Look Jeff, I believe when the feds get into the mix, they screw it up. My name is private not from my rank, but my desire. I am a vet and I'm paying attention closely. I have no love for any gov't official. To answer your Q no I do not believe alcohol should have an age limit. Why? It is never the feds job to legislate alcohol restriction of any kind. To let the state do it is just a plain a waste of time. As a pre-legal drinker, I had no problem, and yes, no parental influence. Is it right? No, but at 59 yrs of age, I outgrew it.
Jeff, you can be as indie as you want. But to say that you want to include weed under the same rules as alcohol? I don't think alcohol should be regulated either. Regulation is taxes and control. So go ahead and submit yourself to those rules.
In the meantime, calling me names online confirms what a brave man you are. Online. Come to me face to face. Let's see how brave you really are. I'll show you snap to attention.
Look at what's being said here. Conservatives asking for regulation. That's how brainwashed some are.
She Wolf I think your opinion is pretty much the most correct. The failed but quite lucrative war and drugs is a failure of course, in that you can't hide behind every bush and bust or punish every supplier or consumer. Couple that with the fact that is was sponsored by the most inept organization on the planet, the feds, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Now the states (inept) and the feds (more inept) are going to try to control weed from a legal aspect. This should play out as a comedy while they pretend to control something that can't be controlled. This can only end with a larger divide between the contributors and the leeches in our society. Parental involvement will be the only "solution" and then in very small amounts.
I'd like to point out that while libs have no problems with killing innocent babies, they have a HUGE problem with killing a mass murderer who's been sentenced to death in a court of law. So for them it's nothing so bothersome as the sanctity of life, but a matter of timing.
So we have millionaires supporting the left, and millionaires supporting the right. In 16 it might be the republicans turn. Or maybe some more liberal nonsense.
As long as we're fighting amongst each other, we'll never be able to take on DC. Well done!
Never had a beer last long enough to store it.
I've found over the years as the gun grabbers have become more and more vocal, and received more press, is that the more vocal they are the more uninformed they are. The politicians are the worst examples spouting off the most ridiculous "facts" and "studies" as gospel. Anyone who agrees accepts these facts without question, and then repeats them advancing the lies. So I don't participate in the discussions anymore as it's a complete waste of time. If the truth were to receive any media coverage at all, a lot of minds would be changed.
Anyone with half a brain understands the framers intent, anyone who states any other explanation is fooling themselves. Don't forget the more a lie is repeated the more it morphs into the "truth".
Just once I'd like to hear a gun grabber come up with a solution that addresses all of the "gun nuts" who use them to commit crimes! Just once!
Instead the geniuses want more laws for people who already obey laws. As for accidents? As a civilian I took over 100 hrs. of firearms training last year. Every instructor agreed there are no accidents, only negligence. I agree.
How about Carson/West? Can the left find imaginary girlfriends for both on short notice?
http://www.bencarson.com
What ldr's (liberal douche rockets) fail to understand is that while conservatives may watch Fox in all it's versions, most don't take what is broadcast without question. Both sides can spout cites re: the pissing contest o' the day, but in the end conservatives spend more time looking for real proof and confirmations, while they eat headlines (and no more) like candy. Want proof? Look at any ratings that apply to any media and leftist sources have the poorest as a rule. Here's a hint ldr's, you can c&p a link from anywhere in the online garbage can to support any stupid statement you want.
Jelun, I'm sure you know what I was saying. Our payroll taxes are paid weekly and accounted for quarterly. Between that and your other comments you seem to be really pissed at me. Oh well.
As for your comment re: no business uses their own money, once I've provided a service or product the consumers money becomes mine. That makes it my own money. And I do use it to pay my obligations, and I keep some for myself! That's how it works. For the record the Sam Walton story is a true rags to riches story. I admire the guy. And I shop at his stores when it suits me. I could go to Sears or Kohls for socks, but the only difference between them and WM is WM is much larger. They provide at the last count I believe something like 17 million jobs worldwide from stockboy to store manager and beyond. There are a whole bunch of rich, successful people in this world I hope they don't all make you this angry.
I know from lurking that we look at the world from different colored glasses. Doesn't mean we can't have productive conversations. I enjoy this conversation as well.
McD's is a franchise. You buy the license to own one, which is a small business owned by one person who may own more than one. Is it your thought that they should pay someone roughly double what they're earning solely because they need/want double their current pay?
no prop please, am I the only one who's noticed that this guy posted his argument and disappeared? My definition of a troll. An illiterate one at that. As they say on one of my favorite shows, I'm out!