civil war II?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

civil war II?


Nah, everyone is too stoned.

The Sheriff is the highest law in the county. The Sheriff has higher standing than Federal agents. If the Feds come in and bust and trash the place or arrest the sheriff can stop it. Legally he would have to stop the FEDS. If they dont then file a suit against the sheriffs department.

This should kick up some cognitive dissonance in my Democrat friends: 1. they're against State's rights because their party told them so, yet 2. their monolithic Federal government is threatening to lock up anyone who follows the democratically created State law (provided it passes). Oh the poetic justice.

*quality Sift.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, October 24th, 2010 12:04pm PDT - promote requested by JAPR.

Watching from far, far away, I will be very sad if it doesn't pass. This kind of change happens so rarely, and can teach people that the sky doesn't fall with a bit of progressive change. Given that the undecideds tend to fall to the negative, it looks unlikely with the kind of negative media it seems to be getting.

And what kind of argument is it that California would be seen as not serious if they legalise pot? How could an argument like that get any traction?

Rachael Ray is right!











*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

RT's rhetoric is almost always ridiculous. This segment did not disappoint.

>> ^blankfist:
This should kick up some cognitive dissonance in my Democrat friends: 1. they're against State's rights because their party told them so, yet 2. their monolithic Federal government is threatening to lock up anyone who follows the democratically created State law (provided it passes). Oh the poetic justice.
quality Sift.


Democrat, Republican, Noonian, none of that is what matters. Either legalise weed or criminalise alcohol, either way I'll be happy.

>> ^Reefie:
Democrat, Republican, Noonian, none of that is what matters. Either legalise weed or criminalise alcohol, either way I'll be happy.


Hell, I say legalize it all. Even the worst of it like heroine and meth. The government really should NOT be in the business of telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies. At least not if they're going to call themselves a free country.

Meh. I trust Americans to fuck this up as well

>> ^blankfist:


The government really should be in the business of telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies. At least not if they're going to call themselves a free country.


Hell yeah they should. If my tax money goes towards healthcare then the government better do something to stop people from stuffing their faces with junk food and liquid sugar 24/7. If you wanna be free to make bad choices then you should also be free to carry the consequences.

How amusing. All of a sudden when it comes to weed the 10th Ammendment starts mattering again to neolibs. Of course, it doesn't matter squat when it comes to illegal immigration enforcement, gay marriage laws (when the people vote 'no'), or repealing Obama's unconstitutional health care law. But hey - even broken clocks are 'right' twice a day...

For the record - if Cali wants to legalize weed then I support it. Because unlike neolibs, I am consistent in the application of my political philosophy. I'm a state's rights, small government, low-taxes, fiscal conservative, and I don't change my stripes. I think people who use weed recreationally are stupid idiots, but unlike neolibs I don't seek to use government to impose my standards on others.

Once the tide of public opinion starts rolling, no army can stop it. The Prohibition fascists don't realize they've already lost. Unjust laws should be disobeyed.

The whole world is watching this vote. If Prop 19 passes, once the other states see the "windfall" (which won't save CA btw) they'll also pass similar. It won't kill the Mexican drug cartels but it will blacken their eye for sure.

@campionidelmondo, I agree with you 100%. That's why I dislike welfare such as universal healthcare and any other system that negates personal responsibility and replaces it with safety nets.

We want open borders? I do. But we must end welfare and government intervention in the health industry, because people will never want to pay for those coming into the country.

We want drugs to be legalized? I do. But we must stop thinking healthcare is the entire country's financial burden, otherwise people will want to tell us what we can or cannot put into your body.

And so on. Where's our fighters for Democratic justice on this topic? @NetRunner, @dystopianfuturetoday, I'm calling you out.

We want open borders? I do.

This is the one area I think the 'state' should have some teeth. The primary function of government is the protection of its citizenry. Without rigorous, strict, harsh enforcement of national borders it is impossible to secure the safety of the citizenry.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The whole world is watching this vote.

Ok let's not get carried away here. This vote isn't gonna change anything. CA should start with decriminalization first. They're not gonna go from locking people up for smoking a joint to completely legalizing it...and they don't need to either. Let's not forget that weed is illegal in Holland and many other countries, but it's still alot better than in the US and not as big a tax burden on the general population.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

We want open borders? I do.
This is the one area I think the 'state' should have some teeth. The primary function of government is the protection of its citizenry. Without rigorous, strict, harsh enforcement of national borders it is impossible to secure the safety of the citizenry.


I don't want to sacrifice freedom for safety whether at the hands of Democrats or Republicans.

>> ^blankfist:

Where's our fighters for Democratic justice on this topic? @NetRunner, @dystopianfuturetoday, I'm calling you out.

On what, exactly? The title & intro are outright false -- nobody's threatening to arrest anyone for how they vote.

On legalization of marijuana, I'm in favor, so it can't be that.

I guess it's the usual thing where you think any time a Democratic politician does something other than flout the laws and Constitution in pursuit of some extreme straw-man liberal policy platform you've cooked up, you think you've scored some sort of victory over liberalism generally, and me specifically.

Guess what! I'm pro-Prop 19, but I think the DOJ has no choice but to continue to enforce the Federal laws. The executive shouldn't get to just say "we disagree with the laws, so we're not enforcing them". If the President could do that, what limits are there on his powers, exactly?

I'm thinking if Prop 19 passes, the conflict between Federal and state laws will make legalization into a front-page national debate...and I think that'd be a great thing! I'm hoping at the end of the debate we wind up with the Federal ban on marijuana is lifted.

Odd that I agree with nearly everything these two are saying, but they still somehow annoy the heck out of me.

Also, I just agreed with every word of a quantumushroom post... A space time rift must have just torn open somewhere.

>> ^blankfist:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since November 15th, 2006" href="http://videosift.com/member/campionidelmondo"><STRONG style="COLOR: #2180e2">campionidelmondo, I agree with you 100%. That's why I dislike welfare such as universal healthcare and any other system that negates personal responsibility and replaces it with safety nets.
We want open borders? I do. But we must end welfare and government intervention in the health industry, because people will never want to pay for those coming into the country.
We want drugs to be legalized? I do. But we must stop thinking healthcare is the entire country's financial burden, otherwise people will want to tell us what we can or cannot put into your body.
And so on. Where's our fighters for Democratic justice on this topic? @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since August 5th, 2006" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com/"><STRONG style="COLOR: #0000cd">NetRunner, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 9th, 2007" href="http://videosift.com/member/dystopianfuturetoday"><STRONG style="COLOR: #000000">dystopianfuturetoday, I'm calling you out. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">


So, my question is this. Do you think American hospitals should turn away the dying who cannot afford to pay the doctor's bill? Because if they do not turn them away, I suffer in healthcare premiums...and I also suffer a "fat tax" from fat people. Heck, my job has banned smoking because of the "tax cut" to healthcare we receive.

I am fine with letting people die, so long as those who do not want Obamacare or Universal Healthcare admit their end goal needs to be---no universal healthcare in any shape whatsoever. Treating the near-dead who cannot afford the procedure is definitely Universal Healthcare, but the burden falls on the private sector to soak up the costs and pass it on to the consumer who can pay.

And what about Meth being legalized. Why stop there? Why not allow it to be sold in schools? Why just make it legal? We should free it up completely. Let’s allow it to be sold in schools and theaters and open prostitution—even if the whore has Aids she should be allowed to ply her trade. I am not being sarcastic here—I want your opinion on the matter of infinite liberty.

Meth is far different than any other drugs out there. I see it every day. I pay taxes on the crimes Meth-heads do to get in jail, like stealing and such… Ah, taxation…

Ben Franklin was a rebel indeed. He liked to get naked while he smoked on the weed. He was a genius BUT if he was here today the government would fuck him up his righteous A!

There is intelligent conversation and suggestion, and then there is this. Alcohol is legal, but we don't sell it in schools. Try to use a degree of thought when making a point. While I acknowledge what you attempted to do here, by making a point in the extreme, it falls flat as we live in a society of laws and unless we ignore that, the point you attempted to make is...well, pointless. Decriminalizing drugs and allowing them to be sold in schools is apples and oranges. Infinite liberty is another way of saying total anarchy. We don't live in anarchy, so suggestions that require anarchistic society mean nothing and add nothing to the conversation. Laws exist, such as age limits on alcohol, the legalization of drugs would and could work quite the same. At least then, it's quality controlled.

It's been my experience, throughout my life before I was 21, that it was ALWAYS easier to get illegal drugs than it was to get alcohol.

This isn't a conversation about health care, so I ignored that entire part of the post -- as well as everyone else who touched on health care here. Stay on topic.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/California-Voter-Intimidation-The-Federal-Government#comment-1089059'>^blankfist</a>:<br />@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since November 15th, 2006" href="http://videosift.com/member/campionidelmondo"><STRONG style="COLOR: #2180e2">campionidelmondo</STRONG></A>, I agree with you 100%. That's why I dislike welfare such as universal healthcare and any other system that negates personal responsibility and replaces it with safety nets. <BR><BR>We want open borders? I do. But we must end welfare and government intervention in the health industry, because people will never want to pay for those coming into the country.<BR><BR>We want drugs to be legalized? I do. But we must stop thinking healthcare is the entire country's financial burden, otherwise people will want to tell us what we can or cannot put into your body. <BR><BR>And so on. Where's our fighters for Democratic justice on this topic? @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since August 5th, 2006" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com/"><STRONG style="COLOR: #0000cd">NetRunner</STRONG></A>, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 9th, 2007" href="http://videosift.com/member/dystopianfuturetoday"><STRONG style="COLOR: #000000">dystopianfuturetoday</STRONG></A>, I'm calling you out. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif"><BR></em>
So, my question is this. Do you think American hospitals should turn away the dying who cannot afford to pay the doctor's bill? Because if they do not turn them away, I suffer in healthcare premiums...and I also suffer a "fat tax" from fat people. Heck, my job has banned smoking because of the "tax cut" to healthcare we receive.
I am fine with letting people die, so long as those who do not want Obamacare or Universal Healthcare admit their end goal needs to be---no universal healthcare in any shape whatsoever. Treating the near-dead who cannot afford the procedure is definitely Universal Healthcare, but the burden falls on the private sector to soak up the costs and pass it on to the consumer who can pay.
And what about Meth being legalized. Why stop there? Why not allow it to be sold in schools? Why just make it legal? We should free it up completely. Let’s allow it to be sold in schools and theaters and open prostitution—even if the whore has Aids she should be allowed to ply her trade. I am not being sarcastic here—I want your opinion on the matter of infinite liberty.
Meth is far different than any other drugs out there. I see it every day. I pay taxes on the crimes Meth-heads do to get in jail, like stealing and such… Ah, taxation…

.

Nobody said that they were going to arrest anyone for how they vote, they said they would continue to arrest them EVEN IF the law to decriminalize passes.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Where's our fighters for Democratic justice on this topic? @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://netrunner.videosift.com" title="member since August 5th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 205);">NetRunner, @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/dystopianfuturetoday" title="member since January 9th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">dystopianfuturetoday, I'm calling you out.
On what, exactly? The title & intro are outright false -- nobody's threatening to arrest anyone for how they vote.
On legalization of marijuana, I'm in favor, so it can't be that.
I guess it's the usual thing where you think any time a Democratic politician does something other than flout the laws and Constitution in pursuit of some extreme straw-man liberal policy platform you've cooked up, you think you've scored some sort of victory over liberalism generally, and me specifically.
Guess what! I'm pro-Prop 19, but I think the DOJ has no choice but to continue to enforce the Federal laws. The executive shouldn't get to just say "we disagree with the laws, so we're not enforcing them". If the President could do that, what limits are there on his powers, exactly?
I'm thinking if Prop 19 passes, the conflict between Federal and state laws will make legalization into a front-page national debate...and I think that'd be a great thing! I'm hoping at the end of the debate we wind up with the Federal ban on marijuana is lifted.

I thought the video was very Foxy.

They've got 2 people who aren't even slightly neutral (the woman should at least remain neutral in the broadcast) telling you how you should feel about a situation that they're clearly distorting.

If this was really a news program, the reporter, assuming she completely agrees with the guest, would at least play devil's advocate rather than tossing softballs to this guy.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I'm a state's rights, small government, low-taxes, fiscal conservative, and I don't change my stripes.

How can you say you support small government while supporting laws that allow the government to decide who can marry? Why should government have any say in marriage?

How can you say you support small government while supporting laws that allow the government to decide who can marry? Why should government have any say in marriage?

The issue is one of State's rights versus Federal - and it is a discussion this nation has had before we even declared independance. The founders favored strong state's rights over strong federal authority (for obvious reasons). The concept was that the states would be government 'labs' where different ideas could be tested. In one state, people would use method "A" while another state would use method "B". Citizens who disliked a method could go whereever they preferred. Successful systems would be duplicated and refined, while unsuccessful systems would fail as people voted with their feet - literally. A strong federal system imposing a nationalized 'one size' policy on all aspects of life disrupts this marketplace of ideas - almost always to the people's detriment.

The response to your question then is this... I am against the FEDERAL government imposing a solution on gay marriage, immigration, drug legalization, et al. I think the states should make these calls via their referendum process. That way the people will decide and not distant, mercurial federal bureuecrats.

Some states will invariably choose to allow gay marriages while others will not. The gay population would go to states that curried to them. If the resulting population shift brought prosperity, then the model would be duplicated. If the population shift brought economic problems and conflicts then states would notice it and hew more towards traditional family models.

Let the case be made at the state level. If the case in compelling then it will succeed. If the case it not convincing it will fail.

>> ^hPOD:

Nobody said that they were going to arrest anyone for how they vote, they said they would continue to arrest them EVEN IF the law to decriminalize passes.

The title of the VideoSift post is "California Voter Intimidation - The Federal Government", the title of the YouTube video that's embedded is "The Feds are intimidating people into voting No to Prop 19".

The flack from Reason has a comment in his first reply saying "We've got Obama threatening to lock people up if they even think about voting for it", and "it's an appalling, appalling use of force to intimidate people before they vote", and the follow-up question boils down to "Do you think the rise in opposition is because of this voter intimidation?". Reason guy says no, but doesn't challenge the premise of the question.