America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

since the oscar post has run it's course, time for me to promote something. all you right wing demigods who think rush is the gift from g-d, i post the first right wing republican i have ever agreed with, and because you are all so set in your clichés, the very thought of reading or hearing from someone else who might enlighten you in your own beliefs is of no interest. it is so easy to critique my semi-liberal ideas with all these cute sayings you learned years ago. i was hoping for any opinion, good or bad, but i'm sorry the idea of something new is intimidating. i guess that's why you call yourselves conservative.
con·ser·va·tive (k…n-sûr“v…-t¹v) adj. 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
will the next new car for you have a crank start and a manual spark advance.

meaning what, i have no values?

So... um... Rick ... tell us your point... k?

His point is that most conservatives have a paranoid, bunker mentality that prohibits them from seeing other points of view for fear they may be wrong. It is similar to conservative attitudes in other countries. Iran and many Mid-East countries have their Islamic Fundamentalists. China, Korea and Cuba, it's hardline communists. While our conservatives are not nearly as repressive as those mentioned above, their intolerance is earily similar. This is all just MHO and as always there are exceptions to every rule!

Head

Bunker opinion? Perhaps amongst the ultra right wing, but that's why they're referred to as "ultra" or "extreme". It was Robert Kennedy who said that the problem with extremists is not their conviction for their cause, but rather their intolerance for the opposing viewpoint. The problem with using this common sense is that it doesn't apply to much of what YOU call "right wing". If I disagree with the general platform of the Democratic party, that does not make me a right wing nut. When I see Liberalism as the Cancer that it is, it does not make me Intollerant to opposing views. I'm glad you can see clearly enough to agree with a right wing republican. I have voted on the Democratic side more than once in my life (but NEVER for Teddy the Drunk). I just happen to agree with the Republican ideal that people should take responsibility for their own lives. The Democrats seem to think it's governments job to do that. Sure, there are other reasons I recently changed my voting status from Independent to Republican, but that's the biggest. I won't even mention the fact that Liberals believe it is OK to murder the unborn and call it a choice, but it's not OK to use the word God at a public event because someone might be offended. The Liberals feel taxbreaks to corporations who employ thousands is evil, but it's alright to increase the benefits to those who never worked a day in their lives. The Liberals don't want to support a war over Oil, but they also don't want to increase our self sufficiency by drilling in Alaska. The Liberals would sooner support a group of child molestors (NAMBLA) in the name of free speech, than they would support a citizen in good standing from owning a firearm. They would rather let would-be criminals roam the streets than use a form of ethnic or racial profiling to capture them. Obviously, this is only scratching the surface, but you get the gist. I don't think that is intollerance. But maybe I'm biased. After all, I actually want people to be responsible for their actions.

Double Dittos Guys!!!!!!!!!! Charlie

did anybody read any of his articles? if so, what article in particular did you find most interesting and why?

Tailgater , you stated my thoughts exactly.

I only read the first link to the article about cigarettes. I'll check the others when I have time. This guy certainly does look at things with a common sense approach. I'll have to read more of his stuff to see why you call him "right wing", or is that what you call all Republicans ?

His article on title IX is pretty good!

jjohnson28 : sorry we are boring you. would you like the url to "free site for hot, steamy, teenage, perverted, bondage, sex?"

Doggy, I think Parks hits many points right on the nose. He says it's about the money, and you somehow disagree with him while simultaneously making that your second point. His cry over the Liberals isn't solely about keeping tobacco legal, but rather the systematic dismantling of our freedom to do what is still legal. i.e., the Liberals are keeping cigarette smoking legal while they surp funds via increased tobacco taxes, and swiftly eliminate one's ability to smoke the gosh darn things. A few states have already mandated smoke free environments based on zero tolerance rather than on air quality. That is the liberal agenda and he makes the point loud and clear. Sure he uses some other examples to exagerate his point (abortion and asbestos), but that is for the journalism aspect, not the true heart of the subject. Here in Massachusetts, towns are quickly joining the "feelings flock" by outlawwing smoking even at bars that don't serve food. It's ridiculous, and it is once again led by the Liberal Agenda.

Tailgater, I said cigarettes aren't banned because lawmakers are scared of the hue and cry of addicts. I guess you can't addict people legally and then tell them it's illegal to use the product. Lawmakers take advantage of the addicted by taxing the cigarettes. Bob Parks says cigs aren't banned because of the money. If eggs suddenly caused cancer would they still be on store shelves? Would people bitch about being free to have their eggs? Some would yeah. But not like if they can't have cigarettes. Eggs would disappear quick. I think lawmakers are more concerned about lawsuits concerning secondhand smoke. I don't think it has a damn thing to do with what's good for you and me. Maybe bars should have 2 rooms, smoking and non.

I'm reminded of prohibition. Alcohol causes way more trouble in general than weed. Healthwise and socially. And yet booze is legal! They tried to outlaw it and it just didn't work. Cigs would not be any easier. OK I agree it is about money to a large degree. Cigarettes are a big chunk of our GNP. But are you saying Gov. would not try to ban them if they thought people would accept it?

the mafia arranged prohibition. it was an investment in politics that is still paying off.

I can come home after a days work and have a beer or two. Or perhaps a glass of red wine. I can do that without getting drunk. Who sparks up a heater and takes one hit? When you smoke pot, you smoke to get high. Alcohol can be enjoyed without the drug taking effect. I think that clearly seperates the two.

xrundog: if you think carrie nation had the clout to cause prohibition you are charmingly naive. prior to prohibition, there was no real mafia, just small local sets of gangs. they formed a group and bought warehouses in this country. (incidentally if you don't know how to spell warehouses and you use spell check, as i do, you come up with two alternate spellings,
warehouses or whorehouses)
they bought distilleries in canada and england. they elected politicians that could be bought. the plan was to take about ten years and it succeeded. the mafia was born. this was about the same time that
j edger hoover was investigating everyone to see who else was gay. they called them **** at the time. he was too busy with his perverted mind to investigate the mafia.

tailgater stated the way I feel about liberals so eloquently, that there's no need to revert to calling rickmaven names like fat, bucktoothed, knobbly-knee'd, gravy-sucking, varmint! Wait....ooops.

Dog man, my point is that although alcohol is indeed abused by many, it is also OK to use in moderation. Pot and other "hard" drugs are NEVER used in moderation. So the difference is very clear cut. And just because some abuse alcohol, it shouldn't be banned. Some people abuse automobiles by speeding. Should they be banned as well? By the way, I'm not saying that I'm for or against legalizing pot, I'm just pointing out the distict differences.

tailgater: goodfellows is an excellent movie and an excellent example of a book turned into a movie. i didn't mean the mafia was born here, my mistake. but prohibition, a planned event, gave them the money and the clout. the numbers gave way to the lottery, without the bs about supporting education. even though almost all hotels in vegas are now corporate owned, bugsy seigel had a dream and unfortunately as another with a dream, both suffered the same end, bullets. imagine this. you send your child to college for an education and you bring him into your business. he has all the knowledge other business men have, but he has an ace in the hole. if things don't go his way, he has you killed. it does give him an edge, doesn't it.

Oh? Charlie