Sell me on your candidate.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

That won't actually end the war on drugs, it will simply shift to attacking unlicensed sellers and distributors.

Then why does the empirical evidence show the opposite?

What empirical evidence to support your position have you provided?

[America First]

What empirical evidence to support your position have you provided?

Those 2 countries over there in yonder Europe

[America First]

That won't actually end the war on drugs, it will simply shift to attacking unlicensed sellers and distributors.

The government has more important things to be doing than attacking drug salesman.  It's funny how "conservatives" get all offended of the government trying to make healthcare affordable, but then you want the government telling you what you can and can't buy for recreational use.

[True Federalist]

That's already guaranteed.  At most swinging the balance of court might be enough to get Roe v. Wade and their successors overturned and the issue of abortion sent back to the state legislatures to decide.

This is actually unconstitutional due to the 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause, which reserves this to the federal government.

Abortion depends upon the definition of when a human life begins which is a a subjective decision, not an objective one.

Completely false. It's an objective decision, and also one which can only be done on the federal level. Again, refer to the 14th Amendment as to why, when they struck down Dred Scott.

No, its subjective.  Neither the pro-life or pro-choice advocates are in favor of aborting a human life, but those who are pro-choice don't define human life as beginning at conception.  There is no objective standard for whether life begins at conception, quickening, viability, or birth that can be drawn from natural law, just subjective preferences for one of those four most popular dividing lines.  Nor is there a subjective standard that is in the Constitution for the Supreme Court to rule on.  Possibly one could argue that it is a Federal question that the Congress could set a standard for if it chose, but that still would leave it as something to decided by a legislature, not a court.

You seem to be advocating overturning Roe with a constitutional amendment, but there is zero chance of one passing anytime soon, or of a Federal definition of marriage being placed into the Constitution to name another hot button social issue.  Even in the unlikely event it got pass Congress, it would never get the necessary 38 states.

[TJ in Wisco]

Absolutely. Mitt has a 6:1 odds of nominating a liberal over a conservative. Given the average number of supreme court selections in a term, that gives him net odds of exactly zero over Obama.

If we assume President Romney will appoint two justices (with the 6:1 odds you gave) then he has a 1/7 chance of appointing a pro-life judge on each nomination and 6/7 chance of nominating a pro-abortion judge. So, he has a 36/49 chance of nominating two pro-abortion judges. That means there is still ~27% chance he nominates at least one pro-life justice. ~27% is a whole lot better than zero.

Ergo, even if Santorum has less a chance of winning the nomination, we are maximizing our chances of seeing a conservative justice nominated by supporting Santorum over Romney. It's a perfectly rational decision given all these premisses.

Rick Santorum is no longer running for president. There are two remaining options for President of the United States with a non-negligible chance of being elected: Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Those 2 countries over there in yonder Europe

Saying "Things are good in Netherlands" isn't empirical evidence.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

The government has more important things to be doing than attacking drug salesman.  It's funny how "conservatives" get all offended of the government trying to make healthcare affordable, but then you want the government telling you what you can and can't buy for recreational use.

One, no, they don't. Prosecution of independent sellers is a significant revenue stream, and given the constraints on goverment, all revenue is a big deal.

Two, regulation of the distribution of controlled substances is a constitutional power of the federal government. It's that pesky constitution again.

[America First]

Those 2 countries over there in yonder Europe

Saying "Things are good in Netherlands" isn't empirical evidence.

Actually, it's exactly empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence - the record of one's direct observations or experiences

[America First]

Two, regulation of the distribution of controlled substances is a constitutional power of the federal government. It's that pesky constitution again.

I hope you realize that there was no such thing as "controlled substances" when the constitution was written.  There was no drug war until the 1900s.

It's fine if you want to waste more government resources on a complete and absolute failure that doesn't even accomplish its mission, but don't try to make the argument that the Constitution encourages it.

[America First]

One, no, they don't. Prosecution of independent sellers is a significant revenue stream, and given the constraints on goverment, all revenue is a big deal.

Once again, moonshine example.  How many resources does the government devote towards cracking down on independent moonshine sellers?  How about black market tobacco salesman?

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

Vote Paul so you can later say: "Don't blame, I voted for sanest man in the field!"

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

No, its subjective.

No it's not. Legally the standard at present is set at birth, and yes, it's in the 14th amendment, and yes, it's a power of the federal government, via the privilieges and immunities. I suggest you take the time to look up the clause before arguing that it's subjective. No, it's a very clear and objective standard.

The argument is over which objective standard should be used, conception or birth. Prolifers argue for conception, pro abortion people argue for birth. 

You seem to be advocating overturning Roe with a constitutional amendment,

Roe is terrible law. There is no consitutional basis for a trimester framework to personhood.

Even in the unlikely event it got pass Congress, it would never get the necessary 38 states.

Actually, if Roe could establish abortion, then the removal of Roe would not entail a constitutional amendment. I am in favor of establishing a constitutional basis for personhood of the unborn, but removing Roe would be the first step towards this.
 

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

If we assume President Romney will appoint two justices (with the 6:1 odds you gave) then he has a 1/7 chance of appointing a pro-life judge on each nomination and 6/7 chance of nominating a pro-abortion judge. So, he has a 36/49 chance of nominating two pro-abortion judges. That means there is still ~27% chance he nominates at least one pro-life justice. ~27% is a whole lot better than zero.

What's the odds of Santorum winning in 2016 and appointing prolife judges. Keeping the field clear is more beneficial than 8 years of Romney, because Romney's record is so poor. Thus, any option to Romney other than Obama is a superior option.

[TJ in Wisco]

If we assume President Romney will appoint two justices (with the 6:1 odds you gave) then he has a 1/7 chance of appointing a pro-life judge on each nomination and 6/7 chance of nominating a pro-abortion judge. So, he has a 36/49 chance of nominating two pro-abortion judges. That means there is still ~27% chance he nominates at least one pro-life justice. ~27% is a whole lot better than zero.

What's the odds of Santorum winning in 2016 and appointing prolife judges. Keeping the field clear is more beneficial than 8 years of Romney, because Romney's record is so poor. Thus, any option to Romney other than Obama is a superior option.

By 2017 he won't be replacing Ginsburg and Kennedy, he'll be replacing Scalia and Thomas so it will be a break-even proposition.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

I hope you realize that there was no such thing as "controlled substances" when the constitution was written.  There was no drug war until the 1900s.

The ability to lay tariffs permits the federal government to regulate the importation of many goods, among which include drugs and alcohol. There is no right to unregulated distribution.

It's fine if you want to waste more government resources on a complete and absolute failure that doesn't even accomplish its mission, but don't try to make the argument that the Constitution encourages it.

The constitution does not encourage anything. It simply permits the federal government to regulate. The government is acting within it's constitutional limits in regulating the distribution of drugs. There are many unconstitutional agencies, (education, natch), that should be abolished.

[angus]

Ron Paul   

Here come old flattop he come grooving up slowly
He got joo-joo eyeball he one holy roller
He got hair down to his knee
Got to be a joker he just do what he please

He wear no shoeshine he got toe-jam football
He got monkey finger he shoot coca-cola
He say "I know you, you know me"
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me

He bag production he got walrus gumboot
He got Ono sideboard he one spinal cracker
He got feet down below his knee
Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease
Come together right now over me

He roller-coaster he got early warning
He got muddy water he one mojo filter
He say "One and one and one is three"
Got to be good-looking 'cause he's so hard to see
Come together right now over me

[America First]

The ability to lay tariffs permits the federal government to regulate the importation of many goods, among which include drugs and alcohol. There is no right to unregulated distribution.

When did I ever say there was a right to unregulated distribution?  All I said is that if drugs were legal, not many people would willfully break the law for it to make a difference, hence why there's no huge moonshine or tobacco crackdowns.

The constitution does not encourage anything. It simply permits the federal government to regulate. The government is acting within it's constitutional limits in regulating the distribution of drugs. There are many unconstitutional agencies, (education, natch), that should be abolished.

You implied that the Constitution favors the War on Drugs, and I just told you that it doesn't.  It's not like I was making a constitutional argument in favor of abolishing the War on Drugs myself, so this whole argument and discussion is moot and simply a sidetrack.  I'm not sure where in the Constitution you're referring to, but it doesn't even pertain to this discussion so I don't care.

I'm not trying to make a legal/constitutional, or even philosophical argument.  I'm keeping things purely pragmatic.

[argentarius]

Your pissed off with the establishment right? You want to give them the middle finger, don't you? Vote for Ron Paul. BTW, if you don't mind me asking, which part of Texas do you live in?

[ShadowOfTheWave]

How can anyone vote for Ron Paul with the way he has defamed the Federal Reserve? He and Alex Jones should be sued.

[Bacon King]

One, no, they don't. Prosecution of independent sellers is a significant revenue stream, and given the constraints on goverment, all revenue is a big deal.

That's demonstrably false. The pittance in fines and confiscated cash that come from drug arrests is nothing compared to the huge cost of imprisoning millions of people on drug charges, as well as the cost of enforcement itself (and the opportunity cost to police forces, too- they presumably have many better things to do with their resources besides arresting drug dealers). In this paper published by the CATO Institute, Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that ending the War on Drugs will net $41.3 billion per year from savings alone, and that the taxation of narcotics at a comparable rate to alcohol or tobacco will provide another $46.7 billion. That's $88 billion in total that drug legalization would bring to government. Regardless of your opinion on drug legalization, an argument that current policies save money doesn't really hold up at all.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's pretty obvious that the feds spending resources to bust marijuana collectives that places like Oakland are taxing is a net loss to the governments.

[America First]

It's pretty obvious that the feds spending resources to bust marijuana collectives that places like Oakland are taxing is a net loss to the governments.

Not to all people

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

By 2017 he won't be replacing Ginsburg and Kennedy, he'll be replacing Scalia and Thomas so it will be a break-even proposition.

That's the consequence to nominating Romney.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

When did I ever say there was a right to unregulated distribution?

Then you concede an important point that the government has a constitutional ability to regulate the distribution.

All I said is that if drugs were legal, not many people would willfully break the law for it to make a difference, hence why there's no huge moonshine or tobacco crackdowns.

But they are not legal and the government has the constitutional ability to regulate drugs in this manner.

You implied that the Constitution favors the War on Drugs, and I just told you that it doesn't.

And you're entirely incorrect. You've already stated that the government does have the power to regulate distribution, ergo, they also have the ability to ban it outright if they choose to do so.

discussion is moot

And I lift up my hands and say, ayiyo, I'm Galileo. Handwaving doesn't reinforce your position.

I'm not sure where in the Constitution you're referring to

Then you'd best look up the reference I already cited.

I'm not trying to make a legal/constitutional, or even philosophical argument.

And guess what, I'm making a legal/constitutional argument. If you choose to concede the point, then we can move on.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Your pissed off with the establishment right? You want to give them the middle finger, don't you? Vote for Ron Paul. BTW, if you don't mind me asking, which part of Texas do you live in?

Austin at present. That may change in the near future. I prefer San Antonio to Austin.

I like Ron Paul, but saying that gay marriage should be left up to the individual states is an appealing, but wrong position. The 10th only regulates powers not delegated, and naturalization is a power reserved to the feds.