Posted on 09/16/2004 5:04:47 AM PDT by publius1
You're absolutely correct - this isn't tyranny at all, just American-style socialism.
America can make socialism work!
Press on, lads!
On what basis did they determine that the outcome would have been different without the Soros donations?
"Under the Rockefeller Drug Laws, the possession of four ounces or sale of two ounces of certain controlled substances is a Class A felony and carries a penalty of 15 years to life in prison. Possession of two ounces or the sale of half an ounce mandates three years to life in prison".
-- drugpolicy.org
Certainly the street dealer knows the laws. Yet he deals. That's New York's fault?
"It doesn't matter if it's forged; it's the content that matters...."
Sure, there you go! An American Nationalist Socialist trifecta. If you think correctly you can be in the party, and you can only work or vote if you're in the party. The friggin' brownshirts in conservative clothes outta like that!
I think there's a big problem with murder being a lesser charge in terms of penalties than is being a small-time drug dealer, don't you?
Do you support hate crime legislation, too?
Let the record show that "wideawake" believes that gun confiscation is perfectly Constitutional.
Hopefully, they might even become lawyers - the commissars of American socialism.
Do alcohol, tobacco, prescribed anti-depressants, etc., meet your definition of 'drugs'? If not, why not?
The fact that you descend to personal insult and lies means that you effectively concede the argument.
You are the individual who has attempted to redefine "tyranny" into a definition unknown to the Founding Fathers.
Let me offer you some dictionary definitions of tyranny, if you like.
OED: "The government of a tyrant or absolute ruler; in a general sense, absolute sovereignty; a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute prince."
American Heritage: "A government in whicha single ruler is vested with absolute power; the office, authority or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler; absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly."
In the literal sense of the word a law passed by the duly elected representatives of a state cannot be tyrannical - you dislike the law so you call it tyrannical, but it can only be so described metaphorically - the actual conditions necessary for tyranny do not obtain.
What the heck are you doing on FR?
Conversing with my fellow conservatives, and enduring the occasional harpy-like harangue of left-libertarians like yourself. If you have a problem with my presence here feel free to report me to the mods or to Jim himself.
Wasting the time of people who love freedom?
There is a difference between loving freedom and loving untrammeled addiction to crack cocaine. Despite your efforts to obscure that bright line.
By the way, if you come up with a rational argument for your position at any time in the future, I would love to discuss it with you.
Okay, I'll bite. If drug prohibition as it stands is constitutional, why then was it necessary to amend the Constitution for alcohol prohibition?
Now that's funny!
Like you (you left-wing troll -- you gotta love the well-reasoned and thoughtful response to your arguments), I tire of reading the lies of the posters who like to use inflammatory words and phrases like "tyranny", "violation of the inalienable rights of man", "plain contravention of the ... Constitution", and "enable the government to more fully control its citizens".
Makes me want to get into my black helicopter and hunt them down (and shoot their dog).
"ANY theft, burglary, robbery, carjacking, embezzlement, etc with ANY connection to drugs MUST be punishable be DEATH, with no appeals, no delays."
Why not just move to Saudi Arabia? They do that there.
I find drug prohibition arguments on FR to be just as out of place as gun prohibition arguments, for the same reasons. As your partner-in-crime apparently supports gun prohibition, I scratch my head and wonder, do I really need to explain the standard conservative pro-freedom argument here on this very forum?
You jump to an unwarranted conclusion to score a cheap debating point.
The unconstitutional firearms laws of the state of NY are in place precisely because the NY judiciary is liberal.
My point was that liberals despise drug laws and if they could find any constitutional grounds for eliminating the Rockefeller laws they would do so in a heartbeat.
The fact that the judiciary is hostile to the laws and continually complains about them and is yet unable to find constitutional grounds for their repeal empirically demonstrates their constitutionality.
The NY judiciary, being liberal, hates firearms possession and would never review the constitutionality of NY's unconstitutional gun laws.
Let the record show that steve-b thinks the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of New York citizens to keep and bear arms.
To whom are you referring?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.