Valsuelm

Exactly, hence the need to approach legalization intelligently. It is hard to enforce when people are under the influence of pot. In most states, just the smell or a small amount is enough to get the driver off the road, but if it is a legal substance, that no longer happens. So we need a better system to police it. Wait, what? So we should just accept that people are going to drive under the influence, and ignore the issue? No. As I said, it's already illegal to drive while your ability is impaired. Just because pot becomes legal doesn't mean it's suddenly ok to drive around stoned, any more than it's ok to drive around while your ability is impaired due to all sorts of currently legal substances. The issue is one in your head, not in reality.

Oh for the love of... 'oby' isn't a Russian. Just read some of these posts again, and look at the gramar and spelling. It's not even remotely Russian, it's very plainly someone obsessed with Russia pretending to be Russian. If you want to find out what Russians think then by all means do so. They have a rich culture and many are well educated and erudite. Talking to oby is tantamount to interrogating my toilet bowl on the habits of the Plain Indians. If I cared for your opinion on Oby, or anyone else's, I'd ask. I don't. I'm curious as to what Oby has to say on a given subject. I'm certainly not interested in reading more mindless anti-Oby posts. There are far more than enough on this forum already.

Really? The prohibition of marijuana is 10,000x the problem that recreational marijuana use is. I'm going to go out on a limb and say your statistical analysis might be a bit off. I'm for intelligent legalization, but there are a ton of problems that need to be addressed. The DUI question alone is a huge puzzle. There is no puzzle in regards to the 'DUi question'. It's already illegal to drive while your ability is impaired in every state in the nation. It's a law that isn't enforced all that often though, as DWI laws (driving while intoxicated, specifically in regards to alcohol) are far more lucrative as well as generally easier for the government to enforce. That said, I think a lot of people would be surprised just how common it is for people to drive while their ability is impaired. Be it from being too tired, popping one's favorite psychotropic, some other legal drug as ordained by big pharma and their locale priest some like to think of as their doctor, texting while driving, putting one's make up on, or whatever else. There's probably not a licensed driver in this forum that hasn't been guilty of driving while their ability was impaired at one point in time or another. Millions of people do it every single day, and there's probably no point in time where there's more of them on the road doing it than that morning 'rush hour'. Intelligent legalization is legalization. That's it. Make it legal, end of story.

State and Federal laws already force various prohibitions and racial segregations on people. Hello encyclopedia long laundry list of things one cannot do or own legally, and hello 'affirmative action' and other race based government funded things/decisions. In regards to the former, it depends on what we're prohibiting if I find it acceptable or not, though I'm generally against any kind of 'zero tolerance' laws, in regards to the latter it's never acceptable. Your point?

I do listen to Colbert and Stewart. That doesn't change the fact that Maher is right about this. And about a great many other things as well. "Trickle down economy" has never worked! Not once. Not in any country, anywhere, ever! It is complete and utter nonsense. Tax cuts for the wealthy serves one purpose and one purpose alone. Make the wealthy wealthier! The don't create more jobs, when they get richer, they don't buy more. They just get richer. And the money accumulates on fewer and fewer hands. What makes the wealthy create more jobs and invest more money in production is one thing and one thing only: More demand for what ever it is they make money on. Taxes is about taking money from the rich and put them back in circulation. You want to get a capitalist economy working? Raise the taxes on the wealthy and lower it for the middle and the lowest incomes. They get more money, they spend more money. On stuff. Stuff that other people produce. It is so simple that anyone who's not a greedy, right wing politician or millionaire can see it. Another person in a box, a much smaller one. Think! Look at the evidence and think! Stop regurgitating BS spouted by countless talking heads on TV. The entire dialogue in regards to 'trickle down economics' is a farce. A red herring. It's got as much to do with the real world as the musings of prepubescent kids on where the boogie man goes during the day time. The very rich (and even many others) don't pay much or any income taxes. They never have, and they never will. 501 (c )s and their like are one of the big reasons why, but there are many other ways to avoid taxes, some legal, some illegal. The national income tax is an evil perpetrated upon citizens of nation X by the very rich. It's a superb control mechanism and a nifty way to help smudge the books to justify the fantasy banking system most of the world operates on. It is absolutely no coincidence that the U.S. got it's income tax at the same time the Federal Reserve Banking System was started. You've got a lot to learn. Here's two tips of the iceberg to start at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H56FUHgqRNE

No. They did not. The idea that the states are sovereign is codified in the U.S. Constitution to this day, though not as much as it was during the first decades and century or so of the republic. There have been a few major blows to the States being in charge. First and foremost would be the U.S. Civil War / War of Northern Aggression. Followed not too far behind by the 16th and 17th amendments, the Federal Reserve Act, and many rulings by FDR's packed SCOTUS. To this day though, the states are indeed Constitutionally in charge of a great deal more than most think they are. The biggest obstacle states probably have these days isn't the federal government itself, but people such as yourself who "don't see what's so great about state's rights". Or worse, the many others for whom the concept of states rights doesn't even exist. It would behoove you to endeavor to step outside the box you're in in regards to 'conservatives' vs. whomever, and the largely mythical political arm of the Christian zealot club. They have oodles less power than you think, and the vast majority of Christians, like most other folks, aren't zealots of any kind.

As I already said: It is not a 'conservative' vs. 'liberal' or whomever issue. Never has been.

Maher is a class A moron. A bitter shallow minded semi comedic hack that seems to find fans from other politically shallow minded, jaded, or bitter folks. If you're going to listen to a modern guy who thinks he's a comedian take on the news at least listen to someone who is occasionally amusing like Colbert or Stewart. No one alive I know of has anything on Carlin or Hicks though, both of whom were far more intelligent and funny than any of the aforementioned. As for Texas and marijuana? Probably within 10-15 years tops, as with all the other states. Texas is not the red state it once was. Like most other large cities in the U.S., Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and especially Houston are bastions of socialist nutjobs. As those cities grow and the urbanite ignorant masses who suck in brainwashing propaganda like a sponge swell Texas grows bluer and bluer. That said, it's a myth that Republicans are against legalizing marijuana and Democrats are for it. You have numerous people in both parties that are for and against it, and most 'blue' states, including the one I live in are quite aways from legalizing it (if I were wagering I'd wager Texas will legalize it before New York). Right now it's still generally perceived as politically unintelligent to come out for legalization (note that for the most part where it's become legal it was made legal by ballot initiative, not due to politicians passing bills) though this is slowly changing. Legalizing drugs however is going to be interesting in the long run as it's one of a few major emerging fronts where the states will be pit against the Feds. I don't see the federal government ending it's 'war on drugs' anytime remotely soon, despite the growing sentiment all over the U.S. (it's actually very large now) that it needs to end.

Oby, I'm curious, and you're one of the only Russians I have contact with so I ask you. What's the prevailing Russian point of view on the Apollo missions to the moon, both today and historically?

In my opinion Genesis' output from the early to mid 70s can go toe to toe with any band's output in a similar stretch of time. They put out some amazing stuff during those years. Aye. I'd say they put out some amazing stuff after those years as well. Even if one isn't that big a fan of the more poppy stuff, there's not one Genesis album that doesn't have an awesome prog song on it. Studio albumwise Selling England and Lamb Lies Down are probably my favorites but many others aren't that far behind. Seconds Out and Three Sides Live (original US release) are easily my most listened to Genesis albums as well as my most listened to albums of any band period (and I've got them on Vinyl, Cassette, and CD). If I made a list of my favorite songs by Genesis, many of them are post Gabriel era, and I think that they were at their peak on stage in the late 70s early 80s. (I also happen to think Gabriel reached his peak on stage post Genesis as well). Certainly some of the best drums I've ever heard are Collins and Thompson banging away together. I mean, here they are, at the height of their 'poppy era' on the Invisible Touch Tour, which I don't even think is their best tour, nor is this even the best Los Endos I've heard, but holy smokes is it still awesome.

If I had to pick my favorite band, Genesis would be my answer. And if I had to pick my favorite studio album by them, Selling England by the Pound would be it. And they've got a lot of great studio albums. That said, Genesis was at their best on stage.

Interstellar 9/10

Watched Harakiri last night. Good flick.

My apologies. I misinterpreted your 'To British eyes...' statement in that regard.

As I have said before. Our policy in Syria is dumb; we never should have backed the rebels. Our backing rebels in Libya & Syria has really backfired. I hope Washington actually gets it this time. I would love to see if a Republican come to power in America and do anything different to Obama in respect to Syria or ISIS So in other words ignoring the UN security council vote and attacking Syria directly and then somehow putting troops on the ground against ISIS Its so easy to criticize the incumbent president of any country A republican? Some republicans didn't want to back the rebels at all. I think you are referring to a neocon. Yeah, they would be even worse than Obama. I have watched numerous interviews from prominent Republicans like John McCain who have said that Obama needs to be forceful and direct in places like Iran and Syria around the military options, I'm not sure if you consider him a Neocon? Technically he's not really a 'Neocon', but 'Neocon' or not, McCain is indeed probably worse than Obama in the foreign affairs department. He's a superficial POS that will say and do anything to remain in power, and gets his marching orders from various folks/entities in what's considering the 'military industrial complex'. While he certainly isn't alone in that respect on Capital Hill, McCain is up there with Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and few others on the sociopath/psychopath scale. Surrounded by a few hundred other superficial pathologically lying treasonous sh*tbags, he certainly stands out as a shining example sparkling sh*t. In other words: The guy is a despicable example of humanity, and among the worst there is on Capital Hill.

I know more than a few people on your island that do understand and appreciate American politics, so you don't speak for all British. You are correct in that both major parties are essentially the same at the end of the day, but so are the two major parties on your island, as well as in most other nations. In most regards, at the national level, it's the illusion of choice, not actual choice. The word 'liberal' in the context of politics was perverted a long time ago, and nowadays if one looks under the facade it means something far from it's original and true meaning, one that was synonymous with 'free'. Thinking along the political line of left, right, center is thinking in a box that was manufactured for you and designed to divide and conquer. They don't. You're just buying into some propaganda that says they do. Many just don't think the government should be involved in it. And many more that are ok with government involvement don't think the current involvement in the form of 'Obamacare' by the government is a good thing. Almost no one is against healthcare in the US.

Forget the movie, read the book.

Not gonna happen. Republican 'leadership' is bought and paid for by the same people who bought and paid for Reid and Pelosi. They are seriously corrupt and incompetent people, as well as anything but real leaders. If McConnell and Boehner are replaced, which I don't see happening, then perhaps we'll see the Repubs do something meaningful. Sans that, it's just going to be more of the same BS.

Obviously older people are bored and have nothing better to do than to vote ? No. Older folks are generally more informed, and also less likely to be 'bored'. Being bored is something that only happens to mentally lazy folks. That it's so acceptable and common to even say 'I'm bored' these days speaks to just how mentally lazy so many people are. Younger people are generally less informed, and less likely to get involved as they generally think they have less skin in the game. This has always been the case, but it is more and more true as time has gone on these last few decades. Older people are also generally more inclined to have the teensy bit of discipline it takes to go to the polls, whereas younger people are more inclined to have entertaining themselves as their priority of the day and be busy doing that.

No. That's propaganda. Few people are voting along those lines. I imagine if you lived in the US, you might, as you suck up propaganda and splurge it out as if it's fact a heck of a lot, but CNN is talking out of their ass on this. As for the Republicans winning the senate, and gaining their largest majority in the house since WW2 this line is applicable: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

I'd say so yes. And I'd edit your spoiler out as I have done.

Thanks for reminding me about that documentary I had all but forgotten (supressed everything) about it. Jesus christ, few things in my life has made me more enraged about the level of injustice portrayed in that one. The grandparents though had such strength of character that was nothing but admirable. Yea... I'd say that unless there's something wrong with someone it's a story that will enrage them as well as jerk some tears out. The very sad thing is that, tragedies are commonplace in court systems worldwide in how the system greatly damages or destroys people's lives and sometimes quite literally gets people killed. It's probably best in the U.S., but there are still many very serious issues here, especially in 'family courts' in most or all states. So many people are brainwashed by oh so much propaganda into thinking the system works. That the police always get the bad guy, that the DA competently prosecutes the bad guy, that the police and the DAs are the good guys, that fair trials are the norm, that even indigents get good representation, that innocent people don't get arrested or convicted. That lawyers on all sides are even competent (they so often aren't). That 'experts' on the stand actually know what they are talking about. These myths and others, and the belief in them by so many people that perpetuates so much insanity on a daily basis grounds up people by the millions, and spits them into prison, into shattered lives, into graves, into pure hell, and other seriously unfun things. Zachary's grandparents awed me, and in a good way. Aside from being enraging, and a tearjerker 'Dear Zachary' is an eye opener and positively inspirational in a way. A very well made film. Some good news (spoiler for anyone who has not seen "Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father" (I really don't recommend opening this spoiler up unless you've seen it)):

You are not quoting properly. You do not attribute to where/whom the words you quote are from. Use '"" all you want, but cite correctly if you're going to do it that way. That said, format and ease of read for those you're writing for matters. The quote boxes provided by the forum are much superior to "" in the ease of read department. Using them is not 'dumbing down' for the internet, not using them thinking that they are somehow 'dumbing down' is being what you're trying to avoid: dumb. Learn what a troll is. I'm certainly not trolling.

I suppose you think Casey Anthony should have been convicted as well? The fact is that the jury decided correctly in both cases. If you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty that is. A jury is not supposed to convict unless they have no doubts a person committed crime X. Often juries convict when they do have doubts, the reasons for this are varied, but a good defense attorney, which both O.J. and Casey had will make sure that jury knows that if they have doubts they shouldn't be convicting. Was O.J. guilty? At the time it certainly looked like he was, even moreso than Casey, but given the evidence presented at both trials I'd have voted to acquit myself. You don't convict someone if you think they did it, you convict someone if you know they did it and their rights were not violated in the process. The former is often evil, the latter often what needs to be done. [Note that the judge, many of the police, and some of prosecutorial team on the O.J. case were unprofessional and incompetent and the defense team ran circles around them all. This was not so much the case with the Casey Anthony case though.] On this front I highly recommend everyone watching the following two documentaries: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html They both dispel commonly accepted myths about forensics that are put forth as fact again and again in movies, TV, on the news, etc. They also discuss O.J. and Anthony's cases, among many others.

The Canadian 'justice' system can make the U.S. family court system look like a fair, reasonable, and good system. I urge everyone here to go find and watch "Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father". I also highly recommend not reading up on it until after you've seen the film. It speaks volumes about the subject of this thread, and is a very good film to watch. Also, Volourn, can you please quote properly? I stop reading your posts where you quote people after the first line or two as much of the time I don't know who you're responding to, the quote is taken out of context, and not knowing who you're responding to I can't go find that context.