I don't know. Maybe Times Roman wasn't invented before the sign was printed, though it did come out in the same year.

Redistribute power, not wealth...

Even though I'm talking to the hand, I will remind you again that that is impossible. They are the same thing.

As to the question, where I could not have been more clear, I will have to take your non answer as a "no" to any referendum for abolition (to be even more obvious, specifically something similar to what was passed in Colorado and Washington), and thus the only logical conclusion is to say you are only for the liberties you personally approve of as dictated by your bible. This is how I know it is you that stands tall for the status quo and powerful, coercive social hierarchies with abundant privileges for specific groups at the expense of others, the very same thing you project upon me.

What you call "entitlements" (notably you conveniently don't consider corporate welfare AND the military machine's bureaucratic promotions for the careerists as "entitlements"), The rest of us near retirement call earned, fully paid for (and stolen by, or given to Wall Street) benefits. And military spending is not decreasing, it's merely being contracted out, again, to cook the books. The money still comes from our labor.

Hey, kill the bill, I say, though there are better ways to do it without the theatrics to distract us from the pension heists. It only exists for the benefit of the insurance industry. Replace it with medicare for all, and cut back on the attempted world domination. Problem solved for the rest of us. It will be cheaper for me just to pay the fine for not carrying at this point.

Who cares if I'm insulted? That makes no sense. The right to offend is sacrosanct. Feeling insulted is strictly personal. Everybody reacts differently, regardless of what's in your dictionary, so whatever your point is, it is baseless.

I feel it's a factual statement...

Yes, you feel... That's a personal issue. You're trying to use a book to tell people how they should feel. Culture, DNA, and experience define how people react to words. The words themselves carry no intrinsic value one way or another of any kind, and nobody has any right to determine, legally or otherwise, how they are used. Educate or sanction the listener, and nobody else. Like they say about the idiots on talk radio. it's their followers you should be afraid of, not the blabbermouth. Only there will you find the real danger. You're just trying to tell me that I can't say "fuck" on TV.

:-) Yes or no? While your attempts at diversion and avoiding the question are admirable, where is your right to tell me what kind of plants I can cultivate, process, and possess, state, federal, or any other authority you try to claim over any other person?

Substantial? That's your argument? Let's not get mired in details. Standing forces were as big as they could afford, and growth was never in question.

...when not meddling...

Again, name a single instance when they weren't...

I think we've all seen just how badly states can run a circus, and why sometimes it's necessary to call in the cavalry to insure that everybody can enjoy the same privileges. I have no interest in returning to the pre-civil war era and other 19th Century attitudes.

If the republicans keep coming up with total losers...

Think about that for a second. What better way to scare people out of voting for a real alternative? Sounds quite intentional to me, seeing that republicans and democrats are on the same team.

So what? The naivete is on your part. Look up how the 'rotating villain' routine works. Republican and democrats are a team. The bickering is an act, a daily soap opera, one that apparently works very well on you and 98% of the voters at large, dumb enough to vote for republican or democrat.. If you want to believe what your TV tells you, go for it, but all your complaints are just silly repetitive, tiresome bullshit.

Words are words. They have no force whatsoever.

They didn't have to. They knew it would pass without their 'help'. Nicely played, I say. They still collect a nice windfall from their buddies in the industry. So they can act like they're against it, while in reality, they see big bucks rolling in. Plus it provides a great distraction for TeeVee 'news' to avoid having people talking about their pensions being emptied into high risk hedge funds, and blame us for wanting to collect what we paid for over the last fifty years.

You cannot do harm through speech, only through action.

No, that's not an answer. It's quibbling. Why let the states decide? That's no different than the feds. Time isn't a factor. Prohibition is prohibition (which, by the way, includes all consensual acts where you can't scientifically prove harm to others. The "moral" garbage does not count), and liberty is liberty. Which do you prefer? That's why I asked how you would vote on such a referendum on abolition, even a statewide one, anywhere outside your house.

Yes, really, since the invasion of Native American lands. Since Mexico in the 1800s. Since Central America and Roosevelt's Corollary throughout the early 1900s. You will not find a single instance where the US was not meddling militarily somewhere it didn't belong long before 1947. Things have only escalated since then.

Like you said about hegemony, if not us, then who? It's always best to be the dominant (empirical) power, no? Do you not approve?