user1991

That's just an ignorant, arrogant, and offensive statement. I am fairly damn sure most people who voted for McCain did not do it based on your criteria there. I've heard countless people call Obama a socialist. Whilst the majority of McCain supporters aren't racist, I have heard the muslim/socialist allegations thousands of times, on youtube, on forums, in the street (and I'm in the UK wtf)..

Honestly, I think it will either be a bloody revolution or a slow cultural change, but I think that in about 50-60 years, most of the world will be far more left than it is today. The problem is the mentality of the people. All it takes is a change in culture - it happened with slavery, women's suffrage etc, I see no reason why it cannot happen for other things such as capitalism.

Ignorance. People in America are just ignorant. They think that they live in the greatest nation on Earth, chant USA, and then leave it at that. If people would just take a look around them, they'd realize that our country isn't even on the center, but that we are center-right (now anyway, we were far right with Bush). People all around me are threatening to leave now that Obama has won, and I just ask, "Where are you going?" They don't realize that Obama is rather conservative compared to foreign politicians. Harper, a conservative in Canada, is about as liberal as Obama, perhaps even more liberal. After all, he'd never seek to get rid of the national health care there, and he'd lose if he proposed to. Progressively, I think America will become more and more left. Either systematically, or through a bloody revolution. Either way, it's going to happen.

He isn't nationalising the means of production, or the distribution of land. If anything the bail out was closer to socialism than anything Obama is advocating. Taxing the wealthy more to pay for improvements to those less fortunate is the cornerstone of most tax systems. All governments redistribute wealth in one way or another, Bush gave to the wealthy and hoped it would trickle down, Obama is building from the bottom. America will still be a capitalist nation. True, and I'm not saying that America will become a full-blown socialist nation. It will just have a bit more socialist tendances and laws. Very true, that all taxing is "distribution of wealth". But the president-elect actually saying that he wants to redistribute wealth, instead of it being inferred, is what scares me. Just think for a minute about this, and some other things that Barack Obama has said. The media would go ballistic if Bush said something like that. The media bias is terrible, really. All you "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" people really have no idea what it's like do you? I'm not saying you're like this.. but you seem to have a problem with the idea of "redistributing" the wealth. What's the issue here? I'm not poor, but not rich either.. and I'd happily vote for higher taxes, even up to like 70% income tax to be honest, because I'm not so callous that I'm going to put my own money before the health and education of the people who have, by no fault of their own, been born into a poor family. You really want a great nation? Equality comes first.

Do you even know what socialism is?!? And capitalism is a terrible, unjustifiable system.

I am not going to reply directly but.... I can turn every single own of your aguments onto other matters. This is how shallow your agruement is. I know reading it should satrical but come to drug related problems. Ok, first things first. Drug use doesn't impose on anyone else's freedoms (unless they do something whilst high) Murder clearly imposes on other peoples' freedoms. Your arguments are terrible and no, you cannot even attempt to equate drug use and murder unless you are an absolute moron. Sure, logically speaking your paragraph makes sense, (look up the real meaning of logic before you criticise me here), but if you apply it to the concept of "do not impose on other's freedoms" then it just doesn't work.

What so nobody should every say that i shouldn't stab myself? eat so much i becoem obese? Make myself heavily mentall ill? You seem to have a very unfounded person vs state attitude. The goverment is the to help those you can't help themselves and inforce that on a neutral part. If somebodies self drug habbit leads to torrment of others, family, friends and crime victims for drg money then it is no longier the possition of the state. The people aren't happy about these crimes and little timmy taking drugs so ban the drugs that will meddle with his head. You can say this not the communitys business but when timmy degrates his adiction and seeks help it would of been cheapier for him to of not started at all. People can SAY what they want, (kinda), but you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe upon anyone else's freedoms. Your arguments are terrible and you're appealing to emotion, especially with this "little timmy" bs. Prohibition causes more problems than if it were legal in the first place. Although prostitution is unrelated i will keep it brief. It damges the areas reputation and houses prices. You don't want to bring up a family near this activity. It often leads to abuse of these women who can then find no way out of it. Also step back and think what you are agruing to legalise. Having that as a job is not moral and you should look to other ways to make money. Yet another reason why religion and state should be separate. "Immoral"? Get real dude, stop trying to make people conform to what YOU think is right, especially something that doesn't harm anyone. And prostitution being legal does not really affect house prices, because there would be brothels on the outskirts of the cities somewhere, the prostitutes wouldn't have to be endangered by having to work to shady guys on the street. If you watch any crime programs on TV/Discovery you'll know how many times prostitutes are the victims of rapists/killers etc, simply because they work on the street, at night. In a regulated system, prostitutes also have STD tests which reduces the cases of diseases transmitted. thats a incredibily useful paradox. shame is in no shape or form does that reasoning work. I could link alchohal to drink driving to deaths to say ban the booze. If things or legalise there becomes a idea to just try one as they are just there. Think about chocolate (bad example i know) you knwo its all the same thing but you will look to try all the different sorts of ones. If that chocolate then had you eating loads of them till you died of heart attack would't you prefer the bar to be out of your reach? All drugs should be legal, simple. All you have are a bunch of arguments from morality and nothing from reason. Making drugs illegal causes more problems that it aims to solve. It costs more money, puts more people in prison, makes the drugs more dangerous, creates a climate of fear and stigmatises people who use them. It ruins the lives of people who just want to smoke a joint at home with their friends and end up getting drug tested at their job and removed/kids taken away/*insert other ridiculous punishment*. You need to face it that people are different, and just because you don't think something is "moral" is not a good enough reason to make it illegal. I like smoking weed, I don't drink that often, it isn't really my drug of choice, but technically, I and others like me are criminals and we are told by this government that we cannot put a certain chemical into our own bodies, apparently for our own good.

Put salvia in my friend's joint :) It was hilarious, cause he still thought it was weed and was like "DUDE... THIS IS THE ****"..

That's like saying "cookies are dangerous because they could, technically, be laced with cyanide." Marijuana and marijuana laced with PCP are completely different things. Not to mention, PCP laced weed is sort of an urban myth. It happens, sure, but not nearly to the extent that people say it does.

What the...? Animal Farm is actually banned in American schools? Can someone confirm that? That is kinda surprising, considering it doesn't exactly promote communism.. When I was at school we were encouraged to read both animal farm AND 1984, and we read huck finn in class, and in the library we had both far right and far left philosophy texts.. In philosophy and psychology we watched Klan rallies, black panther videos, anarchist videos, as well as all the other stuff. What is so damaging about learning about something? What's sickening about this is the fact that the government will do it under the guise of "protecting the children" when all they are really doing is attempting to control what they think and feed them ignorance.

But you're a Christian...wtf Have you even read any of what Jesus said?

Once they're an adult it should be their choice. Sure you may not want it, but they're a completely different person and should have every right to do what they want to their own body. And of course, it would be illegal for children. Let's say cocaine and heroin become legal and a lot more people become drug dependant and leech off society. That means your tax dollars go to feed the damage they cause both to themselves and to others. Still ok? I can see the point you're making, and in principle I agree completely. The problem is that it's just not realistic. As a society we need to stipulate that some things are off limits so that not too much time/money/life is wasted needlessly. Of course we should do that based on the best evidence available and on a case-by-case basis. I tend to think that governments these days continue to legislate based on tradition or ideology (largely political ideology) rather than evidence and reason. What about all the money that goes towards putting drug dealers/users in prison and all the police hours that it takes to track shipments of incoming drugs etc? I'd rather my money go towards people with addictions rather than needlessly putting people in prison. All these conservatives LOL, sometimes I wonder if they've ever read the parable of the Sheep and the Goats..the whole "I was sick and you took care of me" line would sort of imply that Christians are supposed to do as such. =D> And I think that with a fair system of education the amount of people using hard drugs would not increase with legalisation.

Once they're an adult it should be their choice. Sure you may not want it, but they're a completely different person and should have every right to do what they want to their own body. And of course, it would be illegal for children.

I shared a room with a guy that had a fridge (not running) with a marijuana plant growing inside it.

All of this is true, but the same can be said for LSD, e, weed, DMT, *thousands of other drugs*.. The dangers of it are irrelevant. If we argue along the lines of "it is less dangerous than alcohol" then we may get to a point where everything is legal except barbs/crack+coke/heroin etc.. which is still anti-freedom because ALL drugs should be legal. It's better to argue along the lines of freedom because then we get the message across to these politicians that these are our bodies and we should be able to do whatever the hell we want to them as long as we do not harm or impose on anybody else's freedoms. Of course, problems arise with the definition of harm (In On Liberty he doesn't even define "harm"), but for more specific instances we can look into it further. Small steps, and that is what it will be. First pot, then acid and e, and slowly and slowly they will adopt the concept of freedom. And in about a thousand years, we will have balanced anarchy and a society that places no hold upon the material. Hopefully.

I don't understand the mentality of these people who think drugs/prostitution should be illegal.. If you take certain chemicals you can actually be locked in a cell for doing so. This is basically the same as saying "WE OWN YOU." Really, it is. How can you possibly even attempt to justify telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own body?

We should also allow you to murder, because we don't want to impose on your natural abilities :roll: . Laws will not be needed sometime in the future. And as Shadow said.. the line is drawn when you impose upon the freedoms of someone else. Of course we need to clarify exactly what that means for more specific examples but as a general guideline I think it works. And drugs/prostitution, it's a no brainer to me really. Let people do whatever they want to themselves.

*sigh*..

See this is where we differ. You believe that the Bible is the word of God, and I believe that the Bible is mostly the words of ancient people.. coupled with various bits that have been added/removed over the ages.. I think that Jesus' teachings are brilliant. But that being said, I'm not about to claim that therefore, he is the son of an all knowing, all powerful, all present, eternal, immutable, etc etc God, and I'm not going to base my life entirely on what anyone in the Bible said. I'll read it, and I'll see which parts I think are good ideas, and then I'll think about those and if I come to the conclusion that they're good then I'll adopt them as part of my beliefs. Some of what Jesus said is genius and some of it isn't..I think that he was looking to the ultimate long term when he said those things.. and personally I do not think that we can mix his teachings with a capitalistic society. Ultimately, I think that Jesus teachings or variants thereof will play a major part in the transition from a good society to a perfect society. It's the whole God thing that I have a problem with. All the anti-homosexual, mass genocide bs that all you fundamentalists keep on talking about and it really ruins the term "Christian." I wonder how many Christians actually follow the teachings of Christ?

Of course, it should be legal, as should ALL drugs. I don't understand the concept of making a drug/prostitution illegal.. really. It blows my mind that people can actually say "you can't do this with your own body." It's basically the same as saying "we own your body." Even if a drug was guaranteed to kill you, it should still be legal. Such is the concept of freedom.

I don't believe in your God.. I believe in what Jesus said. I don't think he was the Son of God, a genius, but not the Son of God.. The Old Testament God is clearly of human creation and the stories are often barbaric, often to the point that even most Christians don't pay attention to them. Well, today most Christians are too eager to talk about homosexuality etc, whatever.. but never the things that really matter.

Anytime anyone says they hope they are doing God's will or that they are serving him atheists all try to go "What a loony! he thinks he talks to God? What a nutjob!" And nothin Scott McClellan said was really news. It was just Keith Olbermann who jumped all over that. I can see where McClellan is mad about Valerie Plame but that is really the only thing he said that was important. Okay, let's just assume you're right here, and Bush actually meant "I believe that I am doing God's will.", instead of what he actually said, which was "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." I mean, I don't know why he would mean the first thing when he said the second, but maybe, just maybe he did. Let's assume you're right. Don't you think that Bush saying that he thinks he is doing God's will by invading a country is manipulating the Christian majority.... just a little bit..? ...Constantine. Just wanted to say that. Haven't all the past presidents been Christian, one sect or another? And haven't a good deal of them been involved in war? Of course, I doubt any (Except Bush apparently?) was told to declare war by God, but if you really expect all presidents to turn the other cheek, then there would never have been any wars in American history. (Because turning the other cheek when Pearl Harbor was bombed, or after 9/11, would be a really great idea...) As said previously, you can't institute Jesus' teachings into a system in which they don't work. You first have to change the culture. Jesus' teachings are pretty much to be used for the transitional stage from an amazing society to utopia. When I read what he said, sometimes I actually do think, holy crap, this guy can't be human. The problems arise when you try to compromise what he said. When he said "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." - I'm pretty sure he meant it as such.. I'm not a Christian, but I can sort of get why people are. Not the fundamentalists like Saruman.. As said earlier, I think that Jesus teaching's are genius.. But Christians don't apply them, simple as really. They compromise between Jesus' teachings and a capitalistic society, and it doesn't work.

Anytime anyone says they hope they are doing God's will or that they are serving him atheists all try to go "What a loony! he thinks he talks to God? What a nutjob!" And nothin Scott McClellan said was really news. It was just Keith Olbermann who jumped all over that. I can see where McClellan is mad about Valerie Plame but that is really the only thing he said that was important. Okay, let's just assume you're right here, and Bush actually meant "I believe that I am doing God's will.", instead of what he actually said, which was "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." I mean, I don't know why he would mean the first thing when he said the second, but maybe, just maybe he did. Let's assume you're right. Don't you think that Bush saying that he thinks he is doing God's will by invading a country is manipulating the Christian majority.... just a little bit..? You act like Christians are athiests. There are some epic battles in the Bible; pretty gory too. God isn't afraid to get his hands dirty. Whatever happened to "turning the other cheek"? If you Christians actually listened to what Jesus said, the world would be a much better place. I think that in a few hundred years, what he actually meant will become clear. Capitalism and our hold on the material must go first. You can't have both.

Anytime anyone says they hope they are doing God's will or that they are serving him atheists all try to go "What a loony! he thinks he talks to God? What a nutjob!" And nothin Scott McClellan said was really news. It was just Keith Olbermann who jumped all over that. I can see where McClellan is mad about Valerie Plame but that is really the only thing he said that was important. Okay, let's just assume you're right here, and Bush actually meant "I believe that I am doing God's will.", instead of what he actually said, which was "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." I mean, I don't know why he would mean the first thing when he said the second, but maybe, just maybe he did. Let's assume you're right. Don't you think that Bush saying that he thinks he is doing God's will by invading a country is manipulating the Christian majority.... just a little bit..? All politicians manipulate, but Bush and his gang took it to the next level, and people got sick of it. Your voting system, it's just so hilariously ridiculous. If you watch the American news channels, all they seem to care about is the individual and not the policies. Whether McCain has seven houses or whether Obama lived on the same street as Bill Ayers like 20 years ago. (Who the hell even cares...? I don't care about someone's life (well as long as they aren't like a rapist or anything) as long as they have good policies.) If America is really full of these "swing voting" single issue people then... jeez, I guess that really is bad. Even when you discuss policies you can't go long without some crazy religious nut coming on and saying that stem cell research shouldn't be allowed because embryos have souls. Sure, not all Christians believe that, but for a country such as America, their huge presence is still surprising. Here in the UK, we don't have such a religious majority but we still have a pretty bad voting system, this faux democratic pile of garbage where you realistically only have a choice between two people. In the US, to be president you have to, in reality, be a millionaire Christian. I endorse Obama only because I think Sarah Palin is actually a [developmentally delayed] and if McCain died, then the world would end. The system of voting and power seems to be designed to make it extremely difficult for anything other than the traditional consensus to be heard. Democracy at it's purest I guess.. the majority crushing the minority.

I'm not into discounting people's experiences nor am I into arguing why other religions are wrong (Which I don't. I even defend Scientology). So what about Sathya Sai Baba? I'm not into converting you or anything, but debating is interesting, hearing different points of view is interesting. On Sathya Sai Baba.. check your PM.