timesjoke

Both Clinton and Obama promise to remove the tax breaks and increase taxes on things like capital gains.

The differance between what "Bush did and what both the lead liberals are doing is quite simple. Bush gave people their own money back, some of that money was given quickly to be true, but it was still "their" tax return, "their" money. Bush had a complete tax cut "plan", the details were well defined. What the liberals are promising is to take money out of thin air, and just write checks without any plan to pay for the checks other than to promise increased taxes on the rich. Great plan right? Like I said, Robin Hood.

And this has what to do with Obama and Clinton buying votes with taxpayer money? Liberal game plan: Promise to increase taxes on the rich and give part of it to the "poor". Otherwise known as the Robin Hood strategy.

I hunt and live in the south, so this is funny from both points ov view. [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=By0oe7BUDWQ]YouTube - Rednecck Hunting Accident 911[/ame]

I couldn't agree more. The best are always hated by those who are not the best, it is just a fact of life.

I just have to say that the Pats have been impressing me for a long time. They lose lots of talent, and keep comming back to the playoffs, year after year, and I believe they maintain one of the lowest salary amounts in the NFL. Do more with less money, every owner's dream. I just cannot imagine anyone else winning the superbowl at this point.

I don't know if it is fair to blame military service or war time actions on the murders committed by veterans of Afganistan and Iraq. I am sure that some of those who enter service are going to trend tword more agressive behavoirs and mindsets in the first place, not due to their service in a war zone. But, I would admit that PTSD is a powerful problem, needing a great deal of attention. I just hink that if it was just the service in combat that was causing this kind of violence, then we would be seeing much higher numbers. The 120 killings they talk about by soldiers is not even a percentage point of the total number of troops that have rotated through combat in both places for the last few years.

This is why they put so much importance to things like the internet. It is a way to communicate with generic masses and stay seperate, more difficult to stop these groups if there is no hard connections.

This is the thing I believe happened, but I can see a possibility of a more sinister action by the parents. Clearly they are not doing everything possible to help police and their private investigator is feeding disinformation to the press for a reason. So sad that most bad things done to children are by those supposed to love and care for them, not strangers, very sad indeed.

Most of the time they do but once in awile things come along that even the most fiscally wise person is forced to spend more then he wanted to. After 9/11 and the following changes that America faced, we would have very increased spending no matter who was the President. The problem I am pointing out is one a conservative would never do. Clearly there are degrees to anything, and clearly a Presidential hopeful promising to cut $500 checks for the poor is intended only to get votes, nothing else. He is saying, hey, if you vote for me I will give you free money to pay you for your vote. Hillary is doing the same thing, she has promised a $5,000 savings bond to every new baby born in America, to include illegal aliens who come here to have their baby. Why do both of the frontrunners for the most powerful political possition in America both feel they have to buy votes? Surely you can see that looks bad What ever happened to Liberals like John F. Kennedy? Quotes: --A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today's military rejects include tomorrow's hard-core unemployed. --And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. --As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. --The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission. --The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy. (Interesting that both of the frontrunners for the democratic nomination both promise to heavily tax capital gains, too bad the lessons of John F. Kennedy is lost on them.) .

This just kills me. How do you make things better by sending everyone $500? Will $500 make or break any families budget? No. So why tell the voters that he is going to send all the poor people a $500 check for free? To buy votes, that's why. Why is it the liberals are always talking about what they are going to give away for free and never have a real answer for how they are going to pay for what they promise??

Too bad the marketing research does not completely agree with you, consider this: Here we have a vice president admitting that it was not the FDA requirements that drove massive trials, but the need to have sound support for marketing, to sell what you have developed. This is one of my favorite studies done in 2003: http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/rnd/evidenceregardingrnd.pdf It clearly outlines that most of the money in R&D is not due to Government requirements. In fact, a huge amount is spent on existing, already approved medications to maintain market share or to refute claims from other medications trying to take away their market share. But, remember this, if drugs are made legal, they will still need to get approvals for quality control. Cocain for example is cut from it's pure state, diluted because snorting the pure cocain would kill you. I am sure Government regulations would require a standard be met for things like this. Again, I keep going back to my tobacco example to show what happens to purely entertainment products. Recreational drugs will be seen as having a detriment to society in things like unpaid medical bills from those who partake of these substances. Taxes on these substances are to offset these costs to government. All recreational drugs will be heavily taxed. I know she will not see my reply, but the rest of you will: The war on drugs is winning, at least with the most important parts of our society, our children: Overall teen drug use continues gradual decline, but use of inhalants rises From the NIDA: InfoFacts - High School and Youth Trends Any illicit drug ? From 2006 to 2007, 8th-graders reporting lifetime use of any illicit drug declined from 20.9 percent to 19.0 percent and past year use declined from 14.8 percent to 13.2 percent. Since 2001, annual prevalence has fallen by 32 percent among 8th-graders, nearly 25 percent among 10th-graders, and 13 percent among 12th-graders. Since the peak year in 1996, past year prevalence has fallen by 44 percent among 8th-graders. The peak year for past year abuse among 10th- and 12th-graders was 1997; since then, past year prevalence has fallen by 27 percent among 10th-graders and by 15 percent among 12th-graders. Marijuana ? Past year use of marijuana among 8th graders significantly declined from 11.7 percent in 2006 to 10.3 percent in 2007, and is down from its 1996 peak of 18.3 percent. Annual prevalence of marijuana use has fallen by 33 percent among 8th-graders, 25 percent among 10th-graders, and 14 percent among 12th-graders since 2001. Disapproval of trying marijuana ?once or twice,? smoking marijuana ?occasionally,? or smoking marijuana ?regularly? (3) increased significantly among 8th-graders from 2006 to 2007, and remained stable for 10th- and 12th-graders for the same period. Methamphetamine ? Lifetime and past year methamphetamine use decreased among 8th- and 12th-graders between 2006 and 2007; lifetime use among 8th-graders declined from 2.7 percent to 1.8 percent, and lifetime use among 12th-graders declined from 4.4 percent to 3.0 percent. Past year methamphetamine use was reported by 1.1 percent of 8th-graders in 2007 (a decline from 1.8 percent in 2006), 1.6 percent of 10th-graders, and 1.7 percent of 12th-graders (a decline from 2.5 percent in 2006). Crack Cocaine ? Past month abuse of crack among 10th-graders declined from 0.7 percent in 2006 to 0.5 percent in 2007. From 2001 to 2007, students in 8th and 10th grades showed declines of crack use of 29.6 percent and 58.0 percent, respectively. Past month abuse of cocaine (powder) among 12th-graders declined from 2.4 percent in 2006 to 1.7 percent in 2007. Disapproval of trying cocaine ?once or twice? increased among 8th-graders from 86.5 percent in 2006 to 88.2 percent in 2007, and disapproval of trying crack ?once or twice? increased from 87.2 percent to 88.6 percent. Disapproval did not change among 10th- or 12th-graders for the same period. But, we re not doing well in certain other areas, Prescription Drugs, MDMA, Hallucinogens, and Heroin/Opiates are all either flat or increasing. While it is not all good by any means, there is clear success in the war on drugs.

I for one will give you a straight answer, but it will most likely not be what your truly wanting. The first thing to remember is God made man, man made the many religions in his futile attempt to both understand and worship God. Man is one error after another, he cannot do anything perfect, that is why we have so many religions. All life comes from existing life. Play all the games with evolution you like, if you keep going backward, sooner or later you must come to nothing. An that is impossible. Nothing comes from nothing, there must ba a beginning and what began that? So, the only conclusion is there is still a massive leap of knowledge that science cannot figure out, how a living cell can come into being without other cells creating it. There is evidence of God working in our lives for those willing to see him.

Hearing voices talking to you already has a medical explanation, no need to search for more explanations.

I am sorry but your wrong both about how drugs would be cheper and how the taxes would be in reality. First of all, once the government made drug use legal, it would then regulate it like al other drugs, and that government regulation would create the system that pushes the price up. I again go back to tobacco for my example. Tobacco is cheaper to make than any of the drugs you named but even the lowest cost stated have a pack of cigs that could sell for about 30 cents, costing around 3 dollars. Don't forget the liberals wanting an extra 50 cents per pack added to pay for free medical coverage for people making up to 37 thousand a year. Drug production is drug production. Right now, we have drugs comming from other Countries where the workers make nothing, similar to the products made in China. Once the government gets involved in regulating it, the drugs would need to have regular testing and controls over quality. The street dealers get the drugs fairly direct line, with few stops and with very few people adding their markup, but once we make it legal, each jump the product takes will be a 10% or higher profit margin for each step of its journey. That is why a toothbrush that costs 4 cents to manufacture ends up costing two dollars when it finally makes it to a store. While your correct about people being arrested for possession being a crime, it is generally something fined "after" their busted for other crimes first, unless their dealing, not just possessing the drug. As I already pointed out, no home can sustain a drug abuser. Most homes are living paycheck to paycheck and they even have massive credit card debt. No household can afford a drug addict for very long before everything falls apart. I'll again use the drinking example, most drunks will end up losing everything they wown because they will not pay their bills, the same is true for drug addicts. Even if you could give these addicts cheaper drugs (I already covered how this is unlikely) all you accomplish is streaching out the enevitable ending. The drugs abuse is the problem, not where they get the drug or what it costs. When I worked the streets, you could get a thumnail piece of crack for about 20 dollars. This is a tad higher than a dose of Viagra. You can buy 10 viagra pills for about $160 dollars. Buy Viagra, Cialis, Levitra Online Prescription My point is making a drug legal does not make it cheap. It only changes who is selling it. The minute you make it legal, the "prefered" drug companies will get legislation favorable to them so they can sell the drugs, not the established drug suppliers.

Is it possible that your starting to come over to our side Jhony? At least consider that the parents are playing games as a possibility? Remember, if there was any "real" solid evidence, they would be compelled to disclose it to the authorities, not sit on it and play games in the press with it. I have been saying all along that my instincts are pulling me tword the parents having something to do with this, and they could easily fire this group if they felt they were not doing what they want so clearly, they like what is being put in the papers. Yes, I believe this is manipulation, I believe the parents are involved and hiring this investigating team to spread propaganda is just part of the game being played by the top gun lawyer they hired who's specialty is fighting extradition.

In your opinion, but the degree of roads created were far in excess of what was needed for post roads. So the system we have today is not constitutional. Again, your not considering the requirement of the government to protect it's citizens. What about the innocents of drug abuse? They should be completely ignored by the government in your opinion? Let me go back to an earlier example to ask you a question. I spoke of how it is a federal crime to kidnap a person and cross state lines. The reason for this was because one State cannot have power over another State. But, this law and many others are not supported by a specific amendment. Do you want laws like this to be removed for the same reason you want drug laws to be removed? Again, this is an all or nothing situatin. Let's get down to the basics. If all federal laws were removed like you are wanting, and the states were each completely independant of each other as the founding fathers always intended, would the states each make drugs legal in your opinion? I don't think so, but I do see something else happening. You see, before the Federal government got involved, each state and even each city had completely wild laws. Some were crazy one way and others crazy other ways. It was the belief that each comminity should make laws as they see fit and if you did not like the laws of that community, you had to leave to go find another place more to your liking. A jury of your peers was a group that knew you, that had specific knowledge of who you were and could judge your circumstances. What I see if we remove these illegal Federal mandates and crimes is us going back to the laws being flexable to the communities. And I also see some States getting very harsh with drug related crimes because in their minds, they can drive them away to other States, get rid of their problem and put that problem on the shoulders of other States. Of course that is the entire reason for the Federal system now but as you said, if not spelled out specifically by the constitution or an amendment, then clearly the Federal government should not be doing it. The reason the Government must be involved in drug crimes is the same for the kidnap example I gave. A great deal of the merchandise being sold comes from outside the Country and is distributed throughout the many States. No one State can have power over another State so there must be a higher authority in order to have the power to folow/punnish some of these crimes.

But it does make sense if their motivation is to take attention off of the parents. Did you read the other story I linked? Home by Christmas? They know who has her? Now they know she was killed in a couple days after the abduction but before they "knew" she was alive and where she was? It is called propaganda, and it seems like the parents are desperately trying to keep attention off of them.

Thanks for finally answering my question. This is not off topic, you said the federal government does not have the authority to make laws against drugs, my point was that almost every aspect of the Federal government is not specifically spelld out as being allowed under the constitution or it's amendments. Artical 1 section 8 does not allow a national federal road system. Yes, you can "assume" it does with filling a few blanks but that is my point concerning everything the Government does. Again, this is an all or nothing kind of thing, if you don't want the federal government doing one thing not spelled out, then dislike all the things done that are not spelled out. But it does not protect the liberty of those that are victims of those who abuse their liberty, and that is the biggest flaw in your assessment. The government is supposed to protect it's citizens. Most crime has something to do with drugs. From stealing stuff to pay for their drug of choice to violence done to innocents, to the children in homes where drug addicts live, these are citizens who did not want to abuse their liberty but are being abused and need the assistance of the government to try and protect them. As I already pointed out, even if you make drugs legal, drugs would most likely cost more, not less due to taxes, but even if they get cheaper, no home can sustain a drug addict. Sooner or later, the money runs out and bad things happen. Making the drugs legal will simply expose more people to the possibility of addiction faster becuse it would no longer be socially unaccepted. So, boiled down, either citizens deserve to have the protection of their Government or they don't. I believe the Government has a responsibility to try and keep "innocents" from being a victim of those who want to be addicts.

The same investigators (Metodo 3) claimed Madeleine was alive, they knew who had her, and might have her home by Christmas: Madeleine McCann could be home by Christmas, claims detective - Liverpool Daily Post.co.uk I serious;y believe that these "investigators" have only one real purpose, to keep putting stories in the news to take attention away from the parents.

I feel like I am back in 5th grade. I am well aware of what it says and I guess I am back to repeating my self over and over with the same question to try and get an answer. Again, I have given you several examples of things the Government does and how none of these things are specifically allowed under the constitution, or amendments. If you like some of these things, then like all of them, you cannot pick and choose what national issues are okay for the Government to step in on without an amendment and what ones they cannot. It is an all or nothing kind of thing. The question I am asking is pretty simple and I do not understand why your refusing to answer it to be honest. Considering the many things currently in place and not supported by the constitution, would you prefer that we simply go back to the original intent of the founding fathers and have every state like it's own Country without the Federal Government managing things? Everything from managing prison over crowding to road construction would end. Assistance to poorer states would end. The FBI, CIA, all government agencies are not allowed under the constitution with specific language. Almost everything the Government does does not have "specific" language allowing. So, either the government is allowed to fill in the blanks or not.

You avoided my question, none of the things I mentioned, and I can name hundreds if needed, are covered specifically by the constitution or an amendment, or artical 1 section 8 for that matter. Do you believe these things I mentioned should be removed? Government has a responsibility to look after it's citizens. Part of that is the threat these drugs pose to society. Kidnaping someone and crossing a state line is a federal offence, why? What part of the constitution gives the federal government the right to make this a crime at the federal level? The reason is one state cannot have power over another state, so they need an outside authority to create a bridge so justice can be done. The same holds true for drugs or anything else that can bleed over into more then one state. The federal government allows things to be consistant (to a point). If something is illegal in one state, it should be illegal in another state. Desegragation was forced by the federal government because the states were not doing it themselves. Over population of prisons is governed by the federal government because the states will not do it on their own. I understand the original intent of the founding fathers was to have each state independant of each other. Laws were never intended to be the same, if you did not like the local laws, you moved. Each State was to be like it's own Country, with just a basic framework of a national government to share news and provide a national defense when needed. So, again I ask you if you want to turn back the hands of time, go back to each state being independant, to only have a federal Government for the purpose of defending the nation?

I don't relly see your point to be honest. You don't mind if the government does some things but you mind if they do others. Do you complain that the federal Government regulates prescription drugs? Do you complain that the government regulates stock exchanges? How about insuring bank deposits? I can make a list over a mile long of things not specifically spelled out in the constitution or an amendment but are still being done. How about food stamps or road construction? School funds? College grants? Business loans? It goes on forever. The point I am making is no matter what way you slice it, drugs and the selfish minds that abuse them (yes, including booze) are bad for society. They tear at the very fabric that made our Nation great. This goes back to morals. As our morals decline, we see things like increased substance abuse, abortions, divorce rates, crime of all kinds, and even a decline of motivation in the populace. It is the "me" factor where all that matters to someone is themselves, not their community, not the kids on the street, not even their own mother, all that matters is their persuit of their own enjoyment and gratification. We should want people to be more responsible to society, not less so.

Hugo, you seem to be getting a tad flustered. As far as the federal government and it making amendments...... The constitution was written by men who had no idea the populace would turn inward to selfish desires and ignore the best interests of the comminities. You must remember that during the time of the constitution being written, lots of people gave a lot to give this Country a chance. Humans cannot even make a grocery list and keep to it, what makes anyone think that a few men could write a constitution capable of being perfect forever? I don't see you complaining about other amandments, how about the 5th amendment covering due process, or the 13th amandment, to end slavery, or 19th amendment that allows women the right to vote? The constitution never comanded these amendments, but they were made for the good of the Country. If we were to go back to pure constitutional government, we need to leave behind many of the best parts of America. But I do agree with you about the ACLU, their nothing more than a socialist agenda machine.

But your again confusing a dream idea with how things like this really work. A pack of cigs cost about 30 cents to produce but after taxes, some places pay over 8 dollars a pack to cover the taxes. One of the excuses is that smoking causes lung problems that put the burdon of unpaid medical bills on the states. Somking pot has similar lung related problems, in fact it has more tar then tobacco, so the idea is to tax those that smoke to pay for their later medical problems that the society must deal with. Let's not forget that this thread considered thaxing pot to pay for the fight on other drugs, so clearly it would need to be a large tax being as much of the populace would opt to grow their own instead of buying the government backed pot. Hell, I would wager that many pot smokers would reject the government's pot just out of spite, As jhony already said (I believe we can say he is expert in the subject of what pot costs), pot is already very cheap, it is difficult to imagine it getting cheaper. By the way, I will admit that the story you posted was a tad confusing on how it represented itself. It seemed to me to be comparing percentages of cost to people, not percentages of use. In one place it spoke of the cost being higher during restrictive times, something of a no brainer there, in fact, it had a disclaimer about not having any real data during the illegal times so really, it seems to be without any basis to decide anything concerning use, only price. Being as you just admitted that there were not over bearing taxes to deal with during those times, quite simply, there is no way to make comparisons with this modern era.