JDavis

you take someone refusing to answer an inane "what if" question to mean they would disobey the law and you accuse me of spinning.

how many times have we tried this in the past and failed? Egos get in the way of people in power.

If you dont want your children to be exposed to any intoxicating substances then teach them well and hope they learn the lesson. The legality of these substances have no bearing on if your children will be exposed to them. As for if the cure would be worse than the disease, try telling someone going through Chemo that is using marijuana to be able to control the nausea and vomiting that comes with it so that they can actually eat enough for their body to survive the Chemo that the pot is bad for them. and I cant help but notice you are sticking to your statement that the only people that want marijuana legalized are people that want to get intoxicated by it, legally, even though you have been told that it is a false statement.

Perhaps instead of people getting thicker skins you should refrain from making overly broad, stereotyping statements that make accusations against people you know nothing about.... And you do not bring people to Christ by forcing them to think and act like you

It's a good question because it reveals the true nature of Obamacare. Like I said, when the chef refuses to eat the food from his own kitchen, that should send up a red flag that something is wrong. It is very problematic when our government makes laws and then places itself above those laws. The very people who have written Obamacare took care to exempt themselves from it, because it is a trainwreck and is the first step toward a single payer system and socialized medicine. And now we have people like Sebelius know how much Obamacare stinks and wants nothing of it. She is a hypocrite because she expects us to abide by a law that she herself refuses to follow. If we were to reject Obamacare we get penalized, but her rejection of Obamacare is justified in doing so. Hypocrisy is when you condemn in others what you justify in yourself. But it's not just her. The problem with your attack is that she is following the law. Also she never said she would not follow the law. What she did was refuse to answer an inane question. And for that you attack her. If she really believed in obamacare, she would not have hesitated to say, "yes, this is a good law and if I ever get the chance to enroll, I would happily do so." The fact that she could not bring herself to admit such (because she knows how terrible it is), shows how bad this law really is. She didn't say she wouldn't, but her refusal to answer says just as much as she could have said by simply saying, "no." My comments are aimed more at the hypocrisy of the left and Sebelius is a good example of that hypocrisy. Obamacare cannot be defended on honest ground. It requires not answering simple questions, by outright lies (as we have seen over and over) and by simply ignoring the reality of what people are suffering as a result of Obamacare. Nobody should answer childish what if questions. They hold no place is adult discourse. if that is the best question you can ask you need a new job

It's a good question because it reveals the true nature of Obamacare. Like I said, when the chef refuses to eat the food from his own kitchen, that should send up a red flag that something is wrong. It is very problematic when our government makes laws and then places itself above those laws. The very people who have written Obamacare took care to exempt themselves from it, because it is a trainwreck and is the first step toward a single payer system and socialized medicine. And now we have people like Sebelius know how much Obamacare stinks and wants nothing of it. She is a hypocrite because she expects us to abide by a law that she herself refuses to follow. If we were to reject Obamacare we get penalized, but her rejection of Obamacare is justified in doing so. Hypocrisy is when you condemn in others what you justify in yourself. But it's not just her. The problem with your attack is that she is following the law. Also she never said she would not follow the law. What she did was refuse to answer an inane question. And for that you attack her.

Oddly enough many healthy white men will try and deny this is true

She didn't answer period....she like a great many people do not like to play "what if " games. What a stupid question to ask her Actually, it was a very good question and her refusal to answer demonstrates that she knows Obamacare is a failure. She is the one who is charged with implementing it. She is the head of HHS. If there is anyone who should be a cheerleader for Obamacare it should be her. That not even she is willing to sign up for it if given the chance, tells us that it is something none of us want. LIberal are such hypocrites. "what if" questing are never very good questions, they are normaly the last act of desperate person. In this case it was also a "gotcha" question, if she had answered "yes' you would have called her a liar. If she refuses to answer you call her a hypocrite. Hard to win with those kinds of odds.

She didn't answer period....she like a great many people do not like to play "what if " games. What a stupid question to ask her

glad to have you along, this is a great place to be lots of ideas and be able to do so in a mostly friendly manner. I hope you stick around and start to give as much as you get!

Lot us hope it is bad enough to overcome the self inflicted damage the shutdown did to the GOP

I agree and that is a distinct possibility. In every country with single payer the rich and powerful still have their own rules

Congress and every federal employee already fall under the same rules as everyone else. If their employer offers a plan that qualifies and they are happy with they get to keep it. I dont see anyone telling Boeing or ATT they have to put all their people on exchanges.

I applaud both the Germans and Brazilian governments, government has so over stepped the boundaries of freedom, and its only matter of time when these same powers will be used against people, if they are not all ready You applaud censorship and restriction of what a citizen is allowed to see or read? Seriously? you must not understand what the filter does, people can go anywhere on the web in Germany and Brazil the filter simply makes it impossible to follow your travel to your address, much the same way "Hide your IP" websites work you are mistaken. those who control the server control the access. Everything from sites to the answer you get in your search engine can all be filtered through the server. this is what China has been doing for every and now these countries will join in.. Also, as much as you buy into every CT out there, the I find the fact you think the IP hiders work to be amazing.

I find it hard to believe that all these countries expressing outrage are not doing the same thing to us and their citizens. If you have not done so Google "nsa utah data center" and see the nice new pretty building they have and the computing and storage power they have in it.

The rats do seem to be jumping ship, first NBC now MSNBC doing stories that are not painting a rosy picture of ObamaCare.

Yes, it is legal in my state also. Funny, I didn't notice any difference at all. I have. Do you believe there was a huge increase in users once it was legal?

A remarkable post form one that claims to be a conservative. I guess you are not really for smaller government after all. as for your last statement, I also take great offense at it. I have no desire to smoke pot, I am very content with my beer a night. But I do not feel it is my place to tell others what they can and cannot do in their own living room. I guess I am the true conservative here.

You still have never answered the question of what benefit society receives from the ban on pot. Let me ask in a different way.... Based on your post on this forum you are a conservative. As such you normally support a smaller less intrusive government. What benefit is there to this un-conservative govermental intrusion into the private lives of individuals? Why should the government allow alchaol but not pot?

I would love to have a discussion about the topic of end of life medical care, but this thread is not about that. But the cost/benefit analysis is how we determine a great many things. It is a very useful tool. So, what is your opinion of the topic at hand? Is there a benefit to society that matches the cost of keeping pot illegal?

I didnt say we should give up because it is too difficult to accomplish...I asked first why pot is illegal and not booze and smokes.. and mostly I think we need to do a cost-benefit analysis. What benefit does society gain by spending $7,500,000,000 to keep people in jail for pot? does the benefit justify the cost? what benefit does society gain by arresting 750,000 people a year for pot? How much man power of our legal system is used to process these people and is the benefit of doing so worth the cost? We should not continue with a policy just because we have always had it. We should not ban things without a good, solid reason for doing so. The simple fact that you and I may not think smoking pot is a good thing is not enough reason to make it illegal and to spend the money we spend on it. So, I would ask you to lay out the benefit to society that is gained and show how it justifies the cost.

You're right, the hypocrisy is glaring. I think that bolded statement says volumes, and I'm of the opinion that there are those in power who want marijuana legalized for one major reason: stoned people don't riot, protest, or cause too many problems. They'll basically go along with "whatever." It doesn't take much except some food and weed to keep them happy. Stoned folks tend to be rather compliant so long as you don't get between them and the Doritos or Taco Bell. please explain where the hypocrisy is...people think that tobacco should not be smoked in public but it is ok in private. These same people feel the same way about pot, so where is the hypocrisy? I feel that it is wrong to be naked in public but it is ok in private, is that hypocrisy?

I agree, and everyone has their "pet" issues they want the governmental interference and things they don't. I would ask you though to answer the other questions...is the benefit of pot being illegal worth close to 10 billion dollars a year?

That is an outright lie. We do not have the highest incineration rate in the world. Not once has anyone in my state incinerated anyone for a crime. Sorry, wrong word chosen from spell check

Those against the ban on large soda by in large were upset about more governmental control and intrusion into their lives. Pot being illegal is governmental control and intrusion into people's lives as well. Is pot so very different from alcohol that we can justify 50,000 people in our prison population being there because of it? One more area the US excels at is putting people in prison, we have the highest incineration rate in the world, almost a full 20% higher than the next closest industrialized nation. 750,000 people are arrest each year for pot use/possession. Most are let go with a fine and community service. The cost of the arrest, paperwork and supervision far outweighs the small amount in fines. Think about this, it cost roughly $150,000 to house, feed and guard one inmate in prison. That comes up to $7,500,000,000 spent yearly on people in jail becase of pot. What benefit to society are we receiving from this $7,500,000,000 spent each year? What benefit to society are we receiving from 50,000 people that could be working and paying taxes instead of being a drain on society.