winsor

Legalizing any drug that is not demonstrably worse than alcohol or tobacco makes sense. You would be hard put to come up with a worse drug than either of these. Methamphetamine is clinically indicated an awful lot more often than either of the aforementioned substances, and the same applies to cocaine and diamorphine (heroin). All of these are prescribed legally. Good old water is fatal if you drink enough (witness the death of the "how much water can you drink?" contest winner). While I advise against the use of most any mind-altering substance unless REALLY medically necessary, it is easily demonstrated that by resorting to prohibition, the cure is substantially worse than the disease. One of the reasons we as a society (such as it is) are swirling down the bowl is that we make major decisisons for emotional reasons, and rationalize them despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. 'Twas ever thus. BSBD, Winsor

Been done, many times over. It's just boring now. Why do you want to detract attention from the real problems in government? Why do you want to everyone to ignore the real reasons we've been entangled in two long term foreign wars? Why do you want to let it happen again? Don't you care? This is a (heavily) peer reviewd paper on the Highly energtic material found in abundance in all WTC 9/11 dust samples. Nano thermite paper You may have read it, but I highly doubt it. Here are a few of the contributing scientists speaking about how they collected and studied the materials. Mark Basile Steven Jones Jeff Farrer Show me your evidence Jakee, you say it is boring and that I want everybody to ignore the real reason for these attacks, yet the cunts that are supposed to protect your country have refused to study the evidence, they refused to anylise the actual collapses themselves and spent 10 times more money investigating whether clinton cheated on his wife than they did investigating 9/11. I expect the usual "Oh no, not this again" comments, if you are going to post that then simply go away, you don;t have to respond to every thread, but if you think those highly energetic material is paint or some resude from the collapse then you are an idiot! These guys have repeatable analysis , that is here for your study. Ignoring it is being ignorant. Come on then show us your debunking. I bet it is some weak ass hit pice with no evidence just fuckwits throwing thier credentials around without showing us evidence of them. these (illegal) wars you talk about are a result of the false flag attck on innocent people, and are continuing to maim, torture and murder more and more people on a daily basis, but you would rather forget about them. As long as it is not you huh? When anyone puts forth a Perpetual Motion or Cold Fusion scheme, it is duly considered by the scientific community before being deemed "unlikely." I have the advantage of having no vested interest either way. If something is clearly bullshit coming and going, I have the luxury of discarding it summarily and uncerimoniously. If you require proof that Leprechauns did not sneak thermite into the WTC, I'm afraid you're on your own. It is okay for you to dwell in Fantasyland, but I am not polite enough to pretend to take nonsense seriously. If a six year-old were to ask in all seriousness about something where there was major misunderstanding at work, I might be inclined to explain the subject to the best of my knowledge and refer him/her to sources of clarification that would address their confusion. In the case of adults, when they espouse something as stupid as, say, Scientology or Islam, I write it - and them - off. Anyone dumb enough to buy such tripe in the first place is a waste of time. Thus, you will please understand why there is no rush to explain why the notion of special-effects people setting up the twin towers for self destruction is not particularly plausible. BSBD, Winsor

A commonly-expressed idea. Thus, it's not unreasonable to consider whether halting the current practice of paying (or increasing) welfare on a per-child basis would result in reduced birth-rates. I suspect it would not. Historically, poverty and scarcity of resources does not result in people having less sex; but even in modern times, poor people use artificial birth control much less than more affluent people do. So logically the result would not be a reduction in the birth rate, it would be an increase in the infant and childhood mortality rate. Undoubtedly, there are some that would say that such is natural selection in a purer form: fewer people surviving to "breeding" age. I might impugn the true motives of their inner heart; but in any event, it seems to me that human ethics should militate in favor of taking people beyond the more brutish aspects of the state of nature. My strong recommendation is that public assistance be contingent upon sterilization - of both parents and offspring. This sounds harsh, but the principle is simple. If, during your childbearing years, you can personally afford the reversal process, you MAY be able to afford children. If you cannot afford return to fertility, you certainly cannot afford children. People who have children responsibly do not tend to have very many. They are very expensive. People for whom kids are a cash crop have lots. Until such time as we address this reality, the results we will obtain are unpleasant and unavoidable. BSBD, Winsor

I again refer to the principle that one should not attribute to conspiracy that which is easily explained by incompetence. There are, in fact, conspiracies - some more covert than others. However, when the Business Plan of an organization lays out the most profitable strategies, it does not rise to the level of conspiracy. "You are just trying to make money!" "That is how we stay in business. Your point?" In any event, it is not the Bilderberg Group or any other nefarious organization that is responsible for the ongoing implosion of our way of life. It is us, and the incomptence is on our part. I can speak for the United States, but would have related observations for other countries in which I have lived. We have been poisoned by various fairy tales, as Don Henley put it, to the extent that we have operated on the basis of suspended disbelief for all too long. We have become used to getting what we want now, and paying for it later (if at all). We have become oblivious to bloated overhead, and somehow expect "someone else" to make things affordable. This goes for medical care, consumer goods, energy - you name it. We have traded personal responsibility and accountability for our shot at the Litigation Lottery, and the Someone Else who is expected to make it all affordable for us is an insurance system that we distrust and deem too expensive. Since by payment in specie (gold, silver) we would have run out long ago, we adopted fiat currency (backed by nothing) as the norm - despite the fact that historically fiat currency ALWAYS reverts to its inherent worth: zero. In the name of humanitarian compassion we have paid the underclass to breed without limit, so that when they have to operate without a social safety net they are doomed. We are beyond the tipping point, and it is our own fault. Regardless of how badly the BBG et al may suck, it us who have empowered them. The BBG and its clones are but a reflection of our own failings, hardly the cause. I suppose blamestorming may make some people feel better, but it will not change the outcome. BSBD, Winsor

Here's Ron hanging out with Errol. BTW, it's easy to hate either side, since they both suck out loud.

What's the point? "dreamdancer" is the name of an altnet.com postbot, written by the Electronic Propoganda department at UC Berkeley. It's kind of pointless railing at an automaton devoid of intelligence.

Stupidity is possessed of no political persuasion. The difference between left-wing morons and right-wing morons is a matter of details, largely the issues chosen to demonstrate that they are imbiciles. It is unfortunate that no political party can exist without pandering to the lowest common denominator. It is axiomatic in advertising that, if you go beyond the 8th grade level, you have lost half your audience. Thus, when right wingers and left wingers point fingers at each other, and each screams that the other is an idiot, my response is "relax, you are both right." BSBD, Winsor

It's 73 virgins - if you include the martyr.

You supported Obama Obama is not a nutcase. He is a commie.

No problem. If you look closely at the Constitution, it is obvious that the Flying Spaghetti Monster touched it with his Noodly Appendage.

You could not be any more wrong, even if you gave it an ounce of thought! You should take some time and learn what you do not know. Gosh, how could I have been so thoroughly in error? I mean, if I was being facaetious I would have been legally required to include the appropriate emoticon to clue in the hard-of-thinking.

Careful. You're ego is showing. http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd081508s.gif If you want legal advice, do you go to a lawyer? Nah, ask a criminal.

There is - it includes injury and/or death.

Which would you rather have in office, Alvin Greene or C. O'Donnell? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. A moron by any other name.... I agree that either party is capable of coming up with a lowest-common-denominator candidate, and that either of these people are at the low end of the short-bus population. To argue for either of them is like discussing whether horse or mule droppings are "superior" - anyone who is willing to go for a taste test is free to do so, but I will take it on faith that they are interchangeable. Mediocrity has no political affiliation (though saying that either of these candidates is merely "mediocre" is giving them unwarrented credit). BSBD, Winsor

V.O.T.E. Vote Out The Elected. As a group, they have failed us miserably. Kick them all to the curb. Send the message, hand every single national elected official their departure ticket. Let's see if that wakes up the collective group of assholes known as politicians. How do you feel about a challenger, who, for example, is totally clueless about what is in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution? AHA! She asked about the CONSITITUTION, not any stinking AMENDMENTS! Boy, if you have to resort to amendments, addenda and footnotes to bolster your argument, your argument is pretty weak. I see where she's coming from. The Consitution recognizes the Government as being a God-given institution, and it was only the insertion of seditious language in the form of amendments that denied that obvious fact. Thus, we are now on the slippery slope to disaster. Maybe by electing enough such elightened legislators we can undo the damage that has been done to our system of government by means of Amendments. Of course, being a woman she would not be able to vote on anything - I am not sure if that would apply to her position in the Senate. Also, I would like to know how we would be refunded for the slaves that were confiscated - and are now beyond their expiration date. Since "free speech" is now anything that does not involve a Thoughtcrime, I do not think anyone will notice when that goes away. There is a lot of stuff that gets in the way of our going back to the Good Old Days that will not be a problem when all those pesky Amendments are removed. We are not Mice! We are Devo! BSBD, Winsor

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/19/christine-odonnell-church-and-state-gaffe I'm not so sure of that. She seems to be a complete moron. If so, she would fit right in on Capitol Hill. BSBD, Winsor

In the same sense that Joseph Smith gave the Mormon community a bad name, Muhammad gave the Muslim community a bad name. Read the Book of Mormon and the Koran and see what I mean. Both are unadulterated tripe. The Tanakh, OTOH, is merely a collection of Bronze Age family lore. Not intended for general consumption, nor subject to the claims made by the wannabes who have adopted it. BSBD, Winsor

You lost me on that one. Rather a given, eh?

It is a shame to see Persia of today, as poisoned by Islam. In the days of Cyrus, Darius and Omar Khyyam, Arabs were not much of a factor. Fast forward to the point where a charismatic pervert Arab chose to adopt a bastardized variant of Hebrew traditions and the cult he founded went viral. Like the contents of a Petri dish that got loose, Islam infected large swaths of humanity. Much of the golden age of Islam came from its engulfing sophisticated societies with rich traditions - such as Persia - but the fundamental trajectory of Islam is toward the baseline from which it sprang, an enlightened stone-age mentality. The Taliban, with all the charm and grace of the Khmer Rouge, rather typify the "old time religion" that is Islam (okay, they're Sunni, not Shiite, but Ali and Hussein are all in the family). In the same sense that Catholicism did to the Irish what armies couldn't, Islam did to Persia what even Alexander could not militarily - turn a proud and cultured people into superstitious sheep (albeit rabid sheep). In any event, Kosher trumps Halal, since Halal is just a Johnny-come-lately wannabe version of the real McCoy. By and large, Kosher food is noted by a very unobtrusive mark on the label, and most people are unaware that the product they consumed meets one set of standards or another. If someone takes the time to market something as "Soul Food" or Halal, I will probably buy something that is not so specifically marketed at a demographic of which I am not a part. Though I find Islam distasteful in the same sense that I find Scientology and Mormon distasteful, I will not boycott Campbell in general. BSBD, Winsor

Not hardly. The pathological view of sexuality espoused by Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, makes the proliferation of perversion amongst the clergy singularly unremarkable. The degree to which "Platonic Love" is embraced by men of the cloth, who are ostensibly denied normal heterosexual relations, is rather a given. To an even greater extent than patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, religion is the ultimate destination of a pervert. Muhammad and Joseph Smith are but cases in point (though rather nasty cases, it must be noted). The fact that religious conviction is but a socially acceptable form of psychosis (having discussions with invisible people are we? Those nice young men in the clean white suits will be here shortly...) is the only way the clergy can stay in business. I suppose there is a lot to be said for suspension of disbelief if sexual dysfunction is one's defining characteristic. BSBD, Winsor

It is amusing that you source an organization that, if homosexuals were completely removed from it, would have only a fraction of its core staff left. There are more sexually dysfunctional organizations in existance than the Catholic Church; Islam is on the short list. Taking advice on relationships from the Vatican is like basing your investment strategy on Bernie Madoff's tips. BSBD, Winsor

Congratulations, you've just equivocated "Right Wingers" with "Al-Qaeda." Fairly certain that's not actually the point you were trying to make. That would be "equated," not "equivocated." "Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)." - from Wikipedia

If it is not demonstrably worse (and I do not mean according to hysterical anecdotes) than tobacco and/or alcohol, legalize it. That's LEGALIZE, not decriminalize. If someone wants to O.D., fine - just throw a mandatory D.N.R. into the mix. You want to freeze your heart with coke? Your call. In any case, it's cheaper to give you a good, christian burial than to lock you up. As it is, if I'm starving all I have to do is walk into a police station with a lit joint to get three hots and a cot, with free medical and dental. I do not particularly approve of the use of drugs (okay, so I drink coffee and take aspirin), but I approve even less of the institutionalized stupidity that is prohibition. To proscribe a substance is to relinquish all control. Under the Volstead Act, it was exactly as illegal to sell bathtub gin to a six year-old or a sixty year-old. Now, if you serve a 20 year-old, you can lose your liquor license and potentially go out of business. It is so much easier to simply ban things than it is to take full personal responsibility. Legislating morality is an age-old favorite - regardless of the fact that it has never worked and never will. BSBD, Winsor

Bit of trivia: What American President wore an SS Officer's uniform as part of his official military duties? Answer: Ronald Reagan, making propaganda films for the War Department while on active duty. I, personally, am not crazy about the way the Waffen SS is described in the Wiking website. There is a huge difference between the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS; the SS - whether Allgemeine or Waffen - was purely a Party organization, and ALL members were Nazis. The Wehrmacht was the Military, and your average Laendser (German equivalent of GI) may or may not have been sympathetic to the NSDAP cause. If a Wehrmacht unit, such as the Grossdeutschland Division, took a Shtetl, the occupants stood a much higher chance of survival than if it had been a Waffen SS unit. In any event, none of the actual White Supremacists of my acquaintance would be likely to participate in any kind of reenactment activities, and I suspect that it is about as romanticized as if they were playing "Cowboys and Indians." My rabbi might think otherwise, but I am expected to think for myself. BSBD, Winsor

For the benefit of people who are wont to claim "It is the fault of those dreadful that we are in this dreadful predicament!," it seems this film points out that there is plenty of blame to go around, and that it has taken over a generation to screw things up this badly. The old Pogo saw that "we have met the enemy, and he is us" is an extension of the principle that a people get the government they deserve. Money is to government what power is to aviation in the sense that, given enough horsepower, you can make anything fly. Another aviation analog to government spending is the observation regarding drag in supersonic flight - while there is no maximum, there is a finite minimum. At any rate, the disconnect here is between what Government spends and quite who pays for it. There are many things that, if we had to pay for them out of pocket, we would immediately point out that they were simply unaffordable. If "the Government" (which, in a Democracy, is actually us) pays for it, somehow it is affordable. We have been like a prototypical airhead shopping with a no-limit credit card that is paid for by "someone else" for the past 40 years. When the bill arrived at our door, we became incensed and irate that someone else did not show up and take responsibility for our spending spree. Whether it is Group A who thinks it okay to have a fleet of billion-dollar bombers or Group B who wants a free ride for every down-and-out person's "right" to procreate, we can afford much less of it than we have signed on for. My concern regarding the supposed authors of our economic woes is that I view any of them as symptomatic, merely the tip of the iceberg. The attitudes I hold responsible have metasticized, and are now so deeply entrenched that I doubt they can be addressed. Our complacency is only matched by our ignorance. What the hell, it was fun while it lasted. BSBD, Winsor