Jump to content

Ian

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    3,746
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ian

  1. My children are welcome in my home for however long they please, regardless of their indiscretions. Maybe that's easy for me to say because I've got a pair of pretty decent teenagers. But that's how I feel. In fact, I don't want to see them go at all, but I know its coming. I
  2. You're inverting my argument. I lobbied for regulation, which implicitly demands a measure of enforcement. You suggested interdiction, which eliminates regulation as a possible tool of control. I
  3. Collapsing present enforcement with future regulation. And here I thought you said drugs were beyond regulation. I
  4. Utterly pathetic. I don't have to read the thread to decide. Somebody should grow the :filtered: up for sure. But there's not much chance of that happening with the child that girl's got for a mother. I
  5. Let me weigh in again. T went a bit over the top -- actually quite a bit -- but in retrospect I can see how I might have baited the subject. I too get pretty worked up and sometimes fail to check my language. No harm no foul I hope, but I'm the one who started it. As for F's latest installment of some really good analysis, I can't keep up with it of a piece. I can only respond to one item at a time. And the item I choose is: I would like to know what the alternative is to this? China's answer is to shoot their criminals in the head. (And lets exempt the US inmates jailed due only to dr
  6. doc, That's a nice bit of fluff but it fails to adress the point: America simultaneously claims to be divinely inspired while demanding secular standards of its domestic and foreign partners, standards which by the way, tend to be higher than the standards it demands of itself. I
  7. What I'v'e always wanted: fair play. I'm not holding by breath insofar as the US government is concerned but I'd like to express my profound and continuing belief in the American people, many of whom have taken me into their homes. I
  8. I said what about terrorists? I
  9. Now there I have to disagree with you. The rules of war were thrown away long since. Dresden and Hirohisma. Mustard gas in the first war. Greek fire and famine. The siege of any town you can name in the middle ages. I
  10. That wouldn't be the Canadian troops present at the surrender would it? I
  11. Have to disagree there. French Indochina remained a colony of the Vichy government during WWII owing to the Japanese occupation. Ho Chi Minh liberated the VietNamese portion of Indochina and turned his Japanese prisoners over to the Australian contingent of the Allied occupation force at the end of the war. After the war, VietNam drew up a constitution identical to that of the United States of America. They invited American business in and Truman agreed. But de Gaulle refused to relenquish his South-East Asian colonies. He threatened to boycott the newly formed NATO alliance unless France
  12. I'm not confident. Politicians need real wars declared by Congress to shore up their base. I fear the worst is yet to come. I
  13. Fair enough but Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bush have been such unremitting and recalcitrant :filtered: in office, noone can trust them now. I
  14. I could go on but the nub is that America is failing to live up to their and our ideal. And people notice. I
  15. American politics is motivated by a movement diametrically opposed to the American constitution. Specifically, ceertain citizens seek to impose religiosity upon civic life, regardless of the ban on that declared by the American constitution. I further suggest that that is not without political foundation. I suggest that American liberals share a religious bias with their conservtive bretheren that seriously hampers any social progress. Politically, America is demonstrably the most unChristian of nations. It claims to believe in forgiveness but jails the greatest percentage of its
  16. Not polititcally popular but historically true. The French are difficult but also are inextricably linked to the American democratic experiment. It's a bit of a mystery why America hates France so passionately: After all, didn't France donate the Statue of Liberty to the USA? I
  17. The big deal about dope and the law is that interdiction doesn't work. Have whatever opinion you want about whether people should be doing dope, for whatever reason. Nothing the state can ever do will stop people from toking up. Grow up and legalise it. I
  18. It just gets better and better, doesn't it? I
  19. Check out Little Big Man -- the book, not the movie. It's got this great trip where he makes a point of saying :filtered: instead of cuz he figures it's more polite. I
  20. BS Who's getting caught for what? I thought you Republicans were the ones keen to ensure the state didn't overstep its bounds, limiting its abililty to encroach on individual actions. I
  21. He's bald because he's bald. And why is he an issue anyway? Ask yourself that. I
  22. That's a pathetic notion. Do you really think if you're a good christian and you don't do dope you won't go bald? And if you do keep your hair, will that be the work of the lord? I
  23. All drugs must be made legal. Before then criminal enterpises will continue to profit from them and public resources will be diverted to interdiction as opposed to community-building. I
  24. Oferchrissakes! Get over it! A percentage of the population seeks chemical inducement to invoke transformative psychic states, and always has done. Of those, a very much smaller percentage become addicted. In no way does that justify the monstrous expenditure of funds and resources spent on the criminal interdiction of a limited public health problem. Nor does it justify the moralistic crimanalisation of normal human behaviour. Nor does it justify the continued police pressure supplied in support a violent black-market economy that would have never existed had these foolish laws never bee
×
×
  • Create New...