I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. – Thomas Jefferson

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. –Thomas Jefferson

Labeling someone based on pre-conceived notions has long been considered folly. Honestly to some extent we are all guilty of it. Some of the most educated, interesting, world changing people in this world have been; Dope smoking hippies, white trash, N######, Democrap's, Republitard's, Libtard's etc.

We all know that we should not judge people based on their appearance or personal choices... we should have an opinion of people based on their results and there previous conduct.

As a nation we would most benefit by teaching tolerance and working together for our common good. Teaching people to continue to distrust others who have different opinions / looks / values than we do is a road to ruin, paved with good intentions.

I don't think he's advocating the two party system, And i'm very glad that so many here on this board discussing other options to that system.

I hope we all vote our conscience in future elections... and not for the "lesser" evil.

Trolling is a fun method of fishing with younger kids. I've been doing it for awhile. My neighbor caught a 27" spec a few weeks ago trolling.

Back to the weed topic

WHAT? Of course, we need to judge potential leaders based on their personal choices.

Gary Johnson CHOSE to smoke weed in violation of Federal law and knowing it would set a horrible example to the nation's youth!

Gary Johnson CHOSE to divorce his wife of 27 years.

As a presidential candidate, he CHOSE to run on a platform advocating that the US unilaterally abandon longstanding international commitments promised under duly passed treaties. As a presidential candidate, he CHOSE for the LP platform to exclude clear delineations of state and federal powers.

He's a man who chooses not to keep his promises and does not believe it is necessary for the US to keep our longstanding, duly passed agreements.

This is a character problem. The President should be more than a good manager. The president should be a person deeply committed to the oath of office, a person who keeps promises.

Are you REALLY OK with what Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office and how he lied about it under oath? Do you really believe these kinds of choices do not matter?

Tolling.......is a lazy mans sport of fishing!!! Zero skills

But have you ever done all that stuff ON WEED???

One could say the same about hiring a guide.

Our family first started trolling because my son, 4 at the time, wanted to catch a muskellunge. Muskies are sometimes known as the fish of 1000 casts. Even with trolling, it took the boys a year and a half to put their muskies in the boat. See the attached picture.

Trolling can be very effective in helping inexperienced anglers catch fish. It does not require some of the fine motor skills of finesse working of artificials (but neither does a lot of bait fishing), but it does require being at the right place and keeping the right lures at the right depth. Trolling also requires the same fighting and landing skills as casting artificials and fishing with bait.

Some other reasons I've grown to like trolling is that when casting artificials, there are usually only one or two prime casting locations in the boat. We can troll six to eight lures at a time, giving everyone in the boat a pretty good chance to catch fish. In addition to being a great way to introduce youngsters and less experienced anglers to fishing, I've found trolling to be much easier on my shoulder than a day of casting. A lot of older folks suffer from various joint maladies, and I am no exception. The doctors tell me that my joint pains in my elbow and shoulder are repetitive use injuries that are best alleviated by reducing use and stress. Trolling and bait fishing simply put a lot less wear and tear on an aging shoulder.

A final reason I like trolling is it gives me a chance to learn a body of water well by studying the bottom, the fish, and the bait on the sonar as we move along. Staying in motion also allows us to keep a good distance from other anglers. No need to squeeze anyone for the best spot and minimal opportunity for others to squeeze us or scare away the fish we're targeting. Since the boat is in motion, as soon as someone hooks up, I can steer the boat away from obstacles and give the angler with a fish on plenty of room to fight the fish. We've never lost a fish to structure or the anchor line while trolling, but we've lost a couple (out of hundreds) in the propeller.

^ haha " red team go red team go"

Without a doubt but fun to watch the kids have fun while drinking cold beer.

Just couldn't stand it. So predictable :screwy:

I just graded my son's geometry. Hard enough without the weed. My daughter will be along in a few minutes for help with her physics and then later for pre-Calculus. Are you really suggesting that somehow I'd be a better home school teacher on weed? This stuff is hard enough while stone cold sober. I suffer from seasonal allergies, and I've often noticed how much harder some physics and calculus problems can be on certain allergy medicines. I could not even imagine trying to do this stuff on weed.

Most of the bull reds we catch are from a boat. Our current boat is a 16 foot aluminum boat and our favorite spot is right outside of the western cut in the Calcasieu jetties. When a bull red hits it is a pretty big fight and a challenge to land simultaneously keeping the boat balanced and everything else. It's a lot of fun and a huge adrenaline dump, but nothing I would recommend while chemically impaired. Getting the boat back to the ramp safely in various conditions of weather and boat traffic is not something I would ever recommend for one who is chemically impaired.

Even in more protected waters without the big ships (like Caminada pass) I'm regularly dodging shrimp boats and jet skiers and we've also had thunderstorms come up quickly calling for good, quick decision making and some skill handling the boat. Boating and dope smoking just do not mix.

http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/4ch...26f637961b.jpg

Its ok Buzz, its just a movie quote...

Did it just for you so that your post about me could keep going!!

I knew I could get my duck to quack before 10am

Lmao what a duck!! Dude you decoy like a spoonbill

LOL! :work::work::work::work::work:

And I thought being a cop on this site drew attention!!!!!

Jordan, pass the popcorn!!!! LOL!!!!!

Get em'

rating this post 5 stars... here "Brain"... :passing popcorn:

went from trolling ship channel to smoking weed to being a math professor to politics to... i lost track

I think it's going back to smoking weed here in a minute......standing by!

So your version where we label people based on personal biases is better?

The founder's of this nation CHOSE to break from their sworn allegiance with Britian. Shall we judge them as harshly as you choose to judge a modern day person who is not willing to accept the status quo?

I do not agree with many of the policies that were enacted in the Clinton years (Nafta is quite possibly the most henious example of our governments stupidity)

However i could give exactly two ****'s less where Bill Clinton's **** and his cigar's have been.

I am not interested in attempting to get a reincarnated jesus christ to run for office in this country, Because the fact's are when a perfect candidate is found that has the moral's of a Saint, He will still happily follow the current blue and red policies of selling the american people out to corporate interests.

I am very interested in someone running for office who has shown his ability to restrict government, encourage free trade and industry (without sucking off big business and their lobbying groups), and enact policies which strongly benefit his constituants.

Ron Paul is not a bad guy either, The concerns that i have of him stem more from his close relationship with mega business.

I have little or no doubt that if the "closets" of america's presidents were collectively "aired" out... there would be more than enough scandal. I simply prefer the scandal and the scoundrel that i know... rather than the one who is best able to hide his past.

My goodness, how do you ever manage to do the mental gymnastics on those nights where you and the wife choose to share some wine?

Oh that's right... Marijuana is the DEVIL.... and it will cloud your mind for AGES!!!! And you won't be able to make rational choices about when to use it...

lol okay :*****:

It's the gift that keeps giving!!!

.....well it is almost the holiday's... need to get in the spirit.. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You got any cajun spice to sprinkle on that popcorn?

To me, Clinton's behavior was much more despicable than the typical adulterous politician on several counts:
1. The behavior occurred at work.
2. The behavior occurred with a subordinate.
3. He lied about the behavior under oath.
These facts make his behavior far worse than simple unfaithfulness to his marital vows.

Is it OK to lie under oath, if you are only lying about sex?

If you are only lying about sex at work?

If you are only lying about sex at work with a subordinate?

Is it OK to lie under oath if it is about something else you think should be OK but some authority has a problem with? Like drug use? At work?

Somehow, when push comes to shove, I think libertarians will advocate for much more than drug legalization. I think they will want drug use to become a protected status and use governmental power to restrict the liberties of employers, insurance companies, and individuals in choosing not to hire drug users, choosing not to insure drug users (or charge them more), and choosing to require drug tests as a reasonable condition of voluntary association or business of any type.

A true libertarian would not restrict an employer's rights to test for drug use or make employment decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private school's rights to test for drug use or make admission and retention decisions based on drug use.

A true libertarian would not restrict a private insurer's rights to test for drug use or make coverage decisions based on drug use.

Are you really a true libertarian?

just bought a 2 pack from Sam's

If you're math skills are in line with your logic, you should consider changing your name from MathGeek to AriopsisFelis.

Attachment 58692

Logic - instead of honing my skills to catch redfish with artificials (hard heads rarely take compared to natural baits), let's do a study on what to throw that will deter them. Conclusion? Magnetized Hooks.

None of your fears are backed by any legitimate evidence, just like your arguments on legalizing pot.

Do any libertarians advocate eliminating age limits for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco?

Do any libertarians push to eliminate all breathalyzers and field tests for those that show evidence of alcohol intoxication?

Do any libertarians advocate decriminalizing marijuana and making it rampant and accessible to youths?

Do any libertarians support eliminating drug tests in industries where they are most needed? No, the only push is for drug tests that are accurate in determining safe levels that can prove drugs weren't done on the job, or in a time frame that proves the effects are hazardous. Anyone in the oilfield is susceptible to alcohol tests on site, and I don't hear anyone opposed to them. I've had random breathalyZers done for a crew of 100 and never thought of it as an infringement.

Get real mg, and leave your emotions at home where they belong.

So you've skillfully avoided answering most of my questions, but you are making a case that government power should be exerted to force employers to prove their drug testing requirements and policies are reasonable and needed.

So your vision is for a government bureaucrat or court decide what drug policies and testing practices are reasonable. The employer has the burden of proof that drug use occurred at work or is impacting performance. Drug users get to be a protected class. Private insurers and employers are not at liberty to decide on their employment and insuring policies, but are subject to government control, because drug users are a protected class.

This is not true libertarian government. This is pothead utopia. The government will end up forcing private employers and insurance companies to employ and insure drug users. Insurance companies will have to prove to some government bureaucrat or court that certain behaviors and drug use increases risks rather than relying on their own risk assessment practices and policies.

I believe i am a true Libertarian, I view the the platform to be one of less government involvement, but when there is a need for government involvement it is of a nature to protect the People from other interests ie. (Mega business lobbying, squandering of the nation's national resources for the financial benefit of a few rather than the good of the whole country) etc.

As far as your drug arguments above i never stated any of those things in our other discussion.. and to the best of my recollection no one else said so either... so what the heck is your point.

Are we once again degraded to your viewpoint that potheads are incapable of contributing to society in any meaningful way whatsoever?

Do i agree 100% with every single point listed in the Libertarian Platform.... no.... but by and far they represent a very large percentage of what changes could occur that would quickly bring this country back to it's rightful position as leader of the free world.

For example... i will even give you a freebee.... i'm sure you will happily use it to call me a commie socialist or something.

The libertarian policy in regards to Healthcare is that the insurance industry market should be stripped of government and protectionism. Selling over state lines should be allowed as should collective bargaining agreements with groups of like minded consumer... ie. switch to a true free market system with a Laissez faire mindset toward the economic's portion of it.

I do believe that would work to some extent.... and it would certainly be a HUGE improvement over the joke that is our current healthcare system.

However... My personal belief's differ from the LP on this subject, I believe that we should in fact switch to a 100% socialized health care system. With appropriate governmental regulation. Set up in similar fashion to successful socialized health care plans currently in place in many of this worlds countries.

I believe this because personally i believe basic solid healthcare (no boobjobs or such allowed) is a human right. I also believe it because these countries have shown that they can provide more doctors and more hospital beds and better service accross the board resulting in longer healthier lives for their countries citizens.

Honestly i could care less which route we take, as long as we quickly extricate ourselves from the current quagmire of health care law which has been written by the health care and pharma lobbying groups.

I quite seriously doubt that you or any one else will ever agree with any party's opinion 100%.....

But you go with what most closely matches your mindset. Yes?

Nice.. i will throw some more popcorn in the microwave.. will pass it around. :)

L M A O

Just like employers are forced by government to hire alcoholics?

Where the hell do you get this?

The push is for methods, not requirements. The government does not force drug testing now, but it's done freely just as it would be if pot were legalized.

Since alcohol was legalized prior to your existence, and people developed methods to test for intoxication in that time frame, that makes it ok? But the same road can't be taken for marijuana?

I actually quit reading your regurgitations a long time ago, and just reply based on how predictable you are. Seems my intuition is still on point.

Pothead utopia... LMAO, what a joke.

No sorry MG... he hasn't skillfully evaded your questions at all..

he answered them fairly and squarely.

There are tests in place to determine if a person is under the influence.

Ask triple F.... i'm sure it goes along the line of ... field sobriety test fail... then a med test to determine if you are under the influence.

pretty simple really... you choose to party at the job site... get caught... lose your job.... pretty much the same as with alcohol.

This isn't rocket science.

So someone refresh me again.. is this topic about

A. Trolling
B. trolling
C. Pot
D. Politics
E. Religion
F. Cherry Pie
H. Popcorn
I. Popcorn toppings and pass procedure.

Those questions weren't for me BTW, and you know what a libertarians answer to those questions are.

I wonder if we can hit 20+ pages again.

Has anyone noticed that Mg never discusses what's at hand, he always jumps all over in an attempt to wear people down, similar to footwork in boxing.

This is why the thread covered 10 topics in very few posts, most people don't even know what is going on now without reading the thread twice.

Every MG reply is not a legitimate argument, but a diversion and attempt to get the attention off of his shortcomings.

True HardHead

W has to be confused as crap right now, he loves MG's pot and libertarian rants, but hairs how he fishes. Now, they are all coming to head in one epic thread, W would have blew this thread up if anyone else would have started it! Lmao

Drug legalization would be much easier for many people to accept if society insisted that the individual users themselves assumed all the attendant risks of drug use/misuse/abuse. This would be a true libertarian view.

Sure drug users can contribute to society. I am not saying they can't. However, I think recreational drug use/misuse/abuse tends to reduce the potential for individuals to contribute and tends to increase the risk of them becoming a burden to society through greater accident risk, unwanted pregnancy risk, disease risk, and reduced work productivity.

Your view is not just for drug users to be free to use drugs as long as they assume all the risk. Until and unless the welfare state (safety net) is dismantled (including health care), your position is that society as a whole should share the risks of increased medical costs, increased pregnancy risks, increased accident risks, increased disease risks, and reduced work productivity of unrestricted drug use/misuse/abuse.

There are many fields where drug use/abuse does not seem to significantly reduce the value of employees work production. There are other fields where the risks are obviously unacceptable. My point is that it is not the government's job to decide which are which. The owners and management of each individual business should be free to decide, except in cases where there are obvious public safety risks that require government oversight (airplane pilots, for example). The consequences for an employer deciding wrongly (foolish employment policy regarding drug use) should be left up to the free market. If an employer's policy is too restrictive, the business will be at a competitive disadvantage because he is failing to hire some great employees simply because they use drugs.

Employers and insurers should have complete freedom with regard to their drug testing policies.

Mature adults appreciate differences. W may disagree with how I fish, but I doubt he would advocate any legal restrictions. He probably appreciates our removal of gafftops and bull drum. It's just not something that he enjoys doing himself.

The LP needs to clarify its position on federalism. The 2012 platform is vague on their degree of willingness to use federal power to force states to adopt libertarian policies. They really seem to be retreating from Ron Paul's long held position that each state needs to be free to decide for itself which libertarian policies to adopt and which to reject.

Being for gay marriage is one thing. Advocating for the federal courts to ram gay marriage down the throats of all 50 states is something else.

Being for drug legalization is one thing. Advocating for the feds to force states to legalize drugs is something else.

wow.... i cant read those long posts... i give up... ya'll win.... gimme that popcorn back Ace !!

Pics of the smoking hot wife or it didn't happen!

New's at 11... "The Sky is still.... not falling" :cry:

Dang dude... i popped you an extra bag an errythang....

***?

Something about this thread has changed since I left....lol

Dude... Your not allowed to use tactical nukes in online intahnet warz.....


Sheesh....


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I wrote:

Employers and insurers should have complete freedom with regard to their drug testing policies.

AA replied:

Exactly where in the libertarian's platform do you see that they intend to be the new "Thought Police"? Could you please point it out?

Goooh advocated in this very thread for drug testing by private employers to continue, just as it does now. Presumably this means with all the government intrusion and Dept. of Labor regulations currently in force.

I advocate for something different. Real liberty. Just as any EMPLOYEE can currently quit (assuming no contract obligations otherwise) if their EMPLOYER refuses to voluntarily submit to a drug test requested by the EMPLOYEE or if the EMPLOYER tests positive, real liberty would allow employers to require testing of employees at will, with refusal to test or testing positive taken as grounds for immediate dismissal without all the federal government oversight and regulation that currently exists. Libertarians want smaller government and less regulation, right?

Likewise AceArcher has advocated universal healthcare in this very thread. Presumably this means insurance must be provided to all, regardless of their drug use. In contrast, I think the true libertarian position would be that any insurance company can decide to cancel insurance or charge more for drug users.

Please note that I make a distinction between "libertarian" as a political philosophy and "Libertarian" as a US political party.

I can't believe I fished through all this today. This is great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a low blow man......

why you have to cut me so deep!

Nice.... glad to see you came around and managed to disparage me.... I was beginning to lose faith in your skills.

I think if you re-read the actual post that i made you can see that i pretty clearly stated that it was an opinion of mine in which i diverged from the LP parties position...

Wait a second.... "if their EMPLOYER refuses to voluntarily submit to a drug test requested by the EMPLOYEE or if the EMPLOYER tests positive"

Exactly who is taking the drugs here??????????? Those damned pothead employeers!!!!! :pissed::pissed:

From the Wiki on GJ's political positions:

Treating drugs as a health problem sounds a lot like shifting a big burden to private insurers.

Johnson also seems to have a big regulatory and tax burden in mind for weed, "just like tobacco."

Maybe a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, and Marijuana?

I may just be in college and be around it more, but the movement seems to be building steam. I don't smoke the herb, just an observation