WoW! I got banned from FTL

[Luke S]

Well, we wouldn't want the US to begin to get such a reputation.  Grin  Luke, that IS the reputation that the US has around the world. Go anywhere else in this world, (except maybe Israel, or another client state like Micronesia or someplace like that,) and you will find anger against the U.S. for precisely that reason. They don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because the American government has been destroying their lives since the end of world war II.

On the contrary, I've heard frequently that Americans often get special treatment when they travel abroad. In fact, I know this from experience.

I remember when my family and I went to Mexico and we got all sorts of special treatment and everything. That was a long time ago, when I was young and naiive, and before I knew about all the Mexicans coming across the border and everything. Maybe the reason why Mexico lets Americans across and then Mexicans give them special treatment is that said Americans will want to give Mexicans amnesty when they cross the border illegally. Well it looks like Mexico's little plan worked, because there are an awful lot of people in favor of amnesty now, including all 3 presidential candidates.

And then we went to Switzerland, and we got a whole lot of special treatment from them. And when I went to Poland, I got special treatment from them.

So the only thing I can conclude is that the countries that if the amount of people mad at Americans is proportional to the amount of crimes that the CIA commits in their countries, then the countries that the CIA agents committed the crimes in were definitely not Switzerland or Poland. Maybe they committed the crimes in France, since when we went to France everybody was snooty to us and sometimes they would get on us for the tiniest little thing. But I've also heard that that's just the way they are, so I don't know.

But for all we know, the CIA agents could have been committing the crimes in countries that nobody ever goes to, such as Pakistan and Uganda and Zambia and places like that. I know that Al Qaeda has offices all around the world (unfortunately), and I know that some of the perpetrators of 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia and places like that (not just Afganistan), so maybe the agents committed the crimes in Saudi Arabia, and it pushed one too many Saudi Arabians over the edge, and they all joined the Saudi branch of Al Qaeda and got on those planes and crashed them into the WTC.

but let's not forget who started the drug war in earnest:  Richard Nixon. Not exactly a saint, with nothing on his mind but helping free people from their addictions. Nope. Nixon, of course, was all about power.

First of all, I'd like to say that I find Richard Nixon's actions absolutely despicable. What Richard Nixon did is he was involved with an incident where people broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters and tried to put bugs in it so they could listen in on them.  I remember my grandmother telling me about how Richard Nixon sat there and lied again and again about what he did, saying that he wasn't a crook when he was a crook.

Richard Nixon's actions are mitigated a little bit by the fact that his opponent, George McGovern, was planning to institute policies as president that were wholly absurd.

But they are aggravated once again by the fact that Nixon was also involved in breaking in to that man's psychiatrist's office who released the pentagon papers.

But they are mitigated once again by the fact that that man was not supposed to release papers from the Pentagon. Releasing papers from the Pentagon is a no-no. He should have gotten in deep trouble for that one. All releasing those papers from the Pentagon did was give the Pentagon's info over to the enemy, and give leftist radicals more ammunition to sabotage the war effort and thereby endanger the troops, which is never acceptable under any circumstances, regardless of whether he personally agreed or disagreed with the war.

So in the end, I suppose I'm not sure who I'm angrier at, Nixon or the people on the other side of the story. It really does seem like Nixon did things to really disgrace his office, and given that his office was that of President, that is certainly not a good thing.

But George McGovern(ment) was a socialist, and the DNC was prepared to try to elect a socialist to the highest office in the country, which is not a good thing, either.

Furthermore, releasing those papers from the Pentagon is equally bad to anything that Nixon did, and actually probably worse. So I think in the end that if Nixon should have gone to prison, and the Watergate burglers should have gone to prison (which they did), then the guy who released those Pentagon papers certainly should have gone to prison, and maybe for even longer than Nixon.

Of course, we have to keep track of all of people's financial transactions so we can see whose "laundering money."  Laundering money is a ridiculous charge. Basically, laundering money is the art of trying to keep the government from knowing your financial business. Not exactly a crime against humanity, is it? But Uncle Sam knows that keeping track of your financial business is crucial to maintaining control. So the drug war gives it the pretext to keep tabs on you and invade your financial privacy.

Sorry, I can't agree with you there. Laundering money is only a crime when the money in question was gotten from either organized crime, or illegal drug sales, or something like that. If for whatever reason someone "launders" money that is clean, then it is no crime. Money laundering laws do not exist to oppress law-abiding citizens. They exist as an additional way for the government to nab those involved in organized crime and drug sales, a very worthy goal.

The Drug War and the War on Terror(TM) are the two main justifications for every intrusion into your privacy. And they are trying to add a third, The War on Mexican Immigrants. Which has already brought us a Real ID and Internal checkpoints, and is already showing signs of promise in permitting the government to intrude even more onto our lives. So when you say stuff like, "I agree with you on 90% of the issues, I just disagree with a couple things," well the couple things are the foundation. The couple things are the things that permit the government to do all the other 90% of things that you agree with me on. They create these bogeymen "Scary Mexicans" "Scary Drugs" and "Scary Muslims" to scare us into letting them walk all over us.

You forgot Protecting the Children. Pretty much all offensive Internet legislation is justified in order to stop "child pornography" or otherwise protect children against supposed online predators. (The remainder of attacks on online freedom is usually about protecting "intellectual property.")

You folks are battin' 2.5 for 5 with what you just said. First of all, you're right about the "child pornography" scare. They really haven't come up with enough evidence to justify the scare tactics nor laws that they have come up with regarding child pornography. I haven't really seen any hard statistics from them wrt how many child pornographers they have caught, either. They catch one, and they say "OMG! WE CAUGHT A CHILD PORNOGRAPHER!", and they catch another and they say "OMG! WE CAUGHT ANOTHER CHILD PORNOGRAPHER!", and I'm sitting there thinking, "Ok, how many did you guys catch this year? Four? Was it worth it to waste all the government time and police time and money that you've wasted catching these four child pornographers?"

Intellectual property laws, and indeed also the legislative process relating to them, have been abused greatly. I recently heard that if you even copy so much as a layout from another website and put it on your website, that is grounds for a lawsuit. That is ridiculous. A layout is not written material, nor is it a picture, thus there is no conceivable way it should be protected under copyright law.
Additionally, Disney frequently abuses the legislative process surrounding copyright law by sending lobbyists to Congress to essentially bribe the Congressmen to extend the copyright expiration date every time the copyright on "Steamboat Willie", which was the first cartoon featuring Mickey Mouse, is about to expire. Bribery is never acceptable, and the Congressmen who took the bribes from the Disney lobbyists should be impeached and removed from office.

Although I do believe that there is a need of the USA to protect its citizens against terrorists, the first step they should have taken wrt fighting terrorism should have been to stop the CIA from committing the serious crimes that they've ADMITTED that the CIA is committing in all those other counrties. And if the CIA had already stopped committing those crimes, then they should have released a statement to those other countries that the CIA has stopped committing crimes in other countries. In fact, they should have handed over the CIA agents that committed the crimes over to the other countries to face justice for the crimes that they committed (along with a very stern reminder that the US is a soverign nation, and this action in no way means that the US will start handing over people whenever other countries ask for them, and in no way will it start handing over people when an international tribunal asks for them).
Now instead of taking that very prudent step as their first step, what was their first step? Oh yeah, it was making a stupid little color chart that does nothing to protect against terrorism.
And then there's the whole deal with the PATRIOT Act. I can't even name one terrorist off the top of my head who was caught because of the PATRIOT Act, so it sounds like it really is just one big waste of time, money, and a threat to civil liberties.
But I will give it to them that the stricter airline security has resulted in terrorists getting caught. I heard in Bush's State of the Union that they had caught a guy who was planning to fly a plane into the tallest building in Los Angeles, and they caught people who were planning to blow up airplanes heading over the Atlantic. So this doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a war on terror, it means that said war should not involve wasteful and invasive things such as the color chart, the PATRIOT Act, and Real ID.

On the issues of the drug war and the border wall, you folks are totally wrong, and I'm not in the mood to repeat myself right now as to why you're wrong.

[Free libertarian]

 Luke, last night while shuffling thru a couple of dollar bills in my wallet to pay for a plate of Nachos and a legal 20 oz. intoxicating beverage I thought I heard a voice...George Washington himself was looking up at me from one of the dollar bills and I thought I heard him say..."plant hemp" or something like that.

Now mind you I had been imbibing a legal intoxicant and it's possible he didn't say anything, maybe I was even having a "marijuana flashback" (I did have an urge to throw garbage, but restrained myself) but I coulda sworn the father of our country was talking to me. 

I get confused sometimes, hemp is illegal, yet George Washington, who's picture hangs front and center
in many public schools , advocated planting it and I'm pretty sure he had a personal stash for getting down with the home boys, so why would hemp be illegal?   
What earth shattering events have transpired since the good old days to make this innocuous weed
reason to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people?

  Do you suppose there are valid reasons to go against the wishes of the father our country?   
I mean this guy could have been king, A VERITABLE DECIDER after the revolution, do you suppose all that reefer smoking had worn him out? Maybe he didn't even want to be President, maybe all he wanted to do was go home, cut down cherry trees and bang Martha y'think?

Shouldn't we take his picture down or at least draw mustaches on it or something?
Maybe mayor Quinta  (Manchester NH) will ask for a post mortem resignation because George Washington's words send the wrong message to the school kids?

Maybe we should rewrite the history books and delete all references to George Washington, whaddya think?

[David]

Then don't  Luke.
Everyday we talk to people who believe it is perfectly okay to use the police to commit horrible injustices to people who HARMED ABSOLUTELY NOONE.  To me you are no different than any other cheerleader for this legal crime against innoccent people.  

It is a crime against humanity to lock up millions of people for their choice of using a substance.  The police are not locking these people up because they robbed a bank, or were driving erratically.  Those are crimes that have victims.  A pot cigarette has no victims.  That is why even the police call them 'victimless crimes'.  They know damn well that there is no victims.  

It is people like you that make me proud that I don't pay as many taxes as I used to, despite the risk of being punished by gov't.  Since I can't make you stop using the police to hurt people who have hurt noone, I can choose not to pay for as much as possible.  Of course, then you will complain that YOUR taxes are going up, and I will laugh.  You reap what you sow.  If you sow/support imprisoning those that hurt noone, then you will reap/pay taxes through the nose to pay for it.  

[Luke S]

Luke,

You're giving my home state a bad name.  Read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins.  It gives a good run-down on the foreign policy of the U.S. throughout the last few decades.  If you think Ollie North's actions were an anomaly, you are genuinely naive.  The same goes with Taft and Ney.  Crooked behavior by politicians and government officials is more normal than abnormal. 

Which part of Ohio are you from?  Do you think it's right to lock up an 18 year old kid for smoking a joint?  Do you think imprisoning misguided, nonviolent kids is a good use of taxpayer's dollars?  Ohio's tough stance on drugs does nothing to ebb the flow of them.  I'm speaking from experience working with troubled youth in Ohio and also from watching many people from my hometown get arrested and thrown in jail in Ohio for nonviolent offenses.  Hell, Ohio prisons can't even keep drugs out of the jails!!!  How do you expect them to keep them off the streets?  Throwing our youth in jail for nonviolent offenses just limits their future opportunities in life and steers them toward a life of crime. 

Actually I don't think anybody should go to jail for marijuana posession. They should be fined and sentenced to community service building the U.S.-Mexico border wall. And the amount of time that they have to spend building that wall should be proportional to the amount of marijuana that they had. And the fine they paid should go towards buying materials for building the wall.

Oh, and if you guys think noone has ever built part of the wall as a community service punishment for a criminal act, then you guys are wrong. I remember reading once how two men who ran a business in California that were caught hiring illegal immigrants were fined and sentenced to community service building that border wall, so it's not unprecedented.

[dalebert]

They should be fined and sentenced to community service...

So they should be robbed and enslaved. And... you're a libertarian. 

[Luke S]

Luke, last night while shuffling thru a couple of dollar bills in my wallet to pay for a plate of Nachos and a legal 20 oz. intoxicating beverage I thought I heard a voice...George Washington himself was looking up at me from one of the dollar bills and I thought I heard him say..."plant hemp" or something like that.

Now mind you I had been imbibing a legal intoxicant and it's possible he didn't say anything, maybe I was even having a "marijuana flashback" (I did have an urge to throw garbage, but restrained myself) but I coulda sworn the father of our country was talking to me. 

I get confused sometimes, hemp is illegal, yet George Washington, who's picture hangs front and center
in many public schools , advocated planting it and I'm pretty sure he had a personal stash for getting down with the home boys, so why would hemp be illegal?   
What earth shattering events have transpired since the good old days to make this innocuous weed
reason to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people?

  Do you suppose there are valid reasons to go against the wishes of the father our country?   
I mean this guy could have been king, A VERITABLE DECIDER after the revolution, do you suppose all that reefer smoking had worn him out? Maybe he didn't even want to be President, maybe all he wanted to do was go home, cut down cherry trees and bang Martha y'think?

Shouldn't we take his picture down or at least draw mustaches on it or something?
Maybe mayor Quinta  (Manchester NH) will ask for a post mortem resignation because George Washington's words send the wrong message to the school kids?

Maybe we should rewrite the history books and delete all references to George Washington, whaddya think?

Free Libertarian, back in Washington's time, the USA wasn't even close to being the great nation that it is today. There was thuggery, lawlessness, insurrection, rebellion, and all around anarchy all over the place. In fact up until very recently, there was a disturbing amount of organized crime in America, too. Don't believe me, read any history book.

Somewhere along the line, we as a society decided that we had to move above the thuggery, lawlessness, rebellion, anarchy, and organized crime that was the norm in early and middle America. Drugs such as hemp were made illegal as part of that move.

[Luke S]

They should be fined and sentenced to community service...

So they should be robbed and enslaved. And... you're a libertarian. 

First of all, I never said I was a libertarian. In fact at the very beginning I very explicitly said I was not a libertarian. I am a hard-core, right-wing conservative.

Secondly, community service is not slavery, nor are fines robbery. That fact is made clear in the famed 14th "Anti-Slavery" Amendment. Although slavery was abolished, they made sure to write the Amendment to make it very clear that involuntary servitude could still be used as a punishment for a crime. Now up until recently, a criminal could be sentenced to hard labor in prison, where they would have to break big rocks into little rocks and such.

Now fast forward to today, where reforms have been instituted so criminals no longer have to engage in hard labor. Instead, they engage in easy labor, such as making license plates.

[dalebert]

Secondly, community service is not slavery, nor are fines robbery.

I don't see how you can possibly establish that until you answer that question that was posed earlier, i.e. where does government gets the authority to do those things. What makes it "special"? And history has already proven that a majority doesn't establish authority. Majorities supported inter-racial marriage and Hitler, just as a couple of examples. And if you're going to say the Constitution, please tell me what's magical about it vs. if I write something down on a piece of paper.

[alohamonkey]

Actually I don't think anybody should go to jail for marijuana posession. They should be fined and sentenced to community service building the U.S.-Mexico border wall. And the amount of time that they have to spend building that wall should be proportional to the amount of marijuana that they had. And the fine they paid should go towards buying materials for building the wall.

Oh, and if you guys think noone has ever built part of the wall as a community service punishment for a criminal act, then you guys are wrong. I remember reading once how two men who ran a business in California that were caught hiring illegal immigrants were fined and sentenced to community service building that border wall, so it's not unprecedented.

Luke, you are aware that one of the companies that is building the border fence was caught hiring illegal aliens, right?  What should their community service be?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6626823

[AntonLee]

Actually I don't think anybody should go to jail for marijuana posession. They should be fined and sentenced to community service building the U.S.-Mexico border wall. And the amount of time that they have to spend building that wall should be proportional to the amount of marijuana that they had. And the fine they paid should go towards buying materials for building the wall.

you're fucking INSANE. . . I'll do the same community service that I do NOW because I want to.  I won't go build your FUCKING RACIST border fence, not even if I did something that was REALLY wrong.

Smoking weed is not wrong, you just don't like it.  Here you go, the two shits I give for what it is you like and don't like.  For all I care, you can go down to the fence on the border and bury yourself in a pillar.  I don't care what you think is best for the 'country'. . . if you want a border fence, I suggest you and all the racist fucks go buy the land, build the damn thing yourself. 

[AntonLee]

First of all, I never said I was a libertarian. In fact at the very beginning I very explicitly said I was not a libertarian. I am a hard-core, spineless, dickless, right-wing racist piece of shit conservative.

all better now.

[KBCraig]

Actually I don't think anybody should go to jail for marijuana posession. They should be fined and sentenced to community service building the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

And if they refuse to build? Refuse to dig one posthole, drive one stake, stretch one piece of fence?

If you answer, "Okay then, go on home", then you truly don't support throwing them in jail. But if you think they should be thrown in jail until they build the fence, then, well... you're simply dishonest when you claim jail shouldn't be part of the punishment for possessing marijuana.

[Luke S]

Secondly, community service is not slavery, nor are fines robbery.

I don't see how you can possibly establish that until you answer that question that was posed earlier, i.e. where does government gets the authority to do those things. What makes it "special"? And history has already proven that a majority doesn't establish authority. Majorities supported inter-racial marriage and Hitler, just as a couple of examples. And if you're going to say the Constitution, please tell me what's magical about it vs. if I write something down on a piece of paper.

Ok, so let's assume that the government doesn't have the ability to do these things. Well then, the government doesn't have the ability to enforce the laws. And then what do you have? You have anarchy. And anarchy in reality is anything but what some of you folks think it is. In reality, it is not too far off what Thomas Hobbes says it is in his Leviathan. It is a wretched condition in which life is "nasty, brutish, and short".

Now I disagree with Hobbes in that I do not believe that government must be a Leviathan in order to keep anarchy from happening. But I also think that if it is a Mouse, anarchy will surely happen.

Now what used to happen throughout much of history is that kings, when asked by people like you why they had the right to rule, would respond that God had given them Divine Right to rule.

Since the decline of religion happened, we don't live in the days of Divine Right anymore.

So what has to happen now instead is people have to make sure that all their children are educated in the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and people like that. Not to say that Hobbes and Locke are absolutely right, but I believe them to be the best political philosophers for children to start out with, because they help children to understand why government has to exist.

Furthermore relevant to this topic is one of the first things I was taught when I began my studies of History and Social Studies in middle school: the difference between a civilized society and an uncivilized society.

I remember my teacher saying that one of the hallmarks of a civilized society is a strong central government. And I remember her saying that one of the telltale signs that a society was an uncivilized society was that it had no strong central government. It is quite clear that my teacher was correct in this assertion, as if you look at all the countries where lawlessness reigns supreme, none of them have ever been very successful, and I would even go so far as to say they are a little bit uncivilized.

That is why even though I am a big believer in states' rights, I believe that there is a limit to states' rights, lest we lose the characteristic of having a strong central government, and go to having a weak central government.

Now if we went to having a weak central government, would we automatically become uncivilized? Probably not, but we would not be the superpower that we are today, and our internal affairs would be very chaotic.

[J’raxis 270145]

I remember my teacher saying that one of the hallmarks of a civilized society is a strong central government. And I remember her saying that one of the telltale signs that a society was an uncivilized society was that it had no strong central government. It is quite clear that my teacher was correct in this assertion, as if you look at all the countries where lawlessness reigns supreme, none of them have ever been very successful, and I would even go so far as to say they are a little bit uncivilized.

The United States built itself to the "greatness" it supposedly is nowadays with a weak central government. Westward expansion happened with practically no government in place. Nowadays, with the government as powerful as it is, the U.S. is going backwards: losing ground economically, scientifically, &c., to its competitors.

Holland built its commercial empire when the government got out of the way of private economic interests and let them grow and compete unconstrained and unregulated.

Rome gained much of its territory during its republican and early imperial days. As the central government became more powerful and oppressive, that went downhill fast.

Need more examples?


[I assume you're defining "success" in terms of economic wealth, territorial expansion, or the other typical things nation-states usually use to consider themselves "successful."]

[dalebert]

Ok, so let's assume that the government doesn't have the ability to do these things.

Yes, let's. That was my point. Doding the question Luke! You've established a DESIRE for government to have this authority. Now tell me where it comes from. Believing in Heaven doesn't cause it to exist. You can say we must believe in heaven; otherwise we will just die when we die. Guess what, Luke. Either it exists or it doesn't whether you believe in it or not.

This thing you have put your faith in, this government, doesn't exist. Where the FUCK does this authority come from? Quit dodging the question. You can continue to live in denial, in this fantasy land you have created, or you will have to one day face the cold hard reality. We have to face that reality and deal with it if we ever really want to live in a civilized society. What we have now isn't even remotely civilized. Practically every American thinks the government needs a major overhaul and has serious problems, but they won't ever fix it until they realize what the problem is. They've concocted this nanny state out of wishes and dreams and pink unicorns. They've tried to conjure something into existence that simply doesn't exist. Sure, there are people in uniforms, black robes, badges, politicians with fancy titles working in elaborate buildings, but they're all just acting out a play, perpetuating this lie. This moral superiority, this claim to special rights to rule over the child-like peons, that thing that needs to be at the heart of this elaborate play to make it mean something is nonexistent. That's why our government is nothing but an ultra-powerful mafia. They aren't morally pure; not even close. We've handed over our personal power to a massive crime ring and they're taking advantage of it. If you want us to live in a civilized society, you have to make that realization. Maybe years from now, when you've been struggling to "fix" this thing, you'll realize why you're wasting your time. It's rotten at the core and needs to be replaced entirely with something morally consistent.