Capitalist ParadiseBoard

Hello i have just joined but after i got a good economy because CAPITALISM

Metacrisis wrote:

Eccleston will always be my Doctor.

My doctor will always be Strangelove.

Funktopia wrote:

Rick and Morty assassin guy?

I always liked you.

There have been several interesting developments since Jeff Sessions' announcement on Friday that he was directing federal prosecutors to charge all criminals with the harshest charges possible. Rand Paul, my favorite Senator, had only days before introduced a bill to the Senate that he had coauthored that sought to allow judges to sentence drug offenders with more lenient sentences than the mandatory minimum if the criminals met certain requirements.

Paul voted in favor of confirming Sessions too which made this move sting even more. On Monday (yesterday), Rand wrote an op-ed that was published on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/opinions/sessions-is-wrong-rand-paul-opinion/) criticizing Sessions and elaborating on the goals of his bill. Later that day, Rare released an interview with Paul where he said that "I spoke with Sessions last when he was up for nomination, which makes this move by him even more disappointing now because it was different from what I was led to believe.” The article's author then wrote that Paul was told by Sessions that he (Sessions) wasn't going to pursue the issue.

So what say you? Do you side with Sessions or Paul? Personally, I'm with Rand on this one. It is absurd that most convictions are drug-related offenses. Why should we be prosecuting people just because they used a drug we don't like? Theirs are the only bodies being hurt and they're hurting them willingly. The war on drugs only hurts our society.

Attorney General Sessions may have been a very good pick on a lot of issues. However this recent decision seems to have been motivated by as much hatred of Obama era politics and old Republican beliefs.

First and foremost was the simple fact that President Obama never sought legislatively (seriously) drug reform. Even while he had his supermajority in Congress. The Democrats could have pushed a simple bill during that time to ease drug laws especially when it comes to marijuana (pot) where the Dems could have done a good favor to the United States. President Obama decided to run a pardon/commutation campaign for simple public relations (PR) during his six years without a Congressional majority.

After losing the House the Obama Administration ordered the DOJ not to follow the law of the land when it came to drugs. Attorney General Sessions is returning to what the laws have specified for. Yes the Congress should change the laws, but Mr. Sessions is simply returning to what our laws state.

I hope the Congress continue to change laws and expand help just like we have for Heroin addiction so we can end the War on Drugs and treat drug use like it is which is a health crisis.

The united oman wrote:

In all honesty I agree with Metacrisis, we lost the war on drugs ages ago and the charges are unjust in comparison to other crimes at this point, that people have committed. Example: When a rapist gets a three month sentence for committing an atrocious act violating a person's body while someone who smoked pot was given a life sentence.

It seems whenever we start a war on something, it only gets more popular. After we started the war on drugs, drug use increased. Thus I propose we start a war on charity!

Go away progressives wrote:

Massive increases in welfare state (entitlement) spending, the gutting of the United States armed forces, endless regulations (even wage and price controls),and crawling to Mao (the largest scale mass murderer in human history).
Do the "educated" people know who I am writing about?
And people continued to flee the cities - whilst the "mainstream" media and the education system continued to denounce them (the people who were fleeing) as the bad guys, and continued to praise (as victims) the people who were driving them out.
Clue - in real life (as opposed to college-and-media land) victims are people who are being driven out, not the people who are driving them out. Perhaps if the "educated" people had members of their family raped and murdered they might wise-up.

Ok? Did I miss something here because that was pretty violent and had nothing to do with the discussion.

Go away progressives wrote:

the gutting of the United States armed forces

Can someone give me some background on this? It's well known just how much the US spends on the military but I often hear about it's huge cutbacks. How much are we talking as the nation remains first by a mile for military spending? Or is it just a question of how much is allocated compared to other things the government spends on?

Scorpions Army wrote:

If I remember right, the Military wants alot of money, and it doesnt get it.
Example, the US military wants $1 billion, but they get $750 million. Ofcourse, I could be wrong

That's not gutting, it's just not getting what you wanted in the first place and it applies to every single government agency in existence.

The united oman wrote:

War on better education !
I also just remembered this little beauty....
Nixon's former domestic policy Adviser, John Ehrlichman said “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

Spurious quote of dubious origin:

"We never saw or heard anything from our dad, John Ehrlichman, that was derogatory about any person of color," wrote Peter Ehrlichman, Tom Ehrlichman, Jan Ehrlichman, Michael Ehrlichman and Jody E. Pineda in a statement provided to CNN.

"The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father. And collectively, that spans over 185 years of time with him," the Ehrlichman family wrote. "We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when dad can no longer respond. None of us have raised our kids that way, and that's because we were not raised that way."

(Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/ )

The "quote" was never published but allegedly recorded by journalist Dan Baum for a book. It has an inauthentic air because it was not published at the time and it's not clear that a leading White House official would make the mistake of being unaware that both substances were already illegal and that the "blacks on heroin" scare dated from 1914 when the Harrison Act was crafted. Nixon won in 1968 largely because LBJ was unable to stop the Vietnam War. The Selective Service act, prior to 1969, excluded privileged white college students (mainly Democrats). Once those individuals were included in the "draft" the US exploded into an orgy of unbridled violence.