US
Barney Frank vs. George Will on the Legalization of Pot
- Posted on December 18, 2011 at 11:17pm by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
ABC’s This Week began the first in a series of big debates that will continue throughout the next year. Today’s topic was whether government is too big or not, with two advocates on each side arguing for each position, and naturally the conversation made its way to drug legalization. In quite a surreal moment, Barney Frank asked George Will his position on marijuana and if it should be legalized.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 690 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 660 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 363 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 331 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 214 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 228 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order Read More- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 214 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (105)
BannedByHuffpo
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 10:22pmBwaney Fwank pwobabwy wants to wegawize mawiwana so he can pwovide it to the male pwostitutes tuwning twicks in his apwatment.
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on December 21, 2011 at 5:31pmLook, something HAS to be done here. It’s obvious that the federal government has no intention of competently handling the situation. And hasn’t for decades.
Why? it can ONLY be 1 thing: money.
There “IS” no other reason.
Report Post »theWellspring
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:57pmDemint disciple you fail to see the forrest for the trees and yet your ignorance is showing by your immediate use of typical name calling . I pity youo. My point is that the longer the legislative body is in session the more inane useless laws they inact. A self fulfilling proficy if you will. And it is not all ancient history. For example in 1979 the Senatae met in 2 sessions lasting 95 days if memory serves me correctly. I believe they now meet for around 112 days per session. This has been increasing decade by decade since our givts inception. Why don’t you go back to your childish ways and name call and leave the intelligent conversation to the adults! Best regardsBy the way I cannot believe the vitriol for a first time poster some thing I would expect form perhaps a Cnn or MSNBC discussion board but not here.
Report Post »jungle J
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:21pmIf you swallow enough fecal matter your brain is affected in a very negative way.
Report Post »draginass
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 11:35amTo all you commie degenerates who would have their views and beliefs pushed on everyone. Wake up tool, The national state nor local gov. has a right to dictate what you can or cannot do to yourself. And most of all you self-rightous clowns have no right to push your agenda on me. become part of the solution, not the problem. live your life and let others live their own. FYI I’m neither for nor against the pot thing. It should be a personal decision. not you nor I making it for everyone.
Report Post »hard.right
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:03amyou wanna carry that thru to everybody and everything, then ok. you leave me, my religion, my guns, my property, my money, and my family alone, and you can have your pot ya’ hippy! it’d thin the herd, that’s for sure, let the druggies and pot heads do what they want, less competition in the job market for responsible adults. i’ll take my chances on the open road in a large safe vehicle.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 3:51amno one would be allowed to drive while intoxicated… that is still illegal…
Report Post »what is stopping people from drinking and driving? the same thing that would stop someone from doing anything intoxicating and driving… the punishment you are going to recieve.
impatient drivers scare me more than stoned ones who are overly causious…
rock-n-roll-rebel
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 9:45amI for once agree with Barney, he is right about conservatives demanding that government stay out of their lives unless of course it is telling you who you can marry have sex with and of course what kind of recreational drugs you like. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Report Post »rock-n-roll-rebel
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 9:53amOh yeah and the biggest hypocrisy of all, we are free to have nuclear weapons but we want to tell other countries which ones can have them and which ones can‘t and even if you don’t have them we will invade and kill you anyway.
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 11:34amIt’s sort of like firearm laws. If you‘re an upstanding citizen you’re free to own guns and vote. If you’re a convicted felon, you aren’t. Letting Iran get nukes is like letting the convict down the street with a violent rap sheet longer than your arm own a few handguns. You know exactly what they‘re going to do with them once they get them BECAUSE THEY’VE ALREADY TOLD US AND ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LISTEN!
They’re violent, they fund terrorism, they have one of the worst civil rights records in the world today, they openly call for the destruction of Israel and the US, they’re helping to train terrorist to infiltrate our borders, they recently planned to assassinate the Saudi ambassoder on our soil, and the list goes on. You really want to sit back and wait for these people to develop a nuclear weapon which they‘ve openly stated they’ll use against us?!?!?!
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:31pmYou can marry anyone you choose to marry. The state, society, has no obligation to sanction, legitimize, or support your choice. There is only one relationship that the state must have an interest in protecting. That is the one which continues the species. All others are mute, unnecessary, and quite frankly, abnormal.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:04amDr. Frost, What the hell are you talking about? This post makes no sense from this article. I know, you are a Progressive trying to throw out anti-Paul rhetoric. Well I will tell you the truth and not lies like you seem to want to throw out there, but of course, you are a Progressive and that is all they know how to do. Iran is a country that could not defeat a high school football team in war. They are barely out of a stone age type of living. They do not even have the technology to refine gasoline from their own oil. They have no real standing army, no real navy, no real airforce. How are they a real threat? Because the people who make the most money off wars say so? What if they developed a nuclear bomb? Isreal has 300 or more, the U.S. has thousands. It would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight. You are caught in the middle of the establishment media propoganda to keep the status quo for the rich going. I say that now that you know the truth, you are pathetic if you do not research what I have said and come to a logical conclusion after studying all the facts and not what som may tell you. Do not take my word for it, do your own homework. Paul 2012.
Report Post »Howsit
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 6:27pmWow West Coast Patriot, he was responding to the nuclear weapons statement. I like Ron Paul and if I can get past his foreign policy would love to cast my vote for him, but your ranting and name calling (“Progressive” and “pathetic”) turns me off and certainly doesn’t convince me to get past it. Comparing 1 nuclear weapon to many nuclear weapons isn‘t a good argument when the people with the many show restraint and don’t use them but the people getting the one will. I feel you are being naive to give them the same sense of self-preservation that we have considering it is ingrained in them from birth that to be martyred is the greatest reward.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 8:53amTHANK GOD BARNEY is GONE soon.. will he REALLY GO AWAY?? Nope. Not in his BIG MOUTH nature.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 8:28amMr… Socialist Housing… v… Mr… Political BaseBall! Oh, yah… this will educate us!
Report Post »flyoverbob
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 8:05amThis brought out all the dope smokers and the pole smokers.Yes it is addictave just like alcahol,anyone who has a friend or relative who has been a user for any oeriod of time can tell you that.
Report Post »I had a friend who was 50 yo and a casual user his entire life.I played golf with him almost every week for about 10 years.He was the worst person to be around at times,he was moody cranky.All he had to do was have a couple tokes and he was fine.Him and his wife divorced over it because of his mood swings.They were only married for about a year when he was about 45.She mentioned his temper and mood sings and I said Viki you had to know this before you were married.She said yes but she wasn’t living with himwhile he was either drugged or in a foul mood constantly.Mostly what she saw before they were married was this laid back good natured guy.
hidden_lion
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 9:10amStill, are you OK with the government saying you can not consume something you like because it is not good for you? Are you ready to give up salt? Are you OK with swat kicking down your door and shooting your children by mistake because you are suspected to have a gram of salt on your table? If you say its ok for the government to do this over pot, then it is ok for everything else they decide is bad for you. You give them an inch and they take a mile. People should be punished for actual crimes, not for doing unhealthy things to themselves. Get ready for the government BMI monitors.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 10:38amI am OK with the legalization, but you are right about the mood swings. I have two friends that have been regular smokers for over 20 years. You don’t want to be near them until they have toked up for the day.
Report Post »dbhokie
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 9:14am“This brought out all the dope smokers and the pole smokers.Yes it is addictave just like alcahol,anyone who has a friend or relative who has been a user for any oeriod of time can tell you that.”
I assume you mean alcohol. Nonetheless, You must know it is addictive from a study based on scientific methodology..oh you don’t. You must know from experience…oh you don’t. So like so many you flout logic and just dogmatically state what you believe as a fact. Not surprising. I have been a “user” in the past, and never had an issue with any withdrawl whatsoever no matter the duration of cannabis use.
Report Post »“I had a friend who was 50 yo and a casual user his entire life.I played golf with him almost every week for about 10 years.He was the worst person to be around at times,he was moody cranky.”
Unfortunately this has no logic as well. Ever stop to think that maybe he was trying to mask his mood swings and irritability and deeper issues by getting high? Not that getting high makes one moody? Of course not. You just assume the issue doesn’t lie with the person. Many people do this more successfully with alcohol, or other substances, but it isn’t because of some issue the drug causes them it is because of some issue they have that they need to work out in their heart most of the time. To quote the White Stripes, “You can’t take the effect and make it the cause”. I have known plenty of people that smoke that are happy without it, myself included. Physical pai
Sol Invictus
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:47amI agree with the majority of the posts on here – prohibition is part of the problem, not the solution. I’d add one more thing to the debate – why is gambling illegal in so many states. What right has any government or state to tell me I can’t gamble? Freedom means the right to make your own mistakes provided it hurts no-one else. If I want to smoke pot, drink or have a bet – tell me where in the constitution it says you can stop me?
Report Post »flyoverbob
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 8:10amIts simple its up to the peple to make the laws and statutes ,not a minotity of degenerates
Report Post »Sol Invictus
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 8:31am@ FlyoverBob
Report Post »“Its simple its up to the peple to make the laws and statutes ,not a minotity of degenerates”
It ill behoves someone as illiterate as you to call someone a degenerate as they attempt to open an intelligent discussion. Why do you think someone who wants a drink or a bet is degenerate? In fact, what on earth makes you think we are a minority!!
flyoverbob
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 9:18amSo an uneducated slob like me should keep my mouth shut?That is what you educated folks cant stand,we have a right to speak and vote too.
Report Post »And dope and drink and gambling does hurt other people.You inflict suffering on your innocent families.Your spouse or your friends have a choice,your innocent children don’t.Nor do the people who are killed or maimed when you decide its time to drive
Sol Invictus
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 9:49am@Bob
Report Post »No-one called you a slob – Unlike you I don’t do insults. I can see how your mind works though. Anyone who drinks also drives whilst drunk – I’ve never done that and condemn anyone who does. Anyone who gambles is degenerate – really? I would defend your right to speak and vote and fight to allow you to do so. Please do me the courtesy of allowing me the right to carry out my private life in the way I choose – if not, we’re no better than the Islamic countries who ban alcohol and gambling. Logically you’d support them – I wouldn’t.
flyoverbob
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 10:11am@ SOL
Report Post »It ill behoves someone as illiterate as you
Thanks for not insulting me.As for your vices I agree inflict all the destruction on yourself you want,just get out of the life of everyone who trusts you and loves you first.
Sol Invictus
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 10:19amOK, let’s go for a drink and talk this through.
Report Post »flyoverbob
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 10:39amI don’t drink,but I’ll burn one with you
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 10:59amI personally wouldn’t compare gambling to prohibition, historically, in the past any time gamblimg restrictions were relaxed it was usually the crime syndicates/mafia that took over. Crime rates went higher in areas around casinos, or police were on the dole… This was partly to do with the fact that criminals already ran the gamblimg before the laws are relaxed. So it was easy for them to set up an even more lucrative shop.
Things are a bit different in modern times since most large casinos are organized, follow restrictions in the law, and owned by well know. Companies, but people still often have concern.
http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/03/Chapt11.html
Report Post »hard.right
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 12:09amas soon as you get the laws changed so the local hospital can turn you away, then you can do all the drugs you want. kill yourself, i could care less, but don’t cost me more at the checkout counter at the hospital or thru my taxes because you now claim disability from your drug habit. either way, whether thru hospitals passing on charges to me or the gov taking it in taxes for social welfare programs, you don’t get to do whatever you want. if i can’t own a gun, open carry it, defend my family, you don’t get your drugs, simple as that. want to compromise, ok, nope, then you go to jail when you get caught w/ drugs. let’s not also forget that when you do drugs, unless you are willing to handcuff yourself to a block of concrete, you have entered the world of POOR JUDGEMENT and could hurt someone.
Report Post »dbhokie
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 9:28amHard.Right
Your logic and intellectual faculties bear resemblance to someone who has been smoking crack for about 25 years. There is none coming forth from you.
Then of course, if you knew the truth about your founding fathers, the history of the world, I suppose you would condemn every society in the history of the world for their nefarious drug habits. Start with Judaism, and Egyptians and make your way through to prohibition in America.
If you had half an inkling you would realize the whole reason cannabis was made illegal in the first place was money. A wild campaign of lies from the timber industry and paid off officials to demonize cannabis due to its popularity gain over timber products, and renewable advantages.
Report Post »THX-1138
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 10:01am@flyoverbob (omnipotent moral busybody)
It’s been said better than I ever could. I guess you missed it.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ”
Report Post »- C. S. Lewis
dbhokie
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 10:09amWell said THX, one of my favorite quotes. I love when Lewis talks about being sent off to be tutored, and his tutor asks him what does he think of this place, and he responds talking about the awful weather etc..the tutor then asks him if it is his first time there, and reprimands him for not using logic and relying on the authority of others. This is done often and without regard for logic or intellectual honesty.
Report Post »Pocono_Oathkeeper
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:31amLegalize all drugs, collect taxes off the toads, let them kill themselves with self-medication and let’s all move on.
Report Post »Cemoto78
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 9:30amCan’t argue with that.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 10:42amI say the opposite, git rid of all so called “sin taxes”
Report Post »cjd16585
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 1:36pmYou don’t have to insult people who make bad decisions(calling people toads). We just need to understand rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin! You have a right to smoke cigarettes, but you alone are responsible for your medical bills. Your neighbor who practices healthy habits and doesnt smoke should not be billed for someone elses bad decisions. The same principe is applicable in all areas. You have a right to bear arms, but with that right comes the responsibility of safe handling and use of that fire arm because what ever happens with that firearm is on the registered owner. When you have rights, you have responsibilities. Rights come from God. NEVER let anyone persuade you to give up your god given rights, at least the few we havent forfeited already. They never come back.
Report Post »Eleutheria
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:23amThose of you who support substance prohibition need to take another look at US history from 1920 – 1933.
If your intent is to help the drug abuser, locking them in a cage is an odd way of doing so.
If your intent is to punish the drug abuser, what exactly are you punishing them for and why don’t you also punish alcoholics?
Substance prohibition is a poorly conceived and shortsighted solution to a problem that has existed as long as mankind.
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 9:17amNot to mention more lives have been taken in the war drugs, than in Iraq. More lives are destroyed by the police enforcing prohibition than the drugs ever could. I don‘t see how people can support the government kicking in someone’s door, guns a blazing to stop them from smoking a weed. It was legal until the late 30′s, why didn‘t our country collapse under marijuana’s influence back then? But, i guess it is also a federal crime to sell actual real milk across state lines as well. Gotta watch them Amish.
Report Post »jose wasabi
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:13amWe spend $30 Billion plus per year, since 1971, on the War on Drugs. Has it been a success? Drugs are as easy to get as they ever were. We have a war on our southern border. Drug gangs are getting rich in our cities, more theft to get drug money, police bashing in doors to get pot smokers, courts and prisons clogged up with otherwise law-abiding citizens. We could be regulating and taxing drugs instead of wasting money on a failed policy. Do you define that as a success? Or a good use of our money?
Report Post »booger71
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 10:44amMore important is the loss of liberty
Report Post »theWellspring
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:01amOk this is my first post.I personally believe that not just on this issue,but on many, we are extremely over legislated.Many of our country’s current problems began when we allowed the Senate and Congressional positions to become fulltime jobs. They were never intended to be so. Our elected representatives used to be just like us. They worked in our communities as storekeepers, attorneys,
Report Post »etc. and then 2 times a year they mounted up and went to the capital and handled our nations collective business. Then they had to come back and go back to work at their real jobs and be held responsible for their legislative actions by teir own neighbors. When we allowed them to stretch the sessions, give themselves raises and make a part time service job a full time occupation, our troubles began. It is time that we cut their pay and decrease the amount of time our legilative bodies are in session. Maybe then they will be forced to concentrate on serious issues instead of pot, school prayer or whether we eat Big Macs ! Thankyou Blaze community for taking the time to read my thoughts. I remain The Wellspring
demint.disciple
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:46am@theWellspring..Our elected representatives used to be just like us. They worked in our communities as storekeepers, attorneys<<<< Sorry my man, but you are flatly wrong here.. Most of them never even had a private sector job.. I can name a few ( and they are for legalizing pot ) Barack Obama , Chuck Shumer even Barney Frank never held a "real" job he went from teaching to under grads right into Boston mayor Kevin White's Chief Assistant then onto congress.. Most of the politicians haven't a clue of what a real American goes through, but they think they know best.. You have to be sharp on here with your comments. You will be called out on them if they are bull and you do no research before you post.. Other than that, welcome friend..
Report Post »theWellspring
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 1:13pmSir you are incorrect until the civil war our reps met for atotal of about 12 weeks a year other than that they WERE just like us because they were us only willing to serve as representatives. As a history researcher I would tell yuou to start at the beginning an see how the time spent in session has increased. Our forefathers never intended congress or senate to be a full time job for any one.
Report Post »You need to bone up then you we can discuss things based upon facts
demint.disciple
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:39pmYOU’RE WRONG dope who the hell is talking about the 18th or 19 th century WERE TALKING NOW, moron.. I just named a few that never had a private sector job and you go back to the 18th 19 th century , what are you an idiot ? You don‘t know what the hell you’re talking about.. I gave you facts but you didn’t give one friggin name.. Go back to the huffpo, moron…
Report Post »riseandshine
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 4:29am@The Well Spring…. Next time just ignore him…….unbelievable.
Report Post »endgamer
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:34amUnder the constitution the fed does not have the right to say it’s legal or not. Each state DOES! SO each state makes their own laws on the legality of pot. Just the same as alcohol. Some counties and or municipalities are entirely dry. The residents want it that way. The same should hold true with any other drug in a libertarian/ onstitutional conservative society.
Report Post »Bill Rowland
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:22amTry telling that to the legaal marijuana shops in California. Feds are shutting them down
OMG
Report Post »garyM
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:33amRon Paul is about 9/10 democrat, I been telling yall that, the only way Ron Paul is any different, he talks different is on spending money, he talks the talk but would he and can he walk the walk on money. Would he be just another democrat? Obama talked similar to Ron Paul about physical responsibility when was campaigning! That’s the votes Ron Paul has in the current polls, those aren’t conservatives, they are democrats. If the polls are right, Iowa is full of Pharisees!
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:42amThousands of Ron Paul supporters went to and voted for Obama in 2008 because of his anti-war and anti-Military stances (becuz they knew that Paul was unelectable and Obama served their purpose). These traitorous twits helped elect Obama on two fronts, by writing-in Paul or actually voting for Obama. Conservatives my @ss.
Obama/Paul
Report Post »2012
qpwillie
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:00am@YepImaConservative
The Paulies are threatening to do the same thing again. I wish more people would catch on to the fact that that cult is a creation of the Democrat party. I’m beginning to wonder if their goofy little leader is being paid to do it. Otherwise, why would he be threatening to run on a third party ticket when he knows it would put 0bama back in the white house?
“traitorous” is an apt lable for them.
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:05amEDIT:
“The Paulies are threatening to do the same thing again.“ should be ”The Paulies are threatening to do the same thing again this time.”
Report Post »Eleutheria
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:25amThe difference is that Ron Paul’s voting record speaks for itself. He’s no flip flopper.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:26amQP. The Borg’s threats will be neutralized this time around, lol.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 8:20am@ele consistantly off his rocker. Ron Paul is beyond weak on national defence. You think baracks world tour of apologies and denouncing America was bad, I tremble at the thought of Ron doing the two finger point accented with a wink when Iran says there testing the bomb.
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 9:25amDifference between Paul and the Democrats…
Report Post »Paul believes in following the constitution. Dems do not.
Actually, it seems the Dems and Republicans are both anti-constitution and for big government to rule our lives. You anti-Paul-bots are slaves waiting for your master to give you permission to breathe. You need the government to tell you what is health to eat and how fat you are allowed to be. You are the reason the country is lost. The fact you vote for party above principle, you vote for tyranny over freedom. You get what you deserve. they will come for your guns, they will come for your food storage and eventually for your bible’s as well. They have a nice warm bunk set up for you at there summer camp. Live free or die.
nuttyvet
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:25amI a libertarian, I don’t liek Frank but he makes good points here. Just sayin’
Report Post »demint.disciple
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:50amWell liberal, libertarian all the same.. They are even close in spelling hmmm wonder why ? Let me guess, Ron Paul ?
Report Post »Underground Man
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 5:00pmDD, you need a reality check and a chill pill. “omgz they sownd teh same!!!1! ron paul!??? lulz”
Libertarianism in essence is classical liberalism–democratic republicanism, free market economics, small and decentralized government, non-interventionism–whereas modern American welfare liberalism is a perverted hybrid of classical liberalism and socialism. Unlike conservatives and progressives, we don’t feel the need to compel others to adopt our values and lifestyles through onerous amounts of legislation. It is not the job of politicians to maintain or shape culture for those in the private sector, and this extends to the so-called War on Drugs–a waste of money and lives concocted to save people from themselves by taking away their freedoms. Ron Paul seems to be the only Republican candidate who understands that.
Report Post »ColoradoMaverick
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:13amBarney, I thought you were retiring. Go head to Key West with your boy toy and find a rip current, will you.
Report Post »seejanemom
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:11amBarney is just curious about George’s POSITION, never mind his position on POT.
An a$$clown debates an elitist…..***yawn***
Next.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:09amRon Paul (GOP Carpet bag’gng Liberal-tarian hash pipe promoter) and Barney Frank (pipe smoker, er, extreme Liberal hash pipe promoter), co-sponsored a bill in June for the legalization, regulation and taxation of weed. It would also “reprioritize federal resources” away from the enforcement of anti-dope laws, limiting the federal government’s role in combating cross-border and interstate smuggling, as well as in fighting the growth, use and sale of the harmful drug.
They say it was a bi-partisan (Bi, lol?) effort. Yeah, like Paul is a Republican right?
But the REAL question IS? Was it Frank who actually caused Paul’s eyebrow to go a little south? We know what can happen when a couple dd bedfellows get together. And let’s not EVEN talk about Prostitution and crank, er, cranks, er Barney and Ron… lol.
Report Post »seejanemom
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:13amI think you meant “pole smoker”.
***you’re welcome***
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:19amLol, wink, wink.
Report Post »Eleutheria
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:31amYou’re a buffoon.
Substance prohibition is the reason we have a drug problem.
Anyone who doesn’t understand the connection is probably too damned stupid for me to explain it to them.
For 40 years we have had a broad spectrum of substance prohibition. Kids use more marijuana now than they did before.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 9:21am> URETHRAL. I just looked buffoon up in the dictionary and Paul’s picture was right there. YEP a buffoon? Far from it. He’s a great source of info.
Report Post »psychguy
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 5:47amI never in a million years thought I would say this but, this time Barney is right.
Report Post »seejanemom
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:18amThat is because some “wars” just aren’t worth fighting.
And if my Tea Party brethren were intellectually honest growing, rolling and, smoking your own doobage would be a personal, civil issue. Much like PRIVATELY FUNDED abortion on demand.
Too many Conservatives fancy themselves Libertarians, but they just aren’t. They are screaming Fascists.
Report Post »TexasKnight
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:25amPersonally, I think we should have privately funded abortions for all nine months after birth. Decide all those diapers changes are cramping your style, just make a payment and have the post born fetus eliminated. After all, it is just a personal choice between the mother and her doctor. All libiterians should be in favor of that.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:37am“That is because some “wars” just aren’t worth fighting.”
If you’re a Liberal, Libertarian (Libertine) or Ron Paul supporter (Thrifty-Liberal)… no wars are worth fighting. A war-is-a-war-is-a-war where the left is concerned.
Report Post »seejanemom
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:13am@Texasknight
I am a Southern Baptist who has seen too many preacher’s daughters sneak over the state line for abortions.
Do I think abortion is right? NO! But things this personal, IF NOT FUNDED BY MY TAX DOLLARS, should be left to a woman and her Maker.
Our party is going to keep going down in flames if we persistently meddle in people’s personal lives.
It is well with my soul to think that other children of God will live their lives accordingly without STRONG ARM LAWS.
And if they can scrape together $800 to condemn their soul to Hell, who am I to stop them?
It can’t always be about the Moral High Ground when folks like Catholic pedophiles and womanizing Deacons are standing there with you.
Report Post »demint.disciple
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 7:58amYes I can’t wait till they legalize heroin too.. I’ve a hankering for a spoon , needle, lighter, some dope and two clean sheets… Legalize it all, it will stop whatever you said, right? Meth, Crack/cocaine hey look at it this way that will solve our border problems and our inner city drug problem and America can make some much needed payments to China for their lovely loan.. Gotta run, need to go to the pharmacy, see ya.
Report Post »td9463
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 5:31amWow ,,such hate filled rants posted,,as I do share a total disdain for Ms.Frank in general,,hes right on this one !! If your truly a conservative you dont tell people what to eat,,wear,,read or smoke,,these laws are big business for law enforcement and keeps the profits rolling for the booze and pharma lobbys,they do NOT stave off drug use or keep kids from trying it. Essentially its a waste of money we do not have. Honestly I want the government in whole to stay out of my way,,keep out of my business and bet the hell out of my life!! If you love progressives and people like Mrs Obama than by all means keep telling people what they can and cannot smoke,,eat,, wear ect. Keep making more jobs for government enforced failed policy,angrily touting the constitution while wiping your ass with it every chance you get. Enough said….God bless and merry Christmas
Report Post »OBAMA IS A FOUL EVIL TRAITOR
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:55amBarney ‘Take it in the Choke’ Frank is a Disgusting Foul Sodomite, a man mauler and a booty surfing Sphincter bandit! BURN IN HELL FOREVER BARNHOLE!
Report Post »seejanemom
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 6:24am“a booty surfing Sphincter bandit”
***I am SO stealing that one***
Well played. ;)
Report Post »demint.disciple
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 8:02am@seejanemom.. Yes I agree, and things like the serial killer, his knife and victim should be left to the killer and their maker…
Report Post »Underground Man
Posted on December 20, 2011 at 5:03pmHow Christlike of you…
Report Post »Diane TX
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:53amAs if, the lisping Barney Frank had anything intelligent to say. This guy allowed a male prostitution ring to operate out of the place where he lived. BTW, why do some gay males lisp anyway? Since all gay males don’t lisp, I assume that some gays males do it on purpose to show how gay they are.
Report Post »whatthecrazy
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:42amIf i asnt so tired Id like to reach through this computer and slap bwarney fwank in his ugly kisser…………….
Report Post »netmail
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 2:30amMan, the way ole Barney stomped on George’s words before he could complete a thought, I felt like I was watching a Bill O’Reilly interview. Irritating is the first word that comes to mind. This is so typical. Is there a story here??
Report Post »TheRugger
Posted on December 19, 2011 at 3:11amThat’s the Liberal-Progressive way; shout down your opponent before he can complete what he is saying so people won’t realize that he is making sense and you are just mouthing empty slogans.
Report Post »