I believe in educating people so they can make informed decisions. If a person wants to pick up smoking despite being bombarded with information about how bad it is, well that's their choice. I'm not sure what's so offensive about that.AussieReaper wrote:
The freedom to kill yourself and the freedom to be stupid is something you should fight for, Martin.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Health and safety at the expense of choice.
All fair points, but I think that was more about him trying to get out of a "gotcha" situation than any specific policy point. That wasn't about a rational debate on marijuana decriminalization/legalization, and I think you know that.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
It's not just the position but the heartless tone he has. I ain't a single topic voter (inb4dennis says i'm not a voter) but I just couldn't bring myself to vote for somebody who thinks banning a substance like marijuana is a good thing even when faced with a person like that. It says a lot about what kind of person they are.
It's amazing how many candidates constantly harp on about freedom and liberty when only very few politicians actually care about preserving those things. The left will tell you what to eat while the right will tell you who to marry.
youre not a voterHurricane2k9 wrote:
It's not just the position but the heartless tone he has. I ain't a single topic voter (inb4dennis says i'm not a voter) but I just couldn't bring myself to vote for somebody who thinks banning a substance like marijuana is a good thing even when faced with a person like that. It says a lot about what kind of person they are.
It's amazing how many candidates constantly harp on about freedom and liberty when only very few politicians actually care about preserving those things. The left will tell you what to eat while the right will tell you who to marry.
Yeah they do, but nobody cares.Dilbert_X wrote:
Those rules don't apply in the field, derp....unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Rules are rules.1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
i didn't shave today and i don't blouse my boots
COURT MARTIAL!
Rule on desecrating corpses do.
1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
Yeah they do, but nobody cares.Dilbert_X wrote:
Those rules don't apply in the field, derp....unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Rules are rules.
COURT MARTIAL!
Rule on desecrating corpses do.
Just like nobody cares about pissing on dead bad guys.
Then Perry.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Huntsman's gonna drop out.
Anyone proven that they're 'bad guys' yet?1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
Yeah they do, but nobody cares.Dilbert_X wrote:
Those rules don't apply in the field, derp....unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Rules are rules.
COURT MARTIAL!
Rule on desecrating corpses do.
Just like nobody cares about pissing on dead bad guys.
nope.Dilbert_X wrote:
Anyone proven that they're 'bad guys' yet?1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
Yeah they do, but nobody cares.Dilbert_X wrote:
Those rules don't apply in the field, derp....
Rule on desecrating corpses do.
Just like nobody cares about pissing on dead bad guys.
This could be a turning point in the campaign, and likely to get more troops killed.
Fixed to account for abysmally poor Fox/Youtube tags.Dilbert_X wrote:
Former Civil servants shouldn't be picking can pick sides all they want.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-17 04:21:40)
And he didn't. He's a former civil servant. As such, he has as much right as anyone else to state his views.Dilbert_X wrote:
Funny how they spun that one eh?
I guess it wasn't on the 'no spin' part of the show.
Still, its a convention in most countries that civil servants don't go into politics.
So it's a convention in most countries that retired civil servants don't have the same rights as everyone else?Dilbert_X wrote:
In most countries its a convention that civil servants, retired or not, don't get involved in politics then.
Obviously doesn't apply in a morally bankrupt country like the US.
How does one person's views somehow besmirch the independence of the civil service? That was clearly not the CIA's endorsement of Ron Paul. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that.Dilbert_X wrote:
Civil servants have the exact same rights, they choose to put morality and the independence of the civil service and its corresponding benefit to the country ahead of getting themselves on TV and making money.
A civil servant quitting his job and then jumping into bed with one party or the other - it raises obvious questions.FEOS wrote:
How does one person's views somehow besmirch the independence of the civil service?Dilbert_X wrote:
Civil servants have the exact same rights, they choose to put morality and the independence of the civil service and its corresponding benefit to the country ahead of getting themselves on TV and making money.
Like what? "ZOMG! He has thoughts of his own! Kill him! He's a witch!"Dilbert_X wrote:
A civil servant quitting his job and then jumping into bed with one party or the other - it raises obvious questions.FEOS wrote:
How does one person's views somehow besmirch the independence of the civil service?Dilbert_X wrote:
Civil servants have the exact same rights, they choose to put morality and the independence of the civil service and its corresponding benefit to the country ahead of getting themselves on TV and making money.
Of course they don't--those would infringe on their First Amendment rights.Dilbert_X wrote:
But no laws to prevent active politicking during the period they're kicking their heels waiting for that cushy private sector job?
