Interview Palin

[checkymcfold 0]

Is there any differentials between a guy with 2 joints and a case of malt liquor and a guy with 500 pounds in his attic and a subscription to High Times Magazines?

as i said, about half that number is possession charges only, and in most states, possession of an amount larger than one ounce or any amount kept in multiple containers defaults the charges to intent to distribute or the state equivalent.stoners are lazy, and often like to keep some pot in the living room and some in the bedroom so that they don't have to walk any more than necessary to get high.

[Balloon guy 158]

Everything you need to know is in the bible.

This is correct, especially the part where Neb is shown to be the king of Babylon and an enemy of God, so not a good example of Biblical following people.

[Balloon guy 158]

abortion (i don't buy that it's "shown to be divisive regardless of religious beliefs" at all), gay rights, drug laws in various areas of the country, just off the top of my head.

Pretty sure you are reaching here.Abortion: The only way a person could conclude that a viable fetus has rights is if they read the Bible? And the only way to argue that life is too precious to err on the side of the abortionist instead of the life of the child is if you tithe to Jimmy Swaggert's church?Gay rights: Many people hold that granting gay men extra rights to marry in non-traditional ways opens the door to preversions of the law in ways that aren't acceptable. How can you say a man can marry another man, but not his dog?Drug Laws: are based much more on seeing the effects of drugs on a society, which is why most of them were legal first, then became illegal.The top of your head: easier to see than most, maybe you should try to bring back platform shoes?

[nutzbuster 7]

Is there any differentials between a guy with 2 joints and a case of malt liquor and a guy with 500 pounds in his attic and a subscription to High Times Magazines?

The second guy likes to read?

[checkymcfold 0]

Pretty sure you are reaching here.Abortion: The only way a person could conclude that a viable fetus has rights is if they read the Bible? And the only way to argue that life is too precious to err on the side of the abortionist instead of the life of the child is if you tithe to Jimmy Swaggert's church?

nononono you really aren't understanding my point. it's not that people aren't ABLE to cast these issues in non-religious ways, it's that there are large numbers of elected officials who refuse to do so, and that it makes debate impossible.

Gay rights: Many people hold that granting gay men extra rights to marry in non-traditional ways opens the door to preversions of the law in ways that aren't acceptable. How can you say a man can marry another man, but not his dog?

in perfectly legible, logical english. let's try: it is ok for a man to marry another man, but it is not ok for a man to marry his dog. ok, done.

Drug Laws: are based much more on seeing the effects of drugs on a society, which is why most of them were legal first, then became illegal.

yes, i agree that MOST arguments are cast that way, but in certain areas of the country that is not how it goes (i think specifically of where i grew up in sw va, recalling a speech where a local official said, and i'm obv paraphrasing, that "drugs are taking the place of god in our southern, christian homes.")

The top of your head: easier to see than most, maybe you should try to bring back platform shoes?

i don't dictate fashion. i live it.

[mtdesmoines 3]

I'd do more, but in terms of being out of touch, her positions on these three issues are simply not in line with most Americans.

I understand your frustrations, but leadership is less about "falling in line with everyone's opinions" than it is about successfully exerting your own.

[hblask 1]

How can you say a man can marry another man, but not his dog?

Yes! We've finally reached the "sex with dogs" argument! Dave Barry discussed this very argument back in 1994 (http://www.reason.com/news/show/32270.html).The idea is that many people accept bad laws because they are afraid that something ridiculous would happen without it. "If we don't have laws against sex with dogs, we will have people having sex with dogs in the middle of the street!"This is a description of much of what passes as law these days.An extended quote:

John wrote about it and he got into the usual thing where he immediately got to the question of whether or not you can have sex with dogs. The argument was that if it wasn't illegal to have sex with dogs, naturally people would have sex with dogs. That argument always sets my teeth right on edge.And I always want to retort with, "You want a horrible system, because you think the people should be able to vote for laws they want, and if more than half of them voted for some law, everyone would have to do what they said. Then they could pass a law so that you had to have sex with dogs."

Just read the article, it makes more sense.

[copernicus 0]

Is there any differentials between a guy with 2 joints and a case of malt liquor and a guy with 500 pounds in his attic and a subscription to High Times Magazines?

High Times is a government sting to get names of drugs abusers.

[Balloon guy 158]

nononono you really aren't understanding my point. it's not that people aren't ABLE to cast these issues in non-religious ways, it's that there are large numbers of elected officials who refuse to do so, and that it makes debate impossible.

Then it would probably help to point to these make believe boogie men that give you your justification for being a Christophobe.

in perfectly legible, logical english. let's try: it is ok for a man to marry another man, but it is not ok for a man to marry his dog. ok, done.

And if there's one thing the 9th cicuits court of appeals has taught us, it's that words mean whatever you want them to mean. Now unless you want to make a law denying dog lovers their one shot at happiness, the arguement is that the law allowing gay man extra rights opens the door for a legitimate legal argument to allow other non-traditional unions to have their day in court.

yes, i agree that MOST arguments are cast that way, but in certain areas of the country that is not how it goes (i think specifically of where i grew up in sw va, recalling a speech where a local official said, and i'm obv paraphrasing, that "drugs are taking the place of god in our southern, christian homes.")

So in other words: You agree that political arguments can have many foundations to support their arguments, however no religious person in America should be allowed to use theirs because it is ?? what? Un-American? Wrong? Not scientific?What exactly precludes religious people from any debate?

i don't dictate fashion. i live it.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't jealous just a little bit too.

[johns76222 0]

So far the American public hasn't had any opportunity whatsoever to hear this woman speak in a setting where she wasn't prepared with pre-written speeches. I want to see how she handle's some good old fashion grilling, that is, if the GOP ever allows it. The fact that they haven't yet and don't seem interested in doing so should scare you a bit. If it scares them... it should scare you. They call Biden a gaff machine, but me thinks that this woman will stick her foot in her mouth big time if they ever release the reigns and allow the media a chance to ask her some tougher questions. Even the debate will be totally rehearsed. I want to see her do SOMETHING, anything that isn't scripted. Maybe then we'll figure out how she feels about birth control, wildlife, the bridge to nowhere, the environment, Iraq, etc. Not too long ago when asked about Iraq he said, "I haven't thought much about it." Hmm... that's comforting!

Great news Daniel -- You can See Sarah Palin interviewed again tomorrow night while the press/media continue to try and destroy her.Don't get too excited now when you see her. She turns a lot of men on.Later Dude.