Talk-Polywell.org

we will soon controll the police not you! And they shoot minorities now ;but they will shoot who ever is in power tells them to shoot! When we get in power and tell them to shoot rich old white conservitives

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/11/near ... tion-date/

Thanks "conservatives" for building up the police state to "fight" drugs. There is obviously a plan to retarget those police against you. Or at least a fervent wish to do so.

So you have to ask yourself. Are drugs more dangerous than a police state? And why didn't you think of that sooner?

SWAT teams in every city and village.

When TSHTF the irony will be delicious. I do think Liberty will come out on top. But the fight will be ferocious.

The police now shoot at vans full of kids, at least in New Mexico.

Stubby wrote:The police now shoot at vans full of kids, at least in New Mexico.

I liked this comment:

Yes. She could have had illegal plants or liquids in her car. Better the entire family be slaughtered than suffer even the most minor Transgression against the police state.

http://myfox8.com/2013/11/18/new-mexico ... ffic-stop/

Ah. New Mexico. The Anal Probe State.

"First, medical staff observed her making a bowel movement and no drugs were found at that point," Schauer Ives said. "They then took an X-ray, but it did not reveal any contraband. They then did a cavity search and they probed her vagina and her anus, they described in the medical records as bi-manual -- two handed. Finally, they did a CT scan. Again they found nothing."

<snip>

"I think law enforcement has been emboldened, particularly when it comes to drug interdiction,” Schauer Ives said, according to Associated Press. “It's kind of anything goes. You couple that with drug interdiction at the border and you have a recipe for serious civil liberties violations."

http://www.ibtimes.com/new-mexico-anal- ... ictim-come

Evidently innocence is no defense. Thanks "conservatives".

MSimon wrote:

Stubby wrote:The police now shoot at vans full of kids, at least in New Mexico.

I liked this comment:

Yes. She could have had illegal plants or liquids in her car. Better the entire family be slaughtered than suffer even the most minor Transgression against the police state.

http://myfox8.com/2013/11/18/new-mexico ... ffic-stop/

Ah. New Mexico. The Anal Probe State.

"First, medical staff observed her making a bowel movement and no drugs were found at that point," Schauer Ives said. "They then took an X-ray, but it did not reveal any contraband. They then did a cavity search and they probed her vagina and her anus, they described in the medical records as bi-manual -- two handed. Finally, they did a CT scan. Again they found nothing."

<snip>

"I think law enforcement has been emboldened, particularly when it comes to drug interdiction,” Schauer Ives said, according to Associated Press. “It's kind of anything goes. You couple that with drug interdiction at the border and you have a recipe for serious civil liberties violations."

http://www.ibtimes.com/new-mexico-anal- ... ictim-come

Evidently innocence is no defense. Thanks "conservatives".

Up until now MSIMON the perceived cost of the war on drugs, (mass incarceration, police abuses, 50K dead Mexicans, etc.) have been born by poor neighborhoods. The perceived benefits by wealthy white neighborhoods (keeping our kids safe), if it takes a boot on the neck of the undesirables to accomplish this so much the better. But now inevitably the police state being slowly created by the War on Drugs (& Terror, a Patriot Act passes without being read by most of the Congress that passed it), it starting to metastasize, beyond those comfortable limits. Add to that the 800lb gorilla, asset forfeiture, finally the people at large are starting to take notice

MSimon wrote:

we will soon controll the police not you! And they shoot minorities now ;but they will shoot who ever is in power tells them to shoot! When we get in power and tell them to shoot rich old white conservitives

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/11/near ... tion-date/

Simon, you really should stop quoting Schneibster.

MSimon wrote: Thanks "conservatives" for building up the police state to "fight" drugs. There is obviously a plan to retarget those police against you. Or at least a fervent wish to do so.

So you have to ask yourself. Are drugs more dangerous than a police state? And why didn't you think of that sooner?

Fallacy of false choice. We get a police state FASTER if we allow drug usage to spread.

MSimon wrote: SWAT teams in every city and village.

When TSHTF the irony will be delicious. I do think Liberty will come out on top. But the fight will be ferocious.

I think the Confirmation bias is strong in this one.

williatw wrote:
Up until now MSIMON the perceived cost of the war on drugs, (mass incarceration, police abuses, 50K dead Mexicans, etc.) have been born by poor neighborhoods. The perceived benefits by wealthy white neighborhoods (keeping our kids safe), if it takes a boot on the neck of the undesirables to accomplish this so much the better. But now inevitably the police state being slowly created by the War on Drugs (& Terror, a Patriot Act passes without being read by most of the Congress that passed it), it starting to metastasize, beyond those comfortable limits. Add to that the 800lb gorilla, asset forfeiture, finally the people at large are starting to take notice

Don't buy into Simon's propaganda, the move towards totalitarianism is a function of the disintegration of society, and has little to nothing to do with the war on drugs. Sure, the war on drugs may speed it along a bit, but we would still be moving in that direction with or without the war on drugs.


Soviet Russia didn't have a "War on Drugs" and they still ended up with a totalitarian State. Same thing with Germany and Italy. There are simply those people in any society that thinks government should be in control of everything. Sometimes these people convince enough of the others to make it happen.

MSimon wrote:
If I was a betting man I’d place very strong wagers against the liberal mind set. Economic difficulties have a way of reverting humans to tribal behavior. Whites are currently 63% of the US population. I think the “Progressives” have moved a few decades too soon in their rush to implement their program. It will be the death of them. Hubris will meet nemesis.

Most astute comment in your posting.


Tribalism is inherent in Human nature. It was Christianity that asserted the "All men are Brothers" stuff. Tolerance of people who are obviously different is an artificially synthesized human virtue which owes it's existence to that Christianity stuff. Christianity was the original "Liberalism."


Groups of like characteristics instinctively band together for common protection, especially in times of distress. That this tendency could even be put aside at all was due to a widespread belief in a higher power that counted all people as being equal.


Since Liberals have been breaking down the pillars of civil society with their attacks on the roots of Civilization (Western thought and Religion), I think they are about to recreate the Charge of the Light Brigade for themselves.

Diogenes wrote:Fallacy of false choice. We get a police state FASTER if we allow drug usage to spread.

Agreed. The fasted way to a police state is allowing the feces to hit the rotary impeller so people demand whatever level of force is needed to restore order. An overwhelming number of leftist positions might as well be designed to bring that about.

hanelyp wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Fallacy of false choice. We get a police state FASTER if we allow drug usage to spread.

Agreed. The fasted way to a police state is allowing the feces to hit the rotary impeller so people demand whatever level of force is needed to restore order. An overwhelming number of leftist positions might as well be designed to bring that about.

If we assumed legalized and completely unregulated I would actually agree. But I don't see how you would get legalization without the inevitable regulations even if you tried, the folks opposed to it would insist on it.

Diogenes wrote:

williatw wrote:
Up until now MSIMON the perceived cost of the war on drugs, (mass incarceration, police abuses, 50K dead Mexicans, etc.) have been born by poor neighborhoods. The perceived benefits by wealthy white neighborhoods (keeping our kids safe), if it takes a boot on the neck of the undesirables to accomplish this so much the better. But now inevitably the police state being slowly created by the War on Drugs (& Terror, a Patriot Act passes without being read by most of the Congress that passed it), it starting to metastasize, beyond those comfortable limits. Add to that the 800lb gorilla, asset forfeiture, finally the people at large are starting to take notice

Don't buy into Simon's propaganda, the move towards totalitarianism is a function of the disintegration of society, and has little to nothing to do with the war on drugs. Sure, the war on drugs may speed it along a bit, but we would still be moving in that direction with or without the war on drugs.


Soviet Russia didn't have a "War on Drugs" and they still ended up with a totalitarian State. Same thing with Germany and Italy. There are simply those people in any society that thinks government should be in control of everything. Sometimes these people convince enough of the others to make it happen.

I will concede as much...if the WOD had never happened those who wish to rule us would just have found another excuse. Look at McCarthyism in the '50's..if that hadn't been nipped we would probably be in a police state already. The left and right are just as prone toward the impulse to rule, just use different rationales to justify such, seem to end up in the same place. Whether they are saving us from some sort of threat, real or imagined, internal or external (the right), or liberal desire to make society more “fair”, “just”, “equitable” (the left), the both want the same thing power.

williatw wrote:

hanelyp wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Fallacy of false choice. We get a police state FASTER if we allow drug usage to spread.

Agreed. The fasted way to a police state is allowing the feces to hit the rotary impeller so people demand whatever level of force is needed to restore order. An overwhelming number of leftist positions might as well be designed to bring that about.

If we assumed legalized and completely unregulated I would actually agree. But I don't see how you would get legalization without the inevitable regulations even if you tried, the folks opposed to it would insist on it.

What sort of regulation might work on crack or heroin? The people I used to know who did crack would go on a three day binge, during which their only interest was in finding and smoking more crack.


Don't see them agreeing to any sort of limit on it.

Diogenes wrote: Don't see them agreeing to any sort of limit on it.

Come now...don't see what they would "agree" to being important, after all who cares what a bunch of non-voting crack-heads think anyway? Not interested in pleasing them, they will take what they can get. To answer your question, Heroin if ever legal would perhaps be sold as "HEROX" a dilute form maybe <5% pure cut with something by licensed providers, many times cheaper than illegal albeit more concentrated alternatives. Doubt if crack in any form would ever be legal, regulated does sometimes mean, yes still banned. I am a practical Libertarian not a fanatic; as you must know I believe in the 2nd amendment (strongly), doesn't mean I think loaded Bazookas should be sold at Walmart next to the crack & pure Heroin.

Well try this one:

Fallacy of false choice. We get a police state FASTER if we allow alcohol usage to spread.

Please explain how allowing people to do what they want spreads the police state. I thought the police state spread faster when alcohol was prohibited.

======================

Anal probes and vaginal probes slow the spread of the police state? Please explain that.

Detaining people for improbable cause slows the spread of the police state?

==============

"Conservatives" are just as delusional as Progressives. Just about different things.

hanelyp wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Fallacy of false choice. We get a police state FASTER if we allow drug usage to spread.

Agreed. The fasted way to a police state is allowing the feces to hit the rotary impeller so people demand whatever level of force is needed to restore order. An overwhelming number of leftist positions might as well be designed to bring that about.

And we can slow the spread of the police state by instituting a police state to prevent the spread of drugs.

Anal probe everyone.

For women anal and vagina probes. That will double the rate of reduction of the spread of the police state compared to only anally probing men.

====================

And pray tell why don't we outlaw alcohol to prevent the spread of disorder? We know alcohol cause 10X the disorder of all illegal drugs combined.

====================

Fortunately we have a President who is determined to use the Federal Government to prevent the spread of illegal drugs. Four more years! Because he is just as Progressive as the "conservatives" on that issue.

Heaven help us if Rand Paul gets elected.

MSimon wrote:Well try this one:

Fallacy of false choice. We get a police state FASTER if we allow alcohol usage to spread.

Please explain how allowing people to do what they want spreads the police state.

Easy. When what they want results in anarchy, a police state is empowered to deal with it. Note the ascendancy of Mao after the collapse of Drug addicted China.

MSimon wrote:
I thought the police state spread faster when alcohol was prohibited.

You are always going on about prohibition, but the history of alcohol usage and effects bears little resemblance to the history of hard drugs and their effects. I know it's a useful strawman for you, but it isn't even close to accurate.

MSimon wrote:

Anal probes and vaginal probes slow the spread of the police state? Please explain that.

Detaining people for improbable cause slows the spread of the police state?

Non sequitur. Nothing to explain. You want to falsely conflate one sort of abuse of authority with the ascendancy of a police state, and yet it isn't.


The Irish cops around the turn of the century broke plenty of heads and committed plenty of abuses, but no one was arguing that this constituted a police state.

MSimon wrote:"Conservatives" are just as delusional as Progressives. Just about different things.

Alternatively, Libertarians are deluded, and conservatives are objectively correct.


It's hard to take people seriously when they regard stop signs as totalitarian.