Perhaps a pal of Taft?????

[Robert A Whit]

Officer Won't Testify, Ending Defense Side in Cannibal Case (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/nyregion/officer-accused-in-cannibal-plot-wont-testify-lawyer-says.html)

<tbody>
New York Times
- ‎2 hours ago‎

<tbody>





</tbody>


</tbody>

Lawyers for Gilberto Valle, the New York police officer accused of plotting to kidnap, kill and cannibalize women, rested their case on Tuesday, shortly after the officer said he would not take the witness stand in his own defense.

[taft2012]

Perhaps Robert himself?

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/1/4/8/6/4/webimg/427954841_o.jpg

[Robert A Whit]

Taft diverts to pot heads

Maybe this will remind Taft of what some of us are discussing



Police Brutality - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSwITK4jjQ)http://www.debatepolicy.com/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wBDAAoHBwgHBgoICAgLCgoLDhgQDg0NDh0VFhEYIx8lJCIfIi EmKzcvJik0KSEiMEExNDk7Pj4+JS5ESUM8SDc9Pjv/2wBDAQoLCw4NDhwQEBw7KCIoOzs7Ozs7Ozs7Ozs7Ozs7Ozs7Oz s7Ozs7Ozs7Ozs7Ozs7Ozs7Ozs7Ozs7Ozs7Ozs7Ozv/wAARCABaAHgDASIAAhEBAxEB/8QAGwAAAQUBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQADBAYHAQL/xABCEAACAQMBBQQFBwoGAwAAAAABAgMABBEFBhITITEHQVFhFC JxgdIVIzJCg5HRFzRzgpKhorGywRYkJjNDk1LC8P/EABgBAAMBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAECAwAE/8QAIREAAgICAgIDAQAAAAAAAAAAAAECEQMhEzEEEhQiQVH/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/AKDouwOq67pqahbz2qQyEheI5Dcjjpiph7LNdGcXFiftW+GrNs Vf+jbIWi45bzn+KrONWt0RTIT6w5cq6IxxtbOOeTMpa6MxXsu1 w/SuLID9I3w16HZZrhP5zZY7jxG+GtOlu14O+vQUrHU7edSp9Ujp 506hiF5M9XRmJ7K9e7riy/7G+Gu/kq13HK4sT9o3w1qyysWOeQH76617AgHPn0o8eMHNmMoHZTrxOP SbEfaN8NdHZRr2edxYgfpW+GtZiuY5GIJ3ceNS1QEZBBBo8MBX 5GVGOjsn10kf5qxGTzPEbl/DXteyHX2BPpmnDHTMrc/4a2Hhc67w/KjwQF+VkMfHY/rxP59pv/a3w0z+SbXw26bix9olb4a2cR10R1uCBvlZDFx2TbQEHM9iD4cV vhpN2S7QA8riwP2rD/1raOHzpGPPdW4YA+VkML1bs51nRtKn1K6nsjDAAWVJSWOSByG7 50q03tEG5sRqAx1Vf6hSrmyRUXSO7DOU42ylbLy/6at167pb+dEY7hT6rZx3UM2Q3W0JFIB5ty99SRIglwveelc9tM tFWWOWcehDHLeXnQy3l4bk72DnlXDOxXdB5AYqOoIbmaX2Y6gF rrVpiypvYIHdXTcs/DdjkjnQmU4lXPM91P8AHLAZwMUfdm9EFfTg2ADzHXzqXZamyzq C5A86BW9peXLM0EDOAOvjQ2LW+BO63cbW5RsK7qSjEedUhkkic sMX+Gly3JSe2i3hmZs9e7FEVCMMqd7HXFZjdapcXAjuhJkxrlc GrVsdri3EDW9zL88TlVbvrojmTOTJ4rW0WUKDXSoHWvZkUDzpp nXGe+qchFYf6IFT5Umwq73cKEz6zbRXRguHKHGQB30Ll2l3L1r fcHDz6rMeopJZlWiq8UG9oupibZe9t16Hd/qFKgW212sulXkaqN0YwfeKVc7k5bOuMVFUgdsuyx7Oq2cNvmpC bouUO8BnmKh7NRPJs+qojElieQ86lvZzCSJuGxCVFlYkwSjnXC xPrD7q8RwSBsuML4ZpxoZOKmCgA5/SqVsqq/RiaYrMobrRvRNMfVLpUweEvN2x+6hl7YrPK1yGduQyFTp76jaB tdqGi6jPGFSS1390o3MFvI91VihJNJls2i1aPZXW9PMik2k0ZU qv1SD1pjWbT5XiaTTVimtpExLHjDA+yom097p222lbtm27qNo2 9FETz8x7K5ol7qFjLBY3mY7p1PBuAgKyAdVbzp9MEG0wNGI7RT brGUC8ip7qlWU7R+srYYHIIp69tJRc3Hyo0dvhsozMOYPh5VIu rCy0zTvSuO7sq5IPSppUxnJUENL2uttNMkeq3LMXwUBOSKnnb3 Qm6Ske6s60q2jvJbnVtU5RqMxr4j2UDN07XjvuqYyxwuO6rWzl cbZftT1ax1K6Sc6hEpQYGEI5UwzWlxz9Pg3+4lsVVjCLllMDKA eo3afTTm3QCFZu/BxQdB2Edpoj8gXL8WKQADJVwe8UqB6tatDp82VdcAdenWlWSoZ Nlg2Q0y5u9m4njLAFmAKjpzo4NmbmRgzTFPVwQTy9tSOzqPe2K tDk433/AKjVlEEHV2z7s1xzk7Z2Y4quisQ7LwoFElwzFV3QRzOKlR7Nae SrNFJIyjALN3UeLwIuFTPtqC+oxpnBqf2ZX6o8z6erWMkaKq7s Z3cnOOXKqXYW9v8AJiSOqh29YnH1vGrPeaueBIEIBZSPvoLZ6c Z44rTn6wCnPia6YPWzky/Z6AeoWVzHC1/ZTGOaMHeIO7vLRLZ3XU1yx9GupGaeLBIJ6+BFentXt2utGvTvS RkxswHIjuIoK+kJoe9fw3YUqRuKwwH8VOPGrEumXWWC012ylst SZZOAQyOvqyKvt7xmp1lsPca5o5R7tVtpD6glBLbo6dKpk2tx3 Fgk9oAbhkBKA5K+RqTFt3rMVqkEkCPGoHquhIoorxue0XCLsp4 Ue4L6IrjGCjfjTR7IY+qy237LCq9F2k30DLmzh5EEDeYcx76LR dsV6XEbaZAzHwcjNYRxce0SR2TyxNmKW39zuK4/Zjec93hE+Vwfwo3s/tvqe0AnNtosTcBgrg3O7zPtFFflXWPSFdtBnO6MbsV2hU+Z6UE 0DZl+2OxGoaRste3koYRxqu988GHNgOnWlVi7UNqVGx95pd5pt 1aT3ajhb5Ug7rAnmDSpgATYG9EOx1smejP/ADNFJ9Uwx9Yn2VUdjy3+Hohk43m/nRnh5OSTXLJKysJOqJT6nKwwtMb0kn0zXuOBWx1+6nptPNxbPH HcPCzDk6jpSxpso06Bd2+buG3XOFBdv7UQs57Io0b3kaSsMcm9 Zarugz2r3ptBMWuM7gL/AFsd4qfd7E3IuDcQ3AfJyynKlveKdtN9iRU30TtdCyXlrdrIsk xi4czr1cjoT51GfZ3TNb4J1LW/R0XJEY3FZf8A7zrtloM0Pzj6ffw7wbDheOr47hjB99UnWdWa6v N3c4LRkowz1594qiTf6Tbp7RZdN0fTbLac2umag9yiqAZWUcm8 sdRWrWun6i0K7mtxNy+i8CmsD0jVH0294+cqww2OtXe024jKru 3UynwKg1qYU0aS2kaq4KtcaZOp7pLVfwpttnZ2GJNI0KUePo+7/aqWm3JQDevsDP14/wADRa12+tDEm/dkvj1sLgUU3/DWi26XpvyVG6QaLawFzlvRWChj5g1O4swyxsZc+AdD/eqa230JwYp4z477Y/tTo26BjXHCZ88/nVAoWr6MkQe1qxhvtj7i9m02cTWqjhyNJjh5YA5APPNKoG3u1h 1HYnUbThIOIqjeWQH6wPjSp4u0K+zPdntq9O0vSY7S4SYyKSSU UEdfbRRdu9HB/wBu5P6g/Gs6FdoPHFhTaNLj7QdEX6UV0f1B+NPjtI0MDHCux9mPxrLKVDi iPyyNCbanY95xOdPuBKpyGWMDB++jVt2nbPBx6RHfFB3LEuT++ sjpUOGDMssjadX7ZdIfTXh0mG6inKlUeSFcL++sie7WSVpXLM7 kszHqSah0qokkTb9uyabyPdwA33V5F2o/8qiUqIKJ41DBBDPyORkZr2dWkJyJGHsFDaVYwUGtSj/kY+6vY16YfWP7NCKVYwUu9bkurV4G6P5YpULpVjH/2Q==► 1:20► 1:20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSwITK4jjQ)


<cite>www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSwITK4jjQ</cite>
Jul 10, 2006 - Uploaded by muzztard
Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate steve smith's ...



Police Brutality Worse than Rodney King - The Robert Leone Story ... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5eOknaXgYU)http://www.debatepolicy.com/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAUDBAgICAgICAgICAgICAoICggICAgJCggICAgHBwgICA gIChwXCAgaFQcHGCEYGh0dHx8fBwsiJCIeJBweHx4BBQUFCAcI DwkJDxQQEREYFBMUFhISEh4UFR4eFBYeHh4eHhQUFBQSEhIUFB kUHhweGBQeFR4eHh4eHh4eHhQUFP/AABEIAFoAeAMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAACAgMBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAABggJBAUHAwH/xABLEAACAQMBBAcDBwUMCwAAAAABAgMABBEFBxIhMQYTIjVBdb QUUWEIIzJCcZGhRGKB0fAVJTNDUlSSsdLT1OEWJCZTVZOUoqOk wf/EABsBAAIDAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFAwQGAQIH/8QALhEAAgEDAgQEBgIDAAAAAAAAAAECAwQREiEFMUGhQlFhcRM iM5HB4RYjBhQV/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwCGVFFFADDs1UHWtIBAIOqWYIIyCDdwggg 8xVqcmmqCdyysSvgSd0keBIFucGqrdmXfej+a2Xq4KtfkgYkkX Eq8fogQYHwG9EeFDOMwBp5/mViPskP+GrVdKGS3gZ5YbOEL2iyyEnAByONrw/ypg9kf+dT/AHW39zUQflMbVp576fSrOaV7eBuofeCDrpQfnMiNFygJxg5B3a jqJtYRWuc6dMebMravtoQFLbTzDcrETI4aKTJkBO4sx6tesjHA 494Gc1yC42n6zKZg93NidWRlVsAK2AwUAfN8scPeaYej3RJGKW 9woWSaLrpd3PYTsuN4g9k4I4fnim3TtntlG6gwKGGJN18sWU5A B3uZOPwqi7yhR2eWyS04c6ibf3Zxex1q7QD/AFqYLGyuqCZlAYDCsFDDBH31JL5Pm1S0laKwuFUzv2Va4ZQsjA nHziW5LSHAyWPE0ta30U04rxtogeQKqAV+Ix4VzHpT0c9nJltT jd4jdyDkHgwP1W4CpaV5SuWksphcWujcn9HbE/ktl/z2/q9mrx9jb2+INZ24h9lbekEKPuyGQYQTFB2cKOHDmOB8I5/Jg2t3V3OukaleTtN+TzO0RZwo7ULNJGSzgAkZPHBqTUPVm7QGU PMlqeGO0VkkX5x2UYx2Dj7WqzFvLT6EEXl4fMqt2oDGuayBwA1 W9GPgLyfFLlMm1Lv3WvNr71k9LdSF0KKKKACiiigBi2Z996P5r Zergq1yZo8nMLMc8T1JOfjnHGqo9mffej+a2Xq4KthkEueyY8e GQ/44NBxmFdNCqO3sxJVWP8APAE44jhVfnR2J9T18GUDMt7JPJ8SG Z9045IOFWEXsU7xyITFhkZTwk5EEEcD8ahVoHRGew17WYgN42s LmJt0jInZdwgNybBaoq89FKb9CrUf9qRv7rW9NsriR5rjeYP2m WKSRCQwGHdBgAbiAL4bgzTJD0ms9RTrrZ0ZlU9pchmwN3Bzy5V yvpHdX4V43tL3qQOysUJWMAfWYleJ4f11lbGtAug73k0DraShk jDAhpHwTlQvMcDSSpYp0fiN7r7M0LpaJKCknlYxE9uk/SNRL1UazSs3Hq4o9488ZLfVHP7q1w1dZsRS208DNwHWBSrFRnm DwPCvdtJunu5ZLchBHNlkYEbyjA3GOeAx4/nV9h0e4Vme47S5yFUBtzByN5wAD4eFeoRpQhnr7kNxZrTzYvdB LPqelenoi7w9uiO6MHsueJHv5n7hU7rBoP3QGId2b2EYffA+bE uDGYB9HmOP5x91RB6IaZu9ItOvlIG5NHGVKl96Rw0YOARhRvr9 1Sz0u/mN6qGSHqVtiGiDDrOtaRN2QoRnq8BwOPgaZRuoNrffCEEswmsl Yu1Lv3WvNr71k9LdMm1Pv3WvNr71k9LdXC+FFFFABRRRQAxbM+ +9H81svVwVa3MIN470xU54j2mRcfDdD9mqpNmffej+a2Xq4Kth kkkBOI8jwO+oz+jwoAxt62H8f/wC3J/eVxbahu2uqSXAfejuEjiQlg4BVGZgZCc8STwruQlk/3X/eP1Uj7VtJW5gZ54xgIVVv4TcY8iABkeHH40v4lFuiwjoT+de3o cA1GWKaWJpTJkzBTGruqvgnO8BzT9dZG0G6vzDFFZMsCIrMxGS Y40BAChfE16xWCrIrNxIIO6cgjHgcnnz/ABr16Vae5QOWuQh4rHZFOuOfAsw7K8PCs/Tr/NFZyl5mssa1pW06ViT6+Ry/orqF3a3LtcuzxTbvawcZIyGB458acbibrFVt7n7uXDOeXhypUv tKbrCcXsRY8TcSK5YZzh1XmPurJjvBFhAyrjwHx58CeXOr9xCM 2pQ5+hBxWv8A66cVvnqb7obC8mp2MioREbjddzIVHCQEYUfWG5 z/ADhUkdPWM38ZBcstvhTlWQI0qZy+d4udxef8lq43sX0TUPaI7q SNFtF33jO+FeQvvAEBuQ7R/CutaXq9u96oWa0O+qJlZIjIZRKQIjIH7Y7XAfbUTUoy3Mdc141 ZQUd1FYK49qvf2t+b33rJ6WaZtq3f2t+b33rJ6Wa0qLgUUUV0A ooooAYtmffej+a2Xq4KtdmtZCxIuZUB5KEgIHwBaMk1VFsz770 fzWy9XBUz9u22LULPUrzTLG3tbfqGCNdtEs0zlo0csvWDEf0/ceVTUaEqrxEr3NxCjHMjru1LplBoFm11c3sryNwgtVFqJJ39yg w8EHifDFeezrX4+kmlxXqXE8OXaOSHFqWhljOCu91PEYKkfBxU JtSvZ7mVp7mZ5pWOS7sSeecD3CuwfJT6X2thd3dleFRFdoskRZ Q2J4julRnxIb/xirdzw9U6Lm+nPyFlLiCrVND5M2O3GzuNNvTLbB5onz1gO7vdY Cd5wFGAfo/dSRYbVRbDBikV8cyDwxwyOHA12zaKsdxLMFTKk5UbuOzgHAA5f 51x/WOg0Mu8+SpySFx454gAj7awdGpazbVVdXuhva6qbTiLGvbQfal II3if5KbpwfefGtPptq9zKsrghU+rknIJHPAre3HROK3btcTjg COGf01nafaBAAAMEjgR7wckn3cKbKtb0YP4XUmvp1Kr+bYkV0H sW/c603Z50zbqcKLTdGVB4b0WcVzLox0Uv45dGtpbc9da6+LpsSwd i36+4nkkcJcYkJE0J+iCMN4U+aF0q0+20tJHMQ9ltg0geOMN2E 95+lnHP41G7Q+l13qfSvTr+RyjPqdqkaR9lYoDcIiwqB9XDEfH JqThFGpXUnHkuooppakjjG1Pv3WvNr71k9LdMu1Ufv8Aa35vfe snpapiNQooooAKKKKAGLZn33o/mtl6uCpFfKMH+0uqcP42P3+NtAajrsz770fzWy9XBUjPlJ8Oku p/F4vxtbem/CPqP2/Im419OPv+DnSSZHD34/bNfLa7eGVZIzuvG6upB8QQwPDnyrGUlTjHPPj8eHCgcTk4XA5j hk+88edOq1NSi4y3TEcI6ZZRJDol0xt9UjZi+7Ksab6HAZX3d1 junmlafphauMywSH38Dw8c/ZzqPqXksb78TvG4JAeNypAJ5ZB4it0nTnU+rMTzCVDzEqA+GPp Livn1z/idSFTVQacfJ8zW2l5DQtezG+KWe5lzMwXGMcWO9xwSQRw5Vvh1 ag7uTurz+znXKLbpTdId5FhB8Owxx8Rl+BrG1HpHfTgiSdgrcC IwEz8CVGcVL/HriUksKKL9e8t3HZ5Zv9pHSJZ47e1jZWEY3nYEHBxgKSOXj9wr A2VjOt6R5naepipY3B+34007Jl/f3R/M7T1EVaq1sY2lB04+olclKawc12pd+615tfesnpbpk2pd+615t fesnpbpAMwooooAKKKKAGLZn33o/mtl6uCpJfKSsZn6S6kyI5UtDxCsc4tLblgftg1G7Zl33o/mtl6uCrZnQZ5D7hVuzufgzbxnYp3tr8eKWcblcL6ZcE5WCbOOf VP+qseXRrw5xbXJz7oZOX9GrJt0e4fdQBTF8Wz4e/6KUOF48Xb9labaDfHOLO6P2W0v/wAWvn+jOon8hvP0Ws/9mrLcV9rw+JZ8PctxtWuvYrXTopqX/D78/AWs/P8AoV7xdDtVPH9zb/ly9kn/AEfUqyGiu/8AWa8Pc5Kzb8XYrcXoVrBPdWof9Fcf2KadlvQzVo9b0mSTTL9I 01G1Z3e0nVUVZ0JZmKcF4VPqio58Vbi1p7nuNphrfsVM7U+/da82vvWT0t0ybUe/da82vvWT0t0pLgUUUUAf/9k=► 37:10► 37:10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5eOknaXgYU)


<cite>www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5eOknaXgYU</cite>
Jun 20, 2012 - Uploaded by LarryHohol
Dashcam of BRUTAL beatings by cops after stopping the wrong man. Pennsylvania State Police pursued ...



Seattle Police Brutality: Cop punches teen girl in face - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0WTcTzN96s)http://www.debatepolicy.com/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAgFBgcGBQgHBgcJCAgJDBMMDAsLDBgREg4THBgdHRsYGx ofIywlHyEqIRobJjQnKi4vMTIxHiU2OjYwOiwwMTABCAkJDAoM FwwMFzAgGyAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMD AwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMP/AABEIAFoAeAMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAACAwEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAFBgAEBwMCAQj/xAA9EAACAQIEBAQEAwUGBwAAAAABAgMEEQAFEiEGEzFRByJBYT JxgZEUobEIFSPR4RckQlLB0hZic4KD8PH/xAAZAQADAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIDBAX/xAApEQACAQMDAwQBBQAAAAAAAAAAAQIDERIhMVETFEEEYaGxUi IyQoGR/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwD8/wCJjXMp8AM9zPLaetjzbL40qEDhXD3F/pi237OWfKLtneWgdyH/AJYBZIxjExsEn7P2aoVH7+y9yxsOXHK/3su31xyfwBz4brmlBp/zNqUfpfDxYskZJiY1Ct8D86gpmenzTLqqYbCGNmBO9upFh33xx oPBjOqmjE02YUNM+p0MT6iQVYg7gWPTvgxew7q1zNcTGi5h4QZ pRQySPmVE2j/CNV269B9MAZOCqmGBpKivpImsrKhLEuCeuw2t72wnpuLJCxiYY q/hOSlkCxZhS1QKhtUNyN/pijU5HNTwiR5ozfoN7/phXFnHkF4mLqZa7R6zLGBe1id/ti1Bw/LOyhKiE6lL332AwskVdAjExaehdb+dTbtjwaVgL6lw8kF0fctU PmNMrKHBlQFT0O42xMdcugZcwpjcG0qbfUYmLi4+SkkzbODeMs 2osspwlTJoSFFIkHoFFrE7dBhjPijldNAy1FpaoknUp5h/p98Y3AtdW5fTConlanVF0KzkgC3oMdKWCKKtgsqt5wDcAgi/qMNTZjijSpPFaodHjoaCeREudYNrC/sP1x4oc+4x4gh5mTZNqhB0mXY7jqLkjfCtBxZmdDkj5fFIgpWB XQBst2ubfUYEQ8U1QrJaqmrZ6GSoYGRYHZFeyW3AI6kfni7+4r exufB9LnlPTzPxDCsc+scsR/xLL63Cm17+pwNhyKTMZKyoJmCfiZyFVDuBKwt1I6dNhjPpOKq+ bhCsWPMZzNzUJLSszKP+VjuAbY17wslMnAWWs7l3ZLszG5JO5/XCUdbiqPKNmhV/sur6qWV5OIXiidiyIYixUG9h1HocLvFnhjNkeWNXmvmrVDhSFi t1/wC4/LG4MBhX4/WpkyORIIpCtiTLG26fT3vgnSji2jNTa0MRnypII6ZXqDGhOpVK W3sLg3OB+aUcKkl7si9Qvl/0x1zfnxTPSglWjYMgcddut/t6YqVkkkVI/wCKJZy930m41WG2PPc5bBir3OK5OatQ1JGF8hexa97emKlLVVG WzzRhRFLpKESLuD29sGOGYPxM0fMaeSJjcwwuQSB1O3Ta/bBjjDgqoMdXm9BRSUlFHctFIGLIoF+pub977e+NbXRqhNmSFIY wI9JfzSnVcX7D+WKnJgdhqcqOwHTHmLUY3OksF6m2wx6hp6h05 ohLIDb5m/p3wWGXMuy2J5Y5FqlEySKwiZfjGpeh77nb2xMd6eUJXUpp1kWX yhtaDqev0scTFxKQTyXIq3M4KT8Ek1TLyx5VW4VQo6n5nBpuCu IRmUYjy2oMayrd411CwPtjpRZXV5jwhQUkU9DROGDyLIjrzFCA ISQpv1Y/bFKHgnNIZ1nFZltQVfUV/FaL/e2LxC4DmyfN8ujqf3lQVkA1DeWFlHr3GBVXGsTjlvcfLGn8SGB uImqp4pp5JI42YwM5XWVBbdCL7k+uAxpoaur5LZFEVW8nMqJZE 1qTsAWIF/kMPHyTn4FOCZ2o5Y1vpYb+9saN4b53Jw/lQenlf+MAHjkQsoO24t3vgZxZHQQ8LQ/hY5KasSUAx85WRVsfh0/Tfr3645ZFVZGuU00tctS9VToHJY+W/ptqHqPrik7Df6jR4eP6+yq9PEbWDM2q539gO/pirxDxQ2bU5pBVcryElEjZA522JO+FCgzygnqmLZgiJIy/wkUhjYemq/f8h2xZ48iipKeGapBieTUEiPUD0O3r0wSlJqw40431FLilahzI kiWaIgqyvc2Iva/bAKaCsy2ZEqPK1tYVvMBf17H+mLf4/kV6VNSefTEWaIP1A6bfbB3KcwhTOMozSpZIYK6V4JuaodYl2AY bX/x/ljJQ0G4pPQB5FMtBmNPMqc2RRqKyAMhvtax+frjTuKuMIM34Tq qJUqqWoaIqyIqlWIttfV0OFuabh6HMa+dEinihjblJytWtth1B 6XIsST6Y+5dyYleU5VJU1bOrwyEWjRAo2sQDqBxUbrRB00kpNi/kFCj0DAhdfMYSIWIYrYWuLd/fvitndS89HSwoOUFex0jrhq4cgEEtY2Y0k8E8urRLqVk3t6db3 HfHqFGWYRNBHZSSrmMENv8APb5YajK2xcFTlKzkJlNAIqyHlsz eYX398TGviaB8jnjNBlyF423MbB1sPQ6bfniYbTjuQ1G7SMho+ OK+CKKLkwFI1C2s1yAPnhzjzqkkjVxUKdQBsDcj7YzWiSjgenm rIjPDfzxq2ksLd/ngzVcR0skCwUmWLEiCy3nkJt9CMCkyWrjXJmVOsgls5YAgHQen 1wJ4hz/+4SCJnSVhpU3F/wAj2wpSTVE02tQwHooJIH3JxcZc3zKJYDzpo06IFuB9BgyFY+U b1T0VS07yMg0/Eb7m/wDI40vh7K8omyChkqIQ0jwLqvEpv9cZ+2WZhQZZK1ZE0cchAs2 1yAbbffD9w0rx5BSvI+pRCCNraRbCKQTpMqyWjf8AFxUCo9P51 c72PpYWxxqa6h4qiWirnAhMnmYtpMdvf0va2AgzPNcxSVFoJ1o 3H8PRH1+bdL/lgXBledwVay0aLHv5lkN1I7G2N4wbhYzzSldgbOOH56GoljihM 0eshDE4kJW+3T2xbyXLarPaWloFhMUFFKzyVDG/U/Da3xe2L1RlGdtmPP58Ua3voQkqPvgzpzvlxDL1RhYGoeOMbtc7 dO3r1OMWunpLyVKtTlsyln5rYpY4KWCJY49tWhVLHuSLdvlgFz qp0M8jtqd9KhLi9upxoFFllVUXhISMz7a5qc6U2/zE/wCmOZyA0MbwiPmlvLrpyrD8rkHr2xLnHwzJTi/JnrZlmNO9oamdfNYecnFhOJ8ziJ5zLJ7Sxj9djhvbJzTxK8OXS GVNg3L3+f8AXFaryKeuXmyUchlS4sFJvb0OBTttL5Jyg9wPTcT CZuTJSpeSyho2K2v3Fzf8sTHr9xpE4kSItIWB0jbT7YmB1cv5I uDp+GBcq4NrquGOVwsasoYa29CPbDZlfhk8pXUTKbBrIVHoD6n 3GNgyLw9Shy2mhrI1mmjiRXOva4ABt7YP0+QLTQmOKKNV+Q/XAbGBVOR0OUTLHKkMTtYokqM7HzKvSxHxMB9cPvAGVUWY5FWVd TTrXSR1IhjWN2hAF9LXuB0N/thtzHhujnqHeeeFXYBRcKxHTbr7A4G1FDk2VUMuW1tRI0NU3NI iABuDjyYOvTrOVX9t35/zQ82Lq06rlU0jd+Vb20Oddwvw3mNIgrsnk5QILp+KkDLt12G/U7A+nfbHWhgynLMtioIOHpYqdEcgc4sTa3lJtc3u2x/y9sDqhMuQ3y6B5wVuqTMQGZWv6KfX9flilNDy1CJl7SxOjcxXm YAMQ9+qEn43N9vltjvVen+R19xS/IcpabK6mt/CvQMtOh081ZyqgWJ6dD0HQnr9MCGpcqWMN/w/U72DD8QSQbkHp16A39b4HSur0B05cyVJdxJGshC3bY+bRcHp6X HfHyGGhWNBVU9XBoCmyyatIXbqQDbuf540Xqo/mZur6deUE/3bkjvIkuSzJpQsCKhjqO9l2GxNhudt9yDtj1leUZVSJJHR5ZV0 5ZoyFauIDagb7noVtv8ATHkU3DyQtCorwJbLflXJsxe2/X4j9McJabI4aV0oFq2LSNIA6EAOQVNjvb4j9TjOVenN3k7h1PT 76FwU+XTLaWjr9dgQDUvbdWv6elgLdTfa+1yOTZNlUkUzXrKRl mkUBqp7vuTqF7GxLE/XClTCKkqI5ocvZZF+EmYm4VNIG69AowTOc1QvegsQL/Gf9vscGdHlB16HIznh/JyAPxdTYdP70ff39zj5Fw5ksbao6mdSTe4qSMKxzqtAuMvW3/Ub/biNntegJ/dqeUXN5WFh3+D3GDOlyg69DkJzeHfCS65hHMXF3v8Ai3O/XviYEy8R5iInCZXGdiCee21tj/g9MTE5UFtYcJ+ne1jO5f2i85ceTJqZP/Mx/wBMV2/aAzhzdsqgPzmb+WMfxMdJ2mrTeN9ZNKZJcipWc7EmZt9rdsBc9 8UK7NJIGjoIaUQrpCpIWB6d/lhDxMRKEZq0kROnCatJDlF4lZ3DIHiYKwUoLHaxNztb1OOh8Uc/ZdLSBh13sfQjt7n74ScTEdCnwZdtSXj7HSPxMzyMtocDUSSL3B JIJ9O4GI/ibnkiyCRlcSAq2qx2PoNtug6YS8TB0KfAdtS4+WOw8T8+Gm0gG l9YsejWIv09z98RfE/Pl+F1G9+g6/b/AN374ScTB0KfAdtS4+WOn9pue87m6xzNWvVfe+nTfp22xJfE3P JVZZGUhxZum+xHbsbf/MJeJg6FPgO2pcfY7r4o8QKoVZrAKqDf0HT0x4bxMzxo3QspWQE N03uAD6dlGEvEwdCnwHbUuPljzB4k5zUzxwSaCksgDDYXud+g9 z98TCOjsjq6MVZTcEGxBxMNUox2iv7KVGnHaP2f/9k=► 0:33► 0:33 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0WTcTzN96s)


<cite>www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0WTcTzN96s</cite>
Jun 16, 2010 - Uploaded by RussiaToday
Video courtesy - http://www.komonews.com) Seattle police are again under fire over allegations of violence ...



More videos for brutal cop » (https://www.google.com/search?q=brutal+cop&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=aNh&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=univ&tbm=vid&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=cqw3UbmJCsq8qgGkkYCoCg&ved=0CEIQqwQ)


Police brutality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality)<cite>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality</cite>
Police brutality is the wanton use of excessive force, usually physical, but potentially in the form of verbal attacks and psychological intimidation, by a police ..

[cadet]

Perhaps Robert himself?

Taft, I see a trend here. What is your problem with pot? And why do you feel the need to bring it up in every conversation when you could very well go back to the thread where you basically lost due to ignorance?

Fact's that I don't think you seem to understand.

Pot compared to beer;
1. does not make you go as crazy as beer.
2. acts immediately and dissipates just as quickly, unlike alcohol.
3. Doesn't leave a hangover.
4. Not bad for your liver
5. Non-addictive.

Medically;
1. Relaxes stress.
2. Helps get someone hungry when it's necessary they eat after an operation.
3. calming for freaking out patients.

Compared to cigarettes.
1. NON-ADDICTIVE
2. Doesn't cause cancers.
3. Doesn't cut life span.
4. doesn't have poison in it.

Compared to dangerous drugs such as meth/coke/what-have-you.
1. No life threatening effects.
2. It's not a gateway drug.
3. cheap.
4. easy to make.
5. "Dangerous people" don't sell it.
6. Again, NON-ADDICTIVE.



People are already doing it, even if it's illegal. Why not just make their lives easier and make it legal? Not only economically does this make a whole lot of sense, it also gets rid of countless pointless crimes.

When america was founded, it was founded on the premises of laissez faire. People have a right to live their own lives. Laws were made biased on your life ruining others. Murder doesn't affect just you, it affects others, thus it's illegal. Stealing harms others, so that's illegal. Harming yourself is in no way shape or form dangerous to others. There's no point in making a law to protect citizens from themselves. If you're dumb enough to do something to yourself, it's your own damn fault. 'MERICA
(^^^^Important paragraph, if you skim at least read this)

Besides, how old are you? Are you just pissy cause you didn't get an invite to Woodstock? Everyone else should suffer?
Personally, I would compare marijuana today to moonshine back in prohibition. And it's not as bad for you!
Live a little and smoke one.

And before you start calling me a pothead, I've never tried it. For one, that'd be impossible with my drug tests. And two, I follow laws. I'm waiting for it to be legalized before I do that. Which I can see happening within the next few years, if not this one.
Try to actually answer this post instead of laughing and calling me a hippy. Try to look at what i said instead of fighting like the liberal you are and resorting to name calling.

[cadet]

Officer Won't Testify, Ending Defense Side in Cannibal Case (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/nyregion/officer-accused-in-cannibal-plot-wont-testify-lawyer-says.html)



<tbody>
New York Times
- ‎2 hours ago‎

<tbody>





</tbody>


</tbody>

Lawyers for Gilberto Valle, the New York police officer accused of plotting to kidnap, kill and cannibalize women, rested their case on Tuesday, shortly after the officer said he would not take the witness stand in his own defense.

And we let these people become police officers...
Hasn't it been proven that police officers have the same mentality as a criminal? Attention seekers and wanting to be the big hero of the day.
If you ask me, police should have to be reminded that they are here to PROTECT. Not serve justice to every regular joe.

Let's see, do I want guns only available to police officers like Obama wants? Nope. Cause there will always be that guy. And the police are 15 minutes away from my house, if they speed. Kinda useless at that point.
And if they're all gun-ho crazy lunatics that don't think before they act, I'm just as likely to be shot as the guy I'm calling the police for.

[aboutime]

Taft, I see a trend here. What is your problem with pot? And why do you feel the need to bring it up in every conversation when you could very well go back to the thread where you basically lost due to ignorance?

Fact's that I don't think you seem to understand.

Pot compared to beer;
1. does not make you go as crazy as beer.
2. acts immediately and dissipates just as quickly, unlike alcohol.
3. Doesn't leave a hangover.
4. Not bad for your liver
5. Non-addictive.

Medically;
1. Relaxes stress.
2. Helps get someone hungry when it's necessary they eat after an operation.
3. calming for freaking out patients.

Compared to cigarettes.
1. NON-ADDICTIVE
2. Doesn't cause cancers.
3. Doesn't cut life span.
4. doesn't have poison in it.

Compared to dangerous drugs such as meth/coke/what-have-you.
1. No life threatening effects.
2. It's not a gateway drug.
3. cheap.
4. easy to make.
5. "Dangerous people" don't sell it.
6. Again, NON-ADDICTIVE.



People are already doing it, even if it's illegal. Why not just make their lives easier and make it legal? Not only economically does this make a whole lot of sense, it also gets rid of countless pointless crimes.

When america was founded, it was founded on the premises of laissez faire. People have a right to live their own lives. Laws were made biased on your life ruining others. Murder doesn't affect just you, it affects others, thus it's illegal. Stealing harms others, so that's illegal. Harming yourself is in no way shape or form dangerous to others. There's no point in making a law to protect citizens from themselves. If you're dumb enough to do something to yourself, it's your own damn fault. 'MERICA
(^^^^Important paragraph, if you skim at least read this)

Besides, how old are you? Are you just pissy cause you didn't get an invite to Woodstock? Everyone else should suffer?
Personally, I would compare marijuana today to moonshine back in prohibition. And it's not as bad for you!
Live a little and smoke one.

And before you start calling me a pothead, I've never tried it. For one, that'd be impossible with my drug tests. And two, I follow laws. I'm waiting for it to be legalized before I do that. Which I can see happening within the next few years, if not this one.
Try to actually answer this post instead of laughing and calling me a hippy. Try to look at what i said instead of fighting like the liberal you are and resorting to name calling.


cadet. Listen to yourself defending POT, and Pot users.
And you want to be a representative of our nation in Uniform?

Perhaps you should also be telling us how you need DADT to work in your favor as well.
As for the uniform. You disqualify yourself with your opinions.
I am thankful I am no longer wearing a uniform, and unthreatened by thinking like yours.

[cadet]

cadet. Listen to yourself defending POT, and Pot users.
And you want to be a representative of our nation in Uniform?

Perhaps you should also be telling us how you need DADT to work in your favor as well.
As for the uniform. You disqualify yourself with your opinions.
I am thankful I am no longer wearing a uniform, and unthreatened by thinking like yours.

Thanks for reading that and not going strait toward insults like I asked.
Did you miss the part where it's no where near as awful as most other things? Or the part where it's easily comparable to moonshine? Or even the part where it's totally unconstitutional to make it illegal? I swear to uphold and defend the constitution, and the gov't has no right to say what people can put in their OWN bodies. (especially if it's unharmful to others, unlike cigars and second hand smoke)

[aboutime]

Thanks for reading that and not going strait toward insults like I asked.
Did you miss the part where it's no where near as awful as most other things? Or the part where it's easily comparable to moonshine? Or even the part where it's totally unconstitutional to make it illegal? I swear to uphold and defend the constitution, and the gov't has no right to say what people can put in their OWN bodies. (especially if it's unharmful to others, unlike cigars and second hand smoke)


I missed nothing. Just thankful, and hopeful you never succeed in taking an oath that you will ignore to be in uniform.

[cadet]

I missed nothing. Just thankful, and hopeful you never succeed in taking an oath that you will ignore to be in uniform.

Ok, so you also missed that little paragraph of mine that said I'd never tried it and had no plan to until it was legalized. Just because I follow a rule doesn't necessary mean I agree with it.

And before I continue, http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39444-Pothead-quot-Conservative-quot-Infiltrators. There back on topic. Cops have too many nuts.

[fj1200]

Taft, I see a trend here.

If you weren't a pot-addled, neo-con liberal, wannabe-conservative you might have picked up on that earlier. :poke:

[jimnyc]

Perhaps if threads weren't directed at "names", they wouldn't be taken so personally, and can result in better discussions?

And I can speak forever on how marijuana is not good for ME, but it's becoming legal in some areas, and already MANY areas for medicinal reasons. I don't think we should vilify users much more than drinkers, especially so in cases where they are partaking legally.

[cadet]

If you weren't a pot-addled, neo-con liberal, wannabe-conservative you might have picked up on that earlier. :poke:

Don't recognize sarcasm? :dunno: Guess I can't help you. And I believe having the view "to each his own" view on life is pretty far on the right side. (that means two things)



Edit; I don't think i picked up on your sarcasm, ironic... :laugh2:

[fj1200]

Edit; I don't think i picked up on your sarcasm, ironic... :laugh2:

:laugh:

[aboutime]

Perhaps if threads weren't directed at "names", they wouldn't be taken so personally, and can result in better discussions?

And I can speak forever on how marijuana is not good for ME, but it's becoming legal in some areas, and already MANY areas for medicinal reasons. I don't think we should vilify users much more than drinkers, especially so in cases where they are partaking legally.


Jimnyc. As an alcoholic. I remember being called a drunk. I earned it.

Those who use Marijuana are POT HEADS. Whether it's legal or not. That's what they are.

[fj1200]

Jimnyc. As an alcoholic. I remember being called a drunk. I earned it.

Those who use Marijuana are POT HEADS. Whether it's legal or not. That's what they are.

Perhaps you're confused; taking a drink doesn't make you a drunk and taking a toke doesn't make you a pothead.

[aboutime]

Perhaps you're confused; taking a drink doesn't make you a drunk and taking a toke doesn't make you a pothead.


No. The only one's who are confused (every time they need to defend it), are the POT HEADS.
As for the drinking making you a drunk.
If you use enough of it long enough, and find an excuse...any excuse to take a drink. You are a DRUNK.

I know. I am one. Been DRY more than 30 years.

[Robert A Whit]

Taft, I see a trend here. What is your problem with pot? And why do you feel the need to bring it up in every conversation when you could very well go back to the thread where you basically lost due to ignorance?

Fact's that I don't think you seem to understand.

Pot compared to beer;
1. does not make you go as crazy as beer.
2. acts immediately and dissipates just as quickly, unlike alcohol.
3. Doesn't leave a hangover.
4. Not bad for your liver
5. Non-addictive.

Medically;
1. Relaxes stress.
2. Helps get someone hungry when it's necessary they eat after an operation.
3. calming for freaking out patients.

Compared to cigarettes.
1. NON-ADDICTIVE
2. Doesn't cause cancers.
3. Doesn't cut life span.
4. doesn't have poison in it.

Compared to dangerous drugs such as meth/coke/what-have-you.
1. No life threatening effects.
2. It's not a gateway drug.
3. cheap.
4. easy to make.
5. "Dangerous people" don't sell it.
6. Again, NON-ADDICTIVE.



People are already doing it, even if it's illegal. Why not just make their lives easier and make it legal? Not only economically does this make a whole lot of sense, it also gets rid of countless pointless crimes.

When america was founded, it was founded on the premises of laissez faire. People have a right to live their own lives. Laws were made biased on your life ruining others. Murder doesn't affect just you, it affects others, thus it's illegal. Stealing harms others, so that's illegal. Harming yourself is in no way shape or form dangerous to others. There's no point in making a law to protect citizens from themselves. If you're dumb enough to do something to yourself, it's your own damn fault. 'MERICA
(^^^^Important paragraph, if you skim at least read this)

Besides, how old are you? Are you just pissy cause you didn't get an invite to Woodstock? Everyone else should suffer?
Personally, I would compare marijuana today to moonshine back in prohibition. And it's not as bad for you!
Live a little and smoke one.

And before you start calling me a pothead, I've never tried it. For one, that'd be impossible with my drug tests. And two, I follow laws. I'm waiting for it to be legalized before I do that. Which I can see happening within the next few years, if not this one.
Try to actually answer this post instead of laughing and calling me a hippy. Try to look at what i said instead of fighting like the liberal you are and resorting to name calling.

And that folks is what human freedom is all about.

Thank you very much for a very fine explanation.

BTW, no point in trying it. I am not clear to this day why anybody smokes it.

In my particular case so many long years ago, I was on the way to being depressed. I saw a doctor and he prescribed pills for depression but all that did is make me sleep for two straight days. I decided then and there that I got into it mentally and would follow the same path back out. It worked. I got rid of the depression.

Back then, nobody that i am aware of had the idea of making it legal who had any power at the state level. And the pot at the time was super expensive.

Quitting it is easy. No lingering after-effects.

Why won't I recommend it?

I am part way persuaded by what Michael Savage teaches on the radio shows. That your brain is being damaged.
Waste of money is next.
Finally, does not seem to me that it helps ones lungs.

Pot does not have a good flavor.

Matter of fact, I very seldom drink any alcohol product. Don't need the stuff.

[jimnyc]

Jimnyc. As an alcoholic. I remember being called a drunk. I earned it.

Those who use Marijuana are POT HEADS. Whether it's legal or not. That's what they are.

Maybe for some. I earned the pothead label, I suppose. But with that logic, anyone who drinks socially would be the alcohol equivalent of a "pothead". Anyone who smokes cigarettes. Anyone who takes anything that alters the mind or body. I don't think a pot smoker is much different than anyone else who partakes in something for the feeling or altering effects. Hell, certain foods have euphoric effects on some people.

[jimnyc]

Been DRY more than 30 years.

That's awesome, a helluva accomplishment! :clap:

[Robert A Whit]

cadet. Listen to yourself defending POT, and Pot users.
And you want to be a representative of our nation in Uniform?

Perhaps you should also be telling us how you need DADT to work in your favor as well.
As for the uniform. You disqualify yourself with your opinions.
I am thankful I am no longer wearing a uniform, and unthreatened by thinking like yours.

Once again you lunge in and pick fights. Wny must you always start arguments?

[Robert A Whit]

Perhaps if threads weren't directed at "names", they wouldn't be taken so personally, and can result in better discussions?

And I can speak forever on how marijuana is not good for ME, but it's becoming legal in some areas, and already MANY areas for medicinal reasons. I don't think we should vilify users much more than drinkers, especially so in cases where they are partaking legally.

Jim

It all started out non personal, until Taft decided to make it personal.

Even here, you can see Abouttime making it personal by pissing in Cadet's oats.

AT declares as a navy guy sworn to uphold his oath, was a drunk. I was in the Army and they have parts of the UCMJ declaring drunks are illegal. Thus AT was himself breaking laws.

But so long as he gets to attack Cadet, must be okay.

And Cadet explained he has to this day not once smoked pot.

AT still smashed him.

[cadet]

Jim

It all started out non personal, until Taft decided to make it personal.

Even here, you can see Abouttime making it personal by pissing in Cadet's oats.

AT declares as a navy guy sworn to uphold his oath, was a drunk. I was in the Army and they have parts of the UCMJ declaring drunks are illegal. Thus AT was himself breaking laws.

But so long as he gets to attack Cadet, must be okay.

And Cadet explained he has to this day not once smoked pot.

AT still smashed him.

Huzzah! Someone who actually reads and contributes to the conversation! And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you debate.

[taft2012]

Taft, I see a trend here. What is your problem with pot?

I have a problem with criminals and criminality. It's an occupational hazard.


And why do you feel the need to bring it up in every conversation when you could very well go back to the thread where you basically lost due to ignorance?

No, it is clearly you showing ignorance here. I don't "bring it up in every conversation," and I have explained ad nauseum why I bring it up when I do.

If a liberal wanted to have a conversation with me about marijuana I would be happy to discuss the relative merits of it with that liberal.

The problem here is thinly veiled liberals masquerading as Constitutional conservatives advocating marijuana and time-honored liberal restrictions on law enforcement that has proven over the years to protect criminality. I am a veteran right wing advocate and these people were virtually non-existent until a few years ago when they began to flood these forums. They're just liberal trolls.

I will not have a reasonable conversation with phonies who approach a topic under false pretenses.

This position is not traditional conservatism. It is merely opportunistic liberals in a Trojan Horse distorting right wing arguments to make a case for marijuana legalization.

[taft2012]

cadet. Listen to yourself defending POT, and Pot users.
And you want to be a representative of our nation in Uniform?

Perhaps you should also be telling us how you need DADT to work in your favor as well.
As for the uniform. You disqualify yourself with your opinions.
I am thankful I am no longer wearing a uniform, and unthreatened by thinking like yours.

Really. For someone who has "never used" it, he spent an awful long time defending it.

Maybe his opinion will change if he ever finds himself in combat depending on a bunch of guys on a "medicinal break."

[Abbey Marie]

Don't recognize sarcasm? :dunno: Guess I can't help you. And I believe having the view "to each his own" view on life is pretty far on the right side. (that means two things)



Edit; I don't think i picked up on your sarcasm, ironic... :laugh2:

I'm glad you eventually realized that- I was about to bust a gut! :laugh2:

[aboutime]

Really. For someone who has "never used" it, he spent an awful long time defending it.

Maybe his opinion will change if he ever finds himself in combat depending on a bunch of guys on a "medicinal break."


taft. He's never gonna be in that position unless he becomes an Air Force Pilot. But, after listening to his defensive POT stories. I almost wonder whether he will be accepted into the military, at any level these days.

Look at how they compare my sickness of alcoholism with smoking pot. It reminds me of my father...always reminding me "TWO Wrongs, never make a Right!"

It's almost an accepted practice nowadays...since some states have made Pot legal, for all of the Celebrants and Users..who deny using, to come out of the woodwork to dismiss anyone who says anything negative about the use of Pot.

I agree, drinking to excess is worse. But...how many HONEST people driving in Colorado, or other states where Pot has been legalized, HOPE...they never meet a STONED Driver coming toward them...in their lane?????

[cadet]

Really. For someone who has "never used" it, he spent an awful long time defending it.

Maybe his opinion will change if he ever finds himself in combat depending on a bunch of guys on a "medicinal break."

I defend it because it is beyond stupid that it's illegal. Personal dicision, doesn't harm others. NO reason to ban it for personal use.


I agree, drinking to excess is worse. But...how many HONEST people driving in Colorado, or other states where Pot has been legalized, HOPE...they never meet a STONED Driver coming toward them...in their lane?????

That's where personal responsibility comes into play. You know, without having to be spoon fed what's good for you. I always thought it was a left view to need the gov't to tell us common sense.

[cadet]

Really. For someone who has "never used" it, he spent an awful long time defending it.

Maybe his opinion will change if he ever finds himself in combat depending on a bunch of guys on a "medicinal break."

Take it or leave it. I can tell you that I've never done it till my face turns blue. But I guess you wont take my word for it until i give you my identity and a drug test. So believe what you want, but the truth is I'm waiting until it's legalized in the next year or two.

If it's legalized, there's no reason why a military member couldn't do it while they were off. obviously the same rules for alcohol would apply to it.

[jimnyc]

A little puff here or there won't hurt ya!

http://i.imgur.com/HnJ6lWK.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

Perhaps you're confused; taking a drink doesn't make you a drunk and taking a toke doesn't make you a pothead.

Have to agree, fj. Back in the day, if we called someone a "head" that meant he was pretty much a daily smoker.

[aboutime]

I defend it because it is beyond stupid that it's illegal. Personal dicision, doesn't harm others. NO reason to ban it for personal use.



That's where personal responsibility comes into play. You know, without having to be spoon fed what's good for you. I always thought it was a left view to need the gov't to tell us common sense.


That's a wonderful idea cadet. Now. If only we could convince millions of Americans...like those who voted for Obama TWICE, to learn, and understand what Personal Responsibility is. Yet few really want to accept it, and why should they when Government does all of their thinking for them?

You are able to defend it as much as you like. But you cannot, and should not expect to be able to exercise the use of POT if you plan on being in, and remaining in uniform.
They just do not mix. And will get you that Dishonorable Discharge you want.

[cadet]

I have a problem with criminals and criminality. It's an occupational hazard.



No, it is clearly you showing ignorance here. I don't "bring it up in every conversation," and I have explained ad nauseum why I bring it up when I do.

If a liberal wanted to have a conversation with me about marijuana I would be happy to discuss the relative merits of it with that liberal.

The problem here is thinly veiled liberals masquerading as Constitutional conservatives advocating marijuana and time-honored liberal restrictions on law enforcement that has proven over the years to protect criminality. I am a veteran right wing advocate and these people were virtually non-existent until a few years ago when they began to flood these forums. They're just liberal trolls.

I will not have a reasonable conversation with phonies who approach a topic under false pretenses.

This position is not traditional conservatism. It is merely opportunistic liberals in a Trojan Horse distorting right wing arguments to make a case for marijuana legalization.

I wonder if you've actually written what I've wrote, and have any rebukes to what I've actually said. But again, you've gone to the liberal way of debating and stirred toward insult rather then information.
The RIGHT WING STANCE, is to-each-his-own. By letting the gov't come in and tell you what you can and cannot digest is completely against everything america was founded upon.

Freedom, do what you want, don't stop others from doing what they want. And that's the basis of it all.


FREEDOM, or do you think that regulating things is a republican view? Next you'll be telling me uncle sam can tell me how many times i need to brush my teeth, or how much i can eat, or any number of things.

[cadet]

...You are able to defend it as much as you like. But you cannot, and should not expect to be able to exercise the use of POT if you plan on being in, and remaining in uniform.
They just do not mix. And will get you that Dishonorable Discharge you want.

There is absolutely NOTHING against having political views while being in the military. When it has nothing to do with upholding the constitution, I can have whatever views I want. Grant it, it's a bad idea to talk about said views just in case the person next to you has completely different views. Rule of thumb.

But unless I practice it, I should be fine until it's no longer a criminal act.

[taft2012]

You are able to defend it as much as you like. But you cannot, and should not expect to be able to exercise the use of POT if you plan on being in, and remaining in uniform.
They just do not mix. And will get you that Dishonorable Discharge you want.

You know what always gives these phoney libertarians away? Stick with the discussion long enough and they'll inevitably say "If you legalize marijuana the government could regulate production and distribution, tax it, and that will balance the budget!"

:rolleyes:

Yeah, that's the epitome of conservatism. Government regulation, taxation, and more money to the government.

How's there still any doubt that they're liberal trolls?

[cadet]

You know what always gives these phoney libertarians away? Stick with the discussion long enough and they'll inevitably say "If you legalize marijuana the government could regulate production and distribution, tax it, and that will balance the budget!"

:rolleyes:

Yeah, that's the epitome of conservatism. Government regulation, taxation, and more money to the government.

How's there still any doubt that they're liberal trolls?

It'd be freaking impossible to tax, considering it grows like a weed.
Businesses could easily start mass producing it though, it'd help start out new jobs as well.

[aboutime]

There is absolutely NOTHING against having political views while being in the military. When it has nothing to do with upholding the constitution, I can have whatever views I want. Grant it, it's a bad idea to talk about said views just in case the person next to you has completely different views. Rule of thumb.

But unless I practice it, I should be fine until it's no longer a criminal act.


I haven't said you can't have your own political views while in the military. You are reading something into it I did not say.

Sounds to me like you are weighing your military possibilities against hope that it won't be a criminal act for long.
I merely reminded you. If you dare to read the UCMJ, or want to exercise your rights. The military has no acceptance of illegally used substances...even if they become legal in the civilian world. The military is not a democratic organization...as you will learn soon enough.

[taft2012]

I wonder if you've actually written what I've wrote, and have any rebukes to what I've actually said. But again, you've gone to the liberal way of debating and stirred toward insult rather then information.
The RIGHT WING STANCE, is to-each-his-own. By letting the gov't come in and tell you what you can and cannot digest is completely against everything america was founded upon.

Freedom, do what you want, don't stop others from doing what they want. And that's the basis of it all.


FREEDOM,or do you think that regulating things is a republican view? Next you'll be telling me uncle sam can tell me how many times i need to brush my teeth, or how much i can eat, or any number of things.

Do I think the government, reflecting the collective will of the people, has the right to outlaw certain behaviors and the use of certain substances?

I don't *THINK* it, I know it.

[cadet]

Do I think the government, reflecting the collective will of the people, has the right to outlaw certain behaviors and the use of certain substances?

I don't *THINK* it, I know it.

I think this right here says everything about you.
For how much you talk about liberals masquerading as right wing extremists...
:dance:

[taft2012]

Yeah, right. Laws against dangerous narcotics were the brainchild of liberalism. :rolleyes:

How about prostitution? Are you a conservative in favor of legalizing that as well?

[fj1200]

No. The only one's who are confused (every time they need to defend it), are the POT HEADS.
As for the drinking making you a drunk.
If you use enough of it long enough, and find an excuse...any excuse to take a drink. You are a DRUNK.

I know. I am one. Been DRY more than 30 years.

It's incorrect to brand all users based on usage alone rather than quantity. I can understand why you might to do so but when the difference between alcohol and pot is merely government rule it makes your logic specious.

[cadet]

Yeah, right. Laws against dangerous narcotics were the brainchild of liberalism. :rolleyes:

How about prostitution? Are you a conservative in favor of legalizing that as well?

Does it harm others? Is it personal decision?
Where I completely disagree with it, I should have no say in what people want to do with their OWN bodies. The gov't has no right to regulate what people do with their own lives.

[Nukeman]

I haven't said you can't have your own political views while in the military. You are reading something into it I did not say.

Sounds to me like you are weighing your military possibilities against hope that it won't be a criminal act for long.
I merely reminded you. If you dare to read the UCMJ, or want to exercise your rights. The military has no acceptance of illegally used substances...even if they become legal in the civilian world. The military is not a democratic organization...as you will learn soon enough.
REALLY?????? Waht about the "go pills" the air force uses for its pilots on LONG flights and deployments?? You know amphetamines!!!!!!!!! You Ok with that?? since after all the MILITARY dispenses those even though without a medical reason they are ILLEGAL. The AF did that for YEARS!!!!!!!!! you OK with that!!!!!!!??????

[cadet]

REALLY?????? Waht about the "go pills" the air force uses for its pilots on LONG flights and deployments?? You know amphetamines!!!!!!!!! You Ok with that?? since after all the MILITARY dispenses those even though without a medical reason they are ILLEGAL. The AF did that for YEARS!!!!!!!!! you OK with that!!!!!!!??????

Oh, we should just blindly follow them because they know what's best. Right taft? :tinfoil:

[aboutime]

REALLY?????? Waht about the "go pills" the air force uses for its pilots on LONG flights and deployments?? You know amphetamines!!!!!!!!! You Ok with that?? since after all the MILITARY dispenses those even though without a medical reason they are ILLEGAL. The AF did that for YEARS!!!!!!!!! you OK with that!!!!!!!??????


Nukeman. Okay. Whatever you say. Do you happen to have a LINK to verify that rumor....first of all.

And...NO. I am not okay with that since I was in the Navy, and never had occasion to fly in an Air Force plane during any deployment.

I am interested in hearing, and learning exactly what you are talking about, and WHEN that took place.

Finally. If that is happening today. How bout a LINK to verify that as well????

[cadet]

Nukeman. Okay. Whatever you say. Do you happen to have a LINK to verify that rumor....first of all.

And...NO. I am not okay with that since I was in the Navy, and never had occasion to fly in an Air Force plane during any deployment.

I am interested in hearing, and learning exactly what you are talking about, and WHEN that took place.

Finally. If that is happening today. How bout a LINK to verify that as well????

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/02/ (http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/02/57434)

Or better yet; http://bit.ly/10ee9IB

[aboutime]

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/02/ (http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/02/57434)

Or better yet; http://bit.ly/10ee9IB


Thanks cadet. Back to the year 2003?

Sounds like you are still attempting to justify the use of POT...by saying..

"Well, they used pills. So that must make it okay to use Pot."


Two Wrongs, no matter who did them. STILL do not make it right.

[cadet]

Thanks cadet. Back to the year 2003?

Sounds like you are still attempting to justify the use of POT...by saying..

"Well, they used pills. So that must make it okay to use Pot."


Two Wrongs, no matter who did them. STILL do not make it right.

No, my point is... Just because uncle sam says it's so, doesn't make it right. Don't blindly follow, that's not what being republican is about.

[Robert A Whit]

No, my point is... Just because uncle sam says it's so, doesn't make it right. Don't blindly follow, that's not what being republican is about.

I was very mistaken to believe that when I left the Democratic party and joined the Republicans that Republicans actually believed in human freedom. Sadly I made a mistake.

I have stated that my beliefs are Libertarian that I vote with republicans due to not wanting to help Democrats at all. But some of these republicans truly dismay me. They don't accept the founding principles.

[logroller]

Taft, I see a trend here. What is your problem with pot? And why do you feel the need to bring it up in every conversation when you could very well go back to the thread where you basically lost due to ignorance?

Fact's that I don't think you seem to understand.

Pot compared to beer;
1. does not make you go as crazy as beer.
2. acts immediately and dissipates just as quickly, unlike alcohol.
3. Doesn't leave a hangover.
4. Not bad for your liver
5. Non-addictive.

Medically;
1. Relaxes stress.
2. Helps get someone hungry when it's necessary they eat after an operation.
3. calming for freaking out patients.

Compared to cigarettes.
1. NON-ADDICTIVE
2. Doesn't cause cancers.
3. Doesn't cut life span.
4. doesn't have poison in it.

Compared to dangerous drugs such as meth/coke/what-have-you.
1. No life threatening effects.
2. It's not a gateway drug.
3. cheap.
4. easy to make.
5. "Dangerous people" don't sell it.
6. Again, NON-ADDICTIVE.



People are already doing it, even if it's illegal. Why not just make their lives easier and make it legal? Not only economically does this make a whole lot of sense, it also gets rid of countless pointless crimes.

When america was founded, it was founded on the premises of laissez faire. People have a right to live their own lives. Laws were made biased on your life ruining others. Murder doesn't affect just you, it affects others, thus it's illegal. Stealing harms others, so that's illegal. Harming yourself is in no way shape or form dangerous to others. There's no point in making a law to protect citizens from themselves. If you're dumb enough to do something to yourself, it's your own damn fault. 'MERICA
(^^^^Important paragraph, if you skim at least read this)

Besides, how old are you? Are you just pissy cause you didn't get an invite to Woodstock? Everyone else should suffer?
Personally, I would compare marijuana today to moonshine back in prohibition. And it's not as bad for you!
Live a little and smoke one.

And before you start calling me a pothead, I've never tried it. For one, that'd be impossible with my drug tests. And two, I follow laws. I'm waiting for it to be legalized before I do that. Which I can see happening within the next few years, if not this one.
Try to actually answer this post instead of laughing and calling me a hippy. Try to look at what i said instead of fighting like the liberal you are and resorting to name calling.
Marijuana is addictive. So is refined sugar FWIW. The difference between marijuana and, say nicotine or opiates is that MJ is not physiologically addictive. The difference is that marijuana doesn't have the physical withdrawals that physiological dependency exhibits-- it's psychological. A marijuana addiction is like becoming addicted to sex or eating high sugar/fat foods. The addiction is to a chemical induced feeling. That's why so many can use marijuana a little and have no issues-- the same way you could have a cheeseburger, fries and shake and have no issue. Do that for days/weeks on end though, and watch out. You come to believe you need it. That's psychological dependency: a coping mechanism.

I think bob saget best alluded to what constitutes addiction; you willing to suck a dick to get a fix-- thats addiction! Although, I guess if one is addicted to sex, it doesn't really apply. :laugh2:

[cadet]

I'm starting a bet!

I bet that taft gives up on this thread completely because he realized he's a liberal against personal freedom!
Anyone else? :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

If he hasn't realized it before now...


;)

[jimnyc]

http://i.imgur.com/nWl1d4q.jpg

[tailfins]

Jimnyc. As an alcoholic. I remember being called a drunk. I earned it.

Those who use Marijuana are POT HEADS. Whether it's legal or not. That's what they are.

Thankfully both are topics I don't know much about. Some call it a psychological disease, others call it a vice. However being under the influence of either makes many activities dangerous.

[Robert A Whit]

Thankfully both are topics I don't know much about. Some call it a psychological disease, others call it a vice. However being under the influence of either makes many activities dangerous.

I don't believe that drinking booze or smoking pot makes one want to drive cars.

If one must leave a premise, drunks take a lot longer to recover than do those who smoked pot.

As we who defend guns, we also defend your right to harm only your own body. If you want to drink, you get no argument from me. I don't drink much at all. I have in the past drank but not to the point of ever needing or wanting to drink. It is fine with me if I drink or fine if i don't. I have no dog in that hunt.

I feel the same about pot. If you smoke it and do not cause me harm, I am fine with you smoking pot. Even if smoking it will kill you (I don't suspect it will) it is your body. Just do not harm others.

I trust pot smokers much more than those who drink. I have to check out how fast you re cover from smoking pot but believe the time is much shorter than for booze.

Smoking pot though is to get under the influence. One may drink but not drink to the point of being under the influence in any meaningful way. A beer over an hour won't do much if you plan to get drunk. A glass of wine over a long dinner should not hurt.

Turns out that congress got around to making laws covering this around 1970. There is no reason for the Feds to do this to citizens given that states already have that sort of control.

[Robert A Whit]

Robert says: Trying to be helpful since I believe in human freedom but feel you owe it to yourself to know what you are doing to your body, thus while supporting freedom, at least support this good advice or good account and you can get a hint of the advice.


I am a former or recovering marijuana addict, I consider myself an addict as I had to smoke at least an eighth of really strong weed a day, Which here in the UK we call skunk. Not only that but it had to be strong skunk, the kind I believe that you guys in the USA would call the chronic. I mention this because I have read that weed called skunk in America isn’t the really strong stuff, but low grade commercial strength. Well here in the UK the term skunk means the indoor hydroponically grown, loads of massive THC crystals, strongest you can buy stuff.
I went on like this for a few years, spending at least £600 a month on cannabis. So you could say I was a long term heavy user. I just couldn’t stop, the very idea of not smoking that much every day would send me into a panic. If I went too long without a spliff I would get a bit shaky and really desperate for a smoke.
Anyway after a few years of chronic marijuana addiction, it really started to rot my brain. My memory and cognitive ability really started to become affected. It became like I was in a constant daze, everything was always cloudy. In fact I have since discovered the unofficial term of brain fog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_fog Which best describes my symptoms. I knew cannabis was responsible for the decline in my mental state and mental health, it was starting to give me anxiety and depression as well, I knew it was damaging my brain, but I just could not stop. Things started to get really bad, so I did start to reduce the amount I smoked over a period of months. But the brain fog, depression and paranoia did not get any better, even when smoking a small amount my mental abilities were still really impaired, I was struggling really bad to think my thoughts in terms of words and language and couldn’t remember hardly anything. I felt like a living vegetable as if someone had removed 90% of my brain, trying to stumble about confused and in a constant cloud. I had to stop driving as I was no longer safe behind the wheel.
Any way I carried on like this for a while smoking only a very small amount at the end of the day, but gradually getting worse. Until one night I went to bed and woke up a few hours later in a state of panic, I was used to feeling high levels of anxiety and paranoia but this was something I had never felt before. My whole body felt really wrong, as though I was in some sort of state of shock. It’s almost impossible to describe but I felt really messed up, I didn’t know where to put myself. It was light outside so all I could do was go outside and try and walk it off. I walked around for hours still in a state of acute anxiety. After a good few hours I got back to a state, that was close to what normality had become, which was still very mentally ill and messed up. That was the last time that I smoked weed. Finally it had got to the stage where I was physically unable to smoke marijuana, due to the effect it had on my body. It was far more unpleasant to smoke it, than to go through the withdrawal of not.
Any way it’s been a few years now since I stopped, and I have recovered partially but not fully. I still feel like I am in a bit of a trance, I still feel like I am in a cloud of brain fog. My intelligence, memory and cognitive abilities are significantly poorer than before I started smoking cannabis. I still am no longer able to drive; I know I would not be safe on the road. I am in no doubt that skunk weed has caused me serious brain damage, from which I have never properly recovered. By the way it’s taken me ages to write this and if it weren’t for Microsoft’s word’s spelling and grammar check, I may as well have wrote it in Chinese. It’s also left me with serious mental health problems; the anxiety and depression are still pretty bad. It has made my ocd which I did have before smoking cannabis allot worse and I have also developed social phobia, I have often felt suicidal.
All I can say to any one experiencing any minor mental impairment or mental health problems, as a result of smoking cannabis is to stop now, the more you smoke the worse it will get. Brain damage is a serious thing, you only get one brain, and they can’t be transplanted or easily fixed once their damaged. And that’s not to mention the damage it has done to my lungs, which is also permanent. I used to think marijuana was the best thing in the world, I was so pro cannabis it was untrue, when I first started I thought it was harmless, now I know it’s one of the most harmful and dangerous, wolf in sheep’s clothing things, I have ever encountered as a young person, particularly as it’s so much stronger than it used to be. I have learnt the facts about marijuana the hard way. Richard



Thanks to Richard, this tale of woe is offered to the readers on this forum.

[taft2012]

No, my point is... Just because uncle sam says it's so, doesn't make it right. Don't blindly follow, that's not what being republican is about.

Yeah, because pot is legal all over the world.

Oh wait, never mind....

[aboutime]

Yeah, because pot is legal all over the world.

Oh wait, never mind....


taft. Is it just me, or do you see how cadet is somehow, probably unintentionally, telling us he disagree's with the Law? (Uncle Sam) And, despite his plans to become a member of the U.S. Air Force, in uniform. Laws, and Rules...seem to be something cadet may NOT be willing to follow, or accept...because he disagree's with them.
Let me know if you see the same thing.
As for you, cadet.
If you honestly have plans on serving Our Nation in Uniform. Bout time to pinch yourself now, and recognize. Your future could be very DIM...if you have such feelings about rules, and laws laid down by UNCLE SAM.

Just a word of advice.

[Missileman]

taft. Is it just me, or do you see how cadet is somehow, probably unintentionally, telling us he disagree's with the Law? (Uncle Sam) And, despite his plans to become a member of the U.S. Air Force, in uniform. Laws, and Rules...seem to be something cadet may NOT be willing to follow, or accept...because he disagree's with them.
Let me know if you see the same thing.
As for you, cadet.
If you honestly have plans on serving Our Nation in Uniform. Bout time to pinch yourself now, and recognize. Your future could be very DIM...if you have such feelings about rules, and laws laid down by UNCLE SAM.

Just a word of advice.

Cadet already said he has never done it and doesn't plan on doing any unless it's legal, and I'm pretty sure he means legal under the UCMJ since he sounds bright enough to understand those are the laws he'll be living under while in the military. He is entitled to express an opinion about whether pot should or shouldn't be legal. And should he wind up posted on the dark side of the moon, his future won't be nearly as DIM as some of the posters around here.

[aboutime]

Cadet already said he has never done it and doesn't plan on doing any unless it's legal, and I'm pretty sure he means legal under the UCMJ since he sounds bright enough to understand those are the laws he'll be living under while in the military. He is entitled to express an opinion about whether pot should or shouldn't be legal. And should he wind up posted on the dark side of the moon, his future won't be nearly as DIM as some of the posters around here.


Thanks. I agree. Take note of my last words to cadet. No disrespect intended to him, or you.

[cadet]

Yeah, because pot is legal all over the world.

Oh wait, never mind....

But is it right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? Doesn't that take away our God given freedom?
I want you to think on something. America was founded on questioning the law. It was founded on giving power to people and giving freedom to all to do as they please. (besides, you know, theft and murder)

So you're just going to blindly follow the leader because they must know better? You don't once question whether or not they have the ABILITY to ban it? They have just a few rules. In the constitution. Do they have the right to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body?

The gov't is blatantly breaking the law we set upon them. You're a former cop, right? Shouldn't that be punishable?

[taft2012]

But is it right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? Doesn't that take away our God given freedom?
I want you to think on something. America was founded on questioning the law. It was founded on giving power to people and giving freedom to all to do as they please. (besides, you know, theft and murder)

So you're just going to blindly follow the leader because they must know better? You don't once question whether or not they have the ABILITY to ban it? They have just a few rules. In the constitution. Do they have the right to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body?

The gov't is blatantly breaking the law we set upon them. You're a former cop, right? Shouldn't that be punishable?

Again, more evidence of liberalism amongst our pothead conservatives.

Just like our country strolled along for nearly 200 years believing laws against abortion were perfectly legal, and then one day a liberal judge decided "ZOMG! There's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have an abortion!"

Now these same geniuses say there is no right to ban substances, use of one's body for prostitution, gay marriage, incest, polygamy, ad infinitum....

It's a false premise that "the government" is banning these behaviors. It's "the people" passing these laws through their elected representatives. I am not "blindly" following "the leader", I am following the democratic will of the people. The people of this country are within their rights to have their collective will respected, notwithstanding an actual Constitutional violation.

[cadet]

Again, more evidence of liberalism amongst our pothead conservatives.

Just like our country strolled along for nearly 200 years believing laws against abortion were perfectly legal, and then one day a liberal judge decided "ZOMG! There's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have an abortion!"

Now these same geniuses say there is no right to ban substances, use of one's body for prostitution, gay marriage, incest, polygamy, ad infinitum....

It's a false premise that "the government" is banning these behaviors. It's "the people" passing these laws through their elected representatives. I am not "blindly" following "the leader", I am following the democratic will of the people. The people of this country are within their rights to have their collective will respected, notwithstanding an actual Constitutional violation.

Personal freedom. Gov't breaking the FEW laws that were set upon it. Here's a nice list of rules they've broken.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Schools. That's all I'm going to say.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We don't even HAVE a militia. And I'm not even going to get into how much the right has been infringed.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This one's a slap in the face. It seems to me that all the things the big guy can't do should be left to the state. When was the last time some sort of power was granted to the state? It seems to me that the united states is no longer a UNITED group of STATES. Instead, we're just a tyranny with uncle sam in charge. Less room for the people to get their word in, in their state.

The people don't hold any power anymore. They might be able to vote between one or two guys. But that's about it. The power needs spread back out to the states. So that the people can have their fare share of power of voice within their area.

[fj1200]

Again, more evidence of liberalism amongst our pothead conservatives.

:facepalm99:


Just like our country strolled along for nearly 200 years believing laws against abortion were perfectly legal, and then one day a liberal judge decided "ZOMG! There's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have an abortion!"

IIRC they just thought it was a state issue. Besides, if they were perfectly legal then no one would need to sue for their right to have one.


Now these same geniuses say there is no right to ban substances, use of one's body for prostitution, gay marriage, incest, polygamy, ad infinitum....

Don't really understand small government do you?


It's a false premise that "the government" is banning these behaviors. It's "the people" passing these laws through their elected representatives. I am not "blindly" following "the leader", I am following the democratic will of the people. The people of this country are within their rights to have their collective will respected, notwithstanding an actual Constitutional violation.

Interesting method of defending your liberalism. The people said it so it must be so. :rolleyes:

[taft2012]

Don't really understand small government do you?

The people said it so it must be so. :rolleyes:

Essentially, yes.

Let's break it down:

I say the Founding Fathers left it to the people to pass the laws under which they've be governed, with an intent the laws they passed would be acceptable so long as they did not violate Constitutionally protected rights.

You and the potheads argue that the Founding Fathers intended everyone to sit back and watch prostitution, abortions, substance abuse, and gay marriages carry on uninterrupted, and that the people have precisely zero ability to do anything about it.

Which do you think is closer to truth?

It's not me defending *my* liberalism.... it is you blindly following the false premise of Ron Paul and other pothead conservatives.

You label "the people" as "the government," as if there is no recourse to laws enacted. Of course there is a recourse, you're just in a drug-addled snit because you can't get your way.

[fj1200]

Essentially, yes.

Let's break it down:

I say the Founding Fathers left it to the people to pass the laws under which they've be governed, with an intent the laws they passed would be acceptable so long as they did not violate Constitutionally protected rights.

You and the potheads argue that the Founding Fathers intended everyone to sit back and watch prostitution, abortions, substance abuse, and gay marriages carry on uninterrupted, and that the people have precisely zero ability to do anything about it.

Which do you think is closer to truth?

It's not me defending *my* liberalism.... it is you blindly following the false premise of Ron Paul and other pothead conservatives.

You label "the people" as "the government," as if there is no recourse to laws enacted. Of course there is a recourse, you're just in a drug-addled snit because you can't get your way.

It was funny watching you twist your way through what you think is logic but then you got to the last part which made me spit coffee on my laptop.

I already know that you enjoy big government when it works to your advantage but the essential question which you choose to avoid is this; What should government do and what it should not do? Of course they left to government, states primarily, as to what should be done but that really isn't the issue.

[taft2012]

It was funny watching you twist your way through what you think is logic but then you got to the last part which made me spit coffee on my laptop.

I already know that you enjoy big government when it works to your advantage but the essential question which you choose to avoid is this; What should government do and what it should not do? Of course they left to government, states primarily, as to what should be done but that really isn't the issue.

What is your belly aching about?

What do you want? :rolleyes:

You say the people have the right to pass laws that don't infringe upon Constitutional rights, and then keep belly aching when they do it.

[aboutime]

What is your belly aching about?

What do you want? :rolleyes:

You say the people have the right to pass laws that don't infringe upon Constitutional rights, and then keep belly aching when they do it.


taft. Forget about trying to reason, or argue with fj. And, remember the meaning of those two letters here on DP are "Freakin Joke".

That just about covers everything fj brings here in a nutshell.

[Robert A Whit]

taft. Forget about trying to reason, or argue with fj. And, remember the meaning of those two letters here on DP are "Freakin Joke".

That just about covers everything fj brings here in a nutshell.

You picking on FJ or are you trying to get him into a brawl with you? You have this terrible habit of making your posts to be about posters. But hell, you won't stop. You hate topics but love to talk about posters.

[aboutime]

You picking on FJ or are you trying to get him into a brawl with you? You have this terrible habit of making your posts to be about posters. But hell, you won't stop. You hate topics but love to talk about posters.


Really? Was I talking to you? Was I talking about you? Do you want, and need me to talk to, and about you?

Are you lonely? Need somebody to argue with?

Tell me more.

[logroller]

Essentially, yes.

Let's break it down:

I say the Founding Fathers left it to the people to pass the laws under which they've be governed, with an intent the laws they passed would be acceptable so long as they did not violate Constitutionally protected rights.

You and the potheads argue that the Founding Fathers intended everyone to sit back and watch prostitution, abortions, substance abuse, and gay marriages carry on uninterrupted, and that the people have precisely zero ability to do anything about it.

Which do you think is closer to truth?

It's not me defending *my* liberalism.... it is you blindly following the false premise of Ron Paul and other pothead conservatives.

You label "the people" as "the government," as if there is no recourse to laws enacted. Of course there is a recourse, you're just in a drug-addled snit because you can't get your way.
I think the founding fathers intended the role of the federal government to be a check upon the overzealous will of any state; not to superimpose its zeal upon the states. Now perhaps the civil war marked a change, but nevertheless, that doesn't change what the founding fathers thought--see amendment X. And show me where exactly the power to ban substances was afforded to the federal government. It's not; that's why it was necessary to amend the constitution for prohibition. That failed, and was repealed. Several states have laws allowing for marijuana use, yet the Feds still enforce federal laws. So if you follow the will of the people, then wouldn't you say the will of the people is being violated and the federal government is in violation if the tenth amendment? You claim FJ is a snit because h can't get his way, but even when the populus votes to change the law, (several states have btw), its ignored by the federal government. the founders fathers had the foresight to limit to certain interstate disputes. Jefferson even said the states have a right to experiment without intervention from the feds. And before you go off about weed, it was wheat that set the precedent from which Feds claim authority over commerce. So are you against the right of the people to grow wheat and use it?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by taft2012 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=623205#post623205)

Essentially, yes.

Let's break it down:

I say the Founding Fathers left it to the people to pass the laws under which they've be governed, with an intent the laws they passed would be acceptable so long as they did not violate Constitutionally protected rights.

You and the potheads argue that the Founding Fathers intended everyone to sit back and watch prostitution, abortions, substance abuse, and gay marriages carry on uninterrupted, and that the people have precisely zero ability to do anything about it.

Which do you think is closer to truth?

It's not me defending *my* liberalism.... it is you blindly following the false premise of Ron Paul and other pothead conservatives.

You label "the people" as "the government," as if there is no recourse to laws enacted. Of course there is a recourse, you're just in a drug-addled snit because you can't get your way.




I think the founding fathers intended the role of the federal government to be a check upon the overzealous will of any state; not to superimpose its zeal upon the states. Now perhaps the civil war marked a change, but nevertheless, that doesn't change what the founding fathers thought--see amendment X. And show me where exactly the power to ban substances was afforded to the federal government. It's not; that's why it was necessary to amend the constitution for prohibition. That failed, and was repealed. Several states have laws allowing for marijuana use, yet the Feds still enforce federal laws. So if you follow the will of the people, then wouldn't you say the will of the people is being violated and the federal government is in violation if the tenth amendment? You claim FJ is a snit because h can't get his way, but even when the populus votes to change the law, (several states have btw), its ignored by the federal government. the founders fathers had the foresight to limit to certain interstate disputes. Jefferson even said the states have a right to experiment without intervention from the feds. And before you go off about weed, it was wheat that set the precedent from which Feds claim authority over commerce. So are you against the right of the people to grow wheat and use it?

If he ever gets down off that high horse and steps back down on earth, stops lying about your views or my views, will he try once to comprehend the actual structure of the US Constitution?

First part of the document. Explains to the Feds how they must operate.

Not one word about how states must operate.

Second part called the Bill of Rights. Provides more instructions to the Feds what they must and must not do.

Comments about states rights says the limits on the Feds are many (my interpration )and the rights of states are many. This means the states powers come first.

States indeed proved this by their own constitutions. Why would states need constitutions if the Feds were so powerful?

Smoking pot is legal in some states. The Feds can't stand it though nothing in founding documents says the Feds can break the backs of states to deal with citizens of states.

The Feds need to be slapped down. The SCOTUs is slow to act because unless some affected citizen steps up to bat the Feds down, (Roe v Wade for instance) the Feds will assume their powers run amok.

This is not about what you or I believe, but what is written.

As to prostitution, thus far, the Feds have not made rules. At least one state, Nevada, has prostitution legal in certain counties. Another non crime since many men and women have sex, many men pay through the nose even while married so what is new about sex paid for per services?

Taft says conservative but talks like a so called liberal. Actually, he talks like a Democrat.

[Robert A Whit]

Really? Was I talking to you? Was I talking about you? Do you want, and need me to talk to, and about you?

Are you lonely? Need somebody to argue with?

Tell me more.

So, you don't like what you do to FJ, myself and others to be done to you!!!!!!!!!

Maybe now you get it.

Give it a try. Stop your yapping about other posters. See if you feel a lot better.

[taft2012]

And show me where exactly the power to ban substances was afforded to the federal government. It's not;

Indeed? Please show me where that power is denied

[quote]You claim FJ is a snit because h can't get his way, but even when the populus votes to change the law[quote]

No, what I meant is that is that if legislation is enacted that displeases the people, the Constitution allows the people to replace that legislature and have that law repealed.

It was federal legislators who enacted the law, and so far the people have not sought fit to have that law overturned.

[fj1200]

What is your belly aching about?

What do you want? :rolleyes:

You say the people have the right to pass laws that don't infringe upon Constitutional rights, and then keep belly aching when they do it.

Maybe if I actually got around to using drugs your reasoning would make sense... possibly the real good stuff. Nevertheless, your logic states that prohibition was a good thing because it was passed. Clearly it was not.


taft. Forget about trying to reason, or argue with fj. And, remember the meaning of those two letters here on DP are "Freakin Joke".

That just about covers everything fj brings here in a nutshell.

Maybe if you actually grew a set you might have the temerity to engage in other than passive-aggressive BS.

[taft2012]

Maybe if I actually got around to using drugs your reasoning would make sense... possibly the real good stuff. Nevertheless, your logic states that prohibition was a good thing because it was passed. Clearly it was not.


I'm not saying if it is positive or negative.

It is what it is; the law.

Like most liberals, you attempt to twist laws you disagree with into some sort of Constitutional right, like abortion. You do this because you can't get what you want through the normal Constitutional process; legislative enactment.

Typical liberal. :rolleyes:

[Robert A Whit]

Were this country to have fallen to the Nazis, Mr. NY Cop would have been an outstanding storm trooper.

Inquiring minds want to know. Does he support any and all laws?

What law does he not support?

[fj1200]

I'm not saying if it is positive or negative.

It is what it is; the law.

Yes you are. With your ignorant assumptions (see below) of what everyone believes and misapplication of conservative/liberal tells us what you're saying.


Like most liberals, you attempt to twist laws you disagree with into some sort of Constitutional right, like abortion. You do this because you can't get what you want through the normal Constitutional process; legislative enactment.

Typical liberal. :rolleyes:

Please point out my liberal leanings; Many have tried and all have failed. You could start out by pointing to what I believe should be a "Constitutional right."

[cadet]

I'm not saying if it is positive or negative.

It is what it is; the law.

Did I mention that the Gov't has broken the law that was set upon them? Changing it may as well be the same thing. That's like, changing the rules during a childhood game. You just don't do that. And they've twisted the laws to their favor.


Like most liberals, you attempt to twist laws you disagree with into some sort of Constitutional right, like abortion. You do this because you can't get what you want through the normal Constitutional process; legislative enactment.

Typical liberal. :rolleyes:

Not one of us has said anything about twisting the law. We've been pointing out the OBVIOUSNESS of the rules that have been broken to pass legislation that not everyone agree's with. Obviously, with so many people fighting against certain laws, don't you realize that it's no longer the people's choice? The gov't has gotten FAR too powerful if they can tell me what I can and cannot do to MY body.

[taft2012]

Were this country to have fallen to the Nazis, Mr. NY Cop would have been an outstanding storm trooper.

Inquiring minds want to know. Does he support any and all laws?

What law does he not support?

Inquiring minds wonder why you're such a douchebag.

Really? Our country's laws enacted by popularly elected legislators is somehow equivalent to the Third Reich?

Crap on a cracker, you potheads are desperate.

[Robert A Whit]

Inquiring minds wonder why you're such a douchebag.

Really? Our country's laws enacted by popularly elected legislators is somehow equivalent to the Third Reich?

Crap on a cracker, you potheads are desperate.

Put in your request to be promoted above the douche bag.

Who knows, you might ba able to climb that far up if you work hard on it.

[taft2012]

Put in your request to be promoted above the douche bag.

Who knows, you might ba able to climb that far up if you work hard on it.

Perhaps.

But I won't be a douchebag in ladies' shoes and vintage nylons.:laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Maybe if I actually got around to using drugs your reasoning would make sense... possibly the real good stuff. Nevertheless, your logic states that prohibition was a good thing because it was passed. Clearly it was not.

Sure it was passed... :laugh:--Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Sure it was passed... :laugh:--Tyr

It was passed but he said it was not a good thing. Check out what he said again amigo.

[aboutime]

Maybe if I actually got around to using drugs your reasoning would make sense... possibly the real good stuff. Nevertheless, your logic states that prohibition was a good thing because it was passed. Clearly it was not.



Maybe if you actually grew a set you might have the temerity to engage in other than passive-aggressive BS.

fj. If your warm hands would get off of the set I have. That might be true.

[Robert A Whit]

fj. If your warm hands would get off of the set I have. That might be true.

Explain to the forum how his hands feel on your set? Oh yes, why do you let other men put their warm hands on your set?
Thanks.

[aboutime]

Explain to the forum how his hands feel on your set? Oh yes, why do you let other men put their warm hands on your set?
Thanks.

Sounds like you are jealous. Nuff said????

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=623406#post623406)

Explain to the forum how his hands feel on your set? Oh yes, why do you let other men put their warm hands on your set?
Thanks.






Sounds like you are jealous. Nuff said????

You make yourself sound stupid. But I expected that from you.

Diverting from you to me never has worked.

[aboutime]

You make yourself sound stupid. But I expected that from you.

Diverting from you to me never has worked.


Thank you Robert. That was my Impression of you. Pretty good likeness huh? That's the price of emulating you. Doesn't work very well. But is accurate.

[Robert A Whit]

Thank you Robert. That was my Impression of you. Pretty good likeness huh? That's the price of emulating you. Doesn't work very well. But is accurate.

You are welcome no name to act that way. I expected it. And of course you prove I am correct each time you post.

[aboutime]

You are welcome no name to act that way. I expected it. And of course you prove I am correct each time you post.





:) :)

[tailfins]

Inquiring minds wonder why you're such a douchebag.

Really? Our country's laws enacted by popularly elected legislators is somehow equivalent to the Third Reich?

Crap on a cracker, you potheads are desperate.


Thou doth protest too much, methinks.

[fj1200]

It was passed but he said it was not a good thing. Check out what he said again amigo.

Comprehension; clearly not his strong suit.


Sure it was passed... :laugh:--Tyr


... your logic states that prohibition was a good thing because it was passed. Clearly it was not.

[fj1200]

fj. If your warm hands would get off of the set I have. That might be true.

:dunno:

[taft2012]

It was passed but he said it was not a good thing. Check out what he said again amigo.

He was saying the US Constitution was amended to prohibit alcohol, with an implication that amendments are needed to ban any other substances .... a contention not upheld by judicial review for decades upon decades. In effect, little more than wishful thinking, probably brought on by an extended bong session.

I love the rationale here.... I'm a "rogue cop" because I don't selectively enforce and ignore laws according to the whims of potheads, and potheads are apparently a contemporary reincarnation of Paul Revere. :laugh2:

I dislike big government, but what I dislike even more are liberals who try to bastardize the US Constitution to get what they can not achieve through the legislative process.

[fj1200]

He was saying the US Constitution was amended to prohibit alcohol, with an implication that amendments are needed to ban any other substances .... a contention not upheld by judicial review for decades upon decades. In effect, little more than wishful thinking, probably brought on by an extended bong session.

Man you're bad at this. You reading implications into things is as bad as you proclaiming liberal and drug user at every turn.

[cadet]

He was saying the US Constitution was amended to prohibit alcohol, with an implication that amendments are needed to ban any other substances .... a contention not upheld by judicial review for decades upon decades. In effect, little more than wishful thinking, probably brought on by an extended bong session.

I love the rationale here.... I'm a "rogue cop" because I don't selectively enforce and ignore laws according to the whims of potheads, and potheads are apparently a contemporary reincarnation of Paul Revere. :laugh2:

Why should I follow the law if the Gov't isn't? You should be able to arrest all of them on accounts of anything.
http://www.wwco.com/~dda/criminals.php
Or you can get them for disobeying the constitution.


I dislike big government, but what I dislike even more are liberals who try to bastardize the US Constitution to get what they can not achieve through the legislative process.

The Gov't is doing just that with the rules placed upon them. The rules set upon them were set there to keep them from growing huge with power. Giving them the ability to change them on a whim is cause for us to worry.
Unless we put a stop to it now (should have done it back when FDR was in charge) they'll take over and be telling us what kind of toothpaste we have to use, for medical purposes.

[taft2012]

Not one of us has said anything about twisting the law. We've been pointing out the OBVIOUSNESS of the rules that have been broken to pass legislation that not everyone agree's with. Obviously, with so many people fighting against certain laws, don't you realize that it's no longer the people's choice? The gov't has gotten FAR too powerful if they can tell me what I can and cannot do to MY body.

I can tell you why:

Because when these substances consume your life, as they often do, you'll be the first one running to the government for welfare, government housing, and medical care. Then you'll be on the government tit for life.

"LOL! No way! I'm a libertarian and we're against that!"

Horsecrap. If you were really against welfare you'd address that cart before putting it before the legalized drug horse. But you won't, because in actuality you're a liberal, you want more government dependancy, and more dependent voters.

Not that removing welfare is a panacea to the problem. Before the huge welfare payouts, drug abuse lead to massive crime waves and urban decay to support the habits.

"LOL! No way! If the government legalizes it they can regulate it, and collect taxes!"

Yeah, small government. :rolleyes:

[taft2012]

Man you're bad at this. You reading implications into things is as bad as you proclaiming liberal and drug user at every turn.

So the point of mentioning it was....? :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

So the point of mentioning it was....? :rolleyes:

You're correct... sorry... stating the obvious... :rolleyes: That, and you attempting to interpret what I posted.

[taft2012]

You're correct... sorry... stating the obvious... :rolleyes: That, and you attempting to interpret what I posted.

Uh, yeah. I got some bad news for you....

You may think you're making a lot of sense, but to those amongst us who are sober you sound as addled as Robert's moving ode to fungus and rose bushes that can't see you.

[cadet]

I can tell you why:

Because when these substances consume your life, as they often do, you'll be the first one running to the government for welfare, government housing, and medical care. Then you'll be on the government tit for life.

"LOL! No way! I'm a libertarian and we're against that!"

How in the hell are you stupid enough to not realize that I've said PERSONAL FREEDOM AND LESS GOV'T INVOLVEMENT IN THE LIVES OF PEOPLE at almost every turn?


Horsecrap. If you were really against welfare you'd address that cart before putting it before the legalized drug horse. But you won't, because in actuality you're a liberal, you want more government dependancy, and more dependent voters.

Not sure about your logic on this one, because, as I've stated, I'm for Freedom.


Not that removing welfare is a panacea to the problem. Before the huge welfare payouts, drug abuse lead to massive crime waves and urban decay to support the habits.

"LOL! No way! If the government legalizes it they can regulate it, and collect taxes!"

Yeah, small government. :rolleyes:

Who the hell is pro tax? In my opinion, the less tax the more people have to spend and get the economy booming, quit making up shit and shoving it in my mouth. I haven't said any of that BULL CRAP!!!!

And drugs only cause crime if you make drugs a CRIME. Do you know what pot users do? Sit around on the couch and play mario cart. Because it causes one to relax and eat. You realize that cigars are worse then most drugs, right? Mainly because they effect the people around the user.
It's your life, and you should be able to fuck it up as much as you want without someone telling you what to do.
Believe it or not, but this country was made great by people realizing that they can do what they want with their life without some gov't official leaning over their shoulder.

[taft2012]

How in the hell are you stupid enough to not realize that I've said PERSONAL FREEDOM AND LESS GOV'T INVOLVEMENT IN THE LIVES OF PEOPLE at almost every turn?



Not sure about your logic on this one, because, as I've stated, I'm for Freedom.



Who the hell is pro tax? In my opinion, the less tax the more people have to spend and get the economy booming, quit making up shit and shoving it in my mouth. I haven't said any of that BULL CRAP!!!!

And drugs only cause crime if you make drugs a CRIME. Do you know what pot users do? Sit around on the couch and play mario cart. Because it causes one to relax and eat. You realize that cigars are worse then most drugs, right? Mainly because they effect the people around the user.
It's your life, and you should be able to fuck it up as much as you want without someone telling you what to do.
Believe it or not, but this country was made great by people realizing that they can do what they want with their life without some gov't official leaning over their shoulder.

Stop the bullshit.

Eliminate the welfare state first then come back and we can talk about legalizing your wacky weed.

Until that is taken care of first, anyone who wants to legalize the stuff is merely looking to expand the welfare state... because there's ZERO doubt that is what it will do.

[fj1200]

Uh, yeah. I got some bad news for you....

You may think you're making a lot of sense, but to those amongst us who are sober you sound as addled as Robert's moving ode to fungus and rose bushes that can't see you.

Man you're drunk on something. At least your unrivaled ability to jump to conclusions in here doesn't put anyone in jail. :slap:

[cadet]

And taft, learn to read.
I've got 7 pages telling you that I'm not a pothead liberal.

I've also got 7 pages telling you I'm for personal freedom, not sure how that clicks in your head saying I want big gov't.

I've got the entire site knowing that I'm a libertarian and am totally against gov't involvement.

I've told you countless times that people have the right to do what they want with their own body.

And I've got 7 pages of you saying the Gov't needs to tell us what we put in our body.



Either start reading the arguments before you post, or admit that you're a liberal and are trying to deter that fact by claiming others are.

[cadet]

Stop the bullshit.

Eliminate the welfare state first then come back and we can talk about legalizing your wacky weed.

Until that is taken care of first, anyone who wants to legalize the stuff is merely looking to expand the welfare state... because there's ZERO doubt that is what it will do.

You didn't even read it. WOW.

[cadet]

Stop the bullshit.

Eliminate the welfare state first then come back and we can talk about legalizing your wacky weed.

Until that is taken care of first, anyone who wants to legalize the stuff is merely looking to expand the welfare state... because there's ZERO doubt that is what it will do.

Raise your hands if you're pro-welfare/foodstamps/unemployment.............

...Oh I'm sorry, that's nobody here.



Honest question, how is it that you can type on your computer, if you obviously can't read?

[taft2012]

You didn't even read it. WOW.

Of course I read it. It's gibberish premised on bullshit.

.... unless I missed it somewhere in there where you said; "The welfare state has been eliminated. Now is the time for serious discussion of the legalization of marijuana and narcotics."

If you did say that, I apologize. Please point it out to me.

... and if you truly oppose the welfare state, why pass legislation that will do nothing other than balloon its enrollment?

Yeah, you're against "big government". :laugh:

[taft2012]

Raise your hands if you're pro-welfare/foodstamps/unemployment.............

...Oh I'm sorry, that's nobody here.



Honest question, how is it that you can type on your computer, if you obviously can't read?


Since you are clearly hypocritical, why is it such a stretch to conclude you're duplicitous as well?

You say over and over you're not a pothead, I don't believe you, and you get in a snit.

I say over and over I'm not in favor of big government. You don't believe me. My panties stand unwadded.

It's a fair trade off.

You're proposing repealing a law within a vacuum of consequences. Sorry, that's not the real world.... which is pretty much why libertarians have never been given any real position in the real world.

Not that I think you're a genuine libertarian, that is a rare breed.

You're a liberal, masquerading as a libertarian.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Man you're drunk on something. At least your unrivaled ability to jump to conclusions in here doesn't put anyone in jail. :slap:

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now who is jumping to a conclusion?
Having a loud and firm opinion on a topic does not in itself indicate intoxication .
If it did most of us would be drunk when posting such here which is clearly not the case. :poke:

[cadet]

Since you are clearly hypocritical, why is it such a stretch to conclude you're duplicitous as well?

You say over and over you're not a pothead, I don't believe you, and you get in a snit.

I say over and over I'm not in favor of big government. You don't believe me. My panties stand unwadded.

It's a fair trade off.

You're proposing repealing a law within a vacuum of consequences. Sorry, that's not the real world.... which is pretty much why libertarians have never been given any real position in the real world.

Not that I think you're a genuine libertarian, that is a rare breed.

You're a liberal, masquerading as a libertarian.

If you don't believe I mean what I write, then you obviously can't have a debate.
If you're not in favor of big government, why do you want the gov't to be able to say what you can do?

And an FYI, even though you won't believe me, I hate liberal ideology, and am all for a person gaining what they have through hard work. And I've not a pot head.

But I have to remember, you can't have a rational conversation with an idiot. So I'm done with the thread that you won't read. No point in debating something when you cant even have a rational conversation.

[cadet]

Of course I read it. It's gibberish premised on bullshit.

.... unless I missed it somewhere in there where you said; "The welfare state has been eliminated. Now is the time for serious discussion of the legalization of marijuana and narcotics."

If you did say that, I apologize. Please point it out to me.

... and if you truly oppose the welfare state, why pass legislation that will do nothing other than balloon its enrollment?

Yeah, you're against "big government". :laugh:

Take it or leave it jackass. I told you what I believe in, it's up to you to believe it.

But the point still stands. The gov't needs to pull itself out of daily life of the average joe. And needs less say in it. One last thing, it's a helicopter parent over it's citizens. I think we can agree on that.

[tailfins]

Since you are clearly hypocritical, why is it such a stretch to conclude you're duplicitous as well?

You say over and over you're not a pothead, I don't believe you, and you get in a snit.

I say over and over I'm not in favor of big government. You don't believe me. My panties stand unwadded.

It's a fair trade off.

You're proposing repealing a law within a vacuum of consequences. Sorry, that's not the real world.... which is pretty much why libertarians have never been given any real position in the real world.

Not that I think you're a genuine libertarian, that is a rare breed.

You're a liberal, masquerading as a libertarian.


Do you even understand the quote "Thou dost protest too much"? Think about it in terms of your fixation on potheads. Aren't potheads those things women use to get hot items out of the oven?

[fj1200]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now who is jumping to a conclusion?
Having a loud and firm opinion on a topic does not in itself indicate intoxication .
If it did most of us would be drunk when posting such here which is clearly not the case. :poke:

You're not really following the flow are you? He says he's sober I say he's drunk; it's a game where he jumps to unsupported conclusions and I turn it around on him. Besides, I said he was drunk on "something," leaving it wide open for him to assume what I think he is drunk on.

[logroller]

Indeed? Please show me where that power is denied

amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You claim FJ is a snit because h can't get his way, but even when the populus votes to change the law[quote]
[QUOTE=taft2012;623309]
No, what I meant is that is that if legislation is enacted that displeases the people, the Constitution allows the people to replace that legislature and have that law repealed.

It was federal legislators who enacted the law, and so far the people have not sought fit to have that law overturned.
Oh yeah; vote em out...maybe that'll make a difference. The congress that ignored their own commission's reports, for reasons that indicate their tendency only to further the usurpation of privacy and personal choice. I submit a Tax that's not a tax, but is. or just today, Ryan's "balanced" budget that is really just less in the red. Its all just a misinformation game, the people are just so overwhelmed by the idiocy of it all that reefer madness is relegated to the status quo in light of the latest and more pervasive invasions...nonetheless, many states have seen fit to listen to the voice of the people rather than the lobbies (PhRMA, law enforcement, etc) with their hands in the till. I suppose privacy and personal choice aren't all that marketable. As a congressman who runs on giving the people a choice to smoke pot isn't gonna get the PAC funding that building a new prison will. US Congress is no more responsive to the will of the people than a black hole is responsive to light; whatever blue/red shift the next cycle exhibits is just an illusion; merely indicating fom which area the power grab will take, not that power will be returned to the people. Congress is stupid. Time to restore the Republic by which We stand.

[fj1200]

Congress is stupid.

That it is.

[logroller]

You're not really following the flow are you? He says he's sober I say he's drunk; it's a game where he jumps to unsupported conclusions and I turn it around on him. Besides, I said he was drunk on "something," leaving it wide open for him to assume what I think he is drunk on.
"Something" like power me thinks; well played. . Apparently the broad brushing of those who disagree with him as potheads escapes Tyr's radar.

[Robert A Whit]

Perhaps.

But I won't be a douchebag in ladies' shoes and vintage nylons.:laugh:

Correct you are. I suspect you would be found at Victoria Secret.

You know, bub, you started this crap so any day that you wish to grow up and stop harassing several posters will find me being proper to you. Your call.

[aboutime]

Threads like this one directed at a member tends to remind me of another member who always accuses me, and other members of always talking about, and picking on him.

Then...I see WHICH MEMBER is making the most noise, and doing exactly what he accuses me, and others of doing. But he intends to remain Obamalike in his need for recognition, and VICTIM status as the poor guy who is being picked on all the time.

Kinda like that POT meeting KETTLE thingy.