Replies

>You condemn yourself further every time you open your mouth...

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.

We have a country under seige from drug traffickers.

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.

You're a real one-note violin, you know that? It's possible that you haven't had an original thought in your entire life.

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 answered neither of us in your last little rant. --- Here's a reminder:

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 -