Posted on 11/02/2005 7:03:16 AM PST by Wolfie
Hysterical hyperbole. 24/7
Probably got lessons from a federal government that chooses to ignore laws that they don't want to enforce.
A lot of ducking, dodging and evading but no posts of any substance from you. Who WERE you in your previous incarnation??? Would the Mods find you interesting to research?
BTW, I am quite calm, with no hysteria tonight. My meds are working just fine, thanks. (JK, I need no meds.)As far as hyperbole, it seems to be AMERICANS who are being killed and jailed by the drug warriors, for the most part. SInce one cannot make war on inanimate objects or substances, and since it is called a WAR, it is being waged on real human beings... AMERICANS. Hence it is hardly hyperbole to characterize this evil as a war on Americans by our own government. Hardly the sort of thing the founders could have envisioned when they granted FedGov certain VERY LIMITED authority.
Nothing to duck, dodge or evade. You spew unsubstantiated falsehoods.
Ping 'em.
Everything I have said has been documented and substantiated time and again. You are obviously being deliberately obtuse, but that's only what I expect from a shill for the war on Americans, aka the WOsD. I notice you post no refutations. Could that be because you CANNOT refute the historical evidence? Hmmmm. I guess all you have to offer is more of the same Barbra Streisand every other WODDIE and WODDIE-suck up has to offer. Sorry, pal. More and more Americans are waking up to the truth of the matter, and truth is exactly what you and your ilk are sorely lacking.
False. As always.
When has he even used the term "anti-WOsD"?
Jim has been very outspoken in the past in his opinion that the Federal drug war is grossly unconstitutional. Can you at least concede that good people can disagree on this and that folks with this opinion are not drug users?
He was known as Roscoe. He was inactive for a while but never got banned. He's actually pretty sensible and a good debater when it comes to non-drug issues. I think the funniest thing was when he and Kevin Curry were teamed up with the libertarians in supporting Tom McClintock against Arnold a while back.
You lie again, just as always, Roscoe. Your posts are nothing BUT lies. Always have been, always will be. Pity. And, no, I sure did not miss you one whit.
A handful.
Hemp products are utterly irrelevant to your ridiculous claim that "The restrictions on dope are greater [than those on alcohol] as a matter of degree," since hemp is not dope. Your continuing dishonesty is noted but not approved.
And it's [alcohol's] legalization has increased automobile accidents, along with the resulting maimings and deaths. It has increased child abuse and neglect. It has caused lost productivity in the workplace. It has destroyed many lives in many ways.
Legalization of the drug alcohol has most probably led to increased use of alcohol. You're making the stronger, and unproven, claim that it has led to increased ABuse of alcohol ... although criminalization increases the incentive to abuse for one who chooses to use.
And even if legalization was established to lead to increased abuse (which it has not been), legalization of an act forces nobody to commit it; insulting one's spouse is legal, but that doesn't force anyone to do so.
Things are bad enough. We don't need to legalize drugs and add to the problem.
Criminalization of the drug alcohol, in the view of the supermajority that repealed the Prohibition amendment, caused more problems than it solved; the same argument applies to criminalization of marijuana.
Then beer is not alcohol.
So, where does "We the people..............." come in?
Society has not fallen to anarchy because 98% of people do not initiate force against anyone. Each person is self governed and as the highest authority -- a choice that only they can make, he or she honors as their underpinning principle: do not initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any individual's self, property or contract.
If a person is incapable of self-governing themselves then how is it that they would be capable of governing others? Their only resort is to support a government that governs by initiating force against people -- the code of the communitarian. That creates anarchy.
Regardless of any law, a person that has force/harm initiated against them has suffered and is due restitution. Legalizing plunder -- initiation of force/harm -- cannot change that fact.
|
Article 1 |
| No person, group of persons, or government shall initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self, property, or contract. |
|
Article 2 |
|
Force is morally-and-legally justified only for protection from those who violate Article 1. |
|
Article 3 |
|
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2. |
No person, group of persons, or government shall initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self, property, or contract.
Representative government taxes. In fact, even direct goverment does.
Here in California direct votes regularly impose property and sales tax increases.
98% don't support a libertarian/neo-tech theology. It's more like 2%.
You turned the figure on its head.
Representative government taxes. In fact, even direct goverment does.
All national and state governments initiate force/harm and threat of force/harm against people..
Here in California direct votes regularly impose property and sales tax increases.
"The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our conscience has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government - that is, the Law itself. What can be better calculated to silence our scruples, and, which is perhaps better appreciated, to overcome all resistance? We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it, " I am dissatisfied at the proportion between my labor and my enjoyments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me? Could you not find me a good place? or check the industry of my competitors? or, perhaps, lend me gratuitously some capital which, you may take from its possessor? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense? or grant me some prizes? or secure me a competence when I have attained my fiftieth year? By this mean I shall gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace!" - Frederic Bastiat
Roscoe (aka Mojave), an advocate of legalized plunder.
With the support and at the behest of the 98% you falsely claimed for your cult.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.