I've heard there's a high education level in Cuba. (So what do they need cheap laptops for? They seem to be able to educate people without them, according to you.) I've heard they have doctors there. I've also heard Castro is going to live to be 200 years old. I've heard the people in Cuba go hungry. I've heard lots of different things.
And not taken a second to figure out which are true which are false and which are batshit insane. You seem to think that ignorance and skepticism are the same thing. They're not.
Any and all "information" about Cuba is more-or-less suspect and subject to the need for verification. Communist dictatorships without a free press are seldom reliably honest.
Well, you can leave out "Cuba" and "Communist dictatorships without a free press" and the statement will still be true. Had you any interest in actually knowing what you're talking about, though, you'd know that those simple matters of public record which you deny while admitting you have no way to even know weren't pulled out of one of Castro's addresses.
If as you said in the other response you just don't have a high enough interest to learn *anything* about the subject, then you might consider the saying , It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
You have successfully removed all doubt. Congratulations.
You know, you could have saved yourself the trouble of behaving like a jackass and simply given him some links.
But taking the low road like you did can work too...
You could call it the "low road", but if you're always taking the "high road", you'll never end the day with any of the fish you've caught left over to feed yourself.
The depth of his ignorance will never be solved with a few links when he's already decided to believe, without question, extremist anti Cuba propaganda (as opposed to non extremist, informed criticisms of which there are plenty) and blatantly deny the possibility of anything different than the idiocy he's programmed himself to respond with regardless of how easy it is to look up the particular facts he has dead fucking wrong this time.
But yeah, I could have just thrown the idiotic moron a fish and called myself a good person for doing so.
For the background I am a democrat but have been shifting to the right alot recently since Ford's death and admiring Reagan who I once hated. I have also become more pro MS over the years as well as I just care for the right tool of the job and do not care about ideological battles like I once did. I wonder if its related to my views shifting to a more conservative background?
Dude, seriously put down the crack pipe.
If you've moved from a position of hating Reagan to admiring him, then you haven't shifted in a "conservative" direction. You've moved in a "fascist" direction. Reagan led the largest growth of the US government ever. He took us from more isolationist to more go all over the world murdering democratically elected leaders and install brutal mass murdering thugs. He believed in massive spending on credit. He believed in dealing cocaine to buy weapons to illegally arm terrorists.
I mean seriously, can we drop the moronic Reagan was a conservative bullshit? The idiocy of it is beyond comprehension. He was anti conservative on every issue.
Now if you really decided you want to be a little fascist and join the delusional Reagan cult, knock yourself out, but at least deal with reality. You are not a conservative, you're a fascist.
Yeah, Ron Paul is probably one of the most conservative (in the political and economic sense) candidates running.
And due to the wackiness of language evolution, that also means he's the only Liberal candidate according to what Liberal actually means;-).
I have several friends that are Republicans that are pretty unhappy that political and economic conservatives have been abandoned in favor of religious zealots.
Are they slow learners or do they just carry grudges for a long time? I mean that abandonment happened way back in 1980. That's pushing 30 years now. Shouldn't they have joined the Libertarian Party decades ago if any of that stuff does actually matter to them?
"If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come and attack us because we're over there."
Look at the context for a fuller picture of the state of the Republican party though. That was in response to Giuliani saying basically "durrrrrr they hate us for our freedom". Ron Paul made a simple basic obvious statement of fact and got loudly booed by the fucking audience.
That's how far gone the Republicans are at this point. That is so far over the edge into pure insanity as to defy reason.
For example, the genes for my Labrador (friendliness, webbed feet, etc) were present originally in wolves. Same goes for Poodle genes. They just needed some reshuffling.
Oh come on, that's insulting to both wolves and Labradors. Everyone knows poodles devolved from some curly haired rat.
I also accept the reports of the many our church has sent to Brazil, and my previous church to Mexico, where the deaf hear, the blind see, the crippled walk. I've heard the reports from people I know well, corroborated by others. Sooner or later, I have to either believe they make this stuff up and expose themselves to ridicule and embarassment, or they report the truth.
And yet not one single one of these things has one single mention from any credible source. If these delusions of yours were true, which they're not, then that would be the biggest story in the entire history of the world. Think about it: for the first time in the entire history of the world God actually chose to make himself known. That's big news. The fact that there is nothing to write about is a clue that it's nothing but lies and delusion.
Here's a suggestion. Provide one single credible piece of proof for your moronic delusions or shut the fuck up if all you can do is lie. I thought that was a sin anyhow? Typical hypocritical religious loon is all you've proven yourself to be.
If it's true, I'm glad to know it. There's just a lot of this "did you know that no one ever dies of a preventable disease in our socialist paradise" type talk. I hear Castro is going to live to be 200, for example. So I'm skeptical.
Given the extremely high level of education in Cuba and the large number of doctors, it's a perfectly reasonable idea. The "a lot of this $IGNORANT_BULLSHIT" is only coming from you and you're only demonstrating your pig ignorance of simple basic facts which contradict your extremist nutjob world view.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt at this point, but the doubt still remains.
Here's a hot tip. Since you're so obviously an ignorant fool about the entire topic, why don't you go away and do some research so you don't sound like such a fucking moronic partisan hack in the future?
There are bad things about Cuba, but when you come in and prove yourself to not know a single damned thing about the place, you tend to make people dismiss anything you say as the ignorant ravings of a fool.
So how about you try taking a skeptical view on the issue for once instead of spouting delusional nonsense which only proves your own ignorance and go out and inform yourself?
The sneaky way is to invite the person over, then when they freeze to death, no one notices. Kinda like how if someone is shot in gang territory, the assumption is random victim, not assassin.
Ok, you got me. That's definitely a much sneakier way. Plus, I live in Chicago, so I know it could work;-)
The syllogism you put on the table was that since no one is in a position to invade Canada, therefore Canada has no enemies.
That wasn't me.
You're now abandoning this position in favor of, "Canada is nice to other countries, therefore Canada has no enemies."
No, my point was just that "But... there are a few countries who certainly claim we're they're enemy." makes no sense. We have forced a lot of countries to know that we are their enemies because we have actively chosen to make enemies of them.
It just seemed to be a turn of phrase designed more to conceal than reveal. That was the only thing I was addressing.
Let's take your syllogism (no one can invade Canada, therefore Canada has no enemies) and apply it to the United States. Clearly no one is in a position to invade the U.S. either... therefore the U.S. has no enemies? But... there are a few countries who certainly claim we're they're enemy.
How many countries has Canada invaded lately? How many democratically elected leaders has it assassinated in order to install brutal mass murdering thugs?
When our military is blowing up your family we *are* your enemy. There's no need to "claim" shit.
And you can't tell me that stoners are a positive influence on society. "nobody gets hurt" Bullshit.
"ok, go home take all your tapes all your albums and burn them." --Bill Hicks
The fact is that they will be whatever types of influence on society they'll be. Exactly like everyone else.
Would you care to refute "nobody gets hurt" with an actual argument instead of just a denial? Now be very careful. Almost everyone who tries actually makes an argument for the harm of drug laws rather than the harm of drugs.
It's not up to the cops to decide which actions are lawful or not.
In fact it entirely is. If they didn't make such a decision then they'd never arrest anyone. The courts decide if they were right (or if the "criminal" has a good lawyer). The cops could quite easily decide to ignore them and go after some actual crime that harms people. You know, do the fucking job I pay them for?
So the cop shouldn't be the "bad guy" when enforcing narcotics laws.
Sorry, but that excuse went out at Nuremberg. Enforcing criminal laws is a criminal act. Drug laws are immensely harmful and have no hope of ever providing any positive results. Congress had no right or positive reason to pass them, so enforcing them is an act of aggression against the nation. I'm sorry you feel that if Congress passes a law criminalizing your daily dog walk (or whatever) that the cops who kidnap you and shove you in a cage to get beaten and raped for doing something that simple are the good guys and you are scum.
Maybe you shouldn't let some sleazy politicians define your character for you.
It is my opinion that the 'War on Drugs' has been a colossal failure.
I think the fact that I completely disagree with you on this point is due solely to a difference of opinion as to the purpose of the whole thing. I see it as an amazing success. 4th amendment: castrated. Prison population: sky high Violent crime: through the roof (demanding, of course, even more police power to fix the problem created by the laws. lather, rinse, repeat.). Percentage of Americans who are "criminals": between 30 and 80 depending on who you ask (meaning that they can be selectively prosecuted for reasons unrelated to the "crime").
All in all that is an unprecedented success for big government police state types. I guess my problem with getting your position on that is that it's very difficult for me to imagine that all happening by accident. Given we'd already tried prohibition and so knew full well exactly what would happen, I just don't see how you could see it as anything but a tremendous success. Disaster sure, but it accomplished exactly what it was intended to.
It's very true that removing the allure of the forbidden would remove most of the drug users I find most offensive.
Most, or some? Or do you have some really specific types you don't like;-)
This would also have the effect of increasing tax revenue while helping to put an end to the 'drugs fund terrorism' line of thought.
If you restrict this to just pot, then I'm not sure the huge tax revenues would come through without just renaming the problem. The plant really is a weed. It's dead easy to grow, so the market price of legal pot,barring government interference, is pretty low I'd imagine.
On the other hand, some things have to be closed. I can agree that marijuana is a less harmful substance that alcohol, but stuff like Ecstasy is used as a date rape drug, and I wouldn't condone its legalization under anything but the most unreasonable circumstances.
Date Rape drug? Are you sure about that? Not like Rufies or something? The "MA" at the end of "MDMA" is methamphetamine i.e. speed. Not too likely to pass out cold. Of course a hammer could be used as well for that purpose, so I can't really buy that argument for illegalising something. Does that mean you support banning guns because they can be used to kill people? I'm not saying you do, I just can't find any difference at all between the arguments.
I think we can both agree that the current classification of drugs is too granular, there's no difference between marijuana and PCP or cocaine.
Definitely. That classification is insane at best.
Anyhow, it's good to know that there are people out there who, even if they find something to be a negative, are able to convey their reasons without resorting to repeating ignorant crap or outright lying. Sorry it doesn't sound like much of a compliment, but looking around today, it is actually pretty impressive:-)
Your small rant over drug laws led me to believe you were likely a user of some sort. The users I've known were generally prone to being verbally abusive, which the profanity in your post also suggested. It seemed a reasonable set of assumptions, but it wasn't fair to make that kind of an accusation. Sorry.
I appreciate your response. I find it really disturbing how often people assume that disliking the vast negative and non existent positive effects of drug laws magically means the person must be a "druggie" and can be dismissed. That, of course, is a big part of why we still have drug laws and no rational discussion of them in the public sphere. About half of our prison population is in for non violent drug offenses. Given how many more people we have in prison than any other nation in the world, it's tough to imagine how anybody (apart from prison owners, of course) could support them given that there are no possible positive results and massive well understood negative results (increased violent crime, increased organized crime, increased use, increased government power, increasingly police state tactics etc etc etc). Given that we already tried it with the exact same results back with prohibition, it's just still amazing to me how willfully ignorant people can be.
Anyhow, I don't think you said anything about liking drug laws, just disliking drug users, so maybe I'm preaching to the choir (although less profanely than previously. I really need to get my pissed offedness in check).
Every immigrant doing it the legal way still has to face the difficulties of the system and some will no doubt be deported for crap as insignificant as undelivered mail (which they tried to do to my wife)
Heh, my wife's first *two* Green Cards were "undelivered mail". Still not sure if they never were sent or if they were just stolen out of the mail, but thank the INS for making me pay for replacement green cards for 2 illegals because they couldn't be bothered to let me pay for registered mail.
That's strange - if you are married to a US citizen, you don't need an H-1B, you can get a green card (i.e. having permanent resident status). For a person in this scenario, it's probably less paperwork to get a green card than to keep renewing an H-1B
Don't bet on it.
almost 5 years, massive paperwork by our attorney and only after threatening a lawsuit against the INS did they finally get off their lazy butts and issue my wife's green card. That's for a Cambridge educated Brit with a list of technical skills a mile long who was already over here on an H1B when we got married.
Personally, I can't blame the illegals if that's what it takes to do it legally when you can afford an immigration lawyer and your wife is from one of the more "desirable" locations.
I'd suggest that the parent is probably a violent drug-user who received his boot to the head after being verbally abusive to an officer of the law during an arrest over drug possession.
You'd be entirely factually incorrect. It was a noise complaint, we were cooperative but the cops started out by threatening to shoot my friend's tied up dog and it went rapidly downhill from there based on the actions of the cops.
Those particular cops had a long history of this sort of behavior and of lying on the stand to avoid the consequences. This was well known to the prosecutor, the defense and the judge as they were cracking jokes about it when the jury wasn't there.
I know a lot of other people this sort of thing has happened to.
And I'm willing to thank who or whatever deserves credit for it that both the guy I replied to and the guy he replied to are rare enough that neither of them is representative of Americans as a whole.
If there were more with attitudes like mine, then the problems created by a too powerful police force would not exist.
It's merely the difference between being a citizen and being a subject.
Second, you haven't had some drugged up psychopath try to kill you, only to have you remember your training, use the taser [or move] and subdue the person, not kill them.
But when the entire situation is created by the cop trying to enforce laws that have no justification, you really need to learn to put the blame where it belongs, not on the victim.
I'm not saying they should get a medal for every little thing they do, but an addition to their record commenting on a job well done in the face of danger could speak volumes for someone.
But they should only be commended if what they are doing is the right thing. When they are attempting to kidnap a person with the intent of locking them in a cage to be beaten and raped for years for growing a plant in their backyard, then they should expect and do deserve anything that happens to them. It's called self defense.
If they weren't invading other people's property and liberty, then people wouldn't be trying to kill them as a direct, and wholely justified consequence of their own criminal actions.
Try getting a bit of perspective and think just a bit about causality.
I hope that the ACLU has enough integrity to also publicly commend any officer that is recorded acting responsibility in a difficult situation.
When the situation is so fucked that a cop actually doing the job they are paid for without engaging in criminal scumbaggery deserves a commendation, forget it. Just shoot all of the sick monsters. I'll take my chances with the criminals over the cops. At least some of them have integrity.
Actually, he destroyed you pathetic attempt at a "point" and demonstrated its complete invalidity. You're not much for brains, but you are persistent.
A lot of this has to do with police behavior, but a lot has to do with apathy, and a general disrespect for authority in this community.
Except that you ignore the fact that it is entirely rational for them to disrespect authority. It is, in fact, a good thing that they do. They'd be insane fools if they didn't
The ACLU is doing nothing to help the situation.
Sure they are. That's exactly what they're addressing with this. Police are undeserving of respect because they are savage criminal thugs. With cameras watching their scumbag asses, they will be less able to get away with their normal criminal behavior and will be forced into being people more deserving of respect. Seriously, your "arguments" don't even make sense and are totally divorced from reality.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard there's a high education level in Cuba. (So what do they need cheap laptops for? They seem to be able to educate people without them, according to you.) I've heard they have doctors there. I've also heard Castro is going to live to be 200 years old. I've heard the people in Cuba go hungry. I've heard lots of different things.
And not taken a second to figure out which are true which are false and which are batshit insane. You seem to think that ignorance and skepticism are the same thing. They're not.
Any and all "information" about Cuba is more-or-less suspect and subject to the need for verification. Communist dictatorships without a free press are seldom reliably honest.
Well, you can leave out "Cuba" and "Communist dictatorships without a free press" and the statement will still be true.
Had you any interest in actually knowing what you're talking about, though, you'd know that those simple matters of public record which you deny while admitting you have no way to even know weren't pulled out of one of Castro's addresses.
If as you said in the other response you just don't have a high enough interest to learn *anything* about the subject, then you might consider the saying , It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
You have successfully removed all doubt.
Congratulations.
You know, you could have saved yourself the trouble of behaving like a jackass and simply given him some links.
But taking the low road like you did can work too...
You could call it the "low road", but if you're always taking the "high road", you'll never end the day with any of the fish you've caught left over to feed yourself.
The depth of his ignorance will never be solved with a few links when he's already decided to believe, without question, extremist anti Cuba propaganda (as opposed to non extremist, informed criticisms of which there are plenty) and blatantly deny the possibility of anything different than the idiocy he's programmed himself to respond with regardless of how easy it is to look up the particular facts he has dead fucking wrong this time.
But yeah, I could have just thrown the idiotic moron a fish and called myself a good person for doing so.
For the background I am a democrat but have been shifting to the right alot recently since Ford's death and admiring Reagan who I once hated. I have also become more pro MS over the years as well as I just care for the right tool of the job and do not care about ideological battles like I once did. I wonder if its related to my views shifting to a more conservative background?
Dude, seriously put down the crack pipe.
If you've moved from a position of hating Reagan to admiring him, then you haven't shifted in a "conservative" direction. You've moved in a "fascist" direction. Reagan led the largest growth of the US government ever.
He took us from more isolationist to more go all over the world murdering democratically elected leaders and install brutal mass murdering thugs.
He believed in massive spending on credit. He believed in dealing cocaine to buy weapons to illegally arm terrorists.
I mean seriously, can we drop the moronic Reagan was a conservative bullshit? The idiocy of it is beyond comprehension. He was anti conservative on every issue.
Now if you really decided you want to be a little fascist and join the delusional Reagan cult, knock yourself out, but at least deal with reality.
You are not a conservative, you're a fascist.
Both Windows and Linux/BSD are products of the free-market.
Not true.
Government granted monopolies are inconsistent with a free market.
So, BSD is, Linux is kind of sort of but not really and Windows isn't at all.
Yeah, Ron Paul is probably one of the most conservative (in the political and economic sense) candidates running.
;-).
And due to the wackiness of language evolution, that also means he's the only Liberal candidate according to what Liberal actually means
I have several friends that are Republicans that are pretty unhappy that political and economic conservatives have been abandoned in favor of religious zealots.
Are they slow learners or do they just carry grudges for a long time?
I mean that abandonment happened way back in 1980. That's pushing 30 years now. Shouldn't they have joined the Libertarian Party decades ago if any of that stuff does actually matter to them?
"If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come and attack us because we're over there."
Look at the context for a fuller picture of the state of the Republican party though.
That was in response to Giuliani saying basically "durrrrrr they hate us for our freedom".
Ron Paul made a simple basic obvious statement of fact and got loudly booed by the fucking audience.
That's how far gone the Republicans are at this point.
That is so far over the edge into pure insanity as to defy reason.
For example, the genes for my Labrador (friendliness, webbed feet, etc) were present originally in wolves. Same goes for Poodle genes. They just needed some reshuffling.
Oh come on, that's insulting to both wolves and Labradors. Everyone knows poodles devolved from some curly haired rat.
Ah, the micro vs. macroevolution bullshit.
No, he isn't even that credible. He's trying to claim that abiogenesis == evolution which is a far stupider mistake to make.
I also accept the reports of the many our church has sent to Brazil, and my previous church to Mexico, where the deaf hear, the blind see, the crippled walk. I've heard the reports from people I know well, corroborated by others. Sooner or later, I have to either believe they make this stuff up and expose themselves to ridicule and embarassment, or they report the truth.
And yet not one single one of these things has one single mention from any credible source.
If these delusions of yours were true, which they're not, then that would be the biggest story in the entire history of the world. Think about it: for the first time in the entire history of the world God actually chose to make himself known. That's big news.
The fact that there is nothing to write about is a clue that it's nothing but lies and delusion.
Here's a suggestion. Provide one single credible piece of proof for your moronic delusions or shut the fuck up if all you can do is lie. I thought that was a sin anyhow? Typical hypocritical religious loon is all you've proven yourself to be.
I've seen God act./i.
You have never seen anything of the sort.
Provide proof or acknowledge yourself to be a liar.
If it's true, I'm glad to know it. There's just a lot of this "did you know that no one ever dies of a preventable disease in our socialist paradise" type talk. I hear Castro is going to live to be 200, for example. So I'm skeptical.
Given the extremely high level of education in Cuba and the large number of doctors, it's a perfectly reasonable idea.
The "a lot of this $IGNORANT_BULLSHIT" is only coming from you and you're only demonstrating your pig ignorance of simple basic facts which contradict your extremist nutjob world view.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt at this point, but the doubt still remains.
Here's a hot tip. Since you're so obviously an ignorant fool about the entire topic, why don't you go away and do some research so you don't sound like such a fucking moronic partisan hack in the future?
There are bad things about Cuba, but when you come in and prove yourself to not know a single damned thing about the place, you tend to make people dismiss anything you say as the ignorant ravings of a fool.
So how about you try taking a skeptical view on the issue for once instead of spouting delusional nonsense which only proves your own ignorance and go out and inform yourself?
The sneaky way is to invite the person over, then when they freeze to death, no one notices. Kinda like how if someone is shot in gang territory, the assumption is random victim, not assassin.
;-)
Ok, you got me. That's definitely a much sneakier way. Plus, I live in Chicago, so I know it could work
The syllogism you put on the table was that since no one is in a position to invade Canada, therefore Canada has no enemies.
That wasn't me.
You're now abandoning this position in favor of, "Canada is nice to other countries, therefore Canada has no enemies."
No, my point was just that "But... there are a few countries who certainly claim we're they're enemy." makes no sense.
We have forced a lot of countries to know that we are their enemies because we have actively chosen to make enemies of them.
It just seemed to be a turn of phrase designed more to conceal than reveal. That was the only thing I was addressing.
We don't know, because they're -really- good at it.
How sneaky can you really be riding a polar bear into battle waving a hockey stick?
Let's take your syllogism (no one can invade Canada, therefore Canada has no enemies) and apply it to the United States. Clearly no one is in a position to invade the U.S. either... therefore the U.S. has no enemies? But... there are a few countries who certainly claim we're they're enemy.
How many countries has Canada invaded lately?
How many democratically elected leaders has it assassinated in order to install brutal mass murdering thugs?
When our military is blowing up your family we *are* your enemy. There's no need to "claim" shit.
And you can't tell me that stoners are a positive influence on society. "nobody gets hurt" Bullshit.
"ok, go home take all your tapes all your albums and burn them."
--Bill Hicks
The fact is that they will be whatever types of influence on society they'll be. Exactly like everyone else.
Would you care to refute "nobody gets hurt" with an actual argument instead of just a denial? Now be very careful. Almost everyone who tries actually makes an argument for the harm of drug laws rather than the harm of drugs.
It's not up to the cops to decide which actions are lawful or not.
In fact it entirely is. If they didn't make such a decision then they'd never arrest anyone. The courts decide if they were right (or if the "criminal" has a good lawyer). The cops could quite easily decide to ignore them and go after some actual crime that harms people. You know, do the fucking job I pay them for?
So the cop shouldn't be the "bad guy" when enforcing narcotics laws.
Sorry, but that excuse went out at Nuremberg. Enforcing criminal laws is a criminal act. Drug laws are immensely harmful and have no hope of ever providing any positive results. Congress had no right or positive reason to pass them, so enforcing them is an act of aggression against the nation.
I'm sorry you feel that if Congress passes a law criminalizing your daily dog walk (or whatever) that the cops who kidnap you and shove you in a cage to get beaten and raped for doing something that simple are the good guys and you are scum.
Maybe you shouldn't let some sleazy politicians define your character for you.
It is my opinion that the 'War on Drugs' has been a colossal failure.
;-)
,barring government interference, is pretty low I'd imagine.
:-)
I think the fact that I completely disagree with you on this point is due solely to a difference of opinion as to the purpose of the whole thing.
I see it as an amazing success.
4th amendment: castrated.
Prison population: sky high
Violent crime: through the roof (demanding, of course, even more police power to fix the problem created by the laws. lather, rinse, repeat.).
Percentage of Americans who are "criminals": between 30 and 80 depending on who you ask (meaning that they can be selectively prosecuted for reasons unrelated to the "crime").
All in all that is an unprecedented success for big government police state types.
I guess my problem with getting your position on that is that it's very difficult for me to imagine that all happening by accident. Given we'd already tried prohibition and so knew full well exactly what would happen, I just don't see how you could see it as anything but a tremendous success. Disaster sure, but it accomplished exactly what it was intended to.
It's very true that removing the allure of the forbidden would remove most of the drug users I find most offensive.
Most, or some? Or do you have some really specific types you don't like
This would also have the effect of increasing tax revenue while helping to put an end to the 'drugs fund terrorism' line of thought.
If you restrict this to just pot, then I'm not sure the huge tax revenues would come through without just renaming the problem. The plant really is a weed. It's dead easy to grow, so the market price of legal pot
On the other hand, some things have to be closed. I can agree that marijuana is a less harmful substance that alcohol, but stuff like Ecstasy is used as a date rape drug, and I wouldn't condone its legalization under anything but the most unreasonable circumstances.
Date Rape drug? Are you sure about that? Not like Rufies or something? The "MA" at the end of "MDMA" is methamphetamine i.e. speed. Not too likely to pass out cold. Of course a hammer could be used as well for that purpose, so I can't really buy that argument for illegalising something.
Does that mean you support banning guns because they can be used to kill people? I'm not saying you do, I just can't find any difference at all between the arguments.
I think we can both agree that the current classification of drugs is too granular, there's no difference between marijuana and PCP or cocaine.
Definitely. That classification is insane at best.
Anyhow, it's good to know that there are people out there who, even if they find something to be a negative, are able to convey their reasons without resorting to repeating ignorant crap or outright lying. Sorry it doesn't sound like much of a compliment, but looking around today, it is actually pretty impressive
Your small rant over drug laws led me to believe you were likely a user of some sort. The users I've known were generally prone to being verbally abusive, which the profanity in your post also suggested. It seemed a reasonable set of assumptions, but it wasn't fair to make that kind of an accusation. Sorry.
I appreciate your response. I find it really disturbing how often people assume that disliking the vast negative and non existent positive effects of drug laws magically means the person must be a "druggie" and can be dismissed. That, of course, is a big part of why we still have drug laws and no rational discussion of them in the public sphere.
About half of our prison population is in for non violent drug offenses. Given how many more people we have in prison than any other nation in the world, it's tough to imagine how anybody (apart from prison owners, of course) could support them given that there are no possible positive results and massive well understood negative results (increased violent crime, increased organized crime, increased use, increased government power, increasingly police state tactics etc etc etc).
Given that we already tried it with the exact same results back with prohibition, it's just still amazing to me how willfully ignorant people can be.
Anyhow, I don't think you said anything about liking drug laws, just disliking drug users, so maybe I'm preaching to the choir (although less profanely than previously. I really need to get my pissed offedness in check).
Every immigrant doing it the legal way still has to face the difficulties of the system and some will no doubt be deported for crap as insignificant as undelivered mail (which they tried to do to my wife)
Heh, my wife's first *two* Green Cards were "undelivered mail". Still not sure if they never were sent or if they were just stolen out of the mail, but thank the INS for making me pay for replacement green cards for 2 illegals because they couldn't be bothered to let me pay for registered mail.
If that's bipartisanship, I don't want it.
;-)
Given that "bipartisanship" means, "hey, we both have a way to fuck the people with this one", you've made a wise choice
That's strange - if you are married to a US citizen, you don't need an H-1B, you can get a green card (i.e. having permanent resident status). For a person in this scenario, it's probably less paperwork to get a green card than to keep renewing an H-1B
Don't bet on it.
almost 5 years, massive paperwork by our attorney and only after threatening a lawsuit against the INS did they finally get off their lazy butts and issue my wife's green card.
That's for a Cambridge educated Brit with a list of technical skills a mile long who was already over here on an H1B when we got married.
Personally, I can't blame the illegals if that's what it takes to do it legally when you can afford an immigration lawyer and your wife is from one of the more "desirable" locations.
I'd suggest that the parent is probably a violent drug-user who received his boot to the head after being verbally abusive to an officer of the law during an arrest over drug possession.
You'd be entirely factually incorrect.
It was a noise complaint, we were cooperative but the cops started out by threatening to shoot my friend's tied up dog and it went rapidly downhill from there based on the actions of the cops.
Those particular cops had a long history of this sort of behavior and of lying on the stand to avoid the consequences. This was well known to the prosecutor, the defense and the judge as they were cracking jokes about it when the jury wasn't there.
I know a lot of other people this sort of thing has happened to.
And I'm willing to thank who or whatever deserves credit for it that both the guy I replied to and the guy he replied to are rare enough that neither of them is representative of Americans as a whole.
If there were more with attitudes like mine, then the problems created by a too powerful police force would not exist.
It's merely the difference between being a citizen and being a subject.
Second, you haven't had some drugged up psychopath try to kill you, only to have you remember your training, use the taser [or move] and subdue the person, not kill them.
But when the entire situation is created by the cop trying to enforce laws that have no justification, you really need to learn to put the blame where it belongs, not on the victim.
I'm not saying they should get a medal for every little thing they do, but an addition to their record commenting on a job well done in the face of danger could speak volumes for someone.
But they should only be commended if what they are doing is the right thing.
When they are attempting to kidnap a person with the intent of locking them in a cage to be beaten and raped for years for growing a plant in their backyard, then they should expect and do deserve anything that happens to them. It's called self defense.
If they weren't invading other people's property and liberty, then people wouldn't be trying to kill them as a direct, and wholely justified consequence of their own criminal actions.
Try getting a bit of perspective and think just a bit about causality.
I hope that the ACLU has enough integrity to also publicly commend any officer that is recorded acting responsibility in a difficult situation.
When the situation is so fucked that a cop actually doing the job they are paid for without engaging in criminal scumbaggery deserves a commendation, forget it. Just shoot all of the sick monsters. I'll take my chances with the criminals over the cops. At least some of them have integrity.
Awwww... don't like my bringing up a valid point?
Actually, he destroyed you pathetic attempt at a "point" and demonstrated its complete invalidity. You're not much for brains, but you are persistent.
A lot of this has to do with police behavior, but a lot has to do with apathy, and a general disrespect for authority in this community.
Except that you ignore the fact that it is entirely rational for them to disrespect authority. It is, in fact, a good thing that they do. They'd be insane fools if they didn't
The ACLU is doing nothing to help the situation.
Sure they are. That's exactly what they're addressing with this. Police are undeserving of respect because they are savage criminal thugs. With cameras watching their scumbag asses, they will be less able to get away with their normal criminal behavior and will be forced into being people more deserving of respect. Seriously, your "arguments" don't even make sense and are totally divorced from reality.