Ravage wrote:
"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107643101.909616.252560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
|
| Ravage wrote:
| > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1107628319.119845.15930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1107603314.965042.282490@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > | > <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | >
news:1107555265.273548.116310@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Ravage wrote:
| > | > | > | > "Mike Z. Helm" <mhelm@not.known> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > news:d6kvv09ne2hu6rg105f60ormeuc6hlnk0n@4ax.com...
| > | > | > | > | On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:19:49 -0700, "Ravage"
| > | > | > | <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | >"Mike Z. Helm" <mhelm@not.known> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > | >news:tgntv0p38rarjt468dld3fqclj511g2atq@4ax.com...
| > | > | > | > | >| On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:30:58 -0700, "Ravage"
| > | > | > | <ronsam-skipthis-@cox.net>
| > | > | > | > | >|
| > | > | > | > | >| >| >| You just helped to illustrate his point.
| > | > | > | > | >| >| >
| > | > | > | > | >| >| >What makes you think I disagreed with him?
| > | > | > | > | >| >|
| > | > | > | > | >| >| What makes you think I thought you did?
| > | > | > | > | >| >
| > | > | > | > | >| >What makes you think I thought you think I
thought
| you
| > | did?
| > | > | > | > | >|
| > | > | > | > | >| If this is what you're like when you're
(presumably)
| not
| > | on
| > | > | > | drugs, no
| > | > | > | > | >| wonder you're so afraid of them.
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | >I'm not afraid of drugs, Mike. I'm afraid of all
you
| > | idiots
| > | > | out
| > | > | > | there
| > | > | > | > who
| > | > | > | > | >have deluded yourselves into thinking you can
control
| your
| > | > | > | behavior when
| > | > | > | > | >you're on them.
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | Oh? Are you saying I can't control my behavior?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > If you are using illegal recreational drugs - putting
| your
| > | entire
| > | > | > | lifestyle
| > | > | > | > at risk - not to mention your wife, children, and
| extended
| > | family
| > | > | who
| > | > | > | will
| > | > | > | > have to come visit daddy in prison for the next 5
years
| if he
| > | > | gets
| > | > | > | caught -
| > | > | > | > you bet thats what I'm saying.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | But alcohol is OK?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Alcohol is legal - within certain boundaries. Understand
the
| > | > | difference?
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | Don't see why it is because it's just as much a mind
altering
| drug
| > | as
| > | > | cocaine is. Why is alcohol legal whereas other drugs
aren't?
| > | >
| > | > Excellent point - and a completely seperate argument. I'd
love
| to
| > | exchange
| > | > ideas on this with you in a brand new thread. Start it if
you
| like.
| > | My
| > | > short answer goes something like this: It has to do with
taxes
| and
| > | revenue
| > | > for the Federal Government as well as the lobbying power of
the
| > | Alcohol
| > | > Industry. Think about it. If you made whiskey, would you
want
| pot
| > | and coke
| > | > legal?
| > | >
| > |
| > | IOW, the drugs laws make *no sense* whatsoever. So why do you
| argue
| > | that they're right?
| >
| > I don't argue that they're right. I'm argueing that there is no
| > Constitutional mandate making the use of recreational drugs a
"Right"
| -
| > therefore the power to decide the issue resides with the States.
All
| you
| > need to do is get the laws rescinded in your state that make
| recreational
| > drugs illegal and *poof* - you get your way.
|
| Not really. Alaska is trying right now to legalize marijuana and
the
| Feds are doing everything they can to stop it. In fact, there are
| *federal* drug laws which means it's irrelevant if the State of
| Illinois makes it legal. The Feds can still charge me with their
drug
| crimes. Nice try, but you *don't know* anything how the game is
played
| in Washington.
Let's agree to talk about it in more detail once the State of
Illinois
chooses to make - lets say marijuana - perfectly legal (notice I
didn't say
decriminalized).
It'd be irrelevant with *federal* drug laws in place. Why are you such
a retarded fucker?
If the people of that State vote in such a manner and the Feds step
in to
userp the State's authority - I will absolutely support your position
in
this.
Since Mayor Daley said that the Chicago PD will no longer enforce
marijuana laws but the DEA still does over here, then I guess you've
got nothing left to agree with me.
|
| > I personally don't care what
| > drug you like to use - but as long as some of them are illegal, I
| support
| > the right of the State and of the People to control that behavior
| through
| > legislation.
| >
|
| Since the issue isn't up to the individual states, what you say is
| pretty irrelevant.
You can't say that. Name a State where recreational drug use has
been made
completely legal.
Alaska's trying to make marijuana legal and the Feds won't let them.
Just tell me if this simple concept is above your head.
|
| > Do you see the difference?
| >
|
| Nope. Alcohol is just as bad a mind-altering drug as anything
which is
| illegal.
You've already made the point yourself. Alcohol is legal. Other
drugs are
not.
Why? Outside of some *stupid* reasoning.
|
| > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | How is it I've managed to do so for as long as I
have?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > If you're usig illegal drugs, then its because you
| haven't
| > | gotten
| > | > | > | caught
| > | > | > | > yet. Besides, how do we know you're controlling it?
| Because
| > | > | someone
| > | > | > | who
| > | > | > | > assumes the moniker "Mike Helm" - DOB unknown, place
of
| > | residence
| > | > | > | unknown
| > | > | > | > says he's controlling it?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | What does it matter to you outside of the fact that the
| "drug
| > | war"
| > | > | > | (which you're losing, BTW) keeps you employed at the
| detriment
| > | to
| > | > | > | society at large?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > So you think if drugs were all legalized, everyone in law
| > | enforcement
| > | > | would
| > | > | > be out a job?
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | A significant portion of them would be. Which would be a
good
| > | thing,
| > | > | BTW.
| > | >
| > | > Maybe. Maybe not. I'd rather have them looking for
murderers
| and
| > | rapists
| > | > myself.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Then let's get rid of the truly *wasteful* and *pointless* war
on
| > | drugs. Even looking for murderers and rapists (always after
the
| act
| > | because it's pretty much impossible for them to stop it)
they're
| not
| > | that good.
| >
| > What's your alternative then? Private Security for everyone?
| >
|
| Notice that those who can afford it do just that. They don't rely
on
| the police to protect them because the police *can't* protect them.
My
| alternative is to make it clear that we're all responsible for our
own
| safety instead of lying to us and saying the police are there to do
it.
| They're not and in fact if you do help somebody else who's being
| attacked with force of your own, they're likely to charge you for a
| crime as well.
I can't dispute your position - except for the bit about being
charged with
a crime for coming to the aid of a person being victimized. As long
as you
are acting within the boundaries of the law and use only that amount
of
force which is deemed reasonable and prudent to stop the attack - I
doubt
seriously that you would be charged with anything.
You can doubt all you want, but people who act in viable self defense
go to prison. Especially people defending themselves against police
aggression.
|
| If your house or your neighbor's is on fire, there's no law from
| preventing you from putting it out nor trying until the
firefighters
| get there. If one of your fellow citizens is speeding in a
speedtrap
| and you signal to the oncoming car with your headlights to slow
down, a
| cop who catches you could very well charge you with "interfering
with a
| peace officer" or some such charge. But you were doing a good deed
by
| reducing crime. Cops don't like it when somebody else saves a
life.
| It makes them look as incompetent at doing it as they truly are.
This very issue came up recently. The courts ruled that by flashing
his
headlights to warn oncoming traffic, the motorist who was cited was
exercising his First Amendment Rights. The conviction was
overturned.
So? He still was placed under arrest, placed into custody, probably
stripped naked, and basically had to bribe to walk until trial. Then
the State convicted him. The fact they overturned it proves the
*obvious*: Cops hate it when somebody else tries to reduce crime
because they're so inept at doing so themselves.
|
| > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | Just because you're a bumbling idiot, doesn't mean
| anyone
| > | else
| > | > | is.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > I don't know what your definition of a bumbling idiot
is
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | I'd say you're the perfect example of it. In anyone's
| book.
| > | > | > | Too bad you're too much of a chickenshit that you have
to
| > | killfile
| > | > | > | anyone you can't best in rational argument. Par for
the
| course
| > | for
| > | > | a
| > | > | > | cop, most of whom are cowards of the worst kind.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I'm not a cop, "Bittpirate",
| > | > |
| > | > | But I'm sure you wish you were, don't you "Ravage"?
| > | >
| > | > Not really. I don't have the personality or temperment for
it.
| I
| > | think
| > | > people do and say things to police officers that they
wouldn't
| think
| > | of
| > | > saying or doing to Joe Blow out on the street because they
know a
| > | police
| > | > officer is extremely limited in how he is permitted to
respond.
| > |
| > | Never dealt with a police officer, have you? People say things
to
| > | police officers they wouldn't say to others because police
officers
| > | *do* things to them nobody else would. Namely abusing,
harrassing,
| > | terrorizing, and infringing upon the civil rights of the
general
| > | public. They get less abuse than they deserve and furthermore
have
|the
| > | means to take revenge on those who don't pay them their "due
| respect"
| > | to stroke their fragile egos. And then they're in charge of
| > | investigating their own abuses! Nobody else in civilian
society
| gets
| > | that kind of latitude. Nobody.
| >
| > No, I can't say that I've had that much contact with the police.
| What
| > contact I have had has always been very professional. Now I'm
| certain
| > they've got their problem employees - but who doesn't?
| >
|
| You don't seem to realize the difference, do you? A "problem
| employee", in say, a Wal Mart or even an insurance agency isn't
going
| to beat the living ***** out of hundreds of people who have been
| subdued, shake down common citizens for thousands of dollars, strip
| people naked and invade their privacy, and generally break the law
| thousands of times over a given career. And furthermore, if they
are
| violent, they're not allowed to investigate themselves. All cops,
deep
| down, are corrupt. They have decided to suspend their minds and
follow
| the impersonal "law", no matter how unjust and assinine it gets.
And you wonder why I think you're a criminal, RR?
Since when has it ever been criminal to speak out about the State's
double standard? Than again, a black person who knows that the
"Criminal Justice" System is automatically a "suspect" due to the
racial profiling going on in this country.
|
| > |
| > | >You talk to
| > | > me like that and I might be just as likely to shoot your
stupid
| *****
| > |
| > | Riiiiiight. In a Libertarian society, those who shoot for
simple
| > | insults would die fast. Nobody with a hothead would last for
long.
| >
| > That's exactly my point. When there are no repurcussions for
acting
| out in
| > violence to another persons transgressions, its amazing how
polite
| and civil
| > everyone becomes, isn't it?
| >
|
| This doesn't make sense. A person who poses a danger to everyone
else
| would be gone. At least it would be a consistent standard and done
by
| natural selection. People become polite and civil when they see
the
| person they are talking to as equal.
Equally capable of ending their life if things get out of hand,
perhaps...
If one initiates violence, chances are the community would get rid of
them one way or the other. No community would sit back and watch a
person who kills over words walk around. None.
|
| > |
| > | >- or at
| > | > the very least knock the cat ***** out of you and walk away
| without
| > | > repurcussion. If I was a police officer, I couldn't get away
| with
| > | that.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Sure you couldn't. They get away with it all the time. Even
the
| cases
| > | which are brought to light represent a small fraction of the
abuse
| they
| > | bring upon common citizens. What most people would go to
prison
| for
| > | life for they get to do every day with sanction. Because it's
| their
| > | job.
| >
| > Cite?
| >
|
| If you couldn't figure it out, why bother? Ask yourself this: Are
you
| allowed to take people off the street by *force*, imprision them in
| your home, strip them down naked and search their body cavities?
Are
| you allowed to do this? And if the people you do this to object,
would
| you then be allowed to taser or pepper spray them? Maybe shoot
them in
| the back and later claim "self defense"? Put a person in
handcuffs,
| get about 5 of your buddies around, and beat him because his "size
| imtimidated you" while you have all the weapons? And maybe so they
can
| get out of your basement, could you charge them a few thousand
dollars
| to buy their freedom back? No.
|
| You'd be charged with kidnapping in the first degree at the very
least
| which carries a significant amount of time in prison. Probably
false
| imprisonment, armed robbery, extortion, aggravated battery, and
| possibly rape (for the cavity search but sexual assault at the very
| least) along with a slew of misdemeanors. *Every* cop who arrests
a
| person who's later found not guilty (or even found innocent after
going
| to prison because a cop planted evidence, perjured testimony, or
beat a
| confession out of them), guilty of some nonsensical victimless
crime
| (drug possession), or does it to "teach a person with a smart mouth
a
| lesson" and falsely charges them does those things on a routine
basis.
| And when they're caught, they get to investigate themselves of
| wrongdoing! Yeah, they'll be honest. Uh-huh. And the sun rises
in
| the west too.
|
| The State wouldn't be able to punish you enough if you did it. Yet
it
| accepts these abuses when it's employees do it. And most people
never
| get outraged. Ever ask yourself why they have such a lower
standard?
I think you've got some serious personal issues, RR, that we're not
equipped
to help you with on Usenet. Seriously.
Your surrender has been accepted. I notice you've got nothing cogent
to say on the point.
But if you feel the whole system is corrupt then you should come up
with a
*viable* alternative and present that to your local government.
The government *is* the problem, not part of the solution.
| > | > | > but let me ask you a question -
| > | > | > You think this childish comment of yours constitutes an
| > | "argument"?
| > | > | > You really believe people that operate at your mental
| capacity
| > | > | deserve to be
| > | > | > responded to?
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | Why do you do it then?
| > | >
| > | > I'm hoping people can get back on track with the discussion
| instead
| > | of
| > | > trailing off on these silly personal attack side bars. This
is a
| > | discussion
| > | > about the legality of recreational drug use. It isn't about
you
| or
| > | me
| > | > personally.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Nonsense. You're not here for serious discussion about the
| legality of
| > | drug laws. You're an apologist for State oppression and attack
| anyone
| > | who doesn't bow down to it as "children."
| >
| > I'd say I'm more of a realist.
| >
|
| No, you're not. A realist realizes that the law is a bunch of crap
and
| knows full well that a government can *never* follow it's own laws.
No, a realist can spot a sociopath when that person makes themself
obvious.
You're starting to fit the bill.
I know you are, but what am I? Amazing how Libertarians are now
"sociopaths" but those who support the world's *largest* prison system
(i.e. America, the "home of the free") which destroys millions of lives
for no reason and contributes to violent crime, are not. Orwell would
be *ejaculating* in his pants to see such an example of doublespeak.
Well done.
|
| > For example. I'm thinking right now that if this whole issue of
| > recreational drug use was really that important to you, why are
you
| wasting
| > valuable tie on Usenet rather than marshalling the resources
| necessary to
| > get the laws changed in your community?
| >
|
| Why bother? The Federal Government has decided it doesn't matter
what
| my community thinks. It's big money for them to keep this
pointless
| "war on drugs" going and since they have all the guns, they'll
resort
| to violence to keep it that way. Just like how the government did
all
| it could with violence to keep them "uppity niggers" from demanding
| their civil rights during the 60's. The black community was 100%
| behind Fred Hampton during the 1960's yet the Chicago Police
Department
| executed him while he slept and later cleared itself of all
wrongdoing.
| Kind of like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
You made the point for me and didn't even recognize it, did you?
In your dreams, perhaps.
However, it was actually the "uppity" States who didn't want those
niggers
getting out of line. The Feds stepped in and enforced the Rights
those
people were entitled to under the Constitution.
Only *after* most white sympathized with the cause and it could no
longer be ignored. Europe even got in on the act and the Soviets used
it as propaganda against us. The Feds didn't bother for over a 100
years after the 13th Ammendment was passed. The "good old boy" system
in the South was out of sight and out of mind to the Federal Government
until them "uppity niggers" demanded their rights and white college
kids marched with them. You do realize that J. Edgar Hoover had a huge
FBI file on Martin Luther King and Civil Rights groups as "domestic
terrorists", don't you?
http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/assassins/ray/4.html?sect=24
http://pdr.autono.net/kinghit.html
In any case - Civil Protest
won out, and now you're screwed if you're a White man looking for a
level
playing field in this Country, aren't you?
Sorry, your white supremicist attitude that blacks are taking white
jobs doesn't wash. It's not even a "level" playing field when one
considers that black men represent 12.7% of Americans but are 48.2% of
those in lockdown. They also make up 42.5% of those on death row. Oh
yeah, blacks make up 15% of all drug abusers whereas whites make up
72%. But yet, blacks make up 36.8% of this country's drug arrests.
http://www.prisonactivist.org/factsheets/racism.pdf#search='us%20criminal%20justice%20system%20racism'
http://racerelations.about.com/library/weekly/blracedeathpenalty.htm
http://racerelations.about.com/od/raceandcriminaljustice/
http://www.aclunc.org/aclunews/news498/racism-justice.html
Of course, it's a "level" playing field for white boys like yourself
who have "friends who just happen to be black." Does your ignorance
have no bounds?
|
| > |
| > | > |
| > | > | > I don't often answer you for one reason, "Buttpirate" -
| because
| > | doing
| > | > | so
| > | > | > would be like getting into a "My dad's bigger than your
dad"
| > | argument
| > | > | with a
| > | > | > five year old.
| > | > |
| > | > | That's your explanation, but of course you and me both know
| that
| > | isn't
| > | > | the reason why you do it, "Ravage." You do it because you
| can't
| > | answer
| > | > | the argument. Now run away with your tail tucked between
your
| > | legs.
| > | >
| > | > You haven't made an argument, Buttpirate. You've launched
into
| > | childish
| > | > personal attacks.
| > |
| > | Of which a moron like you deserves. You're a retard and have
| proven it
| > | quite clearly in this thread. By extension, anyone who treats
you
| as
| > | anything other than a retard is acting in a retarded manner.
| There's
| > | no point in treating you seriously if you're going to handwave
all
| > | others as "pointless" or "children."
| >
| > lmao....
| >
| > Psssssstttt!
| >
| > I'm not the guy who doesn't understand how the government works
and
| am
| > sitting in a newsgroup spouting silly personal attacks thinking
this
| will
| > somehow make my illegal drugs legal.
| >
| > Am I?
|
| You're still retarded enough to believe that if I get local laws
| changed that I wouldn't be charged with a *federal* drug crime.
|
| If Usenet is so unimportant, then what are *you* doing here? I get
| entertainment by looking at loons like you get all "self-righteous"
| about how I resort to "silly" personal attacks while you slip one
in
| the back door. Irony, thy name is Usenet.
I'm not interested in changing the law. If drugs were made legal
today I
still wouldn't use them.
So what's the problem with punishing those who do?
Not because I'm better than anyone else, but
because I wouldn't want to risk becoming addicted to them. It's just
a
choice. It has nothing to do with being self righteous.
So what's your rationale for those laws?
.
