*
...and the beat goes on...
Jared Jernagan

If you thought the Phelps thing was bad...

Posted Friday, February 6, 2009, at 12:22 AM
Comments
View 8 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • I have never done an illegal substance in my life. Michael Phelps was my hero. And guess what? He still is. I have commented on numerous sites in regards to my support of him. It's just pot. I mean, really. He isn't trading girls to the Asian slave markets or robbing America of millions of dollars with requests for money and then having elaborate parties. He isn't a terrorist. He's just a guy at a college party that--oh, no!--got out of hand. There are more important things to worry about than someone smoking weed at a party, people.

    -- Posted by caaricha on Fri, Feb 6, 2009, at 5:49 PM
  • Some people drink alcohol, and some people are smarter then that.

    -- Posted by reeltime on Sat, Feb 7, 2009, at 5:11 AM
  • Michael Phelps has trained and trained hard for over a decade of his life. PEOPLE get over yourselves he is 23 freaking years old, let him blow off some steam, take his OWN words for these indiscretions that they will never happen again. He in my mind still should be an American hero because he is NOT like these baseball players that have denied things until their faces turned blue. HE OWNED UP TO EVERYTHING.

    -- Posted by jaredscousin on Sat, Feb 7, 2009, at 1:14 PM
  • Why so cynical? OH, I see why your nickname suggests you are a bleeding heart luberal? Obama is the ruin of us all.

    -- Posted by jaredscousin on Sun, Feb 8, 2009, at 9:33 AM
  • Phelps only owned up to it days after the picture surfaced in Great Britain. If he wanted to smoke a little weed, he should have done so at home by himself with no one else around. Not at a party where you know someone with a cell phone camer is all too happy to snap a picture. Saying you're sorry and meaning it is one thing. Saying you're sorry because it's expected of you to clear the air is another thing altogether. The latter is what Phelps has appeared to have done.

    -- Posted by purple_heat on Sun, Feb 8, 2009, at 7:19 PM
  • "Conservatives keep spending low (hence the name you donkey) and government small. So to call someone with the name "smaller_gov_now" a "luberal" makes you look like a complete fool."

    Really? The largest increase in Government spending and size was presided over by none other than George W. Bush. First runner-up was Ronald Reagan.

    But that is really beside the point. If you think about the amount of money spent criminalizing, interdicting, proscecuting, and punishing drug offenders to very little effect, you might come to realize that legalizing and taxing higher quality drugs might be a possible solution. Right now, peoples' lives are ruined by the illegality of drugs more so than the effect of them. By legalizing drugs, in the end, those who would destroy themselves by using drugs would fail to reproduce, with the same results as we are trying to achieve now but much cheaper and with much less violence and despair in the long run. Our problems in Mexico and Afghanistan would disappear practically overnight. Our law enforcement community could concentrate on other, more critical crimes. Drug gangs and their associated violence would be a thing of the past. Worried about your kids? Well, now you'd have to be a responsible parent with the capability of leading your children to responsible decisions, rather than relying upon the Government to do your work for you with fear.

    Mankind has been altering their mood since before recorded history, and will continue to do so despite whatever laws society chooses to impose upon them. Look at the results of prohibition; it created so much violent crime that the States ratified the 21st Ammendment.

    -- Posted by chazm_vet on Mon, Mar 9, 2009, at 8:21 AM
  • I would ask the vet....who around here stated Bush was a conservative? If folks would have watched what he did and they made an assessment of his party affiliation they would probably guess Blue Dog Dem. And the only thing that kept him off the roles as a full blown social liberal is the domestic work done on terror. His stance on terror and the fact that there have been no attacks here since 2001 is about all the conservative cred he retains.

    And I, for one, would like to see some of your numbers sourced.

    You make an awful lot of claims with zero evidence to bolster your contentions.

    -- Posted by Catie's Dad on Wed, Mar 11, 2009, at 8:30 AM
  • I used the Government Accounting Office. Actually, in terms of percentage of National GDP, Truman was the biggest spender in the 20th century (the largest amount spent as a percentage of GDP of all time will probably always be the Civil War) as a result of WWII operations. However, in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, Bush 2 and Reagan were the top dogs when it came to spending. And what, you ask, did they spend the most on? Bush spent it on domestic security, Iraq operations and Government re-organization. Reagan spent it on defense, primarily new weapons development. Remember Star Wars? It's still not deployed. However, he managed to bankrupt the Soviets using his vision of the concept alone.

    The concept of 'conservative' vs. 'liberal' seems to come up frequently with regard to 'Republican' vs. 'Democrat.' I find it interesting that the Goverment actually decreased in size and spending under Clinton (same source), yet he is reviled by the 'conservative' electorate as a 'tax and spend' liberal.

    Spending 10s of Billions per year on interdiction, enforcement, prosecution and incarceration of individuals on the wrong side of archaic, draconian drug laws seems somewhat 'luberal' to me. Reagan initiated the 'War on Drugs.' It isn't working very well, in case you haven't noticed. Some jerk broke into my house in October to find fenceable items for his meth habit. If it was legal, he could just go to the pharmacy and pay for cheap, high quality meth with his wages from whatever minimum wage job he works at, rather than risk having his sorry self blown away. He would eventually either die of his addiction or learn that drugs are bad, crime would fall, and our tax base would be added to.

    -- Posted by chazm_vet on Fri, Mar 13, 2009, at 1:29 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: