Government Against the People

Words of Truth ^ | Aaron Armitage

[tpaine]

Are you 'high' right now? Your last post makes no sense. - Please explain. [if you can]

[LibKill]

A.J., You Rock! Good writing.

[Texaggie79]

not a single soul (in other words a single person) out there(this is general, but let's say, this nation, keep it simple for ya) has been harmed (harmed can be hurt, physically, mentally, or financially) who has not touched drugs (This is referring to the souls I mentioned earlier, it is saying that they have not consumed illicit drugs)

[tpaine]

ALL mind altering substances are, to a degree, harmful to their users. That is why we give govenment the power to regulate them. --- Just as they have the power to regulate nukes.

Really my boy, you should go back to a good school. Texas A&M failed you, -- or you it.
219 posted by tpaine

------------------------------------------

To: tpaine

"harmful to their users."

Sho you right! We all know that not a single soul out there has been harmed who has not touched drugs......... - 220 -

Let's start over. - I posted #219.

You replied with #220, which you imagine is some sort of retort to my 'harmful' statement.

It is not. -- It is a senseless, inane comment, that has no context in any relationship to my words.

Pitiful

[Texaggie79]

If I found some substance that, when taken forced it's user to go kill people. Would you think that it would be constitutional for a state to prohibit it? What about a substance that forced 50% of the users? What about 10%? What if it just made the user go beat up other people? What if it just made the user temporarily insane? What if the user were just made to be hostile?

Where is the line drawn and who gets to decide? Or would you argue that proven insane psychopaths, who have committed no actual crime, but are proven to be a threat, should be allowed to roam the streets?

[tpaine]

If I found some substance that, when taken forced it's user to go kill people. Would you think that it would be constitutional for a state to prohibit it?

Sure. Hard imagine a substance having such a 'force' though. Sounds magical.

What about a substance that forced 50% of the users? What about 10%?

While your 'what if' game is amusing, do you have a point?

What if it just made the user go beat up other people? What if it just made the user temporarily insane? What if the user were just made to be hostile?

Many criminals claim "the devil [booze, weed, whatever] made me do it". -- Adults know different.

Where is the line drawn and who gets to decide? Or would you argue that proven insane psychopaths, who have committed no actual crime, but are proven to be a threat, should be allowed to roam the streets?

Nope, -- I'm in favor of the devils island concept for violent people of all sorts. Once proven guilty of violence by a jury of peers, put them with their criminal peers, and let nature take its course.

As to your 'preventive detention' scheme for 'insane psychos, roaming the streets', I'd vote for you being the one "who gets to decide".

Takes one to know one.

[Texaggie79]

[tpaine]

That troop does look a little like me [as of '55 thru '58].

You should join up tex. A yes man like you would make a fine supply company clerk.

Your nation needs you.

[Texaggie79]

yup, cause the REAL soldiers all want to legalize drugs.

[Demidog]

Been reading this. He can't make a point. But he does know how to manipulate an image. In fact it's like he has been saving that one up. And since his command of the English language is so poor, he figured he'd insult you with a picture. Alot of work if you ask me. Almost borders on the insane. Who puts that much energy into an internet discussion?

[Demidog]

Most of the real soldiers take drugs. In 83, one of the biggest Meth smuggling operations in San Diego was supplied through a United States Navy Aircraft Carrier. You should join up. Then you can tell us all what a brave dude you are and we'll believe you.

[Texaggie79]

Who puts that much energy into an internet discussion?

LOL, yes I did dedicated a whole 30 seconds out of my life. What an effort!!! LOL

P.S. only REAL men want drugs legalized!! Right? Ideals outweigh human life by a million times over eh.

[Texaggie79]

Most of the real soldiers take drugs.

I know it! Our guys are ever there right now shootin up some of that GREAT afghan smack.

LMAO, what's it like seeing life through that "Purple Haze"?

[Demidog]

tpaine is right. You are a master of the non-sequitor. Perhaps it's because you don't have anything better to say and don't know how to shut your pie-hole.

Tpaine is your better. Join up and keep your attitude. I can't wait to hear how many days on KP and TP you got.

[_Jim]

As the United States prepares retaliation

Wrong.

This, terrorism and terroristic acts are cancer on society and it threatens any hope we have for peace in the future *if* it (terrorism) isn't snuffed out now.

there is a temptation, already succumbed to rhetorically by some people, to treat the Afghan people or all Middle Easterners as the enemy in a total war.

BUT we're not and we haven't ... (WHEN was this article written again)?

Acting on that impulse is exactly what bin Laden wants,

Wrong.

Osma bin Laden wants us dead. EVERYTHING ELSE is secondary ...

The Taliban are, in many ways, an alien force within Afghan society.

Wrong.

The Taliban ARE Afghan society. (The Soviets weren't - the Pakaistanis aren't and neither are we.)

Many of the supporters of the Taliban ... are from foreign countries ... and these are some of their best troops in the war against the Northern Alliance.

Wrong.

We have kicked their butts WITH THE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT of the Northern Alliance (WHEN was this article written again?)

A non-tyrannical government exists to protect the persons and property of everyone inside its jurisdiction by punishing domestic criminals and defeating foreign attackers,

Wrong.

A so-called "non-tyrannical government" exists to serve only it's *own* selfish self-interests (see ANY dictatorship for an example)

And *that* was only the first *two* paragraphs ...

[Texaggie79]

Since paine(inthe@#) can't, why don't you try answering my question to him. You guys know I'm right becuase you have not put up a valid argument in months. The states have the constitutional power to prohibit drugs no matter how bad you want them.

[A.J.Armitage]

As the United States prepares retaliation

Wrong.

This, terrorism and terroristic acts are cancer on society and it threatens any hope we have for peace in the future *if* it (terrorism) isn't snuffed out now.

They hit us. We hit them back, and rightly so. This is called retaliation. We were preparing it at the time I wrote the piece. Simple, really.

there is a temptation, already succumbed to rhetorically by some people, to treat the Afghan people or all Middle Easterners as the enemy in a total war.

BUT we're not and we haven't ... (WHEN was this article written again)?

It was written not long before 9/24/01. Looks, in other words, like Bush took my sage advice. (Yes, I know there's almost no chance he read it.)

Acting on that impulse is exactly what bin Laden wants,

Wrong.

Osma bin Laden wants us dead. EVERYTHING ELSE is secondary ...

I'd say right now he mainly wants to get out alive. Not likely to happen, of course.

The Taliban are, in many ways, an alien force within Afghan society.

Wrong.

The Taliban ARE Afghan society. (The Soviets weren't - the Pakaistanis aren't and neither are we.)

That's why the Afghans shaved off their beards, threw off their burqas, and flew kites while listening to music when the Taliban got kicked out. Because the Taliban "ARE" Afghan society. That's why the Taliban hardly exist anymore.

You do know that you look really dumb for saying that, don't you?

Many of the supporters of the Taliban ... are from foreign countries ... and these are some of their best troops in the war against the Northern Alliance.

Wrong.

We have kicked their butts WITH THE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT of the Northern Alliance (WHEN was this article written again?)

But I thought you just said the Taliban WERE Afghan society. Now you're telling me the Northern Alliance (who, last time I checked, were Afghans; actually, last time I checked, not only were they Afghans, they were running Afghanistan) helped us beat the Taliban.

I don't see what any of this has to do with my point. You do recall, don't you, that little thing with the prison? It was the only time the Taliban put up a fight worth mentioning, and all of them were from outside Afghanistan. Heck, one was an American. You do know who John Walker is, right?

A non-tyrannical government exists to protect the persons and property of everyone inside its jurisdiction by punishing domestic criminals and defeating foreign attackers,

Wrong.

A so-called "non-tyrannical government" exists to serve only it's *own* selfish self-interests (see ANY dictatorship for an example)

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't cite dictatorships as non-tyrannical governments.

And *that* was only the first *two* paragraphs ...

And I never knew how good those paragraphs were until someone tried to refute them.

I still can't believe you said the Taliban is Afghan society. I feel sorry for pointing out the obvious absurdity of that. Dementia like that really ought to be put on display so people can walk by and marvel at it.

[_Jim]

I've got to admit that I *did* make a mistake and read this part as being 'tyrannical' as opposed to 'non-tyrannical' ':

   so-called "non-tyrannical governments 

That changes the whole meaning ...

[A.J.Armitage]

Did you also misread the stories about Afghans celebrating after the Taliban got kicked out?

[_Jim]

PS. I *still stand* by the rest of what I wrote - despite your attempt to twist different meaning into it.

The rational amongst know whereof I speak. And that's whom I'm addressing ...