I think one of the problems was that...again, as I've been told recently, it's not the 25 foot grow space exactly, it's the fact that it was still federally illegal and the fact that the governments could say who or who couldn't grow. I don't care if your government is good or bad, it's that eventually somebody else might come along and change it.
Vote no on prop 19!
- Thread starter dojaguy
- Start date
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
That's a big problem. I wish there was some sort of direct democratic process here where we could vote on national ballot measures. Unfortunately citizens can not change federal law through a direct democratic process. We only get direct democracy at state and local levels. This problem is far above my pay grade.
Sure Shot
Well-Known Member
A voice can chage a community, a community can change a city, a city can change a state, a state can change a nation, a nation can change the world!
TokinPodPilot
Well-Known Member
Technically... there is. And funny enough, it's the same way that Alcohol Prohibition was ended. State conventions were used to ratify the 21st Amendment, primarily because of the fear of overly convoluted politics at the state legislature level. This is why I keep saying that those people in other states waiting for California to "do something and lead the way" are missing the big picture. We need to garner support and sentiment EVERYWHERE. Changing a congressional Act should be much simpler than adding an Amendment.
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
Considering the percentage of "bag" people in this country, a Constitutional convention would be a disaster.
The Founding Fathers knew history. Particularly Roman history.
Eventually the Plebes realize they can vote themselves bread and circuses all the way into economic collapse.
Our current system prevents this, UNLESS, the elected officials fear losing their jobs enough to vote for bread and circuses(tax cuts).
I think being a member Congress should be a privilege, with only minor compensation as it was intended.
Six weeks in Washington after harvest, and then home for the holidays.
It didn't last long.
Politicians have been milking the system for a very long time.
The Founding Fathers knew history. Particularly Roman history.
Eventually the Plebes realize they can vote themselves bread and circuses all the way into economic collapse.
Our current system prevents this, UNLESS, the elected officials fear losing their jobs enough to vote for bread and circuses(tax cuts).
I think being a member Congress should be a privilege, with only minor compensation as it was intended.
Six weeks in Washington after harvest, and then home for the holidays.
It didn't last long.
Politicians have been milking the system for a very long time.
Well I've posted it here before but no one seemed to notice..maybe I'm wrong here but from some standpoint shouldn't we address how this nation was formed then?
I mean we all like to talk about how great the founding fathers where but what they did was pretty much put an nation on top of many others (the natives) and then explain it away by...superiority? Arrogance? Who knows?
But the point is that the nations existed previously and there needs to be some thought into what law really applies if the law that was written was done so illegally in the first place.
The US still has a rather strange relation with them, officially. I mean fireworks and casinos but shrug.
Anyway, it does seem kind of funny to me right now that we still use the Constitution, and politicians swear by it and try to adhere to it but the fact is that it was written some 250 years ago...it seems like one of the longest lasting forms of government we've seen in a while.
It was written in an age where every other single government was essentially a monarchy, perhaps it should be revised?
Basically what I mean is that instead of treating the founding fathers like gods, which they probably wouldn't have liked, we should view them as products of their time.
I don't think they ever imagined a fraction of the stuff that would happen, but they tried to create a document that would help give their government some structure, at least for a while. I'm not sure that they were ever setting out to create a "timeless" document.
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
The roadblocks placed in the way of another Constitutional Convention make me think that they wanted a true consensus before a bunch of teabaggers go back to the drawing board, and make disagreement illegal, and ban minorities from politics.
We were very fortunate that the Founding Fathers included some of the finest political minds of the age.
Thomas Jefferson managed to maintain a close association with France throughout their revolution. A stroke of genius, that very likely saved the United States from returning to the British fold.
Anyway, any changes to the Constitution should be Amendments. Not a full rewrite. The document remains current in its goals.
If anything, I'd like to see an Amendment insuring our privacy.
(Ever had a cop enter your house because the door wasn't locked? They do it, every day, without a warrant.)
I'm married to a registered Native American. She grew up in terrible poverty, in the richest state in the Union.
The evolution of the United States included methods that are nothing new.
Immigration had been going on, East to West in Europe for thousands of years.
The various waves were fleeing enemies, or looking for better hunting.
Where they were militarily superior, they displaced their predecessors.
This pattern served the Europeans well when they landed in the Americas with firearms, versus the Natives' stone age weapons.
I'm not excusing the treatment of the natives, but believe that the events should be viewed in historical context.
There are few places in the World where the current genetic pool in any given location is the same as that of 5000 years ago.
Keep in mind that our PC society is creating people that would be clueless in the situation the Native Americans found themselves in. Against disease and an enemy that showed little regard for the rights of "inferior" beings, they survived.
For many Americans, having a few drops of Native American blood in their veins is a point of pride.
The Constitution is a very good blueprint for a free nation.
Congress has spent over two centuries misinterpreting and watering down its meaning.
I think Thomas Jefferson would have challenged George Bush to a duel, had he seen what Bush did to this country. Bush would have got his ass shot off.
A nice copy of that great document hangs over my desk.
I like the reminder that I live in a country that was once free.
WWShadow
Well-Known Member
I think Jefferson would have challenged more than just Bush, the other Bush, Reagan, Certainly Nixon & maybe Ford. Not sure he would've wasted a bullet on Carter & he would probably just ask Clinton for lewinski's number, rofl. dang, I'm not even a democrat but I think all the ones I listed for Jefferson to call out are/were republican.
Ultimately it's a bullshit prohibition based on lies & maintained by special interest group payoffs to politicians( the last part is just my opinion) & we should be able to have it replealed based in it being unconstitutional at least.
Ultimately it's a bullshit prohibition based on lies & maintained by special interest group payoffs to politicians( the last part is just my opinion) & we should be able to have it replealed based in it being unconstitutional at least.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Good comparison. I'm afraid this will all end in us electing a Commodus type leader soon.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Commodus was probably the worst emperor in Roman history. He took the Roman empire at the near height of it's power and completely destroyed it to the point where it never really recovered. Even though he was the son of an emperor, he considered himself to be a man of the people attempting to relate to the lowest common denominator. He went so far as to actually become a gladiator. That would be the modern day equivalent of GW Bush joining up with vigilantes patrolling the boarder and personally shooting Mexicans trying to come here while he was president.
The roman population had been behaving in a similar manner to the tea party folks. Except instead of wanting tax cuts, they wanted elaborate and expensive games. He bankrupted the empire giving them those games and other indulgences that Rome could not afford. That marks the beginning of the end of the Roman empire. Even though he was completely incompetent, he was VERY popular over most of his reign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
I think we will elect someone who tells the public what they want to hear and acts on it with no regard for the practical realities of running the government. Sort of like a GW Bush x 10000.Oh, thanks for clarifying!
I skimmed through that article earlier, and couldn't see where you were going.
So, basically you think we'll elect a Republican/Teabagger!
I'm not saying only republicans have people this crazy. Only that with our current political climate they are far more likely to do so due to the power of the far right wing. If some politician suggest we declare war on Islam in general while simultaneously enacted tax cuts so big they would lead to our government collapsing, the tea party folks would cheer for it. The left wing equivalent to the Tea Party is so small and insignificant they could not do the same thing.
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
If something doersn't happen to turn the tide away from the ignorant direction it has taken with this election, I'm thinking we may actually see a complete collapse by 2020.
We may find ourselves with the entire world arrayed against us if we elect a teabagger.
I don't believe most of those folks understand why nukes are bad.
They think in terms of turning the Middle East to glass.
Sarah Palin may well be the successful candidate in 2012.
Count on her to get a headache, and resign as soon as she finds out she can't comprehend the problems.
There are rumors Hillary will run. I'd have to support her, because she's not only smart, but a serious bitch, with the best advisor in the world, sitting across the dinner table.
I like Obama, but in this country, charisma is everything.
The Pres sounds like someone's old history teacher.
We may find ourselves with the entire world arrayed against us if we elect a teabagger.
I don't believe most of those folks understand why nukes are bad.
They think in terms of turning the Middle East to glass.
Sarah Palin may well be the successful candidate in 2012.
Count on her to get a headache, and resign as soon as she finds out she can't comprehend the problems.
There are rumors Hillary will run. I'd have to support her, because she's not only smart, but a serious bitch, with the best advisor in the world, sitting across the dinner table.
I like Obama, but in this country, charisma is everything.
The Pres sounds like someone's old history teacher.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
I'm completely dumbfounded by the general public's political perspective. I assumed that after the economy collapsed that people would understand that the republicans were basically just ripping us all off and that tax cuts for the rich is not an economic solution to anything. How they can convince the majority of Americans to vote against their own economic interests is amazing to me. It's pretty clear that their policies only benefit the top 1% and still they've got people who live in trailer parks angry about the estate tax and upper level tax rates. It's really incredible they can pull that off.
If these people don't start to understand what's going on, we are in real trouble.
I actually have an uncle who has used that exact phrase when talking about what we should do about the middle east. He really nuking Mecca and Tehran would end terrorism by showing Muslims "who's boss".
It won't be Palin. She messed up too bad. But it could be someone very similar.
For different times we need different types of presidents. Even though I don't like many of her policies, I think she has what it would take to get things done. I'd support her. Right now we need an LBJ type ass kicker. Everyone is currently too belligerent to listen to reason which is why Obama is having such a hard time. He still has time to figure that out, but if he doesn't soon, we'll have a crazy ass republican president in 2012.
mas3372
Active Member
That is a common misconception. the law states that no person shall be denied the right to vote thats why they offer mail in ballots. In the event that you suspect you may not be able to make it to the polling place for any reason, including work, you need to request a mail in ballot incase.
I thought the same thing until this past primary and was proven wrong by the board of elections.
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
In California, you can become a permanent absentee voter for the price of a stamp.
We started voting from home about 15 years ago. Maybe longer. I can't actually remember the last time I went to a poll to vote.
I haven't missed an election since I first voted for President in '72.
I was told if I wanted to complain about government, I'd better be voting.
I love to bitch about the government.
We started voting from home about 15 years ago. Maybe longer. I can't actually remember the last time I went to a poll to vote.
I haven't missed an election since I first voted for President in '72.
I was told if I wanted to complain about government, I'd better be voting.
I love to bitch about the government.
Sure Shot
Well-Known Member
Despite last week’s defeat of Proposition 19 at the polls, new taxes on marijuana are coming to California.
Pot Taxes Are Coming To California
Pot Taxes Are Coming To California
Thats selfish. Ive heard about 70 percent of people who apply for a mary j card get one but the other 30 percent r fucked. Some doctors will give one to who ever asks for one thow hehe. If it would have passed thow anyone could have goten it along with the 30 percent. If u wana bich about the price just go buy some from a dealer.