Open Mic Part 15

With a new week comes a new thread.



  1. I will be away at the VA hospital most of the day, so try not to argue amongst one another too much! 🙂

  2. canineweapon says:

  3. rofl. Canine, that’s a t-shirt I’d laugh to see thousands more wearing.

  4. In his excellent book, Two Cheers For Anarchism, Professor James Scott writes:

    One need not have an actual conspiracy to achieve the practical effects of a conspiracy. More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called ‘Irish Democracy,’ the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people, than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.

  5. Planned food safety rules rile organic farmers,0,6831660.story#axzz2u528ngu5

    It would seem to me that maybe, just maybe, if the FDA spent more time studying what these organic farmers used and determined if those practices were unsafe they’d get more cooperation from the farmers? You think? Instead they want to do as most government seems to do – act from ignorance.

  6. You could smoke about an ounce and still have your motor skills,” says 39-year-old Dante Cox

    What makes this guy believe this? Where’s his evidence of this belief? Seems like he doesn’t have a clue, so hopefully he reads the article. Whether marijuana is better or worse than alcohol isn’t, or shouldn’t be, the issue. The issue should be its effects on ones ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

    • Where’s your evidence of your claim?

      You fall into a fallacy – a fallacy that most people have – about rating ability as referenced to an individual to be ability in general.

      You will imprison a man for driving while (fill in the blank) though he may still be more able then you under such a condition. You are more “dangerous” then he, but you are unimpeded.

      • BF, first off the large majority of impaired drivers are not imprisoned for their offense of driving under the influence. Fines and license suspension are the norm. Yes, they may spend a night in jail, or even some days where they are a multiple offender, but imprisonment for long terms is not handed down initially.

        Second, I am not saying there is no difference, what I am saying is that there is some impairment from marijuana. To what degree only studies can provide us (studies that likely will need to be conducted as it becomes more acceptable in states for recreational use of marijuana. Hell, I don’t care if they legalize it.

        You seem to be implying that there is no effects on ones driving ability? How much pot smoking & driving have you personally done to support your assertion? I have (as a teen) smoked marijuana and I know it does have effects on one’s abilities.

        • First, it is irrelevant to the argument about the degree of “punishment” – the fact it is metered out is germane.

          Second, it is irrelevant to what you may believe impairment may or may not exist – you are judging the effect individually – I’ll explain:

          You take Danica, and tell her to run a course as fast as she can and you measure it.
          You give her some “impairment” and do it again. She doesn’t go as fast.
          Now you claim the impairment is dangerous.

          BUT! We take you at your peak and you can’t even come close to her lowered performance.
          Yet, here you claim you are “safer” then her anyway.

          Should she be on the street with her impairment and you on the street without impairment, you want to punish her and not you, based on her lower ability vs her prime, even though she is “safer” then you.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            First, I do not say unimpaired drivers are any better drivers. I am saying that impairment does NOT improve, or maintain, the ability of one to operate a motor vehicle, however good or bad it is to begin with, BF. There are too many unimpaired drivers who suck as bad or worse than impaired drivers. Accidents and poor driving happen constantly in the latter group, yet show me how being under the influence of any substance that affects the mind is going to improve one’s abilities?

            I have witnessed some pretty damn ridiculous sentences handed down for alcohol impaired drivers, as well as for non-impaired drivers in accidents in similar outcomes from the accidents. Personally, I believe incarceration for impaired driving is stupid and should be changed in the “justice” system. There are different solutions, or punishments, society could use instead – some of those even that don’t involve action by government.

            • “First, I do not say unimpaired drivers are any better drivers. I am saying that impairment does NOT improve, or maintain, the ability of one to operate a motor vehicle, however good or bad it is to begin with, BF. ”

              I didn’t say that either. I said she is STILL a better driver then you under your rules of impairment.

              “show me how being under the influence of any substance that affects the mind is going to improve one’s abilities?”

              I don’t have to. You pointed to a condition, and made a fallacy of comparison. It is utterly irrelevant to whether anyone believes it impairs or not – it is wholly relevant to what it is applied against.

            • Further, such a review is superficial.

              All things offer benefits and detraction. Coffee under this review would be “impairment”, not?
              Sure it makes you more awake, but makes one more jittery.

              Perhaps pot slows reaction time, but perhaps it calms the driver. Less road rage and “hurryup-itis” – the latter the more common cause of accidents then any “pot smoking”.

              To claim one is worse then the other is specious.

              The consideration should only be upon the consequence of action – was there harm/damage/CPD and no other factor.

              • Smoking:
                Nicotine makes one more focused by reducing peripheral attention. So does it impair or benefit?

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Don’t know…… any medical studies to show the effects on way or another?

              • The point: what is your measure of impairment?

                Coffee for example.

                If you measure impairment by “alertness” then you claim “no, it is a benefit”
                If you measure impairment by “dexterity acuteness” then you claim “yes, it is an impairment”

              • plainlyspoken says:

                So, do we need speed limits? Traffic control devices? Or should it just be left to individual’s ability to drive?

              • Speed limits: No. Studies have repeatedly shown where speed limits do not exist/are not enforced tend to drive at “reasonable” speed anyway.

                Traffic control: No. Studies and confirmed by some cities that have removed “controlled traffic” that people actually are safer and travel more effectively (less traffic jams) then with them.

                There are no traffic controls on a sidewalk, yet people seem to progress along them just fine.

                Self-organizing systems are like that; the consequences create the effect. Normal people do not like to crash – whether walking or driving, and tend to moderate their actions to affect that outcome (not crashing).

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Speed limits I can probably agree with you on. As for traffic control devices, I am not so sure. I see people unable to get through an intersection containing stop signs when more than one vehicle gets to the intersection at the same time.

                Maybe we need to be more like the UK – more traffic circles. At least drivers (native to the country) appeared to handle them quite competently (most Americans had difficulty with them because they didn’t understand how to do so. The average length of time an American service person went without an accident was 6 months). Americans seem to be to complacent at having traffic control devices to regulate their driving habits.

              • A stop sign is a traffic control device.
                Some towns in Europe completely removed them all, and found accidents dropped in half and no traffic jams – and they went “cold turkey” – removed them all at the same time. This is the best way, since leaving a few intersections with them added massive confusion of “is this uncontrolled or merely the sign is missing?”

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Yep, a sign is a traffic control device. I have no problem with the European idea. I managed to drive without any traffic mishap for almost 5 years in England without any, or damn few, traffic control devices. It seemed that cities had the most devices and they were still less in numbers than you find in any US city or town.

                The idea that we need constant signage on our roads befuddles me. I personally, without evidence to support it, that that signage gets ignored a lot anyway. Hell the stop sign at the bottom of the dirt road off the ridge I live on leading to the paved county road is one I regularly ignore. If there is traffic coming I stop, otherwise I roll on.

          • More more:
            So how should this really be provided.

            If someone is weaving and bouncing off curbs, etc. they should be stopped and prevented from continuing -CPD- REGARDLESS of their condition.

            If someone is driving normally, (ie: not bouncing off curbs) they should not be impeded from continuing.

            If a crime occurs, it should be dealt with as such.

            IF the individual is found impaired, it should be used to accentuate the issue REGARDLESS of the crime, not like today where it is commonly used to MITIGATE the crime (he did this because he was impaired, therefore, lacked intent, therefore shouldn’t suffer all the consequences since intent was not there – “mens rea”.)

            • plainlyspoken says:

              If someone is weaving and bouncing off curbs, etc. they should be stopped and prevented from continuing -CPD- REGARDLESS of their condition.

              I agree completely. I do not believe ANY CPD drivers should be allowed to continue. I also believe that any impairment should be used to accentuate the issue as well. Impairment is not a mitigation even though our system seems to think it should be – ludicrous.

              I am saying that to tell me that marijuana use & driving should not be considered to possibly provide an impairment is not true.

          • Most people are not Danica.

            Intoxication alters and/or impairs motor skills.

            In the interest of safety, it is irresponsible to risk driving while you are impaired.

            Police cannot stop a populace that wants drugs and alcohol. Police cannot stop impaired drivers. At best, the state can influence, but cannot stop it.

            Personal choice can. Promote being responsible.

            That being said….

            I have smoked pot off and on in varying degrees of usage for a long time.

            I don’t like to drive high. Although I have. I can do so safely under most any normal traffic situation and find that I am a more patient driver. I tend to not speed or take risks. It isn’t because I am so much hindered in my ability, just not motivated to do so. I don’t care if it takes 3 more minutes to get home.

            But that is in the context of driving in a typical scenario where I may be visiting a friend or something. We smoke a little, hang out for a while and chat, then I go home. By the time I am driving, the buzz is wearing off or almost gone, thus any impairment is minimal. This is a little while after a personal dosage of about a gram or less.

            If you are smoking an ounce a day. You are too stoned to drive.

            I could stay high for a month off of an ounce of weed. That is a LOT of weed to be smoking in one day. Take the bus or train.

            • :”Most people are not Danica.”
              Irrelevant. The point was the fallacy of comparison in attributing ability writ large.

              “Intoxication alters and/or impairs motor skills.”
              So what? A driver can still drive safe.

              “In the interest of safety, it is irresponsible to risk driving while you are impaired.”
              How? If they drive safe, how is it a risk?

              “Personal choice can. Promote being responsible.”
              You cannot FORCE responsibility. You can APPLY consequences to action.

              ” I tend to not speed or take risks. It isn’t because I am so much hindered in my ability, just not motivated to do so. I don’t care if it takes 3 more minutes to get home.”

              Exactly my point.

              • The frame of the conversation was the effects of marijuana on the body and how it should be managed in everyday community living such as driving a motor vehicle, and what role government should play.

                There was a point made that you can smoke a whole ounce of weed and still be able to drive. …Not really. While the point was exaggerated a bit, it has a certain level of legitimacy in that marijuana does not normally effect coordination/motor skills the same way other drugs(like alcohol) do. The point of which was made as to make the distinction so to suggest that it should not be managed quite like alcohol.

                My point was that it indeed does not effect you the same, but is a drug and will effect you nonetheless, and therefore is still a legitimate concern.

                The role of the law is limited as it can only control so much. It is largely ill effective, and the morality of it is arguable. Which begs the question of what will effectively address this legitimate safety concern of people being stoned out of their minds while driving(like they do anyway)?

                My answer is to promote being responsible. It seems to work pretty well with alcohol. Society is well aware of the dangers of drinking and driving and have readily accepted a wide variety of norms in the interest of being responsible. It comes in the form of local bars providing a ride home if you should need one, ..or taking keys at a party, etc etc..

                See, here is the thing with pot…

                I can get really good and stoned, let something slip out of my hand and catch it before it hits the ground, or something like the sugar starts to fall off of the counter when I have a cup of coffee in one hand and a spoon in the other. In a fraction of a second before acting, I prioritize saving the sugar from spilling, over dropping the spoon to free my hand, calculate and execute a sugar saving response, all while simultaneously holding the other side of my body still as to not spill a drop of the coffee in my other hand…thus proving my reflexes coordination and motor skills are still rather acute,

                …then walk into the other room and briefly forget why I went in there.

                That’s pot.

                Apply this to driving…

                You’re driving stoned. The car in front of you slams on it’s brakes. Can you calculate an approximate stopping distance, determine that it overlaps the area where the car in front of you is, and determine that between oncoming traffic, the car in front of you, or the reflector sign post in the grass, that steering off the road and hitting a sign is the lesser of three evils? Can you do so before it is too late to respond?

                Maybe. How much did you smoke? Was it a couple of hits from a bowl an hour and a half ago, or a half ounce so far today? If the latter, ..probably not.

                Was your frame of mind such as to allow the radio to distract you in that crucial quarter second?

                Whether or not you are Danica is indeed irrelevant. Danica can get stoned and do something like leave her house with the clothing iron on. And Damica’s driving skills does not negate people being too stoned to drive.

                ” ” I tend to not speed or take risks. It isn’t because I am so much hindered in my ability, just not motivated to do so. I don’t care if it takes 3 more minutes to get home.” Exactly my point. ”

                I am not one to drive around impaired all the time. I don’t particularly like it. I have done so in limited fashion. Thus I know from experience that it can be done. I am not promoting it, just stating.

                Part of the point of mentioning it was to discern the difference between something more typical of a scenario, and someone smoking an ounce of weed before going out for an Oreo Cookie run.

                Smoking a joint during a card game with your buddies then leaving two hours later to drive 2 miles, is different than smoking a quarter ounce by noon and going to run errands.

                Marijuana is like anything else in some respects. It should be managed. It wears off just like pills or alcohol or whatever. If need be, you can probably make it home without incident, but why not wait an hour?

                Why risk it?

        • More:

          The point, there is no crime unless there is harm or damage or Clear and Present Danger (CPD). But you want a crime declared before damage or harm or CPD.

          In other words, you distort the fundamental measure, criminalize non-criminal behavior and then you wonder why the prisons are full of “political” prisoners in the USA.

          *political, because they are there not because of any harm done, but by decree.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            In other words, you distort the fundamental measure, criminalize non-criminal behavior and then you wonder why the prisons are full of “political” prisoners in the USA.

            Other than non-impaired driving, what non-criminal behavior are you referring to that makes prisons full of political prisoners?

            • General “War on Drugs”

              I seem to recall that the majority of the prison population is for “non-violent” crimes.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Hey, I have said before – legalize drugs. If fools want to shove that crap into their bodies that is their choice, just as long as it doesn’t negatively impact me or mine.

              • Hence, “political” crime.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Hence why a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system needs to be done, to include overhauling all the laws that drive the system as well. I have said that more than once too.

                There should be NO laws on the books that do not equate to an action that brings harm or force on another person (we can argue over how we define “harm” and “force” as well if need be).

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Hell, let me go farther. Laws put on the books should be simplified as well. For instance – murder laws. How many different types of murder are on the books in a State? Usually more than one.

                Have one law that says “ending the life of another human is punishable by a term in prison of X years to life”. The sentence is dependent on the circumstances surrounding that crime (was it intentional, accidental, etc). We don’t need a first degree murder law, a manslaughter law, etc.

              • Just a quick thought on the subject of DUI. I agree with BF that the laws are stupid at best. Not everyone is impaired equally at .01. The law, claiming that impairment, is illegal. Can’t the same be said about many aging drivers? Isn’t that next on the list of Police State laws? One bad law will always lead to another.

                For the record, I live in the only county in PA with zero stoplights. We do have stop signs though and deer crossing signs, which are both regularly ignored 😆

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Good article summarizing how the DNC and the Obamanots stifle dissent.

    This of course did not start with Obama, but the author misses that key point. You can, however, expect it to continue and to increase.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      And be used more effectively by the other side now that they have been properly educated by the DNC and Obamanots?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I think that effort is very “limited”. You see it on some of their web sites and blogs but not in the primary media outlets.

        So I don’t think we will see the same degree of this from the right side. It is possible, I just think not probable given the makeup of the primary Media.

        If there is one thing the R’s, Tea Party and other “right wingers” could learn and apply affectively it is the art of “ridicule”. They should call out stupid and leading questions from the media as “stupid questions” and then “ridicule them for their attempts to inflame racism” just to sell their “ratings”.

        A few more “shame on you Wolff” and less of the sticking to the talking points.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          You may be right JAC. I guess we will have to wait for Republican control again to see just how far the R’s will go.

          The D’s have done a much better job of shutting up people than ever before. Lessons they will surely carry forward in their future workings for future D’s campaigns to lead the country.

  8. plainlyspoken says:

    Exclusive: Iraq signs deal to buy arms, ammunition from Iran – document

    I hope you Bushites are happy with how the aftermath of your war in Iraq has turned out for you?

    • Well I don’t know about the rest, but I am not happy with the way it went to shit when Obama got in charge and yanked us out Way too soon. But having said that I don’t know that it would have gone any different with anyone else.

      But I don’t see it as being a ‘Bushite’. I supported Bush. I supported going in and kicking Hussien’s ass. What I don’t and continue to NOT support is the rebuilding of the countries who’s ass we stomp. If necessary, stomp them and LEAVE.

      But you should also know that I don’t believe in adventurism in other Nations. But someone had to pay for 9/11. And I especially agreed that Afganistan AND Iraq got to be the two who did. The problem as I see it is that after we removed the Terrorist supporting governments, we should have gotten the hell out and left their tore up behind’s as evidence for what happens when you pull that crap on the U.S..

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Bush got my vote for his first term.

        What terrorism support on Hussein’s part? I don’t believe there was one shred of evidence to support that, so Iraq had nothing to pay for 9/11.

        The campaign’s express rationale was to hamper Saddam Hussein’s government’s ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons

        • Not saying you are right or wrong PS, but I would be careful about using Wikipedia as a n information source. People can write just about whatever their opinion is as FACT.

          Again, not saying that you are right OR wrong.

          • Oh, and I voted for Bush both terms. Because I wouldn’t have voted for John Kerry as a damn Dog Catcher. It would be a disservice to Dogs! 😀 Ditto for Gore the First time! 🙂

          • plainlyspoken says:

            I used it only because it was quick to find and I didn’t wish to rely only on my personal recollections that there was no evidence of an AQ-Hussein connection. It was all about the weapons as I remember. Either way it was a BS reasoning and we should never have invaded.

            In the end Obama did the right thing – though delayed – of pulling US forces out, even under your thinking. It took very little time to take out the Iraqi ability to fight. Why didn’t we pick up our toys and leave as soon as we finished Hussein off militarily?

            • Then I guess we more or less agree that the timing for pulling out was bad. I agree we shouldn’t have stayed. Especially to rebuild the country for them. But I believe that we should have gone in and taken Hussien out. He was a Terrorist Dictator, and right then we couldn’t tolerate Terrorist anything.

              • But I believe that we should have gone in and taken Hussien out. He was a Terrorist Dictator,

                Well if that’s a good enough justification then tell me why we have not, or didn’t under Bush, take out Assad in Syria? Syria has been on the Dept of State list of State sponsored terrorism nations for a very long time (pre GWB in office) and he is a dictator too.

                There was no justification for Iraq. Zero, zip, none. The US was the terrorist there.

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      James Baker advised Bush II before the Gulf War Redux. “If you break it you have to fix it” So far it has advanced Khomeni’s plan from 1979 of Iraq being under Shiite leadership to move eventually Israel. Next true domino is Syria, even though Assad is a token ally of Iran.

  9. plainlyspoken says:

    Discrimination made legal: Judge rules on NYPD Muslim spying

    Thoughts on this court ruling?

    • No spying should be legal, especially based on religious beliefs. What’s next, Treat them like the Nazis treated the Jews?

    • I have mixed feelings. While I agree that we shouldn’t spy on U.S. citizens, are these citizens? And as far as their Religion, I do not see ANY ‘Moderate’ Muslims here. All I see are Muslims who tacitly condone the Terrorist activities of the more extreme ones.

      And with the extremists, how else do you stop them? I don’t have an answer for how this is done, I just say that I have mixed feelings on it.

      • There are quite a few of us here that are called “extremists” by our current rulers. And, not all Muslims are extremists, that is utter hogwash boogieman media/government bullshit.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I have several friends who are Muslims and they are nowhere near being extremists – and they attend Mosque as well. Two of them were born here in the US to parents who were Muslims. Why should they be spied upon because – and ONLY because they attend a Mosque?

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      We gloat that we are a nation of laws, ergo right no matter what. So was Nazi Germany, and Stalin’s USSR. All operated under the rule of law.

  10. Let me say first that I did NOT write this. If I knew who did, I would put their name on here. Instead, it simply says ‘A Reader’.

    Having said that, I agree with it and approve so much I thought everyone here should see it also.

    A Reader Writes In.

    The Pussification Of America
    -No one wants to do jack shit anymore.

    We are raising a bunch of whiney jerky cry babies. In fact many of us are whiney jerky cry babies.

    Remember the days of ole when someone acted like an asshole and they got their butt kicked? You can’t do that now, because you will go to jail and then get sued. Asshats have all the power.

    Remember when you had to go to school even when it was cold out? Not anymore. I live in Texas and we had one day of ice and for the next week the city periodically shut down because it was a little wintery out.

    I mean, it is WINTER, and shockingly enough it is going to get cold out. School boards were so scared of getting bitched out (or sued; it is, after all, the American way) by parents, they were calling bad weather days for cold. Just. For. COLD! I may have seen one teeny tiny icicle, but there were not even two flakes of snow, not even one. How about we just cancel school for all of January and February?

    God forbid little Suzie gets chilly on her way from the warm bus to the warm school. When I was a kid I had to walk barefoot in the sand both ways and I even got a SUNBURN! Ok, ok, I grew up in San Diego, but you get the picture.

    Remember when you actually had to win to get a trophy? Not anymore. The fact that my kid gets a participation award for just being on a team pisses me off. Honestly, that’s not the message I want to send to our youth, or particularly, my son. Just show up, you don’t even have to try. I want my kid to know he has to kickass and be awesome. Be a badass! In the grown-up world, they aren’t going to get promotions and raises just for showing up (unless they work for the Government). Our kids will be expected to do shit, shit that counts. Or they can just live in your basement forever and you can continue to do shit for them…

    Remember when America led the industrialized world and made everybody’s shit? Not anymore. Now China makes all of our shit. Wonder why? They do shit over there, they’re willing to do shit. People here don’t want the shit jobs anymore. The blue collar jobs. The jobs that may break your back, but make you stand tall. Everyone wants a cushy job with a nice office. No one wants dirt under their nails. No one wants to plunge a toilet; we’re all too good for that. Listen, I live w/ two men, I plunge a toilet at least once a week and I clean them too. Why? Because if I don’t do the shit, the shit won’t get done. Shit will be everywhere…

    Remember when hard work was something to be proud of? Not anymore. Now everybody thinks it’s their right to have a job they love. Another myth we’ve spoon fed our youth. It’s called work for a reason. NOT everybody gets to love what they do. If you manage to have a job you love, you are very, very lucky. It’s not your God-given right.

    Remember Reading, Writing and Arithmetic? When using a calculator was cheating? Not anymore. Jeeze, in school they don’t even need to learn to write, like with their hands, anymore. Why waste time learning when a computer, calculator or Government can think for them?

    Speaking of the Government, it owes me. People with more money owe ME. Everybody OWES ME! ME. ME. ME! Nobody owes ME jack shit. I owe myself. Pride, dignity, respect. Go work for what you want. I hear kids graduating from college complain that it’s the previous generations fault they can’t get jobs, we’ve ruined it for them. NEWS FLASH: There have been recessions and depressions and economic slowdowns since the beginning of time. They aren’t the first to endure this. There are jobs out there and shit that needs doing.

    If you don’t like the way things are, get out there, work hard, and change shit! Start a revolution! (Oh shit! That’s hard work!) Complaining- won’t change shit.

    I’m not going to tell anyone how to parent. Ok so maybe I am, a little bit. BUT I think we can all agree that if we focus on loving our kids, teaching them good core values (you know, right from wrong, The Golden Rule and such silly things), and set real boundaries with real consequences (so life’s consequences don’t include you bailing them out of jail at 3am someday) it would be a good thing for them and for us. I think we are so busy not wanting to spank or yell or traumatize our children that we have forgotten consequences are part of real life. Not teaching that to our kids is doing them a disservice.

    If time out is what you like, great use it. But how about not saying something like this: “Jimmy if you do such and such again I’m giving you a time out.” Then Jimmy does again. “I’m serious; don’t make me count to 10! One, two, three. I’m serious… One, two, three… Don’t make me say it again… One, two, three”. And he does it again and again and again because he knows you never will reach Ten and there is no consequence. The only consequence is he has to listen to you practice your numbers over and over.

    Couples therapy, psychotherapy, counseling. Depression, anorexia, anger management. The lists go on and on. Psychological and emotional trauma is a luxury for us 1st world inhabitants. Hunger, rape, war, genocide. These are the troubles facing people in Ethiopia, Yemen and the slums of Mexico. When you’re agonizing over having to sell your 8-year-old daughter into marriage so your other children won’t starve, you don’t have time to take stock of the booboos your parents inflicted upon you and point fingers at everyone else for the problems in your own life. No time for therapy when you are praying the guerrilla war doesn’t bust through your mud-hut door. They don’t give a shit if their kid gets a participation award at school; they just want their children to survive.

    Being born in America is winning the birth lottery and if we don’t start appreciating it and being grateful, like fall on your knees and kiss the ground grateful. Like willing to work hard and do SHIT to keep our country great, then I guess we will get to see how the other half lives. Then we will really have shit to complain about.

    I rest my case.

    I feel the same way this writer did. Some might say that I was lazy in not writing this for myself then. I say that I could not have said it more eloquently than this person did right here, so why should I.?

    • I believe the Author is Doug Giles.

      • Really? How would you know that? Have you seen it before? If so, than I’m glad a name can be attributed to it. Great article as far as I am concerned, and the way I feel about life. Also the way I raised both my boys (and my new girl).

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          When I was in elementary school in the Catskills, NY. Snow days were unheard of and you definitely did not get a ride to school. Sleds were the transportation. Only rule was to not cut across the greens on the local country club. They were marked off. On regular days you walked if you lived anywhere near the town. Busing was available I think outside of 10 miles. I lived around 3 miles each way. 1 car in those days and Dad was gone at dawn. While in California 3.5 miles each way by foot or bike. Busing available outside of 10 miles. In Vermont, busing at any time of the year, within 1/4 mile of school and the bus stopped at each house. Children were forbidden to group even at the neighbors house. Times changed………1970’s and the era of “victimhood”

    • Morgan vs. Alex Jones in the Octagon. It would set pay per view records!

    • plainlyspoken says:

      He is probably right, Americans hate him. They probably see him as sticking his British nose into a country other than his own. Either way I just didn’t like his style. I’d rather have Larry King back.

    • Why he is here legally? 😉

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        Bush made a side agreement with Canada and Mexico to allow him here 🙂 OR Bush wanted to show all liberals what they will become, mindless balls of mush worthy of their desire of afterbirth abortion 🙂

  11. What can be done to stop all the LYING that spews from Liberal’s mouths? Are we at a point in time where it’s time to whoop some ass over the OUTLANDISH LIES?

    • 👿 That makes me SO DAMN MAD I can’t see! That despicable SOB and his SPLC are SO stupid it defies belief. As the BLACK guy said; a lot of the reason behind this ‘racism’ idea is due to the rise of groups LIKE the SPLC to begin with.

      But another thing that extremely pissed me off in the video was them bringing up the GA SOCV Tags. THAT FLAG IS NOT RACIST. It is a symbol used by the SOCV BECAUSE it was the flag of our Grandfathers. I use it for that purpose because I AM a SOCV. Several of them in fact. It is my Heritage. If you don’t like it don’t LOOK at it!

      But as many Black friends as I have, my boys have, my daughter has, my wife. As many boys and girls, men and women as I see being friends with, even lovers and married couples, and let me tell you now you didn’t back when I was young, I find this idea of more racism hard to accept.

      All they were going by was the case of the 3 moron kids, who should have had their asses BEAT when they were kids, carving a swastika into a black kids forehead after robbing him. Why is it that we only see the racism bullshit when it’s a white on black crime and not when it’s black on white?

      Because the MSM perpetuates by only reporting on it when it’s the first, that’s why. To perpetuate the damn cycle! 👿

      End of freaking rant.

      • If you’re white and NOT a member of the Democratic Party you are a racist – haven’t you read the memo?

        • Hell! They even believe THEY have ‘White Guilt’ because Black people were slaves way back in the 1800’s. Have I got news for them! 🙂 I am not guilty of jack!!!

          I ain’t never owned no slaves even if one of my ancestors did. And I don’t owe anyone one in this world a damn thing except for my Parents. And they have no right whatsoever to anything I own.

          Furthermore, just because their ancestors may have been slaves does not mean a single solitary thing NOW. They need to get over it!

          There are lots of Blacks out in the U.S. who don’t believe they are owed anything. They believe in working hard to get ahead and not living on the Government dole. These are the correct thinkers. Those that think for themselves. Those who don’t listen to the Race Baiters like Rev Al or Jesse Jackass. The ones who believe that the Constitution gives you the ‘Opportunity’ to succeed, not the ‘Right’.

          Those are the kind of people I admire and respect. The others are no better than the White Trash in society who are just like Them!

  12. canineweapon says:
  13. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Of course the US military forces continued to meet their recruitment goals inspite of conflicts or cuts in benefits. Its a job that takes care of you and your’s better than most jobs available today. So what is the administration going to do, just write an unemployment check and get and get no service in return. Or just term the veterans all domestic terrorists and assign them to re-education camps.

    • Discharge them into civilian life and get them off the federal budget. Tell them to sign up for OCare, collect unemployment for a year or two, and classify them as a danger to government.

  14. Judy Sabatini says:
  15. SKTrynoskySr says:

    Time out!

    Best commercial I have seen in a very long time.

  16. Moving beyond the lunch line, new rules that will be proposed Tuesday by the White House and the Agriculture Department would limit marketing of unhealthy foods in schools. They would phase out the advertising of sugary drinks and junk foods around campuses during the school day and ensure that other promotions in schools were in line with health standards that already apply to school foods.

    This is any business of the feds because…………………………? Next thing you know the feds will be regulating the magnets on your refrigerator.

  17. Swarm of volcanic eruptions may have slowed global warming,0,877383.story#ixzz2uLFTdmMK

    Really? I mean……………..really? Oy.

  18. Gmanfortruth says:
    • This story is one of three the local press is covering hard this week, where the homeowner shoots back. They’re actually siding with the home owners.instead of being anti 2A. We may be making some headway on the subject finally.

  19. YOu are wrong, G man… is not just active duty.

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      We were speaking of the “upcoming” downsizing of active duty. But if it’s important to play semantics, then feel free.

  20. Additionally, most people have no idea how military retirement is funded….after fy 1985, military retirement is a function and funded by the Dept of Defense. Prior to that year, it is funded by the Treasury Department.

    Think about what I just posted.

  21. They target individuals, they target groups, businesses, newsrooms and just about anyone that opposes their policies. They’ve previously sued states that this adm. disagrees with and now they are being openly threatened.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      If the feds gut the guard then what would be great to see is the States transferring the Guard members losing their spot to s State Guard or Militia wholly funded by the State and not under any federal authority. Yeah, costly but better than not having a full National Guard for the State.

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    History is revealing, even the short term variety. Freudian slip as it turns out!

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    HAVE YOU NO SHAME SIR?? Of course not. Proof that not all the pond SCUM eventually evolved into higher life forms. Much of it is still SCUM, walking on two legs but still SCUM.

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Stupid is as stupid does:

    The latest in a long line of people allowing themselves to be used as TOOLS.

    I wonder what they think they will actually get from this.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    More on the CULTURE WARS. Desensitizing is working quite well. Just read some of the comments RATIONALIZING a “teenager” doing PORN for MONEY.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Yep. The more something becomes acceptable the more it destroys any real morality in the country. Just because one has the right of choice doesn’t make their choice good.

      I will say she brought her lack of privacy upon herself. She blames it on the student who told her secret, yet she – before that – CHOSE to put herself in the public spotlight by making the porn in the first place. She spilled the milk and now wants to cry about it when it comes home to haunt her – I think not.

  26. Gmanfortruth says:

    In cellphone footage uploaded to Vimeo, a large group of police, thought to be from the Baltimore County Police Department, can be seen arresting two people as a massive crowd watches from the sidewalk. As the video’s author quietly films, one officer spots the camera and immediately approaches.

    “Get out of my face,” the officer bizarrely says after walking up to the camera.

    Despite being surrounded by countless people, the cameraman is specifically singled out as more police approach and begin demanding he leave the area.

    “Get the hell out of here!” a second officer says. “You diverted my attention!”

    Attempting to assert his Constitutional right, the cameraman is suddenly assaulted as the second officer begins pushing him down the street.

    As the cameraman walks away from the scene, a group of officers continue to follow, clearly upset that they are still being legally filmed.

    Another officer corners the cameraman and begins to threaten him with jail time, refusing to point out any illegal activity or crime committed.

    “We’re not f*cking around, do you understand?” the officer says. “Walk away and shut your f*cking mouth or you’re going to jail.”

    Again attempting to find out what crime he has committed, the cameraman’s arm is suddenly twisted behind his back as the enraged officer continues his threats.

    “I thought I had freedom of speech?” the cameraman asks.

    “You don’t, you just lost it,” the officer states.

    Although the Supreme Court has continued to uphold the right to film police, First Amendment violations seem to be on the increase as cameras become more commonplace.

    Just last week, a Florida woman was assaulted by police for trying to record her own traffic stop. Despite an officer claiming her actions were illegal, her charges were quickly dropped after spending the night in jail.

    The week prior, a New York man was harassed and assaulted by police for filming from 30 feet away. Although officers attempted to delete the man’s footage, their police report was soon found to be false after the encounter was retrieved from the phone.

    As some police become increasingly hostile to the First Amendment, others set the example by defending it. In 2012, Sheriff Stan Lenic became an internet sensation after refusing to detain activists legally filming at New York’s Albany International Airport.

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Eric Holder PUBLICLY suggests that State AG’s should not defend their Anti Gay Marriage laws. The Federal AG has NO AUTHORITY over State AG’s. The Federal AG has NO BUSINESS commenting on what State AG’s should or should not do relative to their state laws.

    Oregon’s AG has just announced she WILL NOT defend such a law. The State is now looking to HIRE an attorney to defend the law. Being Oregon, however, there is no outcry for her to resign or to dock her pay for the added cost to defend the PEOPLE’s law.

    Now for the Irony of all Ironies for the month of February:

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Agreed. Holder is foolishly wanting action from State AG’s when he has no business getting involved at all. Impeachment would be nice, but we know that even if the House impeaches him, the Senate won’t convict him.

      As to the Oregon AG, what office is she hoping to hold in the future? Her move stinks of pure politics to me.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        This is OREGON. She WILL BE GOVERNOR some day.

        The lefties who Control the Statewide elections will LOVER HER.

  28. Gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      My response to the Bubble theory expressed by this particular author. Who, by the way, wraps several fallacious claims into his argument. Remember, Stocks are priced on BOTH trailing and “projected” earnings. The ratios are then compared to other investment mechanisms.

      So when your potential yield on bonds or savings is under 1%, a return of 4 to 5% on future earnings and stock prices is a good bet. There is a bubble component to the market in that cheap money given to big investors is driving market prices. But as the following shows, EARNINGS have been on the rise as well, thus the markets “recovery” is not all bubble.

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        What kind of economist is Robert Shiller? Keynesian or Austrian?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          I would say far more Keynes than Hayek.

          While Shiller has pioneered analytical work in real estate and asset bubbles, he is certainly no foe of Govt’s regulating the markets, including the financial system.

          He did predict the housing bubble bursting and tried to warn everyone. He was not alone, but you here his name more often than many others.

          • Gmanfortruth says:

            Too many economists with too many different opinions for me. Can’t keep track of all the silly opinions. I don’t much care about the stock market, don’t deal with it. I do wonder when the next “crash” will come, and it will, it’s inevitable. Also wondering when the US debt is going to catch up and screw everyone. That will happen one day too. The dollar being the world reserve currency will not last forever either, not with our debt. So many questions, so few answers 😉

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    How much farther down the rat hole can we go??? Now my blood is boiling again. Need to stop reading the news. Why in the hell would the kid agree to have someone search his care WITHOUT cause? Because we have not taught our children what it means to be free or the promise of liberty and justice.

    • Gmanfortruth says:

      It’s not the kids fault, it’s the adults fault for letting this zero policy bullshit to be in existence. It’s the adults fault that we allow our schools become prisons and babysitter services. Why is a no tolerance policy even allowed when our own judicial system does not act that way? Because parents are too stupid to hold elected officials responsible for piss poor politics. Blame the Police State that adults are allowing these kids to be indoctrinated by!

    • plainlyspoken says:

      In today’s America the first lesson that must be taught by parents is that you do not have to submit to authority just because they are an authority. Rights matter. I have taught my kids, and my wife, that permission should NEVER be granted to search, ask for a warrant. If they don’t have one, then tell them no. Second, I have taught that the answer to EVERY question beyond your name, address and DOB is “I want to speak with my lawyer.” These rules should be followed every time – even if you are not a suspect in any way. Be polite obviously, but be firm. They need to know that even if they aren’t suspected of wrongdoing at first, that can change – and everything they have said or allowed will be used against them.

      @Gman, you are right in that zero tolerance policies should not exist until our court system institutes them for the justice system.

  30. Gmanfortruth says:

    Yesterday, while in the Pittsburgh VA hospital for an appointment, I ran into an article in the Pittsburgh newspaper, which I took a picture of the pertinent part. Basically, it verifies what I have been saying about the 2 political parties holding a monopoly over elections, in this case, the Pa governors election. To get on the ballot, the Dem and repub nominee must get 2000 signatures. A third party, in this case, the Libertarian Party nominee, must submit 16,639 signatures to be added to the ballot. This is a convenient State law that the repubs and dems passed some time ago. Anybody else see something wrong with this?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Yes, it is wrong. But your finally starting to uncover the real location of the “fix”. This is what I meant by you need to be involved.

      And that there is not some small group controlling the selection of candidates.

      There are many small groups pushing THEIR candidates to run. But generally these groups are mostly within the two major parties.

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        I can see working at the State level and lower, as I have said. I’m just not naïve enough to think the Dems and repubs will ever cut their throats by fixing this. What should happen is that it goes to court and fought under equal protection under the law maybe?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Interestingly I just checked and in Colorado and under Colorado law candidates from minor parties have a lower threshold of signatures needed than those from major parties to get on the ballot.

      Though, I don’t think there should be ANY number of signatures needed. It may make ballots really long, but it would be true choice among the people. I’d rather see runoff elections rather than restricted candidate elections.

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        Why not an open vote for anyone who wants to run? That’s what seems fair. Limit the amount of money spent on elections and give the average person a chance to become wealthy and corrupt. Because if we don’t fix what we got, totally, that’s all that’s left 😉

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    We often talk about the Sheep, but let me take a minute to discuss SHEEP HERDERS. Based on my channel serving the news last night I just had to comment.

    Of all the things going on in the world yesterday guess what LED THE NEWS on several “opinion” shows last night? And guess which channels?? OK……..I am not waiting.

    Erin Burnett (CNN) Lead story………..Arizona’s law LEGALIZING DISCRIMINATION against Homo Sexuals. Two guests going at it. The AZ legislator held his own finally asking the other pundit and Ms. Burnett to PROVE where in the legislation it legalized discrimination against anyone. Crickets…………came down to slippery slope.

    But today the Governor of AZ is saying she will veto the law. Seems the POLITICAL pressure against the state is simply UNBEARABLE.

    Oh, next big item on Burnett’s show?? Trying to claim an aging rock star is a closet racist because of his rants against Obama, Hillary, the Govt, CNN etc, etc. Said aging red neck rock star held his own quite well, although certainly gets adrift at times. Poor Erin was fit to be tied during the exchange. Especially when she claimed he had called the POTUS a Chimpanzee in a rant over Benghazi. He immediately set her straight that he was discussing those who claimed “what difference does it make now”. A a ,,,,,,,,,,, mmmmm…that would be HILLARY.. ROTFLAO.

    He ended with promising not to call names anymore and just speak the TRUTH about people instead of using inflammatory names. He then launched into explaining how Obama was a LIAR, who LIED tot he American People and the folks in Govt were Liars and thieves and corrupt. Oh, and he included Ms. Burnett’s colleagues at CNN among the list of corrupt folks he would work to get fired. Along with their buddy Mr. Morgan. ROTFLAO again.

    Anderson Cooper (CNN): To obvious. Same story about AZ.

    Rachel Maddow (MSNBC): First up was AZ then it was off to Africa. What ever that country was that just passed the anti gay laws. But the story was not just about the African country. It was really about some group of evangelicals called the Family, who among other things lead the Prayer Breakfast in D.C.. You see, members of this group have traveled to said country and explained how Homosexuality is really a choice. So the gist of the whole story is that this group has DUPED this African Country into these anti gay laws.

    The condescension and RACISM present in such an insinuation is apparently lost on the Progressive Queen. Oh, and of course, this is also linked to the “Tea Party” candidates in some bizzare way, I have yet to fathom.

    BBC: Ukraine………..Ukraine…………Syria…………. Global Markets. Oh what a relief it is to see NEWS.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Oh, I forgot to mention that I also visited Huff Po yesterday.

      Interesting how the Comments have fallen off a cliff there.

      In the past two days there has only been a couple of stories that have exceeded 1500 comments. Where there used to be 4 to 5,000 on major events.

      Now guess what the topics of those few stories were.

      Homosexual discrimination, Arizona, wingnut “Republican” proposing to ban Homosexuals from the NFL. That’s right. With all the other stories, it was only those that were direct attacks on Arizona’s law, or anyone that could be linked to anti-gay that garnered any serious commentary.

      I did take the time to scan hundreds of comments. Opposition or dissenting voices now seem to be GONE altogether from HuffPo. I wonder if that requirement to link to Facebook caused some to take personal hits for their comments? I wonder if that drove them away??

    • plainlyspoken says:

      JAC, JAC, JAC. Repeat after me, Andersen, Maddow and company do not report the news. They are not reporters, they are commentators with agendas (as are some on the Right as well). It’s all about instigating and stirring emotions up in the base that caterers to their beliefs, not about “news”.

      Stick with the BBC. 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Hey, I said “opinion” shows.

        But lets explore the claim. I DISAGREE.

        I think the OPINION shows are in fact considered the NEWS by many of the SHEEP. Both colors of SHEEP by way.

        As I said, these are the Sheepherders.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Agreed, bu that’s because SHEEP don’t THINK for themselves. They WANT the sheepherder to “protect” them and show them the way.

          • Gmanfortruth says:

            Plainly, I agree with you here. When wants protected in any way (other than foreign invasion) by government edict, then I believe they are the Sheeple. What can we as individuals NOT protect ourselves from?

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    As if this wasn’t obviously going to happen. Between Govt jealousy and protection and the GREED of many Humans, one must wonder if there is an alternative……… the REAL world.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Not often I side with Ginsberg but this is one of those times. I can not imagine what kind of abuses we are going to see with this one.

    Now for the meat. What part of the 4th Amendment don’t you MORONS on the Supreme Court understand??? Freaking Idiot WIZARDS IN BLACK ROBES.

    Can’t wait to see those black suits hanging from a barbed wire fence………… 👿

    • Time for some deep breathing exercises JAC . I’ll give you some cheery news. Conyers and Dingell are both history, Both are retiring. Let’s hope I can get people thinking about this coming election. The locals on the blogs here are in line with the HuffPo crowd..they’d rather call names and blame Bush still. I’m hoping they have learned some lessons from the Detroit mess and apply some sense to their votes for congress. We righties are the minority here but I see some hope from the left. Here’s hoping I’m right. Michigan will definitely be in play this year.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      What am I missing? What’s Ginsberg saying?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        That once he denied the police access, they cannot override his denial by removing him via arrest.

        In other words, A warrant should have been sought in the first place, second place and last place.

        The court has now established that the police may search your house, without warrant and without permission IF YOU ARE ABSCENT……………….AND……………If they arrest you then you are ABSCENT.

        Ginsburg called BS on this argument. I am therefore with Ginsberg on this one.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          The Supreme Idiots ruled that? Wow! Do you know the case, I’d love to read that twisted logic?

          Further, I saw in the article it was school officials who searched his car, though to me that makes little difference. The kid should still have denied them permission.

        • ” The court has now established that the police may search your house, without warrant and without permission IF YOU ARE ABSCENT……………….AND……………If they arrest you then you are ABSCENT. ”

          The supreme court, police, and everyone in between, have ZERO-ZIP-ZILCH-NO authority over ANYTHING OTHER THAN THEIR INDIVIDUAL SELVES (and arguably their children, of course).

          If someone is burglarizing your home, you have the right to protect your self, property, and privacy…by force.

  34. Gmanfortruth says:

    Just my opinion, but any Democrat that voted for Obamacare that is reelected just proves my point, voting is useless in Federal elections.

    I hold to that premise because to allow a LIAR to have the very job back that they openly LIED to their constituents is not what any nation should observe as ethical or smart.

    • Gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      So once again what you are REALLY saying is that because YOU DON”T WIN it is fruitless to vote.

      I remind you, they get elected because they get MORE VOTES than the opposition. As in VOTES that somebody cast for them.

      Which of course PROVES THAT VOTING MATTERS.

      Your real complaint is that you have not convinced enough people to vote for the proper people.

      • Gmanfortruth says:

        Bullshit! The elections are set up to get certain people elected, no matter how unethical they are. History has proven that right here in Pa. federal elections are totally fixed, including the Presidential election. It’s all decided by the 2 parties, long before you lie to yourself and think you have a choice. You have NO choice, it’s all decided long before any worthless votes are cast. Watch how many LIARs get reelected. Live your illusion JAC, many of us aren’t fooled by the bullshit anymore. Your are just voting to be ruled by the immoral, go for it!

      • Not one bit.

        Your vote is irrelevant – math says so.

        You cannot reverse Public Choice doctrine. People will not vote themselves out of benefits so to benefit a stranger. They will always vote themselves more benefits at the cost to strangers.

        Since voters seek benefits, that is what they will vote for.

        Since the constituency for a benefit, small compared to those that must pay for it, the cost to the victims is proportionally smaller then the gains proportionally received by those that benefit.

        If I advocate and vote for everyone to pay me a dollar, I get $300 million – a huge windfall and very much worth the fight to gain – but the cost to my victims is small …$1 …. hardly worth fighting.

        Since I have fight because my gain is so huge but my victims see huge cost in fighting but little cost in acquiescing, I will almost always win.

        However, this applies to everyone, so everyone advocates and votes for them to receive that $1 – hence the government caters to that, expanding the cost on the victims.

        But the victim attacks each instance separately – that is, picks one issue out of the lot. The victim is defeated by the argument “it is such a small cost, it shouldn’t matter here – pick on bigger fish”, but all the fish say the same thing individually, though the aggregate is overwhelming.

        There is absolutely nothing in the voter booth that will change this.

        Economic theory dictates it will collapse, not that voters will reverse such doctrine.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Knew that would force you out of the shadows.

          You claim I am wrong and then offer a long argument supporting my premise.

          If you cannot get the people to vote for the right people the problem is NOT the voting.

          It is your inability to win an argument.

  35. Gmanfortruth says:

    Why “selective enforcement” should be totally illegal for any elected to office, period.

    This prosecutor should be hanged by a lamp post infront of the courthouse, a Liberal coward. 👿

  36. Just A Citizen says:
  37. Just A Citizen says:


    My Pirate friend, for your reading pleasure:

    Fatal Crashes involving marijuana use tripled during the previous decade, according to researchers from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. The pot related accidents have helped fuel the overall increase in drugged-driving traffic deaths.

    As widespread acceptance of marijuana becomes the norm in the U.S., demonstrated by recent legalization laws in Colorado and Washington, many experts fear a continuing upward spiral of marijuana related traffic injuries and deaths. “Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana,” said co-author Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia. “If this trend continues, in five or six years non-alcohol drugs will overtake alcohol to become the most common substance involved in deaths related to impaired driving.”

    The study draws its conclusions from statistics on more than 23,500 drivers who died within one hour of a crash between 1999 and 2010. The toxicology tests were performed on victims from six states including: California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and West Virginia. While alcohol related traffic fatalities remained steady at 40% throughout the decade, drug related deaths soared from 16% in 1999 to a whopping 28% in 2010.


    • Gmanfortruth says:

      I read this article and laughed, it reminds me of Global warming, LOL. Quote ” drug related deaths soared from 16% in 1999 to a whopping 28% in 2010.” What drugs? Pot stays in a persons bloodstream for up to a month, but the person isn’t impaired for more than a couple hours. The jokes on you JAC, believing more bullshit with no basis of reality, Bwhahahaha yourself 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        more to you liking perhaps. But note that this guy includes the same erroneous cause/effect assumptions FOR his position that the other study used AGAINST.

        The FACT is that LEGALIZATION has not existed long enough anywhere to establish statistically significant trends. The death on highway study was NOT about legalization but about ACCEPTANCE and thus increased use. You and this guy ASSUME that the testing was for ANY presence of the drug. But here is the thing. Was the accident the result of negligence by the person who tested positive??

        If that is true, then statistically one must conclude there is a possible connection between increased use and increased highway fatalities involving Mary Jane. That is all, by the way that the study concluded. But it does go to EVIDENCE that there may be a connection.

        • Gmanfortruth says:

          There are a lot of what if’s in the so called study. Dead people don’t talk much. In my youth, I knew of no one who got killed because of pot. Can’t say the same about alcohol, cocaine or other drugs. Today, we have a huge issue with people abusing prescription drugs, the many different kinds.

          Pot, for long time users is a non issue in life, just relaxes them a bit. New users, young people, big difference. Ain’t legal for them anyway. Here’s the reality. After decades of a drug war, the government is no closer to stopping it now than decades ago, time to change the thinking, don’t ya think? Legalize, tax and most importantly, control the potency. Put in additives that take away dependency, rather than letting things continue on the no win path.

          We can do better than to put hundreds of thousands in prison because we aren’t smart enough to control a product correctly. We have the technology, but won’t use it because there is too much money in the prison industrial complex, the government controlled drug industry (and yes, they now own all the heroine coming into this country) and big Pharma, who needs the illegal rug trade to sell more and more of their “legal” products.

          I can go on, but I think that’s enough for now 😉

  38. Gmanfortruth says:
  39. Gmanfortruth says:
  40. plainlyspoken says:

    Brave New World Of ‘Predictive Policing’ Raises Specter Of High-Tech Racial Profiling

    This article will stir your blood some G.

  41. plainlyspoken says:
  42. SKTrynoskySr says:
  43. Just A Citizen says:
  44. plainlyspoken says:

    Wars, public outrage and policy options in Syria

    This writer believes the US public would support intervention in Syria if the President made a strong case to the public.

    I hope not. The US should be damned tired of getting involved in other nation’s turmoil. Humanitarian aid, ok – anything else – HELL NO!

    • I agree with you PS. I sure don’t want my son going to another Country and maybe get killed or maimed to attempt to solve/screw up THEIR problems so that they can hate us even more than they already do. Why SHOULD WE?

      • plainlyspoken says:

        We shouldn’t because we don’t have the ability to do any long term good. Iraq, we “won” but we failed. The same will happen in Afghanistan. Libya – a bust. When the HELL will this country LEARN?

        • Our Government won’t ever learn. This habit of trying to right the World’s wrongs and being the World Police is now seemingly set in Stone.
          If you look at it, we’ve had this problem since WW1, maybe longer. But I know it has gotten steadily worse since then.

          • SKTrynoskySr says:

            It was that Onward Christian Soldier thing from the late 1800’s. TR thought as did Wilson and the interventionists that we had the Christian duty to “civilize” the rest of the world. I’ve really only become aware of this recently when reading about the turn of the last century.

  45. Note to Colorado… may be legal to purchase your marijuana there and smoke it there…do not bring it across Texas lines, do not drive your car under its influence, and do not transport it in Texas….

    Instance: A tour bus in Colorado crosses state lines…people on the tour bus are smoking marijuana and have it in their possession……..the tour bus is stopped and a search is conducted…..if you are in possession of this stuff you will be arrested and fined. Just do not do it. You may think that Texas is a backward state….maybe so when it comes to marijuana….but you will be in violation and, as the Buckster rightly put it………….ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    • ” ….ignorance of the law is no excuse. ”

      …as if such a law is legitimate.

      • BL…as it currently stands…..possession of marijuana in Texas is illegal. Everybody knows this. Running a red light is illegal…everybody knows this. Being from New York is illegal…everybody knows this. And, regardless of how anyone feels about marijuana….if there is a law against it…..where is it not legitimate, if passed according to whatever rules each state has?

        • Colonel, I understand you are speaking only about the legality of pot. But I’ve also read your comments in the past about drugs and as long as you, or anyone, was not harmed by someone who is stoned then leave the person alone. Is that still your personal feeling about it? And… I remember visiting my sister in Houston in 1981…were were driving on a pretty busy street, may have even been a freeway, I can t remember…but the guys next to us were in a convertible openly drinking while driving. I couldn’t believe my eyes since that was not legal in Michigan. My sister told me it was perfectly legal there at THAT time. What are your thoughts about that..openly drinking while driving? Personal thoughts, not legal thoughts.

          • Anita….there is no open container law in Texas any longer…Texas has a horrible record of DUI’s…and the accidents thereof…until recently, a DUI got a slap on the wrist. Now, you can be cited for manslaughter and DUI’s will get your license revoked. I feel the same about marijuana as I do about alcohol and its impairments….and impairments are totally subjective and I understand this, on both alcohol and drugs. I have been around both in my long career in the military and civilian life and I draw no distinctions between them at all. I do not drink and I do not do any type of drugs….it takes a court order to get me to take aspirin….but that is my choice.

            I do not associate with binge drinkers nor marijuana users. Again, that is my choice….as I do not associate with flying purple people eaters. However, if someone wishes to smoke a joint or drink themselves into oblivion….that is also their choice. ( Note, I am leaving out the illegalities of law ). I do not care about either…they smoke or drink, consequences go with this…

            Where I take personal issues, is the flagrant violation of laws and the complaints about them. Breaking the law is like saying you are a little bit pregnant…there is no half breaking of a law….hence my disagreement with the Buckster on “selective enforcement” . IF we have a no open container law….and you are in a convertible… and you are drinking…you should get prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If you are smoking marijuana, selling it, in possession of it and the laws says you cannot do this….I don’t give a rat’s ass about what Colorado is doing…..don’t do it here…..until you change the law.

            If you are to ask me if I would be against changing the law….no I would not. Change it like they did away with prohibition and let the chips fall where they may. However, I do see a huge problem with no laws on drugs… our schools. It is very difficult to take a beer to school…..very easy to take drugs to school. But, free consenting adults……go for it until you create a public health or safety issue.

            Help any?

        • ” Being from New York is illegal…everybody knows this. ”

          ‘Damn Yankees’ …lol.

          ” And, regardless of how anyone feels about marijuana….if there is a law against it…..where is it not legitimate, if passed according to whatever rules each state has? ”

          Don’t get me wrong, as I understand the concept of social order, rules, and the need for police. And as you know, I advocate for responsible self management of drugs and alcohol use. My statement is premised in that no one has a right to steal.

          The responsibility of a police department and judicial system is premised upon public safety. Drug possession doesn’t violate anyone. Using drugs on private property doesn’t violate. Trafficking drugs doesn’t violate either. There is no threat to public safety.

          If someone wants to do drugs or get drunk, it is their call and their responsibility. So long as they are not doing so in a way that disrespects the community, what business is it of anyone?

          If the local cops pull a guy over for driving stupid and discover he is really stoned, there is legitimate concern. Take his keys or whatever is going to prevent him from being a safety issue.

          A man sparks up a joint in a family restaurant, which is unacceptable and offensive to the customers…run him off. If he refuses, call the cops. If there is someone peddling crack at the local elementary school, do what you must.

          But unless they are a legit concern, leave them be.

          And the idea of “that’s what works for Texas” isn’t necessarily accurate either, as there are a LOT of pot smokers in TX. I suppose it is up to them to deal with TX law.

          • Yes…PLENTY of pot smokers here….especially in Austin….Remember, I was in college in the 60’s….in AUSTIN. No, I have never experimented with pot and I have been alcohol wasted once. ( rush party for Kappa Sigma and it was on dark, warm, beer…which cured me of beer drinking forever ) Never smoked a joint in Vietnam, Afghanistan, nor Kuwait. I have never been a supporter of modern chemistry at all…..that does not make me a saint…it just makes me healthier…( Beer drinkers will argue with me on this ) I do not care what people do as long as it does not affect me nor my family nor the public safety.

            My whole point….whether or not you agree with laws….they exist. Follow them or get rid of them and do not cry about it.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      lol….that’s funny. As for those bus riders I go with the Mathius rule (Free DPM) of People. Are. Dumb.

  46. Note to illegal voters in Texas: How stupid can you be to show up for early voting without a picture ID, without a valid driver’s license, without proof of citizenship, faking military ID’s bu cutting the army symbol of of manuals and attaching a picture, claiming a residence that you do not own, and cannot speak English. Do not show up with the most counterfeited id ever…a social security card…..IT HAS NO PICTURE! Do not try to get a state ID for free and give a fake address….Texas is totally tied to a computer system that will check addresses and zip codes….and then will cross check to see how many people live there. Do not bring in a birth certificate that has not been notarized through a county office with their seal on it…..IT IS NOT A PICTURE ID. For the really stupid…..Texas driver’s license has a bar code….so does the Texas ID……bar codes are scanned and checked.

    For those who think that illegal voting is a small percentage………32% of the early voters in three precincts in Houston alone…..cannot prove residence nor citizenship.

    • Oh….and for the eternally stupid……do not show up with a social security card that you do not own…this is the age of technology…..your ssn will be run against a database…..if it is not there……………………………………………………….we will assume that it is fake…….if you do not have another form of ID to match the name on the Social Security card…we will assume that it is stolen.

      Oh, one other thing, for early voting, if you show up without a picture ID, you will be directed to a table where you can obtain one, free of charge right there…..however, you will forgive us for NOT believing you if you just give us a name and nothing else or you cannot prove citizenship or proper residency. ( No, a green card does not qualify…a green card means that you may be in the country legally but you are not a citizen allowed to vote in our elections )….

      If you give us a name of Juan Ortega….understand that it is like giving a name of Jim Jones…..there are bunches,…….so if a Juan Ortega shows up on a background check as questionable ( like criminal warrants or something), do not get upset with the officials for slapping handcuffs on you if you cannot prove you are not THAT Juan Ortega… happens. Oh, and that goes for Joe Tentpeg or Jim Jones, or Tom Smith as well.

      You may think Texas is backwater……but we have computers now…..real ones….and we know how to use them…..we speak in complete sentences and we do not drag our knuckles on the ground. We do not smash beer cans against our foreheads and Football, not NASCAR, is a religion.

      One last thing….do not feign that you did not know you could not vote for your DEAD MOTHER the way she would have voted.


  47. Gmanfortruth says:

    There is a new thread posted 🙂

%d bloggers like this: