Sessions vows crackdown on drug dealing and gun crime

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

When those jackals come together to work on something, it usually ends up wit a red hot poker being used on Americans. I don't want them working together. In fact, it shouldn't be unusual for an entire lifetime to pass without an act of congress to pass.

Now now. Let's not try to prove a majority with anecdotes. Just because there are examples of compromise failing or compromise leading to results that are counter to our philosophy as Americans doesn't mean that compromise is a bad thing. Our country was founded on compromise. If it wasn't for compromise, the Southern states would never have joined the Union.

originally posted by: JAY1980
Sure I have my issues with Sessions. He certainly appears to be running on outdated information. But willing to give him a chance just like I gave the previous administrations a chance. If properly educated he would probably come around. Unlike liberals, conservatives are able to make decisions as an individual rather than having to consult their collective group think tanks.

That's a rather cheap shot you just threw out for no reason... Well to counter that I point to the fact that all the positive information about pot has been out there for years now. Sessions still believes otherwise. He's had his chance to educate himself on the plant. Instead he is choosing ignorance. The fact that you are choosing to defend this scum bag (AND denigrate democrats at the same time just because) really shows your partisan stripes.

I'm still waiting for the left to acknowledge the Obama administration raided more medical marijuana(cannabis) facilities than the Bush administration. But IPD(identity politics disorder) prevents actual rational thinking.
The kind that is clearly on display in this thread.

Write a thread about it, but deflecting my thread to talk about it is poor form and just looks like you are fishing for a political argument.

I will stand by my theory that this is a tactic to get congress to act and finally legalize it.

It's a rather poor theory, but knock yourself out.

Just say no..what a senile dinosaur

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is a Tyranny of the Majority thinking, though.

Its the single events of tyranny, of loss of liberty, that should be focused on. Particularly because of their aggregate effect. And even more particularly because of their typical response to a problem du jour that is fleeting and will pass, while ignoring the massive boils and cankers that plague us.

I, personally, am at a point where I believe I am better without a government than with the government I have. They take away so much more than they provide. In the end I always feel like im having my hand slapped by a beggar.

I'm convinced This new war on drugs is being sponsored by the growth industry private prisons. If we don't need an EPA or other govt. funded entities; then why not privatize the Federal Board of Prisons and FEMA...they already have the facilities built and just standing idle.

money.cnn.com...


These privatized prisons will be turned into factories. Essentially slave labor helping to increase the "jobs" numbers and Trumps infrastructure.

Business as usual....you happy now?

And to keep these new prisons stocked with inmates....private law enforcement, fake trials, intimidation, welcome to "snitch city" jobs, jobs, jobs, believe me!!


There's also a negative side.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is a Tyranny of the Majority thinking, though.

Its the single events of tyranny, of loss of liberty, that should be focused on. Particularly because of their aggregate effect. And even more particularly because of their typical response to a problem du jour that is fleeting and will pass, while ignoring the massive boils and cankers that plague us.

I, personally, am at a point where I believe I am better without a government than with the government I have. They take away so much more than they provide. In the end I always feel like im having my hand slapped by a beggar.

Nothing is perfect, but you sound like you want to give up just because you can't reconcile with the government's imperfections. What makes you think that anarchy would be any better for you?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Imperfections?

Talk about undertatement.

Like i said: its aggregate. As it stands today, I have to work to live. If i don't work, I can be herded up and run through various systems trying to cure my vagrancy. So i work, then pay about 30% of my income in various taxes and am forced to buy into an expensive program to hedge against healthcosts artificially inflated by a middle man mandated by law. This is what government has given me.

Do I think anarchy would be better? Maybe. If rudeness could get you killed, people would be more polite.

Seriously, though...why does it have to sum to zero? Is it either status quo or anarchy? Isn't there a whole spectrum of options?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Imperfections?

Talk about undertatement.

Like i said: its aggregate. As it stands today, I have to work to live. If i don't work, I can be herded up and run through various systems trying to cure my vagrancy. So i work, then pay about 30% of my income in various taxes and am forced to buy into an expensive program to hedge against healthcosts artificially inflated by a middle man mandated by law. This is what government has given me.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a society past or present where you didn't have to work to live.

Do I think anarchy would be better? Maybe. If rudeness could get you killed, people would be more polite.

Seriously, though...why does it have to sum to zero? Is it either status quo or anarchy? Isn't there a whole spectrum of options?

Well you are the one who said you believe you'd be better without a government than the one you had. So I brought up anarchy. Was that wrong? Were you being hyperbolic and I didn't pick up on that?

The problem isn't government so much as it is corporations taking over government to generate profit at the expense of anyone unfortunate enough to have been born.

Instead of the "Death Penalty" it is the "Birth penalty".

At one time in history the government controlled the banking system and corporations were something like illegal for the sake of protecting the people from exactly what is going on here right now.

People like Sessions are a minor symptom of a much more serious disease

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its not that you have to work. Its tat you have to work in order to pay taxes.

Owning land isn't really ownership for example. Its rent cum tax.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its not that you have to work. Its tat you have to work in order to pay taxes.

Owning land isn't really ownership for example. Its rent cum tax.

Likewise, you'd be equally hard pressed to find a society past or present that didn't make you pay taxes.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Actually DARE worked well imo. I still remember the officer who came to my classroom in 7th grade and it had a great impact on me. I wouldn't touch drugs.

I believe there needs to be more education in the middle schools as well. Not the way they are teaching it now. Some pics of before and after meth users. Heroin addicts. Kids do not realize how badly their lives will be affected.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its not that you have to work. Its tat you have to work in order to pay taxes.

Owning land isn't really ownership for example. Its rent cum tax.

Likewise, you'd be equally hard pressed to find a society past or present that didn't make you pay taxes.

And what of people who wish to not live within society?

Everything on Earth has to be registered and cataloged. You, me, the dogs, etc. My grandmother and I used to argue about this. She would kidnap random dogs from the street and call it "saving them". It was kidnapping and imprisoning them. Their negative reaction was "they just need to get used to us", not, "They despise you for taking away their freedom".

There are people who want to live a more feral life. Maybe not me...but there are people like that. Problem is, everything is parceled out and owned, so there is nowhere to really do this. If you try, you are labelled a "freeman" or some whacko, and forced into enslavement within "the system".

How do you opt out of a society?

originally posted by: MOMof3
Good god, how many people do you think could read, write, arithmetic and owned land back then? They were the politicians. Comparing apples and oranges between now and the beginning.

"Among white New England men, about 60 percent of the population was literate between 1650 and 1670, a figure that rose to 85 percent between 1758 and 1762, and to 90 percent between 1787 and 1795. In cities such as Boston, the rate had come close to 100 percent by century’s end." www.quora.com...

It is not stated how many could "arithmetic"; maybe you can "history" and find out.

a reply to: pteridine

That would have the money folk and aristocrats and white men only. Not women, the lower classes, or the pioneers who populated the wilderness and joined the rebels and militias.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Take out all the dealers and mid level suppliers and "They" wont have a distribution base to distribute there product.

Plus without those type of people to take the rap for possession of the stuff how would they ever explain the drugs on our streets?

They need that competition for there illusory war on drugs else how would "they" make there token arrests?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: pteridine

That would have the money folk and aristocrats and white men only. Not women, the lower classes, or the pioneers who populated the wilderness and joined the rebels and militias.

This is a good read. Excerpt below.
www.history.org...

"In 1974, University of Montana scholar Kenneth Lockridge’s groundbreaking book, Literacy in Colonial New England, surveyed evidence from legal records and offered provisional conclusions—“The exercise is bound to be tentative, as it uses a biased sample and an ambiguous measure”—but he made the case that, among white New England men, about 60 percent of the population was literate between 1650 and 1670, a figure that rose to 85 percent between 1758 and 1762, and to 90 percent between 1787 and 1795. In cities such as Boston, the rate had come close to 100 percent by century’s end.

Lockridge and his successors showed that literacy was higher in New England and the mid-Atlantic colonies than in the South, and higher in the cities than in the countryside. Traders and shopkeepers were more literate than farmers. They showed that American literacy was high by European standards. As the University of Delaware’s F. W. Grubb wrote in 1990:
Of all European countries perhaps only Scotland surpassed America in literacy by 1800. Not only had the European literacy revolution been transplanted to the American periphery during the colonial period, but colonial literacy had somehow leaped past that of northwestern Europe.
Lockridge’s figures make the case: while male literacy in New England rose from 60 percent in the late seventeenth century to 90 percent by the early days of the Republic, he estimated female literacy in the same period as rising from 31 percent to 48 percent—roughly half the rate of males.

In some ways, though, the story of women’s literacy is more dramatic than men’s. As Bard College’s Joel Perlmann and Boston College’s Dennis Shirley write, “Half the women born around 1730 were illiterate; virtually all the women born around 1810 were literate.” Though women lagged behind men chronologically, their progress came faster."

a reply to: pteridine

Thanks for sharing that. Interesting. New England from the beginning was more progressive than the south. My Mississippi grandparents were born in 1898 and never went to school.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Take out all the dealers and mid level suppliers and "They" wont have a distribution base to distribute there product.

Plus without those type of people to take the rap for possession of the stuff how would they ever explain the drugs on our streets?

They need that competition for there illusory war on drugs else how would "they" make there token arrests?

Token arrests? Sure. Convictions and seizures aren't tokens though. Every distributor is not 'their' distributor. Knocking out the competition is far better than competing. That's how capitalism is exploited through regulation. Anyone dealing who is not one of 'them' cannot overcome the 'regulations.'

There will always be people who want to buy drugs. That market won't dry up because of the 'drug war.'

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I want to hear how he's going to clean up my town, something like 37% of adults are addicted to pain medication, another 15% have moved to heroin, 60% of the population smokes weed.

Only 1 person in 10 can pass a drug test.

How does he plan to solve that?