Charley Reese's Final column!

[Teahive]

MSimon's argument in this thread has nothing to do with the specific nature of the "except for". It could just as well refer to gun control.

[MSimon]

Educate yourself little boy.

You know this sort of ad hom strikes me as uncalled for. Little man.

I would take you seriously had you said something about this:

Yeah, well Republicans thought the 24th amendment was a good idea too. That decision is what is currently killing us.

Siging this. D finally came out and admitted he's not only racist but a plutarch as well. "Poll taxes" were tools used to suppress the voting rights of the population.

As you didn't, you don't have any moral high ground from which to preach at me.

This has nothing to do with the moral high ground. It has to do with my Moderation function. I have been asked by the blog owner to answer complaints.

And yes the bit you quoted is over the top. I take it you are making a complaint. I will have a word with the commenter. Here and now.

palladin9479,

tone it down.

[Diogenes]

Well.... He started it!!!!

[MSimon]

You know this sort of ad hom strikes me as uncalled for.

What is uncalled for is yet another thread has been driven off topic by the psychotic need to fight for drugs. It is completely uncalled for that our supposed moderator feels the freedom to subvert the contributions of every other member of this forum in order to pursue his own agenda. That is what is uncalled for.

I have two hats. I rarely wear the Moderator hat. This was on of those cases and I so stated.

BTW it is not a psychotic need to fight for drugs. It is a psychotic need to fight Big Government in ALL ITS FORMS.

I'm against Gun Prohibition too. In fact I'm consistent. I'm against all prohibitions. i.e. blaming substances for what humans do. It didn't work for alcohol prohibition. It is not working for drug prohibition.

Drug Prohibition is going down. It will likely take the Republican Party with it. I see another 1932 in your future. Too bad.

But given your support of a Progressive position (prohibition) I assume you will have no problem with progressives winning elections for a while.

Enemies of Progressives using a progressive position to help progressives win elections. The ironies abound and are truly delicious to contemplate. It is unkind of me to take delight in the pain of what are otherwise my friends on many issues. But there you have it.

I'm a small government absolutists. If it ain't in the Constitution the Federal Government can't do it. That is supposed to be the law. But I have no problem with Federal Prohibition if you can get a law passed. Are you passing out petitions? I'll sign in order to help bring the question to a vote. And of course I'll vote against it. And agitate against it as well. But I will help you bring the question to a vote. If you are a real Constitutionalist. Not many of them left.

So why do I harp on drugs - because it is the thin end of the wedge. If I can bring that down are the other alphabet agencies far behind? Once I get the DEA the FDA will be on my radar. And all the rest.

I oppose the legal drug cartels and the illegal drug cartels. By attacking the drug war I can strike a blow against them both. Economy of force.

[GIThruster]

You see what I mean? A 9 paragraph response, 8 of which are arguing for drugs, in a thread that has nothing to do with drugs.

Seriously simon, you need to grow up.

I think the thing leading to your obsession is you actually believe people find your arguments persuasive when in fact you are childish and stupid.

[MSimon]

Well.... He started it!!!!

Well you can't take the tone with everyone you do with me. Best you loge a complaint rather that fighting fire with fire.

As for me? Have at it. I have a VERY thick skin.

[Diogenes]

Well.... He started it!!!!

Well you can't take the tone with everyone you do with me. Best you loge a complaint rather that fighting fire with fire.

Eh? Lodging a complaint didn't seem to accomplish much last time I tried it. (and for the exact same offense) I figured sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander.

As for me? Have at it. I have a VERY thick skin.

As does anyone who is not a whinny little crybaby. Grown ups understand that this is the internet, and trolls are always at the other end of an anonymous keyboard. People who get worked up about other people typing at them ought to find a less stressful way to entertain themselves.


Anyways, I have a great deal of respect for you. I think you're nuts on some issues, but when you get off those issues, you are reasonably reasonable.

Some others? Not so much.

[MSimon]

You see what I mean? A 9 paragraph response, 8 of which are arguing for drugs, in a thread that has nothing to do with drugs.

Seriously simon, you need to grow up.

I think the thing leading to your obsession is you actually believe people find your arguments persuasive when in fact you are childish and stupid.

Well actually if you look at the stats - 10% favoring legalization 40 years ago and 50% favoring it now my arguments have been quite persuasive. And the numbers are still moving in my favor.

I don't expect to change your mind. But you are an excellent foil for my arguments.

So tell me where is the Constitutional authorization for Federal Drug Prohibition? Or that other Prohibition agency the FDA. And are you comfortable with the precedent that Prohibition provides for other prohibitions - for your own good of course. You have abandoned your Constitutional protections against your enemies in order to attack dopers. You have let the Constitution become an outmoded document. And complain when others advance that argument further. i.e. applying similar arguments to the 2nd. You would make your case stronger if you were consistent.

Time is on my side.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

I'm making sure the new generations are familiar with my points. Because I intend to win on them. And I am winning on them.

From "A Man For All Seasons"

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

[MSimon]

What is probable cause for a body cavity search these days?

Littering.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 33302.html

All to make sure no doper gets away.

Now it may not move you. But it is moving the general population.

An excerpt from this link - http://jezebel.com/5970201/texas-state- ... -littering:

According to reports, Farell asked the women if they had been smoking pot. When they said no, he searched the car and gave them a sobriety test, which the driver passed. The suit said he thought the women were "acting weird," which is why he asked Helleson to search the women's anuses and vaginas — again, ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD — as other vehicles passed by.

So probable cause is now "acting weird" in the opinion of the officer.

[hanelyp]

Over half the voters (presuming you trust the election) voted to reelect the worst president in this nations history. Half of those polled agreeing with a proposition is hardly reliable evidence of its validity.

[CKinCO]

Notably the House of Representatives, which happens to be Republican right now.

You're off a bit here. The House HAS submitted budgets to the Senate but they refuse to vote on them.

That being said, I would aree with throwing them all out!
Alas, I fear it is too late and the Economy has now way to recover except with a hard reset to the detriment of us all.

[MSimon]

You know this sort of ad hom strikes me as uncalled for.

What is uncalled for is yet another thread has been driven off topic by the psychotic need to fight for drugs. It is completely uncalled for that our supposed moderator feels the freedom to subvert the contributions of every other member of this forum in order to pursue his own agenda. That is what is uncalled for.

Well since you brought up the subject explicitly:

Medical Marijuana prohibition is a crime against humanity and a violation of the religious precept - heal the sick.

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/02/cb2/

[MSimon]

Notably the House of Representatives, which happens to be Republican right now.

You're off a bit here. The House HAS submitted budgets to the Senate but they refuse to vote on them.

That being said, I would aree with throwing them all out!
Alas, I fear it is too late and the Economy has now way to recover except with a hard reset to the detriment of us all.

You are confused. Or maybe I am. If the House doesn't control the budget why all the craziness about the debt limit?

[paperburn1]

Notably the House of Representatives, which happens to be Republican right now.

You're off a bit here. The House HAS submitted budgets to the Senate but they refuse to vote on them.

That being said, I would aree with throwing them all out!
Alas, I fear it is too late and the Economy has now way to recover except with a hard reset to the detriment of us all.

You are confused. Or maybe I am. If the House doesn't control the budget why all the craziness about the debt limit?

A good explanation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE