in your 'personal' view, is possessing seeds and growing plants your right?

desert dude said:

Yes. In my view, the war on drugs is an unconstitutional over reach of the federal government. Unfortunately, SCOTUS disagrees with me.

Click to expand...

The war on drugs is only temporarily unconsitutional. The constitution is mandated to protect us primarily from our government and seconarily from the tyranny of the majority. It is not there to protect us from ourselves - that is within the perview of religion. (and common sense). We had this discussion once during the first great prohibition. It took a constitutionaly mandated process to prohibit the posession and manufacture of alcohol - legal, and even rational. It took another to recind that law. One day we will accept the error of our ways, this time it is a state by state war, on that will eventually be won. It is unfortunate in the extreme that the majority of our constitutionaly guaranteed personal liberty has been seriously eroded by this country's war on marijuana. Almost every dimunition of our civil liberties can be directly traced to pot.

GOD HERE said:

Those are social values from the religious right because right wingers have no problem with a nanny state, as long as it represents their values. To blame it on the "state" and inadvertently "the left", you avoid placing blame where it belongs.

Click to expand...

This is an absolute truth. "if you become pregnant you shall remain so, by order of the state". "you should be subject to OUR notion of religion". "you have no right to clean air or water when that right conflicts with commerce". "you are valued only as an asset to the state and more to the point, as a consumer of what ever our businesses deem valuable to you - so long as it profits by that value". "you are not free, you are only offered a selection of options, options that we decide are appropriate".

This is conservativism.

desert dude said:

I said nothing about the left. Wickard V Fillburn was decided by the FDR supreme court in furtherance of FDR's social engineering. You cannot claim that decision was a product of the religious right without being a laughing stock.

Click to expand...

The ideas of the left and the right are independent of political parties. Part of the reason those of us on the actual left despise liberals is because they claim to be superior to conservatives while continuing their policies and even conspire with them. Look at what FDR did. Sure, he did a good job of establishing Keynesian economic policy, but liberals don't acknowledge how the new deal "red lined" African American communities to prevent private and public loans from going to minorities in order to ostracize them from the white business class. There was also the internment camps and arguably the draft. These are all right wing ideas coming from someone whom liberals look to for inspiration. Politics are not as black and white as you would like them to be, you really should take some time learning about the history and the formation of the right/left and authoritarian/libertarian spectrum.

GOD HERE said:

The ideas of the left and the right are independent of political parties. Part of the reason those of us on the actual left despise liberals is because they claim to be superior to conservatives while continuing their policies and even conspire with them. Look at what FDR did. Sure, he did a good job of establishing Keynesian economic policy, but liberals don't acknowledge how the new deal "red lined" African American communities to prevent private and public loans from going to minorities in order to ostracize them from the white business class. There was also the internment camps and arguably the draft. These are all right wing ideas coming from someone whom liberals look to for inspiration. Politics are not as black and white as you would like them to be, you really should take some time learning about the history and the formation of the right/left and authoritarian/libertarian spectrum.

Click to expand...

You look at the internment camps and AA business hurdles and think those are right wing ideas based on today's views. At that time in history let's not forget the major racism policy was coming from the left as well as a call for Eugenics from the academic left. You should watch Bernard Shaw's speech on eugenics, it's absolutely frightening the way the left conducted business in our recent history.

I've noticed if you disagree with something you assign that as a "right wing idea" when it's only true sometimes.

I agree with you that politics are very gray but authoritarian control, racism, sexism, prohibition were all halmarks of the early 20th century left. I see you and AC say there is no left anymore, but I don't think the left you envision as existed ever really did.

ginwilly said:

You look at the internment camps and AA business hurdles and think those are right wing ideas based on today's views. At that time in history let's not forget the major racism policy was coming from the left as well as a call for Eugenics from the academic left.

Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand what constitutes a view being left wing. The academics in various parts of the world have peddled psuedo science and social conservatism based their own cultural biases. The academics themselves are not inherently left wing. Believing they are inherently left wing is a product of propaganda; the only place you hear absurd and absolutist things like that is the right wing media. Almost every view can be individually placed somewhere on the spectrum, something you don't take into account.

As for Bernard Shaw, he was a Stalinist. A supporter of the man the who killed millions, including Marxists and anarchists who opposed his actions and his push for state capitalism. Something most right wingers don't take into account is the fact that the right/left spectrum is based on authority. The first right wingers were monarchists, the left was made up of those who supported anti authoritarian social structures. Stalinism, and Marxism are considered by many on the left to be a right/left hybrid, because of how authoritarian certain aspects of these ideologies are. A Marxist would try and argue the opposite, but they are in the minority nowadays because of their unwillingness to part with dogma and adapt to the times. I'm a left winger and a socialist, and the only thing I despise more than Marxists are fascists.

ginwilly said:

I agree with you that politics are very gray but authoritarian control, racism, sexism, prohibition were all halmarks of the early 20th century left. I see you and AC say there is no left anymore, but I don't think the left you envision as existed ever really did.

Click to expand...

They were not hallmarks of the 20th century left, again you seem to have an inability to divorce ideology from party or political theory. They exist independent of each other. Fascism was a hallmark of 20th century conservatism, as was genocide.

The left that AC and I are apart of always has existed since the beginning, and exists to this day. It's called the libertarian left. You confuse liberalism which is a center right to center ideology with the left. Social democracy is still capitalism. Various forms of socialism is where the left starts, and the spectrum ends with anarchism.

canndo said:

The war on drugs is only temporarily unconsitutional. The constitution is mandated to protect us primarily from our government and seconarily from the tyranny of the majority. It is not there to protect us from ourselves - that is within the perview of religion. (and common sense). We had this discussion once during the first great prohibition. It took a constitutionaly mandated process to prohibit the posession and manufacture of alcohol - legal, and even rational. It took another to recind that law. One day we will accept the error of our ways, this time it is a state by state war, on that will eventually be won. It is unfortunate in the extreme that the majority of our constitutionaly guaranteed personal liberty has been seriously eroded by this country's war on marijuana. Almost every dimunition of our civil liberties can be directly traced to pot.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with your post and particularly with the last sentence. Without the war on drugs to lay the ground work laws such as the patriot act would have been unthinkable. Without Wickard the war on drugs would not be possible, and make no mistake about it, Wickard is a perversion of the constitution.

Gee. Here I was thinking it was Terrorism.

ginwilly said:

It took FDR years to shape the court to get a decision like this. This case changed the landscape in the US forever. SC judges appointed recently have openly said there is no limiting factor of what government can do by the constitution.

Click to expand...

desert dude said:

Yep.

Wickard effectively amended the constitution without all that bothersome democratic process. It's a "living document"!

Click to expand...

such is ultimately exactly the point of the thread...
its one thing to make such observations and statements, but if made here in empty space what good are they?
unless 'we' us here put those statements into action as in 'its a living document' and seek to repair that which we see as broken then what good r these statements?
anyone can file a case, all u need is standing...the current fed cannabis laws give us the standing to more properly revisit this issue and possibly repair much more thanjust the cannabis issue etc...

canndo said:

The war on drugs is only temporarily unconsitutional. The constitution is mandated to protect us primarily from our government and seconarily from the tyranny of the majority. It is not there to protect us from ourselves - that is within the perview of religion. (and common sense). We had this discussion once during the first great prohibition. It took a constitutionaly mandated process to prohibit the posession and manufacture of alcohol - legal, and even rational. It took another to recind that law. One day we will accept the error of our ways, this time it is a state by state war, on that will eventually be won. It is unfortunate in the extreme that the majority of our constitutionaly guaranteed personal liberty has been seriously eroded by this country's war on marijuana. Almost every dimunition of our civil liberties can be directly traced to pot.

Click to expand...

if 'we' wait for the 'state by state' trickle down theory u speak of, at the end of that road is not a reaffirmation of a human right but rather a mist opportunity to reestablish such in the courts as is proper...in fact once congress changes the fed laws to grant access either by state laws or fed laws or both etc any standing we currently have will have been severely eroded...in other words at the end of the day that which appears to be 'good news' now (like wa&co fed test laws will actually turn out to be another O'bummer in terms of having standing to reach for human rights in court...

DNAprotection said:

such is ultimately exactly the point of the thread...
its one thing to make such observations and statements, but if made here in empty space what good are they?
unless 'we' us here put those statements into action as in 'its a living document' and seek to repair that which we see as broken then what good r these statements?
anyone can file a case, all u need is standing...the current fed cannabis laws give us the standing to more properly revisit this issue and possibly repair much more thanjust the cannabis issue etc...

Click to expand...

I don't see Wickard being undone. Such a turn would drastically reduce federal power. Things like that don't happen without bullets flying.

canndo said:

This is an absolute truth. "if you become pregnant you shall remain so, by order of the state". "you should be subject to OUR notion of religion". "you have no right to clean air or water when that right conflicts with commerce". "you are valued only as an asset to the state and more to the point, as a consumer of what ever our businesses deem valuable to you - so long as it profits by that value". "you are not free, you are only offered a selection of options, options that we decide are appropriate".

This is conservativism.

Click to expand...

"if you become pregnant you shall remain so, by order of the state". Do you support elective abortion at any point during gestation? All the way up to week 40? If you do, you are in an extreme minority.

"you should be subject to OUR notion of religion". Non sense.

"you have no right to clean air or water when that right conflicts with commerce". Conservatives hate to breath. Who was president of the US when the EPA was established?

"you are valued only as an asset to the state and more to the point, as a consumer of what ever our businesses deem valuable to you - so long as it profits by that value". A plank in both political platforms.

"you are not free, you are only offered a selection of options, options that we decide are appropriate". A plank in both political platforms.

DNAprotection said:

dude im fully aware of its effect, i was stating that its been years (at least 10) since i read it and was remembering a gov subsidy program at issue somewhere in that case (which would make a definite impact on the ruling) but i might be remembering wrong...

Click to expand...

The decision doesn't turn on such a program. The myriad later decisions made citing the case have nothing to do with government subsidy programs.

DNAprotection said:

if 'we' wait for the 'state by state' trickle down theory u speak of, at the end of that road is not a reaffirmation of a human right but rather a mist opportunity to reestablish such in the courts as is proper...in fact once congress changes the fed laws to grant access either by state laws or fed laws or both etc any standing we currently have will have been severely eroded...in other words at the end of the day that which appears to be 'good news' now (like wa&co fed test laws will actually turn out to be another O'bummer in terms of having standing to reach for human rights in court...

Click to expand...

I think ... I think, what you are saying is very important, but I can't quite grasp it, could you elaborate please?

desert dude said:

"if you become pregnant you shall remain so, by order of the state". Do you support elective abortion at any point during gestation? All the way up to week 40? If you do, you are in an extreme minority.

"you should be subject to OUR notion of religion". Non sense.

"you have no right to clean air or water when that right conflicts with commerce". Conservatives hate to breath. Who was president of the US when the EPA was established?

"you are valued only as an asset to the state and more to the point, as a consumer of what ever our businesses deem valuable to you - so long as it profits by that value". A plank in both political platforms.

"you are not free, you are only offered a selection of options, options that we decide are appropriate". A plank in both political platforms.

Click to expand...

1`. yep, to the end, mom's choice.
2. Sharia law
3. The question is not if conservtives like to breath but what they are willing to do or give up for a clean whiff of air. It is plain that they have declared... "not much"

4. not so much if you examine it.
5. Not even close actually. Rogue consumers are shunned by the right. VEGANS? REALLY? I eat MEAT you pansy.

How long until this becomes a rant about Monsanto?

canndo said:

1`. yep, to the end, mom's choice.
2. Sharia law
3. The question is not if conservtives like to breath but what they are willing to do or give up for a clean whiff of air. It is plain that they have declared... "not much"

4. not so much if you examine it.
5. Not even close actually. Rogue consumers are shunned by the right. VEGANS? REALLY? I eat MEAT you pansy.

Click to expand...

1. Good for you, at least you are man enough to embrace that position.
2. Sharia law? Are you implying that conservatives advocate sharia law? This is the first I have heard of it.
3. The clean water act, the clean air act, NEPA have all become cudgels used by the luddites, who seem to be mostly leftists, to stop any development.
4. I see no substantive difference between either side.
5. There is a difference between sneering and legislating. I think veganism is pretty extreme and it does not appeal to me, but I don't see anybody telling vegans to eat a burger or go to jail.

ChesusRice said:

How long until this becomes a rant about Monsanto?

Click to expand...

Monsanto was discussed earlier in the thread, and the discussion was surprisingly civil.

canndo said:

1`. yep, to the end, mom's choice.
2. Sharia law
3. The question is not if conservtives like to breath but what they are willing to do or give up for a clean whiff of air. It is plain that they have declared... "not much"

4. not so much if you examine it.
5. Not even close actually. Rogue consumers are shunned by the right. VEGANS? REALLY? I eat MEAT you pansy.

Click to expand...

sigh...

It's a shame social conservatism points such a broad brush. I can't stand the moral majority, equal footing with the PC nuts.

It seems that if we call for sensible spending, freedom and actually following the law of the land we are painted as extreme, assigned qualities most of us can't stand, and dismissed as crazy.

You know, because if you are a liberal, that means you spit on soldiers upon return and throw paint on leather coats.

ginwilly said:

sigh...

It's a shame social conservatism points such a broad brush. I can't stand the moral majority, equal footing with the PC nuts.

It seems that if we call for sensible spending, freedom and actually following the law of the land we are painted as extreme, assigned qualities most of us can't stand, and dismissed as crazy.

You know, because if you are a liberal, that means you spit on soldiers upon return and throw paint on leather coats.

Click to expand...

That right there is pretty much my entire political stance. Because that makes me an obstacle in the path to "progress" I (and you, and many others) must be vilified and destroyed.

This seems appropriate right now: