Camino LS6

Wrong half of the country for me, but it sure sounds like fun.

Don't forget the concept G6 when thinking about what "could have been".

Great story. Moltar: My dad had a similar vintage Snapper I spent lots of time on. Did you know those things could pop a mean wheelie?! :AH-HA_wink:

OK, now I understand. I've never been much for the "It Takes a Village" thinking - kinda turns my stomach. For me it's more personal, as in helping an individual person in need. Just how I'm wired.

Tough call. I have to go back to the beginning for sure. Jefferson and Franklin are in the running. Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind as well. And Lincoln. I'm just not ready to pick a favorite.

One of the best debate lines ever! Sure beats " There you go again".

OK, now I'm curious. What do you mean by a "service-oriented upbringing"?

Two points to consider on this one: 1. While overturning Roe is McCain's official position, I highly doubt that it is a priority for him - or even in his plans at all. Purely stupid as a political move, and McCain isn't stupid no matter what you may think of him. 2. Senate Confirmation Hearings: 'nuf said.

Therein lies the difference between us: I largely see "community responsibility" as bunk. "Personal responsibility" is another matter.

Nah Ocn, we just have political memories. :AH-HA_wink:

Infrastructure as in maintaining/replacing the roads, bridges, rail lines, dams, and yes the power grid etc. Be it at the local or federal level, these items are in dire need of attention. For energy infrastructure I see national security issues there - and thus a federal presence. On basic safety standards - yes, I mean EPA/FDA as well as reasonable OSHA regulations for the workplace and such. Nothing draconian, just common sense, anti-negligence level regs.

Off-topic, but largely true - and sad.

"Let's look under the hood"

Interesting viewpoint. I prefer the consistent approach generally. At any rate, starting a new third party really isn't on my agenda.

Trust is a funny thing, I know more about where McCain stands - so I tend to trust what I expect from him, than what I expect from Obama. Not quite the same as trusting either man, but something to think about. Third party votes at the presidential level tend mostly to be either protest votes or statements of principle, with little to do with the actual candidate.

Great point. I guess I was looking at it mostly at the federal level, but much of my thinking would apply at more local levels as well. Divide it how you see it.

Yes actually, the criminal producers would go out of business, the drug would be exposed for its filthiness, and the popularity of it would decline quickly. Darwin's principles would also apply. I'm trying to take a long-range view of this. Way too much fear, and way too little rationality determines our current drug policies.

I see them as pretty basic. I also think government should resist doing any more than stricly necessary. - Infrastructure - Defense - Diplomacy - Trade - Environmental protection - Education - Energy independence - Pure research - Space exploration - basic safety standards ( I do mean basic) What would you add?/ subract?

Another option for financing treatment would be to use some of the proceeds from taxes on the legal, controlled, sales of both recreational drugs and alcohol.

Not at all surprising considering the way such programs are structured and forced upon people. Also not surprising considering the environments these people return to after treatment. This helps to make the case for the sort of approach I'm advocating.

We also need to get over the flawed concept that anyone convicted of a drug or alcohol related crime is necessarily addicted, many have simply made an error in judgement leading to the offense. This is a major flaw in the way current court-ordered treatment programs are structured. EDIT: This leads people to believe that entering a treatment program is a "get out of jail free" card, and is largely seen as a joke and just another way of issuing a fine or punishment.

Now that's a great idea!

Actually, you ask great questions and I welcome them. In fact, such questions are required to do this the right way. I think we need to begin with decriminalizing personal possession before anything else - just as a practical matter. It will be far easier to move on this one aspect than any other politically. As for treatment and who pays for it, I would also see this as a process. At first, selling the idea politically would require some government funding of the treatment. The good news being that it is far cheaper to treat someone than to enforce possession laws let alone incarceration. Later, I would prefer to see the financing come from the afflicted persons themselves, from non-profits, family members, and from increased obligation of health insurance companies to cover such treatment. After all, it is a health issue first and foremost.

I would feel the same way if that happened to me. However, intoxicated/impaired driving is already a crime - no matter the substance involved or its legal status. In fact, illegality perpetuates abuse and leads to a hidden subculture which increases the risk of such tragedies. Where decriminalization/legalization has been implemented around the world, abuse and criminal activity has been shown to actually decrease. Just think it through.

Individual freedom. EDIT: Unfortunately, both major parties constitute a threat against it.