Latest drug addict loons.

[ladajo]

Man, you guys really suck at history.

Toss out a couple of misrepresented factoids, and base whole strings of disconnected false logic on it.

Protesting does not include the right to risk the life of fellow protestors, non-protestors, nor public safety representatives. Protesting is making your point without harming or causing harm to others or their stuff. Don't any of you propagandized idiots understand the difference between peaceful gathering and insurgency? The founding fathers did. And if you don't think that the Agents Provacatur that were running around this country in the 50s, 60s and 70s propagandizing your parents and I suspect grandparents in some cases, you are a niave idiot. I can also assure you that those Agents of disinformation also well understood the difference as well. It is their busines to confuse the useful idiots into acting for them. Part of that is convincing them that insurgency is peaceful protest.

As for the touted facts and reasons behind military actions in Korea and Viet Nam, I would be more than happy to gut your silliness. Let us start with the first idea that "Cambodia" was a "Country".
Let's also think about US use of Force in Viet Nam, and willingness to go "all out". We can look at North Korea as well if you wish. But understand beofre you argue that the decision to use military force, is not just a military one. We have been making these types of decisions as a nation using some form of the now called "DIME" construct for a long time. I would (and have successfully) argue that this decision basis process goes back to our founding days. It is one that most times the population is ignorant of (by choice).

Taking military action in Cambodia, Loas, and other places has no bearing on the rights of so called "protestors", whom I believe should be called useful idiots or puppets, to present physical harm to other's property or health. And yes, bringing a rock to gunfight is a stupid idea. But that is part of the propaganda effort as well. It helps "inflame the masses" with "martyrs". This type of manipulated behaviour occurs everyday on the world stage. And has been doing such for all of recorded history. You think the handlers of the "martyrd" Palistinian teenagers gave a rats ass about them? They only gave/give a rats ass about using thier mangled bodies to propaganda ends. The best way to get them mangled, convince them that throwing rocks at people with guns is a good idea. Contrary to propaganda, throwing a rock at someone is lethal force. And has been since we started using rocks to make our points with others. If you stand in front of my family with a rock, and you look to throw it at me or them, I am going to pull my gun and tell you to stop. If you do not, I will shoot you, and my intent will be to kill. I also wager that my actions will stand up in most courts of law with a jury of my peers.

Idiots.

[choff]

I recall reading somewhere that in the Arab countries non Muslims were called dhimmis and small Muslim children were encouraged to throw rocks at them, all the better to make them convert, the dhimmis were not allowed to retaliate of course. So when the Palestinians throw rocks at the former dhimmis now in Israel, the ones who had to evacuate from the Arab countries around '47, the rock throwing carries a special significance. That's why when they get a rock thrown at the car by some Palestinian kid they get out with an Uzi and start shooting back, maybe I read it wrong?

[MSimon]

"protestors", whom I believe should be called useful idiots or puppets

Unlike the supporters of the drug combine (government/cartels) who are clearly independent thinkers.

Funny - quite a few of those who are against the "enemy" (N. Korea, Afghanistan, etc.) favor the system that provides those enemies with significant foreign exchange. Vice a system like the Swiss have implemented which nearly eliminates the Black Market.

I have never had it explained properly why maintaining a system which supports our enemies is in our interest.

My attitude? Useful idiots all around.

[GIThruster]

I have never had it explained properly why maintaining a system which supports our enemies is in our interest.

Yes you have. Many, many times. If you want to be taken seriously, simon; you need to stop lying. I know. You're a druggie. It's in your bones. You just can't think about honor or integrity, or refraining from saying and writing what is not true. You are incapable. That part of your humanity has been stripped from you. You have no concerns whatsoever about truth. However, until you stop lying, no one is going to take you seriously.

[Stubby]

I presume you are referring to Korea. If that be the case, then no we didn't. Had we applied the effort we used on Germany and Japan, there would be no "North" Korea.

U.S. warplanes dropped more napalm and bombs on North Korea than they did during the whole Pacific campaign of World War II.

Sounds like they were using kid gloves.

What part of what I said did you not comprehend? And then you falsely imply that the numbers of bombs are somehow a proxy for effectiveness, in regards to how the war was waged against Japan, as compared to Korea.

We dropped 600,000 tons on Korea. We dropped nearly 3 million tons on Europe.

And North Korea, in 1950, represented the same level of threat of either Germany and/or Japan? Did you write the script for the re-booted Red Dawn movie or something?

[Diogenes]

I presume you are referring to Korea. If that be the case, then no we didn't. Had we applied the effort we used on Germany and Japan, there would be no "North" Korea.

And North Korea, in 1950, represented the same level of threat of either Germany and/or Japan? Did you write the script for the re-booted Red Dawn movie or something?

Apart from the fact you are moving the discussion goal posts, I will point out that Mao was at one time quite opposable by Chiang Kai Sheck, and had Truman giving him the aircraft and support he asked for at the appropriate time, 100 million dead might have been avoided along with the Korean war.

Had Hitler been opposed when he invaded the Sudetenland millions of deaths might have been avoided. A small threat often grows into a big threat without suitable intervention at the appropriate time. Had we used German level of destruction on North Korea, we very likely would not be now facing the potential of a North Korean nuke.

[paperburn1]

sorry wrong thread

[Stubby]

I presume you are referring to Korea. If that be the case, then no we didn't. Had we applied the effort we used on Germany and Japan, there would be no "North" Korea.

And North Korea, in 1950, represented the same level of threat of either Germany and/or Japan? Did you write the script for the re-booted Red Dawn movie or something?

Apart from the fact you are moving the discussion goal posts, I will point out that Mao was at one time quite opposable by Chiang Kai Sheck, and had Truman giving him the aircraft and support he asked for at the appropriate time, 100 million dead might have been avoided along with the Korean war.

Had Hitler been opposed when he invaded the Sudetenland millions of deaths might have been avoided. A small threat often grows into a big threat without suitable intervention at the appropriate time. Had we used German level of destruction on North Korea, we very likely would not be now facing the potential of a North Korean nuke.

Hindsight is wonderful.
It also doesn't prove things would have better or worse then they were.

[Diogenes]

Drug find means hikers may be charged for search

Cendoya was found three days after he and Jack disappeared. She was found four days later. Both were dehydrated and delirious, and remembered little of their ordeal, including how they were separated. They also said they had hallucinations, with Jack saying she thought she was being attacked by animals.

"They didn't go out there to hike, they went out there to get high. And they got disoriented," Orange County board supervisor Todd Spitzer told the Los Angeles Times

http://news.yahoo.com/drug-means-hikers ... 32585.html



These people are NEVER made to pay for the damage they cause. The Libertarians ignore this because they don't want to do the math honestly. It wrecks their argument.

[Teahive]

These people are NEVER made to pay for the damage they cause. The Libertarians ignore this because they don't want to do the math honestly. It wrecks their argument.

Explain. Personal responsibility is part of the Libertarian argument.

[MSimon]

These people are NEVER made to pay for the damage they cause. The Libertarians ignore this because they don't want to do the math honestly. It wrecks their argument.

The costs of Prohibition is never part of the Prohibitionist argument.

When was the last time you heard: "I support drug cartels because I prefer them in charge of drug distribution"?

Or "I don't care if cannabinoids are a panacea for repair of the body and its endocannabinoid system and is potentially and actually a cure for a host of diseases including cancer. I don't like hippies and other assorted scum that get high on the stuff. The stuff must remain illegal despite 75% public support for medical use."

My argument is: Ending Alcohol Prohibition didn't solve our alcohol problem. It did greatly reduce the gang problem. I expect ending drug prohibition (the support for ending pot prohibition is above 50%) will have similar results re: drugs.

These law enforcement people agree with me: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

And are you willing to take responsibility for all the dead from lack of useful medicine - that rather dwarfs the cost of a search for missing dopers.

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/05/mari ... my-cancer/

Los Angeles City Council member Bill Rosendahl: “I thanked God… …medical marijuana has saved my life.”

===========

You have a lot of dead people to account for D. And not just the murders the drug gangs do in support of their trade.

And I haven't even mentioned the 9% drop in traffic fatalities in med pot states as alkys switch to pot.

That is quite a death toll being racked up by your favorite government program. You care to take personal responsibility?

[Diogenes]

These people are NEVER made to pay for the damage they cause. The Libertarians ignore this because they don't want to do the math honestly. It wrecks their argument.

Explain. Personal responsibility is part of the Libertarian argument.

In an abstract sense. In a practical sense it never is. Who pays for children born out of wedlock? Who pays for people killed by drunk drivers? Who pays for people who overdose while leaving behind young children? Who pays for spreading AIDS or some other disease?


Nobody. That's who. People are victimized, but libertarians never count the harm in their arguments.

[krenshala]

These people are NEVER made to pay for the damage they cause. The Libertarians ignore this because they don't want to do the math honestly. It wrecks their argument.

Explain. Personal responsibility is part of the Libertarian argument.

In an abstract sense. In a practical sense it never is. Who pays for children born out of wedlock? Who pays for people killed by drunk drivers? Who pays for people who overdose while leaving behind young children? Who pays for spreading AIDS or some other disease?


Nobody. That's who. People are victimized, but libertarians never count the harm in their arguments.

Who pays for this now? Why do you imply that is because of libertarians?

From my understanding the libertarians want to return the cost of this to those that are directly responsible/involved.

[MSimon]

Who pays for people killed by drunk drivers?

Well I want to do something about that.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/w ... ic-deaths/

At the very least reduce the carnage if the "who pays" problem is not immediately solvable. But I'm with the Libertarians. He who causes damages pays.

[MSimon]

Further suppose you heard Senator Portman say:

He has concerns about substance abuse overall in Ohio, most notably when it comes to heroin.

“It can devastate your life and it has for many people,” Portman said.

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/ ... confirmed/

Now suppose he had said:

"Pain can devastate your life, that is especially true for those who need regular heroin administration for relief."

Should we be fighting drugs or fixing (where we can) the pain?