WoW! I got banned from FTL

[Landon Jeffery]

There ya go. That's 90% of your platform right there, ain't it?

You agree about 90% of the issues, but spit in the face of the platform. The platform is liberty, that using force or the threat of force to tell people how they must or mustn't live their lives is acceptable under ANY circumstance.

I'm sure you meant un-acceptable right kevin?

[K. Darien Freeheart]

There ya go. That's 90% of your platform right there, ain't it?

You agree about 90% of the issues, but spit in the face of the platform. The platform is liberty, that using force or the threat of force to tell people how they must or mustn't live their lives is unacceptable under ANY circumstance.

[Landon Jeffery]

 

[srqrebel]

...poking the bear on the side of the road in the middle of the night is just moronic. you're not going to accomplish a thing...

I agree that "poking" the government is counterproductive, and the message gets lost.

"Poking" occurs when one engages in actions one would not normally engage in, for the purpose of eliciting a reaction.

That is not the case with Lauren. She was simply minding her own business, doing exactly what she would have been doing if there was nobody around to interfere with her business. It was under those conditions that the cops forcibly inserted themselves into her life against her will. Now seriously, who was poking who??!

Also, the proper audience for our message is (imo) not the government stooges themselves; but rather, the general public whose support empowers them to transgress against dissenting individuals. By refusing to meekly sanction the actions of the police as most people would, and by calling those actions into question on a public videotape, Lauren et al potentially caused a lot of members of the general public to think about these issues from a brand new perspective. That is what I call progress -- slow and painful as it may be.

It takes some serious fortitude to do the unpopular but principled thing, and stand up to the bullies, as Lauren did. She is a hero. The jackbooted thugs who meekly "do their jobs" without ever giving thought to proper interaction with their equals, are despicable scum -- no matter how much their conduct is in keeping with the government's arbitrary standards of "professionalism".

[Riddler]

...poking the bear on the side of the road in the middle of the night is just moronic. you're not going to accomplish a thing...

I agree that "poking" the government is counterproductive, and the message gets lost.

"Poking" occurs when one engages in actions one would not normally engage in, for the purpose of eliciting a reaction.

That is not the case with Lauren. She was simply minding her own business, doing exactly what she would have been doing if there was nobody around to interfere with her business. It was under those conditions that the cops forcibly inserted themselves into her life against her will. Now seriously, who was poking who??!

Also, the proper audience for our message is (imo) not the government stooges themselves; but rather, the general public whose support empowers them to transgress against dissenting individuals. By refusing to meekly sanction the actions of the police as most people would, and by calling those actions into question on a public videotape, Lauren et al potentially caused a lot of members of the general public to think about these issues from a brand new perspective. That is what I call progress -- slow and painful as it may be.

It takes some serious fortitude to do the unpopular but principled thing, and stand up to the bullies, as Lauren did. She is a hero. The jackbooted thugs who meekly "do their jobs" without ever giving thought to proper interaction with their equals, are despicable scum -- no matter how much their conduct is in keeping with the government's arbitrary standards of "professionalism".

okokok

i wasn't talking about ms. canario's actions re:poking the bear.
she didn't act like an ahole w/ the cops
she was doin her civil disobedience thing...fine & dandy
i WAS referring re: poking the bear unnecessarily to the cameraman.
his innane actions had NOTHING to do w/ l.c.'s protest over licensing; he was simply trying to goad the cops into flipping out on him..it wasn't working, but he wouldn't shut the fuck up.

[AntonLee]

highly trained professional police officers such as they are would have no problem handling themselves in situations where people may try to agitate them or elicit a negative response.  They're 'our nation's finest' our public servants.  Police always handle themselves in the utmost professional manner even when it comes down to the few whose sole purpose is to draw them out. 

coughbscough

baba, they'll turn on you in a second.  You're not part of this brotherhood they have going.

[Luke S]

Ok, Luke, let's go down this rabbit hole a little. I think you're getting close, and you don't even know it yet.

If you're talking about murder, rape, torture, pillaging, and genocide that is going on in other countries, then it's not fair to ask Americans to hand over their tax dollars to police other countries, or to ask Americans to quit having the goal of a drug-free America because of stuff that's going on in other countries that doesn't even concern us.

As far as terrorism goes, we are not unique in being targeted by terrorists. Britain has been targeted by terrorists too, and they've had terrorist attacks against them, as have other countries. We had a really terrible terrorist attack on 9/11, but that doesn't mean we're the only country that's ever suffered a terrorist attack, so don't feel like we're being singled out.

I am talking about Murder, rape, torture, pillaging, and genocide that is going on in other countries. But it's murder, rape, torture, pillaging, and genocide that is going on as a direct result of criminal actions committed by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Ok, let's look at two regions. First, you've got Central America.  Costa Rica decided to play by the American rules, so they got away with very little American meddling in their affairs. But Honduras is practically a CIA client station. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua were subjected to brutal "civil wars" where the US (particularly the CIA) was supporting military or paramilitary groups dedicated to defeating leftists movements. So, the US sets up a terrorist training facility. Let's be honest and call it what it was, because those guys were doing stuff that can only be defined as terrorism, and we were training them at Fort Benning in Georgia. It was given the cute little moniker "School of the Americas" where the US government trained latin american guerrillas in the art of brutality and terrorism. For more info, you can go here: http://www.soaw.org/

Anyway, so here's a famous example of the type of stuff that's going on. Like in El Salvador. You've got a guy named Oscar Romero, who is a bishop of the Catholic church, but he's a little too concerned about the poor for our tastes. So one of the SOA grads busts in and shoots the guy in the head while he's delivering a mass to his church. Stuff like that. It becomes a daily occurrence, right. And of course, the US guvmint doesn't just train these guys, they need weapons too. So the US keeps sending them weapons.

Well, Congress starts to learn what some of these groups are actually doing, and since some of them at least have a conscience, and all of them are worried about getting reelected, they start to tell the President, "No more weapons to Central America" - particularly Nicaragua, which was a particularly brutal affair. Congress cuts off the funding and forbids the CIA from spending any more money to fund terrorism in Nicaragua.

Enter a guy named Oliver North. Now Ollie's not going to let a little thing like morality stand in the way of funding his terrorist proxy wars. So he starts arranging arms deals, to bypass congressional funding and continue funding the Contras (terrorists) in Nicaragua. But what's interesting is how much of the funding came from cocaine, with the CIA personally running drug flights, as was detailed in Ollie's journals. Now, the American Congress eventually caught on to this charade and now the arms deals are common knowledge, but the drug deals haven't worked their way into mainstream consciousness.

Now, if you want to know why Latin Americans dislike the US so much, all you need to do is look at what the US government has been doing to them for the past half century.

What about the Arabs. Well, can you name a Middle Eastern vicious dictator who hasn't been funded by Washington? Saddam Hussein? Yep, he was "our guy". So was the Shah. (The CIA personally overthrew Mohammed Mossedegh and installed the Shah, who proceeded to commit crimes against his countrymen until they finally got fed up and overthrew the Shah, establishing the current theocracy in Iran. So is the Saudi Royal family.

So you've got these horrible murderers who receive funding from the US to keep them in power. This is going on all over the world. But sometimes, a guy who isn't "our guy" gets in power in a country, and that's when the CIA goes into overtime trying to overthrow that guy. (Think, Fidel Castro here.) And to overthrow governments, we have to create bad situations and discontent within that country, which is most effective by using violence and paramilitary groups. And that ain't cheap. You know, terrorism isn't free. But the problem is, where do we get the money to do these evil things. Congress is a little reluctant to earmark $100 Million to sow seeds of discontent in, say, Venezuela by random killings and assassinations, destruction of property, as well as economic warfare. I mean, don't get me wrong, Congress will vote for evil things. For instance, Plan Colombia, part of which says that we are going to spray food crops of desperately poor Colombian farmers with herbicide. Yeah, Congress will vote for evil things. But they like to keep it on the downlow as much as possible, and the problem is those pesky american dissidents are always throwing a fit every time we do something Nazi-esque. So Congress just won't pay for all the evil that we need to accomplish around the world.

If only there were a product that we could sell and launder the proceeds. A product that would generate quick amounts of cash. If only.

Ever noticed that the countries where the CIA is most active are also the countries that produce the most amount of drug?

Read Whiteout, Luke. Then we can talk more.

Ok, I will read the book. But right off the bat I'd like to say that I find Oliver North's actions absolutely disgusting, and even quasi-treasonous. Oliver North sold US weapons to an enemy of the USA in order to fund an illegal war that has absolutely nothing to do with the USA. I don't know how in the world he got out of going to prison. Fact is, he should have gone to prison, and to this day he should still be in there for what he did.
I am very much for making examples of lawbreakers, as many conservatives are. But in addition to that usual conservative stance, I think that government officials who are caught breaking the law should have the biggest examples of all made of them.

Oh, and you know who else Oliver North reminds me of? Bob Ney and Bob Taft.
Bob Ney and Bob Taft make me absolutely want to vomit. Who are they you ask? Two corrupt Ohio politicians, the first a former US Representative from Ohio, the latter a former Ohio governor. What Ney did is he sold votes/favors to lobbyists.

Both Bob Ney and Bob Taft should have gone directly to prison for what they did. In fact Ney went to prison, and he's still there, but Taft got out of going. Actually to tell you the truth what Taft did wasn't as bad as what Ney did (i.e., taking golf trips from lobbyists without reporting it), but what he did is still against the law, and what makes me really mad about Taft is that he really didn't seem sorry when he had to fess up to what he did. I mean, he did all the lip service and all that, but I was not convinced at all that he was really sorry.

Now you all may not like me because I think marijuana criminals need to face justice. But don't think for an instant that I will do what many Republicans will do, which is to say that criminals need to face justice, and then turn around and defend people like North, Ney, and Taft, and say that they don't need to face justice.
Because I won't go there.

[Luke S]

I hate race-agitators. I hate gender-agitators. I hate socialists. I hate gun-grabbers. I hate the income tax. I hate Real ID.

But you support building a wall around the US.  You support the initiation of violence towards non violent people that are not harming others.  So you must hate Individuals. 

You must hate someone coming to this country without jumping through all the hoops that the government unfairly places in their way.  I never had to jump through any hoops as I was born here.  What more of a right do I have than they who could not choose where they were born?

If you guys are opposed to NAFTA and the NAU, then by default you must also be opposed to this notion of "erasing the borders" which you seem to have. And if you are opposed to the notion of erasing the borders, then by default you must be in favor of the notion of keeping the borders. And if you are in favor of keeping the borders, then given the current situation on the southern border, you must be in favor of strengthening the southern border against the illegal border crossing which has been going on in droves there. Now from there, there are two ways which you can proceed: you can simply hire more and more border agents, or you can build a border wall. The thing is, there are so many people trying to cross that border that the border agents are often outmanned no matter how many of them we seem to hire. Thus they need something substantial to help them keep the border secure. Enter the border wall.

You are heartless and insensitive to someone who may just want to get a little high.  Why should I not have a right to my body?  I don't care about some government approvel of what I can put into my body because it is my body and I understand that I and only I am responsible for what my body does.  With that in mind I consider my reaction to the substances I put into my body.  You claim that I will lose my mind and I won't be able to make that kind of decision.  Your reasoning does not stand up in the face of numerous experiences I have had using(not abusing) what ever chemical, or natural, substance that I so choose willingly. 

There is absolutely no "right to get high" enumerated in the US constitution, nor in any of the constitutions nor statues of any state. There is, however, a duty of each government within the US to protect its citizens from criminals and the crimes that they commit.

Now let's go back to Caleb's simulation of marijuana smokers that he has so graciously provided for us:

"Whoa, dude, these bricks they're like hard but they're also soft. They're like sand, if you rub them sand comes off, but like, they're also, like, hard, like steel, only not like steel. But hard like steel. Kind of like a penis, if you think about it. hard. but soft. It's like they're sandy, but at the same time inpenetrable. But if they're made of sand, that makes them, like, glass, or chemically, or maybe, spiritually, the same as glass. But not glass, cause you can't see through it. But I wonder, I bet you can see through it. Like, maybe you just have to be at the right vibration or pulse or...I don't know the word, but I think like, if we were in a different phase, or dimension, we could see through the bricks. Whoa. That's like, really deep. I'm tired."  Lays down, and looks up at the sky. "Dude ... do you think those clouds are like ... alive? I mean, we don't know what they're thinking ..."

Again, it's obvious that these people are in a very delusional state, as they are speaking complete and utter nonsense. If they are convinced that that brick has a "secret spiritual dimension" in which it is a see-through brick, what's to prevent them from thinking that they heard that brick talking to them and telling them to break into somebody's house?  If they are convinced that those clouds have the ability to think, what's to stop them from becoming convinced that those clouds also have the ability to talk, and are telling them to go out and steal somebody's car?

So again, there is no "right to get high", and looking at the simulation that Caleb provided for us, it's pretty apparent why the Founding Fathers didn't create one, and why contemporary legislators are in no rush to create one, either.

[srqrebel]

i wasn't talking about ms. canario's actions re:poking the bear.
she didn't act like an ahole w/ the cops
she was doin her civil disobedience thing...fine & dandy
i WAS referring re: poking the bear unnecessarily to the cameraman.
his innane actions had NOTHING to do w/ l.c.'s protest over licensing; he was simply trying to goad the cops into flipping out on him..it wasn't working, but he wouldn't shut the fuck up.

Fair enough.

In case you are not aware, the cameraman was Lauren's husband. Clearly, under the circumstances emotions were running a bit high.

I still think the questions were pertinent, and the delivery remarkably calm considering the emotional stress Lauren's husband was under.

The reason I consider the questions pertinent, is because they would be considered more than reasonable if he was being detained by any other complete stranger with his hand on his gun.

I have a serious problem with the notion that a double standard should exist for someone wearing a dark blue uniform and a shiny badge -- especially given their track record of caring only about the rules of the criminal gang they belong to, rather than honoring the inherent rights of their equals.

[Atlas]

[/quote]

There is absolutely no "right to get high" enumerated in the US constitution, nor in any of the constitutions nor statues of any state. There is, however, a duty of each government within the US to protect its citizens from criminals and the crimes that they commit.


[/quote]
Ever read the 9th Amendment? There's where your enumeration is bro.

[J’raxis 270145]

If you guys are opposed to NAFTA and the NAU, then by default you must also be opposed to this notion of "erasing the borders" which you seem to have.

I oppose NAFTA and the NAU because they're tools of the government to enable rich, powerful U.S. corporations to become richer and more powerful by taking advantage of the markets that Mexico would provide. NAFTA is notorious for wrecking the Mexican farming economy, allowing U.S. corporations to dump cheap (subsidized) American food products into Mexican markets—which, among other things, makes Mexican farmers flee to the U.S. in order to find work. NAFTA is colonialism done through economic finagling instead of occupation. And the NAU is about creating a single State spanning the entire continent.

I'm not opposed to eliminating borders per se, provided it's not part of a ploy such as the above. As someone who doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the State I don't believe in its invisible lines on a map, either.

There is absolutely no "right to get high" enumerated in the US constitution, nor in any of the constitutions nor statues of any state. There is, however, a duty of each government within the US to protect its citizens from criminals and the crimes that they commit.

How is stopping someone from doing a drug themselves protecting citizens from criminals? It's "protecting" the citizen from himself.

[Landon Jeffery]

If you guys are opposed to NAFTA and the NAU, then by default you must also be opposed to this notion of "erasing the borders" which you seem to have. And if you are opposed to the notion of erasing the borders, then by default you must be in favor of the notion of keeping the borders. And if you are in favor of keeping the borders, then given the current situation on the southern border, you must be in favor of strengthening the southern border against the illegal border crossing which has been going on in droves there. Now from there, there are two ways which you can proceed: you can simply hire more and more border agents, or you can build a border wall. The thing is, there are so many people trying to cross that border that the border agents are often outmanned no matter how many of them we seem to hire. Thus they need something substantial to help them keep the border secure. Enter the border wall.

Did you even read what I wrote?  I don't care if there are mexicans coming in droves to the US.  Why should I or you care?  You can't even answer my questions.

There is absolutely no "right to get high" enumerated in the US constitution, nor in any of the constitutions nor statues of any state. There is, however, a duty of each government within the US to protect its citizens from criminals and the crimes that they commit.

Now let's go back to Caleb's simulation of marijuana smokers that he has so graciously provided for us:

"Whoa, dude, these bricks they're like hard but they're also soft. They're like sand, if you rub them sand comes off, but like, they're also, like, hard, like steel, only not like steel. But hard like steel. Kind of like a penis, if you think about it. hard. but soft. It's like they're sandy, but at the same time inpenetrable. But if they're made of sand, that makes them, like, glass, or chemically, or maybe, spiritually, the same as glass. But not glass, cause you can't see through it. But I wonder, I bet you can see through it. Like, maybe you just have to be at the right vibration or pulse or...I don't know the word, but I think like, if we were in a different phase, or dimension, we could see through the bricks. Whoa. That's like, really deep. I'm tired."  Lays down, and looks up at the sky. "Dude ... do you think those clouds are like ... alive? I mean, we don't know what they're thinking ..."

Again, it's obvious that these people are in a very delusional state, as they are speaking complete and utter nonsense. If they are convinced that that brick has a "secret spiritual dimension" in which it is a see-through brick, what's to prevent them from thinking that they heard that brick talking to them and telling them to break into somebody's house?  If they are convinced that those clouds have the ability to think, what's to stop them from becoming convinced that those clouds also have the ability to talk, and are telling them to go out and steal somebody's car?

So again, there is no "right to get high", and looking at the simulation that Caleb provided for us, it's pretty apparent why the Founding Fathers didn't create one, and why contemporary legislators are in no rush to create one, either.

This is a sidestep answer to my question.   First off I don't need the constitution to "grant" me the right to get high.  It is a natural right as only I can lay claim to my one and only body.  The constitution is to constrain the government not to grant individuals rights and I hate how when I listen to the news and watch people like Bill O'Rielly(I bet you love him luke) they seem to think that if something is not in the constitution that you can't do it.  Fuck that.  Secondly I have never expierienced in my life a cloud or other inanimate object tell me what to do.  If one does and I am stupid enough to follow its directions and enact violence on another then I deserve the consequences at that point.  However just injesting something will not guarantee my commitance of a true crime.  But let me make an example: 

"Heeey Lou pass me a beer!"  "what?  did you just call me a queer"  slurrs speach...   "No man."  "I fuckin heard it with my own twoo ears."  Takes another swig of vodka "I swear it man"  "I'll show you who's a queer."   Swings fists at mike and gives him a bloody nose,  Then Lou passes out.

Hmmm.   I am sure that kind of behavior happens all the time when people drink.  I suppose the alcohol drove him crazy.  He was hearing things that weren't said.  So your argument again does not hold up to logic.  Your ideas are completely arbitrary and are based upon no moral ground.  You cannot logically say that the government is trying to protect us from criminals(the ones supposedly "created" when they ingest pot) and still have alcohol legal(see story above).  I wish you would have acknowleged my questions or at least attempted to answer them but instead you just wanted to say the same stuff you have been posting since day one in this forum.

[BaneOfTheBeast]

As far as terrorism goes, we are not unique in being targeted by terrorists. Britain has been targeted by terrorists too, and they've had terrorist attacks against them, as have other countries. We had a really terrible terrorist attack on 9/11, but that doesn't mean we're the only country that's ever suffered a terrorist attack, so don't feel like we're being singled out.

...yeah, we've been responsible for plenty ourselves...

[BaneOfTheBeast]

Now let's go back to Caleb's simulation of marijuana smokers that he has so graciously provided for us:

"Whoa, dude, these bricks they're like hard but they're also soft. They're like sand, if you rub them sand comes off, but like, they're also, like, hard, like steel, only not like steel. But hard like steel. Kind of like a penis, if you think about it. hard. but soft. It's like they're sandy, but at the same time inpenetrable. But if they're made of sand, that makes them, like, glass, or chemically, or maybe, spiritually, the same as glass. But not glass, cause you can't see through it. But I wonder, I bet you can see through it. Like, maybe you just have to be at the right vibration or pulse or...I don't know the word, but I think like, if we were in a different phase, or dimension, we could see through the bricks. Whoa. That's like, really deep. I'm tired."  Lays down, and looks up at the sky. "Dude ... do you think those clouds are like ... alive? I mean, we don't know what they're thinking ..."

Again, it's obvious that these people are in a very delusional state, as they are speaking complete and utter nonsense. If they are convinced that that brick has a "secret spiritual dimension" in which it is a see-through brick, what's to prevent them from thinking that they heard that brick talking to them and telling them to break into somebody's house?  If they are convinced that those clouds have the ability to think, what's to stop them from becoming convinced that those clouds also have the ability to talk, and are telling them to go out and steal somebody's car?

So again, there is no "right to get high", and looking at the simulation that Caleb provided for us, it's pretty apparent why the Founding Fathers didn't create one, and why contemporary legislators are in no rush to create one, either.

Its satire man - an exaggeration that apparently fits your very naive misconceptions of a pot smoker.
Pot is not a hallucinogenic - bricks and other inanimate objects aren't perceived to be talking when you smoke it!
No one who wasn't already dellusional while sober, is EVER going to be convinced by a brick that they should do anything.
I have to wonder, with your bizarre ideas of what a pot smoker is and does, if you're not high...
I think everyone here who has had experience with both would agree, that alcohol is far more of an interference to your mental and physical capacities than pot. And yet thats perfectly legal isn't it?

[AntonLee]

is there a right to drink coca cola?  No?  Those damn forefathers only THOUGHT they took care of everything.  Luke, your arguments lead me to believe you're eating mushrooms. 

it's ok, it's your right.