To the Bush supporters.

Okay, last time.

It is not whether Pink Floyd promotes a lifestyle.

I am not concerned with whether you do drugs, or if "most" people who you know who listen to Pink Floyd use drugs either. The fact of the matter is this:

A. There are many people who listen to Pink Floyd.

B. Many of them (I would argue that it is a majority) use, or have used, drugs.

C. There is a perception held by anyone who has studied the history of this band, or who has been to their concerts and witnessed rampant drug use, or who has studied the 1960s and 1970s (up to the present for that matter) and the drug use that has occurred all along, that there is a connection between drug use and Pink Floyd.

D. I used this assumption as the basis of making an ironic statement (which means that this connection is not one would expect) about a seemingly strange juxtaposition of Pink Floyd (and drug use) and George Bush (anti-drug use).

E. Having made that ironic comment, if you are not one of those who listens to Pink Floyd and does drugs, then there is no irony for you. Hence, your complete missing of the humor intended and your continued insistence on further explanation.

F. However, for those fans who do indulge in an alternative lifestyle, voting for Bush, for all of the issues I have raised would be somewhat counterintuitive, don't you think?

I hope this explains this sufficiently.

 

Ok, now I see the statement you were trying to make more, as humor it's good, but as truth it really isn't. I have a friend who is a heavy Pink Floyd user and also your classic Pink Floyd user, in another words, a massive stoner and sometimes dealer, but he's actually a big Bush supporter.

 

No, it works as truth, too. Anyone who would support a party calling for laws that crack down on elements of his/her own life that he/she finds to be acceptable behavior (in particular, the victimless crime of drug use), is not acting particularly logically. You and your friend want to be prevented from using medical marijuana to alleviate the side effects of AIDS or cancer treatment, to be given harsher sentences for possession, to be prohibited from ever receiving federal help to go to college or to obtain housing for a simple possession conviction, to be told that his lifestyle choice is unacceptable--but using alcohol and tobacco are acceptable (in fact they are encouraged through subsidies to tobacco and taxes raised on both).

It just doesn't add up.

 

No, I support using medical marijuana and making it legal, but like I said, more to life then drugs, and really, every president says they're gonna crack down on illegal drugs but like I said, more to life then drugs.

 

Bush does not support medical marijuana; he made it an early priority to challenge states' rights to allow its use.

Our jails are filled with non-violent drug offenders who happen to use drugs not accepted (and taxed) by the federal government. Republicans, generally speaking, lead the effort to further clog our overcrowded justice system with people who are causing no harm to anyone but themselves.

Let's take a look at a hypothetical situation. John Q. Public, as an 18-year-old senior, uses marijuana. He is caught at a party that causes him to be arrested for possession. Now Johnnie doesn't have a great deal going for him in life so far. He has grown up in a family that cannot afford for him to go to college. Will he be given the opportunity to receive aid in the future for him to break the cycle of poverty and go to college? Not under republican policies that prohibit him from receiving aid. Now, rather than getting a chance to turn his life around and making something of himself and creating capital (which equals personal worth to some), he will not receive aid, not as likely attend college, and make him likely to fail to break into the middle class. This makes him much more likely to earn less money (less tax revenue for the govt.) and get involved in crime (since that is what is taught more than anything else in jail).

It is not that this makes it the government's fault that John becomes a failure, but it is simply in the public interest to give him the chance to better himself after a youthful indiscretion--not everyone is named "Bush" and have his police records vanish.

These policies disproportionately punish the poor who cannot afford attorneys, cannot afford to go to college without aid, and cannot afford decent housing withour subsidy.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that there is "more to life than drugs," a point on which we already agree.

 

Under your scenerio, I have to agree with the Republican idea, as long as they are illegal for now, we all know when we use drugs it's against the law and there could be consequences, it's a risk you take to do it..

 

Then you are supporting a position that harms the greater good of this country in the meantime. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. It is hypocritical for the government to say, "Use our drugs that we make millions off of in taxes, but not one like marijuana that costs you nothing to grow yourself and gives us no revenue."

I am for law and order as well, but I am also for common sense. I am also for rehabilitation instead of incarceration for non-violent drug offenses. Criminalizing victimless crimes is a bane on our economy, a strain on our justice system, and a roadblock to the pursuit of happiness. Oh, I forgot. You can go a doctor for a prescription instead and line the pockets of drug companies and tax coffers instead.

Given your last post, maybe we agree on more than we thought at first. If the laws were changed, would you feel differently about these issues?

 

I feel for drugs alot of the penalties are way over-blown copared the crime, but it's just the fact, it's the law, if you do it, you know there is a risk. It's like drinking during prohibition, everyone did it, everyone knew you could go to jail for it, but no once cared, and eventually, the laws got changed back to common sense. The laws will change over time, but for now, everyone knows the law and risks involved.

 

Umm.. have you read the Bible?

 

Madcap, you're starting to confuse me. so you're for the republican views but against their punishment? or something? you can't support the republican's views on that and then turn around and say the punishment dosnt fit the crime. you're focused too much on your party and not enough on what's right. sure, people know the risk, but that dosnt give the government the right to regulate what we do to our own bodies. prohibition didnt work the first time, and it's not working this time either.

and moonjava, STFU already. can you flow with the convo for at least one topic without stuffing your god bullshit down our throats.

 

You are too shallow to stop letting Hollywood think for you.

 

My roommates get drunknstoned everyday... they still voted for Bush.

 

If you will notice, I was responding to a statement made by T.S. Garp about God not getting involved in politics. No, I will not "STFU," but nice try, though

 

I would have replyed something informative, but Moonjava, your ingnorance is so sick, i'm not even going to waste my time trying to reason with you. it would be the same as arguing with a 5 year old kid.

And you want to talk about "Hollywood talking for you"? As I recall, you're the one who supports letting the assault-weapons ban go because "GUNS dont kill poeple, PEOPLE kill people". That's some straight up Hollywood bullshit for you.

You really need to put down the comics section and start focusing on something more productive, like moving up to Home and Living. Maybe one day you'll be able to move up into politics. Until then, I suggest you stay out of the politics threads. You're posts are nothing but senseless babblings and Jesus praises.

 

No, I said that some laws need to be changed, but as long as they are the laws, if you do the crime, be prepared to do the time.

 

I just don't understand how people fight so hard to ban guns (which is a constitutional right) while pretending to be oblivious to the number of LIVING embryos are being killed everyday that's all....

 

People do kill people, I've never seen a gun get up and start walking around shooting people, if you want to lower crime, getting rid of guns doesn't do anything, you need to address the culture we live in, if a person wants a gun, they'll find a way to get 1 and if someone really wants to kill someone, they'll do it gun or no gun. And really, you say her logic is that of a 5 year old, well then you should have an easy time debating her, but you said you won't.

 

I can not understand how ppl can say that Bush is a Christian when he visits the Bohemian Grove and is a member of the Skull/Bones.

 

What does Skull/Bones have to do with it, nobody except for the people that were in it even know what the hell they do.