47, Agent 24601984 wrote:

FWIW the politicians I hate the most are the Authoritarian Right!

Hey, hey! That is where Justmom and Alex turned up. :wink: Your lowest quadrant was close to being a toss up but the Libertarian Right edged out the Authoritarian Right. Ask yourself this: which group do you hate more:

1) Junior, John McCain, and Bill (buuurrrp) Bennett

2) Thomas Jefferson, Harry Browne, and Pat Buchanan




BTW, CBailey, you almost pulled off a Neisha! You cleaned up the Authoritarian Left quadrant before leaving it at which point you cleaned up the Libertarian Left quadrant. Only upon entering the right side of the board did you diverge from Neisha as you jumped back and forth between the Authoritarian Right and the Libertarian Right. But you are yet another poster with the secondary Libertarian Left "Delta."

hmm... I'm a big Jefferson fan, I respect Browne and Buchanan for being honest and having principles (tho I hate a few of Buchanan's), I like McCain somewhat and I hate the politics of the other two, so I'd have to say Group 1

Perhaps this (and the fact that Agent & I are Tauruses (I am by personality, not by birth)) explains why Agent and I get into so many arguments in some of the other posts.

Is group 1 Neo-Conservative? And is "Junior" George W. Bush?

On 2002-07-11 22:11, Justin '77 wrote:
I'd hate to think I wasted my time coming up with long posts for a cave-dwelling heliophobe...

Huh?

Chris,

A fascist libertarian would be an oxymoronic authoritarian anti-authoritarian. That is along the lines of Joe Sobran's statement that he would favor anarchy if only it could be enforced. :wink: But you really did get a clearer spread this time around. Analysis:

On 2002-07-11 21:00, Chris Loyd '82 wrote:

#1 Libertarian

#2 Paleoconservative

#3 Radical

#4 Paleo-libertarian

#5 Left-libertarian

#6 Liberal

#7 Neoconservative

#8 Centrist

#9 Conservative

#10 Third Way

Cool. Your pattern is similar to mine in that you take all the libertarian factions before advancing onto the authoritarian side of the board. However you differ in that you mix and match Libertarian Left and Libertarian Right a little more. You appear to be in the Libertarian Right quadrant but possibly very close to the Libertarian Left border. You look to be close to Justin's position even though you show a different order. Regardless, you are in the Libertarian Right and you too show a secondary Libertarian Left "Delta." The beat goes on....





And here we have the man from the land downunder....

#1 Third Way
#2 Centrist
#3 Radical
#4 Liberal
#5 Left-libertarian
#6 Neoconservative
#7 Libertarian
#8 Conservative
#9 Paleo-libertarian
#10 Paleoconservative

Tristan's list is kind of funky too. At the very top, he goes from Third Way in the Authoritarian Left and skips over Liberal in the same quadrant in order to hit Radical in the Libertarian Left quadrant. This suggests that he might actually be more pragmatic and closer to the center and indeed he rates Centrist as his second choice. However the second half of his list shows a pretty consistent advance rightward, bouncing back and forth between the Authoritarian and Libertarian Right. I think the most likely interpretation is that Tristan is something of a Authoritarian/Libertarian Left cusper like William, but probably more pragmatic and closer to the center than William. Regardless, Tristan starts in the Authoritarian Left, quite possibly on the Authoritarian Left side of that cusp, and he clearly has the secondary Libertarian Left "Delta" as well.

Justmom, wasn't General Stonewall from the Confederacy (not american)? Not that it matters, but...

NOT American? Hell Yes American! Willing to live and die for his ideals and beliefs in
"States Rights".

Heliotrope you only smell a troll if you haven't showered today. :smile: Just kidding.
No, I'm Justins mom. He said so himself. Called me mom even, a couple of posts back.
And believe me if I didn't believe in what I am saying so obsessively, I'm a mom of 3, it's summer, don't you think I got better things to do? My passion for this site will soon fade and then you can all go about agreeing with each other soon enough. But, you'll miss me.

On 2002-07-10 16:21, AlexMnWi wrote:
As if you didn't know, mine are:
1. Neo-Conservative
2. Conservative
3. Centrist
4. Third Way
5. Paleo-Conservative
6. Liberal
7. Libertarian
8. Paleo-Libertarian
9. Radical
10. Left-Libertarian

Okay, I took it again re-interpreting some of the questions and this is what I got:

1. Neo-Conservative
2. Conservative
3. Centrist
4. Third Way
5. Liberal
6. Libertarian
7. Paleo-Conservative
8. Radical
9. Paleo-Libertarian
10. Left-Libertarian

On 2002-07-11 22:47, justmom wrote:
Justmom, wasn't General Stonewall from the Confederacy (not american)? Not that it matters, but...

NOT American? Hell Yes American! Willing to live and die for his ideals and beliefs in
"States Rights".

Heliotrope you only smell a troll if you haven't showered today. :smile: Just kidding.
No, I'm Justins mom. He said so himself. Called me mom even, a couple of posts back.
And believe me if I didn't believe in what I am saying so obsessively, I'm a mom of 3, it's summer, don't you think I got better things to do? My passion for this site will soon fade and then you can all go about agreeing with each other soon enough. But, you'll miss me.

Uh, yeah. I meant more along a literal interpretation of the question, based on his place of residence, and not on his political and moral beliefs, etc.

Thank God! HI Alex glad to have another Conservative aboard. I bet you even watch FOX news!

ha ha

On 2002-07-11 22:51, justmom wrote:
Thank God! HI Alex glad to have another Conservative aboard. I bet you even watch FOX news!

ha ha

Actually, I do.

oh nevermind.......

Justin?

You said

You speak of guaranteed "protection from harm". I assume this means you will welcome the Gestapo when they break down your door to confiscate your potato chips (might cause cancer, better safe than sorry), guns (goodness gracious, the ways in which you might hurt yourself or -- god forbid -- someone else!), scissors, and knives (you might run with them, you never know. They guarantee protection from harm).

What did I say that you could possibly have come to that assumption?

What I ment by "Resonable protection from harm" , was that the known criminals are locked up,& off the streets, (or have already served their time and once again are back on the streets, hopefully wiser, but,if not wiser, they served their debt, nothing I can do at that point.)

I don't really wish to have known criminals coddled in 'rehab hospitals' when it is their only intention to avoid jail and not to be rehabbed.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-11 23:12 ]</font>

On 2002-07-11 22:47, AlexMnWi wrote:

Okay, I took it again re-interpreting some of the questions and this is what I got:

1. Neo-Conservative
2. Conservative
3. Centrist
4. Third Way
5. Liberal
6. Libertarian
7. Paleo-Conservative
8. Radical
9. Paleo-Libertarian
10. Left-Libertarian

Dude, you are just completely Authoritarian. You picked up all the Authoritarian factions right and left before you even set foot on the Libertarian side of the board. The Authoritarian Right quadrant is your home base and the Authoritarian Left is your meld. I suspect that this will turn out to be fairly representative of Millies.

On 2002-07-11 22:51, justmom wrote:
Thank God! HI Alex glad to have another Conservative aboard. I bet you even watch FOX news!

I watch Fox News because my cable provider is newscorp owned, also it is the only news channel that I have access to, which gives me a insight into the United States. Knowing happenings in the USA is useful with dealing with most people on this newsgroup.

That news debate program Hannity and Colmes is interesting, because Colmes seems to me to be pretty reasonable, if not a bit conservative. Hannity is a pure right wing nut. Prehaps Colmes could come down to Australia and debate with a Socialist Left Winger, that would make great television.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-07-12 04:22 ]</font>

On 2002-07-11 22:32, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Tristan's list is kind of funky too. At the very top, he goes from Third Way in the Authoritarian Left and skips over Liberal in the same quadrant in order to hit Radical in the Libertarian Left quadrant. This suggests that he might actually be more pragmatic and closer to the center and indeed he rates Centrist as his second choice. However the second half of his list shows a pretty consistent advance rightward, bouncing back and forth between the Authoritarian and Libertarian Right. I think the most likely interpretation is that Tristan is something of a Authoritarian/Libertarian Left cusper like William, but probably more pragmatic and closer to the center than William. Regardless, Tristan starts in the Authoritarian Left, quite possibly on the Authoritarian Left side of that cusp, and he clearly has the secondary Libertarian Left "Delta" as well.

An Australian political selector would put me in a clearer ideological picture, there I rate as a Moderate Right Winger (a socially liberal one at that). I do not like the Tony Abbott/John Howard types, I only tolerate them because I hate the Left even more. If say the Australian Democrats embraced free market economics I might consider voting for them although.

You have a different political culture to our own, our 'conservatives' generally favor a strong alliance with the USA, pretty pro government when it comes to morals and law&order, socially conservative and in favor a neo-liberal economics.

On 2002-07-11 23:23, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-11 22:47, AlexMnWi wrote:

Okay, I took it again re-interpreting some of the questions and this is what I got:

1. Neo-Conservative
2. Conservative
3. Centrist
4. Third Way
5. Liberal
6. Libertarian
7. Paleo-Conservative
8. Radical
9. Paleo-Libertarian
10. Left-Libertarian

Dude, you are just completely Authoritarian. You picked up all the Authoritarian factions right and left before you even set foot on the Libertarian side of the board. The Authoritarian Right quadrant is your home base and the Authoritarian Left is your meld. I suspect that this will turn out to be fairly representative of Millies.

Of course, you must note that I am not a communist or a socialist, in the sense that "centrist" was #3 on my list.

On 2002-07-12 04:20, Tristan Jones wrote:

On 2002-07-11 22:51, justmom wrote:
Thank God! HI Alex glad to have another Conservative aboard. I bet you even watch FOX news!

I watch Fox News because my cable provider is newscorp owned, also it is the only news channel that I have access to, which gives me a insight into the United States. Knowing happenings in the USA is useful with dealing with most people on this newsgroup.

That news debate program Hannity and Colmes is interesting, because Colmes seems to me to be pretty reasonable, if not a bit conservative. Hannity is a pure right wing nut. Prehaps Colmes could come down to Australia and debate with a Socialist Left Winger, that would make great television.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-07-12 04:22 ]</font>

Isn't Hannity a *left* wing nut (American Left) or am I confusing the two?

On 2002-07-11 22:27, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-07-11 22:11, Justin '77 wrote:
I'd hate to think I wasted my time coming up with long posts for a cave-dwelling heliophobe...

Huh?

A Troll, woman!