ParanoiA

This actually explains everything for me. I respect your position and can see how you make the conclusions you make. Personally, I like capitalism, but then that's to be expected if life is good. The global economy is essentially capitalist. It's a free for all. It stands to reason we'd be pretty good at it. And it stands to reason we'd be resented for it. And your country is plenty successful at capitalism as well, in that regard. We know our politicians are rich. We practically require them to be. We also require them to be liars and cons since that's the only type of person who could be "perfect" to an american audience. We also know we do business all over the globe and war over our assets when necessary. It's unfortunate, but no matter what drives a given country's economy, the global one will require this for survival.

Ah, but the law, to me anyway, should be black and white. I'm using victimless in the context that you cannot be a victim to yourself. You can't commit a crime on yourself. Sure, in a manner of speaking you can, such as killing yourself. But, to me, killing yourself could mean not eating the right foods. Killing yourself to someone else could mean not taking vitamins. While to someone else, killing yourself only happens when you inflict visible bodily harm. I don't like that kind of gray area concerning my freedom. I don't think it's fair to judge what behavior is ok or not ok when someone isn't directly hurting the person or property of another. There's too much room to trample on basic civil rights - particularly rights you don't understand or have an interest in yourself. And civil rights matter. They don't matter to the ego driven arrogant that are quick to mention "you don't need" this or "you don't need" that, but they matter to me.

I appreciate your point actually, and agree, but I'm still trying to defend the fact that the act is victimless. Assuming behavior following other behavior as a basis to outlaw something is presumptuous. The theme of our constitution doesn't follow that line at all. That's a more recent development... That's true...good point. I still have to disagree since so many things contribute to someone commiting a crime. Their environment, how they were raised, a recent break up...not to mention there are an infinite number of catalysts to any direct crime - so what's the point? Anything you want or need in this world is subject to your commiting a crime to get - food, clothes, TV's and etc. That's doesn't automatically attach "crime" as a result of it. How many people steal for alcohol money? I once heard someone say it would cost under a dollar to make a 20 dollar rock if crack was legal. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, prostitutes have to sell their bodies non stop to pay for a habit like that. But would they if it only costs a dollar? How many satelite problems get dealt with when restoring our civil freedoms to do drugs? Well, I'm quite libertarian on this issue. I really can't distinguish pot from the rest and remain intellectually honest about it. I mean, sure, I will at least argue that pot is FAR safer than alcohol, so there is certainly no parity there. Pot doesn't intoxicate a user to the point of incapacitation - believe me, I've tried. Marijuana is such a milder intoxication, far easier to deal with and less intense than alcohol. Once you feel the booze, it's too late. But, in terms of the legal debate, it all falls under personal freedom. I don't believe anyone should have to prove the "safety" of something that only harms themselves. No "downstream behavior analysis" should be allowed to impede that. If I break a law and hurt someone, then punish me. Whatever I did that led up to that incident is for me to correct if I don't want to be punished again. Since most of us responsible drug users aren't going to change much, most of the criminal action will be where it's always been - robbing liquor stores and such. And now they'll have the newly freed up resources from victimless crime units being closed down. Then the only thing left for the criminal element is prostitution. Another victimless crime...

But you're still ASSUMING behavior after taking said drugs. I'm saying "taking drugs" is victimless. If you rape someone afterwards, then you are guilty of raping them - they are not the victim of drugs, they are the victim of a rape. If 100 of us take drugs and 90 of us watch southpark and 10 of us steal donuts, then how does drug taking assume a victim? 90 of us didn't do anything - we enjoyed ourselves. No victim. You're stuck on the 10 that broke the law and now assume that behavior in everyone - an incorrect assumption. The same kind of assumption that allows the KKK to thrive. A crime with a victim ALWAYS has a victim - not sometimes, or maybe. Drugs are victimless. People do stupid things on alcohol, and will do stupid things on drugs. People do stupid things for a ton of reasons, but we don't do a GWB and premptively strike it all out. We have a duty to require someone break a law before we assume they'll break it...geez. Most drug users are responsible people. You work with them and don't know it. When TV is your only source of drug knowledge, then you are quite skewed. I don't think you've gotten all of your knowledge from TV, but there are quite a few who do. Most, and I mean the major majority, of the anti-drug folk I've run across have never tried drugs - or maybe once in high school. They bought all of the hype from school, and they believe Law and Order is the norm...

I was being sarcastic. This has been our response every time people, mainly the democrats, criticize Iraq or anything else we're doing to fight back against terrorism. Nancy Pelosi and her followers seem to know all about how NOT to do it, but I haven't heard much on how they would do better. I even started a freaking thread on the subject to find out why, if it was even true, that democrats and the left don't seem to have any ideas to offer. But you cleared it up for me on another thread. Terrorism is just an irritation. They just end lives a little sooner than they otherwise would have been. When you consider how many people die each day, and are going to die each day, then suddenly murder, war, famine, disease - none of it really needs to be dealt with. As long as the daily dead limit hasn't been reached, there's no sense in risking more death to stop it.

Really? I guess I'm not surprised, but I hadn't heard that. I'm sure it's coming around the corner. Anytime you start messing with free speech, you're screwing with our democracy. It's hard to convince people of stuff like that when they let their emotions defeat logic and empower vocabulary rather than the human intent. You know...like how they say bullets kill people....

Oh cool. So you're actually advocating pacifism. Kill us all you want. As long as it doesn't go over 8000 a day, we're totally cool with it. Over 8000 a day, and then we have to consider the risk in fighting back - totally mathmatical. Humanitarian costs, completely irrelevant - just math. Who cares if this means they'll continue to kill us daily till the end of time - as long as the daily allotment hasn't been reached. Why are any of us bothering with any of this? Let's do the global math and use your logic there too. Maybe we all can just stop feeding each other, curing each other's medical woes, helping in times of catastrophe - because the daily limit of dead hasn't been reached so there's just no mathmatical sense in it huh?? We might lose more people trying to save people. How stupid is that? What in god's name has possibly led you to believe "it's fair to say they can't get it"? They can get it, and will get it with a nuclear Iran - probably will still get it without a nuclear Iran. With or without the bomb they are more than an irritation. Do I really need to go and paste the number of terrorist incidents solely against our own country? Including the irritable deaths? Yes, I do. I will be posting that as soon as I can get home to get the link. A rash is irritating, premature death is an abomination and should never be accepted by a society - ever. Or else, your next postion should be advocating how ethics and morality is worthless in your view. Yes you are. You did exactly that. They suffered to an "irritation". At least you were honest about your lack of regard for america and total respect for terrorism. Just read your posts. You have a lack of interest in dealing with terrorism. They haven't killed the daily quota you require to give a shit yet...

Because the examples you give are a result of drugs being illegal. There is no one getting shot over beer, dude. What about people who can't stop drinking and break the law to buy more alcohol? What about people who can't stop over eating and break the law to buy more food? Clothes? There are no victims because our constitution was drafted under the idea of your rights end where other's begin. You have a right to kill yourself with food, aspirin, mountain climbing, drugs and etc. I don't have a right to keep you from killing yourself doing these things. Period. One man's fun is another's sin. Too bad. I guarantee we can pick apart your life and outlaw half the stuff you love using the same mentality you use to condemn drugs. But, that's not a free country and we have strayed quite far away from personal responsibility. To really accept freedom, you have to accept that people are free to do stupid things. It's really that simple. Those accustomed to casting judgement on others, are so used to butting in everyone's business, the thought is unimaginable to them. Taking drugs is victimless. Just like mountain climbing. Just like parachuting. As far as people stealing to buy more drugs, you're connecting the dots again. Why do you insist on punishing those who haven't stolen anything? Do you realize that most drug users are legitimate wage earners and taxpayers? Don't assume everyone is a homeless addict wandering around committing random crimes to feed their addiction. That's TV. And that's about as stereotypical as it gets.

So what was doing it before we started fighting back? They seem to have developed quite a following seeing as how they practically owned an entire nation to themselves, before we even started shooting back. From what I can tell, there's plenty of fertilizer for them to pilfer through no matter what we do...

I think that's, in part, why we'll eventually win this thing. We have the unique ability to see mistakes and correct them. This goes from policy to tactical errors. We have no shame to keep us from admitting failures and responding as a cooperative group to correct them. Our military has done this for decades. But much of the extremist movement is aligned with god. God wills this and god wills that. They have no capacity to admit error and correct themselves - because that would be admitting failure in Allah, or in mission - mistakes and failure are frowned upon. That little thing is enough to give us the edge. And that's just one little thing. I'm worried about technological availability on the part of terrorists, but I have to realize that's always been the case. When the modern world moves to a new arsenol, the third world gets the old stuff. The old stuff now, of course, is pretty damn bad ass in my opinion so we'd better have some good counter stuff.

I've also been interested in the Japanese design. I like the idea of your punishment involving the actual people you commited the crime against. An electronic tether sounds like a good idea for non-violent offenses. I have infinite tolerance for victimless crime, as I simply don't believe in it. But I have equally infinite intolerance for violent crime - specifically murder and rape. I would like all of our victimeless crime resources to be diverted to this.

But that's what I mean about not knowing how to use the lingo. When I say someone is "bad ass", you have a decent idea of what I mean per the context. If it's a guitar competition, I'm probably saying this guy is really good. If it's a boxing match, I'm saying this guy is really tough and good at fighting. If it's a beauty contest, you might give me a funny look, but you'd know I meant well. I really think he was trying to say they looked bad ass, tough, mean, what have you and trying to use "edgy" lingo, that he isn't familiar with, in order to say it. Look, the black culture has glorified "pimps", "hoes" and etc and I've seen women call themselves "bitches" and so forth. I think he was just trying to take their cue and go with it. But he clearly doesn't understand what he's saying or how to use that language correctly. It should have gotten a funny look, maybe a jear from his sidekick, at the most and should have never been brought up again. It wasn't important in the least. It's funnier, to me, hearing him screw up cool talk. Kind of like hearing 40 something radio jocks try to sound "cool" to teenagers. It's hilarious...because it's pathetic. But Michael Richards actually used the forbidden N word. The almighty powerful word, that has more power and control over humans than....well the human's common sense apparently. I don't think Richards is a racist, but he did go the distance and get racial, even though I think the power of the N word is stupid and self defeating. To charge a word rather than intent is key to symbolism over substance. That's PC in a nutshell..in all of it's worthlessness. They didn't get trashed by Imus. He said something stupid trying to be funny. That doesn't trash them. They didn't even know until someone told them and made a stink about it. When you repeat something out of context, it makes it way more relevant and personal than the original intent. This remark was about as important and impacting as the remark about the clean floors. So, he's an idiot. He's an idiot that didn't spend the entire year trying to prove himself in basketball. He didn't beat anyone. He didn't fight the odds and bring home glory - Rutgers did. So why the hell is Imus getting their due? He's getting all of the attention instead of the Rutgers team. He didn't earn that. They did. I blame the people that are using the situation to blow it all up out of proportion so white people can continue to make asses of themselves to make people believe they're not racist and so black people can continue to make asses of themselves and jump on any racial issue that validates their perceived oppression. Those people should apologize for hijacking Rutger's moment of glory, and making an issue out of absolutely nothing. That's pathetic and shameful.

You're basically advocating taking away rights where we "believe" people can't be trusted to their rights - before they've done anything to deserve it. Then what's the point of rights in the first damn place if you're going to use that disclaimer to remove them. We can apply that same logic to food, the fair, rock climbing, hang gliding, parachuting...all of these things can get people to do things they wouldn't normally do, due to their excitement factor. Their judgement is going to be different free falling from 10,000 feet than when sitting calmly at the office. I'll bet I'd be more likely to commit manslaughter too, since, out of fear, I could grab onto another parachuter and cause him to die. That's judgement out of whack. Come on, that's a slippery slope if I've ever heard one and not very strong to support trampling on freedom and putting someone in jail for doing it. Someone's dad, mom, husband or wife - a caregiver of some kind. When you meet a kid who grew up without their dad, many in here can relate, and it turns out it's because he smoked a plant the rest of us don't agree with - I find it deplorable and shameful. Yes he broke a law. But I don't get prison for running a red light. Why should he? The government is clearly hypocritical on the issue - not consistent in the least. So, we know for a fact that people are spending years and years in prison, lives and families ruined, for using a drug that is safer than the legal alternative. We all know this, but we allow them to rot in prison anyway. We come up with goofy arguments to make it ok to jail a grown human being with dependents. That's sick. Drugs are a victimless crime. Period.

I didn't hear anything racist from Imus at all. He said something that sounded mean when not in context. When put into context, it's quite clear he was trying to be funny, using jargon he isn't knowledgable in, trying to say the Rutgers team looked tough, bad ass, or what not compared to the other team which looked soft and cuddley. It was an off-handed, meaningless, humorous remark that shouldn't be dwelled on in any capacity. Anyone offened should grow up and get over themselves. I would have told Sharpton to go f*ck himself. The only thing Imus did wrong was not using the lingo correctly. He should have been laughed at about it and made fun of on Saturday night live - I could imagine some hilarious skits involving the use of ebonics by white people incorrectly - old white people. Isn't there a southpark episode on that one?? Ann Coulter definitely gets controversial things going and I personally love it. I love it when anybody shows the hypocrisy of those who think they're holier than thou. The 9/11 widows is a perfect example. They want to do political commercials and align themselves on the political playing field, but then cry "foul" when they get criticized in the process. Just because you're a widow doesn't give you the right to practice politics with immunity. The rutgers team isn't practicing politics or spreading opinions in the media on anything, so they certainly didn't deserve to be trashed - which is why I challenge the motives of those that pursued this issue with Imus. Why ruin their success with this worthless comment that didn't earn any attention?? Why? That's who should be apologizing - not Imus.

Hehe...what are you talking about? Iraq? Terrorism? It fits, either way. Good point...

Oh please. Is the middle east guilty of anything? One thing bombus? So far, your whole viewpoint is centered on soundbite pesimism founded on baseless, blow hard hate america first philosophy. Do you have anything substative to back up your claims of war profits? So far all we have is a skyrocketing deficit and 3 dollar a gallon gasoline to show for it. Oil companies make money whether we're at war or not. Rich people can get rich a ton of ways easier than manipulating the US government. I know you don't believe that, because it's funner to just blame the US for everything. And you don't have to back up any of your conspiratory claims. You know, it's funny how people like to point out that half the world hates the US, but no one points out that it's only ONE part of that world that targets and kills civilians of that country. Why is it the rest of the world is expected to keep their heads, but the middle east gets a free pass? The prejudice on this globe is stifling... Oh, and Bombus, in case you forgot...the middle east is made up of governments that had no problem taking our money for presence as global marketing. The governments of those countries don't have a problem with profit. (While it might seem a little weird...profit actually isn't bad...it's just made bad by people who aren't any good at it).

Yes, they are soldiers of an enemy we are at war with. We are at war with those who target and kill masses of innocent people. We are war with those who protect or "harbor" those who target and kill masses of innocent people. Our fate should not be determined by technical jargon and verbiage, but rather common freaking sense. Gee, I'm so sorry they don't wear uniforms and officially represent country A, B or C. Sorry it all doesn't fit in your little box of pre-determined philosophical deductions. You're going to have to get your head out of the vocabularly and see this for what it is: Groups of murder clubs that target and murder innocent people to instill fear and hide behind nation states. That's what it is. You're points of view seem to ignore this fact, gloriously. What do you do when nation states can't and won't stop thier citizens from bombing other country's innocent citizens?? You do it for them...that's what you do. We agree on processing these people in gitmo, rather than letting them sit there. But quit acting like this is any less ethical than POW's of previous wars. A POW isn't afforded any rights - other than Geneva stuff. I wonder how many innocent people have gotten caught up in wars past...probably a horrifying percentage. Unless you're going to take issue with the entire concept of POW's, you really don't have much of an argument here. Pre 9/11 mentallity. How many people have to die before you quit acting like they're mere "pests" rather than the racist murderers that they are? They aren't misquitos dude. They're people with fanatic obsession with death and god and no life to refer to in reverance of anything good and decent - they get off on killing those you love and watching you cry about it. Even some of the non-terrorist civilians of those nation states enjoy watching you cry about it. I'll bet the thousands of people who died BEFORE 9/11 might take issue with your assesment of Al Queda's abilities. No nuke today - as far as we know (and we can't even find Bin Laden mind you....) - so that means no nuke tomorrow either? Duh... Of course fighting back pisses off the enemy more. If I walk up and punch you in the face and you hit me back, I'm going to get really pissed and hit you even harder and more. Does that mean you shouldn't fight back?? Does that mean fighting back won't work?? This is a tired, single level thought process point here. Of course they're going to use our actions to recruite more. Of course they're going to hit back even harder. That's to be expected. Same thing in WWII. We were getting our asses handed to us in the beginning when we started fighting back. The japanese fought back even harder. They stepped up their attacks and beat us in several battles before midway. And there you would have been huh? "We have to stop fighting the japanese, it's just fueling the hatred and motivation of their soldiers and civilians - that's all we've done and now nobody likes us anymore". This is why terrorism works on you. You would give in from the very beginning. They want you to think like you do - and you are. They want you to logically reason that it isn't worth it to fight them, and instead let them have their way.

You don't need a job - you need currency for trade. You get money by inheritance, lottery, labor, a business of some kind etc...in my opinion you don't have a right to squat. You have a right to pursue squat.

Sorry...I get a little worked up about the middle east being this innocent part of the world that the big mean US is kicking around...

You've nailed it. Rush won't accept calls from people comparing marijuana to alcohol for just that reason. He knows damn good and well you can't defend alcohol and keeping drugs illegal without being a total hypocrite. It doesn't hold water.

Who cares? I like pot. I like meth sometimes. I used to like LSD. I don't care who profits from it, I want to practice my freedom. Who profits from Doritos? Why would it matter if we were talking about making it illegal? You want to eliminate it. I don't. I like drugs. I want to purchase them - legally - where capitalism will do its thing and they will be better and cheaper. Consumer demand will help make them safer. You don't think there's any possible way to make a drug safe? We're not being duped and swindled into a drug "trap". We see all of the addiction and the effects of it before we ever do it. Not a single addict was under any impresson their drug wasn't addictive before they did it. So, I really don't care if they're making money. I'm more concerned with making it cheaper and better. Safety and drugs can happen, but only when the free market is allowed to work.

The same with alcohol. So now we're moving from "it's bad for you" to "you can't control yourself". This is what I call "connect the dots" legislation. Where you don't directly do anything wrong - but paranoid people who don't understand marijuana assume connections before they happen! I love it. If you're overweight, you obviously don't have the necessary judgement skills to control yourself, so how do I know you're not going to rob a bank? You can't control your actions, so... I know that's a stretch, but this indirect behavioral connectivity is pure BS. When you drink and hurt somebody, nobody gets away with it. You get in trouble for the damage. Period. I say let there be damage before you step in. That's what freedom is all about. That's how our laws are designed. Why all of the sudden do drugs change everything? Freedom isn't about cherry picking the stuff you don't like and making it illegal - because you're uncomfortable with it. Try thinking beyond yourself and consider that other people are just not like you and don't want to be you. They might like drugs, sex, speed metal, or they might prefer punch, a G rated movie and christian gospel...

Sure...why not? Shouldn't be required. What about pregnant women smoking and drinking? Mountain climbing? Heh..driving somewhere? Yeah, but get our drug czar to admit it... I really don't know why they don't get it by now. Is it as simple as human pride? Are our legislators too proud to admit it's not the national crisis they thought it was? Good point. There is no justification for trampling on my freedom to do stupid shit. Stupid shit is subjective when no other person or property is damaged. And we all have a basic human right to risk our own lives however we please for whatever reason we choose. Eating carries the same issues and you can't ban food, so at some point you have to admit that personal responsibility makes more sense than emboldening and inflating your ego into believing you should regulate them with law and jail them when they don't comply. I just don't have the gumption to assign myself that kind of judgemental superiority.

Use of force is a failure in diplomacy. Diplomacy takes two. Both sides win and lose. Look at WWII. We won that war, but we've lost so much as a result of it as well. Some of the problems we are dealing with today can be traced back to it. This is the case with all wars. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Hitler would talk to you all you wanted, while his army rolled over your country. In case you weren't covered in American history, we had a civil war too. The slaves were freed, the union preserved and the federal government had its way. It solved quite a few problems actually. I know you don't like it, but violence is human nature for a reason - it works. Sucks huh? It takes all concerned parties to do this. I humbly agree. Diplomacy and restraint has been exercised by the middle east, but not mutual respect. They've never respected us, and we don't respect misogynistic racists that call us infadels and compare us with the devil. And that's before we started getting bombed by their extremists. It's funny how we get lectured about how we should conduct ourselves, and how we should respect their culture and religion, how we need to tip toe around them but nobody sees the hypocrisy in their own conduct? The first impression I ever got about the middle east is that I was hated for my behavior. They don't like me because I sin, according to them. I'm a wallering pig of a sinner to them and they've been telling us that for decades. But we need to watch our conduct? We need to watch our step? Well, we will. Because we're not like them. And we have the unique ability to admit mistakes and correct them. We are not controlled by Halliburton or any other rich dude gang you've got fabricated in your mind. Geez, I've heard this conspiracy crap so many times I'm starting to wonder if facts mean anything to people anymore. Anyway, that's pre-packaged single level thought kind of stuff. Things are a little more complicated than your underdog vs "the man" fantasies...

You are impressivley optimistic. I hope you're right too. Despite the state of affairs in the world, I also believe we, as in humanity, are getting better. Evolution is a slow process, even when we try to accelerate it.