As the militarists love to
tell us, freedom isn’t free. What they don’t like to recognize is our freedoms
have suffered more from the narrow vision of reactionary and conservative government
policies than from terrorists or drugs.
Enter democracy, the last
tool Americans have in defending freedom. Citizen ballot initiatives have paved
the way for sane drug policies, along with the restored freedoms long suppressed
by the war on drugs.
Thank you democracy.
Meanwhile in less fortunate
states, run primarily by Republicans, we see the cruelty and insanity continue.
Texas Deputy Killed in Dawn No-Knock Drug Raid
How many more
casualties must be suffered in their war on sanity?
Not enough, apparently. More
will die. More will be imprisoned. More will lose the meager sustenance they
can muster. Republicans are doubling down on their class war by sticking it to
the unemployed:
Drug Tests Falter as Way for States to
Deny Public Aid
If signed by Gov. Rick Snyder, the Michigan bill would join drug-testing laws enacted this year in Kansas, Texas and North Carolina that try to navigate a delicate legal landscape.
If signed by Gov. Rick Snyder, the Michigan bill would join drug-testing laws enacted this year in Kansas, Texas and North Carolina that try to navigate a delicate legal landscape.
Taking it to the courts is a
long battle, but slowly progress is being made.
Federal Judge Throws Out Florida
Florida
Yeah, the same corpo-crook Rick Scott
who led his Columbia/HCA into fraud charges. But does he get to take a drug
test? Whatever for?
From Politifact:
Was Scott running Columbia/HCA when it found itself at the center of a
massive federal investigation? Yes.
Did the company pay a record $1.7 billion in government penalties and
fines? Yes, Columbia/HCA paid.
And as we checked in this item, did his former company commit fraud? Yes,
it pleaded guilty to fraud charges as part of a settlement.
With little to no help from Democrats, the war between democracy
and the Republican-led war on drugs continues.
We the people have a long road ahead.
Posts
148 comments:
I always laugh when Dave rails against the drug war.
I have to ask, what are the majority of people doing-time for in the jail/prison he guards? Answer: Drug crime.
Bottom line, most state prison systems are largely funded by grants of money from the federal government, and those grants are directly tied to the drug war.
So let us remember who on this blog is cashing a pay-check paid for with drug war money.
Its not you, its not me. It's Dave Dubya.
The reality is the United States has the highest percentage of population of any Western Nation in prison - and the vast majority of those incarcerated are there because of drug crime or violations of parole/probation tied to drug crime.
Were drugs decriminalized or better legalized - hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of inmates would be out of the prison system - and Dave here would likely be out of a job; as a result of the lost drug war grants and no more need for that many guards.
And I'm sure Dave knows this. It is after all, his business.
So I often chuckle when Dave complains about the drug war when its paying his bills. I laugh harder when he complains about how much money is made off the drug war- as he's a direct beneficiary of that money. And lastly, I laugh hardest when Dave complains about the authoritarian nature of drug laws - when he is the FINAL authority and eventuality of drug criminalization. He's the one that guards the drug "criminals."
If you really care about the Drug War, you need to vote Libertarian. The Libertarian Party is THE ONLY PARTY that supports the decriminalization of illegal drugs in America, and seeks to undo twisted law enforcement / tax complexes - the kind of which fund Dave's salary. Hundreds of billions are thrown away on this idiotic prohibition every year. We'd save taxpayers that money, so they could keep it for themselves. And if you chose to smoke dope with that savings... that's your business.
If Libertarians had their way - Dave here would likely lose his job. He'd wouldn't have any more users and dealers to guard anymore. That might be bad for Dave, but it would be good for America.
Vote Libertarian.
The "War on Drugs" is akin to the more recent Treasury eater, the "War on Terror". Both were initiated to serve the ever-expanding Industrial-Military-Surveillance Complex -- and both have had an adverse affect on our democratic freedoms.
By the way, the biggest pusher in the world is the CIA. The illicit drug trade has been their trump card in a good portion of their covert actions. Kennedy was right when he said, "I want to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." I wish he had had the chance.
Free0352: "The Libertarian Party is THE ONLY PARTY that supports the decriminalization of illegal drugs in America..."
As soon as the Libertarian Party includes the revocation of Corporate Personhood in their platform, I'll jump on the bandwagon. Until then, I'll settle for the illicit "War on Drugs". Corporate Personhood has created way more damage and destruction to our democratic freedoms. It's too bad your ideology hasn't figured that out.
Where are Free's Libertarian Koch brothers in all this. I bet they gave money to fellow corpo-crook Scott in Florida. They also support Rick the Prick Snyder in Michigan.
Too bad Free doesn't know what hypocrisy is. He and his heroes are full of it.
I always laugh when Free rails against me for profiting from the drug war.
He's wrong as usual.
I only worked in maximum security settings. You know, violent, psychotic, unpredictable behavior cases. Sort of like Free. Some people get a thrill in hurting others.
Not one of 'em was arrested for weed.
But then, Free is, after all, the expert in all matters. Even when he has no clue what he's babbling about.
That's why we love him. He reminds me of so many "clients".
Like Colorado's AMX (supermax) Dave? - Which is filled with drug dealers?
People don't magically go to a supermax facility. Most felons are sent to clearing house "Processioning Facilities" immediately after incarceration where they are categorized by the DOC and sent where appropriate. You go to supermax for violent behavior (or just pissing guards off on too many times) AFTER you have been incarcerated. One look at the inmate's sentences would reveal the majority of folks Dave guards are there for drug dealing.
It would repeat its self over and over. "Possession of controlled substance over X amount." What the "x" is varies by weight.
The answer to criminal justice in America for 30 years has been more bars, more jails, and more guards. This is to house drug criminals, who make up the OVERWHELMING population of American prisons. Dave can't suggest that most of his inmates are rapists and serial killers - because that is a numerical impossibility.
There can be no doubt what-so-ever that when it comes to drug laws in this country - there is only one party whose serious about addressing this problem.
The Libertarian Party.
Only one of these statements can be true:
Free: One look at the inmate's sentences would reveal the majority of folks Dave guards are there for drug dealing.
DD: Not one of 'em was arrested for weed.
Since Free has no clue where I work...AND Free has not had "one look" at anything he claims to know something about...therefore Free is wrong again. Just like a jailhouse lawyer.
With his standard I can say Free was probably a war criminal who must certainly have killed a non terrorist defending his country from foreign occupiers.
Dave Dubya: "Free was probably a war criminal who must certainly have killed a non terrorist defending his country from foreign occupiers."
My guess is that he was. He's the typical, swaggering, profile that doesn't give a shit about anybody but himself. I'm guessing that the probability is very high that he killed unarmed civilians -- for no other reason except that he could -- and could get away with it.
It seems that he, also, labels anybody that's defending his country, and his home, a "terrorist". Hmm, I wonder if he thought of the American revolutionists as "terrorists" also.
Since Free has no clue where I work
Why would I need to know exactly where you work? What jail/prison? Unless you live in a state where marijuana is now basically legal (which is a pretty recent development in only one state) there is a perfect certainty that they are there for drug dealing.
And Marijuana is a drug. No judge says "Well he only had five pounds of Marijuana - so we'll let that go." Nope. The judge gives the person time. Big time. And you know it.
More over, the DOC doesn't differentiate between cocaine dealers, meth dealers, heroin dealers, steroid dealers, prescription pill dealers, or marijuana dealers. They all go to the same cage.
I don't need to look at every single jail to look at crime statistics to learn that 80% of your inmates are in there for drug dealing. You don't need a law degree to read those Dave.
And you don't need one either to read a budget report. Jail funds come from grant funds. And those come from drug war grants from Uncle Sam.
Bottom line is - in all likelihood you'd be in the unemployment line without the drug war. And you know that.
So I'm astonished why you'd participate in a system you claim you are against?
That would be akin to me being against the Iraq war but reenlisting to fight in it. I'm curious, does the paycheck outweigh your morality check?
As for calling me a war criminal, more typical name calling from liberals on this blog instead of explaining why they cash drug war pay checks when they claim to be against the drug war. I mean... that doesn't hurt your credibility on the issue or anything...
Free0352: "As for calling me a war criminal, more typical name calling from liberals on this blog."
Once again, the pot calling the kettle black.
By the way, are you a war criminal? Have you ever killed unarmed civilians during any of your deployments?
Your desire to kill leads me to believe you might have. Did you?
Free, perhaps Dave's position in which he sees just who is being imprisoned for drug related crimes gives him a particularly good reason for arguing that the war on drugs has been a colossal failure. The fact that he may benefit from the existing system because it provides his employment does not automatically mean he sees that system as being perfect or that there are no changes that need to be made. Sometimes the keenest reformers come from inside a flawed system because they have the best grasp of what the problems are.
I'm a retired federal employee. I liked the work and I thought one of the agencies I worked for spent its money wisely. The other agency, however, had an extremely top heavy (and overpaid) management structure and did such a good job of wasting money you'd have thought they were contractors hauling pallet loads of cash to Iraq. As a taxpayer, I would have loved to seen a massive reduction in force at that agency even if it did cost me my own job in the end. Narrow self-interest doesn't always trump either idealism or altruism.
Nan and JG,
We know Free's just trying to antagonize me with empty charges and poor reasoning. It's what he does. Unlike Free, I was able to know what everyone was incarcerated for in my specific facility.
Not one was in for weed.
He thinks he knows better than I do, but that's his narcissistic personality disorder on display. What can we expect from a guy who STILL believes in "nuklular" aluminum tubes?
Say Free,
Didn't YOU work for the DOD? Isn't the military involved in drug interdiction?
How about that? In your view, we were partners in the drug war.
LOL!
You're being a hypocrite...again.
But thanks for the entertainment.
"Pot calling the kettle black", for the vocabulary-impaired, is being a hypocrite displaying his hypocrisy.
Have you ever killed unarmed civilians during any of your deployments?
Clearly I'm not in jail for war crimes. I'll just let you make up an answer as to my conduct while deployed. You will anyway.
We know Free's just trying to antagonize me with empty charges and poor reasoning
Its not an empty charge Dave. We ALL KNOW that 80% of those incarcerated are there for drug crime. Those are well known numbers. So here we have Dave doing more false accusations of lying to cover up the truth. That's not calling you names, that's advocating facts.
Not one was in for weed
How on earth is that a credible statement? Are you really telling me, that if a person in your state (I'm assuming here you work at a state prison- but this applies to federal ones too) if they were to be caught with say; 10 pounds of marijuana - that they would not get prison time?
Everyone reading this would understands that in most states this is a serious felony and would likely result in prison.
Where you work.
He thinks he knows better than I do
Its hardly me. Everyone is America knows dealing marijuana in bulk is a felony.
But why is marijuana so special? Does it have a special place in your heart? The drug war does indeed target marijuana - but it targets meth, cocaine and heroin much more so. Are you fine with dealers and users of these substances being targets of the drug war so long as your personal favorite marijuana isn't? If so, that's even more hypocrisy.
Either a person has a right to do drugs or they don't.
What can we expect from a guy who STILL believes in "nuklular" aluminum tubes?
Nailing Dave down on any one issue is like nailing jello to the wall. Leave it to him to bring up the Iraq war when we're talking about the DRUG war. But that's fine, if you want to continue explaining to us how you have no conception of how many American pilots would need to die before they would be allowed to fight back - I'm all ears.
Free,
I just want to take this opportunity to thank you, and your employer the Department of Defense, for your alliance in the war on drugs. ;-)
Its not an empty charge Dave. We ALL KNOW that 80% of those incarcerated are there for drug crime. Those are well known numbers.
Spectacularly wrong, as usual.
Looks like you're the lone expert again:
(Drug Offenders in US Prisons 2011)
Federal: On Dec. 31, 2011, there were 197,050 sentenced prisoners under federal jurisdiction. Of these, 94,600 were serving time for drug offenses, 14,900 for violent offenses, 10,700 for property offenses, and 69,000 for "public order" offenses (of which 22,100 were sentenced for immigration offenses, 29,800 for weapons offenses, and 17.100 for "other").
State: On Dec. 31, 2011, there were 1,341,804 sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction. Of these, 225,242 were serving time for drug offenses, 710,875 for violent offenses, 245,351 for property offenses, 141,803 for "public order" offenses (which include weapons, drunk driving, court offenses, commercialized vice, morals and decency offenses, liquor law violations, and other public-order offenses), and 18,534 for "other/unspecified".
Source:
Federal Data: Carson, E. Ann, and Sabol, William J., "Prisoners in 2011" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Dec. 2012), NCJ239808, Table 9, p. 9, and Table 11, 10.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p11.pdf
State Data:
Carson, E. Ann, and Golinelli, Daniela, "Prisoners in 2012 - Advance Counts" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2013), NCJ242467, Table 10, p. 11.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p12ac.pdf
Free0252: "Clearly I'm not in jail for war crimes."
That wasn't a definitive answer to my question. You only attempted to defect it. I'll ask again: Have you ever killed unarmed civilians during any of your deployments?
"I'll just let you make up an answer as to my conduct while deployed."
If you'd tell me, I wouldn't have to make up an answer.
Free0352 to Dave Dubya: "Everyone is America knows dealing marijuana in bulk is a felony."
Unless you're the military...or the CIA.
Oops!
That should have read "You only attempted to deflect it."
Didn't want anybody thinking that I'm as poor a speller as Free0352. ;-)
If you'd tell me, I wouldn't have to make up an answer.
Not only did I never harm a civilian, I was wounded trying to save one. On the whole, I don't like discussing that, because that is self aggrandizement even for me and the whole thing is frankly none of your business. Rest assured. I never once personally witnessed in 42 months of combat time one incident of a deliberate violation of the rules and articles of war as laid down by military policy and the Uniform Code of Military Justice on the part of US personnel. I did Iraqi allied forces, whom we promptly took into custody on all the occasions we saw stealing and other criminal actions on the part of Iraq's military and police.
It is the policy of the US Military to protect the innocent, and kill the enemy.
But Jeff here doesn't think so. On numerous occasions he's advocated for the Army to be disbanded and a majority (if not all) Soldiers charged with war crimes simply for participating in the GWOT. He has often said that the real enemy of the United States was its military (whom he accuses of perpetrating 9-11) and "corporations" whom he believes oversaw this imaginary plot.
Reader, you be the judge.
As for your "source" Dave, you got that off Drugwarfacts.0rg. I am familiar with them.
Those statistics are flawed.
Almost all crime in America today is somehow related to the illegal drug business, which wouldn't exist without the drug war.
But lets take your statistics as fat.
Then instead of my 80% figure, it would be 50%. In fact over 50%. If you jail is consistent with your own statistics - at least half your inmates that you guard are there for drug crime.
You should probably stop quoting things, because just like last post when you do this - it hurts your own point.
Bottom line - at least half of the folks in your jail are there for drug offenses according to your own numbers.
I'm maintaining its more. But Who cares. Both are egregious.
My only question, is why if you are so against this system, are you cashing a pay-check paid for by it?
and your employer the Department of Defense
I'm retired. My employer is not the department of defense anymore. When it was, its involvement in the drug war was very limited, and almost non-existent after 9-11 when the only drug busting we did was in Afghanistan (which I support to deny the Taliban money.)
Meanwhile, you've got authentic Americans in your jail for something you maintain isn't criminal? Thats astonishing.
Those statistics are flawed.
Better pull more out of your ass then.
You should probably stop quoting things
And follow your example? LOL!
My employer is not the department of defense anymore.
So you'll refuse veterans benefits and pension? Way to go! Take a stand. You'er a better man than me.
Free0352: "...because that is self aggrandizement even for me..."
Why start now?! Self aggrandizement never stopped you before! ;-)
"...and the whole thing is frankly none of your business."
Actually, it's very much my business.
"It is the policy of the US Military to protect the innocent, and kill the enemy."
It's also U.S. military policy not to rape subordinates. We've been hearing how well that works.
"But Jeff here doesn't think so. On numerous occasions he's advocated for the Army to be disbanded..."
Yes, and so did Thomas Jefferson. As mentioned several times on this blog, and specifically directed to you, he advocated that "no standing armies" should be included in the U.S. Constitution.
"He has often said that the real enemy of the United States was its military (whom he accuses of perpetrating 9-11)..."
I did? Please relate the specific quotation. I don't seem to recall that one.
"...and 'corporations' whom he believes oversaw this imaginary plot."
Nor that one. Please cite my specific quote.
"Reader, you be the judge."
And the jury, if you like -- something the alleged perpetrators of 9/11 never had the benefit of receiving -- "due process".
Better pull more out of your ass then
Even if we use your numbers Dave, my point still stands. Your quote helped my argument. If your jail is consistent with YOUR OWN STATISTICS - that means at least 50% of your inmates are there due to the drug war. So it stands to reason, if the Libertarian party can get drugs decriminalized your jail will loose 50% of its population... and therefore need 50% less guards. If there never was a drug war, there would be half the positions available at your jail. You'd likely be doing something else. My question is - if you are against the drug war why are you a warrior in it?
Why start now?! Self aggrandizement never stopped you before
Being a subject matter expert on a few topics is one thing - bragging about my military decorations is another. And speaking of them, they are none of your business - either about what they are or how I got them. Suffice it to say - I'm not a war criminal and to suggest so to avoid making an actual argument about whatever it is you're for is despicable. Not that anything every stopped you from being a despicable guy Jeff. Like when you've suggested the military is full of rapists. The rate of college rapists is higher - but I don't hear you indicting college students as war criminals and suggesting we disband America's education system.
And as for Jefferson, as I've pointed out before - you make this claim by a young Jefferson about disbanding armies and then ignore the older and wiser President Jefferson who ordered the American military - including ground forces - into Libya to fight the Islamic extremists of his day. You are aware that it was Jefferson's military who raised the first American flag over foreign soil right?
50%? You're a math wizard too, we see. Show us your calculations.
Whatever. It's too high.
As I told you before, I had my job way before your hero Reagan launched an unprecedented drug war.
And your Koch heros are more interested in busting unions than ending the drug war. Too many of their corporate cronies are profiting by it.
So you'll refuse veterans benefits and pension? Way to go! Take a stand. You're a better man than me.
So, fellow drug warrior, you haven't told us you're standing up for your principles and not accepting any more benefits from the biggest drug war machine of all. I hear the cops are getting all sorts of military equipment from the DOD.
Oh, and one more fact that bugs the hell out of you. Not one of the people I watched were in for weed.
I had my job way before your hero Reagan launched an unprecedented drug war.
Don't you mean Dick Nixon?
Just stop Dave, before you hurt yourself.
And your Koch heros are more interested in busting unions than ending the drug war
Must be why they gave money to the only two successful decriminalization efforts for marijuana in American history. Koch brothers, getting shit DONE.
And who say's Reagan is my hero? There you go again, just making stuff up. I thought on the whole he was a good President... but hero?
Dave, just stop before you hurt yourself.
So, fellow drug warrior
Why, because 30 years ago the military did counter narcotics? Haha, more false equivalency which is your hallmark Dave. Its 2014 now, not 1984. I wasn't in the military back then doing drug war shit, but you're doing it today.
When I WAS a drug warrior, I was a deputy sheriff, and I quit on principle.
Bet you won't have the same integrity.
Not one of the people I watched were in for weed.
Really? In your career stretching from beyond the Reagan administration you NEVER guarded ONE marijuana dealer?
Your credibility is collapsing by the second.
you NEVER guarded ONE marijuana dealer?
True. Not one was in for weed. I never worked the general population. Special cases on special units. Not to brag about my service, though. You understand.
Yes, Reagan.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war
Between 1973 and 1977, however, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession. In January 1977, President Jimmy Carter was inaugurated on a campaign platform that included marijuana decriminalization. In October 1977, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to decriminalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use.
Within just a few years, though, the tide had shifted.
The presidency of Ronald Reagan marked the start of a long period of skyrocketing rates of incarceration, largely thanks to his unprecedented expansion of the drug war. The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997.
So, fellow drug warrior, you haven't told us you're standing up for your principles and not accepting any more benefits from the biggest drug war machine of all. I hear the cops are getting all sorts of military equipment from the DOD. YOU and the drug cops are on the dole.
Free,
Whether Dave guarded a marijuana dealer has nothing to do with his stance on drug legalization.
Even when Dave posts articles you agree with, you disingenuously debate him.
You would be more entertaining if you tried to offer logical arguments instead of just trying to attack like a drooling dog.
You would have to practice sincerity, but once you were able to achieve it, discussions would be more fulfilling for all. Also, one of the reason you often get your butt kicked is that you refuse to argue what you believe for the reason you believe it. People who do debate genuinely are very tough to challenge, even when they are mistaken.
John,
Free has this thing about always wanting to make it about me.
I could say the sun is hot, and he would argue some irrelevant point like what color he thinks I believe heat is.
For him, it's all about lil ol me.
His beliefs are threatened, so he instead of attacking my facts, he attacks me. It's a classic Right Wing tactic.
Same old story.
John,
We can't all be great philosopher kings like you...
Dave,
It is kind of about you. More so about liberals at large. Its about liberal hypocrisy. Its hard to throw down your anti-drug war credentials when you are cashing a pay check specifically funded by federal tax dollars, earmarked to fund incarcerations tied to mandatory minimum sentences... all part and parcel of the drug war.
Who started the drug war? While I freely admit Reagan was a happy drug warrior who gleefully expanded counter narcotics in America and abroad (the greatest folly of his presidency) it all started under Nixon.
And that means you've been there for it every step of the way - for over 40 years...
That;s a big difference from some long forgotten military advisory missions to South America that happened before my time... in the 80s and 90s. Those missions frankly had more to do with countering communist insurgency (against groups like the FARQ) than it did battling drugs. Even our intelligence efforts against Pablo Escabar (which lead to his death) had more to do with his targeting of American allies than it did the drug trade. Hell, as Jeff pointed out - why would the military and CIA want to stop the drug trade? They were dealing...
So, if our military was there to stop south american communism - what's your excuse? Are there a lot of soviet agents in your prison?
So you didn't have one dope peddler (weed) in 40 years? Given your own statistics you gave - us that doesn't seem credible. But obviously not knowing (or wanting to know) what jail you work in I can't provide the stats to prove this is total bullshit. I guess we'll all just have to trust your prison is THE ONE in America that doesn't have a marijuana dealer in the maximum security wing. But hey, why limit the drug war to marijuana? Are cocaine, meth or heroin dealers any worse than marijuana dealers? I can't imagine you'll suggest next that you haven't guarded any of them these last four decades. Are you anti drug war or just pro weed?
It is the policy of the Libertarian Party to decriminalize all controlled substances. Its starting to seem you wouldn't agree to that stance.
.
Back to John,
Whether Dave guarded a marijuana dealer has nothing to do with his stance on drug legalization
It has everything to do with it. The only way he could be more of a drug warrior is if he were in the DEA. He comes into more daily contact with people doing time for participation in the drug trade than most police officers do.
And speaking of that, working in law enforcement is why I hold the stance I do. I like most Americans was soft on marijuana (but still thought it should be illegal - just not 'that bad' illegal and was generally for the drug war. That was prior to my work in LE. What I learned as a deputy was that the drug war is a giant government scam to make money off civil asset forfeiture. I saw it and got a very bad taste in my mouth. So I quit and went back to a noble cause of fighting Jihadists.
While I'm sure there are plenty of authentic dirt bags in Dave's jail, the statistics (including his own) tell us at least half of them are just guys trying to make a living or people trying to escape reality and/or have fun. Some drug addicts do indeed become dirt bags and go on to commit crimes. Some however don't. I see no reason to penalize those who don't let addiction or usage turn them into criminals because they may become those who do.
That's definitely what I saw our system do. Mostly to poor people. Heck, probably 1/3 of our legislators in D.C. are on cocaine right now. President Obama admits he did it (as did President Bush) - and yet he's the drug warrior in chief. That is an example of liberal hypocrisy - just like Dave's hypocrisy. And I'm not sorry to point it out.
I didn't want anything to do with that system... but he does. If he didn't, he wouldn't work there. Its easy to say you're against something - its quite another to act on your convictions. I did. I quit the department and made sure in my letter of resignation I articulated why - and the senseless drug war and civil asset forfeiture was one of the four reasons I outlined for the Sheriff why I was leaving.
As for whoever brought up the subject of surplus military equipment being sold to local police departments... I'd say its a better option than a junk yard. And I'm sure Dave would love the idea were there ever a riot in his prison the guards couldn't control and the state cops had to use armored vehicles to take the jail back via direct assault.
Especially if the inmates got hold of the offsite armory.
Free0352: "Suffice it to say - I'm not a war criminal and to suggest so to avoid making an actual argument about whatever it is you're for is despicable."
I only inquired as to whether you ever killed an unarmed civilian while deployed. Granted, I also posted my thoughts that I thought you probably had. Had you avoided my inquiry, I would have taken that as a yes. Since you didn't, and have stated publicly that you haven't, I'll have to take your word for it. But given your penchant for killing, I'm still doubtful. But only you would know for sure (unless somebody witnessed it). In the end, though, it's your conscience that has to live with it.
As far as what I'm for...isn't it obvious? I'm for truth and justice in all its forms, and that includes the accountability of those who have participated in war crimes, no matter their status and no matter whether military or civilian.
"Not that anything every stopped you from being a despicable guy Jeff."
Once again, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
It has just occurred to me that somehow my suggestion that you might be a war criminal has really set you off. I wonder why that is?
"Like when you've suggested the military is full of rapists."
I never suggested that everybody in the military is a rapist. I did equate the unusually high number of women in uniform claiming to be raped by fellow non-civilians -- some studies claiming almost 1 in 3 women -- to your statement about U.S. military policy and the protecting of the innocent. For some reason your statement, and reports surfacing about rape in the military, seemed incongruous.
"The rate of college rapists is higher - but I don't hear you indicting college students as war criminals..."
Although the rate of college rapists may be higher, my comparing that rate to your statement that U.S. military policy is to protect the innocent, would have been senseless. Don't you think?
Besides, why would I accuse college students of being "war criminals"? That would be senseless, also, don't you agree?
"And as for Jefferson, as I've pointed out before - you make this claim by a young Jefferson about disbanding armies and then ignore the older and wiser President Jefferson who ordered the American military - including ground forces - into Libya to fight the Islamic extremists of his day."
We've already had this discussion on Dave's last post, don't you remember? (Is your reading comprehension that poor, or are neurological problems starting to affect your memory due to the DU?) In a nutshell, let me recap: After the First Barbary War concluded, Jefferson did indeed reduce his standing army to just a fraction of what it used to be.
As far as comparing the "young" Jefferson's thoughts with those of the "older and wiser", let me offer this quotation from his presidential address to the nation:
“Our duty is… to act upon things as they are and to make a reasonable provision for whatever they may be. Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened instead of being reserved for what is really to take place.” ~6th Annual Message (1806)
President Obama admits he did it (as did President Bush) - and yet he's the drug warrior in chief. That is an example of liberal hypocrisy
Hypocrisy yes, liberal, no. Those are corporatists.
But your point tells us the drug war is political, and propelled by politicians.
So politicians and their pro-drug war corporate string pullers are the ones responsible for the war on drugs. THEY started it and THEY are responsible for it continuing.
I don't blame you for invading Iraq, I blame your hypocrite chickenhawk Decider.
But you want to blame me because you always want to blame me for everything. You benefit from the same DOD that's involved in drug interdiction and material support for law enforcement's war on drugs. Pot calling kettle black. It's your authoritarian nature.
Are you anti drug war or just pro weed?
Although this question makes no sense, I'll just say possession and use should be legal. Sales to minors should be illegal.
So tell us about your support for your governor and his party wanting to drug test and deny benefits to poor people.
Why was busting unions more important than sane drug policy?
Well? Perhaps your Kochs never threatened to "primary" anybody for drug testing without cause, only for not busting unions.
Your ideology is more about waging class warfare than ending the drug war.
The bottom line speaks. Follow the money.
Free on John Myste
//John,
We can't all be great philosopher kings like you...//
Now...if that is not the most intellectually stated rebuttal I have ever heard... ohohoh...but then
Free on Dave
//And who say's Reagan is my hero? There you go again, just making stuff up. I thought on the whole he was a good President... but hero?//
"THERE YOU GO AGAIN" was RR's favorite put down..his stamp of credence. Free does not recognise his own idolitry.
and yes... there are facilities in DOC that do NOT house criminals convicted of marijuana violations. I worked one, briefly, as information liason. Most at facility were convicted sex offenders or those deemed much to violent to be incarcerated in a general population institutions.
I can only read Free for the humor value of his disconnected rantings.
some of his shit is hilarious..
" instead of explaining why they cash drug war pay checks" re:DOC personel not quiting in mass.
I guess ALL law enforcement should quit, huh, especially if they ever exceed the speed limit, get drunk and drive or engage in ANY activity deemed illegal. shit.
but I really really reaLLY LIKED....was this gem.....
"And I'm sure Dave would love the idea were there ever a riot in his prison the guards couldn't control and the state cops had to use armored vehicles to take the jail back via direct assault.
Especially if the inmates got hold of the offsite armory."
the suggestion is... a)if inmates riot and take over a facility
b)they would immediately leave said location
c)find the OFF SITE armory
d)come back to same facility and engage in a war.
...the boy has read way to many comics.
Free...I truly hope you are using some of your government retirement benefits..GI benefits...disability benefits...or what ever Government aid you are recieving and get some comprehensive mental counseling. a course in rational thinking may be in order as well.
do get help. Now, excuse me. I want to go hide behind Rachael Maddow.
the boy has read way to many comics
If he's even read that much, I don't think he read anything after Ayn Rand. But he certainly is a comic book type character.
Free for the humor value
Indeed. I can't thank him enough.
Jeff
Although the rate of college rapists may be higher,
It is higher. And if you're going to argue that one of the reasons we should disband the military is rape, then why not apply that to colleges and disband them too?
I'm for truth and justice in all its forms,
No you're not. You're for wild conspiracy theories with no evidence, love to see those with whom you disagree bullied and destroyed, and want a system that would put 90% of Americans into poverty put into place. Not to mention, you're despicable because instead of making a logical point you instead throw out wild and insulting accusations like "war criminal."
I can do that too. I think you're a rapist - prove you're not Jeff. After all, you've told us you attended some college. I have just as much evidence as you have that I'm a war criminal. If you want fairness, that's fair and I'm holding you to the same standard you tried to hold me.
As for Jefferson, I'll be all for downsizing the military when we've defeated our enemies. We're not there yet. When Jefferson was in our situation, he sent in the Marines. Learn some damn history - and yes I remember this and it seems you still haven't learned any.
Hypocrisy yes, liberal, no. Those are corporatists.
And this is what Dave does. The minute you confront Dave with facts just how inconsistent and hypocritical his party is - he'll disown them till its convenient not to anymore. Bad news Dave, Obama is the liberal Democrat in chief, and its the Libertarian Party who is fighting to end the drug war.
Free does not recognise his own idolitry.
More typical Dave bullshit. He accuses me of worshiping Reagan - I clearly say I don't... and Dave screams "YES YOU DO" and stamps his little feet in a typical Dave hissy fit. No Dave - I don't worship Ronald Reagan. Deal with it.
I don't blame you for invading Iraq, I blame your hypocrite chickenhawk Decider.
And more ghosts from last post. More Dave calling GWB a chicken hawk when Dave here claims he "had more sense" that those who did serve during Vietnam. I said it before Dave and I'll say it again - before you get to denigrate someone's service you first have to serve yourself. You didn't, and in fact last post you mocked all who did during Vietnam by implying they didn't have sense... AKA were dumb. That is despicable but very typical of you. You're a guy that will mock how one man chose to serve his country but never had the guts to do it yourself. More Dave Dubya hypocrisy.
But you want to blame me because you always want to blame me for everything.
Blame you? For what you say yes, you are responsible for what comes out of your mouth and your actions.
The bottom line speaks. Follow the money
Okay, lets follow it. Its taken from tax payers, sent to DC, some of it is earmarked for the drug war, then sent to your DOC which puts it in your pocket on payday.
There, its been followed.
Free0352: "And if you're going to argue that one of the reasons we should disband the military is rape, then why not apply that to colleges and disband them too?"
My reasoning never alluded that the military should be "disbanded" because of the high incidence of rape. Where did you get that idea?
Dave Dubya and John Myste are right.
"You're for wild conspiracy theories with no evidence..."
You're not? The wildest conspiracy theory has been the one that was officially presented.
At least mine has real science behind it.
"...love to see those with whom you disagree bullied and destroyed..."
Do you feel bullied by me? ;-)
"...and want a system that would put 90% of Americans into poverty put into place."
You mean the corporate-state? Oh, no, you're mistaken. I've been arguing against the corporatocracy all along. You're the one that wants to make corporate power dominate over our democratic processes.
Don't you remember?
"Not to mention, you're despicable because instead of making a logical point..."
Once again, the pot calling the kettle black...
"I can do that too. I think you're a rapist - prove you're not Jeff."
That's easy. I'm honest, believe in justice and fairness, and disdain violence and killing.
Unlike you.
"After all, you've told us you attended some college."
No, you don't know whether I only went to high school, or whether I have a doctorate. I never revealed this.
Unlike you, I've never let my ego get in the way. You can't stop patting yourself on the back. That's your weakness.
"I have just as much evidence as you have that I'm a war criminal."
Does this mean you are a war criminal?
"As for Jefferson, I'll be all for downsizing the military when we've defeated our enemies."
Do you mean the enemies you've created?
"We're not there yet."
I know. There's are literally hundreds of sovereign countries left to invade and occupy.
I made a comment that turned out to be even more accurate than I thought at the time. Free missed this, so let me repeat it:
So tell us about your support for your governor and his party wanting to drug test and deny benefits to poor people.
Why was busting unions more important than sane drug policy?
Well? Perhaps your Kochs never threatened to "primary" anybody for drug testing without cause, only for not busting unions.
Your ideology is more about waging class warfare than ending the drug war.
The bottom line speaks. Follow the money.
Let's follow the money. Free and his heroes are hypocrites.
Koch has funded a group called the State Policy Network (SPN), an affiliation of state-based, free-market think tanks. One of SPN’s members, the Florida Foundation for Government Accountability, supports the law.
“The Koch brothers […] have been promoting forced drug tests for people on welfare,” Rachel Maddow said.
For more:
So tell us about your support for your governor and his party wanting to drug test and deny benefits to poor people.
Why have benefits to deny for any reason? Better to have an economy that actually works.
As for the Koch brothers - only Dave could link drug legalization with union busting. Getting Dave to stay on topic is like nailing jellow to a wall.
But speaking of Republicans - even the main stream GOP is getting with at least some steps to ending the drug war.
Too bad Too bad Democrats aren't despite the rhetoric.
Oh, and we followed the money Dave. At least the drug war money. A chunk of it ends up in your bank account.
And I'm still waiting on an answer - what is the difference between a cocaine dealer and a marijuana dealer? I can't seem to think of one, but it sounds like you have one. Why are we focusing on only Marijuana here? Do we want to end the drug war and decriminalize controlled substances or just legalize pot?
My reasoning never alluded that the military should be "disbanded" because of the high incidence of rape. Where did you get that idea
So just for the record, you're on board with standing armies now?
At least mine has real science behind it.
Everyone, please note that Jeff means 9-11 was an inside job. And Dave believes this also.
Just so we're clear what "science" means to these guys.
You can't stop patting yourself on the back. That's your weakness.
Your weakness is being a wild conspiracy theorist - which tells our nice readers just what they need to know about your credibility.
Do you mean the enemies you've created?
If you mean "created" by not converting to radical Islam: yes.
Oh wait, 9-11 was an inside job. You told us already...
Free0352: "So just for the record, you're on board with standing armies now?"
Truly, I believe the depleted uranium you've been exposed to (and had a hand in creating), has taken a toll on your neurological functions. I say this because this is just one example where you can't follow a thread's Q&A to a logical conclusion.
Once again, I'll repeat this for your obviously deteriorating mind: "My reasoning never alluded that the military should be 'disbanded' because of the high incidence of rape. Where did you get that idea?"
Please, if you can (and you can't), cite where I mentioned that standing armies should be disbanded because of the high incidence of rape. Please copy-and-paste what I wrote about this.
Your inability to follow a simple train of thought is fascinating!
"Everyone, please note that Jeff means 9-11 was an inside job."
This is just another example where -- because you can't disprove my allegations (and substantiate your position) -- you feel pressured to appeal to the masses ("argumentum ad populum") in order to feel validated.
As previously mentioned, the wildest conspiracy theory has been the one that was officially presented -- and you defend it because you're a tool of the corporate-state.
It's a classic example of the Chinese proverb, "three men make a tiger".
"Just so we're clear what 'science' means to these guys."
Science, or more specifically, Newton's 1st and 3rd Laws of Motion, prove that the Twin Towers couldn't have fallen as they did. Since these very basic laws of physics apply universally throughout our natural world, they can't be ignored or superseded.
Well...unless there was help.
Oh, but I forgot, you don't believe in science.
"Your weakness is being a wild conspiracy theorist - which tells our nice readers just what they need to know about your credibility."
Once again, another example of appealing to the masses due to your failure to be able to hold up your end of the argument...not to mention, the pot calling the kettle black.
"If you mean 'created' by not converting to radical Islam..."
No, I mean the enemies you've help create by invading sovereign countries, occupying their lands, killing and imprisoning innocents, and stealing their resources.
Those enemies...
So Free's a true believer in "nukular" aluminum tubes and all the Bush/Cheney lies. He's a true believer in the Conspiracy of Evil Climate Scientists. (Watch him join the pack and cite a winter cold snap as proof there's no negative climate consequences of air pollution.) And he's a hard core member of the Randroid Cult to boot.
Yeah, that's one mighty "black pot".
Free also believes the National Review is the Republican Party. It's founder William F. Buckley always supported saner drug policy. He even inhaled.
Nice try defending his party though.
The fact democrats are not working towards sane and compassionate drug policy is further proof they're corporatist and GOP light.
Once again, Free demonstrates his obsession with me rather than discussing my points.
I show a link to his heroes paying money to a group advocating drug testing without cause, something he seems to support, and he IGNORES IT!
Why was busting unions more important than sane drug policy?
Well? Perhaps the Kochs never threatened to "primary" anybody for drug testing without cause, only for not busting unions. His ideology is more about waging class warfare than ending the drug war.
The bottom line speaks. Follow the money.
Typical fake libertarian neo-con that he is. On top of that he benefits from the same government that prosecutes the drug war.
Hypocrite.
Jeff,
if you can (and you can't), cite where I mentioned that standing armies should be disbanded
Should the Untied States Army be disbanded - for any reason or reasons?
That is a simple question.
This is just another example where -- because you can't disprove my allegations (and substantiate your position) -- you feel pressured to appeal to the masses
I think 'the masses' - what an insulting term - should get to make the call.
and you defend it because you're a tool of the corporate-state.
I think I made it quite clear last post just how silly this line of thought is. As I said before, when you have Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, and Glenn Beck all agreeing on something - you can be sure there isn't any partisanship involved. This has been vetted to death, and every American who isn't a kook knows it. So lets be clear here - You are a 9-11 truther (and so is Dave) and all your ideas on national defense and foreign policy - not to mention all other policy - are colored by the belief that agents of the US Government were responsible for 9-11.
Oh, but I forgot, you don't believe in science
Just so everyone knows, Jeff believes 'science' proves 9-11 was an inside job. And yes, he's been shown all the evidence compiled by legitimate sources. He instead chooses illegitimate ones. He does not believe the US Military is engaged with its enemies, but that 9-11 was the false flag to as he put it - "I mean the enemies you've help create by invading sovereign countries, occupying their lands, killing and imprisoning innocents, and stealing their resources."
.
Dave,
So Free's a true believer in "nukular" aluminum tubes and all the Bush/Cheney lies. He's a true believer in the Conspiracy of Evil Climate Scientists. (Watch him join the pack and cite a winter cold snap as proof there's no negative climate consequences of air pollution.) And he's a hard core member of the Randroid Cult to boot.
I believe in the Congressional Authorization For Use Of Force Against Iraq and the Iraqi Liberation Act - to bills signed into law with bipartisan majorities by first a Democrat and then a Republican President. By the way, neither mentions aluminium tubes. That's only something you talk about.
But leave it to Dave to bring up the Iraq War when I mention that the Libertarian Party is THE ONLY PARTY working to end the drug war. Getting Dave to stay on topic is like nailing jello to a wall.
Free also believes the National Review is the Republican Party. It's founder William F. Buckley always supported saner drug policy. He even inhaled.
I believe W.F. Buckley is a well known and respected voice in Republican circles, and that many Republican leaders are coming around to the idea. Democrats have long claimed that they are - but their actions speak louder than their words.
Once again, Free demonstrates his obsession with me rather than discussing my points.
Well... you're a drug warrior claiming to wish to end the drug war. I find that astonishing. I'm wondering if you are not like the Democrat politicians I've linked about and mentioned, who say they are against the drug war but in reality they support it.
I show a link to his heroes paying money to a group advocating drug testing without cause, something he seems to support
I thought I'd answered that. I don't support welfare in the first place. Obviously if welfare were no more - we wouldn't have to drug test for it.
Why was busting unions more important than sane drug policy?
Please list the unions which have been "busted." I am not aware of a single union closure. If you are mentioning the passage of recent Michigan legislation that made it so workers were not required to join a union as part of accepting a job offer nor were they required to pay unions 'negotiation or representation fees' for negotiations and representation they didn't want - that is not union 'busting.' It simply allows workers to choose to be in the union or not.
This has nothing to do with drug policy. Getting Dave to stay on topic is like nailing jello to a wall.
Follow the money.
We did follow the money Dave, and some of it winds up in your pocket. THAT is hypocritical.
Typical fake libertarian neo-con
And there Dave goes. Looks like he's given up calling me Rush Limbaugh, but now its another label. NEOCON. That's what Dave does, instead of debating me, he tries to string me up as some straw man effigy.
Dave, I support a total withdrawal of US forces from Korea. Nobody who supports that is a 'neo-con.' But that's what Dave has to do to feel right in his own mind... debate some character he's made up instead of addressing facts. He has to falsely label and rapidly change subjects to avoid looking foolish.
And then when I call him on it, he cries like a four year old with a confiscated toy that I "make it all about him."
Free: More Dave calling GWB a chicken hawk when Dave here claims he "had more sense" that those who did serve during Vietnam. I said it before Dave and I'll say it again - before you get to denigrate someone's service you first have to serve yourself. You didn't, and in fact last post you mocked all who did during Vietnam by implying they didn't have sense... AKA were dumb.
Did I say anyone was dumb?
No they were drafted, had no choice, or they were believers who volunteered for the war, unlike your chickenhawk leaders. THEY I denigrate, and the other assholes who send people to wars for crony profit and political gain. I had sense to not volunteer. Many who did are dead. And for what? What sense did it make? Here’s you big chance to tell us what sense Vietnam made. Well?? Or are you afraid of the truth?
you get to denigrate someone's service you first have to serve yourself
No, that is just another of your accusations. Look at Iraq now. All fixed? Here’s you big chance to tell us what sense invading Iraq made. Well?? Can you show us, or would you rather be “dumb” and quietly ignore it?
How about this? Too chicken to look at the truth again?
I made a comment that turned out to be even more accurate than I thought at the time. Free missed this, so let me repeat it:
So tell us about your support for your governor and his party wanting to drug test and deny benefits to poor people.
Why was busting unions more important than sane drug policy?(“Right to Work for Less and Be Fired without Cause” is the first step in busting unions.)
Well? Perhaps your Kochs never threatened to "primary" anybody for drug testing without cause, only for not busting unions.
Your ideology is more about waging class warfare than ending the drug war.
The bottom line speaks. Follow the money.
Let's follow the money. Free and his heroes are hypocrites.
Koch has funded a group called the State Policy Network (SPN), an affiliation of state-based, free-market think tanks. One of SPN’s members, the Florida Foundation for Government Accountability, supports the law.
Run away Free, Run run run. You are afraid of the truth, as you hypocritically shill for the Kochs and their State Policy Network pushing for drug test without cause, as you take money and benefits from the biggest drug war machine of all time.
You are a coward. You can’t even look at, or acknowledge the lies your leaders told.
I believe in the Congressional Authorization For Use Of Force Against Iraq
Dodging the Bush/Cheney lies again.
Want to see the lies in the resolution again? Apparently you’re too chicken to have read them the last time I posted them. Your Resolution is your Bible. Full of lies and myths and propaganda.
Wow! Look all the 9-11 fear mongering. Tell us what Iraq had to do with 9-11 again.
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq ;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; ...the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States
Ooohh, scare us some more, why don’t you, oh infallible Bible of Free’s religion. I bet those “nuklular” aluminum tubes were proof of Iraq being “much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated”.
Scary lies to launch a war of aggression.
Did I say anyone was dumb?
Yes Dave. Vietnam veterans. When you said "I had more sense" than to go to Vietnam, you implied those who did lacked sense... as in they were stupid.
But you know this.
unlike your chickenhawk leaders
GWB served in the National Guard during Vietnam. This means he served during the Vietnam war - just not IN Vietnam. Where were you? Oh, off having more sense someplace. I forgot. Before you can denigrate GWB's service, you have to first serve yourself.
Tell us what Iraq had to do with 9-11 again.
I would have to tell you Iraq had something to do with 9-11 FIRST before I could tell it AGAIN. Since I did not, I'll decline. We already covered last post that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and no one from the Bush admin ever said that and when asked flat said Iraq was not involved.
That is Because Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We've covered that before last post at length... So here you are implying I claimed Iraq was responsible for 9-11 when it wasn't. I never said that, and neither did the Bush Admin. The only one implying anything, is you Dave.
that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons
True. Chemical weapons were found in Iraq after the invasion.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq
True. Members of Al'Qaeda were in Iraq prior to and after the invasion.
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
True. 9-11 underscored that terrorism was not a law enforcement issue, but a military one. Of course that is if you don't believe 9-11 was an inside job like you and Jeff do.
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction
True. Iraq used WMD on their own people, among others. They demonstrated their willingness to use it by... you know... using it.
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups
True. Iraq had a long relationship with Islamic Jihad - even paying suicide bomber's families. Islamic Jihad later merged with Al'Qaeda when it lost Iraqi support after we changed the regime.
requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001
Note here, it does NOT specifically mention Al'Qaeda, but international terrorism. Iraq was a clear sponsor of international terrorism.
I bet those “nuklular” aluminum tubes were proof of Iraq being
Never heard of it.
Of course, Dave - you don't also mention the Iraqi military firing on US troops over 4000 times, or it trying to assassinate a US President either...
And we already determined last post how you can't even imagine how many US troops would have to die before you'd be willing to fight a war so that our guys could shoot back.
So what is clear... is that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had never, nor had any intention of ever, complying with the 1991 cease fire it signed with our country. And what is further clear, is if you'd had your way, we'd have let them continue to flout it forever.
Even though common sense tells us when Iraq resumed fire, we should resume it also. I think its safe to call 4000 separate instances a "resumption of fire."
I guess GWB just wasn't willing to gamble with national security and the lives of US troops like you are. Which is probably why he got elected President and you have like four people who comment on your blog.
But I'm still wondering - What does any of this have to do with drug legalization?
... Which the Libertarian Party is the ONLY party to support...
Truth is, getting Dave to stay on his own topic is like nailing jello to the wall. Since you bring up the Iraq war on every post - from this on on the Drug War to posts about Dick Cheney's daughter and campaign finance - why not just rename this blog "Dave's never ending Iraq war rant." and just be done with it? Its your blog, talk about whatever you want. Just let us readers/commenters know what the actual subject of EVERY post is.
Run away Free, Run run run. You are afraid of the truth, as you hypocritically shill for the Kochs and their State Policy Network pushing for drug test without cause, as you take money and benefits from the biggest drug war machine of all time.
I'm sure I told you Dave. My assertion is we wouldn't need drug testing for welfare if we didn't have welfare. That is my position. As for the Koch brother's position on the issue, I don't have the first clue what it is... nor do I care. Kochs like all Americans are free to give money to whatever they want. If its on something we agree with - thats nice. If not, oh well.
Just remember, you're talking to Free0352 here, and my last name isn't Koch. I imagine there are a great many things the Koch bro's and I agree on, and many things we do not. I have no idea what they all are. What I do know, is that I am not a Koch brother. If you want to have a debate with them, have at it.
Free's still running from the truth.
Look at your first comment. It was all about me. I see my name at least 5 times in your blatant antagonizing. Typical authoritarian. And we see later how you really feel about the drug war.
What a true believer.
Stockpiles? No. Depleted remnants.
Al-Qaeda? No. From your link on Zarqawi:
In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda.
I'm alive because I had the sense to not go to Vietnam.
One more time, Big Tough Chicken, what sense did the Vietnam war make?
Iraq used WMD on their own people, among others. They demonstrated their willingness to use it by... you know... using it. Targeting AIDED BY THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION.
Yeah, we know. So when did Iraq use WMDs on us? Well? NEVER.
Note here, it does NOT specifically mention Al'Qaeda
Note here, IT DOES! You are a liar and a coward.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq
See it NOW?
My assertion is we wouldn't need drug testing for welfare if we didn't have welfare. That is my position. As for the Koch brother's position on the issue, I don't have the first clue what it is.
This is you dodging your hypocrisy. SO we NEED drug testing?
Hypocrite.
Yeah let's let the
"libertarian" Kochs run the show. More class war, more drug war.
Typical authoritarian.
Yes, libertarians are authoritarian because they want less government controls, regulations, laws, and police.
Doublethink.
Stockpiles? No. Depleted remnants.
Weren't supposed to have ANY. More than any, is breach of the 91 cease fire now isn't it?
In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda.
And in my same link it talks about how he was fighting for Al'Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2001. You don't read good do you?
I'm alive because I had the sense to not go to Vietnam.
Yes, because I'm sure you'd have died extra heroically in that war you didn't fight in...
Note here, IT DOES!
Only in the sense that it groups Al'Qaeda into the greater lump of international terrorist groups - of which it is.
Duh.
See it NOW?
I'd ask you the same thing, but you can't even figure out who blew up the Pentagon.
This is you dodging your hypocrisy. SO we NEED drug testing?
That would depend on for what? For welfare? I don't want welfare. Asking me if I want drug testing for welfare is like asking me if I want the doors on the concentration camp to be painted green or not. I don't care what color they are - because I don't want concentration camps. I don't care about drug testing for welfare, I'd rather not have welfare at all. I'd rather private charity did that.
Great. My assertion is we wouldn't need drug testing for welfare if we didn't have welfare.
So as long as we have safety nets we need drug testing. Thanks.
So what sense did the Vietnam War make? You forgot to enlighten us.
So as long as we have safety nets we need drug testing. Thanks
I did not say that. This is Dave again trying to build that straw man to argue with instead of me.
What I said was, who cares about welfare drug testing - I don't want welfare. I think that job should be done by private charity.
But Dave can't live with that answer, so instead he has to pretend I said something I didn't. Its like asking me what cabin I'd have liked on the Titanic. The answer is I wouldn't want any cabin, because I wouldn't want to be on the ship in the first place.
So what sense did the Vietnam War make?
What sense didn't it make? I have to defend the Vietnam war now? All I said is before you call a person a chicken hawk (Someone who sends others to war who himself would not have gone) you have to take into account that the person you so labeled actually did serve their country honorably at that time.
Its also hilarious that Dave will NEVER call welfare "welfare" but instead will call them "safety nets" because welfare has been so abused by those on it the name itself has taken on a negative connotation.
Just little ways Dave tries - and fails - to control the frame of a debate.
Truth is the 'safety nets' are really hammocks where people lay for generations. There are now people in this country who are on the third generation to NEVER have held a job or graduated high school. Everyone knows that, and that's what most people think of when the term 'welfare' is used - so Dave re-labels them safety nets because it sounds better. But really its the same old welfare queens on the same old dole.
And I don't care if they are drug tested or not. Just cut them off. Now. Then I don't care if they smoke a mountain of crack rocks - because Libertarians don't care what you put in your own body and we don't want to fund other people's lives with other people's money.
"So what sense did the Vietnam War make?"
What sense didn't it make?
Is that your answer? Then it would indeed be sensible to not go die there. Thank you.
who cares about welfare drug testing...
I do. Liberals do. Advocates for civil liberties do. Real libertarians do.
But not you.
If it's part of your fake "libertatian" Koch Cartel's agenda, you have no problem with it. As long as it happens to people you don't like, you don't care.
But every person who is against the war on drugs sees it as just more of the Right's class warfare. You far Right fanatics are the ones who first brought those violations of our Fourth Amendment, as well as the rights sacrificed to the war on terror.
My assertion is we wouldn't need drug testing for welfare if we didn't have welfare.
There it is, in your words. Since we have welfare, that damn General welfare in the Constitution, we need drug testing.
You show your support for class warfare and the drug war all in one statement.
Since you really like to make it about me, I'm sure you also don't care that I had to pass drug tests without cause just to keep my job. Something else to thank your party the Kochs support so much for.
Then it would indeed be sensible to not go die there. Thank you.
Something tells me you'd have had the 'sense' to find a nice, cushy REMF job. As for not going, you could have AT LEAST joined the National Guard just like GWB did. You served your country less than that - and yet you expect MORE from GWB. Hypocrisy.
As for why I'd have fought in Vietnam - when my country calls, I answer.
But not you.
Most libertarians are like me - and any you've met who fell for the bait you set out to argue for - what color doors on the concentration camp they're prefer are fools.
Libertarians don't support gross social welfare. The answer to the question of drug tests for social welfare isn't the merits of either testing or not testing - because the premise is bad. Welfare of any kind - for any one - is a bad idea and any form of its administration is equally wrong.
But I guess you could say I'm against it - in so much as if I had my way, there wouldn't be a single drug test to receive welfare - because there would be no one on welfare.
If it's part of your fake "libertatian" Koch Cartel's agenda,
Notice again Dave equates me with someone else to avoid debating me. First it was Rush Limbaugh, then 'Neocons' and now the Koch Brothers. Notice he can't just say free0352 he has to label. My naame isn't Koch Dave, its Free0352. I don't have a Koch agenda, I have my own. Try having a debate with me instead of the imaginary Koch brother in your mind.
every person who is against the war on drugs sees it as just more of the Right's class warfare
Both Democrats and Republicans 1are for the drug war. They both eagerly fund it. Only the Libertarian Party has a proven and consistent stance against the drug war.
since we have welfare, that damn General welfare in the Constitution, we need drug testing
Was the United States violating the Constitution for those 200 years we didn't have EBT cards LOL? You point here is just utterly laughable. There is NO mandate within the Constitution for re-distributive welfare pay outs. And you know that. This is you trying to bully me into saying something I don't believe and then throwing a hissy fit when I won't say what you want me to say. It feels like I'm arguing with a petulant child or a hysterical teen girl.
You show your support for class warfare and the drug war all in one statement.
No I don't.
"Free is FOR the drug war because he supports ending criminal prohibition on the possession of all controlled substances."
More Dave Doublethink.
Dave, YOU ARE SAYING I'M SAYING THAT. I am not.
I'm sure you also don't care that I had to pass drug tests without cause just to keep my job.
This should be interesting. Why do you think you should not have to take a drug test to keep your job? Also, define "implied consent" for me.
Also, you never got around to one of my questions. Why all the support for marijuana users and dealers but the silence on cocaine users and dealers? Is not cocaine part of the drug war? Do you support its legalization (as I do.)
when my country calls, I answer.
Yeah, we all heard that “my country, right or wrong” crap when we were called traitors for opposing senseless wars.
you could have AT LEAST joined the National Guard just like GWB did, but you didn't. You served your country less than that - and yet you expect MORE from GWB. Hypocrisy.
LOF’nL!!! You mean like your Big Dick Chickenhawk Cheney! The man who had “other priorities” you STILL trust and believe about nukular tubes? LOL. Or just me? Typical far Right double standards.
I don't have a Koch agenda
Another lie. You say you and they are both libertarian. You were at their tent in Lansing
Its both Democrat and Republicans who are for the drug war. They both eagerly fund it.
Sure, and the “libertarian” Kochs fund the drug war’s invasion of bodily fluids.
“Re-distributive welfare pay outs specifically” IS providing the general welfare. Even the Supreme Court has said so. Sorry your Bubble Cult can’t see that.
Welfare drug testing:
Right. You don’t care.
Notice again Dave equates me with someone... I parrot and agree with.
Why do you think you should not have to take a drug test to keep your job?
See, you ARE pro drug war after all. Why don’t you ask, “Why should there be drug tests period?” THAT would be what a true libertarian would ask.
You’re just another Right wing authoritarian who believes what we do with our bodies is the government’s, or a corporation’s, business.
Hypocrite.
y all the support for marijuana users and dealers but the silence on cocaine users and dealers?
The post was about marijuana reform. As for any other drug, possession or use should not lead to incarceration. Nor should it lead to job termination, as you support.
I would still outlaw sales to minors. How about you? Is schoolyard heroin and cocaine peddling ok for you?
Yeah, we all heard that “my country, right or wrong” crap when we were called traitors for opposing senseless wars
The problem with you Dave is you always seem to think our country is wrong. Even when terrorists from Afghanistan kill 3000 Americans and we got to war there over it. Not to mention when we go to war after Iraq shoots at our planes 4000 times and tries to assassinate a US President.
you STILL trust and believe about nukular tubes?
Dave, the only person who talks about 'nukular tubes' is you.
like your Big Dick Chickenhawk Cheney!
Perhaps I was trusting Hillary Clinton and a majority of Congressional Democrats... they voted for it too you know.
Another lie. You say you and they are both libertarian. You were at their tent in Lansing
Ah yes, because I agree on one issue I must then 100% agree on every issue without fail. Dude, do you hear yourself? I told you - I probably agree with the Koch Bros on many things, and likely disagree with them on many things. One thing I agreed with them on, was that Michigan workers should not be forced to join a union or pay a union fees for representation they didn't want. To be honest, beyond that issue I'm not sure what the Kochs positions on various issues are - nor do I care. If we happen to agree, great. If not, oh well.
Sure, and the “libertarian” Kochs fund the drug war’s invasion of bodily fluids.
Which nobody would have to worry about if we simply ended welfare and let private charity do that job.
Right. You don’t care.
No. I don't care. Its like asking me what color I want to paint the gates on the concentration camp. I don't care what color they are - I'd rather not have concentration camps at all.
Notice again Dave equates me with someone... I parrot and agree with.
No I don't. Once again this is Dave building up a straw man instead of addressing the facts of the debate. The initial point I made - which was that the Libertarian Party IS THE ONLY PARTY that advocates the end of prohibition on controlled substances and a total end to the drug war. He can't deny that, so instead he starts screaming about the Vietnam War and 'nukleur tubes' instead of admitting I'm correct about the Libertarian Party and that his support for ending the drug war seems dubious - what with his cashing a drug war pay-check.
Why do you think you should not have to take a drug test to keep your job?
See, you ARE pro drug war after all. Why don’t you ask, “Why should there be drug tests period?” THAT would be what a true libertarian would ask.
I simply asked why you shouldn't have to take drug screenings to be a prison guard. Instead of answering the question, you start blathering about what you think it really means to be Libertarian. You didn't even present an argument, you just threw another hissy fit.j
ou’re just another Right wing authoritarian
"Yes, Free0352 is authoritarian because he believes in fewer laws, fewer regulations and fewer police. He is also right wing because he's an atheist, believes in gay rights, and open boarders."
Doublethink.
The post was about marijuana reform.
Why limit it to that? Why is marijuana any different from any other drug?
As for any other drug, possession or use should not lead to incarceration.
What should it lead to?
Nor should it lead to job termination, as you support.
There you go again. I never said drug use should lead to job termination. Those words were never typed by me on any post. I simply asked you why you as a prison guard should not have to take a drug screen - and you threw a hissy fit.
I would still outlaw sales to minors.
As would I.
How about you? Is schoolyard heroin and cocaine peddling ok for you?
No, of course not. Heroin and cocaine should be regulated the same way alcohol and tobacco are. Adults have a right to do as they choose, children under 18 have not yet reached the age of consent yet - and cannot make decisions like that until they have reached an age of majority.
The problem with you Dave is you always seem to think our country is wrong..
And it has been wrong. The problem with you is you think you know what I think.
You forgot to tell us what sense the Vietnam War made. You also forgot to call your Big Chickenhawk Dick what you called me. He lied us into war and you believe him. He and you Decider lied about those tubes, otherwise why would I even bring them up?
He was in favor of the Vietnam War and you give him a pass and call me a hypocrite, for opposing the war.
Double standards of the radical Right.
Drug tests for everyone you don’t like, because you don’t care.
Why do you think you should not have to take a drug test to keep your job?
See, you ARE pro drug war after all. Why don’t you ask, “Why should there be drug tests period?” THAT would be what a true libertarian would ask.
Double standards of the “libertarian” radical Right
What interesting reading I just found!
Its always fun to catch you regurgitating someone whole. If you get to call me Rush, can I call your Rachel? LOL.
The problem with you is you think you know what I think.
Well I do know you don't know how many troops would have to die before you'd let them shoot back in Iraq, and you're not sure who blew up the Pentagon - and perhaps you aren't sure what this post is about since we've swung wildly between something about tubes and Vietnam.
But as I've said Rachel... Ahem! - I mean Dave- sorry... getting you to stay on topic is like nailing jello to a wall.
You forgot to tell us what sense the Vietnam War made
You're the one who had the "sense" not to go. Enlighten us as to what you knew that those who did go were too dense to figure out. As for me - When the VA polled the combat vets of Vietnam - 90% of them said they were proud of their service.
That's enough for me.
He was in favor of the Vietnam War and you give him a pass and call me a hypocrite, for opposing the war.
I'm not talking about opposition to or support for the Iraq or Vietnam war. GWB served. Calling him a Chickenhawk denigrates his service. You don't get to judge a serviceman's service, till you serve yourself. You haven't earned that right.
Drug tests for everyone you don’t like, because you don’t care.
Apparently the Kochs don't care either. But hey, if it makes you feel better to just randomly say things with no basis... you go ahead. Its your blog, and you seem to need to feel right awfully bad.
See, you ARE pro drug war after all.
"Free thinks all drugs should be legal. Free is pro drug war."
Doublethink.
Why don't you just stop now Dave?
You're going to hurt yourself.
Also dear readers please note - Dave answered exactly zero of my questions.
As usual. He feels uncomfortable answering questions.
DD:He (Cheney) was in favor of the Vietnam War and you give him a pass and call me a hypocrite, for opposing the war.
Free: I'm not talking about opposition to or support for the Iraq or Vietnam war. GWB served.
Jello.
DD:He (Cheney) was in favor of the Vietnam War
I did a google and lexus nexus search for was Dick Cheney in favor of the Vietnam War>
I also searched similar topics such as "Cheney support of Vietnam" and "Cheney called for war in Vietnam."
I got a lot of topics on his five deferments - but never one article suggesting he'd called for war in Vietnam then or after the war. The most I could get was from a NY Times article where he is quoted as saying:
"I think those who did in fact serve deserve to be honored for their service."
Wouldn't you agree? And-
Was it a noble cause? Yes, indeed, I think it was."
He said this after the war, and its hardly a blood thirsty call for a battle he wouldn't fight in.
So if a chicken hawk is a person who calls for a war they themselves won't fight in - if Cheney never advocated for the Vietnam war how is he a chicken hawk?
If by calling him a chicken hawk you are referencing his calls for war in Afghanistan and Iraq... I don't think our military would have taken on a 2nd Lt. Cheney what with the age and heart condition.
So I must say... I think your standard of "chicken hawk" is pretty much limited to people you don't like, and you throw that label with total disregard for circumstances or facts.
Which is typical of you.
Cheney admitted to a reporter, “I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service.”
But that's cool. I did too. But you condemn me for it? Why not him, Colonel?
It's called far Right Double standards.
“I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service.
So did you - as you yourself said.
But you condemn me for it? Why not him, Colonel?
Because Dick Cheney didn't call GWB - a man who DID serve during Vietnam (just not IN Vietnam) a chickenhawk. And you did. Dick knows you can't judge a Soldier's service till you yourself served. Dick said all those who did serve should be honored. You belittled a National Guardsman for serving. So that is a double standard. Your double standard. Of course before you can have double standards... you must first have standards at all.
And judging from your posts and comments Dave - you only have one. If you are a Republican - no insult should be withheld - belay the facts!
Why not him, Colonel?
BTW, I was a Non-Commissioned Officer. Colonels are Commissioned Officers. If you want to address me by my rank - you can call me Staff Sergeant.
You belittled a National Guardsman for serving.
First, not for his service, I belittle the Shrub and his Big Dick for avoiding the war. Second, that was the whole point of his being given a slot in the "Champagne Unit" of sons of well connected power-brokers. Third, I belittle him for dodging a physical that would have determined his likely cocaine use. Fourth, I belittle him for bailing out of his service early.
And fifth I belittle the assholes for their lies that sent thousands to their deaths.
My brother had none of these privileges while he was being shot at. He totally agrees that I was sensible for not going to that hellhole...Like your chickenhawks who avoided going to war.
From Your link:
So Maddow’s alleging that the Koch brothers run a sprawling and opaque funding apparatus that wields influence across the country? Yes, and a story by The Post’s Matea Gold earlier this week supplies ample corroboration for the point. “The political network spearheaded by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch has expanded into a far-reaching operation of unrivaled complexity, built around a maze of groups that cloaks its donors,” writes Gold. And if you don’t believe it, sample this graphic.
The fact remains the Kochs have given massive, often secret, support to the GOP, the party of drug testing.
Sorry, Colonel is just the rank of your arrogance.
I belittle the Shrub and his Big Dick for avoiding the war
So you're belittling a National Guardsman for no good reason, and Dick for doing what you did. I don't have a problem that either you or Cheney didn't serve in the military during Vietnam. What I do have a problem with - is you knocking a National Guardsman for no good reason and questioning that person for serving more than you were willing to do. As for Cheney - he isn't a chicken hawk because he wasn't demanding a war he wasn't willing to fight in. You've got nothing to show that good old Dick ever said anything about the Vietnam war other than he didn't want to go - same as you. In fact he did more than you, saying those who did serve should be honored. You said they lacked sense.
Hypocritical and despicable. And as long as we're comparing family who served in Vietnam, my father, uncle and GRANDFATHER would have disagreed. They were proud of their service in Vietnam 100% - and every one of them served in a combat arms MOS.
You can only morally judge GWB's service only after you yourself served. Period.
The fact remains the Kochs have given massive, often secret, support to the GOP, the party of drug testing.
No they didn't Rachel... Ahem - I mean Dave. My link clearly showed they did no such thing.
Even Mother Jones uber left columnist Daniel Schulman said -
[From my link above]
The Kochs have certainly supported the State Policy Network and some of its think-tank affiliates. But I haven’t seen evidence that they have directly funded the Foundation for Government Accountability or proactively pushed for the drug-testing law. Do they want to rein in entitlements? Absolutely. But in the case of Florida, I think the connection is tenuous.
But why should facts get in your way. As also quoted in my link -
“Koch-affiliated”? Is it any free-market, libertarian or conservative interest group? Is it any group that has a first- or second-generation funding or affiliation relationship with some Koch entity? Or is it a more strict standard? Holden notes that David Koch has given generously to the Lincoln Center, as well as to the Smithsonian. “Are they Koch groups?” asks Holden. “Where does it end?”
According to Dave Dubya - the standard for wild claims about the Koch bros is anything that can get him to avoid talking about his drug war paycheck. Be it claiming the Kochs funded things they didn't, rambling about conspiracy theories and random tubes or even the Vietnam War.
Fact remains, the Libertarian Party IS THE ONLY PARTY in the United States that supports the end of the drug war.
And notice how Dave here says those using cocaine shouldn't face incarceration. He doesn't mention those dealing cocaine. Presumably because without prosecuting cocaine, heroin and meth dealers and instead making their trade legal - he'd be out of a job. Some anti drug war stance...
DD Fact:
The fact remains the Kochs have given massive, often secret, support to the GOP, the party of drug testing.
Free Fact Free:
No they didn't Rachel... Ahem - I mean Dave. My link clearly showed they did no such thing.
This is really smearing the jello. Are you still on your Rachel link? Or that handy pull-it-out-of-your-ass link?
Here’s reality for your cult bubble to deflect.
Koch is also one of the Republican Party's most reliable donors. In every election cycle since 2000, people and political action committees associated with the company have donated at least 83 percent of their cash to Republican candidates and committees.
Contributions to candidates: $2,155,640
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $602,000
Contributions to parties: $533,523
Contributions to 527 committees: $2,392,729
That’s a lot of Koch “free speech” cash going to your party that loves expanding drug testing laws.
I keep telling you that your Galt Brothers are really just Republicans. You act just like one too. Your support of the Koch/GOP Tea Tent in Lansing is proof of that. I’d bet you never traveled to support gay rights or even drug law reform events. Nope. The corrupt Koch/GOP cartel is your gang all the way.
Also dear readers please note - Dave answered exactly zero of my questions.
As usual. He feels uncomfortable answering questions.
Hello, again, Pot.
You forgot to tell us what sense the Vietnam War made. If you can't tell us, then it was sensible to NOT go there, right?
Maybe you'd better ask you warrior elders about the sense behind that war. Sure they served well, but what were they serving for?
Make some sense for us, or we must accept that you concede my point.
That’s a lot of Koch “free speech” cash going to your party that loves expanding drug testing laws.
It would seem that drug testing laws, are the only thing the Kochs aren't donating money to. The Smithsonian got Koch money - but money for mandatory drug testing for welfare? Not a dime.
If you can't tell us, then it was sensible to NOT go there, right?
That's a post in and of its self. I'll tell you what, how about your next post be on that subject. I'm still trying to figure out how Vietnam relates to the drug war.
And how its cool for you to cash a drug war pay check when you claim to be against the drug war.
Maybe you'd better ask you warrior elders about the sense behind that war.
but what were they serving for?
Same thing all grunts serve for. The guys to the left and the right of them and their country.
or we must accept that you concede my point.
I have to write you a 4000 word essay or concede your point? I don't think so. That's a complicated question. How bout we stick to your topic.
Oh I forgot, keeping dave on the subject is like nailing jello to a wall.
He'd much rather talk about Vietnam then explain why he's for coke dealers doing life.
Your support of the Koch/GOP Tea Tent in Lansing is proof of that.
"Libertarians support expanding personal liberty, ending the drug war, the total separation between church and state, open boarders, and gay rights differing from many tent poll GOP stances on issues. Libertarians are just like Republicans."
Doublethink.
that drug testing laws, are the only thing the Kochs aren't donating money to
Thick as a brick, as usual. The Kochs donate to the party that enacts drug testing laws. They donate to the party that enacts drug testing laws. They donate to the party that enacts drug testing laws.
Oh, and they donate to the party that enacts drug testing laws. Did you see that part yet?
They donate to the party that enacts drug testing laws. I bet the Kochs even donated to Reagan, the guy that turned us around form saner drug policies to all out war on drugs. And you ignore the fact that when I took my job the country was not on a Right Wing goose step march to militarism and drug war. I watched the consequences of going from a more progressive stance to Reagan’s Right Wing drug war. Not to mention the guy took the US from a creditor nation to a debtor nation.
So the fact stands. The Kochs donate to the party that expanded the war on drugs and enacts drug testing laws even today.
YOUR party of class war, drug war, and war on democracy. YOUR party of war based on lies, corpotocracy, bribery, and propaganda by secret “free speech” cash. At least I don’t give money to their junior partners in the Democratic party.
Libertarians are just like Republicans
The Libertarian Party is merely an arm of corporate power and their primary party, and they only serve its interests. We’ve told you this many times.
I'm still trying to figure out how Vietnam relates to the drug war.
Actually drugs were part of the CIA’s war in Vietnam.
But the reason we’ve gone off topic is your first comment had to about me. So I made it about you in return. YOU were in service to the US government, the primary power in the drug war. YOU still collect benefits from that drug war empire. But YOU wanted to make it about me. Remember? If not for your weird obsession over me, we could stay on topic.
but what were they serving for?
Same thing all grunts serve for. The guys to the left and the right of them and their country.
Yeah, that’s what the WWII SS veterans tell us too. That goes nowhere in telling us the sense for that war either.
he's for coke dealers doing life
Now you sound just like a Republican again, making up accusations. Why don’t you say I support “death panels” too? LOL!
But the far Right has ALWAYS been about false accusations, lies, and double standards. You have failed to show us any sense to the Vietnam War, and you support the lies that led to the Iraq war. And you support the Koch/GOP/Tea Cult. This all indicates that you are primarily a right wing true believer, with libertarian pretensions.
Thanks for your examples.
Oh, and by the way, did you know the Kochs donate to the party that expanded the war on drugs and enacts drug testing laws even today?
But as a radical Right Wing authoritarian you want to blame me, while you support them.
Thanks again for exemplifying that nature.
well, gosh...
Republicans favor drug testing for welfare recipients and other receiving government money because it will really really save oodles of money, keep the government out of the lives of cvitizens, reduce government bureaucracy...and would close three of four lanes off the
GW bridge.
plus...many have holdings in companies that manufacture the test materials or administor the tests.
http://morallowground.com/2011/05/06/florida-senate-passes-bill-requiring-drug-testing-for-welfare-recipients/
They donate to the party that enacts drug testing laws
According to records, they don't blindly donate to the GOP, they donate to specific candidates and causes. So no, what you're saying is incorrect - because they've not been linked to specific candidates or a specific organization that supports drug testing for welfare recipients.
BTW, this has nothing to do with the drug war.
Not to mention the guy took the US from a creditor nation to a debtor nation.
What fantasy world do you live in. The US was 930,210,000,000 in debt the day Reagan took office. I'm not suggesting Reagan didn't grow that debt. He himself called it the greatest failure of his presidency. But from creditor to debtor? No, I don't thinks so. Just another example of the dream world you operate in.
The Libertarian Party is merely an arm of corporate power and their primary party, and they only serve its interests. We’ve told you this many times.
"The Libertarian Party supports the complete end of corporate wellfare. The LP supports legislation making it illegal to subsidize, bail out or transfer tax dollars or private dollars by government direction unless there are services rendered. The LP would end tax payer funded R&D for private companies. The LP would refuse to let the SEC insure banks unless they met RIGOROUS standards exceeding previous regulation.
The Libertarian Party is a corporate tool. "
Doublethink.
YOU were in service to the US government
Well it is about you Dave. I'm not suggesting the Post Office are drug warriors either. No, you're out there every day all up in it. What's more - you've told us you aren't anti drug war. What should we do with cocaine dealers again?
Yeah, that’s what the WWII SS veterans tell us too.
Sounds like you're equating Vietnam veterans with the Nazi SS. Despicable.
But as a radical Right Wing authoritarian you want to blame me
"Free believes in fewer laws, regulations and fewer police. Free is authoritarian."
Doublethink.
OkiJimm
I am sure Republicans support a policy of drug testing welfare recipients. Of that I have no doubt.
However, being a Libertarian, I don't share this idea. My contention, is that we should end welfare, and that private charity should take over providing those services to the poor. As for lane closures in New Jersey - welcome to New Jersey. I don't know why anyone is surprised.
...see, the GOP is all for keeping the government small and out of the lives of private citizens.... unless you want a blowjob
http://politix.topix.com/item/u8304-gop-senator-pushing-emergency-bill-to-make-oral-sex-between-high-school-students-a-felonymovement
The GOP is waging war on sex!!
Google “reagan creditor nation”
One more time: Kochs donated at least 83 percent of their cash to Republican candidates and committees.
but what were they serving for?
Same thing all grunts serve for. The guys to the left and the right of them and their country.
Yeah, that’s what the WWII SS veterans tell us too.
Sounds like you're equating Vietnam veterans with the Nazi SS. Despicable.
Actually, YOU did, “Same thing as all grunts” Or are only Americans grunts?
The guys to the left and the right of them and their country
That’s you quoting the same words as SS veterans, sport, not me. Same is true for all soldiers.
Right wing double standards and evasions again.
So tell us again, or for the first time, why the Vietnam war made so much sense...We're waiting...
Koch money to Rick (Drug test the poor) Scott’s voter purge:
Kochs and Rick Scott scheming at Koch retreat
Kochs donated at least 90 percent of their cash to Republican candidates and committees.
Kochs donated at least 90 percent of their cash to Republican candidates and committees.
Kochs donated at least 90 percent of their cash to Republican candidates and committees.
Only GOP controlled states are imposing new drug testing laws.
And:
Kochs donated at least 90 percent of their cash to Republican candidates and committees.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=1457&y=0&incs=0&ince=0&incf=0&incy=0&so8=r#sorttable8
boy, Tree, stuff flys right over your head.
point is...Republicans and Republican corp beneficiaries are the only reason GOP candidates are for drug testing. There are billions of dollars to me made by mandating testing. And it flies in the face of Libertarian and Conservative values of 'less government'.
You obviously do not follow links.
The 'less' government party has no problem creating rules, laws, and bureaucracies when it suits them...and that includes sex laws that intrude into citizen lives.
...and..you do not give a shit about what happened in Jersey? Because it didn't involve you?
...but is truly indicative of a behavior you favor...he with the guns has the most clout.
you truly are obtuse.
The GOP is waging war on sex!!
Not being a member of the GOP, I'm not sure - but I'd assume members of the GOP are not celibate.
Kochs donated at least 83 percent of their cash to Republican candidates and committees.
Zero of which specifically focused on welfare drug testing. As my link explained. Once you've attained about two or three degrees of funding separation, you stop being connected.
Or are only Americans grunts?
There SS were not. They were a entirely something else.
why the Vietnam war made so much sense...We're waiting...
Continue waiting into infinity. That is not a question you can sum up in a sound bite or a blog comment. It would take a book. There are plenty of them out there, go read one.
And it flies in the face of Libertarian and Conservative values of 'less government'.
It certainly is more government. The Libertarian plan of ending welfare and replacing it with private charity is certainly less government. You are forgetting once again Oki Jimm, I'm not in the Republican Party, and am not interested in defending it.
The 'less' government party has no problem creating rules, laws, and bureaucracies when it suits them
Agreed. The Republicans like the Democrats are a big government party. Hence my non-membership in either of them and my membership in the LP.
and..you do not give a shit about what happened in Jersey? Because it didn't involve you?
Its certainly typical of American politics, especially in New Jersey. If you think otherwise you're being very naive. I don't care who you are or what party you are in, when you lay down with those dogs, you're going to get some serious fleas.
Dave, what happened to your well-populated intellectual salon? You used to be able to count on hundreds of comments from dozens of readers with very diverse political perspectives.
Yet now I see 88 comments from only 4 different people (and you, of course). How the mighty have fallen. I guess I wasn't the only one who was turned off by the barrage of disingenuous attacks from you and your like-minded cohort.
Anyway, just stopping by as I tie up a few loose ends. Good luck to you.
HR,
It’s been a while.
well-populated intellectual salon
LOL!
Yes, blog burnout happens. I’m busy with other stuff these days and don’t post often.
And the barrage continues. As you may note, the very first comment was personal; my name was invoked at least 5 times. Happens a lot, and I’m guilty of reciprocating in kind when personally accused or disrespected.
The "salon" is often a mud pit ;-) But then, it always has been. Some of us have a bit of fun anyway.
Thanks for checking in and good luck to you as well.
who was turned off by the barrage of disingenuous attacks from you and your like-minded cohort.
Yes, Dave can personally attack you... but god forbid you call him on anything.
All I can say Dave is I thought it was about time you took some of your own medicine.
Free's still talking about me, I see.
I'm not really his type, though.
Since he's chicken to tell us what sense the Vietnam War made, I'll do it for him.
I bet his rationale for the Vietnam War is the same as for Iraq. Politically motivated "resolutions" and "authorizations" were the justifications for waging wars on people who never attacked the US prior to us attacking them.
It was the falsehood ridden Gulf of Tonkin resolution for the former, and the falsehood ridden "authorization" for the latter.
True believers still believe...
And the dead are still dead... for lies.
And Free's fellow "libertarian" Kochs still support the party of drug testing.
Just like good Republicans do.
Yes, I'm talking about you Dave. I call out doublethink and hypocrisy when I see it. You can't have a logical conversation with someone who basis their axioms on conspiracy theories, inaccurate information, and prejudicial hatred.
But I can point it out, so that readers who stumble on this can get a look at a typical -self avowed- socialist's worldview.
I'll do it for him
And there you have it. Instead of basing his argument on something I've actually said, he just makes stuff up.
What I actually said, is that an explanation of the Vietnam war would require a book's worth of explanation. Its not a simple answer - which Dave demands due to his simple mind. It also has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Dick Cheney never advocated the war in Vietnam - I definitively showed that here and Dave could not dispute it - and therefore his claim that Cheney was a Vietnam "chicken hawk" is shown to be Dave's labeling and dehumanization of Cheney to justify his bizarre, conspiracy theory fueled world view.
In short, it is about you Dave. You're not a reasonable person. Instead of debating your position, you always resort to ad hom. What I can do is play by the same rules you play by in your own sandbox. It's about time you got some of your own medicine.
So, to get back on topic. My answer to Dave's post is still-
I always laugh when Dave rails against the drug war.
I have to ask, what are the majority of people doing-time for in the jail/prison he guards? Answer: Drug crime.
Bottom line, most state prison systems are largely funded by grants of money from the federal government, and those grants are directly tied to the drug war.
So let us remember who on this blog is cashing a pay-check paid for with drug war money.
Its not you, its not me. It's Dave Dubya.
The reality is the United States has the highest percentage of population of any Western Nation in prison - and the vast majority of those incarcerated are there because of drug crime or violations of parole/probation tied to drug crime.
Were drugs decriminalized or better legalized - hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of inmates would be out of the prison system - and Dave here would likely be out of a job; as a result of the lost drug war grants and no more need for that many guards.
And I'm sure Dave knows this. It is after all, his business.
So I often chuckle when Dave complains about the drug war when its paying his bills. I laugh harder when he complains about how much money is made off the drug war- as he's a direct beneficiary of that money. And lastly, I laugh hardest when Dave complains about the authoritarian nature of drug laws - when he is the FINAL authority and eventuality of drug criminalization. He's the one that guards the drug "criminals."
If you really care about the Drug War, you need to vote Libertarian. The Libertarian Party is THE ONLY PARTY that supports the decriminalization of illegal drugs in America, and seeks to undo twisted law enforcement / tax complexes - the kind of which fund Dave's salary. Hundreds of billions are thrown away on this idiotic prohibition every year. We'd save taxpayers that money, so they could keep it for themselves. And if you chose to smoke dope with that savings... that's your business.
If Libertarians had their way - Dave here would likely lose his job. He'd wouldn't have any more users and dealers to guard anymore. That might be bad for Dave, but it would be good for America.
Vote Libertarian.
Also I would note, I point blank asked Dave - Are you fine with dealers and users of these substances being targets of the drug war so long as your personal favorite marijuana isn't?
I even asked him again -
Are you anti drug war or just pro weed?
This is an important point, because Marijuana is a small portion of the drug war when compared to harder drugs. Ending the war on Marijuana would be a token symbol for ending the drug war, not even remotely ending anything.
He finally came back with -
Although this question makes no sense, I'll just say possession and use should be legal. Sales to minors should be illegal.
Well it makes perfect sense to ask that. And I agree, it should be illegal to sell tobacco - let alone cocaine - to a minor. So minors aside, to end the drug war... we have to legalize drugs. Does Dave support that? He said he wouldn't "criminalize" possession of hard drugs - but I noticed he omits dealing them. I don't think that is accidental. I mean legalizing transporting and selling narcotics when I talk about ending the drug war.. I mean dealing fucking crack. So my question to Dave is:
Do you think someone importing cocaine in BULK, turning it into crack, and then selling it should be guilty of a crime?
The LP and I don't, because we don't believe in legislating morality. Dave still won't tell us what he thinks.
And if I can nail him down to actually answering - I wonder if it is clear to him that were that to happen, he would likely lose his job in corrections? If not him, many of his peers? If he does realize that, I wonder why he thinks that would be?
Of course if he doesn't support that position - Dave wouldn't really be against ending the drug war. He'd simply be for fighting it less aggressively.
Free0352: "Should the Untied [sic] States Army be disbanded - for any reason or reasons?
That is a simple question."
And it certainly deserves a simple answer: Yes.
A less simple answer would be, as Thomas Jefferson proposed: No standing armies.
By the way, your incessant Freudian slips are very revealing. "Untied" States Army had me rolling on the floor.
As I've alluded to on several occasions, the entertainment value you provide is worth the price of admission.
"I think I made it quite clear last post just how silly this line of thought is. As I said before, when you have Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, and Glenn Beck all agreeing on something - you can be sure there isn't any partisanship involved. This has been vetted to death, and every American who isn't a kook knows it."
I also think I made it quite clear that I believe more in the validity of science, and less in the opinions of celebrities wishing to hold on to their lucrative jobs and careers. I'm siding with Sir Isaac Newton on this one. He's the "celebrity", here, who proves the government's fairytale to be impossible.
But first one would have to believe in science. Do you?
"Just so everyone knows, Jeff believes 'science' proves 9-11 was an inside job. And yes, he's been shown all the evidence compiled by legitimate sources. He instead chooses illegitimate ones."
The only source you've provided were the debunkers at Popular Mechanics. You call this a "legitimate source"? Their vain attempt to defend the government's fairytale has only backed them into a corner. So much so, that they chose to just not answer.
So much for legitimacy.
Let me ask you a question, and please be honest, even with yourself -- as difficult as this may be. If you were aware of solid evidence disproving the official version, and this evidence possibly suggested the involvement of some rogue elements of the government in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, would it be more unpatriotic and anti-American to ask for a new investigation, or to turn a blind eye toward it and pretend such evidence doesn't exist?
Here's another question for you: If a people's trust in institutions is of paramount importance for a nation's well-being, would that trust be better served by denying the evidence of conspiracy, or by bringing those suspected to account -- meaning in a court of law?
"He does not believe the US Military is engaged with its enemies..."
I have no idea what you were trying desperately to prove here (because your "logic"...well, there isn't any), but just let me repeat that the U.S. military has created more enemies than it has defeated.
Which was the whole point, wasn't it?
Oh, lest I forget! When you questioned my motives for claiming "the tail wags the dog", please let me offer proof that this isn't just some ridiculous notion that came from nowhere...
“Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”--- Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001
I'm losing count of both the times Free mentions my name and his lies.
This, from our lone expert on all matters, says it all:
You should probably stop quoting things
Because the facts prove he's a liar.
(Drug Offenders in US Prisons 2011)
Federal: On Dec. 31, 2011, there were 197,050 sentenced prisoners under federal jurisdiction. Of these, 94,600 were serving time for drug offenses, 14,900 for violent offenses, 10,700 for property offenses, and 69,000 for "public order" offenses (of which 22,100 were sentenced for immigration offenses, 29,800 for weapons offenses, and 17.100 for "other").
State: On Dec. 31, 2011, there were 1,341,804 sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction. Of these, 225,242 were serving time for drug offenses, 710,875 for violent offenses, 245,351 for property offenses, 141,803 for "public order" offenses (which include weapons, drunk driving, court offenses, commercialized vice, morals and decency offenses, liquor law violations, and other public-order offenses), and 18,534 for "other/unspecified".
Source:
Federal Data: Carson, E. Ann, and Sabol, William J., "Prisoners in 2011" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Dec. 2012), NCJ239808, Table 9, p. 9, and Table 11, 10.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p11.pdf
State Data:
Carson, E. Ann, and Golinelli, Daniela, "Prisoners in 2012 - Advance Counts" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2013), NCJ242467, Table 10, p. 11.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p12ac.pdf
Free still can't tell us what sense in made to have a war in Vietnam. Mr. "Five deferments" Cheney said he would have "gladly served" if called. That means he supported the war, but he had "other priorities". That means he's a chickenhawk.
Free's still chicken to tell us what sense that war made.
Come on Free, lies have never stopped you before. Make something up again.
I just found Free's Cheney quote on the war we said he supported but ran away from:
Was it a noble cause? Yes, indeed, I think it was."
Looks like he supported the "noble cause".
Chickenhawk.
Jeff,
So let me get this straight. You think the US Military should be disbanded, that 9-11 was an inside job by our government, and that the reason this isn't happening is because the Israelis control the government.
Dave,
there were 197,050 sentenced prisoners under federal jurisdiction
Your state and federal numbers are misleading. Truth is,
USA and territories.[19]
Incarcerated population.
Adult and juvenile inmates. Number of
inmates
in 2008
Total 2,418,352
Federal and state prisons 1,518,559
Territorial prisons 13,576
Local jails 785,556
ICE facilities 9,957
Military facilities 1,651
Jails in tribal territories 2,135
Juvenile facilities (2007)[12] 86,927
You're can't only count people in prison.
This means one in one hundred Americans is behind bars. A full 20% are there for drug use or trafficing, another 30% are there for crimes tied to the drug war. Those are the facts Dave.
Looks like he supported the "noble cause".
And as I said on this thread previously - He said this after the war, and its hardly a bloodthirsty cry for a battle he wouldn't fight in.
But Dave will do anything to avoid explaining why he cashes a drug war pay check and supports the drug war when it comes to drug dealing. Notice he wasn't touching that one!
Got proof my paycheck is a "drug war paycheck"?
Is it because some of it came from your drug war waging federal government that you take your benefits from?
You're such an ass. And a liar.
supports the drug war when it comes to drug dealing.
Unless you mean selling to minors, thanks for making up crap again, Liar.
Why would someone avoid a "noble cause" by FIVE deferments?
I had sense to not go get killed. So did Cheney, but I knew it wasn't a noble cause. That makes him the hypocrite, as well as your "nukular" aluminum tube lie telling leader.
So what sense did it make to get killed in Vietnam?
Why was it a "noble cause", Junior Dick?
Tell us more lies, sport.
Know what's funny?
Free once said my job was an "honorable profession".
LOL! There's a word or two to describe him...
I said there was nothing wrong with being a prison guard. I still maintain that. I have many family members who work in corrections whom I love. What I objected to as I recall, was the notion someone put forth (I don't remember who it was) that being a prison guard was a dumb-dumb job. Its not and I'm not suggesting we disband our prison system
But before you can assail those who make money off the drug war - you first have to admit you do too. You are a part of that system Dave. You can say you are a part of a partially corrupt system and you hope in changes and you'll work to change it. Voting Libertarian would be a good start in doing that. But what you can't do and not be a hypocrite - is assail those who cash drug war pay checks and then cash one yourself. If you claim that those who profit from the drug war are evil, then by your own definition you too are evil.
Got proof my paycheck is a "drug war paycheck"?
Dave, its common knowledge that federal grants tied to mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug crime go to State and Federal DOCs. Everyone knows that.
Unless you mean selling to minors, thanks for making up crap again, Liar
I didn't lie, I quoted you exactly. I too said drugs should not be sold to minors. Your omission is telling. Of course you could take the time to clarify your view instead of your typical ad hom.
Why would someone avoid a "noble cause" by FIVE deferments?
You'd have to ask Dick that. I can't answer for him.
That makes him the hypocrite
If not fighting for a cause you find noble is hypocritical and to your mind you are not a hypocrite - do you then find no causes noble in the world?
as well as your "nukular" aluminum tube lie telling leader.
Dave, we already covered this. The only person who uses aluminum tubes as a standard for war is you. The actual bill passed by bipartisan majorities in the Federal Legislature authorizing force in Iraq never mentioned tubes of any metallurgical nature. Never once.
I had sense to not go get killed.
Does that mean those who did die serving their country in Vietnam lacked sense? That implies you think they were stupid. That's despicable.
Why was it a "noble cause", Junior Dick?
And here we go again. Dave has to imply I'm Dick Cheney now. First I was Rush Limbaugh, then a Koch Brother - and now I'm Dick Cheney. A person who I share very few beliefs with, and who I found on the whole a poor leader. His "Deficits don't matter" quote alone put us worlds apart on policy. Yet Dave will equate me with Dick Cheney because calling names and labeling is easier than explaining how he can be against the drug war and yet cash a drug war pay check. How those who profit off the drug war are evil and yet somehow when he does it he is not evil. These inconsistencies are too hard to address, so its much easier to go full ad hom. That is the rule of this blog, and I just play with the same rules the host does.
Why was it a "noble cause"
Because fighting soviet influence and communism was a noble cause.
The question: "Why was it a 'noble cause?'"
Free0352's response: "Because fighting soviet influence and communism was a noble cause."
You're such a tool. Tell me, are there three-hundred and fifty-one others just like you?
Jeez!
I have many family members who work in corrections whom I love.
And can we bet if they oppose the war on drugs, you accuse them just like you accuse me? LOL!
Because fighting soviet influence and communism was a noble cause.
Well then. Nothing more needs be said. You and Hitler share that “noble cause” and love for war, but I’m “despicable” for saying enemy soldiers also fought for their comrades?
How those who profit off the drug war are evil and yet somehow when he does it he is not evil.
Who did I call evil? Drug dealers? Law enforcement for the legal piracy of asset forfeiture? Neither actually.
Dave, we already covered this. The only person who uses aluminum tubes as a standard for war is you.
No. Your leaders lied and cited those tubes as evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
The actual bill passed by bipartisan majorities in the Federal Legislature authorizing force in Iraq never mentioned tubes of any metallurgical nature. Never once.
Free we already covered this. The “nukular" aluminum tube lie represents the nuclear weapons program lie in the authorization for war.
Just for sport, I listed some of Free’s lies, accusations, falsehoods and misleading fallacies...all from this thread. (If you get bored and want to skip this trash, the very last one is hilarious)
Most of his garbage was called out above but I added a few notes in parentheses.
====
he's for coke dealers doing life.
80% of your inmates are in there for drug dealing. ...that's advocating facts.
the majority of folks Dave guards are there for drug dealing.
you'd be in the unemployment line without the drug war.
Almost all crime in America today is somehow related to the illegal drug business, (see statistics above)
with YOUR OWN STATISTICS - that means at least 50% of your inmates are there due to the drug war. (Really. Check his math with above stats)
you are cashing a pay check specifically funded by federal tax dollars, earmarked to fund incarcerations tied to mandatory minimum sentences.(No such funding to DOC cited. “Mandatory minimum” came with Reagan’s expanded war on drugs)
Dave here claims he "had more sense" that those who did serve during Vietnam.... you mocked all who did during Vietnam by implying they didn't have sense... AKA were dumb. When you said "I had more sense" than to go to Vietnam, you implied those who did lacked sense... as in they were stupid. (Original quote NOT given,” I'm alive because I had the sense to not go to Vietnam”. Not so much for intellect, but a case for a sense for simple self preservation can be made.)
we followed the money Dave. At least the drug war money. A chunk of it ends up in your bank account.
you're a drug warrior claiming to wish to end the drug war. I find that astonishing.
that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons True
members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq True
Dave will NEVER call welfare "welfare" (Citing “general welfare” from the Constitution doesn’t count to Free)
As for why I'd have fought in Vietnam - when my country calls, I answer.But not you. Most libertarians are like me (Most libertarians opposed the war)
I don't have a Koch agenda, I have my own. (Except to hang out at the Koch/Tea party tent)
I probably agree with the Koch Bros on many things, and likely disagree with them on many things. (No disagreement cited.)
"Free is FOR the drug war because he supports ending criminal prohibition on the possession of all controlled substances." More Dave Doublethink. Dave, YOU ARE SAYING I'M SAYING THAT. I am not. (False quote, aka LIE,)
The problem with you Dave is you always seem to think our country is wrong. (Always?)
Dave, the only person who talks about 'nukular tubes' is you. (Not Bush and Cheney?)
Why do you think you should not have to take a drug test to keep your job? (Great question from a drug war fan, not a libertarian)
"Free thinks all drugs should be legal. Free is pro drug war."Doublethink. (False quote again)
...We continue with Free’s lies, accusations, falsehoods and misleading fallacies...
====
"Free thinks all drugs should be legal. Free is pro drug war."Doublethink. (False quote again)
You belittled a National Guardsman for serving. (First, not for his service, for avoiding the war he supported)
DD Fact: The fact remains the Kochs have given massive, often secret, support to the GOP, the party of drug testing. Free Fact Free: No they didn't Rachel... Ahem - I mean Dave
they don't blindly donate to the GOP, they donate to specific candidates and causes.
you cash a drug war pay check when you claim to be against the drug war.
but what were they serving for? Same thing all grunts serve for. The guys to the left and the right of them and their country. Sounds like you're equating Vietnam veterans with the Nazi SS. Despicable. (Even enemy soldiers do that, right?)
Or are only Americans grunts? There SS were not. They were a entirely something else. (Originally true, but later the SS took conscripts)
I'm not suggesting Reagan didn't grow that debt. He himself called it the greatest failure of his presidency. But from creditor to debtor? No, I don't thinks so. Just another example of the dream world you operate in.
"Free believes in fewer laws, regulations and fewer police. Free is authoritarian." Doublethink.(Another false quote)
Kochs donated at least 83 percent of their cash to Republican candidates and committees. Zero of which specifically focused on welfare drug testing.(But generally went to the party of expanded drug testing)
In short, it is about you Dave. You're not a reasonable person. Instead of debating your position, you always resort to ad hom.
what are the majority of people doing-time for in the jail/prison he guards? Answer: Drug crime.
Bottom line, most state prison systems are largely funded by grants of money from the federal government, and those grants are directly tied to the drug war.
So let us remember who on this blog is cashing a pay-check paid for with drug war money. (We all know I’m really paid by the taxpaying public, for public safety. Compare that to real drug war money like the legal piracy of asset forfeiture by law enforcement)
But Dave will do anything to avoid explaining why he cashes a drug war pay check and supports the drug war when it comes to drug dealing. Notice he wasn't touching that one! (LOL! So just what is there to “explain”, if I support the drug war and cash a drug war pay check?)
=======
Hilarious Hysteria – By courtesy, and discourtesy, of Free
Notice Dave doesn't answer a single question, just quotes post's I've made. His super intelectual response is basically: Nuh-uh. You are.
So just what is there to “explain”, if I support the drug war and cash a drug war pay check?
That's my point. You can't explain it - hence you'll talk about Dick Cheney, the Iraq war and the Vietnam war or anything really... to distract from the inconsistency of your drug war stance.
Bottom line is everyone knows the federal government block grants money to fight drugs - and part of that goes to pay to incarcerate drug criminals. This is common knowledge. If we take Dave's claims at being anti-drug war as truth - then by guarding drug criminals Dave is admitting to knowingly participating in the incarceration of guiltless men. I don't think he likes having to admit that, so its easier to talk about Dick Cheney.
On the one had Dave will link the Koch brothers - who have never directly supported drug testing laws - to drug testing laws... simply by the coincidence they have supported causes and candidates tertiary to those pushing drug testing laws.
Basically Dave's point is - if you support the GOP in any way, you are supporting drug testing laws. Even if drug testing laws are not their goal and another unrelated issue is.
He then tells us that his work in the prison system which houses millions of drug offenders, has nothing to do with the drug war and that he is against the drug war.
But by Dave's own standard he judges the Kochs - he is pro drug war. If the Koch's support of GOP causes unrelated to drug testing laws means they vicariously support drug testing laws... then wouldn't Dave's work in the prison system incarcerating drug criminals mean Dave at least vicariously supports the Drug war? When factoring in federal block grants that help pay his salary that he directly profits from - wouldn't his involvement in the drug war be more than vicarious? Wouldn't it be profit motivated?
I think it is, and I think Dave knows that - which is why Dave would rather talk about anything else than explain his total lack of intellectual consistency.
And BTW, comparing the American military to the SS in any way is despicable. As for Hitler's anti-communism - I'd note Stalin and Hitler jointly invaded Poland together. Hitler was fine with associating with communists despite his rhetoric when it suited his purpose just as he was fine with associating with free nations - as he was fine with turning on both when it suited him.
Communism was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century and the most evil ideology ever invented. It lead to the deaths of 100 million people. It should be opposed where ever it is found - at the very least through isolation and containment as we do today with North Korea.
And with military force when necessary.
If you want an answer to a question, try asking it without your ridiculous accusations and lies.
Like this: the inconsistency of your drug war stance.
And this: Dave is admitting to knowingly participating in the incarceration of guiltless men.
And this: He then tells us that his work in the prison system which houses millions of drug offenders, has nothing to do with the drug war and that he is against the drug war.
And this: Dave at least vicariously supports the Drug war?
This is all about accusing me of supporting the drug war. I do not. I even voted for medical cannabis.
Accusing me of supporting the drug war is like accusing you of supporting war crimes. (This is how Iraq came up, BTW)
You could make the wild stretch and claim the drug war vicariously “supports” corrections officers pay, but not the other way around. You of course want everything both ways. And you have NOT shown a dime of drug war money that I take. Better present some evidence, because “everyone knows” you pull crap out of your ass.
Wouldn't it be profit motivated? Wages and profit, a financial benefit that is realized when the amount of revenue gained from a business activity exceeds the expenses, are not the same thing.
An example would be the Kochs profit from their corrupting bribes and influence on politicians. I don’t profit like that. I receive taxpayer support in wages in exchange for public safety services. You seem happy to ignore the dangerous characters I worked with. I suppose to you, that means I support violent crime? LOL!
The Kochs invited Rick “drug test the poor” Scott to their private meetings. Obviously they support Rick “drug test the poor” Scott, no matter what you say. He and Rick the Prick Snyder are their puppets. I support neither of them, so that links your Kochs to the primary drug warriors, the politicians. That is just reality. You know, like no such thing as nukular aluminum tubes is reality. Or no nuclear weapons program in Iraq is reality, unlike your leaders and their lie-filled “resolution”.
And BTW, comparing the American military to the SS in any way is despicable
If saying they also fought for their comrades is despicable, then to you, the truth is what is despicable. That’s been your attitude all along.
You forgot to tell us how you lecture your relatives in corrections. Do you let them get away with their “waging the drug war”? LOL! Yet you profit from the same government waging the drug war. This is exactly your line of “reasoning”.
Communism didn’t kill anybody. Although militarism has a hell of a body count. Politicians and the men under their orders did the killing. The US war in Vietnam killed more Vietnamese than “communism” did. Or in your ideological framing, capitalism killed more Vietnamese than communism did.
Tell us how that made sense again.
I do not. I even voted for medical cannabis
Medical cannabis isn't ending the drug war Dave. Ending the drug war is ending the drug war. When you vote or advocate as I do legalizing crack and every other drug, then you are for ending the drug war.
You could make the wild stretch and claim the drug war vicariously “supports” corrections officers pay
Its not vicarious - I said that to make a point. What I'm telling you is that when tax payer money is funneled through specific anti-drug / anti- "crime" (meaning drug) legislation to fund corrections - that isn't vicarious. That's direct funding.
Wages and profit, a financial benefit that is realized when the amount of revenue gained from a business activity exceeds the expenses, are not the same thing.
Yes. And your desire for wages and profit outweighed your principles against the drug war. When I was in the same exact position - I quit. Hence, I stuck to my guns - and you cashed the check.
I don’t profit like that
But you still profit from it... just not the same way...
He and Rick the Prick Snyder are their puppets. I support neither of them, so that links your Kochs to the primary drug warriors, the politicians.
Then by this standard if you've ever voted Democrat - then so do you. The Democrat Party's official policy is pro drug war. Therefore, by your own standard, every Democrat vote you ever cast was in support of drug warrior politicians. Guess whose party has zero pro drug war politicians? The Libertarian Party. The only Party that supports an end to the drug war.
You forgot to tell us how you lecture your relatives in corrections
They are not hypocrites at all. They are all unabashedly pro drug war. They are all for it, in every way. There is no drug prohibition or restriction they don't support that I know of. I disagree with them totally, but at least they are intellectually consistent. They aren't out there claiming to not be part of the war on drugs. They're proud of it.
Communism didn’t kill anybody
Yes
it
did.
Communism is the most blood thirsty, vile, and disgusting invention of humanity. And it and its followers should be relegated to the ash heap of history by any means.
Rick the Prick Snyder
This is what Dave will always do. He has to label, insult, and vilify. He simply cannot have a logical conversation with our about someone with whom he disagrees. His style of argument belongs on the playground.
Medical cannabis isn't ending the drug war Dave.
You can’t deny that it’s a step towards ending the drug war. A war has many battles and fronts. So does the cause for reform. And it is being supported more than ever by law enforcement and corrections officers.
I think cops and corrections officers who speak out against the drug war are important in shaping public attitudes. Why don’t you? You prefer to call them hypocrites and other terms of disrespect.
Rick the Prick Snyder is a relatively kind term considering his class war treachery of serving the bottom line and political agenda of wealthy elites, to the detriment of the middle class and poor. He raised taxes on retirees to play that game. In other words he TOOK from the older people who put a lifetime in state service. This was out of the blue, like his “Right to work for less and termination without cause” law.
One. More. Time.
Communism didn’t kill anybody. Politicians and the men under their orders did the killing.
Want it both ways? Or will you admit capitalism also kills millions?
Reality time. Politicians and the men under their orders did the killing.
The US war in Vietnam killed more Vietnamese than “communism” did. Or in your ideological framing, capitalism killed more Vietnamese than communism did.
Tell us how that made sense again.
You can’t deny that it’s a step towards ending the drug war.
It makes next to no difference.
And it is being supported more than ever by law enforcement and corrections officers.
I'd say - I'm one of them (former sworn officer.) But I'm still realistic that med-marijuana is a tiny, tiny step - and it still concedes drugs need government control and prohibition in most circumstances.
serving the bottom line and political agenda of wealthy elites, to the detriment of the middle class and poor.
Michigan has added jobs under Snyder for the middle class and poor.
He raised taxes on retirees to play that game.
Michigan needs comprehensive tax reform, and taxing pensions should be a part of that. The old should not be able to eat the young.
Right to work for less and termination without cause
That's not true. Freedom To Work didn't end one union contract, or shut down one union - not that unions equal job security.
Politicians and the men under their orders did the killing.
Politicians get elected. Oligarchs and cult of personaliy dictators get power from "the party" which is what happens in communist countries. And coincidentally, most of the killing done in the 20th century just coincidentally happened in the name of communism.
Because communism is just another name for barbarism. It killed 100 million people. Why are you defending this twisted evil system. Its exactly the same as defending Nazism. Actually its worse.
Medical marijuana makes “next to no difference” to you. It makes a big difference to those who need it. And it’s part of the wave of democracy that so far, is the best tool to reverse the drug war.
Medical marijuana still concedes drugs need government control and prohibition in most circumstances. It actually concedes more freedom to individuals. You’re supposed to be in favor of that, remember?
Freedom To Work didn't end one union contract, or shut down one union.....Yet. It’s their goal though, and another step in their class war.
We know you like to toot Snyder’s horn, but Michigan is still near the bottom in jobs. Unemployment is still way up from the 7.3% it was before the Bush Crash of ’08.
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
Jobs have been added across the country without adding more tax burden to the elderly and retired. What we got is more for the rich, and less for people like me. Yeah, that means Rick is a prick. He literally took money from my pocket and redistributed it to his rich cronies.
We see you’re happy with retirees paying more taxes, but not the “poor oppressed and unrepresented” rich who can easily afford it. Figures. You are a good class warrior on behalf of the elites.
The old should not be able to eat the young.. We’re talking about benefits people earned, and were promised, not welfare. But it’s fine for the rich to eat the poor?
Now you say I’m “defending” communism by saying their leaders, and those they ordered, were responsible for the killing. There’s no reasoning with you.
But again, it’s all fine when “capitalism” does the killing. How many millions of dead Vietnamese are happier being killed by capitalism?
Sounds like, at best, capitalism is merely the lesser of evils.
But you will never understand that.
It makes a big difference to those who need it.
I'm sure it does. But it doesn't end the drug war. Or even make a dent.
Yet. It’s their goal though
If that is true, it has been the most woefully unsuccessful campaign at union busting in the history of organized labor. Michigan has added union jobs.
but Michigan is still near the bottom in jobs
One does not undo the consequences of 30 years of bad policy in four years. And Michigan will likely never be what it once was. But it can and surprisingly is getting a little better.
without adding more tax burden to the elderly and retired.
Why should the old be special? Shouldn't they pay the same as they young?
We see you’re happy with retirees paying more taxes
Yes, we should tax pensions and capital gains at the same rate as we do earned income. I'm not apologetic in that. I don't think the young should slave so the old can get free medical care and pay a lower tax rate so they can retire down in Bocca.
Now you say I’m “defending” communism by saying their leaders, and those they ordered, were responsible for the killing.
You don't see a coincidence that EVERY communist country seems to develop these leaders? Its no coincidence. Communism can't exist without mass murder.
But it doesn't end the drug war.
It ends the war on medical users. Again, nothing to you, but everything to them.
most woefully unsuccessful campaign at union busting in the history of organized labor. Michigan has added union jobs.
Unions and membership have been on the decline, a steep decline into eventual oblivion. The Right has been at war with unions, and democracy, for a long time and they are winning. Just a fact.
One does not undo the consequences of 30 years of bad policy in four years. Tell that to the Tea Party as they condemn Obama for not undoing the great Bush Recession. THAT is what’s still crushing employment in Michigan. So much for that “trickle down” crap we heard for the past 30 plus years.
Why should the old be special?
It’s not about old vs. young. Why should pensioners take a hit so the rich get more breaks? This is the reality I’m trying to get across. Again, why should the rich be MORE special? THEY are the ones who have politicians in their pockets, pushing corporate written legislation and trade agreements and such. THEY are the ones raking in the upward redistribution of wealth at record amounts.
Communism can't exist without mass murder
Yes it can. Mikhail Gorbachev was not a Stalin.
It would be more accurate to say dictatorships and imperial power can't exist without mass murder. We supported Saddam when he was out on his big killing spree in Iran. We looked the other way when he gassed Kurds. Then the capitalists invaded, opened the way for civil war, and untold hundreds of thousands MORE died.
Vietnam also saw more killing by capitalism than by communism, as long as we’re clinging to over-simplified and anthropomorphized ideologies.
They just wanted to have, and run, their own country. WE didn’t like that so we killed millions, as we supported South Vietnamese dictators, who were also brutal to opposition.
Again, apart form an outlet for ideologues, what sense did that war make?
Free0352: "So let me get this straight. You think the US Military should be disbanded..."
I believe my words were that we should have no "standing armies".
I see you've finally learned the distinction between "straight" and "strait". (See, you are capable of learning. It just takes you awhile)
"...that 9-11 was an inside job by our government..."
Well, we'll never know until the rule of law is applied, in an open courtroom within each state where the crimes were committed. I don't know whether the crimes were perpetrated by "our government", but what I do know is those hapless "19 terrorists" had help.
"...and that the reason this isn't happening is because the Israelis control the government."
Hey, I was just quoting Ariel Sharon. If he's right, I'd say the possibilities are limitless. Wouldn't you?
Dave,
It’s not about old vs. young
So says the old who's bennies they voted themselves and will be paid for by the young - who will never get anything in return.
Its is about old/young.
Unions and membership have been on the decline, a steep decline into eventual oblivion. The Right has been at war with unions, and democracy, for a long time and they are winning. Just a fact.
If that is the case, recent Michigan legislation is a miserable failure towards advancing that goal. Michigan has added union jobs since freedom to work was passed there.
Mikhail Gorbachev was not a Stalin.
Take a wild stab at how many East Germans were shot by Russian guards while Gorbachev was in charge prior to the wall coming down? Now take a stab at how many Americans were shot keeping Americans inside America?
Nuff said.
Communism is the most blood thirsty form of government ever devised. It made Fascism and National Socialism look appealing - which is saying something considering they come in at #2 (National Socialism) and #3 (Fascism) on the list for mass murder.
Jeff,
I believe my words were that we should have no "standing armies".
Of course to get rid of our standing army we'd have to disband it. Duh.
So 9-11 was an inside job, the jews control out government, and we should disband the military.
I notice when you and Dave start spouting this kookery the other liberal commenters shut up fast. Probably because even Democrats know this is fringe, extremist, non-sense.
Nope, It’s not about old vs. young. You need to utterly disregard my point to say this. Same old Free straw man distractions. Money is literally taken from me and “trickles up” to the rich. Just a fact. So you can whine, hold your breath, stomp your feet, and distract all you want. I guess that’s about all you do anyway when confronted by facts.
Michigan has added union jobs
Another of your meaningless claims, without numbers or sources. An uptick is possible, it has happened. But look at the general trend at BLS.
Unions and membership have been on the decline, a steep decline into eventual oblivion. The Right has been at war with unions, and democracy, for a long time and they are winning. Sorry, facts are still facts no matter how much you distract and deny.
Take a wild stab at how many East Germans were shot by Russian guards while Gorbachev was in charge
Well, aren’t you going to tell us? Are you sure they were Russians doing the shooting? Another of your meaningless claims, without numbers or sources. Wiki says between 1976 and 1989 only 18 died at the wall. Compare that to how many people are killed by capitalism’s war on drugs. Again, my point is it wasn’t communism that pulled the trigger, was it? No it was soldiers under orders from politicians. Funny how that fact eludes you.
Note also that the regimes guilty of the mass slaughter you invoke were all totalitarian dictatorships, opposed to both democracy and unions. Your kind of folks.
Nuff said?
jews control out government
First of all you don’t even capitalize Jews. Some respect. Second, it’s a false generalization. It’s the Israeli Right’s lobby AIPAC, not “the Jews” that has the influence. Have you seen all the AIPAC puppets clamoring to undermine the negotiation process with Iran? Nobody gets into the White House without AIPAC approval. Kissing up to them has practically become mandatory for presidential candidates.
Free0352: "Of course to get rid of our standing army we'd have to disband it. Duh."
But that wasn't your previous statement. You erroneously claimed that I said to disband the "military".
If memory serves me correctly, five military branches exist within the United States armed forces. Do you agree?
Can you name them?
"So 9-11 was an inside job, the jews control out government, and we should disband the military."
Damn! You said it again! Let me ask you a question: Does the "military" only consist of the U.S. Army?
"I notice when you and Dave start spouting this kookery the other liberal commenters shut up fast."
I've noticed that when you can't legitimately counter an argument on its own merits, you resort to name-calling and, at best, contradiction. Consensus fallacy is a favorite of yours when you haven't a leg to stand on.
Goddamn, blogger doesn't want to hyperlink... here's try number FOUR.
Dave,
Money is literally taken from me and “trickles up”
And money is literally taken from me and "redistributed" to the old. Why is one right and the other wrong?
Another of your meaningless claims
Here you go. At the vast majority of those new blue collar jobs, the employee has the option of joining a union. And many workers do.
First of all you don’t even capitalize Jews. Some respect.
Whether I respect JEWS (happy?) or not is irrelevant to the fact that they do not control our government.
And you and Jeff think they do, just like Hitler and Henry Ford did.
Kissing up to them has practically become mandatory for presidential candidates.
Yeah, they use all the influence they have with international banking to bribe or put pressure on gentile politicians, right? I think I read that somewhere before.
Spare me the kookery and conspiracy theories Dave. Especially your more creepy ones.
Jeff,
You erroneously claimed that I said to disband the "military".
Ok, Jeff wants to disband the Army at the very least. My bad.
This is just as batshit insane BTW. Especially since the main effort of all FIVE of our military services is supporting the Army.
you resort to name-calling
Well guy, I don't know what else to call you two's kookery. It is what it is. And like the vast majority of eathlings, I'm not going to take it seriously.
Free0352: "Ok, Jeff wants to disband the Army at the very least. My bad."
You got it! Finally!
You forget that my memory's much more acute than yours. Unlike you, I remember what I put into writing. Unlike you, my words come from intellectual reasoning and not from emotion (or intentional deceit).
"Especially since the main effort of all FIVE of our military services is supporting the Army."
Hence...Jefferson's reasoning that standing armies can do nothing but become invading forces that support the imperialistic notions of governments.
For the most part, the other branches are "defensive" in their roles (or should be).
"Well guy, I don't know what else to call you two's kookery. It is what it is."
The "kookery" of Libertarian (i.e., "tea party") philosophy certainly trumps my "kookery" of justice and democracy.
Hands down.
"And like the vast majority of eathlings [sic]..."
What's an "eathling"?
"...I'm not going to take it seriously."
You never do take truth, justice or democracy seriously. Tools of the corporate-state never do.
Hence...Jefferson's reasoning that standing armies can do nothing but become invading forces that support the imperialistic notions of governments.
Hence Jefferson changed his mind and left a standing force while he was President... but don't let that fact get in your way!
Also never mind that the profession of arms has changed a tad in 200 years - requiring a professional Soldier with a diverse number of complex skills that take years to master. I'm sure in the even of WWIII, we can put that together pretty quickly...
As for aggressive forces, the USMC is the most aggressive force able to project power the US has, and its larger than most foreign Armies. There are nearly more Marines in the USMC than there are British Soldiers in the British Army. So after we've disbanded the Army, should we get rid of the Marines too? Just curious.
Free0352: "Hence Jefferson changed his mind and left a standing force while he was President... but don't let that fact get in your way!
Truth will always trump your make-believe "facts" every time. We've already been through this, but let me remind you again. As president, Jefferson slashed the size of the army to around 3000 soldiers, closing forts and cutting costs. But he couldn't kill off the army altogether, because the citizen's militia had never been formalized at a federal level. He was a proponent of "no standing armies" all his life, even during his presidency. He never changed his mind, as you erroneously (deceitfully?) have claimed.
"Also never mind that the profession of arms has changed a tad in 200 years - requiring a professional Soldier with a diverse number of complex skills that take years to master."
All of those years of "mastering" must explain why today's army cannot win a war.
"I'm sure in the even [sic] of WWIII, we can put [an army of soldiers] together pretty quickly..."
The irony will be that today's "standing army", and the corporate-states' unending conflicts and imperialistic occupations, will be the catalyst that sets off WWIII.
Jefferson recognized the dangers in his day; intelligent and rational people recognize it today.
"So after we've disbanded the Army, should we get rid of the Marines too? Just curious."
Slash the Corps' ranks to about a quarter of its size -- for starters.
All of those years of "mastering" must explain why today's army cannot win a war
You're certainly not going to win one not knowing how to execute a combined arms operation without visual contact at night now are you? This isn't 1775, and a Soldier has to know a few more things than how to fire three aimed shots with a musket per minute in the 21st century. But then again, you wouldn't really know would you?
be the catalyst that sets off WWIII.
As opposed to not having them, which set off world wars I & II.
intelligent and rational people recognize it today.
Really? The only branch of government a majority of Americans have confidence in?
Slash the Corps' ranks to about a quarter of its size -- for starters.
Really? Then it wouldn't be able to meet its mission requirements. Why not just disband it and avoid paying for a token force? We could go back to drafting people once the enemy was on our shores like in 1775? I mean, that will end well won't it?
Free0352: "You're certainly not going to win one not knowing how to execute a combined arms operation without visual contact at night now are you?"
My point! You do know, and yet you still can't beat your opponent whose "complex skills" and technological know-how doesn't even come close to what you're claiming is required.
There's a pattern here, wouldn't you say? The pattern is perpetual and unending war. It's the new cash cow.
"But then again, you wouldn't really know would you?"
Oh, but I do....
"Really?"
Yes, really...
"Then it wouldn't be able to meet its mission requirements."
Which is what?...to invade sovereign countries, occupy its lands, and act as the tool that allows their natural resources to be stolen?
That's exactly why Jefferson was adamantly against "standing armies".
Oh, but I do.
Oh really? Where did you learn military tactics Jefferson?
As for wins on the battlefield, I would note our military has won every engagement and met every expectation set for it by its civilian leadership. I would think it obvious our military's Achilles heel is we allow civilians with as a much military skill as you have make its battle field decisions for it.
Which is what?
Go read a book Jeff.
/As for wins on the battlefield, I would note our military has won every engagement and met every expectation set for it by its civilian leadership/
Bataan
Corregidor
Wabash River
Little Big Horn
Alamo
Surrender of Detroit 1812
Coral Sea
Khe Sanh...
and you tell Jeff to read a book??
I got a bridge you can buy,too
Kassarine Pass
Oki
I was talking about the GWOT genius. And we won Khe Sanh.
I would also note that every single one of those battles took place before the all volunteer, professional military and the ending of national conscription.
Free0352: "As for wins on the battlefield, I would note our military has won every engagement and met every expectation set for it by its civilian leadership. I would think it obvious our military's Achilles heel is we allow civilians with as a much military skill as you have make its battle field decisions for it."
...which was, in actuality, your agreement to my remark:
"There's a pattern here, wouldn't you say? The pattern is perpetual and unending war. It's the new cash cow."
Since you have finally recognized, and admitted, that today's wars are fought strictly for political and economic gain for the few, why is it that you -- despite understanding this -- continue to embrace your role as a tool in achieving their objectives?
There's got to be a psychosis with a specific name for this. If there isn't, I'm going to recommend that it be named after you! So, tell me, what's your real name again?...
"Go read a book Jeff."
I've read many. I'm especially partial to those that question -- and prove -- the government's "conspiracy debunking" about what actually happened on 9/11.
that today's wars are fought strictly for political and economic gain
Yes we all know it was a war for oil... except no oil was stolen and no American companies got any leases.
Ah but Halliburton made a few bucks... that they could have made more of building oil infrastructure than supporting the US Military through KBR. Your war for oil meme is built on the most fragile of foundations.
I've read many. I'm especially partial to those that question -- and prove -- the government's "conspiracy debunking" about what actually happened on 9/11.
And Birthers have a great many books THAT PROVE (so they claim) that Obama was born in Kenya.
If you're reading that tripe - it explains why you're so ignorant on geopolitical topics.
But please, by all means explain to us all again how after we've disbanded America's ground forces they will magically learn the institutional memory to fight a modern conflict?
Magical thinking after all, is your hallmark.
As for Afghanistan's oil... they don't have any.
They do have a handful of mineral deposits... that were found nine years after we invaded it.
But please, tell us more about how we fought this war for oil.
Free0352: "As for Afghanistan's oil... they don't have any."
and...
"But please, tell us more about how we fought this war for oil."
Please recite for me where I made any such claim that Afghanistan was fought for oil. While you're at it, please recite where I specifically mentioned Afghanistan at all...
Good luck in your search.
(I guess it's never occurred to you that war, in and of itself, is very lucrative for a very few. No resources have to even be on the table, but when they are it's a double bonanza!)
Free0352: "And Birthers have a great many books THAT PROVE (so they claim) that Obama was born in Kenya."
More false equivalency from the master of deceit and deflection.
I invited your arguments, on a couple of occasions, about anything regarding the subject, but you refuse to banter with me. This tells me you know you can't defend the official fairytale, adequately enough, without looking like a fool.
Don't let this stop you. I already know you're one.
John Myste and Dave Dubya are right.
Please recite for me where I made any such claim that Afghanistan was fought for oil
That was more addressed to anti-war memes in general.
I guess it's never occurred to you that war, in and of itself, is very lucrative for a very few.
As if Defense contractors weren't doing infrastructure work with the US military prior to invading Afghanistan? Ah, but any contractor support in your estimation must be war profiteering because ... we shouldn't have an Army to begin with.
More false equivalency
More like EXACT equivalency. You and Donald Trump harbor similar arguments for your pet conspiracy theories. You and Alex Jones aren't even similar - you're identical on the subject.
I invited your arguments, on a couple of occasions, about anything regarding the subject
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial
That is you. I have no desire to argue absurdities with you or Dave about rediculous assertions that THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX™ snuck into the WTC and blew it up in a false flag operation to start a war, then shot a cruise missile into the Pentagon for good measure.
Its just absurd, and no sensible person dignifies it. Even the uber left admits this is childlike fantasy used to justify the most fantastical arguments that can't hold up to any kind of real scrutiny. Your clown shoes "theory" which is really a paranoid delusion has been so debunked you and your fellow Twoofers have become a rather amusing political punchline.
And I don't have serious conversations about jokes.
BTW Dave,
This is why as HR pointed out - the number of commentators has dropped off. Especially liberal ones. No self respecting liberal wants to get sucked into your mind boggling audience of conspiracy theory spouting Truthers. Even they know its kookery.
Which is why I point it out. They've dropped you for the same reason they dropped Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war movement in general - because they don't want to be associated with kooks and figure the anti-war left with all its wild conspiracy theories and silly ideas gives them a bad name.
Free0352: "This is why as HR pointed out - the number of commentators has dropped off. Especially liberal ones."
I suppose it never occurred to you that it could be they're tired of reading your libertarian nonsense and your maniacal desire to kill and maim all those who disagree with you.
One thing that my fellow liberals and I have in common is an unquenchable desire to right the wrongs of the world. I'm sure if "the liberal ones" were tired of anything, they'd comment and make their viewpoints known.
Regarding your reliance on Reductio ad absurdum as a reason for not confronting my opposition to the government fairytale, you still can't take science out of the explanation. Since I have science on my side, and you only have impossibilities sprinkled with a liberal dose of improbabilities and absurdities, I win the argument.
The laws of physics don't lie when they're applied to the natural and physical world. If you're willing to debate the specifics of that murderous day, which the government disallowed when they denied the rule of law to be carried through within the court system, then let's do it right here.
Otherwise, I win the case, because your "evidence" is circumstantial at best and nonexistent when applied in the proper legal venue. Kangaroo courts don't work for me when coming to a consensus, and conclusion, on the crime of the century.
JG
//I suppose it never occurred to you that it could be they're tired of reading your libertarian nonsense//
OR THAT HE IS AS BORING AS ALL GET OUT.
Free blathers: Spare me the kookery and conspiracy theories Dave.
And you neglect again to specify any “kookery and conspiracy theories” from me.
You mean this reality?
It’s the Israeli Right’s lobby AIPAC, not “the Jews” that has the influence. Have you seen all the AIPAC puppets clamoring to undermine the negotiation process with Iran? Nobody gets into the White House without AIPAC approval. Kissing up to them has practically become mandatory for presidential candidates.
If you disagree with this, then show us some evidence to refute it. Otherwise shut up.
Don’t you know it is essential to both parties to have their presidential candidates speak at AIPAC, unlike nearly all American organizations?
Or are you talking about the unanswered questions about 9-11?
Here’s an article about that.
9-11 Conspiracy Theories Won’t Stop
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/9-11-conspiracy-theories-wont-stop/
It is impossible to quantify the number of people who subscribe to truther theories, but at least one poll taken five years after the attacks revealed that as many as one out of three Americans believed the U.S. government was either behind the attacks, or knew about them in advance and purposefully did nothing.
One in three is significant in any world. Note also there was no mention of WTC 7 in that article. None.
You are so ideologically blinded and hopelessly authoritarian you think merely asking questions is the same thing as holding a kooky conspiracy theory.
BTW, Cindy Sheehan turned on the corpo-dems for being GOP lite war mongers. Democrats, not liberals, “dropped” her.
So your ABC link says Michigan “tops the list” for increase in manufacturing jobs.
Great. But nothing in the linked documents indicates that claim as true. You made a claim about union jobs. YOU owe us real numbers, sport. SHOW us the numbers or shut up, please. How many times do I have to ask???
No wonder people are bored of your senseless drivel.
At least you credit Obama with this, then, right?
And since January of 2010, the United States has added 520,000 manufacturing jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
LOL, Yeah we know, you want it both ways.
Philosophy time:
DD: Money is literally taken from me and “trickles up”
Free: And money is literally taken from me and "redistributed" to the old. Why is one right and the other wrong?
In my case both are true. As far as right v wrong, taking from the least wealthy and healthy, and giving to the rich would be far less morally defensible than having everyone contributing to the needs of the elderly. Many many more of us will get older, and many many fewer will get rich.
You didn't distinguish which is right and which is wrong, and why. You seem to be bothered by the rich paying more taxes, but fine with raising taxes on the elderly with limited resources.
What about your government benefits when you get old? Right or wrong?
Enlighten us.
Post a Comment