AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2005 > June > 14 > Entry
Should medical marijuana be legalized?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Conservatives’ defense of state’s rights over the Goliath of federal government intervention verges on the pathological. So it seems a teeny bit hypocritical for Republicans in Congress to suddenly support the recent Supreme Court ruling that federally outlaws medical marijuana in the 10 states that legalized it for medicinal purposes.
But perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised. Enlightened conservative discourse on the topic of marijuana harkens back at least to 1937, when Harry Anslinger, the then U.S. Commissioner of Narcotics, testified: ” … marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”
Now I’m not arguing that conservatives today would still champion Anslinger’s view, but our perceptions of marijuana remain laden with prejudice that should not be allowed to hinder medical progress. There’s a dark side to every medical issue. But conservatives are so overly concerned with the “slippery slope,” they assume complex issues are unmanageable and that evil will undoubtedly triumph. That may be true in the pages of the Old Testament but much of medical history is based on risk and experimentation. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t have vaccinations, heart transplants or any number of routine medical procedures we benefit from today.
Administered under a doctor’s care, marijuana alleviates pain and the nausea experienced by cancer and AIDS patients, according to Institute of Medicine research. Admittedly, research on the therapeutic benefits of marijuana is still thin. Richard Cowan, Director of The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, says that marijuana research is “blocked at every turn,” and adds that renowned AIDS doctor, Dr. Donald Abrams, couldn’t obtain approval for research on marijuana as an appetite stimulant in AIDS patients for five years.
While some argue medical marijuana can be addictive, few would contend it has the same dependency risk as the medications hospitals routinely administer for debilitating pain. Conservatives aren’t clamoring for hospitals to turn off the morphine drip for dying cancer patients because there’s a heroin problem in the world. But they want to draw a line in the sand over medical marijuana? Please. Show me the logic.
Rebuttal
First, a disclaimer: My family history makes it extremely difficult for me to be objective about the legalization of drugs. But since our story is all too common, it is, unfortunately, instructive. My teenage uncle lived with us as I was growing up, filling the role of my older brother. In the 1970’s, few resources explained the dangers of his “casual� marijuana use, or provided tools to counter the common snare of needing ever more intake to get the same high. As with so many other promising young people, marijuana caused a host of negative physical and psychological effects and became a “gateway drug� that led to others, a changed personality and desperation. At 23, my special big brother took his own life, and irrevocably changed ours. In response, my parents founded and ran the National Drug Abuse Foundation for years.
Growing up around stacks of clinical research on the medical and psychological dangers of marijuana makes it impossible for me to agree with medical legalization of backyard weed. Much less to agree that the current state-by-state patchwork is safe, where a 51% popular referendum can bypass and contravene the hundred-year-old system – developed for the public safety — of FDA approval of medications. While Institute of Medicine research does indicate that THC (pot’s active ingredient) is an effective treatment for chemo-related nausea, the Institute concludes that “smoked marijuana, however, is a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances.” In fact, THC-based medications like Marinol have already been developed that do not carry the risks of marijuana. I suspect that pro-medical marijuana opinions are less about ensuring the availability of treatments unavailable anywhere else, and more about legally getting high.
When I oppose legalizing backyard marijuana, I am not being heartless toward those with chronic conditions who use it to relieve their suffering. By championing other effective, controlled options, I am trying to spare other individuals and the public health the even greater suffering from, yes, that “slippery slope� that countless of us have experienced firsthand: that marijuana is not a harmless drug and its use can go terribly awry.
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Brian Curtis
June 20, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this
Of course it should. Not only do sick people find it helpful in addressing their symptoms (and anyone who opposes that has more evil bubbling in their skulls than I’d care to encounter), but the anti-marijuana hysteria is ridiculous anyway.
There’s no denying that the great War on Drugs has been a colossal, and costly, failure. And anyone who tries to defend it is immediately confronted with the sheer hypocrisy of having alcohol and nictone—both of them far more harmful than pot—legal while trying to criminalize the use of marijuana, which has not a single death to its “credit.”
What’s interesting to me is that this is one area where the economic-conservative and moral-conservative groups part company. The pro-business Right couldn’t care less about drug use; the Religious Reich is bitterly opposed to anything that could lead to happiness and enjoyment. It’ll be interesting to see if this can be another wedge along the lines of the Schiavo case.
By Ben
June 20, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this
I agree with Brian Curtis. I think the problem the governmnet has with marijuana is that is hasn’t figured out an effective way to regulate it and make money off of it yet. But I’m sure when they do, R.J. Reynolds and the tobacco industry already have a plan.
They don’t want to prescribe it because once someone has a precription, they won’t go to the pharmacy for fear of persecution from a “morally obligated” pharmacist, not to mention they can pick up a dime bag for 1/3 of the cost.
Who cares, tax it and sell it like cigarettes. That would put a lot of drug dealers out of business and end a little bit of crime. lol!! All of the pot heads would be in the house eating potatoe chips and off the streets peddling Mary-J.
By Bruce
June 20, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this
That’s the problem Ben. Big Brother cannot find a way to tax it because you can grow it anywhere. If they find a way to tax it and can make money from it bingo, pot smokers will be everywhere. Of course beer sells will increase too. (Cottonmouth)
By Tim
June 20, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this
First… my sypathies to Shaunti and her family for having to go through the pain of having a family member commit suicide… I volunteered at a suicide prevention hotline… NOT FUN! but I do have to say we are talking about medical marijuana… not casual use… I don’t see medical marijuana as any different than any other pain killers that are prescribed to people… how many people are addicted to those??? should we outlaw those too… they can lead down a ‘slippery slope’ as well
Second… Ben… thanks for the good laugh… it is VERY MUCH needed on a Monday morning
Third… Bruce… pot smokers already are everywhere… you just don’t see them
By cynikkle
June 20, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this
I wholeheartedly agree with Diane Glass. I have seen many members of my family die from alcohol. My father committed suicide when I was 13, a cousin, my grandfather, an uncle. All dead because of alcohol. WHY IS ALCOHOL LEGAL???
This totally sums it up: “Conservatives aren’t clamoring for hospitals to turn off the morphine drip for dying cancer patients because there’s a heroin problem in the world. But they want to draw a line in the sand over medical marijuana? Please. Show me the logic.”
Please.!!
Now, I know many people that use pot, and not one of them is dead, or on their way to being dead. Nor are they out committing crimes or abusing their wives and children.
I really pray that one day conservatives will get their heads out of the sand, and the bible, and open their minds to what is really working, medically and socially.
Yvonne
By Jason
June 20, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this
This issue highlight the depth of hypocracy here in American. The federal govenrment wil support and actually subsidise the cultivation of one of the most addictive and deadly products know to man, cigarettes & alchol but marijuana which as been proven to not be physically addictive or deadly continues to remain illegal. Non-violent offendeds spending yrs. in jail over nothing for more than a witchhunt . The faces you see of people incarcerated for pot possession are not that of murders or rapist, but people just like you and me going to the 9-5 waiting for payday to come around to pay the rent. The war on drugs is simply a war on people. Fact.. white people use drug just as much as minorties. Why is then that if Sally Whitehead gets poped for prescription pills to get high it’s a medical issue. However, if Jerome Black gets busted for a ounce of pot at a BarbeQue it’s criminal. Selective enforcement. Black people aren’t doing more drugs than white people but blacks are incarcerated two times more than their fairer skinned counterparts for drug related crimes. That to me is suspect. The federal govenrment won’t even allow for states to decide for themselves their own drug policies. It’s crazy I think the people of Californai should be able to deside for themselves whether busting pot users is priority in their state. Just like Sonny Perdue decide that surpressing crystal meth production in Georgia was a priority here in Georgia. How can we as a mondern society truely learn the benefits and cons if marijauna use if unresticted research is not allowed? Tobacco companies can conduct research to figure out how they can make their product more addictive and get more people hooked and tobacco provides exactly no benefit to the community as a whole. Health care for smoker and tobacco product users is a major problem, and yet the companies are alowed to operate with total immunity. Thay have they yet to take responciblity for the millions of people who have died as a direct result of their product. Now, how many people die yearly as a direct result of marijauna, minimal at best. People get high and are going to continue to get high. Cancer/Aids/HIV patients like pot because it helps regain appetite. My fiend who was hit by a druck driver 8 yrs ago likes pot because after his kidney tranplant and continued dialysis he experienced unending nausea. Why not conduct research to determine why? Pot has some very serious medical benefits that should be explored with unfettered research. Feral hemp has many applications for use as a textile capital resource. but thats not an option because Politicans don’t care about innovation and forward think they just wanna build their little nest eggs while Americans suffer. Some people say, ” Oh they just want to get high that’s recreationl”. Well, What about the unlucky 40 yr male with erectile dysfuction, he still wants to get laid, wife and kids ya know, he needs it, it’s legal for me to take an addictive drug to get a boner, but a person sufering from depression can’t use marijauna to relieve anziety or physical symtoms of emotional stess. Resposible drug policy will protect all Americans from illegal dangerous drugs and Empower All Americans to persue whatever means necccessary to live their live to fullest.
By Ben
June 20, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this
Bruce - It can become an industry. All of the illegal farmers would sell their crops to the weed companies, who will turn around and process it and sell it. People can go to the corner store and pick up a 20 pack of joints, potatoe chips and yes, natural light. It would boost the economy and the people won’t be so damn uptight.
The people who need it for medicinal purposes, can pick it for $5 a 20 pack instead of the hundreds they would pay as a prescription.
By RS
June 20, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this
First of all, deepest condolences to Shaunti & Cynikkle for the tragic losses in your families….Marijuana for medical purposes? Of course! What’s the harm? If it makes a chronically ill patient feel better, sure! And really, why not an outcry over booze & tobacco, both, in my opinion, infinately worse??? Easy! It’s all about money…
By Bruce
June 20, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this
Tim,
I know they are out there but you can imagine how many more there would be if it were legal.
cynikkle,
As a former pot smoker I can tell you that pot does/did cause many problems for me. I just wish I had the money I spent on that stuff, not to mention the beer and snacks. It cost me a marriage, a home, a job, and many many friends. These are not deadly things but they are very costly.
As for it being addictive, well if it were legalized today I cannot say I wouldn’t pick up the habit again….
By Shannon
June 20, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this
Cynikkle—you’re completely right in your comparison to alcohol. Based on Shaunti’s argument, there’s no reason for alcohol to be legal. Isn’t it funny how conversatives want a Big Brother state on these so-called moral issues?
I would love to see conservatives actually put their head into the Bible—to see such fun facts as how Jesus doesn’t even bother to mention homosexuality, but he tells us that those who don’t clothe the naked and feed the hungry will go straight to hell. Now that’s true Christianity. Priorities, priorities… Look through the Old Testament and see how the prophets put the responsibility for the poor straight at the feet of the government. Hah!
I honestly don’t see how one can be a Christian and a Republican in our time—unless one doesn’t actually read the content of the Bible.
By Brian Curtis
June 20, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this
Quite right, Shannon… but then, many self-professed “Christians” don’t read the Bible anyway.
By Randy
June 20, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this
Well heroin will make you feel much better than pot, why stop at pot? In fact why have any rules, murder, rape etc.
By Ben
June 20, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this
Yeah Randy, why not? lol
By lozen
June 20, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this
This is another no brainer. Yes!
By Brian Curtis
June 20, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this
Typical knee-jerk reaction from Randy, but I’m in a good enough mood to try to educate him.
Randy: We have laws against rape and murder because they hurt people; marijuana does not.
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this
Randy, that is a nonsensical comparison. Legalizing the use of a drug for a specific medical purpose has nothing to do with rape and murder or the end of laws.
This is very simple. There are already prescription drugs on the market that are FAR more addictive than marijuana. There are two reasons why this is an issue. One - Money. The pharmeceutical companies can’t make money off of it and the government can’t tax it. Two - we’ve got this silly societal prejudice against marijuana.
Yes, there are marijuana addicts out there ruining their lives…but there are also alcoholics and pill-heads running around, too. Oxycontin makes pot look tame, yet there are plenty of people hooked on that.
Everyone leaps instantly to assuming that legalizing medical mary-jane equates with legalizing it accross the board. It doesn’t. It just means that some very sick people can use it to easy their pain and suffering, and maybe increase their chances of surviving another day.
It is selfishness and self-righteousness of the highest order to want to prevent these people from using a substance that will help them.
By lozen
June 20, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this
Hey Randy, how would you answer Shannon’s question…. How can someone be a republican and claim to be a christian at the same time? How can republicans slash all programs that help poor people, spend billions on guns and military, (Thou shalt not kill),and still have any credibility when it comes to moral issues? Do republicans only worry about sex … abortion, homosexuality, sex education? I don’t remember Jesus saying anything much about sex, but he did say we are our brothers’keeper. I know the Old testament said people should let the poor have everything from their fields on a regular basis. And Jesus said if someone asked for your cloak, you should give them your cloak and your coat also. Why don’t republicans ever deal with any moral issues except sex? Are you a republican Randy?
By joe
June 20, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this
I smoked a marijuana cigarette and the next thing I knew I was shooting up heroine! NOT! Yes, some people become psychologically dependent on pot. Yes, some people become addicted to alcohol. Yes, some people become addicted to nicotine. Yeah, some people become addicted to t.v. (I pity them the most!) Some people become addicted to just about anything: prescribed medication, sex, war, power, pornography, danger, computer games.
By Paul
June 20, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
Pot is a drug, it causes hallucinations, cigarettes do not! Some of the logic here is one sided, seems alot of potheads read this paper!!! I see people bashing the government, cigarettes, and alcohol! How about cars, they are deadly too, now imagine this……a 72 year old cancer victim, smokes some “medical pot”, gets in her car to go pick up some fresh fruit for the munchies she has, all of a sudden, WHAM kills 10 kids in a school zone, because she smoked “medical Pot”!!!!!! The FDA does not regulate you driving a vehicle while taking prescription drugs, it warns you about it, the police can give you a ticket and also process you for DUI, but how often do you see that!!!!!!!!! Get a grip and talk about something worthwhile, like homeless, or the hungry, or the medical care of the poor, not any California’s wacky laws…..I mean come on, a state that a murderer (yes OJ did it), and a repeated child molester (JACKO, grown men don’t sleep with 8 year old boys) can get off and walk away scott-free!!!!!!!! If most you people put half the effort into your local community as you did here, YOUR world would be a better place!
By Lyrazel
June 20, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
One of the concequences of the War on Drugs was the fact all drugs not manufactured by reputable companies were declared illegal and lumped as narcotics as well as marijuana. For the past 20+ years our country has been bossing other countries around to adapt the War on Drugs to stem the tide of drugs coming into America. 30+ nations, most Latin American nations get their military training at US camps to further this drug war—which of course, the facts say we are loosing. Why? Because we tell the farmers in Peru, dont grow cocoa grow bananas and the USA will buy those bananas and you will make profit legally. So they grow bananas and the US says: hey you must also follow our trade and tarrif and thus bananas rot in warehouses and the poor farmers are stuck because they are too poor to compete with agra-business.
Now, there is no way the USA can open its strong policy against marijuana. We are currently telling Canada no way can you have it available to cancer patients. If we get a teeny bit liberal and say: sure for sick folks, what would stop Mexico, et al, from declaring it legal? What would stop tiny countries like Haiti and other countries from turning to pot production—satiating thousands of tourists. For one, American border patrol that could not keep up with 10 million illegal imigrants certainly wouldnt catch the so many bringing pot in.
The argument that pot cant be regulated by the government is another reason. Tobacco and liquor are difficult to produce and many states still have regulations against home brewing, as well as wine making. There is no way the Bureau has enough people to check every back yard in suburbia for a plant. The problem with pot is it can be grown in every environment and does not need the nurturing and heavy labor that tobacco needs for harvest.
Most of americans in prison are there on drug related charges. Perhaps one of the best reasons pot should be grown is its ability to produce strong fabric as well as paper. As logging takes a horrific toll on natural forests still left in impoverished countries, a new agra-business using hemp would allow a stronger kind of paper production. We have far too many lobbyists in the paper industry who would debunk everything I said—so of course—believe them.
As far as sick people needing the medical benefits, the industry of pill-culture is so firmly established in government that they will not allow pot to be legalized, but when Pfzier/Merrik et al, create an injestable pill—at a cost of billions in taxpayer funded research and development, maybe then.
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this
So Paul, you’re saying that if someone favors the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes they must be a pothead? I don’t think so…talk about one-sided logic.
By the way, that same 72-year old would be equally, if not more, impaired by many of the high-strength pain-killers prescribed for end-stage cancer patients today.
By MS Patient
June 20, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this
As an MS patient, I would like to see medical marijuana legalized. I smoked marijuana for many years and it seemed to help some of the spasticity and pain in my legs. I haven’t smoked it for several years now, and my legs (and MS) are getting worse. From a cost standpoint, growing my own marijuana (or buying legal pot) would be far cheaper than paying for expensive prescription drugs. The current MS drugs cost an average of $1000 a month. Unfortunately, Marinol and other THC derivitives are expensive. It is also difficult to find a Dr. who will prescribe them. Studies also show the derivitives don’t have the same effect on appetite that smoking pot does. This is important for cancer and AIDS patients.
Personally, I think legalizing pot (not just medically) would help society a lot. We would have more space in our jails for real criminals, and our tax dollars would go a lot farther. I read recently that most of our drug enforcement dollars and jail cells are going toward low level marijuana dealers and users, not the folks who are dealing heroin, meth, and other, more dangerous, drugs. Taxing the sale of pot would help governments as well.
As far as Shaunti’s assertion that pot is a gateway drug, she is somewhat correct in a weird sort of way. Pot itself doesn’t cause a user to want a harder drug, but the same folks who sell pot often are the folks who sell harder drugs. Saying pot is a gateway drug is almost the same as saying cigarettes are a gateway to alcohol use.
Is pot good for you? Probably not, but neither are alcohol or cigarettes. When I was a pot smoker, I never got into trouble. I did when I drank. I never felt like I had lost control (or my inhibitions) while high. I certainly did when I got sidewalk kissin’ drunk! I’m older now, and don’t do either any more.
We tried outlawing alcohol, but it didn’t work. Instead, it helped cause the rise of organized crime through bootlegging. Outlawing pot has had the same effect.
By r
June 20, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
Did Shaunti even read Diane’s commentary? While her Uncle’s suicide is regretable to say the least, his drug use has nothing to do with the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes.
By Paul
June 20, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this
Hey, my beliefs! So what is your belief, legalize it because of the government control issues, one sided too, huh?
By Paul
June 20, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this
Here is an idea, all the people who want “medical pot” should move to Nebraska or Kansas, it grows there wild! They have fields of it! I do not want you anywhere near me on the road while you are high!!!!!!
By Ben
June 20, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
Paul, potheads don’t eat fresh fruit, just junk food. You are so lost. lol By the way, you forgot Robert Blake in your little example.
I think the reason we bring up the government and those other examples is because it shows the level of hypocrisy in making marijuana, in particular, medical marijuana, illegal.
Marijuana is a natural substance, those others aren’t. Yet they are produced, sold and taxed all to the governments benefit. Marijuana has actually been proven to provide relief to some fatally-ill people. Last I checked a bottle of Jack Daniels and a pack of Lucky Strikes have very little medical benefit. And despite it’s effects being less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, marijuana is illegal. Why is that? Is there a good reason other than the fact the government hasn’t found a lucrative way to benefit from it?
By Paul
June 20, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
BTW, pot does hurt people, it causes you to loose control, just like alcohol, and do stupid things! I guess no one here has been the victim of a violent crime or vehicular manslaughter where the offender was HIGH on pot!!!!!!!!
By Paul
June 20, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this
Ben, I did forget about him, Gary Conditt too i think.
50 years ago, in the days of the wild west, men were given a bottle of whiskey and a cigarette as the “doctor” pulled out the bullet. Alcohol’s origins in the US started medically, pot did not!
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
Paul, apparently this has happened to you. You’re a perfect example of why anecdotal evidence is irrelevant to most discussions. There are always going to be people who can point to an example of “X” is bad because it personally hurt someone I know.
There are vehicular homicide accidents caused by alcohol, prescription drugs, cell-phones and just simple exhaustion.
By MS Patient
June 20, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
Paul,
No one ever said pot doesn’t have the potential to hurt people. That’s why DWI laws apply to drunks, pot smokers, folks who legally take narcotics, and even folks who’ve are driving while taking Benadryl.
I would suspect that there have been a lot less victims of violent crimes from pot smokers than from folks who were drunk or under the influence of other drugs. Pot (by itself) tends to relax and “mellow out” a person. Other drugs and alcohol don’t. I speak from experience. Do you or are you just to pigheaded to listen. Just another conservative bomb thrower, I guess.
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this
Alcohol’s origins started medicinally?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Wheeze, heh…whew…Thanks for that.
Paul…buddy…seriously…alcohol has been a part of human civilization since we first learned that fruit juice left out for a few days made you a little giddy. And people didn’t use it for “medicinal purposes” (unless they were Southern Baptists who needed a reason to explain why they had whiskey hidden in the cabinet) for the most part, they used it because they enjoyed it.
Yet another example of this puritanical idea that we’re not supposed to enjoy anything.
However, that’s off-topic, as we are talking about medical, and not recreational, use.
By Ben
June 20, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this
Pot don’t kill people, people kill people!
Substitute pot with the word of your choice.
By Paul
June 20, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this
Eaton, actually no, no one i know has been killed or hurt by someone using pot! DUh, people driving while under the influence of alcohol?!??!?!?! You are kidding right!!!
MS Patient, I you were not “high”, you would see where I said someone could be charged with DUI!
WOW!!!, you potheads just read what you want to…..
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this
Paul, instead of calling people potheads…eroneously, I might add, you might try answering the question.
You keep saying that pot shouldn’t be legalized because it might cause an accident, but then when people point out to you that there are many other substances available LEGALLY that are far more contributory to traffic accidents, you ignore them.
What, exactly, is your argument, or do you even have one?
By Paul
June 20, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this
Eaton,
I don’t need a history lesson from a pothead! I know wine and beer where here a long time ago!!!!!!! Rome, Germany……
Hard whiskey (or corn whiskey) was 1st believed to be a cure for most medical conditions here in the US……guess you have never heard of the snake medicine sellers that were in the US in the late 1700’s and 1800’s……also cornfllakes was originally used to supress one’s sexuall hungry!!!!!!!!!
By Paul
June 20, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
Amen Ben!!!!!! ( the southern baptist in me)
By Paul
June 20, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this
I really like that movie Dased and Confused……..
By MS Patient
June 20, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this
Actually, Paul, I did see what you wrote. I also know of instances where folks who are driving impaired (but not on alcohol) are arrested and sent to jail. I have seen it. You evidently read only what you want as well, as you might have read that I haven’t gotten high in several years. Ergo, I’m not high now.
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this
Paul, apparently you do need a history lesson. Those snake-oil salesmen you mentioned didn’t claim to be selling alcohol. They claimed to be selling “miracle tonics” and the like. It so HAPPENED that they were always made of alcohol, but that’s because they were con-men. People didn’t think they were buying whiskey, because whiskey was a hell of a lot cheaper than what was being sold off the backs of wagons.
By the way, here’s history lesson part II for you - beer originated in Egypt, long before Germany OR Rome.
By Paul
June 20, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this
Eaton,
Once again read before you post! I know all things are bad, but pot! I really do not have an argument, I just like to see people rant and rave about things they have no say in anyway……..
BTW, I am not left wing, right wing, republican, democrat or any type of politically party aligned! I could care less about the outcome of any of the topics here, i find them amusing and think these people could spend this time doing soemthing good, or spending time with their kids instead of ranting on the internet!
By Tim
June 20, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
Paul… my grandfather was killed in a car accident… the driver of the other car was on anti-anxiety medication and happened to take too many that morning… the result was the death of my grandfather… should we do away with those medications too?
By Paul
June 20, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this
you guys are hopeless!
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this
Oh, I see Paul…so…what exactly are YOU doing on here, then? Besides jumping to all kinds of conclusions about people, that is. If this is such a waste of time, then…why are you posting?
Go spend time with your kids.
By Ben
June 20, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this
Unlike alcohol Paul, Marijuana grows “naturally.” I guess tobacco does too, but it’s the additives that make it so bad.
By Paul
June 20, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this
I am going to lunch with my daughter. Ya’ll have fun!
By Paul
June 20, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this
Ben,
I know it grows wild! I used to live in nebraska…..it grows in the ditches there…….smoke it right off the stalk if you want, no effect, THC must be added……Moonshine is made from corn, they have to MAKE it into Moonshine, You have to make POT!!!!!!
Eaton,
Because I like to see you rant and rave!
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this
Paul, you are truly a goober…and a really dumb one at that, if you think that THC is added into marijuana.
By Lyrazel
June 20, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this
For many many years derivatives of cocaine were put in soft-drinks hence the name: Coca Cola.
In WWII tobacco was given to all American servicemen in huge amounts and only until 2004 did cigarette rations not be part of military staples. Remember the Chesterfield ads with Ronald Reagan, anyone? 9 out of 10 Doctors recommended Chesterfield for their patients good health.
Rum rations were part of a sailors life and helped prevent scurvy…as far as I know they still get their rations…if wanted.
We are a drug culture. Americans are the #1 pill popping nation in the world and surpass most industrialized nations 2x. We are inundated by doctors and corporations who promote drug use. We have stores filled with pills for everything from weight loss to sedentary albatross relievers and scant are actually regulated. You are a guniea pig for most NEW medicines. We are recipients of junk pill ads. The sexual revolution came via pill form.
Want to see what Canada does; if it goes legal then Mexico and most Latin American countries will jump as legalization. If it doesnt (because of trade links) then we will live with the black market enterpreneurs making billions in untaxed profits our government has no idea how to spend yet.
Are drivers under the influence of pot less dangerous than liquored up drivers? Um, anyone who operates a motor vehicle under any drug is dangerous—however MOST accidents are NOW being caused by cell phone distractions….so, feather your caps with some FYI.
By Len Hoffman
June 20, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this
Should marijuana be legalized for any purposes? While marijuana may be objectionalble to some people, we live in a country that goes to war in the name of freedom, yet back home we tell cancer patients they will go to jail if they smoke a naturally grown substance to relieve their symtoms. Freedom is not freedom if it only conforms to a narrow view of how we all should live. Laws that protect individuals from others recklessness or violence are already on the books. Responsible use of marijuana is almost as common as the responsible use of alcohol. Remember only God can grow a marijuana plant.
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this
Well said, Len.
By Bruce
June 20, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
As a conservative Christian I do not see any harm in using pot for medicinal purposes. If someone can live their last days mellow, hungry and in less pain I say go for it. I do have a problem with it being legal for everyone. Especially me!!!!!
By kimberly
June 20, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
Hey, whom do I call to buy stock in Smith-Merck-Glaxo-ScrewMe-Kline-Welcome? Only drugs that THEY make are good for you, even if two-thirds of Americans can’t afford them!
In fascist Amerikkka, nothing must be allowed except those things that can be packaged by a big corporation at their plants overseas, sold for a profit here at home, and taxed doubly on the consumer. You people who think you have the right to grow an indigenous plant in your back yards and smoke it for your own personal use are just UNPATRIOTIC! You don’t support the troops! You are godless heathens with no family values! You are communists! Why do you hate freedom?
By Ben
June 20, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this
So who adds the THC Paul? LMAO.
FYI, Cigarettes were removed from military rations LONG before 2004. Yet they still gave us matches in our MREs. I think they stopped with the cigarettes in the late 70s early 80s.
By Bruce
June 20, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
Paul,
You weren’t doing too bad until you made the comment that THC was added to pot. You should really spend more time with your kids. After that comment I’ll bet they know more about pot than you do.
By James
June 20, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
Where are our conservatives on this one? Boscoe, we need you! Paul was just playing with us.
I’m not big on using marijuana myself. But, if it helps someone in severe pain, then by all means! You all are correct that marijuana is no where near as harmful as Oxyconton, Alchol or tobacco. I just don’t know why one of the principles of the Republican party is ‘less government’ but when it can get them some votes…….. If it does not harm you, or anyone else, let folks have what they want. Gay marriage, marijuana, etc. Don’t like it, don’t smoke it. Let folks do what God put them here to do: experience life. Stop trying so damn hard to tell other people how to live their lives. (Land of the free my A$$)
Lord-save me from your followers!
By r
June 20, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
CONGRADULATIONS PAUL!!!
You are hereby presented with the high honor of “Most Ill-Informed Post of the Day” with this little gem:
~~~I know it grows wild! I used to live in nebraska…..it grows in the ditches there…….smoke it right off the stalk if you want, no effect, THC must be added……Moonshine is made from corn, they have to MAKE it into Moonshine, You have to make POT!!!!!!~~~
Here, for your information, is the TRUTH:
There are over 400 hundred different chemicals in marijuana, about 60 of which are known as cannabinoids. These chemicals are found nowhere else in nature. The most important cannabinoid in marijuana is a known as delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). THC is the main psychoactive (mind-altering) ingredient in marijuana.
By OH PLEASE
June 20, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
You folks are so NAIVE! The only reason pot isn’t legal is that Smith-Kline or Roche or one of the other pharm cos, doesn’t have a patent and won’t make millions off the sale.
By Paul
June 20, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel,
in the military for 10 years now, never had smokes rationed to me!!!!! You have bad info from somewhere
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
hey Paul, maybe she got it from the same place that told you THC had to be added to marijuana, hmm?
By Paul
June 20, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
Synthetic THC, also known under the substance name dronabinol, is available as a prescription drug (e.g. under the trade name Marinol) in several countries including the USA, The Netherlands, and Germany. In the United States, Marinol is a schedule III drug, available by prescription, considered to be non-narcotic and to have a low risk of physical or mental dependence. Efforts to get cannabis rescheduled as analogous to Marinol have not succeeded.
I know that THC is naturally found in cannabis! The synthetic THC is added to make the effects greater, blue hair, red hair, maui wowie, etc….is not natural pot. Alot of chemicals get added into your typical street pot! (just like SMOKES).
According to Officer Stan Jenkins with the Omaha Narcotics division, Natural Cannabis (ditch weed) found throughout the Heartland of America can be rolled and smoked with little hallucigenetic effects! It is the other chemicals, like brainiac R pointed out, that make you HIGH!!!!
BTW R,
Learn to spell
*James,
Yes I am playing with these people!!!!!!!! They are fun to mess with, amazing the research they will do just to prove your “points” wrong.*
By joe
June 20, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
Oh Please has it right! The alcohol and drug company lobbyists are not going to allow marijuana to be legal for anybody. Who cares? There are plenty of people who can get it for you if you need it. And for a lot less than those pills you’re taking for the side effects of the other pills you’re taking…..
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Actually Paul, it’s just that we like exposing fools for what they are, and trust me sir - you are well exposed.
By Tim
June 20, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
By Paul
June 20, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
BTW, pot does hurt people, it causes you to loose control, just like alcohol, and do stupid things! I guess no one here has been the victim of a violent crime or vehicular manslaughter where the offender was HIGH on pot!!!!!!!!
“… loose control…”
Paul are you really going to criticize someone else’s grammatical errors when you make that mistake???? paaalease… thanks for joining us… you are making me laugh
By Paul
June 20, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
Eaton,
I have you wasting your time, DON’T I????? Who feels foolish now!!!
By Paul
June 20, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
Tim,
I am always here to make people laugh, just amazing how you can get people going, ain’t it?!?!?!
By joe
June 20, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
Marijuana does not make you lose control. Well, it never made anyone I know lose any control. Maybe you’re talking about people, and I have been around a few of those, who just keep smoking and keep smoking but then again they usually go to sleep! It’s a lot like alchol. A cocktail when you get home is one thing; downing a 5th is another. A couple of tokes will mellow you out and you have no trouble driving or doing anything else. If you smoke a pound of pot then you will probably lose control - don’t know because I never did it! But the drug companies would much rather you took a valium or some other pill!
By Paul
June 20, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
I really do not care if they make pot legal, someone had a good point about about it may reduce crime and reduce the overcrowed prisons…..If i offened anyone, I am SORRY, I just like to see how far people will go to stress a point.
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
Do you know what assumptions are, Paul? ‘cause you’re making one right now. Obviously, if I’m posting it’s because I enjoy arguing with both intelligent people and the occasional head case - that would be you, by the by - so if I’m doing something in the odd spare moments while I’m at work that I find mildly entertaining, I’m not wasting my time, now am I?
I agree with Tim - your monkey-like antics are very entertaining.
By Ben
June 20, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this
Actually Paul, we are not laughing WITH you.
By Tim
June 20, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
whatever floats your boat I guess
By Paul
June 20, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
BTW Tim,
Yes I made a spelling error, but I fat-fingered a 2nd O, you put a d in congratulations
By lozen
June 20, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
I heard this weekend that the judge who ruled on the Terry Shiavo case was asked by his pastor to leave the church! Oh, what loving people those fundamentalists are! The man followed the law; he didn’t make up a ruling. When judges follow the law and rule on a case how can they be called activist judges?
By Lee
June 20, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
Here we go again…
My wife had cancer. She had chemotherapy, which if anyone is familiar with it, it kind of kills you slowly, but the cancer a bit faster. Nausea is a side-effect, and of course, there are anti-cancer medications. Unfortunately, these have side-effects of their own, damaging the body in other ways. (Prednisone is commonly prescribed, check the side-effects at your local pharmacy). Chemotherapy makes you feel bad. It saps energy, and it makes you not want to eat, making it difficult to regain energy.
Since we happened to live in California at the time, it was legal to use pot for medicinal purposes. She talked to her oncologist about it. The oncologist recommended using every method to feel good, and to heal. (including some alternative methods, which helps psychologially, which helps physically). This also included using marijauna when she felt nauseous.
She smoked it when she felt nauseous, and instead of getting high, she felt human again. She could eat, and get some energy back.
For those wanting to criminalize healing, you should look at yourself and wonder you would do in the same situation.
By Paul
June 20, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
Ben,
I laugh at myself!
By Paul
June 20, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
Anyone catch What Women Want on TV last night??? Man, if we could just read their minds like that!!!!!
By Paul
June 20, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
My dad died of cancer 10 years ago, he did not need drugs or anything like that to Prolong his life or help with the Pain, It was God’s plan and he excepted that! When it is my time, I will except it! Maybe we should legalize assited suicide to, that CURES too!!!!!!!
By Tim
June 20, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
Paul… actually I have not put congratulations (or any alternate spelling) in any of my posts… that was someone else… I was just proving a point… the only reason why I pointed out your spelling error was because you did that to someone else… I would never initiate doing that because I am sure I have made a few spelling errors in the past… and even if you did fat-finger a second o doesn’t matter… you still mispelled lose… and so for you to point out someone else’s mistake is amusing… thanks
lozen… that happened when he was still ruling on the case… very sad… but hey… go figure… I am not very surprised… are you?
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
Lee, sadly enough there are many people who are more concerned with other people not doing things that they personally disapprove of than with lessening suffering.
By lozen
June 20, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
If I had a loved one with cancer or had it myself and needed marijuana (or anything else) to feel better, then I would get it. I don’t care if it’s legal or not. This to me is just another example of how conservative politicians (and by the way, what exactly are they conserving?)don’t care about people. All they care about is getting votes and getting rich.
By Randy
June 20, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this
Judges judge, they make new laws. I agree with the pastor of the church. If you are a christian follow what is right, laws can be changed.
By Ben
June 20, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
That’s all that matter Paul’s .. As long as you think it’s funny who cares!
By Tim
June 20, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
Paul… except??? is that one of those fat-finger flaws too (or two, or to… not sure which one I am supposed to use… JK)
oh happy day :) lol
By lozen
June 20, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
My father died of cancer in 1994 and he needed a lot of drugs! He got a lot of morphine, more and more as time went by, in the three weeks he was hospitalized. I would prefer to be fully aware when I die, but, if i’m in pain, give me every drug in the hospital pharmacy, doc!
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
Randy, I have the perfect church for you: www.landoverbaptist.org.
They are just like you!
By lozen
June 20, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this
Randy, how can one person be so totally clueless about every single thing we discuss on this forum?
By lozen
June 20, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Eaton, you’re right. Randy will go look at that website and he’ll be yelling “Hallelujah” and banging his tambourine. He’s going to want to join that church!
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Paul, I hope you are just trying to stir things up a little with that comment. But hey, if you think God’s plan is to inflict agonizing pain and death, and that we shouldn’t use available treatments to change that plan, then I guess you use no drugs or painkillers at all, ever?
By lozen
June 20, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Randy, you might have missed this part of Landover: We at “Baptist Are Saving Homosexuals” have BASHed enough so-called “gays” with the blunt love of Jesus to know how to spot deviants across a crowded sale at Saks. Outside of Italian shoes, nothing sends up a rainbow-colored flare that you are dealing with a flaming homosexual more reliably than when a man breathlessly gushes the word “faaabulous!” When a Christian lady hears this word outside of her hair salon or florist, she instinctively reaches for the Bible tracts in her purse because she knows a nancy boy is within throwing range.
“It’s been a fabulous year for Laura and me.” — George W. Bush., three months after the World Trade Center towers went down.
By Paul
June 20, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this
Eaton,
I have never used a “painkiller”, by that I mean Morfin, Demarol, etc…. I have had surgery on my knees 3 times, I took Vitamin M (motrin) for the pain. Wisdom teeth pulled, Motrin, I do not believe in pain-killers. That is just me!
By Tim
June 20, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
lozen… bite your tongue! Baptists don’t bang tambourines and they certainly don’t shout “Hallelujah”… leave that to the Pentecostals :)
I have got to say… the two bumpers stickers ‘Jesus is Watching You Masterbate’… and ‘Tampons are Satan’s little Cotton Fingers’ had me laughing out loud… ‘Get your a* to church’ was pretty funny too… I think I may buy that one for my nana lol
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
That’s not funny, lozen. I don’t want that man on my team.
By lozen
June 20, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
Tim, whatever flips your skirt up honey!
By Archie
June 20, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Marijuana should be decriminalized and allowed for medicinal use. Frankly since people seem to smoke at will I wonder what’s the purpose of arresting someone for possession. The War on Drugs has not worked but I do agree that reefer could be a gateway drug. Locking people up does not solve any problems as far as marijuana is concerned. My response to the question is yes, medicinal marijuana should be legalized.
By Len Hoffman
June 20, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
Should medical marijuana be legalized? America has over the years fought many foreign wars in defence of freedom, yet back home in the land of the free our government tells the termiminally ill that if they smoke this naturally occurring plant for relief of symptoms related to their illness they will be prosecuted and jailed. What’s wrong with this picture?
We’re not truly free if we must all conform to anothers idea of how to live.
There are already laws on the books that protect individuals from the reckless behavior and violence of others. I have yet to hear any proponents of legalization suggesting these laws should be overturned. Remember, only God can grow a marijuana plant.
By Tim
June 20, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
lozen… ‘whatever flips your skirt up honey’ that is goooood… hahahaha… I will definitely be using that one if you don’t mind :)… I will share one of my favorites… instead of ‘if the shoe fits…’ say ‘if the stiletto fits then sashay’… (and if it is in the proper setting you can follow that with ‘you betta work’) :)
By Paul
June 20, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
Len,
Yes Marijuana is a natural plant, but not Maui Wowie, Red Hair, etc……
What are the views on Pit Bulls here??????
By lozen
June 20, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this
Randy, here’s a book you’d love to read. It’s a children’s book sold by Landover Baptist but I think you’d like it too.
Donkeys Can Talk, People Can Fly, And a Man Named Jesus Lives Up in the Sky! A wonderfully animated approach to the Bible. Secular children will be introduced to timeless True Christian beliefs that come directly out of the Scriptures and not from the hallucinations of some boat-riding, bird-watching, monkey-loving, lizard-humping, 19th-century liberal!
By lozen
June 20, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
Oh, Tim. This is such an educational forum. Thank you for another good phrase, sweetie.
By Paul
June 20, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
What about AIDS, why is it continuing to spread????? PEOPLE USE PROTECTION, in 50 years when all of the current people with AIDS die, bam…. no more AIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
Oh Tim, you and I would so not get along in RL :-)
By Len Hoffman
June 20, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
People who are opposed to painkillers in general and marijuana in particular don’t have to use them. Some of us, however aren’t so tough. If in pain, I want relief!
And this notion of gateway drugs is rediculous. Because some people start out drinking (which is the first drug over 95% of heroin addicts started with) then move to pot or something else, we must wage a war against even responsible use? It’s like being back in the 1st grade. Because Billy eats paste glue none of the other children can use paste glue?
Our country is wasting a lot of money and resources fighting this war of morality (and I don’t believe that marijuana use is immoral). And along the way a lot of lives are messed up with criminal records. More harm comes from the war on marijuana than results from marijuana use.
By lozen
June 20, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this
Len Hoffman, you are so right about more harm done by the drug war (only the little people get caught) than by the use of marijuana. Somebody once said, “drugs are illegal and cuban cigars are illegal. You can’t get a cuban cigar anywhere! What is wrong with this picture?”
By lozen
June 20, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
I like the bumper sticker with Bush’s picture that says, “I’ve done a great job with the war. Now I will work on social security.”
By kimberly
June 20, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this
Yo Eaton, if you like landover baptist, you’ll like www.bartcop.com.
Paul…. in the DUH department: there are various subspecies that are bred for potency, just as there are various tomato plants bred for taste, and resistance to drought and disease.
And YOU LEAVE MY DOG ALONE, or I’ll bite you myself!
By Tim
June 20, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
lozen… you are most welcome… and thank you for my new phrase too :)
awww Eaton I am hurt lol
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this
As far as I know, all the varieties of MJ mentioned by Paul are the results of breeding programs, and are not enriched.
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this
Aw Tim, don’t take it personally! Actually, I’m sure we’d get along swimmingly :-) It’s just that…well, when I say stilleto, I’m usually talking about a knife, and not a shoe ;-)
By Paul
June 20, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
My point is this, all of the Mary Jane on the street today is “enhanced from God’s creation” some of it is even laced with LSD and other HARMFUL drugs!
Yes, we should have a WAR on DRUGS, I mean come on, look at what a disater the 60’s and 70’s were……..
I love pit bulls!!!!!!!!
By E
June 20, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
Maybe Shaunti and all of the politicians who oppose pot that will ease the suffering of others in their most desperate hours need to spend a day in a cancer ward holding the hands of patients who are going through chemo. While the tangent about her uncle is a sad tale, is has nothing to do with medicinal marijuana. I sat by my great aunt’s side while she wasted away too sick from chemo to eat. As Lee put it, anything that aids healing should not be criminalized.
By Jack
June 20, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this
Before it is legalized I want to buy a lot of Nabisco stock and invest in our local dairies.
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
Actually Paul, you don’t have a point…you are rambling from point to point to point without ever actually saying anything.
By the way, whether or not someone laces a street drug with PCP is not relevant to a discussion of medical marijuana.
By Paul
June 20, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this
yes eaton the point is this, most people on here are talking about all pot, not just medical. If you were in charge, how would you regulate it so that we do not make the same mistake with pot that was made with cigarettes (adding the chemicals)??????? How would you keep it from being laced, how do you know most the “medical Pot” sold today is not from your local corner dealer????? That stuff is alot cheaper than Medical Pot and has more effects!!!!!!!!!
By Len Hoffman
June 20, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
Paul the fact that some pot is laced with harmful drugs, (by the way you forgot to mention pesticides) is another reason it should be legal to grow your own. That way the individual has control over his personal plants.
And as for the ‘60’s and ‘70’s and being such disaters, are you referring to Kent State or Vietnam? Surely you can’t mean the peace loving hippies whose only crime against society was bad fashion.
By Tim
June 20, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
Eaton… I wasn’t worried ;)… and actually I usually only say my little ‘stilleto’ quote to the other half cus he gets really annoyed at statements like that… I just like to get under his skin from time to time lol… but I do have to say I didn’t know there was a stilleto knife… what is it for?
sorry for going off topic… but seems like most people are in favor of legalization… or those that are opposed are not posting
By African Herbsman
June 20, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
I think the real issue is what it means to be free. I grow and smoke marijuana because it works for me in my life, and I frankly don’t care what Christians, Politicians, parents etc. think. If you’re not caught, it’s legal!!!!!!!!!
By lozen
June 20, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
The 60’s and 70’s were a wonderful time! I just hope I see another time like that before I die. We actually thought we could change the world and make it a better place for everyone. We set up free clinics and people were dumpster diving for food for the poor! Who could think putting flowers in gun barrels was a disaster? Who could think tie dye was a disaster? Who could believe the Beatles were a disaster or Jefferson Airplane, Bob Dylan, Woodstock, Joanie Mitchell, Puff the Magic Dragon, Jesus Christ Superstar, James Taylor, Cream? Who could think marching for peace and ending the vietnam military action was a disaster? Who could think consciousness raising and marching for women’s rights were disasters? Mini skirts? Bright colors? Folk music? Hippies? Communes? Make love not war! We had fun. We had hope. How sad that we’ve come to this!
By TAIWANA
June 20, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
I think the the use of marijuana should be legal. Out of all the things to be addicted to this is the safest. No reports of murder or any other crime has been noted from a person smoking weed. I think if the government could find a way to tax it they would legalize it. As a matter of fact for marijuana is a great relaxation method. Maybe some of these people having problems with anorexia should get some it will definitly give them the munchies.
By Paul
June 20, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this
talking about the hippies that did nothing for this country, kinda like John Kerry’s and Bill Clinton’s!!!!!!!
By Eaton
June 20, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
Ah yes, more insubstantial criticism from Paul.
Tim, the shoe is named after the dagger - long, narrow blade designed to go between the ribs and hit the heart.
By RANDY
June 20, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this
I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT THE FDA ALLOWS COCAINE, AMPHEDIMINES,OXICOTIN,VALIUM,AND A ASSORTMENT OF DRUGS THAT JUST THE SIDE EFFECTS ARE WORSE FOR YOU THAN THE TOTAL EFFECTS OF POT.WHY CAN DR’S DECIDE ITS OK TO PRESCRIBE THE WORSER OF THE EVILS BUT A NATURAL PLANT THAT HAS BEEN USED FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS THEY CAN’T. IT’S JUST CRAZY FOR LAW MAKERS TO THINK THEY KNOW MORE THAN DR’S ABOUT PRESCRIBING POT.THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE REASON FOR THEIR DECISISION AND THAT IS CORPORATE AMERICA CAN’T PROFIT ON SOMETHING THAT GROWS EVERYWHERE. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE LET OUR ON GOVERNMENT USE THE SAME TACTICS ON US THAT THEY CLAIMED RUSSIA USED IN THE COLD WAR PROPAGANDA.THOMAS JEFFERSON ONCE SAID IF YOU TELL A LIE OFTEN ENOUGH IT WILL BECOME THE TRUTH.THE WAR ON DRUGS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 30 YRS AND THEIR IS NO SIGN OF IT ENDING.WE PROTESTED IN THE STREETS OVER VIETNAM AND IT WAS ONLY 10 YEARS WITH 50000 CASUALTIES THEIR HAS BEEN MORE WITH THIS WAR AND STILL EVERYDAY THEIR ARE MORE.DEATHS, CHILDREN LIVES RUINED BECAUSE A PARENT HAS A OBBSESSIVE COMPULISIVE DISORDER, AND IS IN JAIL NOT FOR HARMING OTHERS BUT FOR TRYING TO COPE WITH THEY’RE OWN DEVILS INSIDE.THE THINGS WE ARE DOING IS CAUSING THE SAME EFFECTS AS WELFARE IT GOES FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION BECAUSE OF THE PHYSCOLOGICAL DAMAGE DONE TO CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS GO TO JAIL. THEY IN TURN START USING TO GET THEIR PAIN TO GO AWAY NEXT THING YOU KNOW THE PROBLEM GOES FROM PARENT TO CHILD TO CHILD AGAIN.I REMEMBER READING IN SCHOOL ABOUT PUTTING MENTAL PATIENTS IN JAIL BECAUSE NOBODY KNEW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM IT SEEMS WE ARE THEIR AGAIN. JUST BECAUSE A PERSON HAS A SUBSTANCE ADDICTION IS NO REASON TO LOCK THEM UP. WELL MAYBE IF THE ONES MAKING THE LAWS ARE TRYING TO TAX THE POOR.I AM NOT A ROCKET SCIENTIST BUT I KNOW IF IN LIFE I TRIED SOMETHING FOR YEARS AND I DON’T GET THE RESULT I WANT I CHANGE TACTICS.RANDY BERRY OURLAW@JUSTICE.COM
By Paul
June 20, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this
Eaton,
what do you mean “more insubstantial criticism from Paul”??? you mean to tell me that in your little bubble of thought that street pot is not dangerous……maybe you think huffing gas is safe too!!!!!!! You have no idea of what is in the local dime bag you get from Smokie on the street corner!!!!!!!!
By Paul
June 20, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
Randy, dude, turn the CAPS lock off!
By Lyrazel
June 21, 2005 07:39 AM | Link to this
Sorry, I thought I read cigs were still a part of rations in 04. I was trying to show how official, aka legal, endorsements of drugs sometimes are so ludicrous in retrospect. My error.
One of my biggest problems about legalization is: How do you keep pot from children?
Its a gateway drug for them who are unable to understand drugs; and play in the world of drugs are cool. It is the ruin of many street kids who graduate to other substances equally as readily available. It is NOT a gateway drug for most responsible adults especially those with cancer/AIDs and other health problems—which is why legalization makes a bit of compassionate sense.
When drugs are legalized all factors including addiction resources have to discussed.
By mike
June 21, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this
The reason the uncle of Shaunti Feldhahn killed himself probably has more to do with living with peeps the likes of Shaunti Feldhahn rather than a drug problem. You know it’s true!
So if we use Shaunti’s logic, all dress shoes should be outlawed because my uncle slipped once because of slick leather soles and died after he hit his head on the sidewalk!
Here’s the deal. Until the other side realizes that people own their own bodies and can injest anything they please (even if it’s bad) there is no end to this difference of opinions.
By Hunter
June 21, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this
Marijuana grows naturally on every continent, and has been used for centuries in medical applications…No attributable deaths to pot, though some folks can get a little crazy if they smoke pot WHILE DRINKING ALCOHOL!!!…Pot should be DEcriminalized, rather than ‘legalized’…legalization and industrial processing will likely result in loss of quality.
Also, some of you claim that ‘enhancements’ are ‘added’ ??? How would you add these already naturally occurring benefits? As a medicinal marijuana using cancer survivor, I can tell you that excellent grade pot, preferably grown in WNC, is a wonderful gift from God, when you suffer from disease! It provides relief that cannot be attained through marinol.
By Ben
June 21, 2005 08:17 AM | Link to this
Hey Paul — If you are in the military and have three knee surgeries, you HAVE MOST DEFINITELY had pain killers. It started with the morphine drip you had in your hand when you woke up. And more than likely you had a little percocet when you went home.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this
Ben,
Did not have a MORFIN drip when I woke up, I went home 1 hour after i woke, then took motrin. I am allergic to most painkillers, found this out when I was 5 and had 120 stiches in my back.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this
Thanks doctor Ben!
By Jim Turner
June 21, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this
It is extremely interesting that most of the comments supporting this issue have to use an analogy to bolster their position. This is many times used in place of simple truth and logic to support a weak position. For example marijuana is illegal, addictive, and has many terrible side effects. Most of those in favor argue that some other legal drugs are addictive and has side effects, therefore let’s make more drugs legal that are addictive and have side effects. Since the active ingredient that provides the relief is available in pill form, what is the problem with using that product? Could it perhaps be that it doesn’t open the door to legalization of other street drugs?
By Andrew
June 21, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this
Walter E. Williams said in an article the other day, “Who owns Walter E. Williams? The government or Walter E. Williams.” He was talking about click it or ticket. But if you believe in true freedom let people do what they want as long as they dont harm any one else. People who want the government to regulate the lives of other people according to their beliefs are facist. This country was founded on individual freedom, not individual freedoms given by the Imperial U.S. Government.
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this
What’s really interesting is that you use the phrase “have to use an analogy”. Much of debate is built on drawing paralells between two situations. The Common Law (as opposed to Statutory) part of our legal system is entirely built on the concept of precedent. Making comparisons is a perfectly legitimate way to arrive at a conclusion.
The conclusion we are drawing, by the way, is that the argument that MJ should not be legalized due to it’s potential addictive properties is invalid, as there are other addictive drugs. It is a negation of a particular counter-argument, not an argument for legalization in of itself.
To answer your question, it has nothing to do with making other street drugs legal. Personally, I don’t think that drugs like cocaine and heroin should be legal. The effects of marijuana most beneficial to terminally ill or greviously ill patients simply cant be duplicated in the pill form.
By Tim
June 21, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this
thanks Eaton… learn something new everyday :)
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this
Tim, one can never know too much about blades and such. ;)
By Paul
June 21, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this
Here are some studies……
Tennessee Study 27 patients had failed on other antiemetic therapies.
Conclusion: 66.7% for oral THC. “We found both marijuana smoking and THC capsules to be effective antiemetics. We found an approximate 23 percent higher success rate among those patients administered THC capsules
Georgia Study 119 patients that had failed using other antiemetics were randomly assigned to oral THC pills and either standardized or patient-controlled smoking of marijuana.
Conclusion: All three categories were successful — patient controlled smokers at 72.2%; standardized smokers at 65.4%; oral THC at 76%. Failure of oral THC patients was due to adverse reaction (6 out of 18) or failure to improve (9 out of 18); failure of smoking marijuana was due to intolerance for smoking (6 out of 14) or failure to improve (3 out of 14).
Note: Alot of other studies were done as well, the numbers are about the same across the board, Why not stick to the pill???????
By RF
June 21, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this
When some of you come down off the high, you’ll realize what a ridiculous idea it is to legalize marijuana. I’ve heard all the arguments from the pot smokers, and they haven’t convinced me yet. Every regular pot smoker I’ve ever known has either turned into a lazy, mentally fried bum or has gone on to other drugs looking for something to give them a cheap high. My sister started out as a “casual smoker”. Eventually, when she couldn’t afford the amount to duplicate the high, she moved on to other, cheaper drugs, eventually losing her children because of neglect and her crack habit. She ended up being murdered by someone in her circle of “friends”. I’m raising her two sons, and have spent the last four years dealing with their loss and pain. If you had asked my sister, she would have agreed to legalize marijuana. She had the same arguments about how it didn’t affect her, just made her feel relaxed, and that it was “natural”. There are far too many stories of suffering and pain caused by those who see marijuana as a casual, non-addictive drug. It may not be, but the high is desirable, and it all to often leads to other drug experimentation. I say keep it illegal, and let’s crack down on the distribution of it. Marijuana isn’t “cool” and if you think it is, then you’re well on your way to ruining your own life.
By Lee
June 21, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this
Paul’s “Why not stick to the pill?” brings up a point that isn’t always considered.
Pharmaceutical companies would LOVE to make billions on using the pill, whereas if you grow your own and smoke it, they make nothing. Expensive pharmaceuticals are partly to blame for the spiraling costs of healthcare in this country. Sure, you can get a pill “fix” but it’ll cost you and others with the same insurance.
So, my question back would be: Why not just get natural relief that costs so much less, but is equally (or more) effective?
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this
Well RF, if we were actually talking about general legalization of marijuana, you might have something to offer. But since we aren’t, you’re doing nothing but making innacurate asumptions about the people on this blog.
Arguing for the legalization of medical - say it with me, RF - MEDICAL - MJ makes one neither a pothead nor a druggie. Calling those who do favor that legalization names and assuming they are drug users lessens any argument you might render.
Also, if you carefully read the posts already made, you’ll find that there is no one who disputes that pot has a negative effect on some people. The problem is that you will also find similar stories about alcohol, drugs, gambling, porn, etc. Again, anecdotal evidence is largely worthless - only broad population random sampling yields truly accurate data.
By Ms Harris
June 21, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
For me, it all boils down to personal responsibility. Bruce made a comment earlier that if pot were leagalized today, he didn’t know if you would be able to control himself enough not to use it. You are * AN ADULT *. So basically, let’s have more government because you cannot control yourself so we have to save you from yourself. Beautiful.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this
Lee,
Do you have medical insurance????? Most the people that receive cancer treatment have insurance that will pick up the majority of pill scripts, it is called co-pay!!! Your arguement about, MONEY MONEY MONEY is bogus!!!!!!!!!
Do you really think drug companies have any say in what the lawmakers make laws!!!!!!!
Here is the answer to your question, BECAUSE DRUGS ARE ILLEGAL AND POT IS A DRUG!!!!!!!!!!!!
ok, not everyone has medical insurance, the government has programs to offset those costs as well, it may not be the best medical assistance, but it is soemthing! You and I both know as well that people without insurance get medical care too, they just do not pay their bills and THAT is one of reasons medical care is HIGH
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this
Actually Paul, I find it hard to believe that you DON’T think drug companies have anything to do with what laws are made. You are aware that the drug lobby is one of the most powerful in Washington? You don’t seriously think that the drug companies spend small fortunes each year lobbying Congress for favorable legislation for no reason, do you?
Your answers make it apparent where you get your “information” - is it Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity? The spiraling costs of health care have causes far more complex than uninsured people not paying their health costs. It’s also a bit of a catch-22 there - the uninsured can’t pay their costs because they’re so high.
By Bruce
June 21, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this
Ms. Harris,
I was only joking!!!! Geez If you would have read the rest of that post, and my other post you would see that. And by the way it is not MORE GOVERNMENT, just the same government. Pot is already illegal so it wouldn’t be more government.
By Laura
June 21, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this
Sorry your family is so dysfunctional, Shaunti. Perhaps if everyone had stuck with ALCOHOL, everybody would be just dandy. Just another right-winger who would prefer the government telling them how to live, instead of using their brain.
I can only hope Shaunti will experience a painful, debilitating disease so that her final days are as agonizing as possible. Perhaps we could stuff a feeding-tube in her to prolong the misery!
By Brian Curtis
June 21, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this
Wow. Pretty harsh, Laura. I violently disagree with Shaunti on just about everything, but I don’t wish her any personal harm.
Well, maybe laryngitis.
By Bruce
June 21, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this
Eaton,
Are you really suprised that Paul didn’t know the drug company’s control congress. I mean after all he thinks that pot is harmless until you add something to it.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this
Eaton,
You mean to tell me you have witnessed 1st Hand drug lobbying in Washington? Drug companies spend small fortunes each year lobbying Congress for favorable legislation?
Your answers make it apparent where you get your “information� - is it Michael Moore, Hilary Clinton, or John Kerry?
I do not listen to talk radio, so no I do not get info from Rush Limpburger and I have no idea who Sean Hannity is…
I understand that the spiraling costs of health care have causes far more complex than uninsured people not paying their health costs. It was just an example I was using….
Fact is fact, Pot is a drug, drugs are illegal…..nothing you say or anyone on this post will change that!!!!!!!!!!!
By Paul
June 21, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this
Bruce,
Glad you put words in my mouth…..I never said pot was harmless, I just pointed out that you have to add stuff to it to get the HIGH people on here want!!!!!!!! Normal wild pot will not give you the same effects that street pot does!!! BTW, how do you know drug companies control Congress, you have saw this 1st hand I’ll bet, or did you catch it in one of KING Micaheal Moore’s movies???????
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this
Paul, all I can say is…LOL. You mean to tell me you have witnessed 1st Hand drug lobbying in Washington?
Are you one of those conspiracy theory guys? It’s called being educated about the world in which I live. You should try it some time - you might enjoy it.
As for “Pot is a drug, drugs are illegal”: This is a beautiful example of circular reasoning. It’s also incorrect. Pot is a drug, yes. However, not all drugs are illegal. Drugs are classified into various classes, some of which are legal and relatively uncontrolled, some of which are legacl and controlled, and some of which are illegal. Pot, by the way, has only been illegal since 1937.
The legality or illegality of a drug is simply a classification and not inherent.
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this
Actually Paul, Bruce is a staunch conservative. I’m pretty sure he dislikes Michael Moore as much as you seem to.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this
Most people that want to legalize pot are doing it for personal reasons, THEY LIKE to GET HIGH!!!!
They could care less about other people needing it for pain relief!
By Bruce
June 21, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
Paul,
I grew pot (once upon a time long, long ago) I never had to add anything to it to get HIGH!!!!! As for you saying pot was harmless you just did, when you said you have to add something to it to get high.
And as for Mike and company, I am one that does listen to Rush and I know who Sean is, both great guys!!!! You are right about one thing though pot is illegal.
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
Would someone please explain to Paul that we aren’t talking about the general legalization of MJ? I’m getting blue in the face here.
By Ben
June 21, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this
Paul - You are truly misinformed buddy.Of course the drug lobby does their thing to win favorable legislation. Just like the Oil Lobby and a bunch of others. We are talking MILLIONS of dollars.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
Once again Eaton, you are circling the wagons…..You really think I do not know that there are LEGAL drugs as well, give me a break!!!! I know there are several classifications of drugs.
Opium has not been illegal for that long either!
No I do not think the BIG BAD Governmet is out to get us……duh, I work for the Department of Defense!!!!!
Who are you educated by?????? Just because 1 person or a group of people say that Congress is bad does not mean that they are, that is just who you chose to be educated by…. So my question remains, have you seen 1st hand that congress is being paid off???????? If you have then, i bow to you as an expert, if not, you are going of assumptions and the words of others….just like everyone here!
By Ben
June 21, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
Paul we aren’t talking about general legalization.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this
Bruce,
Where did you get the seeds for the plants??????
I am telling you, I have seen NATURAL Cannabis in Nebraska, I called to report it and the Officer I talked to laughed and said that it was Ditch Weed, Cannabis in it natural, unaltered state.
It was not seeds from a bag of maui wowie, like you had………..
It is like this, pit bulls were 1st bred from 2 different dog breeds……then pit bulls started breeding with pit bulls…..over time, the traits and genes from the aggressive pits are passed to their offspring……kinda the same with pot…..
natural cannabis has hardly any mind numbing effects, they stuff you had was probably a hybrid of the natural, wild growing cannabis that is everywhere in Nebraska and Kansas!!!!!!!
By Ben
June 21, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this
No one is saying that Congress is being paid off. The lobbies throw money at representatives to sway their vote in their interest. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s very transparent and accepted.
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this
Paul, I’m not circling anything. You just seem to be a master of saying something and then claiming you didn’t say it. Let me remind you, your statement was “Pot is a drug, drugs are illegal”. Twist that as you will.
And if you only give credence to the things you personally witness first hand, you must live in a very small world indeed.
And if you’re even partially responsible for our defense, then God help us.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this
Dude, I understand people and companiesand organizations lobby congress….
By Paul
June 21, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this
I know the answer to the question and I’m not gonna listen to anything anybody else on here has to say. I will continue to have my circular brain farts and throw them out on here, but I refuse to listen to you people. You’re all just potheads and libruls anyway.
By joe
June 21, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
How the hell do all these idiots find this forum?
By Paul
June 21, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this
Eaton, Dude, it was a general statement made with the understanding that drugs meant Pot, Coke, LSD, Acid, Hash, Crack, crank, etc…….
I do not live in a small world, but I have the knowledge to question things that I hear!!!!!!
Yes, I am responsible for your defense!!!! Are you impling that I am not capable of defending this great country! I guess you think I am dumb because I do not jump on your wagon and scream Gay Rights!
By Paul
June 21, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this
not me…..
By Paul
June 21, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this
I know the answer to the question and I’m not gonna listen to anything anybody else on here has to say. I will continue to have my circular brain farts and throw them out on here, but I refuse to listen to you people. You’re all just potheads and libruls anyway.
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this
Actually Paul, I think you are dumb because everything you say contradicts everything else you say and because you obviously have no grasp of anything resembling reality. But hey, there you go making assumptions about people again.
By joe
June 21, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this
Dude, we think you’re not capable of defending US because you do not know how to reason! You do not know how to debate. You do not know how to think. Not because we want you on our bandwagon. I can just see you laying on the floor kicking and screaming and all red in the face, “Nooooooooo, mommy. Nooooooooo, it is not what you say! Noooooooooooooo, mommy.” You come across like a spoiled brat. Time out, Paulie.
By k
June 21, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this
Hey…Paul sounds a little upset. I KNOW! Let’s take Paul to a nice dark room, tie him to a nice comfey chair, play Black Sabbath’s “War Pigs” REALLY loud, and perhaps everything ever recorded by Nine Inch Nails and Alice In Chains, and blow bong hits at him until he sees the light. Hahahahaha!
By David
June 21, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this
I would hope the employees of the Department of Defense would have better things to do than blog all day. Maybe Paul’s the Defense Secretary… erm, I mean A secretary.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this
Here is my point of view, you can ignore it, read it, hate me for it, agree with it, I do not care…….it is my opinion….
Pot is bad, medical or not, it is illegal, it should stay that way. I do not want some idiot driving aroung higher than a kite and kill someone. Pot has bad effects on your thought, vision and responsiveness……
Everyone on here has the right to an opinion, ganging up on someone will not change their opinion! Say what you want, think what you want, belittle me if you find it amuzing.
Base an opinion of someone from this site and you truely need help!
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Yes - the Comfey Chair! And we can poke him with Soft Cushions!
10 cool points to whomever gets the reference.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this
K,
I listen to that kind of music.
Eaton, I think you are going to burn in hell because you are gay! Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve…… But I do not post that about you everytime you say soemthing I do not like now do I!
Joe,
Reason???? I have stuck to my guns against pot…..I have read everything people have said, still does not change my opinion.
By Tim
June 21, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this
Paul… I don’t want someone driving around high as a kite and kill someone either… the guy that killed my gradnfather in an automobile accident was high as a kite from his anti-anxiety meds… shouldn’t those be illegal now too? I think that would only be fair to my family
By Ken
June 21, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this
This is another item that boils down to the age old question of personal responsibility.
If a person wants to smoke weed (or do any other drug), why should the government prevent it? However, other questions need to be asked such as…
If a person becomes unable to care for themselves b/c of this drug use, who will care for that person?
If a person needs medical attention b/c of this drug use, who will care for this person?
Unfortunately, the answer to these questions ends up being society (a.k.a. the government). Like any situation in life there will always be a give and take. If you want the government to stay out of your lives (as I would prefer), then don’t expect anything from the government other than basic protection.
How many of the folks who want weed and/or other drugs legalized or non-criminalized also want the government to provide healthcare and other means for living?
By David
June 21, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this
Paul,
I assume then that you would promote the illegalization (word?) of all drugs that could impair you whilst driving. You know, Benadryl, alcohol, etc
By Paul
June 21, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this
Dave, this is my weekend! not a scheduled work day for me, what about you!!!!!!
Secretary, yeah sure, I am a secretary!!!!
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this
Well Paul, the only person bringing that up is you. Sounds like you’re the one with the problem.
As to your opinion, you are, of course, entitled to one, however simplistic it may be. Opinions are like a*****, after all…you are just extra lucky in that you not only have one, you are one!
By Paul
June 21, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this
I know that all drugs can have ill effects on you, but how many times have you seen someone smoke a joint, then drive, hell alot of people do it while driving!!!!!!! To much Caffine can make you jumpy and cause you to make rash decisions…….
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this
Criminalization is the word you’re looking for, and no, Paul is neither consistent enough nor rational enough to make that leap. Pot = bad because it causes impairment and someone may have an accident while under its influence. However, other substances that have similar, if not more pronounced effects, are not necessarily bad.
Paul tells us, in his rare lucid moments, that this is his only reason for disliking pot. However, he has never answered the question about other similar substances. I suspect his brain would melt if he tried.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 11:52 AM | Link to this
Eaton,
Why am I an A*&hole, because I do not agree with you!
By David
June 21, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this
Left coast Paul, I’m going to work now.
By Ben
June 21, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this
I think what some people are getting at using the comparison to other drugs is that they have similar or more adverse affects than marijuana. You can’t compare it to crack, heroin, LSD or some others because the effects are not nearly as detrimental to the users. Anything you misuse, overuse or whatever has negative effects. Vitamin C is bad if you use too much of it, Aspirin is bad if you use too much of it, water is even bad if you drink too much of it.
I think it’s a valid question to ask why marijuana is so “bad” when their are far worse things that are legal. If crack had healing power, people should be able to smoke it if it provides them comfort from their affliction.
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
No Paul, it was the completely unecessary “burn in Hell” comment. Those usualy make me a little irritable.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this
Eaton,
BTW you are the one that has resorted to name calling online……WOW!
By Eaton June 20, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this Paul, you are truly a goober…and a really dumb one at that By Eaton June 21, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this a**s, after all…you are just extra lucky in that you not only have one, you are one!
Getting our panties up our butt are we????????????
By Paul
June 21, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this
Here is a solution, let’s make medical pot legal! Control it distribution and consumption to hospitals and treatment facilities, kinda like radiation chemo! Anyone caught with pot other that that reason above be charged with a regular drug crime…..
Does that work!!!!!
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this
It’s not quite the same, Paul, calling someone a Goober and suggesting they will burn in Hell.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
Eaton, I was just making a point, i do not feel that way about peopel who are gay, some of my friends are gay, male and female! no harm intended!
By RF
June 21, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
Eaton— yes I know it’s MEDICAL use being discussed. Calm down dude, I was just expressing an opinion in a free country—if you don’t like it, don’t read it. Can you say SUPERCILIOUS, or is that too many syllables for you?
By RANDY
June 21, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
I really could care less if pot is legalized people that want pot will get it.I’m a product of the drug culture and I never had a problem getting anything.The reason I’m saying this is because supply and demand drives the illegal drug market the same as any business.When the money is taken out of drugs the supply will drop and legalizing it is the only way to make that happen.I don’t use drugs anymore for the simple reason I don’t want the legal problems from it.I enjoyed my adventure from drugs I saw things through different eyes because of my use.I’m not saying go do the things I did but to fix a problem one must look at it from all angles.I can’t understand why someone who hasn’t ever been down that road could even have an oppinion on it.You can read a book about what an apple tastes like but with all the adjectives in the world one doesn’t know the taste of that apple unless he bites into it.I know your thinking you never know death un till you do it but that doesn’t make you want to do it.Well true but if we did then we could make an educated oppinion on it.I don’t understand why man thinks he can do something god chose not to.God gives us freedom of choice and we think we can make a law and that makes us right.If that was true why did we have slavery,prohibition,and lets not forget how we abused the native americans.Americans are for whatever as long a dollar can be made for them if we do it then its ok if not its wrong.We are a arrogant society to be so selfish we came here destroyed the wildlife population and even the dirt itself remember the great dust bowl.I have read everyones thoughts on this subject and everyones oppinion is based on their personal beliefs other peoples beliefs have no basis on anyones oppinion.I could have sworn that our constititution said some about we all have the right to pursuit happiness without any wording unless other people don’t like it.Amereican should be able to live, worship,love,whatever they choose as long as their choices don’t infringe on others rights.Thats the America that so many have died to protect not this new ideal of if the money says yes it will pass the test. randy
By Ben
June 21, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
Now children. It’s only Tuesday!
By Lyrazel
June 21, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this
Eaton, was it PeeWees Playhouse?
By Lee
June 21, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
Paul, When someone is suffering the effects of chemotherapy, and they barely have enough energy to get up, I don’t think they are a danger of driving while “higher than a kite” when they smoke marijuana. They just want the energy to eat something, to feel like normal again.
The government would like to deny people from this ability to feel normal again when the sickness or treatments make them feel terrible. I find that disheartening that so many can be so callous to the suffering.
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this
yeah, RF, but see, there is a specific topic under discussion here. So, go find another soap box.
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this
Paul, seriously…are you suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder?
By vince
June 21, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this
Shaunti refers to a “slippery slope” associated with marijuana. So, why should we focus solely on pot? I know people who have “slipped down slopes” on alcohol, Bingo, porn channels, betting pools, chocolate cake, driving too fast, endless shopping sprees, and butter. Let’s SAVE America and encourage our lsw makers to pass laws prohibiting the above mentioned.
I really wish the people of this country would wake up and open their eyes. Every decision (and in most cases, they evolved into law) in this country is based on one thing and only one thing: White Man’s Greed for MORE MONEY.
Abortion - legal until the AMA wanted to get rid of mid-wvies so the doctor’s could cash in on reproduction.
Butter- An FDA approved food group until the dairy market shifted and it’s products were no longer delivered to people’s front doors. (Less money for white man)
Marijuana - (FIRSTLY, its been around forever, and as far as i can tell, human beings didn’t slip off the planet yet) Jamestown Colony, 1700, Virginia passed a law requiring hemp to be grown. Hemp was the main crop at G.W’s MT. Vernon and the numero uno crop grown by T. Jefferson’s Monticello crib.
But just as the AMA convinced Congress that if abortion remained legal, eventually immigrants would out number current Americans; innovations in the way fabric and plastics were made and the folks who wanted to control that market (white man money thing again), stupid, I mean dumb campaigns went through our ears: Smoking hemp will make a woman want to sleep with a black man. It wasn’t until our drug czar, Anslinger’s remark that”marihuana” would bring in more and more Mexican immigrants.
I am amazed at how arrogant we as American’s can be. To think we know it all based solely on what we’re told is so tragic. How come we never stop and think about other countries, other histories, and in this case, the fact that the plant has been around long before greedy white American Business men decided it was a “new evil”?
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this
Nope Lyrazel - not even close ;-)
By kimberly
June 21, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
Randy, I appreciate your comments on America’s money worship. As a believer in Christ (but not modern churches or government sponsorship thereof), the greed of my fellow Americans is what pains me the most. We have SO MUCH, yet so many around me (shout out to north fulton!) see their excess as a right, and however much they have, it’s never enough. And then they see the quest for more as a virtue, regardless of whose mouth is empty as a result of theirs being full. The Tyco executives who were convicted of grand larceny last week were literally red-faced with anger. They really believe that if you can make it legal to screw somebody, or if you can get away with it, then you’re a good American. Very sad. But to the topic, yes, pot is illegal because the pharmaceutical stockholders want us all on Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, Buspar, and whatever else they can shove down our throats for $80 a month.
By Jd
June 21, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this
Most of you posters who are against legalization of Marijuana are totally disillusioned by years of retoric and junk science that pollutes rational decision making. Ok, oh so wise and all knowing explain to the rest of us naive and uninformed people the rational behind incarserating otherwise productive members of society, for using marijauna, The government spends hundreds of millions of dollars (of our money) persuing and jailing people who’s only mistake is thinking and looking out for their own well being. More importantly explain why you think you know whats best for anyone other than yourself, I know you can’t because your SELFISH. You probably think about nobody other than your pathetic little self. Paul said, “Most people that want to legalize pot are doing it for personal reasons, THEY LIKE to GET HIGH!!!!. They could care less about other people needing it for pain relief!”. ..my question to you…why the F..K do you care. You hypocrit,who are you too place judgement on anyone ? You seem to care so much about everyone else and the decisions that they make which have no effect what so ever on you and yet when we as users highlight the facts that people do use marijauna for medical reason or otherwise for that matter, you spout out about what we do and do not care about. Your facts are wrong, your resorting to name calling just illuminates how bigoted and self centered you really are. Marijuana use is illegal for one reason only, money. The money States recieve from the Fed are all tied up in various domestic policies, which include DRUG enforcement, highway programs, health care subsidies, and so on and so on. It’s a give and take way of life up in Washington. What concerns me about Conservatives ( and I am about as conservative as they come but as I get older I’m leaning more independent) is the issue of states rights. Let Rush Limbaugh speak about states being able to set policy designed by the state voted on by voters of the state and you guys will be up in arms pattin him on the back….only as long as it goes along with the conservative agenda. But the conservative agenda is whats got us in the place we’re in now. a prolonged war in Iraq/Afganistan with no end in sight, federal deficits that are gonna plague our childrens children and a middle class that is rapidly in decline. A No child left behing program that has yet to be completely funded. A military that is in a recuitment crisis…..why, the young are NOT gonna answer GWB’s call for war. And national borders that are open season for illegal migration, It’s been over 6 years since Clinton left office, who ya gonna blame now. No need to place blame, when it comes to conservative though, they operate under the see no evil speak no evil priciple. “Well if I didn’t see must notta happened”. This mentlity is a sure road to failure. Democrats sure ain’t any better, always pandering to any fringe group with whatever popular slogan they can come up with. it’s really tired. Well I think I’m done ranting for the day I’m sure Randy and Paul can put their heads together and come up some witty self indulgent insult to berate me with, but truely it’s meaningless drivel. And Bruce your so misinformed it’s funny, A plant is a plant is a plant is a plant, plants grow with sunlight and water and fertilizer depending on soil conditions, the substance in the plant canabis that releases the natural endorphines in your body that produce the feelings you people call being high are readily available in the flowers of the plant. no additives allowed…we let the tobacco companies add special cancer causing agents ( i mean for taste though) so even if you false statement was true, you invalidate yourself furthermore just outta pure ignorance, because you don’t know WTF your talking.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this
Driving stoned saves stupid people’s lives. Less road rage. However, pot is not for everyone. Some people simply aren’t designed to use it. The fact that some people base their anti-pot views on their own personal experience, whether it is themselves or a family member, is a jaded opinion. Sure, some people ‘abuse’ pot, lose their job, family, etc. but what makes you think they weren’t just simply a loser? If it wasn’t pot it would be something else.
I have a friend who has HIV and he smokes to keep his numerous medications down. Otherwise, he throws them right back up. Without it he has no appetite, either. Who are we to tell the sick and dying they cannot smoke a substance that lessens their suffering when they can be given a cocktail of drugs that harm them?
By AllaboutME
June 21, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
….long ago….and not so far away…Mississippi….the american government had a pot farm where they grew American pot…to experiment….on pesticides for erradication….and also for….medical properties…….and some young brazen entrepreneurial Americans….set up a honey farm….not far from the government fields. These merry pranksters…..were arrested on felony charges…..for interfering with a government agency….jailed without bail….oddly enough….the court could not produce the honey taken…Winnie the Pooh struck again…..anyway these fine Americans were released on a technicality…Will pot ever be legal in America……only when some business can profit and some gvt agency can tax it….
By MMR
June 21, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
Incidentally, no one has mentioned that cocaine was used medicinally until they came up with a synthetic, and opiates were used medicinally until they they came up with a synthetic. Now the origional, natural substance is outlawed and sends people to jail while the medical community (of which I am a part) can freely use novocaine, codine, and morphine. I am all for any drug that has the side effect of relieving someone’s pain in dire situations and under the watchful eye of a doctor. We send people out into the world everyday with a scrip for OxyContin and have to consider the side effects of addiction and impaired judgement. How would prescribing medical marijuana be any different? I believe that if we, as a superpower country, have the resources to do research to aid someone’s faiing health then we have a responsibility to do so.
By Lyrazel
June 21, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
Oh, that was Chairy—wasnt it…whoops…
By Al
June 21, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this
If Pot is Illegal - SO SHOULD LETTUCE, CABBAGE, THYME, ETC. Also, the CREATOR made every HERBS for a purpose (It’s our job to learn the values of the plants - don’t be ignorant). AND HOLY MARY WHY CRUCIFY THE INNOCENT POT and Legalize the AWFUL, STICKING, MORBID TOBACCO. HYPOCRITES!!
By jd
June 21, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this
I’m a secretary, I’m the secretary, president, mail guy, marketing executive, product development agent, and security guard of my own internets sales company specializing in all sorta of things to spice up your sex life. but still what’s wrong with being a secretary……???????
By RF
June 21, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this
Geez Eaton, are you just a bit testy today? Expressing an opinion is hardly a soapbox, and I’m afraid it would take moving you to get up there. I’ll gladly go find another place to express my opinion since you seem to think you own this one. I didn’t mean to interfere with your precious blog. In America, we all have a right to express an opinion. I certainly won’t stoop to take any of yours personally, so don’t get so upset about mine. Calm down!!
By vince
June 21, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this
What I meant to say was, Hemp was called hemp until Askinger started to associate it with Mexicna immigrants. Marihuana is slang for a drunk like state of being used in Mexico.
By Fuzzy
June 21, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
Very entertaining folks, but could you please learn to spell and use grammar somewhat correctly? I have a hard time accepting the opinion of those who so severely abuse the language!
By Ben
June 21, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this
Everybody say thank you to Fuzzy for making the most irrelevant comment of the day. She almost surpassed Paul’s addition of THC to marijuana.
Thanks fuzzy!
By RANDY
June 21, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
I would like to say to everyone by posting our views we are at least doing our part to make america great.Democracy will only work if the people are involved and even if we don’t agree with each other we do support everyones right to their oppinions.We should hit our congressmen and senators with the same agressivness we write on these boards if we did America might just get put back in the peoples hands.The only way America can continue to be the great nation it has always been is if WE get involved in our government. I would love to see Americans in all walks of life be as passionate about issues in their lifes as most people are here.We should all try to be more involved and be the America our founding fathers intended us to be
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
You’re absolutely right RH. I mean, all you did was come on and start preaching about how those of us in favor of legalization of MedMM were druggies and accused us of being stoners and potheads.
I understand that you’ve had a terrible tragedy in your family, and I’m very sorry about that, but that’s no reason for you to rant at us and make unfounded accusations when we’re just trying to have a…well,…relatively civil discussion.
By joe
June 21, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
Randy, I was amazed to find myself agreeing and thinking “Randy is saying something that makes sense!,” until he got to “I don’t understand why man thinks he can do something god chose not to. God gives us freedom of choice…”* (No, Randy, not! If we choose not to bow down to Yahweh and believe in Jesus, we will burn for eternity according to your god!) “I could have sworn that our constititution said some about we all have the right to pursuit happiness….” But Randy what about homosexuals right to pursue happiness? What about a woman who doesn’t want to have a baby and her pursuit of happiness? And this really threw me, “Amereican should be able to live, worship, love,whatever they choose as long as their choices don’t infringe on others rights.Thats the America that so many have died to protect not this new ideal of if the money says yes it will pass the test. randy” So you’ve changed your mind now Randy about abortion, homosexuality, religion?
By Algia
June 21, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
All my life I have had a strong belief that Marjorana and any mind altering drug is morally and spiritually wrong. It has only been in the last few years that I have somewhat changed my perception of this drug. Until you have been a cancer patient or living as a cancer survivor, it is impossible to think what your views will be on this subject. In 1998 my husband and I were both diagnosed with cancer. My husband has colorectal cancer with metastesis to the liver and lung and I have breast cancer. (I also was diagnosed with cervical cancer in 1974). We have been in treatment now into our 7th year. Besides the physical affects cancer treatments inflict, the mental state of cancer patients/survivors become most troubling. At the onset of our regimens of treatment, we were able to cope first through prayer and secondly through prescribed drugs. Living with cancer causes individuals to enter of course on a totally new journey. Priorities are immediately changed, lives are completely turned around. We began living anew in every aspect of daily living. The drugs that have been taken in these 7 years would be inconceivably large to list, and so would the side effects of each. Until an individual has had cancer themself or been the caregiver of a cancer patient, how can they say anything against Marjorana being prescribed for cancer patients. Marjorana taken under the right circumstance is no more than being given morphine which is derived from opium. To a cancer patient, this drug has no more effect than the powerful cancer drugs that are in use daily. If any drug can relieve a cancer patient of physical or mental distress, I am all for it. If the government wants to put reasonable restrictions on it’s use, then do so, but in the interest of cancer patients, I urge the government to not take the drug away.
By RS
June 21, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this
Lozen & Tim, I’m so sorry for the losses of, respectively, your father & grandfather. Tim, those bumper stickers are priceless! How about “Sorry I missed church on Sunday but I was too busy worshipping Satan & practicing lesbianism”!?!? So, Dumbya publicly used the word “fabulous”? Hmmm, I’ve always wondered about that guy…Are you for real, Paul? You’re saying that if a chronically ill family member was in excruciating pain & wanted marijuana, you’d try to intervene so that they can’t have any because whatever God you believe in intends that they suffer????? OH PLEASE!!! BTW, Paul, we ALL know marijuana is illegal, that’s no big secret by any means. But does that mean it SHOULD be illegal in ALL cases? Definately not. What if the powers-that-be declared that wearing cotton was illegal? Does that make the decree any more sensible? To you, probably, as you clearly exhibit the kind of sheeple, blind-follower mentality that indicates an unexercised brain. And, RF, I’ve known plenty of recreational pot-smokers in my lifetime & very few have gone on to stronger substances. Where are you getting your “facts”? Nothing at all wrong with being a male secretary, JD; a friend of mine is, & an ex-co worker is a male nurse. Both these men are extremely masculine. And hetero, although that’s neither here nor there. Good point, Lee. You’ve seen for yourself that marijuana can help a critically ill patient feel better with no ill effects; Um, I hope the story had a happy outcome….
By Paul
June 21, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this
All mighty JD,
when did i call someone dumb or an a*$hole???? Sure I said Potheads, what else do you want me to say???? refer junkies?????? When did I judge someone…….FACT IS MOST PEOPLE WHO SMOKE POT OR ABUSE ANY OTHER DRUG do it for pleasure!!!!!!!!
Marijuana use is illegal for one reason only, money<<<<<
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this
woops, meant RF
By Paul
June 21, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this
Ben, Once again THC amounts are increased in pot….this is doen by your local drug distributor so that you come back and buy his product!!!! I KNOW THC IS ALREADY IN POT…..
By Jd
June 21, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this
By Fuzzy
June 21, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
“Very entertaining folks, but could you please learn to spell and use grammar somewhat correctly? I have a hard time accepting the opinion of those who so severely abuse the language!”
Oh, here we go, gotta online English teacher. If you can’t except the opinion of those who so severly abuse the language; maybe you could except the opinionS of those who so severly abuse the language. One opinion or multiple opinions? /lol/ online arrogance at it’s best.
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
Hey Paul - even though this is off-topic, since we’re actually talking about people using MJ to feel human again, but what’s so terrible about using a substance for pleasure?
By OH PLEASE
June 21, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
Last night I took a Vicadin (spelling?) with a 1/2 glass of really good Merlot. All of GA would be better off if I had smoked a huge joint, should I been on the road driving (which I was not). I could not have been taken to jail, not enough ETOH to warrant arrest. Perscription meds.
By RS
June 21, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
Randy, i must say your 12:57pm post is right on target!!!
By Paul
June 21, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
RS, I came up with a solution…..once again soemone slammed it because it did not meet their argument that it should be legal accross the board by using some lame excuse of someone going through chemo does not want to leave their home….THEY leave to get CHEMO! Proving that most peopel here want it legalized in general so that they can smoke it with out fear of being jailed!
No, I would not intervein if a family member wanted to smoke pot, their choice!
By Paul June 21, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this
Here is a solution, let’s make medical pot legal! Control it distribution and consumption to hospitals and treatment facilities, kinda like radiation chemo! Anyone caught with pot other that that reason above be charged with a regular drug crime…..
Does that work!!!!!
By Fuzzy
June 21, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
Hmmmmm, JD and Paul both spell “accept” the same way - “except”.
I like everybody “except” you! I can “accept” your religion no matter what it is.
Just a friendly lesson in the language.
By vince
June 21, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this
Hey Paul,
So, are you against pleasure?
By Paul
June 21, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this
Eaton,
As long as it is legal, no problem at all about using a susbstance to feel better, I smoke, drink caffine, and take supplements before I go to the gym!
By lozen
June 21, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this
Yeah, what is so wrong with smoking something or drinking something or doing something for nothing but pleasure? “Harm no one and do as thou wilt!” Sounds pretty good to me.
By RANDY
June 21, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
JOE I havn’t changed my mind on anything.I don’t have the right to judge you or anyone else.I’m very religious but my beliefs doesn’t give me the right to say whats right or wrong for you or anyone else.I will never harm you or anyone else and if I can ever help you I would but I will never judge you Joe or anyone else.I’m not God just his humble servant that trys to be the best he can be and help anyone else if its in my power to help them but Iwould never tell anyone that they are wrong or their beliefs are wrong.Thats why the world is so f—-ed up now because we all thing we should judge others.I love others but never judge or look down on anyone even if I’m totally agaiunst their beliefs.I could be wrong in Gods eyes myself. Thanks Joe for your oppinion Randy
By JD
June 21, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
By Paul
“FACT IS MOST PEOPLE WHO SMOKE POT OR ABUSE do it for pleasure!!!!!!!!”
Please provide a link from any respectable research organization that supports this statement. So I can post my link directly From the NIH discrediting exactly what you just stated as fact….
Marijauna = Non physical addiction
ANY OTHER DRUG that is physically addictive is abuse simply because it’s…….. addictive. Why do you think so many heroine addicts hate the fact that they can’t stop using…….is the light going on yet. People who abuse addictive drugs over long periods of time do so because they are thoroughly addicted ……JUnkies don’t become junkies because they like it, people experiment with drugs because they like it, they become junkies because their lives become out of control and the drug is usually a key factor in the overall outcome…physical chemical dependence.
I’m sure you see where I’m going with this
By joe
June 21, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this
Paul, the reason nobody responded to your earth shattering “Let’s make medical pot legal… ” is because that was what everybody else was already saying dumbo! You took two days to catch on and you want praise that you finally, finally got it!
By Paul
June 21, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this
fozzy bear, ARE YOU HIGH??????
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
Paul. You are suggesting that local drug dealers somehow add additional THC to their product to get you to come back for more…and where do they keep the equipment and such needed to do this, hmm?
Paul. IT DOESN’T HAPPEN! You are delusional.
By lozen
June 21, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
Randy, bless your heart.
By vince
June 21, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
Suggesting legalization of hemp is a revolution backed by the people seeking pleasure without possible jail time is reflective of my earlier posting. Again, G. Washington grew hemp at Mt. Vernon, Jefferson grew it at Monticello, and Jamestown Colony had a 200 (yes that is two hundred) year mandate that every farmer in Virginia grew and harvested hemp. Not until big business money making white men got miffed about losing competition dollars to hemp and its by-products (fabric, plastics, etc) that our government was pressured to make it illegal. By associating hemp smoking with :a strong desire to sleep with black men; or, it attracts Mexican immigrants, did hemp become illegal. More smoke and mirrors here folks. Make hemp illegal by fooling us into thinking it is associated with “bad” things, the factory owners could rest easy and make more money.
By Fuzzy
June 21, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
Pl, r u hi?
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
Randy, I’m floored. Absolutely floored. I take back…almost all of the bad things I’ve ever said about you.
By vince
June 21, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
I know more people who have lost control of their lives from the following than from those icky bad illegal drugs:
Shopping addiction, Bingo obsession, race track gambling, alcohol abuse, cigarette smoking, candy addiction
Does anyone think the credit card companies would actually allow the true statistics involving credit abuse to become public knowledge? As long as white men are the CEO’s, the answer is no. Consider if a slight majority of the CEO’s became black/mexican/German/French, etc. I can promise you that the good Congress and Senate folks would stand up on C-Span and try to convince America that credit card companies are not only robbing Americans of their deserved money, but are funding under ground imports of burrito’s and french fries.
By Lee
June 21, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this
RS, Yes, it has a happy ending. Cancer is cured! It has been four years, and it wasn’t easy. There are still follow-ups to do on an annual basis (just to be sure), but the expectation is that the cancer will not return.
And now trying to convince others that some methods to suppress suffering actually work is a tough job. Any medicine, especially a natural one, should be used to reduce suffering. It should also be used on advice from a physician, to make sure it doesn’t interfere with other medicines. It is amazing how little the side-effects of marijuana are compared to similar acting pharmaceuticals.
Quoting Diane: “Show me the logic”!
By Bruce
June 21, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this
jd,
Please, please, please make sure you know what you are talking about BEFORE you post.
“And Bruce your so misinformed it’s funny, A plant is a plant is a plant is a plant, plants grow with sunlight and water and fertilizer depending on soil conditions, the substance in the plant canabis that releases the natural endorphines in your body that produce the feelings you people call being high are readily available in the flowers of the plant. no additives allowed…”
I think you have me mixed up with someone else. Somebody pass jd one before he has a heart attack.
By randy
June 21, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this
JOE I hate to say the but opiates are the only truly physically addictive drugs.I will say things that I know about Joe I have used drugs and during that time I was the most succsessful in most peoples idea of sucsess.I made lots of money had everythi ng was president of my counties republican party joe.I was only out of control when I realized the people around me loved my money even if I was the biggest abuser of the drug.I gave all my money and 22 houses away.I lived homeless joe to see why people can’t break away from it.I have the upmost control of my life I do things for my benifit of helping others.I am not saying I’m always right just that I’m always trying.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this
Thank you, Fuzzy. My life is now complete.
Back on subject, I know a lot of people who feel pot should be legal for medical use who do not smoke. There have been some very valid truthful points made today in some of the posts. The assumption that most people here want it legal so they can smoke it without fear of being arrested is silly. Quite frankly, if people want to do drugs, no matter what they are, they already have access to them so keeping them illegal doesn’t do any good. All it does is waste the taxpayers money by locking up people who are getting high. Our prison system is overpopulated with people who have committed drug offenses and there is not enough room for criminals who commit a crime against another person.
Outlawing pot only increases crime and violence, puts control of the market in the hands of criminals, it also removes all regulation and inspection from the manufacturing process, making already dangerous drugs even more dangerous, and outlawing drugs makes them more accessible to kids, as dealers dont check IDs. Outlawing drugs removes tax revenue from the system by a. not taxing drug revenue, b. locking up people that would otherwise be taxpayers, c. wasting resources, and Enforcement of consentual (victimless) crime is expensive, wasting resources that could be used to solve property and violent crimes.
Also, federal laws against drug possession are unconstitutional as the federal govt has no power to regulate non interstate commerce.
Keeping marijuana away from the sick is the real crime, not smoking pot. Has anyone heard of Peter McWilliams?
I think a lot of the perceptions people have on pot are misguided. You cannot say that pot is bad because you had a family member who fell to harder drugs. Pot is not a gateway drug. I know people who never tried pot who tried harder drugs first. I also know people who have never tried anything but pot. The fact is, if someone is weak then they are weak no matter what. Some people have an addictive personality and if they aren’t ‘addicted’ to pot then it will be booze, crack, meth, or something else. Some people are addicted to religion; everyone has a crutch of some sort.
Smoking pot(recreationally)in my own home is no different than someone coming home after work and cracking open a beer or pouring a glass of wine. The only difference is booze is legal and pot is not. Which, btw, when abused booze is much more damaging to a family than pot ever could be.
By RS
June 21, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this
Lee, I’m so glad the outcome was good! i was waiting for you to post back! Yes, Paul, that’ll work. Note the topic of this blog pertains to MEDICAL use of MJ, not recreational.
By JD
June 21, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
By Fuzzy
June 21, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
Hmmmmm, JD and Paul both spell “accept� the same way - “except�.
I like everybody “except� you! I can “accept� your religion no matter what it is.
Just a friendly lesson in the language.Actually fuzzy, Paul and I both SPELT, “accept” the same. Except, now when I SPELL accept I will use the correct version. Thank online english teacher your so helpful
/lol/
By Bruce
June 21, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
RS,
I was beginning to miss you.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this
Although THC cannot be added after the pot is harvested some seed strains are more potent than others.
By jd
June 21, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
Sorry Randy, I got several blogs going on right now, please disregard.
By Jesse W
June 21, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
My divergence with my party comes chiefly from issues like this. Cocaine, marijuana, and a host of narcotics, uppers, downers, screamers, laughers and other substances whose ingestion alters an individual’s perception of reality were legal in the US and Britain until early in the 20th century. As tragic as the ruination of many lives is, no-one has ever been possessed by “reefer madness” and coerced by the drug into some despicable act. My conservative colleagues are over looking a central tenet of our ideology, that individuals are responsible for their own actions. Opium was first made illegal in Britain in 1916 as a response to the overdosing death of a young actress in London. Parliament outlawed it’s possession (a novel legal concept) on the grounds of racism and patriotism (lying around in an opium daze didn’t help the war effort). All substance control legislation has since followed in it’s footsteps, like in the 1960’s when Congress mirrored the English laws on drugs. The bitterness of the debate stems mainly from the anti-drug lobby’s inheritance of the Prohibition movement’s moralist rhetorical tradition. Demonizing is easier and more compelling than actual discourse. This in turn stems from the early church’s attempts to stamp out baccanalia and ergot-taking pagan festivals in order to cement Christianity. Islam as well is the most prohibitive, and monotheisms are usually proscriptive. Nothing is inherently bad about that, however it is instructive to understand why the rhetoric on this issue has been so highly morally charged. The government has no business regulating what people put in their bodies, especially drugs taken purely recreationally, as this has NO EFFECT on interstate commerce whatsoever, since the market for drugs is illicit anyway. Christians have every right to oppose drug taking, however doing so through the use of the government’s police power, massive abuse of law, unconstitutional means, and highly charged subjective rhetoric causes infinitely more harm than drugs ever could.
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
Jennifer, we’ve been trying to explain that to Paul since yesterday, but he persists in this fiction that street corner drug dealers are somehow using fancy manufacturing techniques to artificially enhance the potency of their product.
Methinks he is no rational man…
By Paul
June 21, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Here is some info about THC extract, That is added to SOME street pot….
Advantages of THC oil:
No hot, harsh smoke to irritate your lungs No tar to stain your teeth and fingers Very little smell 5 times as much THC in bloodstream * *Get 5 times as many “trips” per $$$ as compared to joint/bong smoking No carcinogens to give you cancer
You mean to tell me the Gangsta’a , prep rich kids, and other white trash that you and I see smoking pot, in their cars no less, are doing it for medical reasons………Wake up guys!
Medical pot is OK, as long as it is controlled by someone, legalizing all pot is not ok!<< in my opinion!
By Paul
June 21, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
ok brainiacs, here is a test for you………type liquid THC, synthetic THC, or whatever you want into you search engine……browse through some of the sites, then tell me THC can not be extracted and added to enhance your smoking pleasure!!!!!!!!
By Fuzzy
June 21, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
JD! Spelt? spelt? That’s not even a word! You are driving me crazy!
By Paul
June 21, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Here is what you will need to EXTRACT THC…….
Materials you’ll need for extraction:
A glass jar with a watertight lid (widemouth Mason jars work great) A metal measuring cup with handle (2 cup capacity recommended) Bottle of 190 proof grain alcohol (Everclear brand is perfect) Any quantity of pot, any strength (from a gram up to a few ounces) A 1’ X 1’ piece of sturdy cloth (t-shirt material works fine) An eye-dropper bottle (contact lens type bottles work great) The use of an ELECTRIC stove and its overhead fan
By Paul
June 21, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
“If you’re a smoker, you can put a few drops into a cigarette, let it dry, and feel free to catch a buzz without the smell. “
From the website!!!!!!! You mean this can be dropped on cigarettes, but not a joint?!?!?!?!?!?
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this
Eaton, I just got in on this whole thing today. Thanks for the update.
Paul, perhaps you have already answered this, but what makes legalizing all pot not ok (in your opinion)?
Where are you getting your information? Give me hard facts with links.
Pot cannot be cut like coke can be. I guess I don’t understand your reasoning because you sounded upset that some people add some additives to their ‘street pot’ to keep people coming back to them, then you listed THC oil with the advantages of it? Does that mean you are for or against it? All of the advantages sound good to me! The safer the better.
Btw, bongs filter out more THC than tar.
By Tim
June 21, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this
DANG!!!!!!!!! I have a gas stove… SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT! I thought I found a new job
WHOOOOOOOO CARES!!! lol what in the hell does that have to do with the cost of chips in China?
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
Ms. Fuzzy thing: Spelt is indeed a word.
And, Paul, I never said you couldn’t extract THC. I simply said people who sell pot on the street aren’t going to add oil to their product. Most ‘street sellers’ don’t have the knowledge or the time necessary to do it. I have done it and used it as cannabutter, which btw, rocks when done correctly.
And, who wants to ruin their pot with a cigarette anyway? I’m not from England ;)
By Paul
June 21, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
http://www.lycaeum.org/drugs.old/other/extraction/extract8.html
that is one of the sites that explain THC extraction.
I am against legalizing pot for everyone, maybe medical pot is ok, but it must be controlled.
Something that gets you HIGH should not be legal, yes EATON, I said high, alcohol gets you high if you drink enough, I do not drink to get drunk, most people smoke pot to get high! you can drink without getting drunk, you can not smoke a joint without getting high!
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
I still want to know what websites Paul is referencing. Perhaps freerepublic.com?
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
Actually Paul, I think we’re suggesting that your claims that all street dealers routinely do this are unlikely. From a purely business outlook, this is about as likely as the fiction that chinese restaurants use cat and dog meat instead of cheap chicken and beef.
I don’t have the figures for an ounce of street pot handy or anything like that, but I imagine that a cost-benefit comparison of A) selling all the available material vs B) Going through this time-and-resource-consuming refining process, that A) is going to be the more profitable choice.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
Tim,
Nothing to do with Chips in China, but it does back up the argument that things can be added and extracted from pot and used to GET HIGH!!!!!!
By Netbanker
June 21, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
EATON! I can’t believe you sent them to Landover Baptist! Next thing you know you’ll be starting your own chapter of B.A.S.H. So do you think Linda bakes cookies for her B.I.T.C.H. meetings?
By Ben
June 21, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
Paul, you are truly digging. You originally said ” I know it grows wild! I used to live in nebraska…..it grows in the ditches there…….smoke it right off the stalk if you want, no effect, THC must be added……Moonshine is made from corn, they have to MAKE it into Moonshine, You have to make POT!!!!!!
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
Why Paul? What’s wrong with getting high? That’s a moral judgement and a personal choice.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
Well, Paul, I hate to be the one to enlighten you but you can in fact smoke pot without getting high. Medical patients do it all of the time. They smoke just enough to aleviate their pain.
By Jd
June 21, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
OMG online english teacher get over it.
FYI.
www.dictinary.com
spell1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spl) v. spelled, or spelt (splt) spell·ing, spells v. tr.
I mean true this is chilish really get over it
This thread is about MJ and the law not English. And thread jacking is retarded for real though get over it.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Eaton,
I do know someone that died from smoking pot that was laced with LSD, it was traced back to the dealer, and guess what….he is sitting in a Savannah prison right now!
I never said all street pot was laced or enriched, I said most…..heck take a dollar out of your pocket, there is a 2% chance that it has some type of drug or illegal substance on it as well.
Why do you want pot legal???????????
By Tim
June 21, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Paul doesn’t get it… I think I am just going to go find out how much chips cost in China
By Jd
June 21, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
OK online English teacher this is really getting old.
www.dictionary.com
spell1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spl) v. spelled, or spelt (splt) spell·ing, spells v. tr.
freakin get over it man
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this
Pot also grows wildly in San Jose, IL but it’s ditchweed; no THC content to speak of.
Adding THC oil is more costly and time consuming. No ‘street dealer’ is going to want to go through that.
Maybe corn should be outlawed since you can make moonshine out of it. And, perhaps while we’re at it, we should make paint and white out illegal to so not to tempt someone into huffing/sniffing it. Or, perhaps we should make hammers illegal because people have hurt themselves and others with them. Even better, remove stereos from cars because (some) people can’t drive and change the station which may cause a wreck.
By Jd
June 21, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
OMG online english teacher get over it.
FYI.
www.dictinary.com
spell1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spl) v. spelled, or spelt (splt) spell·ing, spells v. tr.
This thread is about MJ and the law not English. Get over it.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
People don’t die from LSD, Paul. Sorry. There is something more to the story. I highly doubt it was true LSD. It was probably laced with rat poison like most ‘acid’ nowadays.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
Jen, I have said medical is OK!
Ben, Yes , the stuff that grows wild around the area I lived had to be enhanced to make you high, straight from the mouth of a Omaha Drug Unit Officer!!!! Also, most pot today is not the same that grows WILD! It had been altered in some way in the past, they are called HYBRIDS!!!! Contact the Omaha PD for yourself!
http://www.opd.ci.omaha.ne.us/
By Jd
June 21, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this
Most people want medicinal pot legalized because it’s hard, when see friends and family members in jail or what not for something as trivial as MJ.
By Randy
June 21, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this
Weak people need drugs to handle reality. Losers.
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this
Actually Paul, if you think about it if pot were legal your friend would probably still be alive. Legitimizing production and distribution would remove the criminal element selling laced product and result in the government instituting standards for quality, etc.
As to why, well I think I’ve stated my reasons for wanting Medical MJ legalized.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
Jen,
Thanks for the ditchweed comment, I have been trying to stress that to these people here as well…..
Using examples like that are way off base, huffers and sniffers can go to jail! Cops on FOX showed a guy getting busted for huffing paint behind a dumpster in San Antonio. Moonshiners, go to jail. Reckless (careless) driving, will get you a ticket!
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
Oh yeah, I’ll go straight to the police for some enlightenment on pot. Not. They are fed the same lies and misunderstandings you have been spewing. It’s their job.
Of course pot that is grown indoors is not the same as grows in the wild. When grown indoors it is better maintained. When grown outdoors nature ruins it with insects and altered light cycles.
Hybrid is just cross straining. It’s been done for years. People just have more knowledge now than they did in the 60’s about growing pot and the types of strains to use for what type of yield you want. Whether it’s more of a body high or more of a mind high. It doesn’t make it anymore dangerous; only more enjoyable.
By joe
June 21, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
Thank you Paul. I’m sure there are a lot of people who appreciate that information.
RS, Almost all of the second paragraph of your post has a gray box over it and I can’t read it. Did you use a “bad” word? Can you post it again? Did this happen to everyone or just me?
Randy, you’re right. It’s all about greed and power. Unfortunately it’s nothing new. I don’t think there is a government in the entire written history of the world that didn’t use the masses for the wealth and power of a few at the top. It doesn’t matter what they call themselves; republic, democracy, dictatorship…. The cycle doesn’t seem to have an end. They grind the common people deeper and deeper into the ground until people finally rise up in another revolution with untold violence and bloodshed. Then another group will win the revolution and soon that group will be using the masses for their wealth and power. It’s very depressing. “The morning and evening are not held together with a hinge, but rather with a joint!”
By Paul
June 21, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this
Jen, maybe it did have something else in it, but did Jimmy Hendrix die from LSD overdose????? I really don’t know.
By pat
June 21, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
Please, please keep it illegal. It will stay cheaper and easier to get. I don’t know where people live, but I have been many places and places to get good weed cheap are more numouros than gas stations. If they make it legal, it will be harder to get and then they will get tax dollars, for it. I say lets make everything illegal, the black market is far more fair than regular retail and no sales tax….what could be better!
By Cardinal Fang
June 21, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
By Paul
June 21, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
nevermind found Hendrix’s death cause…….inhalation of vomit after barbiturate intoxication
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this
No, I actually LIKE smoking pot. That doesn’t mean I can’t handle reality. Get a grip.
Hey, if FOX says it’s wrong then it MUST be!
My examples are perfect, Paul. The statement being there are products on the market that can be potentially dangerous but they are in fact still on the shelves. White out and paint can be huffed, corn can make moonshine, hammers can hurt people, and car stereos..well..they’re just waiting for the chance to hurt someone!
By Paul
June 21, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
You can die from LSD as well…..
Uni Student Dies From Apparent LSD Overdose North Idaho College student Gloria Discerni, 18, died Friday from an apparent overdose of the hallucinogenic drug LSD she took at a party.
Discerni went into a coma after taking a drink laced with 12 doses of LSD from her friend Cameron James Jester, 18, and then some of his beer which had 12 more doses. Police arrested and charged Jester when he went to visit her in the hospital.
By David
June 21, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
Paul,
Jimi Hendrix (and Bon Scott too!) died of drowning… after drinking too much, passing out lying on his back, and upchucking.
By Fuzzy
June 21, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
We all smelt a rat in Paul’s LSD story. Isn’t spelt a fish? If you take such umbrage with your teachers, my dear children, how will you ever learn? Spelt is not used by educated people. It was spelled incorrectly.
By Jd
June 21, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
By Randy
June 21, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this
Weak people need drugs to handle reality. Losers.
Tell that to my Dad who served in Vietnam, Korea and Panama you born again …hole.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
Uh, no Jimmy Hendrix died from a sleeping pill overdose.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this
Jen,
I put no faith in anything FOX NEWS says, I am talking about the show COPS, its on a variety of channels, not just FOX
Just because Lenny jumped off a bridge, does that make it ok to do too?????????
By Paul
June 21, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
David,
not drinking, drug use!!!! barbiturate intoxication!
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this
People do not die from ingesting LSD, Paul. Notice the article says apparent LSD overdose. Do you know if it was real LSD or was it so-called LSD? That makes a massive difference. No one has ever died from too much true LSD.
Sure, it’s ok with me if Lenny wants to jump from a bridge because he’s not hurting anyone but himself; just like pot smokers.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
David,
not drinking, drug use!!!! barbiturate intoxication!
Hey, Paul, booze is a drug too you know.
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
Spelt is an older strain of wheat - it’s regained popularity lately and you can find spelt flour and things made from spelt flour in many health food stores.
Paul - moonshiners don’t go to prison. Prohibition is over. You can order “make your own” whatever kits from half the catalogs in the country.
By David
June 21, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
OK, it was sleeping pills (though I don’t doubt alkeehul was also involved), but he still drowned!
By Gideon
June 21, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
Uh, excuse me! Jimmy Hendrix is not dead. I just saw him in Paris last spring you morons! He was with Elvis. What is wrong with you people? Do you believe everything you read on the internet?
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
Before the blog police attack me, I inadvertently posted the wrong thing.
And, spelt is still a word ;)
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Oh - maybe Paul got his abreviations confused. Maybe he meant PCP, which can be fatal, and is sometimes added to pot?
By Netbanker
June 21, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
Hey Tim..I just saw Ms. RuPaul over the weekend when I was in Baltimore for a Family reunion that my Aunt everso kindly scheduled for gay pride weekend.
Stupid question, good points all in pointing out the hyprocrisy of ban this, but not that.
Betty Bowers is my hero! WWJD? Tequila apparently.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
That’s what I’m thinking, too, Eaton.
Spelt: A past tense and a past participle of spell. Now, grammar freak, get over your false corrections.
How can I take such umbrage with my teacher? You are absolutely not a teacher, certainly not mine, and you are insulting the intelligence of people here.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
FOZZY BEAR,
WRONG, proper would be spelt in your example…..It was spelt wrong!!!!! Smelt is a fish!
Smoke some more, Dude! I mean professer!
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
Now let’s talk about why it’s hypocritical to embargo Cuba while maintaining Most Favored Nation trade status with China…
By Paul
June 21, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Jen,
barbiturates are drugs, not booze!!!!!!! C’mon!
By Tim
June 21, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Netbanker… toooo much fun lol :) ‘how do I look… how do I feel…….. you’re lookin good n feelin gorgeous’
what a nice aunt you have… it looks like it is supposed to be nice on Sunday… I will get to attend the Sunday evening festivities for the first time this year! :)
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this
Because we’re afraid China can nuke us.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
Eaton, no his mom said LSD, she said nothing more than LSD, maybe it did have rat poision…that will kill you!!!!! She did not go into many details, who would blame her, her kid died from smoking MJ with something in it!
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this
Booze are drugs, too, Paul. C’mon! Alcohol IS a drug. Period. And, if you want to get technical so is sugar, chocolate, and air. That’s right, air. Anything that changes the chemical makeup of your body is a drug.
Now, you are the one who is off base.
By Jd
June 21, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this
I’m so sorry I insulted all you fine educated people here on this forum. The rules where spelt out in plain English and I violated them………Smelt makes good bait so does hotdogs.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
Jen, I just re-read your post….i know alcohol is a drug, when I say drugs, i am talking about those that are illegal…..sorry for the confusion!
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
It’s ok, Paul. I just figured you had smoked too much ;)
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
I thought I smelt something and it was Fuzzy.
By Paul
June 21, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
Getting high right now, high off life and laughter!!!
By Jd
June 21, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this
Oops. I did it again. I accidentially typed where instead of were…where is fuzzy when you need him/her?
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this
Probably disciplining his/her students for saying spelt.
By Netbanker
June 21, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this
Actually Paul, as someone who has grown their own pot that was freaking AMAZING by the standards of every pot smoker I know who tried it, you can grow that stuff on your own with no additives. OK..I added Miracle Grow to the H2O every other week, but there was definitely no chemical enhancements. BTW…most of the smokers I know are executives or professionals that all earn $75K plus annually and are quite responsible citizens.
as for the gateway drug arguments…I’m throwing the BS flag on that as every smoker I know drank alocohol first. By that logic alcohol should be illegal. Honestly, legal or not there will always be a group of citizens who will have addictive personalities and become addicted to drugs. We should punish the citizenry over this tiny percentage of the population?
I’ve ascerted before in other discussions here to FOLLOW THE MONEY! And y’all have done an excellent job at that! The other reason the War on Drugs won’t stop is the money that it provides to local law enforcement through confiscation of property.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this
Paul, let me ask you. Have you ever smoked pot? Do you know how it makes you feel or what it does to you? Why are you so against it?
By Paul
June 21, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
Jen, I have never smoked it, I just don’t think it should be legal!
Netbanker,
Yes, all walks of life smoke pot, big deal, why do they do it???? to get high, not medical purposes…..how many gangsta rappers do you see promoting pot for medical use?????
By Jd
June 21, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
I’ve really enjoyed talking with all of you today. I know it’s impossible to change anyones mind about anything for or against the subject matter at hand but at least we all got some laughs during a long day at the job or whatever you all are doing. Please have a safe trip home and take care.
P.s. oh and Fuzzy spelt is a word man,and p** in the wind won’t make a blind man see.
By Richard Roma
June 21, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
Your argument does not explain why it should be illegal or a criminal offense. Yes, studies may show that it is bad for you, or a “gateway drug”, but none of the studies tell us why it should be a criminal offense. Eating foods high in fat is bad for us. Excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages is bad for us. Both of these could kill us. Alcoholism could lead to thoughts of suicide. Overeating drives our insurance rates up due to its bad side effects. Smoking tobacco is also considered a “gateway drug” for teenagers. Yet, the only one that is illegal is marijuana. Look at the stats for costs in lives, and money and do a comparison of marijuana users vs. obese people, smokers and heavy drinkers. You will find that the legal vices cary a much higher cost in lives and money than the illegal one. The only way you could validate your argument would be to suggest that any thing that could harm us should be taken away from us and that the gov. should act like a nanny. As a conservative, is this what you are suggesting?
By Eaton
June 21, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
Paul, I use your own words - “all walks of life smoke pot, big deal”
Wow. Exactly…big deal. So what if someone wants to smoke pot to get high…as long as they are responsible about it, why is it any of your business?
I ask you again, what is so wrong, inherently, with getting high? The history of mankind is FULL of people getting high. Mind-altering substances are at the heart of just about every aboriginal/native or primitive religion on the planet.
Where’s the harm?
By Tim
June 21, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
Jd… neither does fartin in the rain :)
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
Paul, if you have never smoked it and really have no personal knowledge of it then how can you say it should be kept illegal?
And, for the gateway drug argument, most pot smokers I know tried cigarettes or booze first, not pot. I think I tried milk first. Does that make milk a gateway drug?
The fact remains that keeping it illegal and on the black market causes more damage than good. It keeps the prices high, it allows the thugs to control the market, and it causes more violence than if it were legal. Besides, who’s ever heard of a case of a violent pot smoker? And, certainly, there are no documented cases of deaths resulting from pot use. You just simply cannot smoke yourself to death. Believe me, I’ve tried and all it got me was a trip to Krispy Kream.
All of my friends who smoke pot are professionals in the IT business. Some even with the government. It’s ok, Paul, hold onto your hat, yes there are tokers in the government. Most are programmers and some are networking admins, one is the president of his own company and he makes an excellent living.
Smoking pot does not make you a loser or a less desirable person. If people say they lost their job due to their pot addiction they are plain and simply full of it because they were most likely a loser anyway who will cling to any excuse they can. If it’s not pot it’s booze, if it’s not booze it’s family problems, if it’s not family problems, it’s “I feel sorry for myself”.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
I think Fuzzy’s mom or dad came into the room and saw they were on that thar Eenternet.
By Fuzzy
June 21, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this
But if a man is blind would he need more Viagra?
By Fuzzy
June 21, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this
Jennifer, Please do not insult me. I am a professional.
By Jack
June 21, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
What is bad is: you can burn one on Monday. On Friday, you get in an auto accident that is not your fault, but there was a fatality. Everyone involved in a wreck involving a fatality,regardless of fault, is given a blood test. You are completely straight since you obstained since Monday but you fail the blood test and are charged with DUI. That is not right. They won’t legalize it cause it can be grown anywhere and they would never be able to tax it.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
No, he couldn’t see his wife anyway.
By Jd
June 21, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
Jennifer rocks, brains, bueaty and she know how to spell the past tense of spell. Your going place little lady. Yabadaba do wilma!!!!!! ….I’m outta here.
By Fuzzy
June 21, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
Well, this have been purty durn near…. uh, real. Yes, i have smelt pot. I even smokt pot. And I likt it to. Paul dont knock it if you aint triet it.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
I don’t care if you are a professional or not, so am I, and it seems to me as if you set yourself up for insults.
It is well known that pot is the only drug that can be traced after an extended period of time. Why do you think truckers use(d) meth and coke? Not only to stay up those long hours but because you can’t trace it after a couple of days; same with booze.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this
It’s ok, Fuzzy. It’s all goooood :)
By Jd
June 21, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
oh you smoked pot huh, or last week when you sent you dad a fathers day card did you spelled his name right? I spelt my dads name right he liked to. dad oh I mean dad oh thats backwards I meant dad oh crap I forget I’ll just give it mom or mom. I’m lost fuzzy.
one more time fuzzy sorry thought you left
www.dictionary.com—get friendly with it before you start correcting other poster.
spell1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spl) v. spelled, or spelt (splt) spell·ing, spells v. tr.
I do have a blind friend who did try viagra he said he didn’t see a difference….you don’t have to laugh if you don’t want to ….hehehehehehehehehehe
By pat
June 21, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this
Paul, That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard. a: you can’t lace pot with LSD. Well, you can but it would not do anything since the LSD would break down and become inert in the fire, so it would not do any good. b: LSD requires a moist contact with the skin to work, so why would anybody lace a pot wit h LSD c:LSD can’t kill you anymore than pot can. It can make you a little crazy in high enough doses, but it cannot kill you. Let me put it this way, Your more likely to win the lottery twice while being struck by lightning than you would be croaking from an LSD laced joint. I don’t know what your friend is in prison for, but it ain’t that. Perhaps you meant PCP, but that compound is so incredibly rare, that I doubt it. Anyhow, I think your story is full of poop, since your facts are completely wrong anyway.
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
I know I’m laughing!
By Jennifer
June 21, 2005 05:11 PM | Link to this
I think Paul is seriously misinformed. I never did see where he posted the links where was getting his information from.
You are correct. You cannot (normally) lace a joint with LSD as it is nearly impossible to do. However, taking too much LSD will make you a little coo-coo (for cocoa puffs). But, you still have to take an enormous amount for that to happen. Plus, it’s very difficult to find true LSD nowadays. Everyone wants to make paper with strychnine on it and call it LSD, which it isn’t. That’s what most of the reactions are from: Rat Poison.
By Netbanker
June 21, 2005 05:19 PM | Link to this
Tim…is this your first Sunday evening or the first pride? Lordy you’re making me feel old! I can’t even remember my first Pride (must have been too high! hehehehehe). And even though I was stoned in 1993 I do recall that first March on Washington…and the one in 2000
By Bruce
June 22, 2005 07:14 AM | Link to this
I heard on the radio this morning that a candy company is now marketing a candy called marijuana candy for kids. It is a candy laced with hemp oil. There jingle is “every lick is like a toke”. Did anyone else hear this?
By Lyrazel
June 22, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this
Perhaps you should step back and argue about not the myths of marijuana consumption but the realities of why drug use is so widespread in America.
MYTHS: I know enough about teens and LSD and drug use of children to state that the statistic posted was invalid. First, the blood alchohol level of the young woman was phenominally high, 6-13 drinks, as far as the LSD, yes it was probably strychnine and hence she became ill of strychnine and alcohol poisoning. LSD is not marijuana. The argument that street dealers are making oil to spread on pot is erroneous, they push drugs—they dont package drugs like shoe salesmen. One of the reasons marijuana is more potent is the weath of hydroponic farmers now involved in the INDUSTRY of marijuana propagation. Illegalization of marijuana has turned ditch weed into something controlled by timed lights and drip irrigation, a farmer can grow pot in 3 months and turn 80,000 but his 17 acres of corn, wheat and barley eek a bare living of 10,000 at 6 months worth of work. Illegalization of marijuana keeps the black market strong. It keeps dealers/growers wealthy.
REALITY The sad truth of the MEGA BILLIONS of dollars the USA has spent on its failed drug war. Its drug czar oversees more military comando training of foreign armies than it ever studies drug useage, rehabilitation, education as well as substitute farming practices, and medical benefits.
Because of the war on drugs, we have equal to the entire population of the state of North Dakota in jail. While it may not seem significant, most of these jailed are in for drug-related cases, yet there is almost no rehabilitation, no assistance for Americans trying to get back from drug use. There is no job training, no decent programs for families to rely on when drug use hits their home. With all the money we spend on this War On Drugs—why is so little money being spent IN AMERICA on rehabilitation from illegal drugs? Why so little spent on anti-drug education of children—unless you think just say no was a barnstorm of success? Why so little attention from the medical community concerning a drug that has a potential of alievating pain or suffering of the patients its supposed to be concerned with?
We have serious flaws in American drug policy. We allow pharmaceutical companies to pass drugs on to the public without admitting these drugs have been known to cause serious defects, cancers if not deaths. Keeping Americans chemically dependent on medications is the basic business of modern pharmaceutical companies. They do not and never will support a drug-free life.
Right there you have the hypocrisy of the legalization of marijuana issue.
By Tim
June 22, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this
Netbanker… it will hopefully be my first Sunday evening at Pride (weather permitting)… 3rd Pride event I have attended… the last two it rained on Sunday so I didn’t get to see the evening festivities
By Bruce
June 22, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this
The reason the government is not spending more money on these type programs is you want government to stop interffering with our personal lives. These are personal issues and the government has no business in them.
By Ben
June 22, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this
Hey folks, as much as it pains me to do so, I’m gonna’ have to agree with Fuzzy on this one. Well that one, considering I missed it yesterday. Spelt, is not a word used in American English. It’s the British past of spell, but if you use the Queen’s English, you are right. Nevertheless, WHO GIVES A DAMN. It doesn’t matter if you are a professional unless you are a professional writer.
By RS
June 22, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this
Netbanker: I LOVE RuPaul; the lady has it going on, always did. Bruce: Missing ME? Aw…And no, I haven’t heard anything about this marijuana candy. I must say, that’s appalling. That’s going a bit over the edge, don’t you rhink? Ben: Spelt is actually a whole grain. Walk into any Whole Foods store, you’ll see spelt products. Joe: Sorry about that; I don’t know what could have happened but here’s yesterday’s post again: “Lee, I’m so glad the outcome was good! I was waiting for you to post back! Yes, Paul, that’ll work. Note the topic of this blog pertains to MEDICAL use of MJ, not recreational.”
By Ben
June 22, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this
RS, I knew that, but it’s not correct in the context it was used. Unless, like I said, you accept the Queen’s English.
By Tim
June 22, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this
I’ll have to ask all the queens I know if ‘spelt’ as a past tense of ‘spell’ is acceptable then
By Ben
June 22, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this
Go for it Tim, but no need to get back to us on the results.
By Tim
June 22, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this
Ben… deal
By Ben
June 22, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
What were we talking about again?
By DeltaX
June 22, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
Fact: Although drugs were made illegal early in the US history; The number of total addicts in the US has not changed by more than .5% since then.
All we have done is create criminals. At least when they were leagal addicts worked and paid taxes. (Watch GPTVs History of drugs in the US for backking of this info)
Fact: The largest paying anti-marijuana lobbyists are the beer companies!!!
Go figure.
By Vince
June 22, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
The government has little interest in illegal drug usage. Back during the early reign of King Ron, Queen Nancy got belittled by the press for buying new China. The palace decided she should get a “cause”. Her “just say no” campaign had a most profound effect. For the first time since 1972, drug related street crime showed its first increase. Yes, the percentages were actually on a down trend. The only time the government talks about drug problems is when they want to steer away attention from the real problem: Taxpayers spent around 40,00 each last year on drug related crimes. We spent close to 354,000.00 each on white collar corporate crime.
History proves that the government takes negative action against any product or entity that could be against the better interests of corporate donors,lobbyists, etc. By getting us to think something is bad, morally wrong, and potentially hazardous, we jump on that band wagon without even noticing the support we give for everything else. (If it isn’t bad, then why discuss it?)
By lozen
June 22, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this
Well, this medical MJ has about played out. What more can anyone say? Onward my friends to something more interesting! How about that John Bolton? How about “Was 9/11 an inside job? How about our government slashing money for NPR and PBS? Our government is working for us folks! I did think Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear, no! I mean Fuzzy was right. I’ve never heard anyone say spelt.
By Eaton
June 22, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this
lozen, my sister says spelt all the time, but then she’s a health food junkie, so she’s probably talking about the grain.
The Bolton thing is cracking me up - the Democrats say they will end the filibuster if the White House will cough up documents concerning Bolton’s past record. The WH, with its usual ultra-secrecy, refuses.
Then, with delicious irony, The Shrub himself appears before the press saying how important it is to get Bolton installed, so that he can…ready for this? increase transparency within the UN.
By RS
June 22, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this
Using “spelt” to mean past tense of spell strikes me as being very redneck..
By Tony
June 22, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
Diane why blow smoke and try to pull politics into the fray. Conservatives and liberals alike in the 10 states made it legal to obtain marijuana for medical reasons. The same people who made it legal to kill an unborn child and called it “abortion” your right to choose are now saying that in those 10 states it is a Federal Crime. If you have a problem with that too bad. We have no recourse. They are appointed for life. Maybe now you’ll understand what we conservatives have been complaining about for quite some time. Issues like abortion and yes even marijuana should be litigated by the people for the people. Not res judicata without any recourse.
David You my friend are a good man. Hold firm to your convictions. The way I see it is that pot houses are popping up all over California and Oregon and other states where it is legal to buy medical marijuana. Any yahoo with sore eyes can get a prescription. You sir are seeking the truth and the truth is immoral greedy doctors seeking riches are issuing prescriptions to any drug addict with the ability to pay for the appointment and bingo, he gets a prescription. But you won’t hear anyone admit there’s a problem. No to them it’s this poor cancer patient or AIDS patient. Damn the wholesale problems of thousands of fat, worthless, lazy pot heads on the dole in California and other states. Nope, “that cancer patient who can obtain THC in a pill needs his right to obtain marijuana.” But it doesn’t stop there. When that same out of work pot head because he can’t/won’t maintain a job goes into their home and robs them, they will blame the Bush administration, they will blame the conservatives and Christians. It’s beyond them that it is totally out of the hands (as is abortion) of our elected officials and by a SIX (6) to THREE (3) vote with two of the three decenting judges being conservative. No they will condemn the Christians, Politicians and people like you and me holding firm to our humble opinion.
And Lastly, DeltaX, Netbanker, Eaton and Sandy It is not when the soul enters the embryo because that takes for granted that it’s not there at one point and then it is at another, hence the conclusion is implicit in the premise. Let’s be fair and ask “Does the embryo have a soul?” It is obvious to all that an embryo is alive. Life is much like being in this: as between being and not being there is no third alternative. There are not degrees of life. If a thing lives, it is alive, if it does not live, it simply does not exist. This living thing grows, enjoys a certain degree of independence, it nourishes itself in one way or another, and so forth. This is true even when the entity we are discussing is only one cell big. It is also obvious to science that the embryo is human. Perhaps I am naïve, but I think serious normal people can agree that the embryo is alive, and that it is human.
The next step we have to take, therefore, is whether this living, human thing has a soul. It is impossible and a clear contradiction to say “something is human” and “it has no soul” as the soul is essential to the human being.
The specific characteristic that distinguishes man in the entire universe is that he has an intellectual soul, which knows universals, which can reflect upon itself, which apprehends the truth and moves towards the good (a mention we call love). Just because a human being is not or cannot exercise such wonderful powers does not mean he stops being human, then all of us could be treated like animals or plants when we were asleep. Or it would be ok to (“put to sleep”) those who were retarded, uneducated, or apparently incapable of communicating or showing love.
Human life is in itself a spiritual, “ensouled” life. At conception, the entity conceived enjoys human LIFE, human DIGNITY, and is truly a human CHILD. Only extreme rationalization could doubt that the embryo, or zygote or fetus is not human life.
Furthermore, I won’t argue the position of probability or possibility, for it is always immoral for us to act on an unsure conscience in such matters, and even if we are slightly unsure it is a human, it is immoral to treat it in an inhuman way!
By Eaton
June 22, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this
Way to try to bring up abortion yet again Tony. Is that the only thing you people can talk about?
Get a life.
By Jd
June 22, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this
Feel - felt kneel - knelt deal - dealt spell - spelt
By Eaton
June 22, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this
You know Tony, you don’t get it, and I doubt you ever will. The thought of personal liberties being voted on by the American people terrifies me. All this nonsense - and it IS nonsense, Tony - about activist judges is nothing more than a fear campaign created by nasty conservatives who are upset that the court isn’t supporting their prejudices.
Matters of personal liberty should NEVER be subject to the whim of the majority. Our system of government was designed to conform to the desires of the majority WITHOUT trampling on the rights of the minority. Unfortunately, you and all of your conservative and YES, Tony, fundamentalist friends are perfectly happy trampling on the rights of the minority, and anyone else who doesn’t conform to your tiny, narrow idea of what’s right.
Thank GOD for “activist” judges, Tony. Without them we’d be in deep trouble.
By DeltaX
June 22, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this
Tony, You state “The next step we have to take, therefore, is whether this living, human thing has a soul. It is impossible and a clear contradiction to say “something is humanâ€? and “it has no soulâ€? as the soul is essential to the human being.”
You believe a soul must exist, but cannot point to any rational evidence of it. Therefore you also cannot say that it does not develope like the rest of all we see.
But, you lack the intellect to have this conversation - so good day.
What do you all think about this?
HEADLINE: Married men earn more if wives(stay at home and) do the chores
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8316386/)
Comments?
By Netbanker
June 22, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
RS…I think you’re confusing the redneck spilt for spelt as in ‘Baby…get me another beer. The dog knocked over the can and spilt the last one before I could drink it.’
By Ben
June 22, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this
Excellent logic Jd, keep up the good work here’s your sticker! lol
Tony’s little outburst about a soul and life concludes that everytime a women menstrates she is aborting a child, or life, and everytime he jerks off in a napkin he is aborting thousands of children, or lives.
By the way Tony if the 6-3 vote went the other way, you wouldn’t be too concerned about everyone else’s humble opinion that they are holding firmly. Your opinion is right for you, not for everyone else.
By Netbanker
June 22, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this
Tony…trying to get the last word in? Too late.
RS…RuPaul was great! It was Baltimore’s 30th Anniversary Pride and she was great! It was sooo crowded on the streets and the weather was perfect!
Lyrazel and DeltaX…I think Nancy’s ‘Just say No’ has become the Republican mantra…just say No to drugs, sex, smaller government, fiscal responsibility, common sense, open government, honesty, integrity, science, diplomacy, …the list just keeps going on.
By Jd
June 22, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
Thanx Ben I’ll put it right next to my Wayne Brady Bobble head. lol :-)
By Ben
June 22, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
“I’m Wayne Brady, Biotttch!” Who knew he was so funny!
By Netbanker
June 22, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
HAHAHAHAHAHA…laughing at myself! I had to re-read JD’s post like 6 times before I got it. Comma’s between the groups would have helped me greatly! I was totally not getting how he got from feel to felt kneel. DUH!
I’m chalking it up to the Summer Solistice making my hair blonder/faster.
By Jd
June 22, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this
I know I’m sorta new to the AJC forums, I read it alot but usually don’t post much. But, are you all really that insensed over proper syntax and grammer on an informal online sorta blog. I blog alot over at free republic and cruel site of the day and it’s not so much that people can just totally kill the language but if someone types there instead of their or something along those lines most people still grasp the idea of the post and move on. Do you all spell check all your post ? Are typos or just plain simple human errors not tolerated. I’m just wondering. I mean when I talk or write a letter to someone I try to be as professional as possible, but when I’m just shoot n the scat online or with a friend it’s usually not very formal.
By Eaton
June 22, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
Forget all of this nonsense. What we should be afraid of is the congressmen and Senators who either have already voted for or are preparing to vote for an amendment to ban flag burning.
Anyone’s personal opinions on the subject aside - when you start banning one form of free speech because you find it objectionable, it’s only a matter of time before others fall.
Facism, here we come!
By Eaton
June 22, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
Honestly? Yes - grammar and usage make a big difference to me. Maybe that’s the result of being the child of two teachers, maybe it’s just plain snobbery, but if someone displays a consistent inability to spell, punctuate, and phrase effectively, I’m likely to think that person is less-than-intelligent, and less likely to waste time reading their posts.
I don’t mean typos, or one or two misspelled words, but a pattern of errors. Truthfully, intelligent people tend to be more articulate than unintelligent folks. That’s not always true, of course, but it tends to be accurate.
By Ben
June 22, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this
Jd, that’s why we jumped on Fuzzy! But every now and then we stray from the topic, and the word spelt just seemed a little more interesting to talk about at the time!
By vince
June 22, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
I agree. Once again, the media has shown how to manipulate our thinking. Gas is up again, Bolton is Bolton, and since people are slowly beginning to see through Bush’s Bangled Lies, SS reform is causing harm. Rather than report, the media pulls out their guns with hot button issues.
A few weeks ago I raised questions about 9/11. I never got verified answers. Instead I was called stupid and was asked if I thought American put a man on the moon.
This crowd doesn’t want to answer anything they know is not verifiable. They just throw back school yard insults.
Watch….
Can anyone provide me with a photograph of actual Boeing 757 plane parts sitting on the front lawn of The Pentagon on 9/11? (Lozen, nobody will provide me proof, as it doesn’t exist; hence I will be called stupid again.)
By Ben
June 22, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
Dumb people have opinions too!!
On the other end of that Eaton, pretentious people tend to make me think they are full of sht and I’m like to think that person is full of sht and won’t waste my time reading their post. Sometimes their writing is so ornate and wordy that it takes away from the thought that lies beneath the words.
Again, that’s not always true, but it tends to be accurate. lol
By Ben
June 22, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
I’m sure Socrates, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and a few other people would agree that being able to punctuate, spell and use grammatical sentences correctly says very little about what people are trying to say.
By Ben
June 22, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this
A plane didn’t hit the Pentagon!
By Sandy/Sanhan
June 22, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
It is something worse then naivete Tony, to bring unwanted children into a world where there are already so many, and where womanhood and motherhood are demeaned and dehumanized cross-culturally. Making abortion illegal will not stop the dying of embryos, but will likely increase the chances of women dying, young and not so young, potentially leaving scores of motherless orphans, scores of broken hearts and lives. Legal abortion is about women’s survival, right to privacy, right to self-determination and dignity, whether or not you believe that.
Unlike the religious right and anti-choice crowd who invoke God into this argument, I’m sure God knows and understands the agony of the decision, and respects the right for women to make it. If it’s a sin, and many of us feel it is not, (s)he will forgive it. I have a hard time imagining God being so vengeful that he would rather have a woman and fetus die from a back alley abortion or other complication, (which is what will happen if Roe V. Wade is overturned), than if a woman chooses birth control or legal, safe abortion for reasons that are her own and ultimately rooted in survival: hers and those of her previously born children.
Since you won’t argue probability or possibility, you can never realize that a safe,legal abortion may preserve the health of a woman who decides upon motherhood in later years, who may have made the decision because she was overwhelmed with a sick and dying child, her own poor health, physical or mental, or because she was taking medication dangerous to developing fetuses and didn’t want to deliver a deformed baby and fight the illness at the same time, or any number of reasons that are sometimes borne of love for life that already exists, and frankly none of your damn business as long as there are children (fully formed and sentient) who are unwanted, living in abject poverty, and abused.
If you really want to lower abortion numbers, (which you can never completely eliminate) then work for social justice for those who have been born, whose potential is being snuffed out by ugly realities of misplaced judgment that the poor deserve their lot. You won’t do this with an overblown sense of religious righteousness, no matter how humble one claims to be. You will do it by recognizing that life is pain and our purpose here is to be compassionate to all of humanity and humanity’s failings, because ultimately that pain connects us as human beings and is the driving force for good. Ask Jesus and/or Buddha.
If we lived in a perfect world where all life was revered by everyone for everone, you might have a stronger case.
By Jd
June 22, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
I’ll keep that in mind before I post anymore. I can’t claim to b the sharpest knife in the drawer but I know I’m not the dullest. I’m more wondering about forum etiquette. Do you people read post to learn other ideas and opinions; or do you look for examples of other peoples verbal deficiencies or inability to type and then use them as a basis for questioning their intelligence?
By Eaton
June 22, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
Say what you want, Ben. Society in general ascribes greater credit to people who are articulate. That’s a fact, jack.
Personally, I can’t stand anti-intellectuals who think that anyone using a vocabularly consisting of words with more than two sylables is being pretentious. Usually it’s because they don’t know the meaning of most of the words but don’t want to admit it.
Not always true, but it tends to be accurate.
By vince
June 22, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
Abortion was legal in American for a very long time. When The AMA wanted to cash in on birthin’ babies, they lobbied Washington DC with a failed and rather ignorant suggestion: Mid-wives never went to medical school, so they must be evil. Evil witches. (I guess up until that point they were holy angels) And when that failed, they convinced Americans that abortion was morally wrong, and NOT DUE TO RELIGION OR GOD, as if abortion continued, eventually the Irish immigrants would out number the Americans that built our land. The thought that immigrants could outnumber people already living here caused wide spread panic, and support for anti-abortion laws. Mission accomplished: Mid Wives “evil does” - Doctors “RICHER”
By Ben
June 22, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
Jd, depends on who you ask. Usually come Wednesday (on a good week Tuesday) you can expect to see the insults flying. We figured a while ago that the only good opinion on here is your own. lol
By dakotawoman
June 22, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this
Tony, it is none of your business if a woman has an abortion. None! You do not know what you are talking about. You have never faced being pregnant; you never will. There are other problems, as Sandy states, such as children who have nothing to eat today and children who have no place to sleep tonight! They are already here and they need help. So why don’t you get your moralizing a** to a local shelter or soup line and do something for them?
By Ben
June 22, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this
I usually do say what I want Eaton, but just because society ascribes greater credit to something doesn’t mean that it is all that is holy. And you, my friend, should be careful how you attribute society.
Society in general also ascribes that homosexuality is wrong. That’s a fact Jack! But since they say so, does that make them right?
Pretentious language doesn’t make you intellectual, it only makes you SOUND that way. Hoping to sound profound or poetic by using large words are flowery phrases is in fact pretentious. I value someones opinion based on what the thought rather than the package you put it in.
I’m definitely not anti-intellectual and I consider myself very articulate and definitely capable of understanding what you are saying regardless of how many syllables you use. But I will make this point to you: there may be people who can’t grasp triple-syllable words or whatever you want to classify them as, but by being pretentious those are the people that aren’t hearing what you are saying! Just my $.02!
By Ben
June 22, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
Example:
Pretentious When our pregenitors reach their silver-haired and golden years, we frequently ensepulcher them in homes for senescent beings as if they were already among the deceased.
Not Pretentious When are parents become old, we frequently bury them in old-age homes as if they were already dead.
By Eaton
June 22, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
Ben, you’re assuming that people are writing in a particular fashion because they are trying to sound intellectual. Did you ever consider the fact that people write the way they do simply because they write that way? I write the way I write because that’s the way I write. I’m not trying to be anything. But hey, thanks for making assumptions.
Oh, and if your pointed reference wasn’t directed at me, I do apologize for jumping to conclusions.
By Jd
June 22, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
Great responces everyone. :-)
By joe
June 22, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this
Ben and Eaton! Ben and Eaton! Come on everybody to the playground and let’s watch em fight! What is the problem? Is it just two male animals locking horns?
By RS
June 22, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
Netbanker: As I see it, “spilt” is redneck-ese for “spilled”, just as “spelt” (unless you’re specifically referring to the grain!) is redneck-ese for “spelled”. Back to RuPaul; not surprisingly, when she was a teen, she was mercilessly tormented by her peers, which further reinforces my tried & true theory that misunderstood, nonconformist kids end up morphing into adults of unsurpassed fabulocity! Ben: According to Tony’s, er, “logic” (?!?) every moment that any of us are not in the sack procreating, we are murdering countless potential babies. Eaton: I personally, would never burn our flag, but I’m not comfortable with the govt infringing on more & more of our rights. Sandy/Sahan: Your 2:32pm post is one of the best pro-choice arguments I’ve ever come across! Bravo!
By Eaton
June 22, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
RS, I don’t think that 99% of us would burn the flag, but that’s not really the issue. 99% of us wouldn’t join the Klan either, but one’s right to do so must remain intact if we are to be a truly free nation.
By Jd
June 22, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
haha, RS I’m leaving that alone, I thought it was dead anyway
By RS
June 22, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this
Eaton: Point well-made! I do consider the Klan issue a very slippery slope because they incite hatred & violence.
By Jd
June 22, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
I think Ben and Eaton both actually agree with each other just not the way the either of them say it.
By Jack
June 22, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
Ben, Eaton writes the way he is. An arrogant jerk. Glad you’re still on the blog.
By Jd
June 22, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this
have a good night yall
By Eaton
June 22, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
Better an arrogant jerk than a bitter, hate-filed, narrow-minded, stereotype-driven old man, Jack.
By Tim
June 22, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
there’s munchkin Jackie again… obsessing over Eaton… freaky… just freaky
By Tim
June 22, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
when are you running for mayor of munchkin land Jackie?
By Jd
June 22, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this
I was wondering, who do think looks better in a 2 piece Shaunti or Diane ?
By STAY HOME!
June 22, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this
NOTICE - THIS IS GAY PRIDE WEEKEND IN THE CITY OF ATLANTA IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE STAY HOME! STAY IN YOUR SUBURBS! STAY OUT OF PIEDMONT PARK! YOU DON’T PAY TAXES TO SUPPORT IT ANYWAY. LEAVE US ALONE AND LET US HAVE OUR TWO DAYS OF PEACE AND FUN.
By Jd
June 22, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this
I was wondering, who doyou think looks better in a 2 piece Shaunti or Diane ?
By STAY HOME!
June 22, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
Shaunti is a 2 piece — oh my, the complete horror of the though - thanks Jd, I will never have sex again
By STAY HOME!
June 22, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this
IN A 2 -PIECE not IS
By Randy
June 22, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this
Thanks to prayers to Jesus the boy scout was found yesterday in Utah. I know some of you will say why can’t God answer all prayers, but then no one would ever die and there would be no sense of urgency to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
By Sandy/Sanhan
June 22, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
Thank you, RS, very nice of you to say since it’s not even on topic… This just seems so obvious to anyone who has ever struggled with the economic, physical, and emotional demands of caring for children in the best of circumstances, let alone in poverty or with mental or physical illness, or limited and substandard health care, all of which are becoming more and more common in this great country. An unwanted pregnancy added to the mix may be a disaster, not just for the mother, but for the other children and family members involved. I’ll bet more likely than not, a woman makes this decision not out of an audacious sense of inconvenience, or that her life is worth more than the clump of products of conception, but out of sacrifice for her other family members and their chances of survival. I’d also bet that she prays pretty hard regardless of her denomination.
Never mind the analogy of the firefighter rushing in to save the petri dish or the living child; this is the Sophie’s Choice that women make everyday all over the world. The least we can do is make sure that women survive the ordeal, to eventually experience the joy of bringing life into the world, if they so choose when they are able.
Okay. I’m done now. Until the the next one draws a line in the sand…
By Eaton
June 22, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this
Gosh Randy, I didn’t realize that God chose to ignore various prayers and kill off folks because he wanted to create a sense of urgency to get saved.
Thanks for clearing that up…let me mark that down as reason #432 NOT to worship your version of God.
By Eaton
June 22, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this
Oh, and Randy, I hope you have the compassion and dedication to Jesus required to call the father of the boy lost last year in the same woods…you know the one whose son wasn’t found, and explain to him that he just wasn’t lucky enough to win the Jesus you-get-to-live Lottery.
By Netbanker
June 22, 2005 05:09 PM | Link to this
RS…I see your point and also considered it, but as I’ve never heard a rednecked use spelt so much as spelled while I have heard spilt for spilled. Whatever!
Your theory does have a level of validitiy to, but I do worry about the kids who don’t managed to blossom into “adults of unsurpassed fabulocity” but commit suicide or turn into weirdo, geeks. Hmmm…glass, houses, stones (or stoned maybe) sometimes I’m fab other times geek.
EAton…who is leading the flag burning charge? Republicans, I’ll wager?
By Ben
June 23, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this
Eaton - I wasn’t pointing anything at you, I just use you to kind of put the shoe on your foot. As usual, I was just using the other side of the debate. I understand people write the way they write (that’s confusing!)! But if everybody agreed with everybody, we wouldn’t have as much fun.
And to catch up with the flow today, flag burning is only right if you are burning it because it’s old or torn. Any other reason, you should be shot and dragged through the streets.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 08:17 AM | Link to this
Really Ben? Shot or dragged through the street…interesting. You would have fit right in in Nazi Germany.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 08:29 AM | Link to this
LOL. No I wouldn’t have because I am not of the “master race.” I was joking about the shot and dragged through the street, but I do have serious issues with flag burners. It’s not really the act of burning the flag, but the reason and way they do it. I’ll see if I can keep it simple.
Let’s compare the flag to the cross! You can burn the cross in your backyard, frontyard or anywhere it’s not offensive to other people. But if you burn it in my yard, I can shoot you or call the cops and have you arrested.
The same should be true with the flag. If you want to burn it, burn it in your yard, hell burn it in your house, I don’t care. But when you burn it in public, or on the steps of Congress, you should probably get shot or jailed.
People that burn the flag are ignorant. You claim it’s your right and telling you you can’t burn it takes away your freedom of speech — but the flag is what represents your freedom of speech. It’s not America that people who burn the flag has issues with, it the politicians. Burn the flag of that political party, or burn the flag of that persons state. Otherwise you are burning the flag in protest of the Unites States. Well, like a lot of you have said in the past, if your issue is with the U.S., Mexico will be empty soon, and Canada, has plenty of room.
By Brian Curtis
June 23, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this
Ben, “in public” is not the same as in your yard. And the only reason you could take action if someone burned either a flag OR a cross on your yard is because they’re trespassing on your property—NOT because what they’re doing is somehow Evil. (Regardless of what you OR I think of it.)
You feel that the flag is too sacred and important to burn; but others feel that it’s simply a symbol, or at most a scrap of cloth. And they don’t have to agree with your view—isn’t that what makes the U.S. great, after all?
Protesting the United States government is one of the most important acts—and duties—of U.S. citizens when they disagree with what Washington is doing. While I personally would never do it, I can understand the viewpoint of those who do burn flags, and I would much rather put up with my outrage and discomfort than restrict their freedoms, which would make my claim of “patriotism” a lie.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this
Well, yes Ben - flag burners are burning the flag in protest, not necessarily of the US, but sometimes policies that the person strongly disagrees with. That’s what makes it POLITICAL SPEECH. The 1st amendment was first and foremost designed to protect political speech.
And you’re right - the flag is a symbol of that freedom. But the moment you elevate a symbol and make it immune from that which it stands for, you’ve lost your way.
By the way, cross burning has been ruled a crime because it is a direct statement of hatred and an incitement to violence. Flag burning is not.
Most of us find flag burning distasteful, but the true test of freedom is to allow that which you find ultimately personally offensive to take place. If we are only free to do that which is inoffensive, then we aren’t really free at all. Are we?
By Brian Curtis
June 23, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this
Eaton: That’s the main point for aspiring defenders of freedom to remember. If you’re not defending something you find personally offensive or repugnant, you’re not really defending freedom.
Or, more simply: “Popular speech needs no protection.”
By Ben
June 23, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this
Actually Brian Curtis, buring a flag in my yard is considered a sign of hate and I could shoot you because I felt threatened. So yes, it’s because it’s evil.
I do think the flag is sacred, you are absolutely right. I don’t expect other people to understand why or accept it. But imagine the outrage if people burned statues of Jesus and Mary and kindled them with copies of the Bible. Those are just symbols as well, mere plaster and paper. People would loose their damn minds. Congress, and the President would activate the National Guard to protect the Capitol while they worked feverishly to enact new laws. The Christians would line the streets in protest and outrage.
People that burn flags on the steps of Congress or elsewhere, aren’t necessarily protesting the United States, they are protesting certain issues and/or policies. I just think they are completely ignorant burning the symbol that allows them the right protest. Isn’t that irony?!
By RS
June 23, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this
Sandy/Sahan: Oh but you are so right! Netbanker:Believe me, OTP, I’ve heard the English language butchered in myriad ways. You’re probably what I classify myself as: A “cool nerd”.
By Brian Curtis
June 23, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this
Ben: Sorry, but you’re wrong (again). Burning a flag in your yard may be viewed by YOU as a “hate crime” (which I could’ve sworn conservatives were opposed to recognizing), but the act itself is simple trespassing.
And burning Bibles would NOT activate the National Guard unless some fool legislator or executive were trying to declare this a Christian nation, which it emphatically is not. Yes, Christians would be outraged and protest it—which, of course, is THEIR right too.
The flag is not what gives you the right to protest; our laws and government do that. I’m reminded of all the pro-war censors who keep arguing that “Those soldiers are fighting for your right to criticize the Commander in Chief; so you’d DAMN well better not use it!”
What good is a right unless it’s exercised? The beauty of a free and secular society like ours is that literally nothing is sacred on a national level. You’re free to criticize anyone and anything, in any manner you choose, up to the point that you violate someone else’s rights. Now, if you can show me that burning a flag somehow violates your rights, I’ll be willing to listen.
Until then, I stick with my default preference for freedom over theocracy.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this
Or, as Voltaire said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it”. That’s my personal favorite.
By Archie
June 23, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this
I tend to agree with the Eaton on the issue of flag burning but I understand Ben since he was in the military and has put himself in harm’s way for this country. It seems as if those that have served in wartime have a different attitude than those of us that have never served in the military. It is easy to intellectualize when you don’t have bullets flying over your head, or you go home to your family everyday after work. I have never been in the military so I will agree with Eaton. I was in the company of a military person at my relatives’ house that had a problem with flag-burning and they weren’t thinking from an intellectual point of view and they had a problem with my opinion on the subject so I do understand where Ben is coming from.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this
Actually Brian Curtis, it can be consider racial intimidation and I never said hate crime. It’s not mere trespassing.
And in my opinion, the flag deserves special protection because it is THE symbol of our heritage, history and all of the people who have sacrificed their lives to protect the freedoms it stands for. Burning the flag insults the all of those who have fought and died to protect our way of life. It’s not really a form of expression because it doesn’t facilitate any form of debate. It’s meant to incite a reaction.
And I agree with Justice Stevens who concluded “that by destroying the symbol of freedom, the individual communicates a willingness to destroy those freedoms themselves”
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this
I wanted to clarify the cross burning issue. In Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court upheld Virginia’s Cross-Burning Statute, because it did not address cross burning as an act, but as an attempt to intimidate.
To clarify - an earlier statute struck down in 1992 by the Court banned cross-burning outright, regardless of the intent of the burners. The Court ruled that there was substantive difference between a private Klan rally where a cross was burned as a symbol, and intentionally burning a cross with the specific intent to intimidate or terrify.
The court suggested that the history of the clan and the practice of cross-burning implied a clear and present threat to life and property, when it was done so with obvious intent to intimidate. The Virginia statute did not address cross-burning as a general practice.
To use these decisions to put the flag-burning issue in perspective - there is no history of flag-burning being used as anything other than political speech. Flag burnings have not been historically followed by lynchings, murders, the destruction of property, or any of the other implied threats addressed by the Court in Virginia v. Black. It is nothing more than political expression, and therefore clearly protected by the 1st Amendment.
By Brian Curtis
June 23, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this
Ben: No, you didn’t say it was a hate crime; you said it was “evil.” But surely you know that our laws don’t punish Evil; they punish specific offenses against stated rights.
So again I ask you: How does burning a flag violate your rights, or anyone else’s? Aren’t you really arguing for the right not to be offended? (Which I could’ve sworn was the constant conservative complaint about “politically correct” liberals.)
A public demonstration, even a wordless one, is still a form of political speech; you won’t get anywhere arguing in THAT direction, because political speech has been recognized and protected as such since the beginning of our nation.
Regardless of how you or I choose to interpret or feel about it, burning a flag violates no one’s rights; it expresses a point of view; and therefore, it is, and should remain, a legal form of free expression. Even if our currently fundie-dominated Congress falls for this bunk, I have every confidence that the courts would swiftly overturn such a foolish amendment.
Ain’t America great?
By Brian Curtis
June 23, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this
Good point, Eaton.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
Rendering a symbol of freedom inviolate from the excercise of that freedom is the greatest paradox I have ever heard.
It is the first step down the road to facism when a nation begins to declare as sacred the outer symbols of its power. It is not such a great journey to go from that perversion of freedom to the outlawing of dissent in general, the imprisonment of dissenters, and the collapse of freedom into tyranny.
But, that’s what the right wingers want, isn’t it?
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this
This amendment is a transparent ploy by the goose-stepping far right conservatives currently swarming and gibbering like rabid monkeys around the halls of congress. It’s to force congressmen and senators to vote their conscience, so that the conservative Fear/Hate machine can once again say: “SEE! He voted against the Flag Amendment! He’s a LIBERAL! He’s ANTI-AMERICAN” Meanwhile, they slowly errode everything that America used to stand for.
Revenge of the Sith may have had stilted dialogue, but it had this gem: “So this is how Liberty dies - to thunderous applause”.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this
LOL. I am speaking from an intellectual and military point of view. Speech Plus sucks! People only apply it when it suits their view or needs. Interpretation depends on the reader. Which is why I agree with Hilary. I don’t want to trample on anyone’s rights, but I think flag burning laws should be the same as cross burning. Just substitute cross for flag.
Burning the flag is less about freedom of expression than it is eciting a reaction. So if I ever see anybody burning a flag they will get my reaction. I will grab a fire extinguisher and put the fire out, carelessly spraying a 10 foot radius to makes sure it doesn’t spread.
By Zack
June 23, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this
To the young lady who said that conservatives need to get their heads out of the Bible, think about what you’re saying. We, as a country, HAVE gotten our heads out of the Bible, and that’s why we’ve deteriorated as a nation as we have. Look around. Are you going to tell me that this ACLU-inspired agenda is working???
To those who say that abortion wasn’t opposed because of Christian reasons, think again. That’s a senseless statement to make, and you know it. How we ever could legalize murder is a scary thought—and then people turn around and treat Eric Rudolph like he’s the scum of the earth, but we’re getting to the point where the only manmade justice in the world comes from those like him; our judicial system certainly isn’t providing it (see the Michael Jackson trial).
No, Eaton, we don’t need to be thankful for activist judges. Judicial tyranny is one of the main problems with this country, and it’s in line with the aforementioned ACLU.
Laura—Your comments concerning Shaunti Feldhahn were repulsive. I guess your parents never bothered to raise you. You need to be taken out and publicly horsewhipped for saying such vile things, and I’d love to see it. Always nice to see justice prevail.
By Archie
June 23, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this
Eaton,even though I agree with you please understand the mindset of someone who has been shot at or made a huge sacrifice for this country. I expressed the same opinion you have but I got serious verbiage thrown my way because I was around a military person. Many military are taught to protect that flag and thus they see burning the flag as an assault not an expression. I have some major problems from some of these conservatives that have never served in the military but come off as super patriotic. They are entitled to their opinion but let’s think about being away for a year then finally getting to come home only to be told that your return trip has been revoked.
By Zack
June 23, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this
RS—and can you ever go two posts in a row without getting off the topic? At least I didn’t see any posts this time where you were overtly offensive, as in the past.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this
If ever we needed proof that Zack is a deranged, dangerous, hate-filled individual, we now have it: “and then people turn around and treat Eric Rudolph like he’s the scum of the earth, but we’re getting to the point where the only manmade justice in the world comes from those like him”
And then this gem, showing how much he loves the 1st Amendment: “Your comments concerning Shaunti Feldhahn were repulsive. I guess your parents never bothered to raise you. You need to be taken out and publicly horsewhipped for saying such vile things, and I’d love to see it”
Thanks, Zack, for proving once and for all what kind of man you truly are. Oh, and Please PLEASE accuse me of being a bigot. I love it when you spout off.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this
Let’s clear a few things up before we start arguing about the First Amendment. I am a huge supporter of it and I never began any dialogue about not giving people the right to burn the flag. I was giving my opinion on the people who burn flags. I said they should be shot and dragged through the streets - not we should change the law and put them in jail.
I never said it was a violation of my rights, I never said I have a right to not be offended. I said people who burn flags should be shot and dragged through the streets. I didn’t comment to begin a First Amendment debate. I just said I look at it like cross burning.
So for clarification, my opinion is in regards to FLAG BURNERS, not the First Amendment. So I stick to shooting them and dragging them through the streets. lol
Brian Curtis, I said it was a sign of hate and a form of intimidation, you brought up hate crime and evil. lol. You very well can be arrested for intimidation, which was my point. And let me clarify one more time, I’m not arguing the legality of flag burner, I’m arguing the ignorance of flag burning!
By Eirik
June 23, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this
Zack,
Knowing your opinions about abortion clinics and gays I won’t get into an argument about Eric Rudolophs so called justice there…but tell the readers please…what justice was done by killing a foreign photographer and a black woman in 1996 here at the Atlanta Olympics? And the hundreds more that were maimed that night? Is Eric Rudolph a hero to you? You absolutely sicken me…I only hope I have the opportunity to cross your path in person some time.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this
It’s simple, really - Zack hates foreigners and women…and blacks, and Jews, and Muslims, and…well, I really don’t have time to type the full list of ethnic groups, racial groups, religions, clubs, organizations and individuals who appear on the list of things Zack hates.
I think it’s safe to assume that if it walks, talks, and breathes, Zack probably hates it. So, anytime anything gets killed, Zack is happy. The only thing Zack actually cares about, or claims to care about, are little tiny bundles of cells. Once those cells turn into a human being, he stops caring and starts hating.
It’s sad, really.
By Tim
June 23, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
By Zack
June 23, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this
RS�and can you ever go two posts in a row without getting off the topic? At least I didn’t see any posts this time where you were overtly offensive, as in the past.
when have you ever been on topic???? your previous post said NOTHING about the topic at hand… just proved once more how stupid you are
By Brian Curtis
June 23, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this
Ben: If it’s just a personal interpretation you’re expressing, that’s fine.
But I can’t agree that flag-burning is an “ignorant” act. As Eaton pointed out, it would make no sense for a symbol of freedom to at the same time be “protected” against anyone actually exercising that freedom. Symbols, nifty as they are, are not people; they have no inherent value, just emotional significance.
And Eaton has already explained that flag-burning is NOT the same as cross-burning and can’t be treated as such; one is intimidation and assault, while the other is simply political expression. And no statement—no matter how offensive, outrageous, or even “evil”—should be restricted in a nation that claims to value freedom.
By lozen
June 23, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this
Sandy, your post yesterday in response to Tony’s rant about when life, consciousness, begin was a beautiful thing! Dakotawoman, your’s was too!
By Archie
June 23, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this
Eric Rudolph is the scum of the earth. If you’re morally correct you don’t have to hide and set off a bomb that kills two people. You can march,boycott,vote, and lobby. Those methods are non-violent and basically are upfront. Being free means you can be stupid,racist,ignorant, or peaceful,intellectual, and naive. Some people don’t need to have children period. It’s just cruel what I have seen some pregnant mothers do and they would be better off taking $250 or whatever and going to a clinic.
By Sandy/Sanhan
June 23, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this
Violating free speech because you feel a protester is ignorant, or joking about dragging him or through the streets is not faciliating any form of debate either, also inciting a fear-based reaction; it is no longer a symbolic of a violation of rights, but an violation. Both have consequences, but which is worse?
It’s not so hard to understand that burning a flag may represent the frustration of the prostester to illustrate that our country will not survive and is under attack by right wingers who have secretly and not so secretly violated the constitution for their own personal and political gain.
How about burning a copy of the Constitution in protest? Does that in any way nullify its contents? Does burning a flag nullify what it stands for? I’d have to argue it does not. Depending on the reaction, it may actually be strengthened, but only if the underlying motives are brought to light and heard. Such a stance warrants a measured, civilized invitation to debate, not a knee-jerk violation of civil liberties. You know, a perceived wrong and a real one don’t make a right.
It is clearly a matter of free speech, regardless of whether it is interpreted as assinine or appropriate, since ignorance has not yet been outlawed.
The right-wing has perfected questioning the patriotism of anyone who criticizes its policies, again diverting the attention away from the real issues by creating scapegoats of those who burn flags, lumping the discontented in with what they define as treason.
Personally I am far more outraged when a violation of the constitution occurs within the White House, senate, or house as did last week when Sensenbrenner shut down hearings on the PATRIOT act with no vote, without allowing the Democrats’ witnesses to speak. Where’s the outrage? Where’s the damn media coverage? Why isn’t this video tape of his violating the point of order being broadcast as much as that of Terri Schiavo, (may she rest in peace)?
An act of protest is rarely done just to undermine the government, and off hand I can’t think of any instance where a single flag burning has caused immediate injury to that for which it stands; it is done to bring attention to the wrongs that are committed with the hope of correcting them so we can continue to function as a country that exemplfies liberty and democracy, not just give it lip service. If our way of life can be undermined by that which is purely symbolic, either we are not nearly as great as we claim to be, or our right to free speech is not as dear to our current government as it is to its citizens.
By joe
June 23, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
Zack, just go crawl back under your rock! You are a sorry excuse for a human being.
By lozen
June 23, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this
I guess I must have missed something. Have there been a lot of incidents of flag burning recently? I don’t read or watch a lot of news so where and when did someone burn the flag?
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this
I also find it very disturbing that the House Republicans who put forward this amendment use the justification that “Most of the American people don’t like flag burning”, as if our freedoms should be determined by what is and is not acceptable to the majority.
What if next year, congress decides that “Most Americans don’t like jokes about the President” or “Most Americans don’t like anti-war protests”?
I know they teach us that democracy means “majority rules” in elementary school, but I thought that most of us learned later on that it is far more complex than that.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this
No one said anything about violating free speech. Me calling them ignorant for burning the flag IS free speech, and the fact that I joked about shooting them and dragging them through the street was not meant to be an example of facilitating debate.
Like I said, I don’t have any qualms about free speech, I just think the people who burn flags are incapable of making their point without enciting some time of negative reaction. You can get into the whole right-wing, left-wing garbage if you choose.
Has anyone ever seen the picture of the middle eastern guy trying to burn the flag, but he caught himself on fire? I hope every person who tries to burn a flag suffers similar consequences. How’s that for freedom of expression?
By Eirik
June 23, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this
Welcome to cold-war Russia and China people. It’s going to be against the law to burn a piece of cloth and now the government can take your home if they think your land would be better served as a mini-mall or upscale subdivision. Think of the back room deals that are going to go on now between greedy politicians and developers. While we are fighting for democracy in that scrap of desert called Iraq, our rights are being whittled away here. Are all you republicans happy? We may end up being communist but at least us gays can’t marry…
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this
No lozen, it’s just another tactic of the extreme Right. Now, they can point to Senators and Congressmen who refuse to buy into the nonsensical “dissent is unAmerican” mantra of the current administration and say “See, HE didn’t vote for the amendment. HE is ANTI-AMERICAN!”
It’s just more fuel for the neo-con Hate/Fear propaganda machine.
By lozen
June 23, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this
The so-called “Flag Desecration Amendmentâ€? has been introduced in every Congress for over a decade. If the measure passes, it would be the first time in the nation’s more than 200-year history that the Bill of Rights has been amended to restrict Americans’ fundamental liberties. There have been four incidents of flag burning since August, 2003! Four! Four! Doesn’t it seem that the US has more important issues that the federal legislature should be dealing with —- like the federal deficit for one?
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
Yes, well Ben - I guess you won’t be offended if I say I hope that everyone who wraps himself in the flag chokes himself, hmm?
By Ben
June 23, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this
But what you people to fail to see while you scream freedom of speech or expression, the government has a right to stop it if it “breaches the peace or causes violence.”
So if we didn’t really want flag burning we just riot everytime a flame is taken to a flag. lol
By Sandy/Sanhan
June 23, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this
Ben, how’s that for freedom of expression? It’s ignorant, opinionated, inciting negative reaction, sophomoric, and unhelpful at best. But I defend your right to it even if you won’t accept the criticism or the importance of the larger point at hand.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this
Eaton - wouldn’t be offended at all!
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this
Actually, what YOU’RE forgetting is that as long as the speech is not inherently violent or inciteful, such as shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre, the government’s responsibility is to stop and punish those acting violently, and not the speaker.
Shame on you, Ben - by your logic the marchers in Selma were responsible for their own beatings because the residents of that town found their message so objectionable.
By lozen
June 23, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this
It’s just another weapon of mass distraction guys! Come on! It’s just another thing to get us fighting with each other and make it seem as if they’re doing something while they invade other counties, set up their corporate buddies at our expense and ignore the real problems affecting the people in this country.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this
That’s what I’ve been saying about people who burn flags! lol. I accept the criticism, mainly because I don’t care what people think of my opinion. I don’t have to accept the larger point at hand because I never said anything about the First Amendment being wrong. I just say the people who burn flags are ignorant. If ignorant people had a flag, I would burn it. lol.
I know you people feel a need to attach when other people’s opinions don’t match yours, so whatever.
Save the drama Eaton. I am in no way comparing Selma to a bunch of hippie, ignorant flag burners. My logic is simply that I think anyone burning a flag is ignorant. Just like you think people who are opposed to gays are ignorant. The difference is, I don’t oppose their right to burn the flag. Just like some people don’t oppose gay rights. Do you people actually read before you talk. lol.
So are you guys gonna argue that my words are wrong and offensive and illogical because you dont’ agree with them? Think before you speak.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this
Actually Ben, you said that you would beat up anyone who burned a flag…that means you believe it’s justified to assault someone because they express something you find offensive. My analogy was perfectly apt, so save the “save the drama” cracks, k?
No one is attacking you for not liking flag-burners, by the way. You mistake argument for attack. As far as I can tell, no one has called you a name or insulted you - we’ve merely argued against your position. You do understand what debate is, right?
I agree that it is your right not to like flag-burners. What I don’t agree with is that you seem to think that it’s OK for you to assault someone because you don’t like their opinion. That’s not freedom, and it is EXACTLY what people did to civil rights protesters all over the country.
Do you actually think before you post?
By Ben
June 23, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this
I read everything Eaton, and as you well know, I said from the beginning that I was joking about shooting and dragging flag burners through the streets. I also NEVER said I would beat anyone up for anything. The only thing I DID SAY I would do is use a fire extinguisher to extinguish a flag on fire and carelessly spray the people standing around. So please remind me when I said I’d beat someone up. So your analogy was perfectly WRONG.
Yes I do think before I post, every time as a matter of fact. And right now I think you need to reread what I have said, because I don’t recall saying I would beat anybody up for anything.
But I expect that from you and some others. Take everything and twist it all out of proportion so you can babble on and continue your quest to be correct. I simply said I think flag burners are ignorant, but now I’m a beater upper and opposed to the First Amendment. At least I got a good laugh today.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this
Ben, did you or did you not say: “So if we didn’t really want flag burning we just riot everytime a flame is taken to a flag”
Because…that’s what I was refering to. Tell me how I twisted that out of proportion, or changed the intent?
By RS
June 23, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
Zack: You’re hardly one to talk re veering off the topic. I guess that makes you EQUALLY STUPID, doesn’t it??? Defending Eric Rudolph now, are you? The man is slime & a sorry excuse for a human being; says a lot for your (lack of) character that you’d be in his corner. By the same twisted logic, you probably think(?) if it’s proven that a victim of a serial killer was a pro-choicr advocate, the aforementioned serial killer should be aquitted, maybe actually rewarded. And you have the nerve to complain about the warped, er, worldviews of others on this blog…
By Ben
June 23, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this
Eaton - When you cut and pasted what I said, you left out the little, “lol.” And what I wrote is a far cry from saying I “would beat anyone up who burned a flag.”
It was a joke, and in now way did it mean I would riot because some ignorant jackass burned a flag. But you chose to go on about me advocating physical violence and all that other garbage you posted.
That’s how you twisted it out of proportion and changed the intent. Do you really think I have an angry mob in my garage waiting to launch on any flag burner?
By Archie
June 23, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this
“It’s just another weapon of mass distraction guys! Come on! It’s just another thing to get us fighting with each other and make it seem as if they’re doing something while they invade other counties, set up their corporate buddies at our expense and ignore the real problems affecting the people in this country.”
Right,riiight, Lozen that’s so true but all of these democrats need to vote and stop complaining. If you want medicinal marijuana and other things in place then let’s get it done legally by voting the right people in office so that the laws reflect what people want. As I said in another post you don’t have to hide and bomb or be a sniper if you are morally correct. Conservatives do something but progressives intellectualize. How can Bush still be in office with his job approval rating? The answer is that the people that wanted him, harassed other people that didn’t want him, at the polls, republicans vote, and some conservatives will lie,steal, and cheat to win. It’s nice to vent but when it’s time to take action progressives need to do that.
By DeltaX
June 23, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this
Just read this. Man am I getting down on our Sup.Court. The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses � even against their will � for private economic development.
Ben, If things like this continue, and the state took your home for a walmart; are you sure you would not be tempted to burn a flag to show your displeasure with the government?
By DeltaX
June 23, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this
OK, so our brains create a natural cannbiod (marijuana-like substance) to ease pain - but for us to manufacture and use it would be wrong????
Here is the headline: Study shows how brain blocks pain Body found to produce marijuana-like compound
(http://onlineathens.com/stories/062305/new_20050623063.shtml)
But truth has no bearing in this conservative world.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this
DeltaX - I’m positive I wouldn’t burn a flag to show my displeasure with the government. Because to me the flag doesn’t wholly represent the government. It represents heritage, history and all of the people who have sacrificed their lives to protect the freedoms it stands for.
Eminent domain has been an issue for a long time. Burning a flag is not going to save your land. lol. Pressuring your elected officials and voting are supposed to show displeasure with the government. If that works, burn the land and make in unusable. lol.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this
if that doesn’t work I meant!
By DeltaX
June 23, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this
So Ben, You are saying that even when all these liberties that are ensured to us are gone. And the “new” government flies the flag, you will still salute it?
That is blind faith brother, and that is scary. Yet, I do accept your position; although I find it absurdly ignorant.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this
And to be particular, the Justices didn’t vote to allow eminent domain, they voted that it was not the federal governments say, that the local officials knew what was best. So burn the homes of the people that voted for those officials, not the flag.
By DeltaX
June 23, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
Burn private homes? Really???
Alright. Enough for me. Take care all.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this
Hey Delta - you actually used the word “ignorant” correctly! Glad to know that someone out there still knows how.
Ben, given all the various forms of violence you’ve advocated against flag burners, yeah, I think I was justified in my interpretation.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this
Yes DeltaX, I will always salute the flag for what it represents to me. Something that you will never possibly fathom in your lifetime. All of our liberties won’t be gone because there are courses of action to take other than ignorantly burning the flag. The only problem with those options are some of the most boisterous opposers to any cause lack the gumption, well balls, to do anything that needs to be done. We’ll just burn a flag and say that’ll teach them. lol.
It’s not blind faith — It’s strong faith. It’s faith that’s not going to be swayed. So whether you find it ignorant, or absurdly ignorant, I could care less.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
Oh yes Ben, do peal forth with the right-wing patriotic mantra. YOU’RE the only patriotic one. Anyone who doesn’t agree with your idea of patriotism isn’t patriotic. Delta will NEVER understand what a TRUE patriot you are and will never be a TRUE patriot.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
Eaton - as long as you think so! Regardless of what you THINK, you were still wrong in your interpretation. You put words in my mouth because I never said I’d beat up flag-burners, I never said I’d burn someone’s house down, I never said I opposed the First Amendment. And that, my friend, is why you are taking things out context and twisting them to TRY and prove your point.
If you were as intelligent as you would claim, you would see that everytime I mentioned an act of violence it was a joke, or a reference to show you that burning the flag is ignorant.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this
Eaton - Exactly what I meant about you taking what I say and twisting it~! I’m double checking to see where I mention the word Patriot and where I mentioned I was better than anyone. Let me know if you find it first!
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this
If you were as inteligent as you claim, you would know the proper usage of the word “ignorant”.
By DeltaX
June 23, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this
Eaton, No offence to not responding to you much; it would be preaching to the choir since we agree on most everything I have seen. Instead I try to corral them from the other side to make for easy targets;)
Take care and good luck to the rest of you.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
And spare me with your retarded right-wing junk. I am very far from the right, as a matter of fact, I’m not even on the left.
I suggest a little reading comprehension to go along with you pretentious, intellectual writing. LOL.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this
I know exactly what ignorant means. But I am anti-intellectual as you claim and prefer the more slangly version of ignorant which is meant to say you are STUPID!
By Ben
June 23, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
DeltaX - that’s a bold statement about easy targets considering you haven’t said anything of substance. Well I guess you have Eaton as a cheerleader because you used ignorant correctly in a sentence. lol.
Yah!
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
Here ya go Ben, since you seem to be incapable of anything other than linear thinking…the implication of this sentence: “Yes DeltaX, I will always salute the flag for what it represents to me. Something that you will never possibly fathom in your lifetime.” is that your saluting the flag makes you somehow superior in terms of your patriotism than DeltaX, you know, the one who will never fathom.
You really need to learn about implied meaning and subtext. See Jane Run may work for first graders, but eventually we need to figure out why she’s running, who she’s running from, and what she hopes to accomplish by running. Little things like contextual clues help us draw these conclusions.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this
You ought to try a little reading comprehension as well to go with your linear, uninspired and innacurate writing.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this
Well your first clue genius is when I said for … “what it represents to me.” And yes Eaton, neither you, him or anyone else will never be able to understand (fathom) why I hold the flag so dear. I never claimed superiority, I just said that nothing that happens will change the way I think or feel about the meaning of the flag to me. It’s not superiority, it’s called PRIDE. It’s not Patriotism, it’s PRIDE! So spare me the lessons because I have nothing to learn from you on this subject.
I know about implied meaning and subtext! You need to learn about reading comprehension and learn what the hell you are talking about before you challenge or attack someone. And if I have to provide little clues to help you draw a conclusion, you definitely aren’t as intelligent as you claim.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
inaccurate? uninspired? You are ignorant!
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this
Yeah, well you’re a pigheaded brain-washed military drone with the emotional capacity of a flea.
By DeltaX
June 23, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
Eaton, Help me here. I tend to get frustrated when met by such bad logic and lack of respect to keep a sane and logical course in a discussion.
I need to better my ability to not let those things irritate me (not so much speaking about Ben, but prose like his from a Significant Other or person I am close to - but primarily from my S.O.).
Does this effect you similarly? If so, advise on coping?
By Ben
June 23, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this
Hey thanks for the 10th grade flashback. I know you are but what am I.
I’m rubber and you are glue … ”
All of that coming from you Eaton is.. well IT’S NOTHING, because I could care less about what you think of me.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this
Hey, right back atcha Ben. The day I let the opinion of some government weenie affect my life, I’ll let you know.
Delta, sorry I can’t help you there. I’m a temper-loser of the first order.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
Why don’t you two explain to me what you consider bad logic, because from what I gather, bad logic is anything and everything that you don’t agree with. I don’t know, that was just a shot in the dark. Help me out! Every week Eaton throws a hissy fit with the person who disagrees with him the most or the person less likely to join his side. So just for my own sanity and education, you two are the most logical people here? Or are the logical people the ones who agree with you every week?!
By joe
June 23, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
We should rename this forum: Who can come up with the worst insult, Eaton or Ben? Go for it guys but I’m signing off because nothing is being accomplished here.
By Netbanker
June 23, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
Late to the game today and can only stay a short time. Ben…I understand where you’re coming from having grown up with a Dad who worked for the DOD and having most of the town population either being military or employed on base. Even though I would never burn a flag (take your old ones to the local VFW and they will do it for/with you with the ceremony to retire the flag) I will still support the rights of those who will.
Lozen, this whole flag burning amendment is just another smoke screen to redirect the populace to an emotional issue rather than the concrete ones facing us.
Read a great piece the other day that mentions a secret CIA report on the war on terror. I had a major ‘Oh S**T!’ moment when it sunk in that the report pretty much points out that W and company, by taking the war to the terrorists, are providing the perfect combo of reason to hate America and urban warfare for the terrorists to train the next generation far more effectively than could ever be done in a training camp.
They point out that jihadists in Afghanistan trained in camps in artificial environments, but today’s jihadists in Iraq are getting hands-on, real insurgency, urban warfare training and skills that they can put to use outside of Iraq. The report goes on to point out that in Afghanistan there was no inherent anti-American sentiment among jihadists while Iraq is a hotbed of anti-Americanism coupled with live training. We can ultimately thank W for the terrorist class of ‘05 that does HATE America and has urban insurgetn combat experience.
By lozen
June 23, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
Me too Joe. This is really getting tiresome and pointless.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
Ben, your idea of a hissy fit is someone who actually argues. You just want to state your opinion and go on, without anyone challenging you. When someone does dare to try to dissect your arguments, you start dismissing them and accusing them of throwing a hissy fit.
If you can’t handle debate, Ben, then that’s just too bad.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
A government weenie. That’s awesome. You definitely act like a 12 year old. Call me all the names you want dude! It’s just your way of trying to take away from what I’m saying because you have no mature way of addressing me. So go ahead and call names. It’s sucks when someone sees your faults and calls you on them doesn’t it?
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
Ben, you do realize that you started the name-calling and insults, right?
By Ben
June 23, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
No Eaton you are wrong. I want to state my opinion and discuss it as a mature adult. You can dissect my arguments all day, that’s good. But when you blow them out of proportion or put words in my mouth, then yes I discount what you are saying. Read back at how many times you misused what I said to .. well throw a hissy fit.
I can handle debate, but it’s not debate when you are a “temper-loser of the first order.”
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
Sorry to disagree with you yet again, Ben, but part of debate is logically extending one’s arguments. I never took anything you said out of context. You just back-peddaled. Please, show me one instance in this discussion prior to your “think before you speak” comment, that you deem a hissy fit.
By Netbanker
June 23, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
Yoohoo! BOYS!! BREATHE!!! Goodness I’ve never seen y’all get your panties so darn twisted up. Stop trying to prove what you think the other side said or why you’re right and get back to actually debating an issue.
RS…I was at 6 Flags a couple of weeks ago for a company function. That’s the most up close exposure to rednecks I’ve had for a long while. Very informative and made me realize that I do sometimes live in my own ‘professional job/ITP/Gay Fab’ bubble. It was that odd car crash kind of fascination…intellectually I know they exist and I see them on TV every so often, but it’s different to be surrounded by masses of them for hours at a time.
By Sandy/Sanhan
June 23, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
Ben, I think you care about what others think, otherwise you wouldn’t bother engaging in the first place or responding in the next. When someone counters your argument, you state your words have been twisted, but I wonder if you’re too busy squirming away from your own words to know for sure.
Aside from your dismissal of other people’s observations as being garbage, I get the unsettling feeling that there’s something dark, dangerous, and cynical underlying what you say. If you keep saying that you’re kidding or LOL after conjuring a particuarly violent image, then maybe you don’t really care, or perhaps it’s part of your anti-intellectual stand. I don’t know. I’m not trying to censor you, as is not my nature. I find some of what you say compelling, but something gets lost in the way you say it (or perhaps the way I hear it).
I realize you didn’t ask for my thoughts on this, and apologize if they are offensive. My gut tells me that there is more here than meets the eye, and I just thought I’d voice it in the interest of debate and truth-finding.
By Bruce
June 23, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Ben I’m with you in this one. There is no reason why anyone should be allowed to burn the USA flag unless it has been retired and then only in a proper manner. I guess if someone wanted to blow up the Statue of Liberty that would be OK too? After all its just a symbol. And why is it illegal to kill an American Bald Eagle? Again just a symbol.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Did I hurt your feelings when I called you genius? Or was it when I said you weren’t as intelligent as you think?
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
Ben, you lack the ability to hurt my feelings. And you aparently lack the ability to identify a hissy fit.
Bruce - you can’t seriously believe that blowing up the Statue of Liberty or killing an endangered species has anything whatsoever to do with someone going to wal-mart, buying a flag, and burning it in symbolic protest. Or do you?
Sorry Ben…was that too harsh for you? I find ludicrous comparisons like the one Bruce just made intellectually offensive.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
Truly Sandy, I don’t really care what people think. I just think it’s funny, and if you pay attention, you’ll notice it too, that certain people have a hard time with people disagreeing with them. Yes Sandy, if you read the beginning of today, my words were twisted. I’m not squirming from anything. I jokingly said flag burners should be shot and dragged through the streets because burning the flag is ignorant (stupid) and everybody started preaching about the first amendment. I never said they shouldn’t have the right to burn the flag, so yes, what I was saying was twisted.
There’s nothing dark, dangerous, and cynical underlying what I say. I’ve never said anyone’s observations were garbage. I just think it’s funny how people react when you make sense and your opinion is the same as theirs. And it’s fun the watch them get all worked up about something you didn’t even say.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
No Eaton, that wasn’t harsh at all.
And I consider you calling me a “pigheaded brain-washed military drone with the emotional capacity of a flea” a hissy fit. Couldn’t you have come up with something better? lol
I’ll keep it short for you so you don’t miss the clues in context.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
Also, Sandy, I just state my point and tell why I feel that way. Like I said, look from the beginning of the day and see where most everything I said was twisted. And if you dont’ want to that, just look at the exchange between me and DeltaX. That says enough.
By Bruce
June 23, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
Sure Eaton, they are just symbols. And even if the eagle wasn’t on the endangered list you still could go to jail for killing one. Mom he looked at me…….
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
So…this is you taking the high-road…
And spare me with your retarded right-wing junk
But I am anti-intellectual as you claim and prefer the more slangly version of ignorant which is meant to say you are STUPID!
inaccurate? uninspired? You are ignorant!
This is really getting tiresome, Ben. Until you - that’s you Ben, not me - said “Don’t you think before you post?”, a very mature statement indeed, I did nothing but dispute your points. No name calling, no “hissy” fits, nothing. You are the one who started insulting and name-calling, so spare me your self-righteousness.
By DeltaX
June 23, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
“By Ben
June 23, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this
And to be particular, the Justices didn’t vote to allow eminent domain, they voted that it was not the federal governments say, that the local officials knew what was best. So burn the homes of the people that voted for those officials, not the flag.”
Can anyone find this logical? Sane? Rational?
I do not need to have a poll Ben to see what people think about your flippant suggestions of burning and maiming.
I stepped out of the conversation bc this was your FIRST volly in conversation with me. It was a idiotic (vs patriotic) reply.
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this
Bruce, let’s break this down for you.
The Statue of Liberty is a structure owned by the City of New York. So, no, you could not destroy it because…YOU DON’T OWN IT.
The Bald Eagle is an endangered species and is thus protected by the endangered species act. There is no hunting season for eagles, unless you belong to one of several Plains Indians tribes such as the Lakota, who still maintain limited hunting rights to Eagles for the purposes of their religion.
A flag is a mass-produced piece of fabric that anyone with a few bucks can go buy. An individual flag has no intrinsic value. You, personally, own a flag when you buy it.
You see the difference, right? Becuase if you don’t I’m scared.
By kimberly
June 23, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Federal drug agents launched a wide-ranging crackdown on medical marijuana providers in northern California, arresting at least 17 people in San Francisco and Sacramento.
Fifteen people were arrested in San Francisco as drug agents searched three pot clubs and more than 20 homes and businesses Wednesday, authorities said.
Welcome to MORE BIG GOVERNMENT! The Supreme Court nullified state’s rights — what, a week ago?
I keep hearing President Reagan’s favorite quip: “Get big government off our backs!” followed by “Oh by the way, pee in this cup for us. We wanna sniff it to see what you did last weekend.”
Federal law enforcement dollars at work protecting us from… what the heck ARE they protecting us from, anyway?
States no longer decide squat, except when local elected officials get to reciprocate for their corporate campaign donors by seizing YOUR land for their developer buddy’s latest project.
By Ben
June 23, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
There you go again, reading outside of the lines. lol. What I said is not as important as why I said them. You’re right Eaton, it is getting tiresome. Go back to 11:14 this morning where you began your misinterpretation of what I was saying and start from there!
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
Wow Ben, I wish I could be like you. What you say doesn’t matter. All your comments are either jokes or have some other meaning outside what you say, but…I’m reading outside the lines when I think it does mean what you say?
You’re more wriggley than a snake, aren’t ya. You should be a politician - they don’t mean what they say or say what they mean, either.
By DeltaX
June 23, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
Correction: The reply I posted was Bens second, not first reply. After his first I stated that I accept his position but find it ignorant (un-informed). But since you use the word incorrectly as meaning “stupid,” I can see where your confusion of slander comes in. Yet, it is due to your ignorance of the word ignorance.
Man is that going to confuse him good.
hmmm…
By Archie
June 23, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
Eaton your 3:19 post makes perfectly good sense. However, I ask, I ask that you understand that many people have seen relatives buried with the flag and many have pledged to protect the flag and both of those things have a psychological or emotional effect. The point is that maybe you and Ben can agree to disagree. I have not read anything from either one of you that’s so wrong. Ben sounds like a military man and you(Eaton) sound like a woman I was arguing with weeks ago. She took offense at the tiniest detail and it didn’t mean that much to either of us. Let me ask the gay people here this question. Are you gay if sleep with one man but you sleep with 30 women? Is a person that sleeps with the same sex and the opposite sex gay? These are questions…
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
Archie, I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. I DO have a problem with someone who writes something, not once but many times, and then gets snippy when you take him at his word. In this case, Ben made multiple statements in which he suggested that attempts to burn the flag should be met with violence.
THEN, when those comments were raised, he got huffy and claimed that his words were misinterpreted.
That’s what I have a problem with.
By DeltaX
June 23, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
Archie, I am straight, but will offer my opinion on your question - might shed light (for me as well).
I believe gay to be sexual orientation, as is Bi.
That is to say that one can have sex with his/her own sex without being attracted to them - physically or emotionally; and therefore not be gay or Bi.
Why one would do this? For kicks I would presume (if aware of their orientation - if not they may be checking their orientation).
If it is for kicks, may have a moral opinion on it, but circumstances would matter greatly.
Just my input, but understand it is off the cuff.
By Netbanker
June 23, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
DeltaX…in the S.O. department mine is a wonderful and caring except when being a pig-headed, NYC, jewish, control-freak. It took some time and training, but eventually he learned to respond to continually redirecting the conversation back to the original issue or discussion point. It’s amazing how red someone’s face can become when you say something like “Honey, you may be making valid points or statements, but that isn’t what we’re talking about. We started out to discuss and resolve X. We can talk about those other things at another time.”
By Eaton
June 23, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
I just want it noted that I did not start the gay discussion, so if certain parties want to accuse me later of being a one-trick pony…
Sexuality is a matter of emotional and physical attraction, not the ability or inability to perform sexually. Just because you can sleep with a woman doesn’t make you straight, and there are plenty of gay-for-pay porn actors out there for whom the opposite is true.
By DeltaX
June 23, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, I find myself trying to divert the conversation back to the initial issue, but she is persistant - to the tune of days! And after much time has passed, and she has elevated the severity, I find myself at a total loss. Granted, after an indeterminate amount of time, I will get pulled in - but only for a moment before I relize I am being less than I should be.
I have an issue coming up and have no idea how to approach it - it has been proven that the method of delivery is not the issue or solution.
Thanks for the input.
By RS
June 23, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, I happily inhabit the same fabulous, sophisticated, have-all-my-teeth world as you! Ever watch “Blue Collar TV”? Hilarious & frighteningly accurate! BTW, my SO is also a pigheaded, NYC Jewish control freak but then again, so am I. Of course, with him being such a control freak, I almost never get to do any controlling of my own!
By Dakotawoman
June 23, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
In 1948, Gore Vidal said, “homosexual” should be considered a verb, not a noun. Hopefully in the future, Vidal’s prophecy will come true. “Homosexual” will be a form of activity, not a state of being. People will use the words “gay” and “straight” to designate what they do, not who they are.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 07:42 AM | Link to this
DeltaX - It would take a lot more than someone like you to confuse me! Let me see if I can clarify this for you guys. I’ll try to go slow, so see if you can keep up.
1 - Yesterday’s discussion was about flag burning. I said that people that burn flags are ignorant (meaning stupid) because burning the flag shows you have issues with the U.S. Then I said if you have issues with a particular party, burn the flag of that person, party or whatever you have issues with. It makes more of a point.
2 - Which, Eaton, is why I said burn the houses of the people who elected the officials who decided to take their homes, not the American flag. If you are protesting and have to burn something why not oppose the REAL issue. Remember, I was talking about flag burners being ignorant (meaning stupid.) Refer to my first point.
3 - I don’t expect you to have a poll! Unlike you, I don’t need a cheering section. My point is heard without having a posse to back me up. Regardless of how I make that point, you are hearing it!
4 - Eaton, you were not taking me at my word! That’s the problem. And I’m not going to waste my time spelling it out to you. You admit yourself that you are temper looser and you show it everytime you think someone is attacking you. You were way off on your interpretation of what I said, and you took off on your tangent and decided not to take anything I said in context.
5 - Either way, I guess you and everybody else who thinks my comments are flippant, or whatever BS you and DeltaX decided to call them, too bad.You’re just gonna have to deal with it!
By Tony
June 24, 2005 07:55 AM | Link to this
You know Sandy you sadden me deeply. Unwanted children? There will always be unwanted children. Indeed, there are unwanted wives and husbands, unwanted aging parents, unwanted Jews, Blacks, Catholic’s or even a person who, at one time or place, finds himself or herself unwanted or persecuted, and no one has the right to kill them Sandy. Whether you believe that or not.
And Sandy, I believe God understands all, but unlike you, I believe God would say LOVE THEM BOTH. Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understandings; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. (Proverbs 3:5-6) Don’t be so foolish to believe that by killing the innocent it would make it safer for women. That’s just a myth to justify killing.
And lastly, you speak social justice. “we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights â€â€? of LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” If we can’t protect the most vunerable (the unborn) what chance do we have? No Sandy life is not pain to those who see with loving eyes, for them life is beautiful. To those who speak with tender voices, life is peaceful. To those who help with gentle hands, life is full. And to those who care with compassionate hearts, life is good beyond all measure.
Look at the birds above your head they neither plant nor reap they neither store nor hoard yet day by day God gives them food
Look at the flowers beneath your feet they neither card nor spin they neither sow nor weave yet King Solomon shone less brightly than they
So why worry about your life what you will get to eat what you will have to wear?
Jesus
By Ben
June 24, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this
Tony - I have a question for you and those that strongly opposed abortion. Is it ever okay to have an abortion? If so, when is that?
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this
Ben, I’m going to respond one last time, because frankly I’m sick of this discussion.
A) If you don’t want people to take what you say seriously, then don’t say it. Your constant retractions and later qualifications make it impossible to know when you’re being serious and when your making some macabre joke.
B) In defense of myelf, I never ONCE lost my temper during yesterday’s discussion prior to you pulling out the insults. So really - quit playing the martyr on this one.
Tony, since you’re so sympathetic to the “unborn”, then why don’t you adopt the unwanted ones, so that they don’t have to endure a lifetime of abuse, neglect, apathy, poverty and starvation? I suppose your God wants them to experience these things, however.
By Archie
June 24, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this
I directed a question toward the gay people on this blog because I am not gay and I had a long argument 2 weeks ago about what I felt gay meant so I wanted input from the other side. I appreciate any answer given. Also I saw a woman drinking and smoking while pregnant and would definitely think that she is someone that should consider an abortion.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this
No Archie, she should be taken out back and beaten, not given an abortion. lol.
By Jd
June 24, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this
Wow, You guys r still @ it.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 08:40 AM | Link to this
We should burn the American flag and protest the government for not making it illegal for women to smoke and drink while pregnant. Because simply telling that woman she should rethink her decision wouldn’t make as much noise or draw attention. It would p** off many others instead of p** off the source.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this
“Fla. Deputy Tasers Unruly 13-Year-Old Girl”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160569,00.html
By Archie
June 24, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this
Come on Ben I see your point but Eaton makes perfectly good sense when he says you can buy a flag and you own that flag. Heck I have a serious problem with someone telling me what I can and cannot do with a flag that I paid for. You cannot control the way people protest. As much as I don’t like it there will be women that drink and smoke while pregnant and there will be people that vote for Bush and there will be Democrats and Independents that don’t vote but complain all day long and there will be racists in the world. I made a comment to the young lady but it didn’t have an effect so I move on. Different things motivated people,for example, my state, South Carolina has started cracking down on speeders because SC is #1 in speed-related deaths on the highway. Speeding is against the law but most people do it without a twinge of guilt.
By RS
June 24, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this
Tony: Anyone reading Sandy’s posts should instantly get tthat she is full of love, caring & compassion; that’s why it hurts her to see innocent children born ino a situation where they have nothing to look forward to but pain, cruelty & neglect. Oh but it’s “God’s will” that they suffer, isn’t it? Ri-i-i-ight!!! As for women smoking, drinking and/or doing drugs while pregnant, of course that should be treated as a crime because it IS. They’re endangering what will be the life of a child.
By Jd
June 24, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this
Hum, wonder what color she is ?
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this
Why, that little girl was probably about to burn a flag! Good thing that deputy tasered her when she did - she was about to excercise her right to civil disobedience. Can’t have that!
By Jd
June 24, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301103_pf.html
Things are changing just not in Jerusalem
By Ben
June 24, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this
Archie - I’m not saying you can’t burn a flag. I am saying that it’s stupid. I never said people can’t protest the way they want to, I said the way they did was stupid. If you are burning a flag in protest, you are burning the symbol of freedom, this nation, and the sacrifices of all of the men and women who died for that flag and what it stands for.
If you feel strongly about a cause or whatever, what point does burning the flag make? Here’s an example: I oppose the ban on smoking in public places. I have courses of action. I won’t vote for the official in my district who supported the ban. I won’t go to a bar during the day when people under 18 are there. If I chose to burn something, I would burn a no smoking sign, not the American flag.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this
Jd - I don’t think it matters what color she is. I think they should have tasered and arrested her mother for allowing her to be out wandering the street at 2:50 a.m., high on drugs and showing a complete lack of respect for authority.
Eaton - It IS a good thing. 13-year-old children shouldn’t have rights when they are out high on drugs wandering the streets at 2:50 a.m.
By Tony
June 24, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this
RS I hesitate to respond because you have made it known that you do not believe that this is a life. But for the sake of refuting your post I offer the following:
When we are faced with a choice we must always choose the lesser of two evils. Does it really need to be mentioned that carrying a beautiful, new life to term regardless of the circumstances or difficulties is clearly less evil than the selfish act of abortion?
You and Sandy say it is better to allow abortion then to have so many unwanted children in the world. But how does not living such a life benefit the child? Whatever answer is given it will never be experienced by this unique child who now no longer exists and never will. There is also no value whatsoever to not existing - it is just nothing - life has value in and of itself no matter the supposed lack of quality and besides that, always has the chance for redemption. This thinking is selfish because we are the only ones who would experience any so-called “benefit” i.e. we don’t have to see someone “suffer”. If taken to its logical conclusions this justification could lead to any other defenseless group of people lacking “quality” in their lives being “removed” so we don’t have to see them.
As for the argument that unwanted children are more prone to become criminals - better to abort them before that happens - are we not innocent until it is proven we have committed the crime? I guess not, as long as you are in the womb according to this argument. Additionally, an aborted child will never be a doctor, a loving father or mother a great humanitarian etc. Those unwanted children who have become criminals - while sad - certainly are not sentenced to death that easily and they still have the possibility of changing their lives. Allowing abortion because of the mere possibility of becoming a criminal would seem to mean its permissible to use the death penalty for a lot more than just murder if taken to its logical and frightening conclusions. Abortion for this reason just takes us off the hook for showing love and concern to these unwanted children - but that would be more time consuming and difficult and not always successful and, quite frankly, just not as convenient for us.
And Eaton There are about two million couples waiting. Furthermore, each of these couples would want two or three, if available. Many will take hard-to-place children with special needs.
“When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I’ve often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God â€â€? and a terror will rip your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there’ll be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world â€â€? and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, ‘Spare him, because he loved us,’ â€â€? and God will look at you and say not, ‘Did you succeed?’ but ‘Did you try?’” Congressman Henry Hyde
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this
Generally when people burn the flag they aren’t doing it because they can’t smoke in their favorite bar. They aren’t protesting something so silly. They aren’t protesting something they feel can be resolved by not voting for someone in a few years.
Generally, Ben, they are protesting things like wars and extreme injustice, and if they burn the symbol of freedom in protest of actions taken by our government, perhaps it’s because they think that freedom has failed them and the nation it’s supposed to protect.
Or maybe they’re just…stupid.
By Jack
June 24, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this
That is my vent at the bottom of today’s vents on the web. Have a good weekend folks!
By Jd
June 24, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
I think it does matter and is important, exactly how threatening can a 13 yr old, drunk & drugged 90 pound female be. Can she be as threatening as a hand and ankle cuffed mentally ill black man in Gwinnett county jail ?
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this
Yeah Tony. There are 2 million couples waiting to adopt children. So…why are there still so many infants in the system? I work with a woman who takes in babies from DFACS all the time, Tony. These kids aren’t being snapped up by those 2 million.
Why, Tony? Because the 2 million DON’T WANT SICK BABIES, TONY. They don’t want babies that aren’t white. They don’t want special needs children.
The whole “every child aborted would be adopted if only given the chance” thing is a MYTH, Tony. It’s a lie concocted to make the anti-abortionists feel better about their “love ‘em in the womb, hate ‘em in the world” philosophy.
By Lyrazel
June 24, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this
The flag issue is one I consider to be one of the great legislative wastes of time and government funds. This is a daddy Bush issue—was kept alive by friends of GB in the republican seats—now it comes AGAIN as GWB is president…nepotism works, ladies and gents. First, how many flags are actually MADE IN THE USA? you know where they are made—china, bangladesh, pakistan, india and Malaysia. I think there is 1 plant in Ohio that still makes American flags…it may have already gone overseas. Second, how many Americans have pins, t-shirts, jeans, hats, gloves, sunglasses, drink cozies, coolers, thong underwear, disney toys with icons waving flags, or sheets, bedspreads and toothbrushes with the american flag on them? How much literature from how many coalitions has the american flag on it? How much crap do you recieve in the mail with the flag on it? We got a viagra email with stars and stripes—So now they want to regulate desecration of the flag? Its been so desecrated already you cant watch a truck commercial or have a beer without one.
Heres my beef: the supreme court says your home can be bought out from under you for that secret development project your state is involved with and you cant do squat—you probably never heard that such a contentious issue was ever being debated—but congress sits on its a* thinking we need flag legislation! O rah rah.
Heres my other beef: The Defense Department and a private contractor have been building an extensive database of 30 million 16-to-25-year-olds, combining names with Social Security numbers, grade-point averages, e-mail addresses and phone numbers, a violation of the federal Privacy Act, which requires that government agencies accept public comment before new records systems are created. Ok folks when are 16-18 year olds NOT Minors—why when they are judged by congress as potential candidates to support a war. Is this covert operation done with parental concent? No—but lets not bandy issues like illegal collections of data on minors—lets talk flags under attack. Clearly who is desecrating our rights as citizens?
Why defend a symbol when the rights of the people are being desecrated?
Yours on a friday. Be happy, be brave.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this
Eaton - I’m gonna go with them just being stupid. Thanks though!
Jd - She actually injured a nurse at the hospital for one, assaulted another nurse and the polic officer. Maybe if her mom would have shown up and whooped her a**, then she wouldn’t have been tasered. Hell, if her mom was responsible and made sure she was at home SLEEP like a 13-year-old should be at 2:30 a.m.
And it NOT really a race issue. Would it have been less of an issue if the mentally-ill guy in Gwinnett County Jail was white? Are people only concerned and outraged because he was black?
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this
Ben, why am I not surprised. Critical thinking isn’t your strongpoint.
By Tim
June 24, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this
Archie… sorry I didn’t answer your question yesterday… I didn’t answer it because I don’t know… you would have to ask that particular person… I think being gay, bi, striaght isn’t dependent solely on who you sleep with… but rather who you are attracted to
Happy PRIDE ;)
if you’re at Piedmont park Sunday look for me… I will be the blonde guy with the abercrombie shirt and cargo shorts on
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
Right Tim…a blond guy in Abercrombie at a gay Pride festival.
You’ll stand right out!
I’m taking my dad this year, ‘cause he’s been wanting to go for a couple of years now. Do I have a great dad, or what!
By Sandy/Sanhan
June 24, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
It saddens me to think that you believe that my stance on this issue allows me to sit in jugdment of who should live and who should die based on those characteristics you described. This, like the rest of your post is not based on any reality with which I am intimately acquainted.
You are certainly free to live your faith as you see fit, but you are not free to interfere with any woman’s choice as the law stands. There are issues about love, motherhood, and sacrifice that you may never fully understand, partly because you are not a woman, particularly a 3rd world woman; for you to interfere, intepret, and judge another’s heart-wrenching circumstances is misguided and reprehensible.
Claiming that we hold truths to be self-evident is not the same as making it reality. My opinion is that when it does become reality it will happen because we will recognize that all people born are intrinsically valuable, and in turn make life sustainable, and not because we recognize that a blastocyst has equal rights to a living, breathing, postpartum human being.
You refuse to see that the real vulnerable are not the unborn, but the disenfranchised and poor, perhaps because the unborn ask nothing tangible of you. You pray for the unborn; I pray for transformation of our pain, human foibles, and tragedies into that which celebrates our communion with all that is. To imply that I am a believer in murder is perhaps the greatest insult ever directed to me, but ultimately reflects more on your simplistic thinking than it does on me, and flies in the face that you are among those who “speak with tender voices.”
Life can be good beyond all measure, but we have to intend it and support it to be so, and know that which is “not good” in order recognize it.
Namaste.
By RS
June 24, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this
Ah, Tony, doesn’t your balloon ever land? No, the world is not a perfect place where every child will grow up to be a happy, productive citizen. Whether or not we SEE a child suffering, they still suffer & if the suffering is unseen, that doesn’t lessen it. Aborting a fetus isn’t the same as killing a human being & I think you know why I feel that way. And Eaton is right; Very very few prospective parents are standing on line to adopt children who are nonwhite, older and/or disabled in any way. I believe it’s selfish to condemn an innocent child to such a life; if they’re not born, they don’t suffer. Of course, the argument is that if they’re never born, they’ll never experience joy either. But how much “joy” can there possibly be in a life of poverty, disease, disability, crime, danger, neglect & cruelty??
By Tim
June 24, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this
Eaton… yeah I thought I would really stand out that way… very cool your dad wants to go… I am glad my mother lives in Orlando… if she were here she wouldn’t want to go… she would want to be on a float!
By Charles Smith
June 24, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this
Do something about tobacco which kills hundreds of thousands of people a year worldwide. Do something about alcohol. Do something about the legal drug pushers that would have you beleive that everyone needs prozac and similar prescription drugs because life’s too hard. And let’s not even talk about obesity.
Then come back and talk about marijuana.
I have watched family members and friends die from alcohol directly, let along alcohol-related incidents. I am currently watching an acquantance rot away from lung cancer from 40 years of tobacco use. I have friends who think life is just f*ing dandy … they are on prescribed mood elevators and tranquilizers because reality doesn’t meet their approval.
Yes, marijuana is abused. No question. And so is food, as evidenced by the obesity epidemic in this country. Should we deny sick people food too? Maybe we need to run that by the Morality Police.
Then there’s the argument that marijuana is so much more potent than it was “twenty years ago”. Really? Do you know anyone who has actually experienced that? Or is that just lab data, from experiments sponsored by….?
I have heard that argument since the early ’70s, and it seems no more valid now than then.
The bottom line is that sick people are being denied relief. But, I guess we wouldn’t want anyone who is terminally ill to develop a “drug problem”, would we?
By Ben
June 24, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this
Eaton - I am very capable of critical thinking. The problem is that my conclusions don’t mirror yours; therefore, you think you my reasoning is flawed. You think flag burning is representative of freedom because it is exercising the right to protest and express oneself in opposition to the injustices of the world. I think it’s stupid because the way flag burners do it, and because they are trampling on the other freedoms that are protected and represented by that symbol, among other things. Whatever dude! What is burning a flag supposed to prove?
By RS
June 24, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this
Tim, Eaton etc…Not 100% sure what my plans are but I MAY (I shall try) to be at Gay Pride Sunday. You can’t miss me! I’m about 5’2”, pudgier than I want to be, I wear rectangular black-framed glasses & have curly auburn hair with the front dyed a reddish-blonde. I’ll be wearing jeans, black & white Converse high-tops & a black sleeveless T-shirt with a skull/black & white checkerboard design, I’ll be carrying a small black & white shoulder bag & wearing darkish lipstick. (Yes, you can take the girl out of Little 5 Points…) Just yell “Hey, RS”! (Stands for “Rock Star!”)I hope this happens!!! Yay!!! What time do y’all think you’ll be there?
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this
Actually Ben, I question your critical thinking skills because the first thing that you learn in any reasoning and logic class is that “that’s stupid” or “that’s dumb” isn’t an acceptable answer. They are meaningless words, used when you don’t have anything concrete to say.
Now, “because they are trampling on the other freedoms that are protected and represented by that symbol” actually begins to be an argument. What protected freedoms are being trampled on by flag burners?
By Tim
June 24, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this
RS… I plan on being out there all day long and staying for the show Sunday night too… I could describe myself but it wouldn’t do any good… it would sound like I was talking about 150k other people out there lol :)
By RS
June 24, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
Believe me, Tim, you are NOT like “150k other people”! That’s a compliment!
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this
I’ll be there for parade and a few hours only after that.
And yeah, I’m sure I’ll leap out about as much as Tim - you know, how many 5’9’ brown-eyed guys in khaki shorts do you think will be around?
By DeltaX
June 24, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this
Ben, We all agree you can have your opinion that burning the flag is stupid - you can even vote against us if it was put to that. But to state that one cannot burn the flag, but should burn a persons house is immoral. By god it is a persons house!! - do you not get the meaning of your words??
Heck, the flag is supposed to represent the freedom of having a house/land/etc - so burning a private house is incredibly immoral in comparison.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this
Eaton - I’ve told you how I felt about flag burners and why. The fact that I resign to it or them being stupid or dumb, is just my take on them. It’s stupid. It’s a stupid act done by a stupid person.
Well they are burning the flag under their freedom of speech or expression, basically the First Amendment, which protects them while doing so. Well the flag also represents or is symbolic of the Constitution and the Amendments within. Burning the flag tramples on the Right to Bear Arms, the Right to a Fair and Speedy Trail, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, protection from illegal search and seizure, due process, etc. etc.
By Jd
June 24, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
Ben, ur crazy.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
Ben, that’s great rhetoric, but it’s also nonsense.
Burning the flag prevents no one from owning a gun. It causes no one to have their homes searched illegally. It slows no trial down, nor does it prevent anyone’s pursuit of happiness.
You see, this is why I find your position laughable - not because you disagree with me but because nothing you say has any basis in reality.
By Archie
June 24, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this
“Burning the flag tramples on the Right to Bear Arms, the Right to a Fair and Speedy Trail, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, protection from illegal search and seizure, due process, etc. etc.”
I do not agree with that paragraph at all. You can call people stupid. I gave the example of a pregnant woman drinking to make the point that people do what they do and you comment on it and move on. Lyrazel wrote a good post about the flag perspective and at some point a person has to move on and understand people just don’t think as you do. I know military people are taught how to fold the flag with precision and revere it and present to a grieving family but there’s another group that doesn’t believe that way and they are Americans. The military defends stupid people and that’s life and some point we all have to just get over it otherwise we start looking stupid.
By Zack
June 24, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this
Ben—You don’t have to elaborate for Eaton. You have every right to make a comment like that and go on. Your time is precious, and you don’t have to sit there and give supporting paragraphs for people who lack the diligence to seek the truth on their own. MAYBE when they HEAR you say something is dumb or stupid they’ll begin to think on their own and seek the truth, as opposed to continuing their firm grasps on their self-delusions.
Besides, when did you ever hear these people like Eaton ever give true reasoning to support their beliefs? They don’t give reasoning because they don’t understand reasoning, and they don’t understand it because they turn a deaf ear to it.
Heck, the main reason why I didn’t come on here for a month or so was because of all the overt bigotry by all the Howard-Dean clones.
Did you see Laura’s post to Shaunti? This is EXACTLY how these people are. I told Laura she needed to be horsewhipped publicly and that I’d love to see it. I would.
By DeltaX
June 24, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this
[Can we move on to something that exercises my mind after this, please!!!]
A protest that includes fasting only hurts the person (literally looked at), but it is the metaphor that is being communicated (abstractly looked at).
Same goes for burning the flag. It is metaphorical, and directed at the principle you dislike.
Must be able to think abstractly to get this; and military folk are not the most abstract people in the world.(no stab, only truth)
By kimberly
June 24, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this
The flag on my front porch went up in the summer of 2001. When the retail rush on flags occurred that September, it wasn’t an issue for me. Mine was already up. But now it is faded and tattered. The stripes are shredded from the beating it took during hurricane season. Yes I know, no rain, etc. It’s under an overhang, so it doesn’t get rained on directly. Nonetheless, it’s in tatters.
Aren’t I supposed to burn it?
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this
Zack, you wouldn’t know reasoning if it moved into your house and lived with you for a year, and you are the world’s most accomplished bigot.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this
Eaton - Like I said, whatever dude. Burning the flag does not change the government, it does not end war, it does not resolve issues with policy. That is why I find flag burning and flag burners laughable; not because I disagree with it, but because it’s stupid to me and it is not the least bit of productive.
DeltaX - I’m not going to even try to unconfuse you. If I said I wanted to string up a criminal by his balls, it doesn’t mean I am going to catch him, tackle him and rope a noose around his sack and string him up.
Maybe this one will help you: There was thing thing long, long ago called the Boston Tea Party. See what happened was, some people decided to mess with tax on tea to save a company from bankruptcy. It was a big deal because a lot of people drank tea, and they thought the tax or lack of was messed up. So they addressed their complaint with the government who told them to go fly a kite. Well what they did instead of burning the flag of their government, they just dumped the tea in the Boston Harbor. Afterall, it was the tea that was the problem!
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
By the way, Zack - Bigoty, since you seem to be utterly unable to use the word correctly, is discrimination against an entire class of people based on nothing more than their belonging to that class. It’s like what you do to, well, pretty much everybody.
People not liking you, on the other hand, is not bigotry. It’s a result of the fact that you are one of the most vile, hateful human beings currently wasting our oxygen today. You are human pond scum, Zack, and that’s not bigotry. It’s just fact.
By DeltaX
June 24, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this
Eaton, We are trying to reason with people who promote: House burning, horse whipping, dragging people through streets,…did I miss some? I would go back in the logs and compile more, but do not want to fully realize the people we are dealing with here.
When a new topic begins, I will come back around.
By Zack
June 24, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this
Tim—YOU’RE calling ME, stupid? Thank you. If you’re concerned about people staying on topic, talk to “RS.” She’s the one who starts talking about her clubbing, as though anyone wants to hear about that.
RS—Yeah, I defend Eric Rudolph. YOU and YOUR type are the ones who need to be reprimanded, for your support of the murdering of innocent children. How can you say that Rudolph deserves the book thrown at him whenever we’ve got a legalized holocaust labeled “choice” running rampant? You people indeed are sick individuals and the scum of the earth.
Eaton—You’re calling ME hate-filled? I hate acts of evil and love acts of justice. You and those like you are just the opposite (which was represented by your lack of opposing Laura’s uncalled-for—to say the least—statement to Shaunti; oh, yeah—you people only defend those who are delusioned enough to agree with you). I understand that the gay community is an extremely hate-filled group (and then they say THEY’RE the victims of it), and you’d better watch what you say about me. This pathetic, poorly-run, poorly-moderated blog might post anything and everything, but there are such things as lawsuits in this country.
Oh, Eirik, if you ever want to meet me in person and support your threat, if I’m not too busy laughing at your attempt, I’ll knock you out. That’s another thing you boys do: You can’t support anything you say for anything, so you turn to the vilest of name-calling, no matter how it lacks support, and go from there. It’s so nice putting you people in your places.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
Zack, you continue to show what kind of scum you really are…you say you support acts of justice and hate acts of evil…Eric Rudolph is a murdering terrorist, you stupid, pathetic little monster. He killed innocent people and injured many others. If you defend him, you might as well defend Bin Laden as well.
Your definition of love and justice is so twisted that I can barely fathom it. Just THINKING about you free in society makes me angry. What kind of evil will you do one day in the name of your twisted idea of justice?
We can only hope that you really ARE in prison already Zack, because it is obviously where you belong, you piece of filth.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this
Archie – I don’t disagree with what you are saying. But the reason I am arguing is that I only talked about how I felt about people who burn the flag. I don’t argue that their right to do it is wrong. I’m arguing because just like you say, I can say what I want – but the trend here is that if it’s not with popular opinion, I’m a house burner, people beater. Yes the military defends people’s right to be stupid, but that doesn’t mean we can’t call them stupid. You know what I mean?
DeltaX – Your truth is flawed about military people. Additionally, I promote house burning, horse whipping, dragging people through the streets, spraying people with fire extinguishers and bunch of other stuff. If that’s all you gathered from what I said then maybe you SHOULD come back when the topic changes. But if this topic keeps you away, I will talk about it every week.
Jd – Like a fox dude!
By FatherOfThree
June 24, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this
So the moral Zack states:
You people indeed are sick individuals and the scum of the earth.
I’ll knock you out
I defend Eric Rudolph
so you turn to the vilest of name-calling
Quotes from a christain??
Get good with christ man, you have lost it. I do not recall Jesus portraying ANY of those traits Zack.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
Kimberly - You might want to replace it. If not, that’s your choice. The VFW will take care of it for you, and probably provide you with a new one. Except they usually give you a flag etiquette book too. lol
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
Ben. I’m really trying to be patient with you. You did say every one of those things about flag burners. Every single one. And you did, in fact, conduct the discussion as if you were in favor of making it illegal.
This is exactly what I’m talking about - you say all these things, make all these statements, and then when someone calls you on them or challenges, you say - I didn’t say that, I didn’t mean that, you’re twisting my words!
But you did say it, and we didn’t KNOW you were being facetious.
By Tim
June 24, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this
Zack… I called you stupid because you come on here and b*** about someone not staying on topic when you yourself rarely (if ever) contribute anything to the topic… so yes I think it is stupid for you to b*** when you are doing exactly what you are b*** about… so yeah stupid stupid stupid :)
the gay community is hate-filled? that’s amusing… please tell that to my friends who were put in the hospital for 3 days because a couple of pieces of s** decided to do a little gay-bashing… when is the last time you heard of a couple of gay guys beating up a straight person for being straight… your stupidity never ceases to amaze me
By RS
June 24, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this
Oh, brother, Zack! What a MORON! First of all, Tim is anything BUT stupid! You go on & on about abortion being murder, then you defend a mass murderer who’s injured & killed real, living people. Oh, wait! I get it! People only matter BEFORE they’re born. ‘Scuse me! You are pathetic, evil, hate-mongering slime. Go crawl back in your hole; the God I know & worship is undoubtably sorely disappointed in you.
By FatherOfThree
June 24, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this
Ben, I believe if Delta’s comment was flawed, it would mean that military folk are the MOST abstract people in the world.
military folk are not the most abstract people in the world was what Delta stated. You seem to prove you are inside that box.
It seems these “stupid people” you have been hasseling are right about your (Zacks and Bens) logic, anger, lack of critical thinking and abstact thinking.
Cheers guys for a good show of refusing to use your mind.
By RS
June 24, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this
Tim, how awful about your friends!!! Are they ok now? Zack is the type of person (& I use the word “person” very loosely!) who probably fantasizes about beating up gay men but wouldn’t have the nerve so he lives vicariously thtough the dubious exploits of his hero Eric Rudolph
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this
RS, the real worry is that one day Zack will finally get up the gumption and become the next Eric Rudolph. That’s what sociopaths do after all - they escalate their behavior until they erupt into violence.
By Tim
June 24, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this
RS… the 5 losers (I mean how sad that you are soooo pathetic that you have to take 5 guys to beat up 2 guys… good grief at least grow a set and fight someone one on one) were put in jail and my friends also won a lawsuit against them… they are doing just FABULOUS ;) we are actually flying out to LA in October to visit them
Zack is a lost cause
By kimberly
June 24, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this
Thanks Ben. Actually I purchased a new flag from the Georgia Vietnam Veterans last year. Everyone please call them. For a moderate donation, they’ll bring a new one to your front door! (insert soap box for short female…) I had intended to hang my new flag on November 3rd of last year. (As it turned out, I took a percoset and stayed in bed that day.)
The tattered flag on my house represents, TO ME, my tattered faith in the integrity of my government, the faded color of truth we now know, and the torn fabric of our ideals and principles, and the shredded remains of what USED TO BE one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all… or at least we tried to be that.
When I see HOPE in my nation again, I’ll pull the new flag out of the closet, hang it properly, salute it, and weep with joy for the America I love… the America I believe in. I pray to God that day will come again; but beyond that, I wake up every morning with a resolve to help make that happen. TRUTH!
By Ben
June 24, 2005 11:54 AM | Link to this
Eaton - Thanks for being patient. lol. Like I said, whatever!
-When I said, shot and dragged through the streets, I told you I was joking!
-I never said I would beat up somebody who burned a flag, I said the government can end free speech if it promotes violence and breaches peace. So if we really didn’t want to see people burn flags, we could riot every time. I didn’t say, I would knock out the next person to bring flame to the flag.
-I said give the local officials hell, hurt em at the polls in regards to Delta’s eminent domain post. And said if that doesn’t work burn down their houses. lol
I never said that flag burning should be illegal. I said that I have issues with the people that burn them and why they burned them. As as far as me attacking you,
By Ben
June 23, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this
Eaton - I wasn’t pointing anything at you, I just use you to kind of put the shoe on your foot.
Granted I did say you were ignorant after I explained my misuse of the word. But hey, I never denied that!
By Cheryl
June 24, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
Just to defend pregnant women for a minute: If you are a smoker and you get pregnant, your ob will tell you not to quit cold turkey in most cases. It is too hard on your body and the baby. YOu are supposed to gradually wean yourself. I can’t speak to why a pregnant woman would be drinking, but that might be why she was smoking.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - At least it means something to you! Before I left Iraq, I went to Al Asad to see my brother in law who just put one of his good friends on the back of an airplane to be flown back in his pine box draped with the American Flag. I told him I was leaving and to take care of himself. He asked me to give something to his wife, kiss her and take care of the flag on his front porch.
Our wives had the flags on the front porch along with the Gold Star Banners in the window. My sister-in-laws flag looked like hell and mine was worse. So I went and bought brand new ones and took the old ones to the Boy Scouts. I did it out of respect for all of the other people who got to ride home in a pine box draped in the colors and people like my brother in law who had to carry those boxes! I have two flags on my mantle that were presented to me at the funerals of two of my friends that had no family. To me, it’s not a piece of cloth that you can pick up at Wal-Mart. And to me, if you burn a flag, you may as well be burning the ones on my mantle and on my front porch. And yes, despite critical thinking, deduction reasoning, logical conclusions and all that other garbage — I think called flag burners and flag burning stupid is putting it nicely!
By STAY HOME!
June 24, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
SECOND NOTICE - This is gay pride weekend in the city of Atlanta and if you have a problem with gay and lesbian people stay home! Stay in your suburbs! Stay out of Piedmont Park! Most of you crawl out of your suburbs, trash our city and don’t pay a red cent in taxes to support the park or our city. Leave us alone and let us have our two days of peace and fun. Don’t go to the park and start whining that gay people are there. Duh, it is gay pride weekend and it has been publicized everywhere. Don’t say you were aware.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
I suspect that the flag holds meaning for those burning it as well. It’s just that they value what’s behind the symbol a lot more than the symbol itself.
By RS
June 24, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
Eaton: Zack strikes me as the type of, uh, person, who, as a child, probably pulled the wings off insects & tortured animals, just for the “enjoyment”(??) of it. Some kids like that grow up to be serial killers & others just fantasize about doing so & idolize those who are. The latter is the lesser of the 2 evils. Tim, I’m glad your friends’ story had a somewhat happy ending but it’s something that NEVER should have happened in the first place. Dunno if this will be your 1st trip to LA but I’ve been there a number of times & you’ll have a blast!
By STAY HOME!
June 24, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
were NOT MADE aware
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this
gee Stay Home, way to scare off the straights.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
Ugh RS, we must like very different things - I absolutely hated LA.
By Tim
June 24, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
RS… it will be my frist trip to LA… the farthest West I have ever been is Arkansas (Lord help me lol)… it will be nice to go to a blue state lol
By kimberly
June 24, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Ben, it breaks my heart that we send soldiers off to war, leaving their families home in a constant state of angst and loneliness… a state that sadly, continues forever for some families. I have only the utmost respect for the men and women who stand for us in their uniforms and forsake their own needs to persue the accomplishment of their missions. That is why I have only contempt for those who use this great American resource foolishly, wrongly, or for the financial gain of their family and friends. What makes it even worse now, is that I DON’T feel safer, only more exposed now that soldiers are dying in a country that never attacked us, the sympathy and support of the entire rest of the world has turned to revulsion, and our borders, ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and vulnerable targets remain unguarded. Meanwhile, the national treasury has been looted, and Cheney’s buddies bill the Pentagon for BILLIONS every year for which that have no auditable documentation.
To add insult to injury, the so-called news media, of which we have more outlets than ever before, saturate us every day in the same five stories: 1) celebrity trial of the week 2) missing white chick of the week 3)someone in Washington is demanding an apology from someone else in Washington 4) the latest random, pointless act of violence, and 5) pedophile-slash-serial killer of the month, all with the background theme song: “we’re safer-er now, and anyone who says different is just being an obstructionist!”
Doesn’t ANYONE want to know the actual NEWS we’re NOT getting? No. Americans are HAPPIER with their heads in the sand, humming the lastest bad kareoke song from American Idol.
By Netbanker
June 24, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this
Tony,
I understand what you are saying and see that you are looking at the situation from a positive aspect. Sandy, et. al (myself included) are looking at the opposite side of your arguments which you summed clearly as” it is better to allow abortion then to have so many unwanted children in the world.” It appears that we are considering both sides while you seem to only consider the value or life of the ‘unborn’ without any consideration of the situation into which that child will arrive or the impact of that arrival on the family unit.
You ask “But how does not living such a life benefit the child?” I’ll ask you to turn the question around to “How does living such a life benefit the child?” From your perspective should quality of life, prospect of survival, or impact to already born family members have a place in the discussion? If not, why? You seem to be saying being born is primary, but what if you know that child is being born into a family that can not possible feed them well, or is abusive, or that the one extra mouth absolutely means no one will get enough to eat?
As an example, from my perspective I would say better that a potential child be aborted than to have the mother die during child birth and leave 4 other children motherless, placing all the burden of rearing those 4 children on the surviving father who needs to spend all his time working in order to provide food/shelter/clothing.
It is easy to look only at the positive when we live in very wealthy country and where our definition of poverty would be considered well off elsewhere. Even within this country there are families who are barely surviving. One more child or the burden of a pregnancy can throw that family’s balance the wrong way. Now we have an entire family in crisis…for which our right to life administration is cutting funds for help.
By Tommy
June 24, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
Shut up homo! We’ll burn your f* flag since all f* want to burn flags. Have your stupid little parade! Put on your chaps and run the streets like a flaming queer. I’m petitioning for a f*-hater parade so you can stay at home everyday.
By lozen
June 24, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
I don’t know where this came from but I love it!
Dear Red States, We’re ticked off at the way you’ve treated California, and we’ve decided we’re leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we’re taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren’t aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California. To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma, and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Wal-Mart. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Bob Jones University. We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition’s, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we’re going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they’re apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don’t care if you don’t show pictures of their children’s caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we’re not willing to spend our resources in Bush’s Quagmire. With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country’s fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation’s fresh fruit, 95 percent of America’s quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners), 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high-tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT. With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson, and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we’re discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11, and 61 percent of you believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties.
Sorry it’s so long but I couldn’t leave anything out!
By Len
June 24, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
It seems ironic to me that here in the land of the free it is illiegal for a tax paying citizen to voice his opinion by burning the symbol of freedom. This is even more ironic when one considers that the individual is prohibited from burning his own flag. Instead of protecting the flag I believe the principals that made this country the model of freedom should be protected. I feel that the law against flag burning is a symbol of the errosion of individual rights. We used to be a country so free that even our symbol of freedom was just that, a symbol and nothing more.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this
Netbanker brought up the report, released earlier this week, that shows that the current action in Iraq is acting as a crucible/training ground for a whole new generation of guerilla-style fighters. They compare it to the Soviet/Afghanistan conflict in terms of the numbers of trained fighters it will produce - on the other side - and the comparison is not good. We are currently training significant numbers of future enemies.
Add to that the reports that recruitment for the large terrorist organizations are through the roof, the fact that anti-American sentiment of the most extreme variety has risen all over the Middle East due to our actions in that region, and it makes you wonder about the claims of the Rumsfelds and Roves and Cheneys…
Acts of Global terrorism have increased every year…anti-American sentiment has increased in the region we are claiming to “help”…our own freedoms have been curtailed, we have violated international law and custom by using sophistry to avoid following the Geneva Conventions…every day, we hear about more American soldiers killed, more Iraqi civillians dead…
The War on Terror is an unmitigated disaster, but the war mongering powers-that-be continue to tell us how wonderfully we’re doing.
But hey - don’t burn that flag. It’s a symbol of freedom.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this
Gee Tommy, I’m impressed that you actually know enough words to put five sentences together. Of course, you used a few of them multiple times, so you get points off.
Does your kindergarten teacher know you’re on the Internet, little boy?
By kimberly
June 24, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this
To the GAY CITIZENS OF GEORGIA: I hope you have a FABULOUS weekend in Atlanta for your festival! Please enjoy the parks, the streets, the good restaruants, and the party spots. I hope you have great weather and a warm, friendly reception every place you go! Peace!
To the REDNECKS AND HOMOPHOBES: I hear Wild Bill’s in Gwinnett is giving a way free Pabst and Skoal to everyone with a big tacky belt buckle or a cowboy hat! Have fun! Yee-haw!
By Tony
June 24, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this
First of all, thank you Netbanker for being civil and not attacking my intelligence or me.
A few facts about the unwanted and the poor. In In New York City during the 60s, the number of abused children had averaged about 5,000 cases a year. Abortion was legalized in 1970. By 1975, over 25,000 cases were reported.
The figures for the entire U.S. are: 1973 167,000. In 1979 711,142. In 1993 1,057,255 and in 1996 1.220,000
Abortion is not making this world a better place and indeed the exact opposite has happened.
By Tommy's Kindergarden Teacher
June 24, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
Please Leave Tommy alone he can’t come out of the closet and play right now, he’s on time out.
By Len
June 24, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this
Tommy, man you really got it going on don’t you? Funny the way class just skips right over some people.
By Rednecks and Homophobes
June 24, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Free Pabst and Skoal, “well shucks I wish it were Gay pride every week”. Thanx Wild Bill
By JB
June 24, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this
I wonder if those children abuse numbers include young boys molested by Catholic priests.
By Eirik
June 24, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this
Ok Zack…I’m ready..my email is eanderson@yahoo.com. Let’s do this…You’re gonna learn some manners.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this
Eaton - you’re right, burn the flag because that will teach the administration. Hey you guys are messing up so here, watch me burn this flag!
You’re right, let’s take these guys that cut people’s heads off on television, hate Americans and believe killing innocent women and children is justified and just let them all go because they aren’t being treated fairly. Let’s stop feeding them, educating them, and helping them pray so they can go back to the battlefied like the other ones we let go.
Burning the flag will teach em! Hell after all, that’s what the people that hate America over in the middle east do.
By STAY HOME!
June 24, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this
Tommy, firstly I don’t own chaps. I do however own a great pair of size 4 leather pants. Secondly, I am not a f*, I am a lesbian. Thirdly, I wont’ be walking around anywhere. We make enough money to hire taxies to take us to and from places that we choose not to drive our Mercedes sedan or convertible. Fourthly, don’t come looking for me. I would never blink at you once even if I was straight. You are obviously uneducated, therefore POOR. I don’t do poor, ugly or out of shape.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
Tony, there is no statistical correlation between your two figures. Cases of abuse have increased because population has increased. You have absolutely no causal link between the legalization of abortion and the increase in child abuse, because they are unrelated. Just because one follows the other does not make one the CAUSE of the other.
Classic Post Hoc fallacy.
By Eirik
June 24, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this
e_anderson67@yahoo.com
I’ll be waiting Zack…you name the place.
By RS
June 24, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
We haven’t heard from Tommy in a few minutes; I guess he’s sharing some quality time with his blow-up doll. Eaton, sorry you didn’t like LA…what was it like when you were there?
By Netbanker
June 24, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this
Tim, Eaton, RS…y’all crack me up and SCARE me a little bit that you already know what you’re wearing to Pride. Oh wait…got it…you’re describing what you THINK you’re going to wear and then you’ll try on 3 outfits because it’s hot, I feel fat in that, whatever…and then you’ll go to the park in the perfect ensemble for the weather, humidity, comfort, and coloring…which is hardly likely to match what you’re planning right now. Trust me…I’ve been at this for a while.
By Dakotawoman
June 24, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
“She actually injured a nurse at the hospital for one, assaulted another nurse and the polic officer. Maybe if her DAD would have shown up and whooped her a, then she wouldn’t have been tasered. Hell, if her **DAD was responsible and made sure she was at home SLEEP like a 13-year-old should be at 2:30 a.m. Why is the FATHER never responsible, Ben?
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this
Very simply put, Ben, when we become that which we claim to hate, we’ve already lost.
Yes. Some of the prisoners we’ve taken have committed vile acts against humanity and our nation. Does that mean we are justified in abusing them back? Does that mean that we should abandon international law and convention? Does that mean that we should abandon our Constitution and hold American citizens without benefit of counsel or charge? Should we keep prisoners “off the books”?
Not as far as I’m concerned. That makes us every bit as guilty as they are. We can’t call ourselves the defenders of freedom and then behave like our adversaries.
By Tommy
June 24, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
I’m here you freaks! You must want me to tell you how disgusting you are. First of all, the only hot lesbians are the ones on TV, so I seriously doubt you are that hot. And not hot enough to be picky, cuz true dikes are hard to find unless they are in sandals and bluejeans with their pooch stickin out like a hump. Oh, and yes the gay boys. I don’t want to upset the sensitive sissies here because they wish they were as manly as their lesbian friends. Enjoy your gay parade while all of the straight people sit back and watch the freak show.
By RS
June 24, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
Netbanker: You are SO right! In fact, I have a closetful of “nothing to wear!”
By Jack
June 24, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
I used to fly our flag on holidays. Since 9/11/01, the flag has stayed on the front of the house. Why have so many people removed their flags? The flags did send a message. leave them up folks. Though I disagree with anyone who burns our flag, those that wish to should retain the right to do so.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this
Dang Net, I know what I’ll be wearing ‘cause I’m a pretty bare-bones kind of guy when it comes to clothing. That, and since I’m going to be busy most of the weekend, I’m just thinking about what’s clean :-)
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this
Poor little Tommy. He wants Sooooo much to come to Pride, but he’s afraid of his own feelings.
It’s OK Tommy - you may hate yourself, but God loves you.
Maybe.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this
Dakotawoman - You are asking the wrong person. I said the mother because the story I read said she was released to her mother, and her mother let her get cleared at the hospital — I never said that the father isn’t responsible. But I see you conviently missed the point of what I said too!
By lozen
June 24, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater (terrorist) but you do not murder hate (terror). In fact violence increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that. Martin Luther King, Jr.
By Tommy
June 24, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this
I do want to come to pride, what dress should I wear, short and slutty, or long and elegant ?
By JB
June 24, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this
Speaking of conservatives still thinking Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, their leader Karl Rove is still spreading the same propaganda. His rant recently that liberals were cowards in the wake of 9/11 while right wingers decided to take the fight to terrorists is laughable. His reasoning is based completely on Iraq being involved in the attacks on NY & DC. Because there is not a single American, liberal or other, who wasn’t ready to kick Osama bin Laden and his followers in the rear end. But while liberals are smart enough to make distinctions between bin Laden’s Islamic fundamentalists (mostly Saudis) and Iraqis who don’t live what you’d call very religious existences, right wingers have to lump those they don’t understand into broad categories to be hated. If you want an explanation as to why Conservatives have such a death grip on American politics right now, it is this: most Americans are ignorant, as they would have a hard time pointing out Iraq or Afghanistan on a map (much less Canada or Mexico) and so they don’t see the difference. So when their political leaders imply that Iraq may have had a hand in 9/11, they say “kill ‘em all and let god sort ‘em out.” It is that blatant use of propaganda that has swept right wingers into office. “Don’t listen to liberals, they are afraid to defend you against those darn Iraqis.” What liberal can argue with that, because you immediately get branded weak and un-American. All I can say is I am a Democrat, and I’d kill any terrorist who attacked my country and kick any conservatives a* who ever thinks to call me weak, but I know the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. I also know the difference between morals and religion, and the two rarely converge.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
Not ever having worn a dress or having felt the urge to wear a dress, I couldn’t help you. But hey, if you feel like your true self is a drag-queen, more power to you.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this
I suspect Rove is smart enough to know that 9/11 and Iraq are totally unconnected. Unfortunately, he’s also smart enough to know his audience, and knows exactly what to say to manipulate them and fan their ignorance and fear into a fever pitch.
I believe it’s been quoted before, but here’s everyone’s favorite Luftwaffe-Chief and Nazi, Herman Goering.
Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
By JB
June 24, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this
Tommy, why you gotta be a hater? What, abortion is wrong because it supposedly takes a life, but if someone is gay they’re life isn’t worth anything? Right wingers are contradict themselves at every turn and don’t even know it. I guess when you base your life philosophy on ghosts and spirits it gets hard to see reality.
By JB
June 24, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this
that should read “Right wingers contradict…” sorry for the extra “are”. Its Friday.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this
It’s OK JB - like most rampant homophobes who feel the need to make random anti-gay rants, Tommy is most likely a repressed homo himself. We should pity him. Probably he comes from some backwater family with uneducated parents who taught him to hate because they didn’t know any better.
By Netbanker
June 24, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
Tony…those numbers show an increase in raw data of reported cases, but there is no perspective to be gained from that without understanding them in relation to overall population growth and efforts to identify cases. Can you explain your thoughts on the relationship between legalization of abortion and the increase in child abuse?
I can factually state that reported cases of breast cancer have increased since men landed on the moon. But that statement doesn’t tell us anything real nor is there any relationship between landing on the moon and boobs.
By JB
June 24, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this
They think homosexuality is a learned behavior and can be spread like a disease. But its a mix up in genetic wiring that causes them to think and react differently. You can see similar behavior throughout the animal world. Mother nature is a mad scientist. But because Tommy and his bible thumping buddies don’t believe in all that scientific mumbo jumbo and big words, they must demonize it as the work of the devil, much like ancient peoples thought mental disorders meant people were possessed by demons. What morons.
By JB
June 24, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
Netbanker said boobs. Heh heh heh.
By LUcky I wasn't aborted
June 24, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this
I was almost aborted, mixed race kids in the seventies were hard to place in Foster care. Lucky for me a childless multiracial couple saw fit to not only care for my mother through out her pregnancy, but adopt me and save me from the human dumpster. Thank You, Mom
By Ben
June 24, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this
The bottom line is mistakes were made, and we were more than likely, positively duped into going into Iraq. With all that said, people can sit and whine and moan and b1tch about it, but the fact remains peoples sons and daughters and husbands and wives are over there trying to survive. It’s not their fault that the leaders the people chose are jacked up and leading the country into the dirt. But everyone gets so caught up in pointing fingers and trying to one-up somebody that we forget they are over there. When we want to let terrorist out of the prisons because they are treated fairly, we don’t realize that those terrorist are going back into the fight. When we b1tch and moan about the money spent, we don’t think that if we stop sending money to support the operations, our troops are only in more danger.
Any person that has an ounce of problem solving skills knows the first step is to fix the problem, THEN you go back and figure out what went wrong and do what it takes to stop it from happening again. If a pipe breaks and everyone stands around pointing fingers and blaming the next guy, water continues to flow and it only gets worse. A smart person would shut the water off, mend the break and THEN figure out who messed up and deal with them!
By FatherOfThree
June 24, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
I removed my family from organized religion two years ago, after all the years of seeing the church deny assistance to those they felt unworthy. We have our own service and attend a Unitarian to exchange ideas of morality and change.
I have also become convinced that organized religion is the exact evil the bible warns us about. They take a person who is just beginning to have a relationship with Jesus and convince them that their relationship is wrong; and to right the wrong they must follow their(insert Baptist, catholic, etc) humanized dogma. This, or they assist in their initial learning of Jesus, and then add their agenda.
I have now seen many souls lost to “the church” and find it an infinitely cruel and sadistic practice.
Good luck to you preachers on here. You soul hangs in the balance, and you are doing evil work.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
Ben, personally I don’t forget for one minute that our men and women are over there trying to survive. Why the hell do you think I worry about the war? It’s not, as you so dismissively say, because I am b*** and moaning.
No one has said, by the way, to release terrorists. But follow the rules of war and the strictures of international law. Don’t make it up as you go along.
By Tommy
June 24, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
I not religious, and I’m not political! I think f* are disgusting! What real man wants to wake up next to another hairy *ss man and kiss him. That’s sick and I hope it rains on your parade! You’re sick and not normal!
By Archie
June 24, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
Ben your 12:04 post made me feel good because it was exactly what I suspected was going on with you. I tried to write it out but I couldn’t and although I agree with Eaton about the flag I definitely understand why you feel the way you do. Frankly you’ve posted plenty of bright things so I don’t have any issue with you even I disagree at times. Frankly I don’t believe you(Ben) will commit any violence and I think non-military folk like myself have to understand what you guys have gone through. It is easy to be intellectual when you’re not shot at or riding in a vehicle that may flip over at any time. I figured out where you coming from awhile back and the people here may have to agree to disagree with you(Ben). There really is no need for name-calling and in fact your perspective should be acknowledged and you are right people do need to do more than burn a flag. I have already exclaimed that voting,boycotts,lobbying and are non-violent methods to make a point but many people are apathetic.
By Tommy
June 24, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
The rules of war only apply to some of the freaks from Afghanistan. The Iraqi’s are not privvy to the Geneva Convention!
By Netbanker
June 24, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
RS…same here AND I have the shoes to match! Most of the stuff in there belongs to my partner, but he’s always complaining about how many clothes I had. So he starts rearranging some stuff because he could never find what he wanted and in the end he discovered that 2/3 of the stuff he kept saying was mine was acutally his. He didn’t find the question “Who’s the clothes-whore, queen?!” quite as funny after that as I did.
Eaton…I’m pretty minimal and no fuss, myself. I used to be higher maintenance but unannounced weekend trips were common when I was growing up so unless you wanted to dress like a freak because you only had 20 minutes between walking in the door from school and leaving on the trip you kept the amount of clothes you owned manageable and fairly coordinated from a matching perspective. You do have a great Dad to go to Pride with you.
By Tim
June 24, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this
Netbanker… I was joking when I said I would be the one in the abercrombie shirt and cargo shorts… I don’t know what I am wearing… but I can tell you I won’t change three times… I am lazy… once it is one it ain’t coming off (wellll… it will eventually lol)… and I doubt I will look in the mirror and see if something makes me look fat… I will actually look in the mirror and make sure it doesn’t make me look too thin… but you are very right… whatever I wear will be appropriate for the weather and humidity :)
By Ben
June 24, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
Tommy - You are ignorant as all hell, but you are right about that one.
By kimberly
June 24, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this
Ben, let’s fix the pipe, Hon. Let’s fix it right and bring the boys & girls home. General Shensiki said if we were gonna do it, let’s do it right to begin with. He was ignored and tossed. It IS a complete mess, and the house is flooded with sewage. The problem doesn’t seem to be that no one wants to fix it, but that reasonable approaches are consistently rejected. Why is that, I ask daily.
When someone makes a “mistake” that puts money in their pockets, expect them to repeat that mistake over and over again. There’s LOTS of money being made in that thar war, while soldiers’ families are struggling back home. If the goal of the people in charge really IS to fix it, how come there’s no exit strategy, never was an exit strategy, and those who try to talk about exit strategies are shut up, shut down, and labeled “obstructionists” and “pansies?”
When something doesn’t smell right, it’s usually because it isn’t right. God bless the soldiers and their families; they TRULY need it!
By kimberly
June 24, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
FatherOfThree: A-MEN, brother! I’m right there with you.
By JB
June 24, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
Who is Tommy talking to? I don’t remember anyone here saying they were gay.
I don’t understand the Guantanamo thing. If they have committed crimes, then try them in court. What do you think will happen if you put terrorists in front of an American jury? They would be found guilty and put in a prison forever. I don’t know why they find the need to imprison them in some off shore base.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - You are absolutely right. But G.W. is the plumber who installed the pipe, and assured everyone it was installed correctly.
He didn’t do it right, but we still have to clean up the mess. But we’ll deal with him when we are done. It doesn’t get done right because none of the people who know any better are making the decisions. The Joint Chiefs are fully capable of doing what needs to be done quick like. The General in charge of the troops know what to do to get done and out of their quick like. But the peanut gallery has to have their say, ultimately disrupting progress.
Speaking of the good general. What about Colin Powell, why do you think he pulled smoke so fast. He said from the beginning not to go into Iraq. He hey Captain, the boat’s sinkin — SEE YA!
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
Well Ben and Tommy, they aren’t covered under the Geneva Convention because our insidious President and his equally evil advisors have declared that they are “enemy combatants”. It’s semantics.
Personally, I think we should treat every prisoner under the rules of a convention designed not only to ensure that basic dignity is preserved, but to ensure that our own men and women are treated in that fashion. Every time we torture, or allow the appearance of torture, we make it that much more likely that someone overseas will get tortured.
I also find it impossible to condone brutal or inhumane treatment of anyone, no matter what they have done.
Not to mention the constant PR nightmare that our mistreatment has created. You know, the idea IS to make Middle Easterners NOT want to attack us, not give them more reasons to do so.
Tommy, why are you so fixated on naked men waking up together? Jealous?
By Jd
June 24, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this
Actually Ben, America and it’s leaders used to use restraint when it comes to little things like war and such, why you ask, to plan a workable strategy. Dec 7, 1941 Japan attacks Pearl Harbor effectively disabing the entire Pacific Fleet. Now I’m sure there were some gunho Generals screaming for immediate retailiation, but luckily for us Roosevelt took the time to ready his forces and the American people. We would eventually move our conventional forces into the European theater roughly Jan of 1942, however it would be almost another year before U.S. troops engaged the Axis. Americans then believed in their leaders because their leaders were wise and patient. Courageous Men like Roosevelt are few.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
Eaton - They are enemy combatants! Do you think they are military personnel? They are treated with dignity, they live better than the military people guarding them. They eat better, they are directed in prayer, educated and given free medical and dental care.
So what if a dog barks in their face to get them to give up information on people who are trying to kill or attack Americans. So what if we use more effective interrogation tactics if it means saving lives. And I think lopping someone’s head off because his country made a bunch of men stand naked is a little extreme.
So what if we trash a couple of Koran’s or maybe flush one down the toilet. It amounts to flag burning, because the Koran is only a symbol — we’re just exercising a little first amendment protection in the name of saving lives and ending the war.
Jd - I am well aware of that. I never said the president was right for sending us to war. I never said he acted responsibly. I said he did it, we are there, so let’s focus on getting it done and coming home.
By Jd
June 24, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
And we all know the end of the story. Aug. 6 1945. Retailiation time, nearly over 4 years after the initial attack on Pearl Harbor America would respond with resounding fury. That’s leadership folks.
By FatherOfThree
June 24, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, Thank you for the support;)
I only wish there were more people (a lot more) to commune with in a spiritually-healthy manner.
My personal goal is to make every descision from a point of LOVE.
Can you image what the world would be like if people would strive to reach that one goal? If that was the primary goal of “the church” and its people?
I know I am a hopeless romantic of the human population; but I do retain hope. Admittedly I have to ignore the likes of Ben, Zack and the other hate spreading people to keep it.
But smile on - the sun IS shining;)
By RS
June 24, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this
Netbanker: LOL! Well, I don’t know who has more clothes, my husband or me! And he’s always telling me, quote, unquote “I have nothing to wear!” &, on occasion, has asked me if I think a particular outfit makes him look fat. Hmmm, if I didn’t know any better…Anyway, I’m about to head out early today & do lots of running around so I HOPE to make it Sunday…
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Ben, I think you know that you are playing semantics, just like GW. But if you can justify torture and abuse, I pity you.
By Netbanker
June 24, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Not all of us have hairy asses.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
FatherofThree - Exactly what hate am I spreading?!
Eaton - Seriously, do you think that insurgents and terrorists are military personnel? How is that semantics!? I guess when sitting them down with tea and crumpets and politely asking them where their training camps are located, and where their leaders are located, I won’t justify necessary interrogation tactics.
Save your pity!
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
Yes Ben, it is semantics. Someone may not belong to an organized army, but if he or she is part of a military conflict, then they should be treated as such, regardless. If we overrun a village of insurgents and they are all armed and shooting, and we take them prisoner, it is ridiculous to suggest that they aren’t military personel.
And since when did two wrongs make a right? One of them beheaded someone, so whatever we do to one of them is justified? B****** - that is nothing more than the rationalization of brutality, and I have no patience with that.
By your rationalization - it’s OK if it gets us the answers we need to save lives - anything is OK. Why have laws against torture at all? Oh right…our current administration said that if they don’t die it isn’t torture. Very humane.
By Netbanker
June 24, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
I was reading another interesting article that pointed out all the places where there has been ‘regime’ change or change of position (Libya, for example or China during the Nixon administration) are ones where we’ve used policies of engagement or at least benign neglect. Only in those countries where we use sanctions or force do we discover that the reaction is for the governments to tighten controls. Change in Eastern Europe was partly possible because there were private institutions in place and a sense of civil society as well as engagement from outside that brings information, trade, exposure to outside ideas and ideals. The sanctions against Iraq destroyed those institutions as well as their middle class while allowing Saddam to consolidate power and cut off access to the outside world. There is also a sense of nationalism born from standing up against the super power that is trying to tell someone else how to conduct their lives. So it might suck for the people, but they’ll live with that rather than allow the U.S. to tell them how to run their own affairs. Basically, W is going about the change all wrong.
By Jd
June 24, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this
Ben, what exactly constitutes getting the job done?
By Jd
June 24, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
Ben if you have to go back to Iraq you do whatever you need to do to stay alive and protect your brothers in arms. You can’t ask us to fight a war then tells us to be nice to the enemy. They will cut your head off with a dull machetee and post it on the internet. I feel no pity for them because they will feel none for you.
By Ben
June 24, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
Okay Eaton - I’ll accept your argument that because they are fighting a conflict they are military personnel. They are not abiding by the Rules of War; therefore, they are exempting themselves from Geneva protection.
Humane is holding a 3-year-old in front of you with an Ak47 pointed at someone, right. Humane is intentionally blowing up a group of civilians with the intent of MAYBE killing the enemy, right. Humane is shooting someone in the back of the head with their hands tied behind their back, right. Humane is burning human bodies and hanging them from a bridge while you dance in the street, right. That I have no patience for.
If they would have tortured that low-life that killed Jessica Lunsford a little, they might have saved her life! If they put a little pressure on those punks in Aruba, maybe Natalee’s family can hold, bury or comfort their daughter. So if it means saving lives and helping good people, I’ll suffer the consequences later.
It’s not about two wrongs making a right, it’s about making sure the wrong doesn’t happen again and good people can live their lives in peace.
By Dakotawoman
June 24, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
I do not believe anything politicians say. I don’t believe the men being held in Guantanamo are all terrorists. Saddam Hussein is no worse than many other scum bags our gov’t (well, it really isn’t ours anymore!)has/is/ will continue supporting, training and supplying with arms as long as they’ll go along with the US agenda! I have no faith anymore in the US electorate after the last election. I have never been more ashamed of this country or more afraid for the future of this country. I believe Washington is run by thugs who don’t even try to hide it anymore. I do not believe this war in Iraq is for freedom for the people; it is for oil, empire and financial gain for Haliburton and arms dealers. I know people who are so brainwashed they will argue that they did find WMD in Iraq! I know people who are convinced Saddam did have somehting to do with 9/11. I now believe that you cannot ever underestimate the intelligence of the American public. The news headlines in Europe were right: How could so many people be so stupid? Think you can trust the government? Ask any native american!
By Ben
June 24, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
Jd - Getting the job done, is working to eliminate the enemy and training the Iraqi military to take care of themselves. But the more people b1tch and moan, the more restricted the military is because we have to keep the couch people happy.
But I’m glad somebody here is realistic Jd. We don’t shake hands and say good game at the end of the day during the war.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
Atrocities are committed by both sides in War, Ben. You say blowing up civilians in the hope of getting the enemy is wrong - I agree. When they do it we call it a car bombing. When we do it, it’s collateral damage. How many civilians do you suppose we’ve killed, Ben? How many unarmed, helpless men have overwrought Americans killed in this conflict alone?
No one denies that bad things happen in war, but we should be trying to keep them to a minimum, not embracing them because the other guy did it first.
By the way, Ben. Torture generally yields the answers the prisoner thinks the torturer wants to hear - not the truth. And that’s a fact.
By Jd
June 24, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
Well it upsets me personally that war has turned more into a political tool than a measure of last resort but when I think about my friends that have died and been injured over there I know that they deserve the best we have to give, there service alone in worthy and honorable, even if the cause is less than just. (thats just my opinion)
By Ben
June 24, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
The difference is, Eaton, they do it on purpose in the name of Jihad. We do it by error, busted coordinates and accidentally.
The majority of the civilians killed have been killed by insurgents and their IEDs, random shootings and in opposition to Iraqis working with Americans.
I’d rather have 10 answers that produce 2 tips than nothing!
No one is embracing the atrocities, we are doing what’s necessary to end them!
By Ben
June 24, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
Have a good weekend people. I am taking my hateful, barbaric, illogical self home to my wife and daughter.
By kimberly
June 24, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Jd, you’re right. Our soldiers DO deserve the best can give them. It makes me angry to know they were sent in insufficient numbers, with insufficient equipment and resources, with insufficient benefits and pay, while my Hummer-driving North Fulton neighbors tool around in their 8 mpg pollution machines spending their gargantuan tax cuts on materialistic status-symbol CRAP, all while calling themselves “Christians” and “Hard-working Americans.” It makes me sick. Regardless of the rhyme or reason for the war, if the Army needs equipment, and the wounded soldiers need re-hab and job training, and military families need help with the mortgage, then those A**HOLES should be REFUSING their un-earned tax breaks, not clamoring that “Finally, we have what we deserve!” Are you listening, NEIGHBORS? Yeah, I’m talkin’ to YOU.
By Brian Curtis
June 24, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this
I agree that our soldiers deserve better. They certainly deserve NOT to be sent on unnecessary and pointless missions that waste their lives for no good reason.
Ben, “enemy combatants” is a category the Bush admin invented to deny them any legal status under military or civil law. Just like they set the prison in Cuba to keep it outside any nation’s jurisdiction. It was done for one purpose: to give the administration free rein to detain and interrogate anyone, without counsel, trial, or even charges, indefinitely.
No one who is proud to be an American could condone that.
By Netbanker
June 24, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this
Kimberly I am soooo with you. I don’t understand why if we’re at WAR (which technically we aren’t since Congress hasn’t declared war) the President has time to roam around the country to talk about Social Security, but not a single town hall, rally the public tour, or public service announcement asking Americans to sacrifice for the war effort, volunteer, or donate funds. How about asking people to volunteer at VA Hospitals, donate funds to build Fisher Houses (military equivalent of Ronald McDonald Houses), adopting the family of a reserve member, offering to help mow the lawn or watch the kids or SOMETHING for a suddenly on their own military spouse? We have conservatives screaming about how we need to support our troops. I say shut up and speak with your hands, hearts, and wallets!! I think they’re afraid to do so because then the public would start to see the REAL effects of the administrations debacle in terms of AMERICAN lives.
By Netbanker
June 24, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
Tim…don’t get too excited about L.A. It is loud, dirty, crowded and rather pretentious. I’ve been traveling there on business since the early 1990’s and it’s only gotten worse. What part of LA? My current company’s headquarters NorthWest in Calabassas (about 5 miles inland from Malibu via Topanga Canyon), I have friends in Westwood and used to know people living in WeHo.
By Jd
June 24, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
Kim, It’s a blessing that we are afforded the opportunity to live good lives and accumulate large quanties of wealth, and such. And I do believe that. What I don’t think is OK is that the persuit of wealth has over shadowed personal responciblity in America. When I speak of personal responciblity I’m solely referring to what you and I do to make my/your community better. Some people feel that after years of hard work they deserve to waste alittle, defraud alittle, steal alittle. And that attitude can be found in every community because that’s what we place value on. THINGS TO MAKE US LOOK AND FEEL IMPORTANT. It’s sad but it’s true. Have a good weekend.
By Tim
June 24, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this
well geez Eaton and Netbanker… thanks for raining on my excitement :(
I honestly have no clue what part of LA… but are probably going to go to Palm Springs for a night or two as well
By Netbanker
June 24, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
Ok kids…off to pick up parts to fix the pool pump. Hope everyone has a wonderful Gay Pride weekend!
Tim…I forgot to say…do be excited to be spending time with your friends. That is always a great experience no matter where they live and will be the thing that you cherish and remember the most.
By Eaton
June 24, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this
I’m sure you’ll like LA Tim - don’t let my one bad experience rain on your parade ;-)
By lozen
June 24, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this
Enjoy the weekend in the park or whereever. The Indigo Girls are playing tonight for free!!!! Whoa, where’s my water blaster?