H.R.808
May 17, 2008 02:05 PM (6 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

This is a both a bad and stupid idea. No war has ever been stopped via "peace." The bad guys are bad guys because they don't understand anything other than violence. If this was a legitimate cause it would have been 'proven' effective at the state level. There are at least 5 major US cities that are extremely and viscously violent--not a single street gang has been disbanded via this program (re: Ms Green of "the peace alliance"). If you create this department, it'll be the first step to locking people up for bad attitudes… You might as well call it the department of re-education camps. Like other BS government programs, they'll target the low hanging fruit like road rage, or complaining about, well, anything. In their minds, calling a bad driver a jerk leads to nuclear war, and because they can't arrest the dictator of a foreign country the next best thing will be to haul your sorry butt to jail "for attitudes conducive to violence". These people are stoned out of their minds on idealism. Just say no. CABNU-141

H.R.5843
April 24, 2008 02:04 AM (7 months ago) | Overall Score: 10.0 | Replies: 0

This is a good start. If you watched the 'pot' documentary "Grass" (1999, narrated by Woody Harrelson) or the more resent drug related History Channel programs you know that pot was outlawed in a effort to target and get rid of unwanted Mexican laborers in the US*. So I can't help but wonder if this is yet another politically correct law with an agenda intended to accommodate illegal aliens--maybe the sanctuary cities will refuse to enforce drug laws for foreigners. Of course I'm being just a little facetious, because it's hard to believe that our government is finally concerned with protecting our liberties in the pursuit of happiness. Still, I'll take freedom where I can get it, even in baby steps. And as happy as I would be to finally be able to deal with stress legally (without destroying my liver and having my property confiscated in the process) the important issues like the issues that caused the end of prohibition are not being addressed. In Chicago over 20 teens were murdered in a matter of days. The mayor blames parents and guns. I blame young criminals who are able to buy guns because they 'earn' well over $100 per hour (untaxed) selling illicit drugs. Before the drug war, gang bangers built "zip guns" and were lucky to get their hands on "Saturday night specials". Now they can afford anything that's for sale (including police, judges and public officials). Those of you who oppose legalization, need to understand that after billions of dollars spent for and against drugs, the end result is that your (underage) children cannot walk into a bar and buy a shot of booze because the bartender fears jail and the loss of their license. However, your kids *can buy* any drug they want as well as weapons and anything else for sale. For the amount of money we're spending each child should have a personal DEA agent (do the math)--and yet it's not working. The demand and profit in drugs needs to be dealt with, with something a little more sophisticated than righteous indignation, imprisonment and the violation of constitutional rights. The drug war must end. Still not convinced? Watch the history channel programs on gangs and read these articles. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/23/america/23prison.php Or http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5087&em&en=6658d220ab5ba0a3&ex=1209096000 And http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4695848&page=1 And http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/906662,daleykids042108.article And those are just for this week… imagine if I had a anti-drug war blog! ABNU aka CABNU-141 *cocaine, once found in Coca Cola and dozens of other products, went from being highly praised and widely available to being outlawed due to an epidemic of "cocaine crazed Negroes" (raping White women).

S.2433
April 24, 2008 12:04 AM (7 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Ike, you start by saying no money will be spent, then you admit to 27 billion. Not spent for reparations for Blacks, not spent to rebuild ghettos, not spent here for any reason. "Just when I thought this nation couldn't be dumbed down any more..." Well, you for one could be a little better at math... 27 billion divided by 300 million Americans is not $27! Here's a clue, it's at least a million dollars each because, I'm fairly sure, 27 billion is bigger than 300 million. ...and if you give me my share, directly, I promise I will hop on a plane and adopt 10 families, personally (as long as they like me). In any case, making pointless 'feel good' bills costs money. The people in Washington (duh, I think you smart people call them legislators) are not volunteers, so yes, this nonsense does cost money. Again, you admit to 27 billion (with a 'b') dollars already being spent, so, I'm not sure where you get off calling anyone dumb. Being suspicious of government is never dumb. I doesn't matter that the bill is not the last step in actually spending the money. The new bills that say the government can tap your phone don't actually target you in particular by listing your name and phone number on the bill but you're against that aren't you? Now who's wearing the tin foil hat?

S.2433
April 24, 2008 12:04 AM (7 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Ike, you start by saying no money will be spent, then you admit to 27 billion. Not spent for reparations for Blacks, not spent to rebuild ghettos, not spent here for any reason. "Just when I thought this nation couldn't be dumbed down any more..." Well, you for one could be a little better at math... 27 billion divided by 300 million Americans is not $27! Here's a clue, it's at least a million dollars each because, I'm fairly sure, 27 billion is bigger than 300 million. ...and if you give me my share, directly, I promise I will hop on a plane and adopt 10 families, personally (as long as they like me). In any case, making pointless 'feel good' bills costs money. The people in Washington (duh, I think you smart people call them legislators) are not volunteers, so yes, this nonsense does cost money. Again, you admit to 27 billion (with a 'b') dollars already being spent, so, I'm not sure where you get off calling anyone dumb. Being suspicious of government is never dumb. I doesn't matter that the bill is not the last step in actually spending the money. The new bills that say the government can tap your phone don't actually target you in particular by listing your name and phone number on the bill but you're against that aren't you? Now who's wearing the tin foil hat? As if the government doesn't have better things to do than to listen your conversations. What's that? Oh, it's the principle of the matter? I'd like to agree with you brother, except: "(because it doesn't mandate spending a dime and it makes us feel good)" See, it doesn't make me feel good at all. It scares me. So, if you support me in not threatening to take my money, I'll support you in keeping your phone line, private. I said it once, I'll say it a million times, if you believe in foreign aid, use your money and go over there. *Don't force me to be a Christian, don't force me to turn the other cheek and support people who hate me instead of Bush or the CEO's of large corporations or their own leaders who live in luxury while the people starve. You keep talking about poor as if being in The States means I'm somehow immune from being poor. You're not debating with the upper class here--we're your neighbors--are you sure you want to break us? Because if you do, the only people left to help you are the upper class and something tells me you two don't get along. "he is a right wing hack funded by..." Yes, we know both sides are forcing globalism on us. Clinton signed NAFTA. "He targets the tinfoil hat crowd." You seem to know a lot about that crowd. I saw a movie where it took one to know one.

S.2433
March 19, 2008 03:03 AM (8 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Ike, you start by saying no money will be spent, then you admit to 27 billion. Not spent for reparations for Blacks, not spent to rebuild ghettos, not spent here for any reason. "Just when I thought this nation couldn't be dumbed down any more..." Well, you for one could be a little better at math... 27 billion divided by 300 million Americans is not $27! Here's a clue, it's at least a million dollars each because, I'm fairly sure, 27 billion is bigger than 300 million. ...and if you give me my share directly, I promise I will hop on a plane and adopt 10 families, personally (as long as they like me--I will not adopt haters)*. In any case, making pointless 'feel good' bills costs money. The people in Washington (duh, I think you smart people call them legislators) are not volunteers, so yes, this nonsense does cost money. Again, you admit to 27 billion (with a 'b') dollars already being spent, so, I'm not sure where you get off calling anyone dumb. Being suspicious of government is never dumb. I doesn't matter that the bill is not the last step in actually spending the money. The bill that says the government can tap your phone without a warrant doesn't actually target you in particular by listing your name and phone number on the bill, but you're against that aren't you? Now who's wearing the tin foil hat? As if the government doesn't have better things to do than to listen your conversations. What's that? Oh, it's the principle of the matter? I'd like to agree with you brother, except: "(because it doesn't mandate spending a dime and it makes us feel good)" See, that's the problem, it doesn't make me feel good at all. It scares me. So, if you support me in not threatening to take my money, I'll support you in keeping your phone line, private. I said it once, I'll say it a million times, if you believe in foreign aid, use your money and go over there. *Don't force me to be a Christian, don't force me to turn the other cheek and support people who hate me instead of Bush or the CEO's of large corporations or their own leaders who live in luxury while the people starve. You keep talking about poor as if being in The States means I'm somehow immune from being poor. You're not debating with the upper class here--we're your neighbors--are you sure you want to break us? Because if you do, the only people left to help you are the upper class and something tells me you two don't get along. "he is a right wing hack funded by..." Yes, we know both sides are forcing globalism on us. Clinton signed NAFTA. "He targets the tinfoil hat crowd." You seem to know a lot about that crowd. I saw a movie where it took one to know one.

S.2433
March 19, 2008 03:03 AM (8 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Ike, you start by saying no money will be spent, then you admit to 27 billion. Not spent for reparations for Blacks, not spent to rebuild ghettos, not spent here for any reason. "Just when I thought this nation couldn't be dumbed down any more..." Well, you for one could be a little better at math... 27 billion divided by 300 million Americans is not $27! Here's a clue, it's at least a million dollars each because, I'm fairly sure, 27 billion is bigger than 300 million. ...and if you give me my share directly, I promise I will hop on a plane and adopt 10 families, personally (as long as they like me--I will not adopt haters)*. In any case, making pointless 'feel good' bills costs money. The people in Washington (duh, I think you smart people call them legislators) are not volunteers, so yes, this nonsense does cost money. Again, you admit to 27 billion (with a 'b') dollars already being spent, so, I'm not sure where you get off calling anyone dumb. Being suspicious of government is never dumb. I doesn't matter that the bill is not the last step in actually spending the money. The bill that says the government can tap your phone without a warrant doesn't actually target you in particular by listing your name and phone number on the bill, but you're against that aren't you? Now who's wearing the tin foil hat? As if the government doesn't have better things to do than to listen your conversations. What's that? Oh, it's the principle of the matter? I'd like to agree with you brother, except: "(because it doesn't mandate spending a dime and it makes us feel good)" See, that's the problem, it doesn't make me feel good at all. It scares me. So, if you support me in not threatening to take my money, I'll support you in keeping your phone line, private. I said it once, I'll say it a million times, if you believe in foreign aid, use your money and go over there. *Don't force me to be a Christian, don't force me to turn the other cheek and support people who hate me instead of Bush or the CEO's of large corporations or their own leaders who live in luxury while the people starve. You keep talking about poor as if being in The States means I'm somehow immune from being poor. You're not debating with the upper class here--we're your neighbors--are you sure you want to break us? Because if you do, the only people left to help you are the upper class and something tells me you two don't get along. "he is a right wing hack funded by..." Yes, we know both sides are forcing globalism on us. Clinton signed NAFTA. "He targets the tinfoil hat crowd." You seem to know a lot about that crowd. I saw a movie where it took one to know one.

S.2433
March 19, 2008 02:03 AM (8 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

"The US has oppressed peoples from all over the world, and has promoted slave labor and sweatshops so you freaks can buy crap at Walmart." Funny, we all seem to be against globalism. Didn't I hear you rail against the buy American campaign because you wanted jobs for foreign workers? "Poverty is real." See cat, see cat run. You've made daddy proud! "And its now hitting us here in the US because big corporations want our US labor force to be slaves again." ...still not sure how taking more of my money is a solution, but thanks for playing. "Shut up. Idiots" ...a direct command from the king of idiots.

S.2433
February 19, 2008 03:02 PM (9 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

Response to: "That would be unconstitutional as Senator Obama knows as he was a Constitutional Lawyer at Univ of Chicago Law School for ten years." obama, as far as I can tell, is a socialist. our constitution is somewhat of a non-sequitur if not a antithesis to a socialist point of view. it certainly has no effect nor meaning should a president (with the support of the other 2 branches of government) choose to ignore it; that is to say, there is no law that says 'government' cannot pass laws that may (later) be found to be unconstitutional. We will suffer years under an unconstitutional law, yet no one will go to jail, and no fines will be levied; the constitution it is said, "has no teeth". What remains is a question of Obama's intellectual honesty and existential dedication to the spirit of the constitution. And again I disagree that Obama 'cares' about the constitution. For example, he wants more gun laws but promises that they won't impinge on the rights of 'hunters' (that old saw). The truth is, the right to own a gun is was specified as a tacit agreement that the government should fear the citizenry; the citizenry would remain armed such that they could fend off an 'out of control government'. When people mention that, the "true" reason for the 2nd amendment, 'we' call them crazy. I agree that the practicality of a violent revolution in the US, small arms and semi-automatic weapons vs. the modern might of the US military is in fact, absurd. However, the principle is very sound and necessary, and a constitution expert would certainly know it has nothing to do with hunting. Only a demagogue or one of their idiot followers would believe that even the concept of self defense against government is futile and counterproductive because a (US) socialist government is benevolent and fair (now who sounds crazy?). Yet that belief is the guiding principle of (US) socialism, which explains why in spite of Obama's years as a constitutionalist, the principal purport of most if not all of his legislation is unconstitutional (or at least contrary to its philosophy) and socialist in nature. Obama and Hillary agree, only government can bring good things; the constitution often gets in their way. Yes, he 'knows' the constitution, but only because he needs to be able to circumnavigate it, not because he wants to abide by it. ABNU (anonymous but not unknown) PS Sorry this is so long, I'm trying to get a blog at http://www.electronicfreedomfoundation.org. but they don't seem to be able to get off the ground. See? I'm trying to volunteer and lead by example!

S.2433
February 19, 2008 02:02 PM (9 months ago) | Overall Score: 6.7 | Replies: 0

Response to: "The bill does not say how the US will do this and it certainly does not place any tax or other mandate on the Gov't." unless the president is going to work on his own time, in a donated office using donated funds, it's tax money. the government is not a charity, it takes your money and spends it on whatever it does. It owns nothing but debt, which is always passed along to us and ours. So again, if you want to help people in other countries, go there and "fix" them. Be their leader, boil their water, show them how to find food and build shoe factories, bring condoms. Keep a list of all the poor souls you've helped and you may be able to get it deducted from your taxes, or it may get you into heaven--either way you won't know til you try. Lead by example. ABNU (anonymous but not unknown) PS The only people who should even think about supporting this are people who have already spent years as an "in-country" volunteer for a foreign aid charity. To support it otherwise makes you a lazy hypocrite IMHO.

S.2433
February 14, 2008 03:02 PM (9 months ago) | Overall Score: 4.1 | Replies: 0

so if the people in the other country are hungry we're automatically in charge and we can overstep that country's leadership and take responsibility (for the sake of the people). on the other hand the war in iraq, a rich country where people were brutally murdered by their own government, is wrong because 'that' was a sovereign nation. If you really believe that the rich have too much and don't pay their fare share, why do you keep passing bills that take money from me? I can't find a job. Shouldn't we fix the jobs issue first? If you want to help people overseas (or in Mexico) the best thing you can do is to *go there* (and *then* play god). ABNU (anonymous but not unknown) PS BTW shouldn't we be 'saving up' for all the retiring baby boomers?

S.2433
February 14, 2008 03:02 PM (9 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

so if the people in the other country are hungry we're automatically in charge and we can overstep that country's leadership and take responsibility (for the sake of the people). on the other hand the war in iraq, a rich country where people were brutally murdered by their own government, is wrong because 'that' was a sovereign nation. If you really believe that the rich have too much and don't pay their fare share, why do you keep passing bills that take money from me? I can't find a job. Shouldn't we fix the jobs issue first? If you want to help people overseas (or in Mexico) the best thing you can do is to *go there* (and *then* play god). ABNU (anonymous but not unknown) PS BTW shouldn't we be 'saving up' for all the retiring baby boomers?

S.2433
February 14, 2008 03:02 PM (9 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

so if the people in the other country are hungry we're automatically in charge and we can overstep the that country's leadership and take responsibility (for the sake of the people). on the other hand the war in iraq, a rich country where people were brutally murdered by their own government, is wrong because 'that' was a sovereign nation. If you really believe that the rich have too much and don't pay their fare share, why do you keep passing bills that take money from me? I can't find a job. Shouldn't we fix the jobs issue first? If you want to help people overseas (or in Mexico) the best thing you can do is to *go there* (and *then* play god). ABNU (anonymous but not unknown) PS BTW shouldn't we be 'saving up' for all the retiring baby boomers?