ChangoLanzao

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has a Swiss bank account should be disqualified from running for President. It is considered smart to have one at that level of personal and business wealth. Matt That clears it up. So, Romney would be the first smart President ever if he wins!

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has a Swiss bank account should be disqualified from running for President.

Now, THAT is a ridiculous statement.

Always beware when right-wingers invoke dead men and phony quotes to bolster their arguments There's a lot more HERE.

I know! But the thing is, we exited one at a time and you guys managed to catch me. I WAS surprised!! :D :D

Hey Cliff! I just noticed that ad a couple of weeks ago ;) It's one of the images I got during that jump when you and Hap followed me out the door. It's probably being used in other ads around the world - I rarely find out who uses my stock photos ;) Here's where they got it: CLICKY It was a great jump. We all just jumped out solo and it was a great surprise when you and Hap joined me for a 3-way. What a blast!

I don't think you need to purchase Jamendo Pro to be legal. Jamendo Pro is a service. It's not a license, but rather more like a guarantee. They even give you a certificate The CC (by-sa) and (sa) licenses are independent of Jamendo Pro and allow you to use the music for commercial purposes and for derivative work (sync) as long as you give credit and use the same license for your tandem video DVD. You can't use music that is designated ND and/or NC for tandem videos as those prohibit derivative works and commercial use, respectively.

Still waiting on you to provide your proof on your claims of phony quotes. You know... Like I did when you claimed Jesus, Gandhi, and Mandela did not approve of guns. I don't have to prove anything to you. Bug off.

A typical Conservative attitude. ? ? Sorry. I assumed you were implying that the property owner has more to lose and thus has a lower net benefit than the person who pays zero. Well, one loses Freedom. The other loses Freedom + property. I don't see where that is either a conservative or a liberal concept. Just math. What if neither one loses their Freedom? The military preserves both of their Freedom. The one who paid 30K (presumably the property owner) feels that he's been under-compensated. If he's a liberal, he doesn't mind, but the conservative feels that the lazy bum who paid nothing is getting a free ride. If the guy who has the property is unwilling to support the military (or other essential services) then how can Freedom be preserved for either one? Well, his question was "Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country?" Mathematically speaking that case is degenerate. The answer is, it doesn't matter. Since Freedom is infinitely more valuable than property, they both lose just about the same amount.

A typical Conservative attitude. ? ? Sorry. I assumed you were implying that the property owner has more to lose and thus has a lower net benefit than the person who pays zero. Well, one loses Freedom. The other loses Freedom + property. I don't see where that is either a conservative or a liberal concept. Just math. What if neither one loses their Freedom? The military preserves both of their Freedom. The one who paid 30K (presumably the property owner) feels that he's been under-compensated. If he's a liberal, he doesn't mind, but the conservative feels that the lazy bum who paid nothing is getting a free ride. If the guy who has the property is unwilling to support the military (or other essential services) then how can Freedom be preserved for either one?

A typical Conservative attitude. ? ? Sorry. I assumed you were implying that the property owner has more to lose and thus has a lower net benefit than the person who pays zero.

I haven't heard of anything like that, recently. All I was getting at was, the crime will still continue. Not to the extent of what is going on now but it will continue. I really wonder if, leagalizing all the forms of dope would really solve the problems. Not just on paper but in reality. I sure, don't have the answer. I'm just voicing my thoughts. Chuck Well, we have proven that prohibition doesn't work. Why not try legalization? What other option is there? I know, you and thousands of others would really like to see that but who can speak for the future outcome of legalization? Again, I'll ask... all prohibited dope or just a select few? I've asked that question before and noone seems to want to give a response. I do know, there is one form of 'black tar' coming into this country that, one 'fix' will kill a person. Do we want that legalized? Chuck Sure. Rat poison is legal. Try drinking a cup of automobile anti-freeze. Skydiving should be illegal too, according to your logic.

A typical Conservative attitude. You are basically saying that property trumps Freedom. That is obnoxious.

... so as long as you own property, have a family to care for, and roots you cannot be free. But, yes, I would be very supportive of your "Bid for Freedom", if you would sell your property, pick up your family, and move to Somalia. That's a place without a government where you, and your family, could live out your dream. So you are saying that I have no hope of Freedom in the good ol' US of A? Blue Skies, DJ The way you seem to be defining it, that is correct.

I think you're just a troll. He thinks he is Socrates

While I understand your reasoning, I disagree with your broad premise. I'm not saying outright that complete legalization of narcotics won't have some negative social effects; but you're presuming that narco use would drastically increase if it were legalized, and I'm skeptical that that's the case. Legalization of narcotics would drastically reduce the price, thereby making it a hell of a lot more affordable to people to buy with lawful income sources, thereby reducing the overall quantity of people who must resort to unlawful income sources to obtain funds to purchase drugs. Not to mention the fact that some of the money that we are now squandering on the "War on Drugs", could be used for treatment programs for those who become addicted.

I haven't heard of anything like that, recently. All I was getting at was, the crime will still continue. Not to the extent of what is going on now but it will continue. I really wonder if, leagalizing all the forms of dope would really solve the problems. Not just on paper but in reality. I sure, don't have the answer. I'm just voicing my thoughts. Chuck Well, we have proven that prohibition doesn't work. Why not try legalization? What other option is there?

I got it already... But you just like to keep proving you are unable to stand behind your word. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA +1

... so as long as you own property, have a family to care for, and roots you cannot be free. But, yes, I would be very supportive of your "Bid for Freedom", if you would sell your property, pick up your family, and move to Somalia. That's a place without a government where you, and your family, could live out your dream.

LOL again!!! You have run out of argument! Fact is the Founding Fathers, those we respect and reveere were each and every one ,down to a man , Outlaws by choice! They put their personal fortune and life on the line to ensure their Liberty. The income tax is a direct violation of our fifth ammendment right. The Founding Fathers knew this even a century before it was enacted. Now here we are nearly a century after that law came into effect and we allow the government to make us into slaves. Confiscating the fruits of our labour by threat of violence or incarceration!! Blue Skies, DJ There is no government in Somalia. Why don't you go live there?

Yes ... I'm in favor of legalizing "dope". Just like we had to do with alcohol. The problem is analogous and so is the solution.

Where would you put a president who inherited a surplus, left a huge deficit, started an unnecessary war, couldn't put together a coherent sentence, and left the economy in tatters? I'd suggest 5th worst is being generous. It's not a static distinction. Those polls are done continuously. GWB's rating is still heading down

That's what you get when you outlaw a naturally occurring substance. You increase the risk, you attract risk-takers, and you attract the BIG MONEY. I read the article and Wachovia and any other bank laundering dope money should be put away so far, daylight would have to be pumped to them!!! I've heard all the arguements for legalizing dope and how alchoholic beverage prohibition failed and blah, blah, blah... It's bad enough, the public has to deal with drunks. The cost involved to 'sober-up' an alchoholic. Legalizing dope would increase the cost of cleaning-up dopers. The problem is, the demand in this country for cocaine, heroin, pot, meth and all the rest. What about the effects on family members or every day citizens? Just because some self-centered doper has to get their fix. Unless you think we're better off prohibiting alcohol too, your argument carries little weight considering the fact that prohibition of drugs has led to the present situation. Blaming the potheads is futile, you just make criminals out of a large number of citizens; that alone is extremely costly.

That's what you get when you outlaw a naturally occurring substance. You increase the risk, you attract risk-takers, and you attract the BIG MONEY.

When I see people constantly use absolutes, I realize they are just of out of constructive arguments and use these to create emotion. I'm a lib and I think immigrants should learn conversational English. \ Should or must? Why would any immigrant from south of the border learn english when everywhere you go they cater to spanish for them? So that they can understand all of the nonsense you're saying about them while you think they aren't listening