Camino LS6

OK. There are several levels to this as I see it. There is the principle level which addresses the right of an individual to determine their own consumption which I see as absolute (in principle). Then there is the pragmatic issues of how and when to take steps in this direction which is a stickier problem. I would favor the immediate and full legalization of marijuana without exception as its banning is based on nothing more than decades of propaganda and hypocrisy. At the same time, I would take the initial step of decriminalizing the use of any drug. Those who have problems with substance abuse do not need legal trouble on top of that. These folks need help and decriminalization would remove some of the fear and stigma attached to their dependency. Ultimately, it is my belief that we each have a right to be complete losers if that is our choice and governmant nanny laws only make the situation worse. The specifics of when/how/if a given substance would become legal would require serious thought, research and planning. The revenue benefits will be astonishing as well (the estimates I have heard amount to a 40 billion dollar advantage in just the first year). Other benefits would be equally beneficial with the profit incentive of the black market removed from the equation. Drug-related violence would vanish. We would have room in our prisons for those who commit serious crime. Our inner-cities would know a new level of peace.

I favor both a fee-based revenue source as well as a national sales tax. That way you control how much you pay in taxes and the government's budget is directly tied to the performance of the national economy.

As long as people continue to think that way, it will never happen. So, I think that the flushing is coming from those casting "traditional" votes.

I like most of your additions. I would modify the Iraq one a bit: To finish our business in Iraq in a sensible, successful, and rapid fashion. And end the borrowing which finances that excursion.

Actually much of it does, as the Libertarian Party. But I think we can go them one better if we try. I also think we have to if we want the "American Experiment" to retain any value.

Assuming that you can start from scratch, how would you formulate a platform for a third party? Just to get started: - repeal the Patriot act - eliminate income tax - legalize recreational drug use - have the next session of congress spend its time repealing laws instead of writing new ones - base the party on the real world expansion of personal freedom in everyday life. ( to reduce the ever-increasing big brotherism of the present). - the party would be entirely " faith blind" with religion not getting a place at the table. A truly secular philosophy of government.

Agreed. But the keyword is "try".

BS It is never a waste to vote for what you truly believe in. If the whole body of the electorate actually did that, the traditional parties would suffer an embarassing defeat. We've known for ages that both major parties are full of crap, yet we are too lazy and apathetic to do anything about it. So, they remain full of crap. Real change requires a third party.

Nicest coupe on the market since... the GTO. :AH-HA_wink:

I have been so disgusted by the garbage coming from both major parties (even here in our own political threads), that I believe that I will most likely return to my long-established pattern of voting Libertarian this year. Last time I voted for Kerry (whom I don't like) just because I felt that "W" was such a rotten SOB that we needed to be rid of him at all costs - it was the only time that I have ever voted major party. I just feel that all rationality has evaporated in the shrill partisan bleatings from the dems and the repubs, which leaves me hating the idea of endorsing either with my vote. Not yet an absolute decision, but very,very, close.

How the hell does this still happen?!

That day will remain embossed in my mind until I die.

I just can't dive into this one tonight. But a word of caution: There are many, many vantage points when looking at this issue. Be careful about generalities and keep this thread respectful - it treads on some thin ice.

He is brash, spirited, and unsophisticated - unlike some of his cohorts in Washington, you can tell that he is actually awake and gives a damn.

Yup. That's the exit. But close enough to the truth.

Speaking of pitbulls... I actually like Biden. Around here, we have been familiar with him for a very long time.

Gimme about 2 weeks, maybe less. Oh BTW, my town isn't King of Prussia, it's Berwyn. Not that it really matters.

So it would, so it would.

I'm so glad I don't live in Mass. I just go to a tag place and they do it all there. Insurance only requires a phone call.

Whoa! Careful there boy! I might have to hurt you.

I'm with Balthazar generally. But here's another idea, we could start trying to lead by example - better for us and better for the world. I'll leave it there for now.

I happen to know where a rust free '64 can be found. :AH-HA_wink:

Please. It's the context , not the phrase itself. His crowd instantly assosciated the comment with Palin - no way did Obama not instantly realize it (look at his face). All I'm saying is that he should have snuffed it out then and there. Too late now.

Oh come on, it was an obvious slip of the lip. He could have snuffed it out with a choice comment at the start. You know, a slight smile and "you know I didn't mean it like that" would have prevented the whole thing from getting to this level of silly. To start defending such an inane thing when the connection is so obvious just makes him look petulant, or worse, foolish.

My take on "swinegate": First, it doesn't matter whatsoever. Second, if you listen to the clip of it, Obama is fumbling around for words just before he says it. Obviously, his use of the expression wasn't premeditated. However, his audience (also obviously) made the connection to Palin even before Obama finished getting the words out. I'm sure he realized what had happened immediately ( I imagine that he must have thought to himself at that moment "Oh $h!!"). There are two disingenous thing s going on about this right now: 1. The McCain campaign is using it to the hilt while knowing it was unintentional. 2. Obama is denying the obvious reference to Palin as if he is surprised at the reaction his word choice caused. Obama should have simply stated the truth: that he didn't think of the connection to Palin until after he said what he said. All he had to do was say that it was an unintentional thing, and that he in no way meant it as a slight to Palin. If you watch the clip it's quite obvious.