Printable View
I don't know really. I'm almost leaning towards Hilary because of what happened while Clinton was in office. Just a lot of good things overall (even of course the sex thing. I mean..come on. Lol. JK!...eh)
I'll just be happy to see Bush out, no more puppet!
Btw, Isabeau, I find your typo rather entertaining... :)
I would recast my vote for Badnarik again. Then again I like the idea of our nation being a bit more isolationist and not meddling in the affairs of other countries. That and the entire "less government" idea really resonates with me.
Dorkalicious, you've got good taste.
I googled Badnarik and came up with....... 2, repeat two! hits. I've never come up so short on a google in my life!
He got .3% of the vote in '04.
I can understand the Libertarian philosophy, but doesn't that seem like wasting a vote in a way which will have no affect on our daily lives? Even a Green vote seems like a more useful time spent in the voting booth.
I understand that after you throw 1 individual's vote into the millions upon millions of other votes, 1 individual's vote has nil affect. That is deluted more when the votes get tossed in to the Electoral College.
But I also think millions of conversations like this one, taking place on other boards throughout the country will have an affect.
And I don't think it all a waste of time, that they're all a bunch of crooks, if only in terms of their Green policy. And don't forget it wasn't that many Repubician votes that put that lyingstealingmotherfuckersonofabitch in office. A few votes here or there would have cost that XXXXXXXXXXbastard a state, and that was all it would have taken to keep him back on the farm in Texas, where he could have spent the next 8 yrs. with his head up a cow's ass, as far as I'm concerned. (Which, incidently, probabily would have raised his IQ a couple of point, but droped the cow's IQ several points.)
I'm waiting for the '08 results to come in to see the impact that the internet has on the outcome. This board and millions of others like it are that impact which will be felt in '08
nightsilver, I'm not knocking your choice. I'm just glad your talking about it.
And now that you're talking about (Hooray!), I'd like to discuss it with you! And make you see the light! (Tongue in cheek)
TG
Okay, so I want to make a comment on that mentality. If all of America believes "Voting third party is wasting a vote because no one votes third part" then you are perpetuating that cycle. If people voted for what they wanted instead of feeling "hey, I have to lend my support to the lesser of the two evils" then there should be more distribution.Quote:
Originally Posted by TG
Of course it is in the best interest of both the Democrats and the Republicans to maintain the predominant two party system so they agree not to host debates with any of the third parties. If they don't get any real air time or coverage then the average, lazy American is not going to know about them and not vote for them.
As a side note, I was living in Ohio in 2004 so me voting neither Republican or Democrat gave me the feeling that I was not lending weight to either of the two since it was a close state. Of course there was rumors that there was some illegality in counting the votes in Ohio or how votes were tallied, but I cannot really remember what was being said.
Also, back in 2004, Badnarik had a lot more information about him online and his views.
That just happens to be my view on things. I am only 21 so I may end up going republican if I start making a lot of money in 20 years. >.>
nightsilver,
I agree with much of what you said, and I hadn't thought of the possibility I was contributing to a stifling mentality that perpetuated a shut down of 3 rd. parties.
However, the election will go to the (basically) majority vote winner, not be split into 2 months rules by 1 party, 4 months rule by and 2nd. party, and 6 months rule by a 3rd.
It's winner take all.
I haven't taken game theory, but my guess is that the most logical choice in that situation is to pick the side most likely to give you returns you desire. Sort of like buying a car and selecting the model offering the most features you desire.
There certainly are countries that run multiparty government, or have multiparty elections, but aren't they the ones on the news always desolving and reforming.
In a winner take all situation, I'd best describe the situation like an accountant would analyze probable returns on investment, by using a decision tree.
Option Probability Value Anticipated return
Dem 60% 200 120
Reb 40% 300 120
Lib 1% 600 6
I'm assuming the Lib is most valuable to you, followed by Rep. and Dem. least. If this were money, that IS the most logical way to assess the options. Throw in emotions, and it a whole other ball park not governed by just logic.
And nightsilver, I'm really not trying to put you or your position down.
But I am trying to have a discussion on these things. In the past few years, we've lost the ability to have civil debates without flying at each other in rage. I'd like to return to the point where civil debates are possible.
I like to consider '08 in terms of a logical "Probable Return on Investment" paradign to use in a winner take all country.
Friends?
PS This word processor screwed up by table I used above. The values are supposed to be lined up under the headings above. Opps
Oi, I am not one to get riled up on political debates so no worries. One of my closest friends is a so******t.
Of course I do agree with you on getting the most return, but I really don't like Republicans ( lets legislate morality! ) nor do I like Democrats ( lets make more government institutions! ( I tend to think that competition will make a more effecient system than what the government can make and the governments system ends up being a monopoly) ).
If anything, I would side with the Green Party because I do want to see our environment taken care of so if they were looking like they could take Tennessee they would get my vote.
nightsilver, I like you a hell of a lot more.
I agree competition would make things better, and that we're coming out of an 8 yr. monopoly which show how effective that is. And Green would get my vote.
It is, tho, winner take all and we're stuck with it, and it "make the best of it we can"
Nice talking to you, nightsilver
TG
Err it censored me naming a political stance? o.O I find that kind of amusing, and I figure people can extrapolate it given the first and last letter.
Thank you TG :)
I can't even read yours and nighsilver's posts without going cross eyed. Maybe I'll try again later. What I did get out of it though was that third party bit. I did honestly find that rather depressing. As much as I would like to see a third party in the office, just to get the focus off of the republicans vs. the democrats, it is virtually impossible that it will ever actually happen. There is a chance though! Always a possibility.....It's probability that is the issue.
D'lish (and offtopic), what about the posts is causing a problem with readability? Syntax or not enough detail perhaps ( or nested parenthesis :D )?
I'm always working on improving my ability to express thoughts and ideas.
Dear Dorkalicious,
Sorry, about that. I tend to be a big mouth, and enjoy the hell out of it. Something comes up, and I open my mouth, and the jaw just keep on flapping while I try to explain myself. And most of the time, instead of explaining myself better, I end up put my foot in my mouth.
And PS the stuff above was pretty obtuse. When I posted it, I figured somebody would read it and say, "What the Hell?"
Nice talking to you, TG
I believe that in 1992, Ross Perot won a whoppng 20% of the vote, following the Republicans and Democrats earning 37% and 43% respectfully.
Now, that year I was only 5, but reading up on 20th century politics, Perot supposedly brought in a new perspective on politics (forgive me if I'm wrong, I only know what I've read so far). I think that he would be a good president, or atleast not worse then the presidents US have seen in it's entire history.
Anyhow, my point being is that perhaps Americans are forced into this two party system so much since birth (or immigrating to the country), that any other party in power is almost hard to imagine.
In Canada, where the parlimentary system is set, there are about 4 main parties in the federal level, (The Bloc Quebecois party only garnering votes in Quebec though). While only two have been in power, the minor parties have been in positions to get their concerns heard and addressed.
One problem I have with American politics is that party policies are already set. For example, the Republicans will take a stanch anti-gay policy, while the Democrats will mostly always have a pro-abortion policy. (Just throwing a couple of examples out there)
Now, if someone were Anti-Abortionist, pro-gay, anti-war, pro-corporation type guy, I would have to be forced to choose between two parties that support and conflict my interests and desires.
Apart from Guliani, most politicians in this race stick to the ideal conservative or the ideal liberal idiologies differenciating themselves with only on the method of doing the exact same thing (Building a fence on the US border, stay or don't stay in Iraq, etc).
But I'm no expert in American politics, so may the best dude win and get in office this time.
nightsilver, I know what you mean. The system doesn't work right. It is rigged to keep the 2 major parties in power. And you just don't know what to do about it. I mean, it's looking at a mess, and wondering "What can I do about it?" And you don't know what to do about it.
You're thinking, "A 3rd. party might help." I'm thinking, "Get more info out there." And nobody really knows what to do.
A chunck of it's our fault for not paying attention to it. I knew the son of a bitch was a liar, but because I just happened to stumble across some stuff. 1st time round, I just happened to see a PBS special on his father, and the cameras caught Bush2 saying something in Texas, and it gave him away.
2nd time I knew all but 1 of the things he said were lies.
Not because I'm a genius. Just because I had developed a habit on how I get the news. I use google news, and at the bottom of each topic they have a link, "List all 38 stories on this topic." I just got in the habit of doing that, and picking a pro's and con atticle on each topic. I got a pro Bush piece and a con Bush piece. No act of genius there. And the con pieces were thing like Valerie Planes husband's article. There were 2 or 3 other reporters who were digging up the truth but they were buried back on page 104. I got 'em just because I skimmed headlines looking for a con piece.
When it was all going on, I was screaming at the TV saying, "Doesn't anybody know what's going on! It's in the paper! Why doesn't somebody say something?"
The thing is, as Americians we just don't pay attention to this stuff like other countries do, and we make stupid, gullible mistakes. And that cost 100,000's deaths.
..............So here's my plan...........Talk on a blog about it,
suck people into it..........pretty sneaky, huh?
TG
Hah, thanks nk_lion. I could not for the life of me remember his name (I was eight during the '92 election), but I do remember that he did garner a respectable portion of votes.
For what it is worth America has for the most part always been a two party system even though it hasn't been the same two parties. A lot of what I remember from American history has vanished into the recesses of my mind.
I think you're right, nk_lion. A lot of other countries do some of this stuff better than us. But I just can't imagine successfully dealing with the realities of changing things around. The practical reality is that we're stuck with 2 parties, and, yeah, they try to rig things to keep themselves in power.
You're right about a 3rd party influencing the issues addressed. Is that superior in any way to a caucus within the party advocating the same issue?
Okay so after reading up on the current prospects, and given my already libertarian leanings, I would vote for Ron Paul. Why?
- He used to be libertarian.
- He voted against the Patriot Acts.
- He is against interventionist foreign policy (voted against the Iraq War Resolution).
- He wants to remove the income tax (something that I have always viewed as an overly complex system) and has proposed legislation to do so.
- Most of the money from his campaigns come from small donors opposed to lobyists.
- Leftover money goes to the next campaign or charity.
From the May 15th GOP Presidential debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paulQuote:
PAUL: They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.
GIULIANI: That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.
PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages, and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come and attack us because we're over there.
Just popping in to express my opinion and upset a few people.
Anyone who wants the job should automatically be barred from running. We should set up a draft and find the best qualified individuals to do the job. My choices would be Bill Gates and Colin Powell. They run and one becomes president and the other vice president. Then they would be assigned duties based on their abilities and knowledge. Their powers would be similar to those that were originally intended by the drafters of the constitution.
Rhabbi, I like your idea. I think you've just solved the problem of American politics. That would work, and avoid all the crap we have now.
Nightsilver, I think you've picked a great candidate. Except for the isolationism, I see nothing wrong with him.
Now, what I'd like to ask you two guys, who do you think will win the next election?
Rhabbi, I would love to see a meritocracy type government where people who know about the subject make decisions on it. For example, science and medicine are not something the political science major has been taught much about.
TG, I like the isolationism, and honestly I think a lot of the world would like to see the US stop our aggressive stance in foreign affairs. There is more that we should focus on within our own borders.
At this point though, I can only assume the worst for this next election. The guy I would like to win so far is running under the Republican party, and most Americans seem to be fed up with Bush. I think that Bush being a fool is going to carry over and hurt whichever person the Republican's nominate. So, since I don't have a person I can solidly name, I am guessing the Democrats.
Nightsilver,
"I like the isolationism, and honestly I think a lot of the world would like to see the US stop our aggressive stance in foreign affairs. There is more that we should focus on within our own borders."
I can't argue with that. I think our interventionist policy is wrong and you're astute to see it that way. I would like to see us involved in the world in a more beneficial way. Not by providing our farmers with subsidies that starve 3rd. world farmers. By offering aid that doesn't just benefit our own drug companies. To follow more in the example of Bill Gates and do things which have a genuine impact.
And Nightsilver, I think it is a pretty sorry state of affairs all around. I'm just trying to find the best among poor alternatives.
Even worse than our interventionist policy is the fickle nature of our government. Since the end of WWII, supporting dictators and fascist regimes as it benefited us (be it to stave off communism or otherwise).
- Internally, one thing I would like to see is the government lowering the national debt. We as a nation are spending more than we make.
- I would like to see the prohibition on drugs ended. Honestly, it didn't work on alcohol, and it isn't working with all the rest right now (no, I don't do drugs either). We spend too much enforcing it, and too much on keeping offenders in jails and prosecuting them.
- I would like to see more government bureaucracies enter the private sector under the ideal that competition will produce a more efficient result.
- Growing hemp in the US is illegal even though there are several industrial uses for the plant.
- I would like to see some of the grandfathered rules for plants removed (regarding pollution and waste).
I can't think of anymore off the top of my head that involve removing restrictions, and lessening government power.
As for the government engaging in more activities, the ones I support involve taking action for the environment.
- Tax incentives for installing solar power into homes and businesses.
- Increased efficiency for cars. Give grants to researches at universities to pursue this. I would hope they wouldn't be biased like car and oil companies.
- Tax incentives for recycling.
Money has to come from somewhere, and if we weren't fighting in Iraq we would have money to spend. If there wasn't the war on drugs, we would have money to spend. Didn't look up numbers, but from what I remember they are fairly hefty.
A couple comments:
- Internally, one thing I would like to see is the government lowering the national debt. We as a nation are spending more than we make.
Nearly 200 billion currently. It doesn’t really matter until the rest of the world starts loosing faith in the US. If I understand this concept from what I’ve been told by someone who knew quite a bit about this.
- I would like to see the prohibition on drugs ended. Honestly, it didn't work on alcohol, and it isn't working with all the rest right now (no, I don't do drugs either). We spend too much enforcing it, and too much on keeping offenders in jails and prosecuting them.
Some but not all I think. I think the ones that turn people into whores for drugs should probably stay as far out of reach as possible.
- I would like to see more government bureaucracies enter the private sector under the ideal that competition will produce a more efficient result.
The effect of privatization does produce a more efficient result. However remember that privatization makes it profit-driven and share holders want to see increasing profits. There is only so much that can be done to improve genuine efficiency. After it gets to a point where efficiency is not increasing fast enough (it’s approaching a limit) profit is driven up other ways, often by cutting what the non-shareholders think the company should be doing. Basically it becomes a battle of money vs morals or duty. And we all know the good side doesn’t always win.
This is so interesting. For years, we've had one political group at the throat of another group, just cursing each other out.
Now, here I am talking to a Libertarian and agreeing with much of what he's saying. You're right, nightsilver, over what you say about the support of dictators. All because they serve our needs, regardless of how they serve the needs of their own people.
How a dictator affects the world doesn't impact my life on Long Island (Egg Island if you read the Great Gadsby, home of the Long Island Ice Tea.). Wrong is Wrong. We have bloody hands because of this.
I don't know about the war on drugs. I really don't know the impact on people. The government hype is out there. I don't know the reality behind the hype. But the drug pushers are bad guys. I was in a shooting match with one of them for 2 yrs, taking pot shots are each other, until finally the guy was sent away for murdering the wife of an anti-drug activist. He tried to get the guy, missed, and got the wife. A little weasel of a man, who use to beat his wife, which is how I became involved with him.
I use to live in the worst of the NYC neighborhoods, and someone pulled a knife or gun on me, on average, once every 8 months. Most of them were druggies. In NYC drugs were bad news. (Things have improved a lot over time. Not like it use to be.)
nightsilver might know this because Tenn. is still mostly rural, right? How is speed affecting your area? From the hype, I understand it's hit the rural areas badly.
As I'm typing this I realize we all agree on what's wrong when we see it. We differ in the information we work with however. I suspect that if we all had the same data to work with, we would all probably agree.
Ocean_Soul is right about privatization. It's a nice idea on paper, but Ocean_Soul has captured the reality.
This is what politics should be like. Different people talking, sharing information, not insults. Because we all know wrong when we see it; we just work with information of varying degrees of accuracy.
My own particular hobbyhorse is finding a practical method of implementing the most good.
I would like to take a moment to just mention that I am not an expert in any of these subjects, thus why I would like to see a government run by people who know what they are doing.
First up, drugs. People are going to find a way to get them as we have seen over the past 30 years. Regardless of whether they are banned or not, people are going to ruin their lives with them.
TG, why were the druggies pulling a knife on you? Were the mugging you (I think you mentioned one trying to steal your car)? Most likely you are an ends to a mean. They want their fix. They need money to pay the dealer. The drugs are expensive because of the war on drugs.
If drugs are legalized, then drugs will cost less (risk of being caught and thrown in jail means they demand a high reward). Assuming the person can hold down a job, then there is no need to resorting to violent and illegal behavior. I find this second assumption harder, and I will admit I am basing it off of a stereotype because of how few druggies I know. As a side effect, the money would be flowing into businesses and the government instead of drug lords.
I remember reading that at least one country has taken to giving addicts a limited amount of the drug a day to reduce their urges. The idea behind this was to curtail the crime because they wouldn't need the money for the drugs because their need for a fix has already been filled. There will still be those who want more, of course.
Ocean_soul, I do agree with you. By no means do I think we should release all of them at once. I think a good initial step would be to start with the softer drugs. See how it affects our society before considering the harder drugs.
TG, I know one of the towns about an hour away is jokingly referred to as McMethville. The cops stomped down so hard on the other drug that was flurishing in the town that meth just rose up and became the new predominant drug.
Also in the area is Bonnaroo (a music concert) and it is apparently well know for drug abuse as well (friend for ohio recognized it and mentioned there being lots of drugs there as well as my sister seeing several people using).
Secondly, on the national debt. Ocean_soul, you are right that it doesn't matter until the world starts losing faith in us. To the world though, I would have to wonder if they expect us to ever repay those debts. From what I saw it is actually sitting over 8 trillion dollars though.
Furthermore, I have occassionally read that the strength of the US dollar is falling, and I understand that reflects less faith in the US economy.
As for privatization, the power over the company should not be in the hands of share holders but the community they work for. Ugg I am about to break into so******t/communist mode. Say a new community was being built and five hospitals were built. Everyone becomes an equal share holder of the comapny yet they still have to compete amongst each other. The customers are their owners though so (hopefully) they won't be cutting corners too much.
My apologies for being so long winded and rambly.
The problem with the idea of legalizing drugs is it actually will create more addicts. I have spoken with recreational users who tell me that the only thing keeping them from becoming addicts is the thought of jail. Take away that threat and they would dive head long into addiction. How does creating more addicts help anyone? The problem will not go away if we make drugs legal.
Even countries that are liberal enough to try this approach have backed away from it, yet people refuse to accept that we cannot do it. they seem to think that eventually it will all work out because they think it will. Look around and see the real world and what happens in it.
I looked and saw one site (not sure of its reputability) claiming that Holland had legalized the softer drugs. They had noticed an initial increase in drug users but that it had stabilized after a few years.
Quote:
California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.[33] Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use.[34] Patrick Murphy, a court-appointed lawyer for 31,000 abused and neglected children in Chicago, says that more than 80 percent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will reduce these crimes, and there is evidence that suggests it would worsen the problem
Quote:
Modern-day Netherlands is often cited as a country which has successfully legalized drugs. Marijuana is sold over the counter and police seldom arrest cocaine and heroin users. But official tolerance has led to significant increases in addiction. Amsterdam's officials blame the significant rise in crime on the liberal drug policy. The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey.[61] Drug problems have forced the city to increase the size of the police force and the city fathers are now rethinking the drug policy
Quote:
Dr. K. F. Gunning, president of the Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention, cites some revealing statistics about drug abuse and crime. Cannabis use among students increased 250 percent from 1984 to 1992. During the same period, shootings rose 40 percent, car thefts increased 62 percent, and hold-ups rose 69 percent.
http://www.sarnia.com/groups/antidru...ent/myths.htmlQuote:
In April 1994, the mayors of 21 major European cities formed a group called "European Cities Against Drugs," an acknowledgment that legalization had failed.
The truth is not so simple. People like drugs because they help them escape reality, and if they are easy to get then more people will get them.
They are specifically trying to correlate these two factors; however, they didn't specifically say increase was within the student population.Quote:
Cannabis use among students increased 250 percent from 1984 to 1992. During the same period, shootings rose 40 percent, car thefts increased 62 percent, and hold-ups rose 69 percent.
I just did a quick search on the populations of both towns and Amsterdam's looks to be twice the size of Newark's.Quote:
Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey.
Is this like how Americans have blamed immigrants for stealing our jobs?Quote:
The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime
I find your first quote the strongest. It definitely wasn't a scenario I thought of. Rhabbi, I am interested in what you would think they best way to work on the drug problem is.
Read Tom Clancy, specifically Execytive Orders. He oulined an effective drug prevetion plan. We need to attack drug use form the consuner side, not the producers. If we take away the consumer, the producer will stop making drugs.
Why don't you go look up the crime stats for amsterdam before the drug policy? It used to be one of the safest cities on the planet. And crime stats are generally per capita.
nightsilver,
You may have put your finger on the problem, above.
"I would like to take a moment to just mention that I am not an expert in any of these subjects, thus why I would like to see a government run by people who know what they are doing."
None of us are experts, and yet every few years we're called upon to decide what is the best thing to do. Worse, the people who assure us they have the solutions are not honest about their positions.
Like the drug question you and Rhabbi are discussing. Nobody knows the answers. Hell, if someone knew the answers there would be no problem. It would be finished, cured, over and done with.
You were right to bring up the possibility of decreasing crime by legalizing drug, it's simply a good idea. But as Rhabbi pointed out, the data is all in and what there is not looking so hot.
One danger may be ideas which sound intuitively sensible, but whose practical application reveals complexities we didn't anticipate. Common sense approaches often have to be tested because they don't always work: the problem turns out to be a complex problem.
I think when we are dealing with any hot political topic, by definition, we're dealing with a topic on which there is no definitive answer. That we're in a guessing game. And our best option is to figure out which politician is 1, being honest; and 2, has proposed a reasonable solution to the problem.
Now we find out Bush had suppressed his Surgeon General's reports on the effectiveness of absinance programs, and both Bush and Clinton suppressed the reports on global warming by the heads of the EPA.
And in all this we have to pick out the best choice for the next time around. This is what discussions should be about. One of us get some decent info on as issue, and uses that to make the up coming decisions better.
To answer you question nightsilver, muggings. Some, I guess, random acts of violence by someone with a bug up his ass. The usual progression of such events tends to leave one of the two parties indisposed to further conversation, so I seldom discussed the event with the other person after the event terminated.
PS. I love this section of the forum. I think we should all be here discussing these issues as reasonable, respectful adults compared to what's characterized the country for the past few years
Rhabbi,
In my book, you just decided the position I'll take on this issue. You provided decent, factual evidence that pertains to the topic. And issues should be decided on facts.
Thanks for the research.
Rhabbi, the biggest thing I was pointing out is how statistics tend to be abused. They may mean rate in reference to per capita but they may mean rate as per year. The last two just felt a bit vague, and when things are vague people tend to fill in the gaps without even realizing it. Perhaps I am just being way to anal.
Regardless, I feel bad about having replied without taking more time to do some reading and looking stuff up. I mostly just wrote what I thought about the ideas and did a couple quick searches for the most part. I'll try to avoid that in the future. ^_^
So far we have been attacking the consumer (locking them up for possessing) and the providers as well; however, it doesn't seem to be terribly effective. I assume the book outlines a more effective method?
nightsilver, do not worry about having an opinion without all the facts. We all do that, the smart thing is to change your opinion when you get new facts.
I know statistics can be misconstrued, why /I only trust them if I can get my hands on the raw data. Polls can be skewed to the desired result by asking the right questions. People see this everyday, yet never wonder how 60% of Americans oppose gay marriage while 70% think it is none think it is a good idea.
What Jack Ryan proposed was making drug use a social stigma my instituting a program where users are made to preform community service that is embarrassing and having to wear identifying clothing while doing it. And also an educational program that showed all the dangers and costs of drug use.
Scarlet Letter style then.
We do have an education system on drugs ( D.A.R.E.), it just happens that it's not completely factual. Marijuana is lumped in with the heavier drugs, and is told it's a no no. I have heard claims that makes it easier for people to jump from it to the harder ones because, "Hey, what does it matter? It's only a bit worse."
That suggestion embodies informal sanctions as a means to restrict a person's behavior because they don't want to be embarrassed. Only problem is that that works best in smaller communities and groups.
There was the law that required sexual predator's to be registered, and people can look them up thus that is similar in nature to what you described. I wonder how much of an impact that has had on those crimes. I think a lot of people don't really know about it so it's impact is minimal.
Probably, but combined with a long range drug intervention and education plan it would eventually work.
What we do now is to try to educate people after they are hooked, and then punish them if that does not work, which it won't. Sort of like closing the door after the cat gets out, waste of time. But studies have shown that addicts can stop being addicts if they are given a reason to stop that matters more than what the drugs. It may be hard to find that motivation, but it is there.
Really do not know who should win, but at least I found something to make it interesting.
www.ifilm.com/video/2875264
Obama. If I had to rank them...
1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Richardson
4. Dodd
5. Kucinich
6. Biden
7. Gravel
8. Clinton
9. McCain
10. Paul
11. Huckabee
12. Romney
13. Hunter
14. Tancredo
15. Giuliani
Who would I like to see win?
How about the American people, for a change?
Not a chance while there are self-interested politicians involved. And, believe me, there's NO other kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
LOL! At least we can agree on something!Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo