And they are part of a pointless agenda to make sure their side dies with the most toys. It's because they are evil, rotten liars whose only purpose is to spread billshit around like they are 12th generation farmers.

Any rational person sees that the average republican citizen is a friggin' moron. They haven't a clue what critical thinking is,... The Republican leadership counts on the average moron: the trusting, the faithful, the Flock following like sheep and never questioning what they are being told. If it weren't for the morons in the flock, the Republican party would just be a handful of rich, greedy, manipulative, obviously Evil fuckers, and they'd never have enough power to keep all their toys. The average conservative moron who listens to these evil mouthpieces believes every word they utter, because they've been taught that to question, or apply a little critical thinking, is "elitist" and you'll probably go to hell, or turn gay, or black, or into a woman if you even dare to try it.

I hate the greedy Republican leadership and thier echo chamber, but in the end I have to pity the fools who believe them, hopefully, they will be forgiven, because they know not what they do.

It's everywhere, and it's been around for a while now.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Banana_Republicans:_The_Echo_Chamber

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Echo_chamber

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGIC&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=conservative+echo+chamber&spell=1

And if you still don't think there is an echo chamber effect ask yourselves why, if the conservatives really believed that the "liberal media" was so darned unfair, then why to they oppose reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine?

It's on page 52 of the platform (pg 59 in the pdf, One paragraph covering the freedom of speech.

http://www.gop.com/pdf/PlatformFINAL_WithCover.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

20 years ago I was arrested for selling pot. I'm white, I was middle class and living in the suburbs, I was 18 years old, and I was sentenced to 4 to 24 months. I served 4 months and spent 2 years on probation. I could have gotten off if I had helped to bust my friends, but that was unthinkable, and still is.

Along with the cost of fighting the Drug War are the other costs - lost revenue from possible taxes, lost income tax revenue from people who would otherwise be contributing citizens, and lost voices for the many people in some states who are stripped of their right to vote.

First, anyone who thinks they need to share their opinion on the Drug War had better read this book by Peter McWilliams:

Ain't Nobodies Business If You Do -

The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Country

The entire book is online for FREE right here: http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc.htm

I can't say it better than the late Mr. McWilliams did, not by a long shot:

I have simply never understood why people should be jailed for actions that do not physically harm the person or property of others.

I have thus always been distinctly in the minority. People I admired and people I abhorred all seemed to agree: on this point I was wrong. I filed my conviction away under "something I'll understand when I'm older." Now I am older. It makes even less sense than it ever did.

From the mid-sixties to the early eighties, although the subject of consensual crimes (mostly referred to as "victimless crimes") was occasionally discussed and a number of scholarly tomes were published (some of them quite good), a comprehensive view of the subject for "just folks" like me never appeared.

Once the "War on Drugs" was declared, however, all discussion stopped. One might as well have tried saying something good about Emperor Hirohito in 1942. ("Nice uniform!")

The image that outraged me into putting my childish notion on the front burner was the cover of a news magazine from the mid-1980s. Workers in a cocaine field were piled like firewood, their white peasant clothing red with blood. They had been gunned down in cold blood by American troops. The workers didn't own the field—they were brought in for the harvest, paid subsistence wages.

But was this cover an expos on the dangers of prohibition? A warning about what happens when rhetoric and prejudice become more important in setting national policy than logic and reason? A bold illustration of why "military solution" is the most destructive oxymoron of all?

No. The headline blared: WINNING THE WAR ON DRUGS. Inside, the war on drugs was touted as though the magazine were covering the landing at Normandy. Page after page, article after article, arrest photo after arrest photo, diagrams, maps, bar graphs, pie charts—today they probably would have included a CD-ROM.

Like the one-sided reports about Vietnam two decades before, in this editorial orgy of support, not one word was written to defend the rights of those who wanted to take drugs. Not one voice was quoted crying in the wilderness, "So they want to take drugs. So what?"

I began researching the topic of this book, hoping desperately it had already been written. (Spending several weeks reading Supreme Court decisions is not my idea of a good time. And then there are those brilliantly written government reports—books, actually—with names such as Federal Recidivism Rates 1989–1990 or my bedtime favorite, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1994.) Alas, I couldn't find a book such as the one you hold in your hands, so I had to write it.

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc.htm

Since the right is supposed to be the party of small government, and always claims they want the government to stay out of our personal business, they should be the ones all over this issue.

@Aaron Bonn