Socialism would not be kind to you.

Post #56,822 by mmoffitt 10/14/02 10:59:27 PM Reply	Socialism would not be kind to you. By advocating the stupor of drugs, you put self-indulgence ahead of your responsibility to the community. This would be frowned upon by every socialist state, and every socialist theory with which I am familiar. It is only in the "Me-First, Me-Only" self-obsessed West that drug use is completely out of hand. It is not tolerated in Socialist states.
Post #56,825 by deSitter 10/14/02 11:09:02 PM Reply	Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. What?? Advocating the stupor of drugs? I rarely even take aspirin, and the odd antihistamine. I adovocate the decriminalization of drugs because it is a pointless drain on the prison system, which needs to be reserved for bad guys. In any case, the states I'm thinking of are Scandinavia, France, and the Netherlands - all with sane approaches to drug abuse, and all with a strong committment to basic social needs like medical care, education, housing, and employment rights. I have tried drugs, yes, and don't rule out trying them again should the occasion arise, but they are a non-issue in my own life. -drl
Post #56,831 by deSitter 10/14/02 11:26:09 PM Reply	Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2 You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit) - it is damaged by rightist collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior. As for self-indulgence - I assume you support whole-heartedly the coming war of agression against a sovereign nation, the first in our history. This to me is the supreme act of state self-indulgence. All phases of our government are riddled with self-indulgence of the most destructive kind, and it has nothing to do with drugs in particular. -drl
Post #56,832 by deSitter 10/14/02 11:27:07 PM Reply	Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2 You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit) - it is damaged by rightist collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior. As for self-indulgence - I assume you support whole-heartedly the coming war of agression against a sovereign nation, the first in our history. This to me is the supreme act of state self-indulgence. All phases of our government are riddled with self-indulgence of the most destructive kind, and it has nothing to do with drugs in particular. -drl
Post #56,833 by deSitter 10/14/02 11:27:30 PM Reply	Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2 You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit) - it is damaged by rightist collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior. As for self-indulgence - I assume you support whole-heartedly the coming war of agression against a sovereign nation, the first in our history. This to me is the supreme act of state self-indulgence. All phases of our government are riddled with self-indulgence of the most destructive kind, and it has nothing to do with drugs in particular. -drl
Post #56,834 by deSitter 10/14/02 11:27:51 PM Reply	Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2 You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit) - it is damaged by rightist collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior. As for self-indulgence - I assume you support whole-heartedly the coming war of agression against a sovereign nation, the first in our history. This to me is the supreme act of state self-indulgence. All phases of our government are riddled with self-indulgence of the most destructive kind, and it has nothing to do with drugs in particular. -drl
Post #56,835 by deSitter 10/14/02 11:28:01 PM Reply	Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2 You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit) - it is damaged by rightist collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior. As for self-indulgence - I assume you support whole-heartedly the coming war of agression against a sovereign nation, the first in our history. This to me is the supreme act of state self-indulgence. All phases of our government are riddled with self-indulgence of the most destructive kind, and it has nothing to do with drugs in particular. -drl
Post #56,836 by deSitter 10/14/02 11:29:09 PM Reply	Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2 You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit) - it is damaged by rightist collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior. -drl
Post #56,837 by deSitter 10/14/02 11:30:42 PM Reply	Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2 You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies, unless of course they need to steal to buy expensive illegal drugs to support a habit, a need what would not exist if the market were eliminated - it is damaged by rightist corporate collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior. -drl
Post #56,838 by deSitter 10/14/02 11:32:04 PM Reply	Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2 You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies, unless of course they need to steal to buy expensive illegal drugs to support a habit, a need what would not exist if the market were eliminated - it is damaged by rightist corporate collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior. -drl
Post #56,839 by deSitter 10/14/02 11:32:25 PM Reply	Re: Socialism would not be kind to you. - 2 You know, there is something disturbing about this statement of yours - because we see in it the origin of the Drug War on the Citizenry. You: I am a pillar of the community! I forbid you from being self-indulgent! I will lock you up should you choose to be so! Your morality will be MY morality! To which I say: Fine. My opinion is - if people want to wipe themselves out with drugs, let them - because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies, unless of course they need to steal to buy expensive illegal drugs to support a habit, a need that would not exist if the market were eliminated - it is damaged by rightist corporate collectivists who want to force THEIR way of life on everyone else, peer into private lives, etc. etc. Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior. -drl
Post #56,840 by admin 10/14/02 11:39:20 PM Reply	What we have a case of here... ... is an incomplete trap of Maintenance Mode combined with Mr. Impatient Trigger Finger himself, apparently... ;-) Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #56,842 by deSitter 10/14/02 11:41:42 PM Reply	Re: What we have a case of here... Could you please delete all but the most recent one? I'm having trouble typing I'm laughing so hard... -drl
Post #56,843 by admin 10/14/02 11:42:39 PM Reply	Bahahaa... No, I don't have the delete controls done yet. :-) Besides, I think I'll leave this here as your own little Juice Of Sapphu... Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #56,845 by deSitter 10/14/02 11:46:34 PM Reply	What is That? -drl
Post #56,853 by admin 10/14/02 11:58:25 PM Reply	Re: What is That? It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapphu that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stain, the stain becomes a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #56,903 by CRConrad 10/15/02 8:48:35 AM 10/15/02 9:01:20 AM Reply	Is that a reference to the poetess... ...Sappho, of the Greek isle of Lesbos? Our Adminiscott wrote: It is by the juice of Sapphu that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stain... Sure looks like it could be something she -- or rather, one of her disciples -- wrote. Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus] Edited by CRConrad Oct. 15, 2002, 09:01:20 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #56,904 by CRConrad 10/15/02 8:49:43 AM Reply	Ooohh.... NICE Quick-Save button! :-)
Post #56,914 by admin 10/15/02 9:19:01 AM Reply	It's from Dune Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #56,848 by deSitter 10/14/02 11:47:42 PM Reply	You might as well make'm blink too -drl
Post #56,859 by ChrisR 10/15/02 12:13:23 AM Reply	Do you favor more or less gov't? Your phrase "responsibility to the community" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior. "Socialism" is a euphemism for state control of personal behavior (in the economic sense).
Post #56,862 by admin 10/15/02 12:20:45 AM Reply	More posts, at least. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #56,867 by deSitter 10/15/02 12:38:45 AM Reply	Not At All Socialism is the simplest sense is just what it just what it just what it just what it just what it just what it just what it just what it just what it - BORK! - just what it sounds like - a principle of government that recognizes that people have rights, but also needs - the need to be fed, housed, employed, and healthy. We have socialism here, only the needs met are of the already needless - that is, corporate welfare. The key point is freedom - in a socialist state people can be free - it's likely that Scandinavians have more freedom than we do, in fact. Certainly the French do. -drl
Post #56,908 by CRConrad 10/15/02 9:00:44 AM Reply	But then, neither France nor Scandinavia is "socialist"... ...at least in any sense of the word that Frenchmen or Scandinavians would recognize. They're all free-market (="Capitalist") countries, where there just happens to be a broad consensus that society's responsibility for the welfare of its inhabitants (="Welfare State") should go a bit (quite a bit) further than in a free-for-all laissez-faire "Nightwatchman" state, and which SOMETIMES -- depending on how the latest general elections went -- are ruled by social-DEMOCRAT parties[], which are a perfectly ordinary phenomenon in the pluralistic political environment(s) of Western Europe. That's not "socialist" by a long shot. You know* you Merkins have fucked up not only the English language in general, but especially its political terminology, don't you? []: Like Britain's Labour Party -- the one under Dubya's best friend Tony, you know? -- used to be, at least until they started trying to out-Thatcher the Conservatives with this "New Labour" thingy. (Yeah, Ross, this turned out ot be a reply to MikeM almost as much as to you...) Christian R. Conrad* Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #56,925 by deSitter 10/15/02 10:01:58 AM Reply	Re: But then, neither France nor Scandinavia is "socialist" Well, by socialist I certainly don't mean a Robin Hood society, rather a social democracy as you described it. For example, I believe business is as much a social institution as church or school, in that the executives and owners of the business have a moral if not legal responsibility to their workers. This was tacitly understood by the best US businesses in the past (IBM, Anheuser Busch come to mind - I mention the latter because old Gussie Busch always took a personal interest even in the lowest barrel-roller). Now it is common practice to see people as expendable "resources", like paper, steel, etc. - to be purchased at the lowest possible price and discarded when the bottom line is threatened. -drl
Post #57,082 by mmoffitt 10/15/02 9:11:01 PM Reply	Good post. And I've said before this is the only ultra-conservative position I have. Yes, I know, when contrasted w/my other opinions/convictions it looks like a brain tumor is causing me to malfunction on this issue. You know why socialism can never be achieved in the States? Because for far too many Muricans "It doesn't matter how much I have, I want more." We do not know how to be self-less.
Post #57,081 by mmoffitt 10/15/02 9:07:16 PM Reply	What is this? "Say it enough times and it will become true"? [only kidding] A couple of fallacies I feel compelled to point out. As for self-indulgence - I assume you support whole-heartedly the coming war of agression against a sovereign nation, the first in our history. Um, no, see any post of mine on the subject. And what has this got to do with using drugs? because the safety of the community is not damaged by marginal druggies (unless of course they need to steal to support a habit) Um, no, not just if they steal (which presumeably they wouldn't have to if drugs were decriminalized, the cost should go down, at least somewhat). I don't want to be in coach if you've legally been taking drugs and you're the pilot in command, or school bus driver, or the guy running the 2 ton machine I'm under, or driving east on a 2 lane road I'm driving west on at the same time, (pattern should be obvious).
Post #57,085 by deSitter 10/15/02 9:14:03 PM Reply	Re: What is this? What It Was ..was an incomplete trap in maintenance mode of Mr. Impatient Trigger Finger (moi) - I was maintaining my erstwhile (and intact) respect for you, while seething at the self-righteous nature of your upbraiding me. As will be seen, I settled into a happy equilibrium. -drl
Post #57,127 by drewk 10/16/02 8:38:14 AM Reply	How about our favorite drug? I don't want to be in coach if you've legally been taking drugs and you're the pilot in command ... How about alcohol? That's a legal drug. Just because it's a legal drug, does that mean it's legal to fly a plane while under the influence? Why, it seems not! Sorry for the sarcasm, but I hate arguments against legalization that treat alcohol differently. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #57,452 by mmoffitt 10/17/02 8:00:09 PM Reply	Here's a tip. Some have "flashbacks" w/only moderate use of acid. I've never heard of a "flashback" from anyone who moderately consumed alcohol. Also, even with the arguably "lightest" illicit drug (marijuana), the active ingredient (THC) remains in lymph tissue for at least 90 days after a single use. Show me the booze that can do that trick. Yes, alcohol is a drug. But it doesn't have the same staying power, nor (assuming moderate use again) the permanent mind altering qualities of some illicit substances. In short, alcohol IS different ;-)
Post #57,494 by drewk 10/18/02 9:00:38 AM Reply	So it's testable, is it still active? Unless I missed something in biology class, lymph tissues don't affect reasoning. So while THC may be testable much longer than alcohol, is it still active? Of course, we can't possibly have a definitve answer to this as it is illegal to conduct clinical trials on THC to see what, exactly, it does === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #57,533 by deSitter 10/18/02 11:54:18 AM Reply	Re: Here's a tip. Flashbacks are a myth. LSD in the usually taken configuration (literally micrograms) does not produce flashbacks - as indeed it could not possibly do because it is metabolized within hours. It does produce permanent changes in perception, or I should say, interpretation of perception - for the better. I assume the myth was the same kind of bogey-man scare as "reefer madness". -drl

Welcome to IWETHEY!