So, Who Leads The New R's In 2012?

Censored by Laurie · May 22, 2009

Please, please, pretty pretty please let it be Palin for three reasons.
1)I would enjoy watching her on TV
2)4 more years of Obama
3) More Tina Fey

Fixed

eulessismore · May 22, 2009

Palin, no.
Steele, no.
Jindal, no.
Romney, no.
The Republicans are on the ropes and nobody wants to step forward as a front runner in 2012 unless Obama's poll numbers are low. Nobody with any real aspirations will want to be the sacrificial lamb.
As for the message of the Party, it does not need to change. Most Americans agree with the traditional principles of the GOP - they want better schools, lower taxes, minimal government interference with their lives, and a strong military to protect our unique nation. For the first time ever, poll number show a pro-life majority. What they don't like is the fire breathing religious right pompously preaching down to America, and the super-wealthy corporate fat cats running their companies into the ground then asking taxpayers to pick up the tab.
The problem with the Republican Party is not the message, it's the delivery.

With the passage of "welfare reform", I never thought I'd see such a sense of entitlement as the bailed out CEO's have shown. The Republicans showed some hope of recovery by helping throw the credit card companies under the bus. Of course that was easy enough to do when said companies are benefitting from a federal funds rate of 0%, billions in taxpayer funded cash infusions, then engaging in interest rate increases for any and no reason, while imposing myriad user fees, including those for paying bills online!

eulesseagle · May 22, 2009

Tancredo:

The war has been lost.....legalize it!

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/video/19521841/index.html

Mean Green 93-98 · May 22, 2009

Tancredo:
The war has been lost.....legalize it!
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/video/19521841/index.html

Terrible idea.

eulessismore · May 22, 2009

Tancredo:
The war has been lost.....legalize it!
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/video/19521841/index.html

ee, the whole drug scene nowadays scares the hell out of me and a lot of other people, but, Tancredo, like William F. Buckley before him, is probably right. I think meth is the most obviously destructive drug out there; from what I understand, jailers don't want to keep the meth users locked up; then they'd be responsible for their dental care and that would be more expense than most any jail system could bear. What may be needed is the long, hard, difficult road of education and prevention. One wealthy gentelman who had moved to Montana (this was a few years ago, when he was informed how bad the meth scene was there) was ready to strart up a controversial campaign of public service announcements showing before and after pictures of meth users. I wonder how that went.

Censored by Laurie · May 22, 2009

Terrible idea.

You guys have been bemoaning the government wasting taxpayer money and want them to stay out of our lives as much as possible, yet your moral radars start blipping like crazy at the suggestion that the legalization of drugs could be highly beneficial.

- No more black market means a sharp reduction in drug related violence

- Control, either government or market driven, on the quality of product...no more good coke cut with drano or heroin cut with quinine or pure caffene...which is actually what makes it dangerous and potentially lethal.

- Taxes on the product actually raise government revenue rather than throwing bad money after worse in the VERY FAILED "War on Drugs." (Damn...we don't have much of a track record in wars since WWII, do we?) There's not a person on this board who's not 2-3 phone calls away from acquiring a stash that would make Robert Downey blush.

UNTflyer · May 22, 2009

I have no problem legalizing pot. The other stuff, not so much.

Censored by Laurie · May 22, 2009

I have no problem legalizing pot. The other stuff, not so much.

I wrestle with that as I can see and understand the arguement as to keeping the hard stuff illegal...pot, there is no legit arguement.

I think my belief in just legalizing it all is the fact that nobody has ever swallowed a condum of rum or muled a pack of Marlboros in their anus. Nobody has been shot since the 20s for not delivering their shipment of Pabst.

I think the War on Drugs is such a lost cause, pushed by the same ilk of people who felt Prohabition would save this nation from the devil. Plus, maybe those crazy Arabs might hate us just a little less if we stopped destroying their poppy fields. Perhaps they just like bagels (much more to this joke if you really stop and think about it)

And Flyer, WWASD? What Would Adam Smith Do? Let the market decide.

KRAM1 · May 22, 2009

Legalize it and tax the heck out of it. Just don't increase the tax on my Beer!

However, until it is legalized (and as much as I hate to say it...it will eventually be legalized if the dems hold sway in Washington long enough), stay away from the stuff.

Mean Green 93-98 · May 22, 2009

You guys have been bemoaning the government wasting taxpayer money and want them to stay out of our lives as much as possible, yet your moral radars start blipping like crazy at the suggestion that the legalization of drugs could be highly beneficial.
- No more black market means a sharp reduction in drug related violence
- Control, either government or market driven, on the quality of product...no more good coke cut with drano or heroin cut with quinine or pure caffene...which is actually what makes it dangerous and potentially lethal.
- Taxes on the product actually raise government revenue rather than throwing bad money after worse in the VERY FAILED "War on Drugs." (Damn...we don't have much of a track record in wars since WWII, do we?) There's not a person on this board who's not 2-3 phone calls away from acquiring a stash that would make Robert Downey blush.

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be advantages to legalizing drugs. I just believe that the disadvantages would far outweigh them. Enabling drug addiction just cannot be a good idea. Can you imagine ads for coke, heroin, crack, and meth? "Live the good life--shoot Coors heroin!"

And what does "very failed" mean? We have countless drug busts every year. Certainly less people use drugs as things are now than they would if it was legalized. I don't know if I could call that "very failed"--just "not nearly as successful as we might like."

And we could still have greater success in the drug war if we would take bold steps, such as militarizing the border.

oldguystudent · May 22, 2009

Having absolutely no personal experience with marijuana myself, I have to go by extensive research and say that it is imminently better than alcohol in every way imaginable. It's more mellow, less volatile, non-violence inducing, non-hangover causing, not physically addicting and less health damaging. Besides, you can't make clothing or fuel from the by-products of barley or yeast. The big downside is it would make for very dull crowds at football games, but the halftime music would be spectacular.

Also, I suppose it might have an adverse effect on GDP as the eighty hour corporate world work week is such a bummer man!