I hate the government.

That's what I'm saying.

I can never tell the difference between homosexuals and the British. They're all one in the same.

I'm not Bri'ish!

#1 I agree with you here for sure. Realistically marijuana should simply be legalized, I don't smoke it, never plan on smoking it, and I don't actually recommend smoking it. But I do believe if pharmaceutical drugs are legal, then marijuana should be too, which is a herb that can be used as medicine. Make no mistake about it, the government cares more about your money than your freedom. Take sugar and sweeteners for example. The natural, calorie-free herb sweetener Stevia has been BANNED from being added to drinks as a sweetener. You can obtain it as a supplement but calling it a sweetener is ILLEGAL. Like, what the hell? Why is that? Because Uncle Sam doesn't want people knowing there is a natural calorie-free sweetener out there that could rival sugar, splenda, etc. The government isn't looking out for your health, either. Why would they even want you to be healthy? They could potentially make more money off of you when you are ill. The government tells us that cigarettes are bad for you and then yet they are perfectly legal. Marijuana, which has proven medicinal values, well, shouldn't it be legal if it's A. not bad for you B. may even be good for you?!

#2 It depends on the circumstances really. I know roads where the speed limit is 25 MPH but you go that and there's gonna be a huge line of cars behind you. I'd say here you just obey these laws, I mean it really is for your safety imo and the people around you. It just depends on what roads you are on, and you just have to know where they'll be cops at, turns, etc.

Take a look at this:

House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House, turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices. Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m., and they are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess. At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark. But as Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz..) was speaking, the lights went back on and the microphones were turned on shortly afterward.

That's another thing that pisses me off about our government. I know people may disagree with this, but the two-party system, imo, is detrimental to our democracy. Even George Washington warned of it. Until the mid-19th century we had a system that encouraged freedom, liberty, growth, and the government remained stable. In this current system we have, the candidates for president rarely run a full campaign on their own qualifications. They will discuss policies, sure, but just take a look at how this election has gone so far. McCain compares Obama to Hilton & Spears & Moses. Obama talks about hope and change, and how we need "change" from the Republicans, which is how McCain got his moniker 'McSame'. I don't support either candidate, fyi, but all of the above is, just absurd. In this two-party system, we have the Democrats telling us that we need change from the Republican president, because apparently all Republicans think the same way. And then vice versa, the Democratic congress, the Republicans feel we need change from them.

In the current two-party system the media & even the candidates tell us who to vote for not based on true credentials, but on the inability and failures of the other candidate. So you're voting for Kerry because he's not Bush, right? Or you're voting for Obama because he's not McSame? Or you're voting for McCain because of Reverend Wright? It could go on and on. How many times have you heard 'voting for the lesser of two evils'? Why the HELL should it come to the point where we have to even vote for anyone evil? Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with that?

In a multi-party system (or "independent") we would see the true credentials each candidate would have to offer, we would arguably not see a media bias or spin telling us why NOT to vote for someone. We wouldn't have people voting straight Republican or Democrat, without being educated about their politics. There would still be liberalism and conservatism, but There would, more than likely, be no voting for the lesser of two evils. I mean, I've heard so many people on the Internet saying they would want to vote for Barr, Baldwin or write in Paul, Hilary, etc, etc but they just fear, rightfully so, because it's true, a 'wasted' vote because of current failure of a system (which is my opinion of course).

I know I just wrote a long ass rant, but this election, government & politics in general has just had me headpalming myself all along. It's unbelievable how ridiculous and childish our government has become.

Total +1 post there dude.

I agree. It should be more than two-parties since that blows balls.

i think we should have a new goverment better than we have now, get rid of "congeress" aka money loving sons of a bitches in washington. have resourch in certain drugs get rid of foren oil for good. end the iran war and get rid of high taxes on poor people and rise taxes on the rich till were all the same. like stop bragging that your rich were all the same. bring back jobs to america and have only one party that runs for president