Forum Post: Conservatrolls Hate America
Posted 12 years ago on March 9, 2012, 10:14 p.m. EST by pewestlake
(947)
from Brooklyn, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
They hate New York. They hate San Francisco. They hate New Orleans and Chicago. They hate Detroit and Washington DC. They hate Seattle and Austin and Ann Arbor and Ithaca. They hate California and Oregon and Connecticut and Michigan. They hate black Americans, gay Americans, female Americans, liberal Americans, progressive Americans, Muslim Americans, Mormon Americans and atheist Americans. They really hate Jewish Americans but they need them to fulfill the imaginary end-times prophecy before they can indulge in the full-blown antisemitism in their hearts. They even hate each other for not being sufficiently hateful.
Conservatrolls hate Americans and America with every fiber of their being. Their policies are designed to destroy America from the inside out. No tactic is too low for them not because the end justifies the means, but because that's just who they are. They are mean, low people with mean, low thoughts strutting on a stage of their own fantasies, constructed to shelter themselves from the truth of their own psychoses. Because the truth is that they hate America.
They hate democracy - and what, for god's sake, is more American than democracy - and while trying to destroy our democracy they shove the flag in our face and call US unpatriotic! We're the patriots - I don't know WHAT they are at this point!
Newt?
Sarah?
Bachman?
Bobby Gendal, the guy who hides behind potted plants?
Dan Quale?
GW Bush?
Glenn Beck?
Ann Coulter?
Where did these misfits come from? They need to be in a mental halfway house, except that would be an insult to the mentally ill! Did they come from some alien, cold world, where they spawned feeding off warm blooded life forms?
You tell me.
GW Bush was not a conservative. The rest of your list yes
Bush was also a globalist and conservative are generally nationalist.
Yes the rest of those on you list are conservative but G.W. - not even close.
You are right, in the sense that Bush spent our treasury like a mad cow, and also that he was not a conservative. But that money went almost exclusively to the corporations, contractors, etc., that are the puppet masters of the neo-con establishment. In other words, it was a kind of financial coup de' tat.
But I don't think we've seen a real conservative since Eisenhower.
Yes,
It was Eisenhower that coined the term Military Industrial Complex and warned us of the dangers of travelling the road we are on right now.
Correct: he who had a real concern for Americans, and for actually conserving our resources. Ever since, the Republicans have frankly just been a glorified class of criminals, and I don't exclude a lot of democrats from that class either. I just think their are more of them that remain patriots.
What I hate most is the way these criminals have managed to label anyone who questions them - communists, radicals, nut-cases, anti-American, nut-case survivalists, etc., etc., ect. It just shows the great power of the media to effectively propogandize people.
I certainly didn't agree with Eisenhower on a lot of things, but there is no doubt in my mind that he was essentially an honest, well intentioned man that had the countries best interests at heart. GWB? Don't make me sick! He should be in prison!
My two favorite political speeches on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7zCWAmO9OM
I think everyone should see both of those speeches.
Thanks! But I don't agree about the honesty and sincerity of Ron Paul - quite the opposite. I smypathize with the desire for freedom on the part of Liberatarians, but know RP to be misleading them, and using them for an alternate, and completely contrary agenda. Please see my post, "A Bitter-Sweet Victory."
You did not think that was a great speech?
Did you listen to the words or stop as soon as you saw who it was?
I am not talking about him being president I am talking about that speech.
Yes, I do agree with what he said in the speech. And thank you for helping to raise awareness here!
In fact Bush spent down the surplus he inherited and ratcheted up the deficit specifically to bankrupt the government and force it to become smaller. It was part of an overall plan the NeoCons dubbed "starve the beast" in an effort to end funding for all social safety net programs. If the government is insolvent, it can't afford to fund those programs, so the theory went.
The very people, including Cheney, who wrote the original memos over 40 years ago, were all on his staff..And the strategy has been very well documented, including in such msm as the NY Times.
Make no mistake, this was ALL about conservatism.
Who gives a chit about Bush you moron. What about the current do nothing idiot we have now?????
This thread is about conservative trolls like you. If you want to discuss Obama, start another thread, or join the many already here, instead of changing the subject.
Better yet, go back under the bridge from which you were hatched, troll.
LOL
I wish I had the answer. The only thing I know for sure is that a lot of the money that we spend in the economy winds up funneling through corporatists and into their hands for the sole purpose of advancing the corporate agenda, which more often than not, includes sending America into another pointless war somewhere in the world. So they're not just immoral, they're war profiteers, which makes them complicit in crimes against humanity. No wonder they're so paranoid. They have a lot to answer for.
You are exactly right, which is why we must prepare for increasinly draconian levels of intimidation. We, however, have public opinion on our side and that support is growing. Can we see the significance of the total blackout of news on this movement in the mainstream press, and the lack of any polling data in months?
These are great signs that we are winning the battle for public oppinion. The last I heard 49% of Americans support us, and 9% of Americans approve of Congress! Think about the implications of that!
Our major vulerability, as I see it, is to let those paid to confuse us convince us that we need to limit our tactics to one thing or another. That helps them to contain the movement. The other is non-violence. We must not allow them to slander us as the purpetraters of violence, and thus give them an excuse to crack down hard with state sponsored violence, while at the same time turning public opinion against us.
Finally, I think we must use any funds donated, by Ben and Jerry's for example, for creative means of outreach. We cannot compete head to head with the corporate message in the established media, so we must use internet networking, and online petitions to our full advantage.
The Corporate Confederate Red States want to undo all the progress that progressives have provided for all Americans.
Progressive?
What is so progressive about progressives?
Progressives are anti-progress. They fight progress that lowers the cost of living like cheap-energy which in turn reduces the cost of almost everything including , food, clothing, heating and AC, manufacturing, and transportation. If there is an old, termite ridden, health-department-condemned fire tarp in your town that should be torn down and replaced with a hospital, progressives will halt the progress by calling the dump historic and chaining themselves to the rotting porch posts.
Progressives limit free speech. We are only allowed to use the words and talk about subjects that are approved by the progressive elite. Newspeak.
Progressives regress pushing 2000 year old technology to generate energy. It takes 100 square miles of ear-piercing, ugly windmills to generate the same amount of power as a nuke the size of a Wal-Mart. Nukes can be located near water which is also convenient for major cities where most energy is needed, provides energy independence, produces no green house gasses, and can provide electricity and heat for all sorts of new technology like electric cars. Wind turbine accidents account for 87 fatalities in the last 10 years. Number of fatalities at US Nukes over the same period (or ever for that matter), zero.
Progressives want to give rights to whales and take them away from little children. This thinking reverts to a time when the family goat was more valuable than the family daughter, who was frequently traded for livestock. Examples: Princeton ethics Prof. Stephen Singer (kill children with disabilities), PETA, “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”.
Progressives believe that killing newborns is no different than abortion: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
Progressives insist that we must trust the scientists when it comes to things global warming but shun the scientists when it comes to modern medicine. When ill progressives prefer sleeping with crystals, putting magnets in their pockets, and drinking herbal tea to proven vaccines and antibiotics. Example, Steve Jobs was a progressive business man that demanded excellence in hi-tech Apple products but chose a low-tech cure for his cancer that probably cost him his life.
Progressives want to solve difficult problems like global warming by cowering at home warming their hands over a CFL lamp. We used to get off our butts and fix things with great projects like the Hoover Dam, disease eradication, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the US Interstate Highway System.
Once we threw off the bonds of monarchs and dictators, now progressives constantly whine for more from the state turning it into our master, while beatifying murderous despots like Mao, Castro, and Hugo Chavez.
Dr. Martin Luther King asked that his children be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Progressives want pigmentation preference when punishing the daughter for the sins of the mother. Examples; race preference for University admission, government contract set-asides based on race, and tax-exempt status for race-based lobbying groups.
Progressives like regressive taxes like the VAT and Corporate Tax.
What is so progressive about progressives?
Go away, ratboy.
Yep!!!!
Yep!
Did you ever notice that for the most part, most of the cool places to live in are not conservative cities. Even 'they' have to get out and visit those places at least once in a while....to recharge their humanity. lol
True but even "conservative" cities are more progressive than their country cousins. It's the nature of living in close quarters with lots of people. It's just easier to go through your day without a swarm of bugs up your ass. ;-)
The Freedom Riders might have disagreed with you, but then again that was fifty years ago.
Ah...visit....but notice the hated conservatives only visit. They don't live there. They don't raise children there.
I do not hate conservatives...or anyone for that matter. Some of my friends are conservatives, but I do think that there are a disproportionate number of them that live in a very 'small world.'
Exactly. The more rural the area, the more homogenous it tends to be. Its easy to hate gay or black people if your town of 500 contains all white and straight people.
It also has a lot to do with how you are brought up...whether you educate yourself...and perhaps whether you have had the chance to travel beyond the tourist's destinations while you are still young, and your mind is still open. It is fairly difficult to hate a whole race, religion, or culture when you have broken bread with them, and shared good times with them too. What bothers me about conservative politicians in particular is how they play upon the fears of the people.
Uh huh.great.
I don't know how "great" it is, but I understand it.
So how many should be allowed to exist?
eight
And will you be one of them?
The "eight" in my previous reply was just a stupid answer........to a stupid question.
Most conservatives are not part of the 1%. Most conservatives are, after all, part of the 99%, though I do think that the are essentially extremely frightened and insecure about their social position and future, which explains their conservatism. Everything appears as a threat to them whether is its massive immigration or the increasing openness of gay rights or even more extensive rights for women.
I don't particularly have any magic formulas as to how to break through all of this fear and paranoia, though I did see it work in several instances where genuine hard core conservatives took the trouble to actually visit an OWS encampment.
Probably the best theoretical stuff on this problem of which I am aware is Wilhelm Reich's writing on Sex Pol in which he discussed the rise of fascist ideology within the German working class and how such elements might be won over by the Left.
Interesting remarks. And you remind me that I originally intended to use the term "conservatroll," not the broader-brushed "conservative." If I thought any of the conservatrolls that haunt this forum were here for anything other than juvenile delinquency, I'd be happy to engage substantively. I know that fear is the biggest emotional driving factor for most self-described social conservatives. There are ways to channel those fears into more constructive mindsets.
I believe I'll edit the post to reflect my original, narrower subject. ;-)
It is interesting to note that when asked most Americans characterize themselves as conservative. However, when the question is disagregated, when people are asked about how they feel about social security, labor unions, workers rights, the environment and even even rather personal questions such as foreign born people or gay people that they know personally, it turns out that most people would be more accurately described as social democrats regardless of their self image.
The word liberal has been effectively denigrated. So much that we had to change our name to progressive. If you don't say you're conservative then it automatically means you are a sex crazed lunatic welfare queen helping to smuggle Mexicans over the border in exchange for coke and marijuana to satisfy your many drug addictions.
That is not how it happened at all. The fact is if both Jefferson and FDR are considered liberals the word is without any specific meaning. After all, theoretically at least Jefferson was about as anti-statist as it is possible to be whereas FDR was just the opposite, about as statist as it is possible to be within the framework of a capitalist political economy.
Liberalism, as a political philosophy was essentially the ideology of a pre-corporate middle class which distained the state, stood for individual liberty, was skeptical of democracy, supported free trade and tended to support trade unionism more as an expression of individual rights than a matter of class solidarity. The social basis of classical liberalism was destroyed with the rise of the corporate state.
In its place there arose a new corporately based middle class which was itself threatened by the corporate megaliths from above and a rising working class movement from below. To protect itself from these contending forces it thrashed around for an ally and found one in the form of the state. Thus was formed the ideology of progressivism which linked the state and the new middle class in alliance against its corporate aversaries from above and its working class adversaries from below.
This movement reached a couple of peaks. One was in 1912 when two of the three major parties subscribed basically to a progressive ideology. The second time was with the rise of the New Deal when a broadly construed progressivism became public policy. By that time, and especially after the Socialist Party was effectively crushed because of its opposition to America's entry into World War I, even organized labor began to subscribe to the doctrine of progressivism, even when it was often against its own interests.
IMHO the great strength of OWS or at least the OWS encampments is that it really did treat and view everyone as equal and it didn't matter if you were a Ph.D. or an unemployed, homeless, psychotic, drug addicted, foreign born felon or some combination of the above. At their peak and at their best everyone who entered an OWS encampment was considered to be sincere and considered both in terms of their needs and what they could or would contribute to the movement. I've been active on the socialist left for nearly 50 years and I've never encountered a social movement that was more open and less judgemental that OWS has been at its best. But it doesn't seem to me that that has anything to do with liberalism however defined.
It was really more of an offhand remark. Only half serious.
Yours is a much better analysis. : )
Thanks. Several people have referred to some of my contributions as pompous. I'm not sure what is meant by that. If I knew I'd certainly try to avoid it.
Nah. I don't think your pompous. I think you're very smart.
I believe it's a side effect of turning politics into team sports. I self-identify as a Dodger fan but I don't agree with the policy of dismantling the team's finances because the owner can't get along with his wife. Luckily, it doesn't matter because it's the effing Dodgers. Whatever.
But when the teams we're talking about are the Democratic and Republican parties, it bloody well does matter a whole hell of lot more than many people appreciate. The only point on which tea partiers and I agree is that the teams aren't what they pretend to be anymore.
With the one exception of court appointments, which are still important. Real differences still exist in that area.
True
I believe that the greatest strength of OWS is that it is at least an incipient culture of opposition and as such exists outside of the extremely narrow Republican and Democratic binary. It's not that the two parties are not what they pretend to be any more. They never were, or more accurately, both parties agree on fundamentals. Both agree on the two party system and will always combine when seriously threatened by an independent option outside that system. Both agree on foreign policy and have ever since a bipartisan foreign policy was adopted in 1947 and both agree on capitalism as an economic system and will always couch their economic arguments in such a way that their policies seem consistent with "free enterprise" whether they are or not.
I agree with most of what you say but something changed with the Obama Presidency. Domestic politics used to end at the waters edge, as they say. But since Obama's swearing-in, neo-cons and hard core Republics have turned off the governor and feel free to criticize the President in the usual partisan ways even when he's in the foreign country that is the subject of the critique.
I concluded a long time ago that they can't bring themselves to respect the Office of the Presidency as long as its occupied by a black man. They were almost as bad with Clinton but they still didn't violate the waters edge rule. Those days are over. And they would have been over in a Hillary Presidency, too. And that's the real divide between the left and the right.
The right is far more concerned with gender, skin color, sexual orientation and general sexuality than the left. The right is busy trying to legislate gays and unwanted pregnancies out of existence while allowing America to default on its obligations, dropping our rating from AAA to junk overnight. And that extreme rightward swing and dangerous brinkmanship has gotten the attention of American voters, and even social conservatives are beginning to abandon the religious fight and get serious about the economy. This could be the beginning of the wave that breaks over both parties, drowning one and carrying the other to sanity as it see what it could become.
The Obama policy that conservatives most resent is the fact that he is black. Other than that, he's really quite conservative himself, a product of Chicago machine politics. All of his economic advisors come out of Goldman Sachs (a Wall Street firm, but a Jewish Wall Street firm). He clearly thinks nothing of sending assassination teams around the world, a new and rather disturbing development in American imperialism.
There is no meaningfully organized mass left in the United States and there hasn't been since Wilson's Democratic Justice Department smashed the Socialist Party because of its opposition to America's participation in World War I. What is so great and wonderful about OWS is that it is the first real oppositionist movement, small as it is, to arise in the US since then. All intervening movement: labor, civil rights, antiwar, etc. were essentially single issue movements whereas OWS is really an incipient culture of opposition. The reason why it is so difficult for both supporters and opponents to understand is because there has been nothing like it in living memory.
"The Obama policy that conservatives most resent is the fact that he is black."
They really have no idea how obvious they are.
Woah there RedJazz, hold up there a second. What possible relevance does the religion of the founders - not the employees - of Goldman Sachs have to anything at all?
I was suggesting that the Obama administration is ethnicly diversely but in spite of that it is still fundamentally as reactionary, imperialist and class based as any other American Presidency.
It so happens that I'm a member of the Society of Friends and progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson's Attorney General, the guy responsible for smashing the Socialist Party and the IWW was Mitchel Palmer who happened to be a Quaker, a fact which IMHO Quakers should be permanently and publicly embarrassed about. Does it matter what religion Palmer was? Yeah, I think it does, especially since we Quakers make such a big deal about being so fucking open minded.
OK, it didn't come off as being about diversity. Especially as the only two people we know for sure are Jewish in Goldman/Sachs are Mr. Goldmand and Mr. Sachs. The company is as diverse as any other.
And I completely disagree with religious affiliation being important. ALL politicians claim to be religious, whether Protestant, Catholic, Mormon or Jew. Ever one is a hypocrite regardless of the book they claim to read. Their very lust for power is against the tenets of all of them.
Yeah, that's part of the point too. The whole culture of Goldman Sachs is one of self conscious, liberal diversity, which ultimately becomes a smoke screen to obscure the fact that it is the institutions of corporatism that are screwing over all of us.
I don't think that it is irrelevant that many of the founding fathers were dieists, for example, and I really don't think it's about hypocricy at all. In many instances it is all quite sincere. In most instance I don't think religious liberals are hypocrites so much as acting in a way consistent with their value system. The same, I think, is true of religious liberals. Even when religious liberals appear to be hypocrites, it's not so much about hypocricy as it is about the shortcomings and inconsistencies of their own point of view. As Robert Frost said, the problem with liberals is they won't even fight for their own point of view.
I disagree that Goldman-Sachs is doing anything to create a liberal cover by being diverse. Greed has no color barrier, no religious affiliation. GS is only doing two things: complying with anti-discrimination laws and hiring those people, regardless of religious affiliation, that will make them more money. The only color that's important is green, and the only religion, capitalism.
I know several people who work at GS and the outfit goes out of its way to go way beyond EEO compliance and to consciously create a culture of diversity. It is undoubtedly doing this ultimately for the bottom line and to maximize profit, Nevertheless, from people I've talked to who work there the diversity culture at GS is significantly different from the anglo saxon firms on the Street.
I think different organizations and different people have their own way to feel good about themselves while committing economic rape. One does it through creating diversity, another through pretending they're cowboys. If they all dressed like Mother Theresa, it still does not reflect on her, but on their delusions. Simply because GS pretends to be liberal doesn't make them any less right wing (as in hard core capitalist) just the same.
I really don't disagree with you here and by no means have I meant my posts to in any way be supportive of GS, only to point out that there are significant differences within the ruling elite and not just between them and us. Virtually all of Obama's economic advisors are from GS and most of his domestic advisors are out of the Chicago machine while his foreign and military advisors are mostly Clintonestas, It is beyond me how anyone who says they are supportive of OWS could find anything positive in the Obama administration.
WOW! You really believe what you posted?? Really?
Not sure what specific posting you are referring. Most of my postings are either verifiable matters of fact or matters of opinion that can be ascribed to others, not mere unsubstantiated opinions or opinions that cannot be independently substantiated. That said, I don't just contribute things to see what affect they might have on others and any opinion that I do have and publicly state I truly believe
They are just a bunch of wankers, whipping up fear.
I wish they would just hide under the bed. A nice over filled water bed.
I consider myself a "conservative" democrat. This means that I value the principles upon which America was founded, as opposed to those of communism or other movements to the extent that they are anti-capitalist, such as greens or anarchists.
Being a democrat, I favor the policies of FDR and JFK, particularly big projects for reviving the economy, under our current circumstances, but also recognize that Abraham Lincoln, a republican, pursued great projects, such as railroads, for the purpose of economic development.
I think my main objection to "liberalism" would be that it is sometimes used to justify the liberal abuses of the elites.
Lincoln was a progressive Republican, much like TR. He didn't consider himself a progressive, but in a time when most conservatives were against spending of any kind, Lincoln won elections partly with a platform of "improvements." Plus the whole slavery thing. ;-)
When you talk about "liberlaism" and "elites" in the same sentence, methinks you're either not a very good Democrat or you've been drinking some funny kool-aid. Elite means privilege and control. Yes, there are rich liberals, but the vast majority of the people who run large corporations, sit on corporate boards, run hedge funds and banks and make policy for the US Chamber of Commerce are corporate conservatives. I'm not really sure what "abuses" elite liberals have perpetrated.
Aleister Crowley once said that the philosophy of satanism can be summed up by the phrase "do what thou will", and I think that the abuses of liberalism would be along these lines.
For example, that if people want to do drugs, they should be allowed to do so. It may seem that the people are being granted the freedom to do what they want, but they are actually being enslaved to an addiction that earns hefty profits for the elites through the laundering of drug money.
I think that's a specious argument. You have two different arguments here -- one the impact drugs have on the self and, two, the impact it has on others and society. And the big mistake you make here is in assuming that the black market for drugs is less natural than the white market. An oxycodone addict is availing himself of the black market just as much as a heroine addict. Just because one has a corresponding white market doesn't make the act less illegal or more socially acceptable.
As to the "do what thou will" aspect, that doesn't address the issue of black market drugs in the slightest. Nor does it address the rampant use of legally prescribed pharmaceuticals acquired through "doctor shopping." And why does "do what thou will" present a social stigma coming from a liberal when it's celebrated as principled policy coming from a libertarian? Why is the the thing that directly impacts all our lives -- the economy -- so off limits but our daily existence -- birth control, gay marriage -- is subject to strict federal controls? Is that really the dichotomy you want to live by?
If "do what thou will" is celebrated as a libertarian policy, it is not me who is doing the celebrating.
I'm not talking about whether the black or white markets for drugs are natural, but rather that they can be exploitive.
And in what sense do you mean that the economy is "off limits"?
"Off limits" in that morality never enters the equation when it comes to discussing inequities in the economy but inequities in social policy are A-OK. Why is "do what thou wilt" problematic when the issue is a person doing drugs that wouldn't hurt anyone else if it wasn't bought from the black market, but not a problem when it comes to private wealth playing god with our economic fortunes? That's what mystifies me.
An individual doing drugs does hurt society, because it interferes with that individuals capacity to contribute to society.
A "person doing drugs" includes people driving around on prescriptions they shouldn't take before "using heavy equipment." It's easy to sound tough and moral decrying "drugs." Reality is lot more complicated than that. And rarely do the people who rail against drug use ever mention the most destructive and pervasive drug in our culture -- alcohol. So again, "do what thou will " seems aimed at social behavior but not economic inequity. In my opinion, economic inequity is much more destructive to society than the use of drugs for any purpose -- including recreation -- which have been of part of human culture since before we left the caves.
I'm not so much concerned about the people taking the drugs as I am about the people making money off addiction.
What would you say about the opium wars? The Chinese government strenuously resisted the English empire's insistence on their right to sell opium to the Chinese people.
The English won the war against the Chinese and took the right to sell opium in China, resulting in 10% of the Chinese population getting hooked on a horribly addicting drug.
The English opium traffickers were said to have made comparatively more money than today's computer billionaires, and destroyed the capacity of the Chinese to defend their own nation.
Well that actually proves my point. For the British, their sense of economic morality trumped any consideration of social morality. And it was that economic imperialism that unleashed a social scourge on China. And the same can be said for tobacco companies that target children -- economic imperialism unleashing a social scourge. (But the British were a far superior fighting force irrespective of the Chinese ability to stay sober.)
So markets have rules for a reason and that's why there's no such thing as a free market. But we don't ban alcohol, tobacco or oxycontin just because they can, and routinely are, abused. So when you say "drugs," you're not really encompassing the whole story. Just because some people can't do their recreational drugs responsibly doesn't mean society will outlaw that behavior for those who can, as is true with alcohol. And just because some unscrupulous marketing campaigns unleashed a social scourge on society doesn't mean we'll end up dismantling the entire industry. So you haven't really made your case at all with that one.
Are you saying that we should not allow cigarette companies? If so, I would agree.
And perhaps the British were superior fighters, but we have reached a stage of development in which continuing to fight could result in the wiping out of most of humanity. That is, a nuclear war with China and Russia, triggered by a war with Iran.
I don't really believe in following the rules of the market but rather setting rules and guidelines for the economy.
Well, outlawing tobacco and tobacco companies would simply create another black market. You're entitled to your beliefs but I'd rather make laws that make sense.
What's sensible to one is nonsense to another.
"If education worked, I'd be for it."
It works. You should be for it.
"The last three decades have witnessed a global increase in the criminalization of improper drug use. Criminalization has resulted in increased use of harsh punitive sanctions imposed on drug offenders and dramatic increases in rates of incarceration. These policies have had limited impact on eliminating or reducing illegal drug use and may have resulted in adverse consequences for social and community health. The criminal justice system has proved to be an ineffective forum for managing or controlling many aspects of the drug trade or the problem of illegal drug usage. In recent years, some progress has been reported when governing bodies have managed drug use and addiction as a public health problem which requires treatment, counseling and medical interventions rather than incarceration."
Global Commission on Drug Policies (PDF) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cts=1331591567685&ved=0CHUQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalcommissionondrugs.org%2FArquivos%2FGlobal_Com_Bryan_Stevenson.pdf&ei=a3heT7HjCYPi0QHz06GwBw&usg=AFQjCNE9GXEVnCjwFEz2O8RLp0379YWuPw
"'The rate of recidivism is anywhere from 20 to 60 percent lower following participation in work, education and vocational programs while incarcerated' (Hull, 2000). Statistics will show that 'when that same treatment option is taken away, the crime rate increases once again, the drug related deaths increase and the arrests for drug and alcohol related offenses increased' (Twedt, 2005).
http://voices.yahoo.com/treatment-education-versus-incarceration-3932314.html?cat=5
"The Pew Center on the States found five states spent as much or more on prisons as they did on education and that 28 states were spending 50 cents on prisons for every dollar spent on education."
http://michigancitizen.com/education-vs-incarceration-p9721-75.htm
I'm not so much for criminalization of users, I think we should have a jobs program and one benefit of that would be drug rehabilitation.
There are vicious people in the drug business though, and to the extent that education and rehabilitation don't work for everybody, there probably would be a need to deal with those dangerous people.
"According to McCaffrey, Afghan heroin kills more than five times as many as are lost in actual combat."
So what? Using education doesn't get anyone killed. It's just a silly argument from every direction.
If education worked, I'd be for it.
"Then I guess we have nothing but a new opium war against the entire world to look forward to, what fun"
That's exactly what your idea of using police and military to stop drug use would result in. It doesn't matter if the gestapo is pro-drug or anti-drug, giving rise to a global gestapo for any reason is insanity, period. But I guess you're OK with sending American paramilitary troops into Colombia at great expense with no reward and little to no congressional oversight. Welcome to your opium war. YOUR opium war.
According to McCaffrey, Afghan heroin kills more than five times as many as are lost in actual combat.
"I guess we wouldn't know until we tried."
We've tried. We're trying now. It failed then. It's failing now. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're wrong.
Then I guess we have nothing but a new opium war against the entire world to look forward to, what fun:
...Ivanov stressed that drugs are a special kind of weapon of mass destruction, and that the situation in Russia has reached the dimensions of a national catastrophe. Indeed, in Russia during the last year alone, 30,000 addicts, ages 18-24, died from an overdose of heroin; according to official statistics, there are 2.5 million drug users, a figure which is rising explosively. According to McCaffrey, Afghan heroin kills about 10,000 people per year in the NATO member-states, which is five times as many as NATO loses in all its combat actions. No less dramatic for national security in Russia is the fact that the terrorist attacks that shook Russia in recent weeks were perpetrated by terrorist groups that are financed by the proceeds of the Afghan drug trade.
"I believe black markets can be dealt with through a combination of police and military efforts to eradicated drugs at the source."
You're wrong.
Replying to the post below:
We have tried. We have tried since Raegan declared a "war on drugs" three decades ago. Its time to admit that all we are doing is wasting law enforcement money that should be used to combat terrorism and keep our borders secure instead of clogging our courts and prisons with a bunch of 20-somethings who were caught with dime-bags of weed.
I'm not a fan of recreational drugs, but I'm not a fan of excessive alcohol or tobacco either. I so think its hypocritical of our government to allow us to consume beverages that are proven to cause death at high levels of ingestion, cause numerous traffic fatalities, and much more yet bans things that are only personally dangerous. Its time to end the war on drugs, re-assign the drug czars, legalize marijuana and regulate it, OR re-instate prohibition and ban all tobacco sales. No more hypocritical policy. Ban them all, or regulate them all (and raise more tax revenue.)
I guess we wouldn't know until we tried.
No, what's sensible is not creating another violent black market because we're concerned about "sending the wrong message" to children. What's sensible is acknowledging human nature and minimizing the danger to the general public. That's why we have roads.
Allowing people to hurtle around in two ton metal death machines isn't very safe for society but our need for mobility is greater than our need to ensure perfect safety. So we do the best we can by creating rules and painting lines and adding air bags and so on but we don't ban driving altogether just because there are a lot of dangerous and just plain crappy drivers on the road.
Prohibition never reduces the behavior it seeks to eliminate, it just drives it underground, gives rise to a black market and enriches and empowers criminal gangs who bring ever-increasing levels of violence to our streets. We've seen this movie before and we're watching it right now all across America and especially in Mexico in our decades-long catastrophe of a "war on drugs."
I'd rather devote those resources to black markets we can't allow to exist, like human and organ trafficking and loose nukes. That's not just sensible to me and lot of other people, that's sensible, period. There's just too much evidence to show that prohibition doesn't work to persist with that ideology. That's what progressive means to me. Not ignoring the facts, the mountains of evidence that points to the sensible middle path, but embracing it and enacting policy that reflects who we really are, not some unattainably ideal version of ourselves.
Liberty means allowing people to be idiots if they want, provided they don't infringe on the liberty of others. You say doing drugs is an infringement because drug users aren't carrying their weight. That's almost completely false. If you take aspirin or drink a beer on the weekend, you "take drugs." The first helps you function, not the reverse, and some say the same about the latter.
You're offering a simplistic answer to a complex issue, almost as simplistic as the notion that "do what thou will" is a meaningful expression of the "excesses of liberalism," or indicates it shares any kinship with the "philosophy of satanism." When you start attaching the same moral resentment to the "do what thou will" mindset of international bankers, global free traders, hedge fund managers, federal reserve governors and the like, then you may have the beginning of a real principle.
I believe black markets can be dealt with through a combination of police and military efforts to eradicated drugs at the source.
Guess I don't agree with your definition of liberty. Its a sort of liberty that results in addiction/slavery.
Perhaps what I'm saying seems simplistic, I just don't think its worth arguing much over an irreconcilable difference.
Despite the fact that I fundamentally disagree with them, I would not be so harsh. I think that they seem mostly to be infantile kibbitzers and they are probably extremely lonely people with lots of time on their hands.
I suspect that if they have any coherent political thoughts at all it is driven by the same fear and paranoia that drives most conservative thought, not out of hate for America.
I've met anarchists and socialists at OWS encampments who were so hostile to American imperialism and the corporatism of the American nation state that they too could be reasonably said that they hate America, or at least the American nation-state if not the American people, so I'm not sure it is a reasonable characterization.
I've also met hard core conservatives at OWS encampments who were considerably more genial that is the case with the "trolls" here, which is one reason why I think physical encampments are so important.
I think the best way to handle the "trolls" here is simply to ignore them and not to rise to their bait, which many of us seem to have considerable difficulty doing.
On the other hand, sometimes it takes some digging to distinguish between a sincere conservative with whom one might have a useful or at least interesting conversation and a "troll" who is basically lonely and in need of considerable personal attention.
I don't have any real disagreement with what you say. But since I changed "conservative" to "conservatroll" and narrowed the subject, I'm standing by the level harshness. The reason certain conservatrolls post topics about liberals being haters is to put the left on the defensive. Arguing about whether or not liberals hate is playing on our half of the field. Arguing about whether or not conservatrolls hate is playing on their half of the field. I'm ready to take my chance in a fair debate any day but if the opposition is just going to antagonize us, I'm going to see to it that that we play on their half of the field.
I agree with this sentiment. Not all conservatives that I met fits the hardcore politically stubborn 'troll' image. Even if many conservatives act in a certain way, I'd rather not generalize.
Im telling you the Corporate Confederate Red States are trying to wipe out the liberal population through their retarded backwards policies.
I don't disagree. I think of people like Haley Barbour as conservatrolls just as much as the random right wing sycophants on this forum.
brother fights brother
family fights family
tribe fights tribe
nation fights nation
the romanticize Conan the barbarian warrior code
Didn't expect Conan to show up in this thread but that make perfect sense. ;-)
Thanks
maybe they are goat herders or poppy growers
[Removed]
But you must realize that most conservatives are "independent". Can't say that about liberals although there are quite a few in our Congress who are very, very wealthy.
From The National Journal:
"In 2010, the vote ratings show, the ideological consolidation was greater among Republicans than Democrats. Almost without exception House Republicans generated strongly conservative voting records, regardless of the demography or political leanings of their districts. By contrast, House Democrats from districts that voted for John McCain in 2008 or are dominated by working-class whites produced much less liberal records than their colleagues from districts that strongly supported Barack Obama or are more racially diverse and well educated. In the Senate, just eight Republicans notched a composite conservative score of less than 70, while 21 Democrats received a liberal ranking of less than 70."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/congress-hits-new-peak-in-polarization-20110224
i hated new orleans, it was a sin city tits were flying everywhere, (you know in the bible it says god sends the whirlwinds in his fury upon the wicked) I think this scripture came true on new orleans. I hate san fransisco too, a bunch of gays there, and now they are moving to my town. Just because we are nice to people in general doesnt mean we like gays and want them to come live here and show us their bad examples.
New Orleans still exists. Just so's ya know. ;-)
We only dislike Liberals but hey do does like them??? except for their selves. Thank God they only make up 20% or less of the population
No, they make up more than half the population, people just don't know what they are anymore. More than half of self-described conservatives want to keep medicare, medicaid and social security as they are and roughly half agree with progressive taxation. You can call yourself whatever you like.
Don't tell me what you think, show me what you do and I'll tell you what you think.
Half of the population??? hahahahah what a pipe dream you are having. Over 75% of real Americans want to keep capitalism and the less than 20% want socialism. You should all break camp and go overseas and experience first hand then
What we have is a mixed economy. Most people don't care about the nuances of the definitions. They just hear capitalism = America = good, socialism = Soviet = bad. It's not that simple, twinkie.
But hey, if you hate "socialism" so much, don't drive on taxpayer provided roads or walk on taxpayer provided sidewalks, don't call 911 when your house catches fire, don't go to the emergency room when you get hit by a bus, don't call the cops when your house is being robbed, don't use electricity or broadband piped into your house with taxpayer subsidies, don't use the internet, which began with the "socialist" arpanet, and so on down the line. You big, tough, rugged individualist, you, go conquer the world in your John Galt cape and tights, just stop asking the rest of us to provide the services you need to get there.
Have a nice day. ;-)
hahahhahaha you clown, take your socialist bandwagon somewhere else fool. Only less than 20% of you canary's want that crap
You're an idiot on your best day.
Yes. You are right. Perhaps the answer is to put them into concentration camps and eventually gas them to death. Perhaps this can be a goal of OWS.
Perhaps you should propose that at the next CPAC, right after the unanimous vote in favor of wiping out all liberals. ;-)
Hmm.....
I find if funny that whenever a righty has an idea it entails gas and death. You guys need to get out more and kick it. Your ideas are quite morbid.
And the Lefts ideas entail waterbeds and death......
No "death" in my original post. It took conservatives showing up for things to go there.
It's nice and safe for you under the water bed.
No one can get you under there. Not even the bed bugs.
You have obviously been sheltered from the truth of your own psychoses.
Why can't we all jus,..jus...just all g..g..g..get along?
Nice Rodney King reference. But you can surely answer your own question by n-n-n-now.
Yeah,but I just don't get why you have such a wrong and upside down opinion of Conservatives.
You really are over the top. I may not support or in anyway believe in the Liberal/Progressives politics or agenda and I even believe that it is destructive to this nation but,....I wouldn't post something so ridicules like "Liberals/Progressives hate America" because that is just extremist and wrong. Libs don't hate America,Conservatives don't hate America,radical Islam are the ones that hate America.
I get it you're stirring the pot,but I just thought I'd give you my opinion.
I just edited the post to reflect my original subject, which is the narrower group of conservatives that don't actually bring anything substantive to the debate. Everyone knows what I'm talking about there.
Yes, I'm stirring the pot in the same way the conservatrolls stir it with posts like "Do Muslims Value Life?" and liberals are easy targets because they hate. A little tit for tat but when the term used is "conservatroll," it's 100% accurate. Because it doesn't matter if it's for lulz or for bucks, it's destructive and that's un-American. Period.
Hmmmm, Let's hear you say nice things about Detroit.
Ford kicks ass,GMC sold out,other than that I've never been have you?
Those are multi-national car corporations.
Now say something nice about Detroit.
Detroit,...it's an American city.
Thanks for proving the OP correct.
That was very nice of you.
I actually don't really know anything about Detroit,so I really don't know what more I can say. I've never hated a city before,it just never was something I'd considered.
That guy from Hardcore Pawn has really cool hair.