Posted on 09/27/2001 9:35:12 AM PDT by MarkWar
Junkie Girl
In the good old bad part of this college town
Men in business suits they chase you down
You take their money just like you take mine
You send it bubbling down the thin blue line
It doesn't matter how it got this way
'Cause we could make it through this thing together
I know you're laughing but I got to say
Now I still want you maybe more than ever
No fooling it's a f***** up world
So be cool my little junkie girl
The cops are out to shut the district down
I comb the ruins of your stomping grounds
Stanyan Street looking like that third world war
You come up blazing like an open sore
Now I believe you but I got to know
How come the right side of your brain is hurting
So take me with you when you go
Through to the white side of your China curtain
No fooling it's a f***** up world
So be cool my little junkie girl
In the good old bad part of this college town
Men in grey limousines will drive you down
You take their money just like you take mine
Where does it get you on that thin blue line
Now I can hardly hear you any more
Your eyes are empty and your voice is hollow
I see you waving from a distant shore
And where you're going I don't dare to follow
No fooling that's another world
Good luck my little junkie girl
Y2K U.S. expendetures on the war on drugs: 40 BILLION
Y2K FEMA budget for domestic preparadness and terrorism : 150 MILLION
-----------------------------------
People who promote drug prohibitions and the criminalization of users are, in effect, constitutional 'terrorists'. They should be treated as such.
Prohibitive law against life, liberty, and property is specifically forbidden by the 14th amendment.
Okay. I'll stand by my words. If you advocate legalization of drugs, then you are a terrorist and should be treated as one.
I do have a couple of additional comments, though.
(1) What you quoted came from my post to Mudboy, not the essay that started this thread. (Doesn't matter, though, really -- I stand by them.)
(2) You took the trouble to actually cut and paste my own words for me, but then you added, "...that is to say, I should be killed on sight" which I certainly never said.
Heck, if you review treatment of terrorists both here and abroad, most terrorists who are caught are given prison terms. In fact, prison terms for terrorists are often unbelievable short. (But that's another issue.)
Mark W.
That's easy!
I intend to collapse the viscious, disgusting and mindless house of cards that the Freeper drug promoters are forever standing up as their arguments.
Mark W.
Thanks, tpaine, for putting up a substantive comment! And, thanks for putting up one of the very "house of cards" I was anxious to topple.
I'll address both the larger issue you raise, and the ludicrous specific you cite.
First, the silly stuff. The 14th Amendment says, among other things, that "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." [my emphasis] Well, nobody is talking about depriving anybody of anything without due process of law. That would be bad. You forget, it's the libertarians who think laws are evil. I'm in favor of laws. In this case, I'm in favor of laws that make drug use illegal, and laws that severely punish people engaged in drug trafficking. But, by all means, due process should be followed.
But I also want to address the whole Constitutionality issue. There are two points worth making.
The entire thrust of the Constitution -- that is, the _intent_ of the writers -- which guided the creation of later specifics and future interpretations -- is stated simply in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States,
(1) in Order to form a more perfect Union,
(2) establish Justice,
(3) insure domestic Tranquility,
(4) provide for the common defence,
(5) promote the general Welfare, and
(6) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Now, since it's reasonably clear (as itemized in the header of this thread) that drug trafficking and drug use (1) balkanizes the Union, (2) perverts justice, (3) disrupts domestic tranquility, (4) weakens the common defense, (5) corrupts the general Welfare and (6) erodes the blessings of liberty both to us and our children, it should be reasonably clear that our Founders would have had no trouble at all looking at the dangers drugs pose in the contemporary world and enacting laws to prohibit drug trafficking and drug use (six out of six ain't bad).
But there is still another aspect of the "legal" issues that needs addressing. (And the obnoxious libertarian exercise of casting our Founders as proto-libertarians when they were nothing of the sort.)
Have you ever actually read the Declaration of Independence?
Right after the famous first two paragraphs of introduction, the Declaration gets down to the specific complaints the Colonies have with Britain that caused the revolt. And guess what? The very first complaint against Britain is: "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." [pretends to gasp] What?! Laws that are _wholesome_ and _necessary_ for the public good!
In fact, the first three complaints are specifically addressed at the Crown for making it difficult for the Colonies to pass LAWS that they wanted to pass.
[sighs] There's nothing about drug laws that go against the Constitution. There's nothing about drug laws that go against the intentions of our Founding Fathers.
This belief is an absurd house of cards and it's been my pleasure to demolish it. (Interested lurkers can review both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence here: USConstitution.net - Site Index )
Mark W.
Well, I'll just overlook that poo-poo business ;-> and ask, Did you even read what I wrote in my first couple of replies?
I specifically wrote to Mudboy:
"Drug users are often victims. (They're not victims in the same sense as the WTC victims, because drug users make a choice -- but when it's a choice based on lies and seduction and exploitation, then they've been victimized too.) Victims need to be helped.
Surprisingly (or not) it seems like the drug promoters are responding not to what I put up, but to what they either want to see. Or to all their interested in.
(In point of fact, although I included "WOD" as one of my keywords, I never intended this thread to be even about the war on drugs. I included "WOD" as a keyword because I thought people interested in it would be interested in what I see as the bigger picture, the real imperative, of the activists, politicians and money men -- foreign and domestic -- who are behind the drug trafficking, and crippling or prolonging the war on drugs. That is, the cultural balkanization and exploitation that goes on both domestically and globally, and how this process has impacted the current terrorist scene by identifying "America" in the minds of foreigners with the reality of Blue Nation America -- which is actually just part of America overall. But, sadly, a part that, like a junkie, has the capability to destroy everything...)
Mark W.
lol. I can't say I know what you said, but I believe it's traditional for me, in this case, to respond by saying:
"Icy Hot Stunta" -- member since September 27th, 2001
Mark W.
Okay. I'll stand by my words. If you advocate legalization of drugs, then you are a terrorist and should be treated as one.
Thanks, loser. Keep it up. Keep telling the world that people should be jailed or killed for having opinions you don't like. Then try to explain how you're different from the rest of the fascist and communist monsters, or how the society you'd like to see would differ from the hellholes they created.
You condemn yourself further every time you open your mouth or touch your keyboard. But then, you who have neither defensible morals nor sense enough to know when you've hanged yourself with your own words will hardly recognize the implications of your hatred-drenched "position."
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Thanks, tpaine, for putting up a substantive comment! And, thanks for putting up one of the very "house of cards" I was anxious to topple. I'll address both the larger issue you raise, and the ludicrous specific you cite. First, the silly stuff. The 14th Amendment says, among other things, that "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." [my emphasis] Well, nobody is talking about depriving anybody of anything without due process of law. That would be bad. You forget, it's the libertarians who think laws are evil. I'm in favor of laws. In this case, I'm in favor of laws that make drug use illegal, and laws that severely punish people engaged in drug trafficking. But, by all means, due process should be followed.
--- Only an 'silly' clown would generalize that libertarians think laws are evil.
Prohibitive law, --- fiat law, violates due process, by its very nature.
A benign product, or a non violent act, is made 'illegal' by statute. -- Thus creating a criminal, who must then defend himself against violating an unconstitutional law.
This violates due process as a jury MUST be allowed to judge the facts AND THE LAW. In our present system, jury nullification is practically impossible. -- Therefore, -- no 'due process'.
But I also want to address the whole Constitutionality issue. There are two points worth making. The entire thrust of the Constitution -- that is, the _intent_ of the writers -- which guided the creation of later specifics and future interpretations -- is stated simply in the Preamble: We the People of the United States, (1) in Order to form a more perfect Union, (2) establish Justice, (3) insure domestic Tranquility, (4) provide for the common defence, (5) promote the general Welfare, and (6) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution... Now, since it's reasonably clear (as itemized in the header of this thread) that drug trafficking and drug use (1) balkanizes the Union,
-- Nope, the drug WAR does that.
(2) perverts justice, (3) disrupts domestic tranquility, (4) weakens the common defense, (5) corrupts the general Welfare and (6) erodes the blessings of liberty both to us and our children,
How silly. -- All of these things can be attributed to prohibition.
it should be reasonably clear that our Founders would have had no trouble at all looking at the dangers drugs pose in the contemporary world and enacting laws to prohibit drug trafficking and drug use (six out of six ain't bad). But there is still another aspect of the "legal" issues that needs addressing. (And the obnoxious libertarian exercise of casting our Founders as proto-libertarians when they were nothing of the sort.)
--- Stuff your 'obnoxious' hate for libertarians up your silly behind.
Have you ever actually read the Declaration of Independence? Right after the famous first two paragraphs of introduction, the Declaration gets down to the specific complaints the Colonies have with Britain that caused the revolt. And guess what? The very first complaint against Britain is: "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." [pretends to gasp] What?! Laws that are _wholesome_ and _necessary_ for the public good! In fact, the first three complaints are specifically addressed at the Crown for making it difficult for the Colonies to pass LAWS that they wanted to pass. [sighs] There's nothing about drug laws that go against the Constitution. There's nothing about drug laws that go against the intentions of our Founding Fathers.
How bout the intent to preserve life, liberty and property? The prohibition of alcohol [ a 'taking' of property] was temporarally accepted as constitutional, by amendment. Then sanity prevailed -- NO ONE has ever attempted to prohibit 'drugs' by amendment, for good constitutional reasons.
States are empowered to 'regulate' the PUBLIC use & sale of property. They do not have the power to ban ANY type of property.
This belief is an absurd house of cards and it's been my pleasure to demolish it.
Dream on with your absurd boasts, -- they match your arguments.
Let's talk about that for a moment. Let's talk about people who condemn themself every time they open their mouth.
Specifically, let's try and get a little perspective on the complicated present by reviewing an aspect of the past that's pretty well understood.
Just about 160 years ago, a war on drugs was being waged. Britain was conducting a war on China and China was fighting back. Britain had at least four motives for this war. (1) Britain wanted to make tons of money selling drugs to China. (2) Britain wanted to dictate to China what China's foreign policies should be re trade. (3) Britain wanted to dictate to China what China's internal policies should be re imports. (4) Britain wanted to make sure that China never had the option of changing it's relatively isolationist policies and adopting a globalist agenda of its own by weakening the will of the Chinese people and balkanizing the population.
Now. In this context, what do you guys suppose the Chinese people would have called a Chinese person who went around yelling that the enemy wasn't Britain, but rather that the enemy was the Chinese government? What do you suppose the Chinese people would have called a Chinese person who encouraged people to stop fighting Britain and become activists against the Chinese government? What do you suppose the Chinese people would have called such a person?
Would they have called him a helpless peasant who didn't even have the brains to realize China was at war? Or would they have called him a scumbag traitor, collaborating with the enemy by opening an internal front to weaken the will of the people while a war was in progress?
Well, everyone can answer that question for themselves.
Enough of the past. Now let's see if what we've learned can be applied to the present.
Here were are in modern America. We have a country under seige from drug traffickers. We have globalist activists from multinational interest groups seeking to define America's foreign trade policies. We have globalist activists from multinational interest groups seeking to define America's internal policies. And we have Blue Nation America constantly promoting cultural activism which balkanizes the American population.
And, today, we have people yelling that the enemy is our own government. Today, we have people saying we shouldn't fight the drug traffickers and the globalists exploiting them, but should become activists against our own government.
Hmmm. What should we call such people? What would you call such people?
Mark W.
You proceed from a false premise. This country is not under seige from drug traffickers. This country is under seige from militant, radical Islamic factions.
Both these factions and US government agencies have been caught trafficking in drugs, along with thousands of independents.
Drug trafficking is a lucrative business. It is that way solely because of the current environment of the drugs being ILLEGAL. If you doubt this, ask yourself how many terrorist organizations are being funded through the sales of fine, single malt scotches, and sassy little Anejo rums.
We have globalist activists from multinational interest groups seeking to define America's foreign trade policies.
This is a newsflash? Hello? All of our ex-politicians, including Dole, Poppy Bush, etc., all sell their time and influence in our government to multinational interest groups.
We have globalist activists from multinational interest groups seeking to define America's internal policies.
Hello? What are you, a World Trade Organization protestor? In today's business environment, nearly every single major corporation in the US is MULTI-NATIONAL!
And we have Blue Nation America constantly promoting cultural activism which balkanizes the American population.
Hey, Mark ... just put on that ol' sheet and start burning you some crosses, dude!
People are free to associate in this country. If you have a problem with that, go down to the local immigration office, and offer to put up in your house several dozen immigrants in order to indoctrinate them in the MarkWar School of Citizenship.
With regard to the Opium Wars: Anyone who has a thorough knowledge of that period in history is aware of many things that you deigned not to mention, in particular the intimate relations between the drug-marketing companies of that period and the British Crown, and the desire of the Chinese Emperor, not to end the use of opium in China, but to redirect the trade toward his own favored merchants -- members of the Imperial Family. This aspect of the affair has been whitewashed out of most histories by persons anxious to preserve the reputation of various highly-placed families, or to distort it for argumentative purposes -- as you have done. So tell us all: are you ignorant, or malicious?
But all of that to the side, I concede that there is room for honest and civilized men to debate the wisdom of drug prohibition. You do not concede that. You want to suppress debate, whether out of a will to power or a hidden conviction that your arguments for your position are insufficient. No honest man advocates jailing or killing those who merely disagree with him.
With regard to your specious use of inflammatory rhetoric: A traitor is one who has committed treason, which is defined in the United States Constitution. Look it up; you might learn something. It has nothing to do with the advocacy of any idea, which is protected by the First Amendment. A terrorist is one who wields violence for political purposes. To apply these terms to persons attempting to pursue a debate over public policy is as dishonest and vicious an act as I can imagine, short of actually taking up a weapon and striking your opponents down. And somehow I have no difficulty imagining a certain MarkWar, whose argumentative skills are so primitive as to provoke laughter, doing exactly that.
Now you can have the last word, if you like. Orwell knew about your kind: they who twist the meanings of words, degrading human communication for the sake of power over others. As far as I'm concerned, you deserve to talk only to yourself. And I'll wager that that's whom you'll be talking to, for a good long while.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
You said; --- There's nothing about drug laws that go against the Constitution. There's nothing about drug laws that go against the intentions of our Founding Fathers.
How bout the intent to preserve life, liberty and property? The prohibition of alcohol [ a 'taking' of property] was temporarally accepted as constitutional, by amendment. Then sanity prevailed -- NO ONE has ever attempted to prohibit 'drugs' by amendment, for good constitutional reasons.
States are empowered to 'regulate' the PUBLIC use & sale of property. They do not have the power to ban ANY type of property.
This belief is an absurd house of cards and it's been my pleasure to demolish it.
Dream on with your absurd boasts, -- they match your arguments. - #33 -
Thanks for the reply.
(1) The essay I put up at the head of this thread wasn't meant to be about a range-of-the-moment situation. Yes, we are currently fighting elements of the Islamic Revolution. But to my eyes that is only a tiny part of the problem. I tried to sketch my view of the larger picture, the picture which gave rise, in part, to the particulars of the moment.
(2) [sighs] Terrorists make lots of money from smuggling drugs. But this has nothing directly to do with the legality/illegality of the process. Terrorists also -- as we've all learned over the last few weeks -- make millions of dollars playing the stock market. Also, terrorist currently configure their organizations -- as we've also learned over the few weeks -- as loosely inter-twined charitable organizations. Terrorists make money every way they can, and they manage their money every way they can. They don't do drugs because drugs are illegal. They do drugs because it makes them money. If drugs were legalized, among many other things, it would be one less way of attack terrorism _and_ terrorists would still be able to use it to make money. (FYI, the oil business is certainly legal. But can you imagine how many OPEC petro-billions have trickled down to the Islamic Revolution over the years?!)
(3) I never said I was posting a newflash. I never said I was posting anything which, individually, was unknown. I was attempting to tie together different aspects of Blue Nation America and its consequences at home and abroad.
(4) "...just put on that ol' sheet and start burning you some crosses..." -- of all the spurious personal attacks on me in this thread, this strikes me as the most hurtful. Nothing I said evens alluded to racism on my part. Just the opposite -- in speaking about the balkanization of America, I was referring to _how bad it is_ that racists exploit racial hatred. But the word "balkanization" means much more that racial divides -- it refers to _all_ the ways a Machiavellian Establishment (or any enemy) can destabalize a population and get people fighting among themselves.
Mark W.
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.