Posted on 09/27/2001 9:35:12 AM PDT by MarkWar
I made my point clearly. Arguing about individual batches of words taken out of their larger context is a fool's game. (As we've seen...)
However, we've both addressed the larger context. I don't expect to change your mind and I'm sure you don't expect to change mind. My main purpose here is to have fun, state my case plainly (a case which, as the essay at the head of this thread makes clear, is only peripherally related to the WOD) and to expose as best I can how utterly vacuous the drug promotion arguments are, and how mean-spirited, disconnected and self-serving drug promoters are (at best) and how evil and dangerous to conservative America drug promoters are (at worst).
I appreciate the help. Mark W.
Really? Again, please detail the terrorists that are making money off of fine, single malt scotch!
Econ 101: Whatever is prohibited will be sought. Markets will be created.
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.
Really? How much of the mafia still is making money off of running molasses and rum? How much of the mafia is making money off of Napa Valley?
I was attempting to tie together different aspects of Blue Nation America and its consequences at home and abroad.
And in your rosey-colored perspective, it is only the blue nation that is doing and running drugs. It is precisely this idiocy that is being counted on.
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.
Oh, you mean like the War on Drugs. And getting people all segregated into their little blue nation and red nation, with the red nation claiming that all evil comes from the blue nation.
The war on drugs will not save her. It will not save any of them. Anyone with any clarity of mind can see that.
2sheep -- thanks for those links from the other thread! Those look like stuff I'll be checking out closely, and keeping handy for the future -- such as it is.
Mark W.
(1) & (2) (a) Yes, really. The terrorists are making money of legitimate businesses many different ways. First of all, by playing the stock market. Second of all, by running charitable non-profit organizations as fronts, they can accept donations from businesses which are ostensibly legitimate, but actually just cut-outs. (b) Many of the exact same families who made millions with liquor as an illegal business are still making money with liquor as a legal business. Making the business legal didn't stop the practice from proliferating and it didn't stop the bad guys from profiting from it. Quite the opposite. (c) I never took econ 101, but it sounds like a reasonable point. However, it's kind of beside the point. Markets come into being for many different reasons. But the market for drugs didn't "come into existence" when drugs were made illegal. All aspects of the drug market (and drug culture) have been in the world for hundreds or even thousands of years. But then, evil has existed all those years, too. Nobody believes evil is going to be eliminated by anything we do. But we all do everything we can to fight it. We don't embrace evil and lay down with the devil because we recognize that we're not going to make him go away. It's the same with drug culture. Nobody thinks drug culture will be eliminated from the planet. But decent people want to do everything we can to fight it.
(3) This is an interesting point. First of all, I never said that Red Nation America was without sin. But there are differences. The simplistic answer is that when a person embraces Blue Nation values, then he or she becomes part of Blue Nation. So, yes, it's fair to say that nobody in Red Nation is running drugs. (A more complete answer is that it goes to a point that philosophers make, saying that some things are bad because they're evil in and of themselves, and some things are bad just because, for whatever reason, they're prohibited. People in Red Nation America hold values individually and are cognizant, individually, of Man's obligations to God and to his fellows. They wouldn't engage in activity that was evil in and of itself whether it's prohibited or not. It's one of the basic differences between Red Nation and Blue Nation.
Mark W.
Please see here, My reply #35.
Possibly you are right. And, possibly, Jane Fonda was being a patriotic American by going to North Vietnam during the war. Could be. Could be she just knew that that war wasn't going to work out and she was pursuing America's interests. But does anyone believe that?!
-- Both your 'essay' & post #3 belie your 'peripheral' comment.
and to expose as best I can how utterly vacuous the drug promotion arguments are, and how mean-spirited, disconnected and self-serving drug promoters are (at best)
-- NO ONE here is 'promoting drugs'. You are seriously delusional to keep insisting so.
and how evil and dangerous to conservative America drug promoters are (at worst).
--- You are promoting the use of unconstitutional prohibitory law, by the state. -- THIS is truly dangerous & evil conduct.
I also think the war on drugs is a useless war, with no chance of victory, and more than I abhor the use of drugs, I abhor the abuse of liberty that the war brings.
You can believe that or not. I don't really care.
re charitable non-profit orgs: I suggest you cite your sources for this information. In addition, call the FBI. They can use all the hot tips they can get. If you have no sources, is this just something you made up?
Many of the exact same families who made millions with liquor as an illegal business are still making money with liquor as a legal business.
Name 2 that are funding terrorist organizations.
Making the business legal didn't stop the practice from proliferating and it didn't stop the bad guys from profiting from it. Quite the opposite.
Al Capone is still running rotgut? Really? Cite specific distilleries, families, and sources of information etc.
From http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/gen003b.htm --
Instead of consuming alcoholic beverages manufactured under the safeguards of state and federal standards ... people now drank rotgut, some of it adulterated, some of it contaminated. The use of methyl alcohol, a poison, because ethyl alcohol was unavailable or too costly, led to blindness and death; ginger jake, 11 an adulterant found in bootleg beverages, produced paralysis and death.The disreputable saloon was replaced by the even less savory speakeasy. There was a shift from relatively mild light wines and beers to hard liquors--less bulky and therefore less hazardous to manufacture, transport, and sell on the black market. Young people--and especially respectable young women, who rarely got drunk in public before 1920--now staggered out of speakeasies and reeled down the streets.
There were legal closing hours for saloons; the speakeasies stayed open night and day. Organized crime syndicates took control of alcohol distribution, establishing power bases that (it is alleged) still survive. Marihuana, a drug previously little used in the United States, was first popularized during the period of alcohol Prohibition ... and ether was also imbibed (Brecher, 1972).
But the market for drugs didn't "come into existence" when drugs were made illegal.
Really? How many were doing it before the Tax Act? You better go back to school and learn a little something about human nature.
All aspects of the drug market (and drug culture) have been in the world for hundreds or even thousands of years.
Ah, but the intrepid Americans with their Prohibition are going to change thousands of years of history, culture, and human nature.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
But then, evil has existed all those years, too. Nobody believes evil is going to be eliminated by anything we do. But we all do everything we can to fight it. We don't embrace evil and lay down with the devil because we recognize that we're not going to make him go away. It's the same with drug culture. Nobody thinks drug culture will be eliminated from the planet. But decent people want to do everything we can to fight it.
I suggest you arrest and lockup Oliver North, and the rest of the Bush-Pere administration. I and many others saw the downed military cargo plane in the Everglades, loaded to the gills with cocaine.
First of all, I never said that Red Nation America was without sin. But there are differences.
You are a naive, hypocritical bigot of the worst kind -- you're delusional.
The simplistic answer is that when a person embraces Blue Nation values, then he or she becomes part of Blue Nation. So, yes, it's fair to say that nobody in Red Nation is running drugs.
And this has to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen anyone post on the FR.
(A more complete answer is that it goes to a point that philosophers make, saying that some things are bad because they're evil in and of themselves, and some things are bad just because, for whatever reason, they're prohibited.
And because some of people in this country are too stupid to educate themselves, and prefer to believe without thinking, and prefer the wide, easy road of believing the B.S. started by Hearst and DuPont and perpetuated by Anslinger, we should just continue down this path, spending billions annually, destroying crops, livelihoods, rain forests, entire eco-systems, and incarcerating millions annually.
You may prefer for someone else to make choices for you. I do not.
You may prefer to trust in the very same bozos who've given us tyrannical asset forfeiture/seizure laws, who've botched the investigations into the Waco slaughter, and who couldn't even get rid of the rapist Clinton, and the sleeze bucket Condit. I do not.
People in Red Nation America hold values individually and are cognizant, individually, of Man's obligations to God and to his fellows. They wouldn't engage in activity that was evil in and of itself whether it's prohibited or not. It's one of the basic differences between Red Nation and Blue Nation.
Like I said before, just put on that ol' sheet, and start burning 'dem crosses! Because, the truth is you know nothing of the people you are generalizing about. You have objectified (dehumanized) a portion of our citizenry with unfounded, albeit convenient, scapegoating opinions.
And you're naive. But your worst sin is that you don't see it. And you never will.
You are just like Hillary.
(1) No, certainly I didn't make this up. I'm not going to do your research for you (see #2, below), but there are at least three ways of checking this out for people who are interested and who don't believe me. First of all, read through the recent press articles describing bin Laden and his "organization" Al-Qaida. Secondly, look up histories of organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. They almost all have "business" offices in London (and else where -- that's how connections from one such "charity" got money to Hillary's campaign). And, in fact, they almost all actually do a great amount of "charity" work like getting school supplies for kids and all. This is how the organizations manage to stay around. They hide behind the "charity" covers. (The actual thinking behind such organization goes way back to an interesting source. Again, I'm not going to do your research for you (#2, below), but haven't you ever wondered where the english language got the popular -- especially during the Klinton years -- word "spin?" The word "spin" -- used in a media context -- is really an acronym for segmented-polycentric-integrated-network and was developed by activists who wanted a way to influence society without having a direct, central target open to counter-attack. When a story or person gets "spin"-treatment now it means fellow travelers in many different media forums, seemingly unrelated, do coordinated stories supporting a particular point of view. This same _segmented_ and _polycentric_ yet _integrated_ _network_ arrangment is used by terrorist organizations for the very reason we see at work today -- how can America strike back when the enemy is scattered all around?)
(2) Now that crosses the line. That's something more than strong emotion talking, and it's ugly. From now on, I won't play with you.
Mark W.
So, Marky makes a claim, and when asked to provide facts, he thinks he's doing research for the one who demanded he back up his claims. Interesting democRATic perspective, Marky.
but there are at least three ways of checking this out for people who are interested and who don't believe me. First of all, read through the recent press articles describing bin Laden and his "organization" Al-Qaida. Secondly, look up histories of organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. They almost all have "business" offices in London (and else where -- that's how connections from one such "charity" got money to Hillary's campaign).
Do cite your references.
And, in fact, they almost all actually do a great amount of "charity" work like getting school supplies for kids and all. This is how the organizations manage to stay around. They hide behind the "charity" covers. (The actual thinking behind such organization goes way back to an interesting source.
Ah, the magical, top secret compartmentalized source. Sort of like the magic bullet theory.
Again, I'm not going to do your research for you (#2, below),
So, you regard supporting your claims as doing research for another?
but haven't you ever wondered where the english language got the popular -- especially during the Klinton years -- word "spin?" The word "spin" -- used in a media context -- is really an acronym for segmented-polycentric-integrated-network and was developed by activists who wanted a way to influence society without having a direct, central target open to counter-attack.
And your source for this astounding revelation? Let me guess ... Lyndon LaRouche.
When a story or person gets "spin"-treatment now it means fellow travelers in many different media forums, seemingly unrelated, do coordinated stories supporting a particular point of view. This same _segmented_ and _polycentric_ yet _integrated_ _network_ arrangment is used by terrorist organizations for the very reason we see at work today -- how can America strike back when the enemy is scattered all around?)
Hang on a minute, my tin foil hat slipped.
Now that crosses the line. That's something more than strong emotion talking, and it's ugly. From now on, I won't play with you.
Especially since I've challenged you twice on your magical, super-secret sources/references, and you've declined twice to cite them.
LOL! Yeah, that's me, MarkWar, the guy that makes everything up! Yeah, in fact, actually, I wrote all of Steely Dan's songs, too. Yep.
(No, TPW, I didn't decline to cite sources because I made them up, but just because it's just common knowledge that terrorist groups use legitimate charities as fronts and you're such a butt-wipe that it wasn't worth my time to even do a quick search to find the obvious.)
But, it's a new day, I have a little more energy for frivolous searchs, so I'll do a little of your work for you.
Look how easy it is. Without even trying hard you could have found this at CNN:
CHAT PARTICIPANT: How can you track the money of a man who could be banking under several thousand names?William Wechsler: Following the Osama bin Laden money trail
WECHSLER: Good question. It's very difficult, because money is raised in a variety of forms, through charitable donations, through direct solicitations, through legal businesses, and criminal enterprises. Al Qaeda also moves its money through cash smuggling, through regular banking systems, where they make good use of money from off-shore centers and other money-laundering havens, and through the Islamic banking system, and finally, they use the hawala underground banking system.
...
CHAT PARTICIPANT: Could an American be unknowingly contributing funds to the al Qaeda organization?
WECHSLER: Yes. In fact, we suspect a great many donors all over the world have no idea that their money is being diverted to terrorist causes. Many of these people give to charities intending to help widows and orphans, but some of their money ends up going for guns and bombs.
And, still without trying hard you could have found this of AP:
The computer engineering professor founded the World and Islam Studies Enterprises, a now-defunct think tank that was at the university until the FBI raided it in 1995 and froze its assets.Palestinian Professor Put on Leave
Al-Arian has never been detained or charged with a crime, but the think tank and a related Palestinian charity were accused by the FBI and Immigration and Naturalization Service of being a fund-raising front for terrorists. Al-Arian had been placed on a two-year leave during the 1995 probe.
It's interesting that you would be so quick to accuse me of flat out lying. That might in itself be something for you to research. No, come to think of it, I'll save you time there, too. Here's one last quote and link for you:
pro·jec·tion [pr jékshn ]"projection"
(plural pro·jec·tions)
noun
...
6. PSYCHOLOGY unconscious transfer of inner mental life: the unconscious ascription of a personal thought, feeling, or impulse to somebody else, especially a thought or feeling considered undesirable
LOL! I live in Red Nation America, Poppy. I don't lie (well, not about fun stuff). (And, interestingly, I don't often feel the need to accuse others of lying, either.) But don't give up on yourself, Pop. Remember what Zep said: "Yes, there are two paths you can go by/But in the long run there's still time to change the road you're on" (No I didn't make that up, either. It's from "Stairway to Heaven" but I'm not going to put up a link to it. (Oh, what the heck, lurkers may want to rock, too: Stairway To Heaven (Page/Plant) ))
Mark W.
(No, TPW, I didn't decline to cite sources because I made them up, but just because it's just common knowledge that terrorist groups use legitimate charities as fronts and you're such a butt-wipe that it wasn't worth my time to even do a quick search to find the obvious.)But, it's a new day, I have a little more energy for frivolous searchs, so I'll do a little of your work for you.
Interesting personal attack, again, Marky-poo.
Considering that posting references, sources, cites, etc., only substantiates claims, you hold a strange resistance to that. Me thinks there's a whole lot of trouble going on over there in Marky-poo's head, and that you've given us way too much information on that trouble already.
Could it be that these sources hold some interesting thread that can and should be pulled, unraveling somebody's cover story? Let's look, shall we?
We seem to have the FBI claiming that these terrorists ebb and flow in and out of the country as heads of charitable organizations here and back out to become heads of Islamic militant jihad groups. And we seem to have a former National Security Council member claiming that its a common as dirt to have money donated to Islamic charitable organizations go directly to fund terrorism.
Absolutely no specifics are given, though, on the charitable organizations. Don't we think this is an interesting tidbit to leave out? And isn't it interesting that the heads of these charitable organizations and their staff appear to have been shown to be linked with certain terrorists and their organizations for at least 6 years, and still there is no mention of the specific charitable organizations?
What is the purpose of stories that challenge the integrity of specific charitable organizations, but fail to mention the particulars, like which ones?
What is the purpose of stories that publish that money intended for widows and orphans are really going for bombs and bullets, and not reveal those outlets? These outlets are apparently known quite well to those individuals releasing this information about them. And yet, no mention of the organizations' particulars.
Wouldn't getting the truth out to the public so that they can stop giving money, i.e., funding the bombs and bullets, be a priority here? I would've thought so. But apparently, it isn't. Which begs the question -- WHY?
Sorry, Marky-poo. These stories have a propoganda taint to them.
If you can provide better sources, e.g., ones that actually cite the specific charitable organizations, I might be amenable to changing my opinion. Otherwise, this just looks like another snow job, courtesy of the USG.
Too late, baby. We already know everything we need to know about you.
Now move along. There's nothing more to see here.
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.