Fun word play, but you know that I meant the origins of the ban are racist and based on cronyism.

Marijuana grows all over the globe. Most Americans have smoked it. Its ban is no more successful than the ban of alcohol was. You're drawing a distinction which isn't there.

Yes, the same general public which is supporting decriminalization and legalization in more and more states, in a larger and larger % nationally every year, is "solidly" repressive of it. Just not that solidly. And less solidly every year. And they have no basis for their repressiveness except racism and love of cronyism, which they reject more and more as they become aware of it.

The law exists as it does for racist reasons. The law exists as it does as a result of government corruption and cronyism, suppressing free markets and competition. You ignore this every time I point it out because your position is indefensible. I haven't even had to look up sources for my claims because you know they're true and it'd just be trolling to dispute them.

Our nation declared war on Japan in 1941 (Congress authorized action). Who/what is Al Qaeda? And why have all of its biggest, baddest leaders received American training and money? Why were some in the Pentagon recently?

Is a government-funded and government-trained false flag terror organization which hasn't so much as filled a fishing boat with fertilizer and crashed it into an oil rig in the past decade parallel to war with the nation of Japan?

Admittedly the Constitution is vague and grants Congress the right to authorize whatever military action it wants (though not action which violates the law, which it has). So your point that Congress has authorized complete tyranny and the illegal (5th amendment) assassination of American citizens without due process is conceded. My point that it's a result of an ignorant populace of sheep, however, goes without response or refutation.

Of course, you'll respond that we're at war, so that's an exception to the 5th amendment. A position which becomes ridiculous--and concedes my point that the sheeple have elected a Congress which is tyrannical--when you consider that the "war" we're at is an endless war against an undefined enemy. An enemy which, funny enough, our government frequently trained and funded.

But you got me. Congress can legally authorize most of what it has as far as foreign military action, so do a victory dance and respond to nothing else. The fourth and fifth amendments aren't my favorites anyway. It's only law. They can legally authorize blowing up people in Yemen. It's really important for our safety. Nevermind that they violate the law in assassinating American citizens. Nevermind that they violate the law in spying on American citizens. Some dude on the other side of the globe doesn't like us. Clearly violations of the law are legal, because Congress can authorize military action.

I'm questioning if it is what it's been sold to us sheep as. It's a fact that we funded and trained a lot of its leaders. It's a fact that we funded and trained Saddam. It's a fact that we continue to fund the Saudis, who are the source of most of the 9/11 attackers. It's a fact that some of its leaders visited the pentagon in the past decade.

You're ignoring all of this entirely. I'm not "blaming" America, I'm pointing out really bizarre facts which are so inconsistent with what we're told that you refuse to acknowledge or respond to them in any way. Is that why you're ranting about Navajo rather than respond to anything I said?

You say that Al Qaeda is attacking the US, but when and where is that happening? I've already pointed out that they haven't even tried, let alone pulled off, a single cheap and simple attack in the past decade. DHS hasn't foiled a single plot except a couple they did most of the planning for in the first place. It's you ignoring that we haven't been attacked in more than a decade.

As I've already been over, Congress has the authority to authorize any military action it wants, except that which is prohibited by our laws. You don't seem to understand that the Constitution doesn't give Congress the authority to ignore the rest of the Constitution just because they authorize military action. It authorizes them to engage in military action which isn't otherwise prohibited by the Constitution, ie that which violates the 4th and 5th amendments. That they chose an illegal form of war is relevant. And still illegal.

In every other war there was actual combat between armed forces. Blowing up an American citizen's 16 year old son in Yemen with a drone isn't exactly the same thing as repelling the Axis invasion of Europe and killing traitors fighting among their ranks.

You're ignoring literally everything I'm saying regarding the way this "war" is being fought. You're ignoring its endless nature and the undefined nature of the enemy.

I love my country and am fully in support of defending it. That's what defending the 4th and 5th amendments, among other laws, is. We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not men. You advocate ignoring law in favor of submission to globalist sheepherders who view you as livestock. I'm simply disagreeing that your chosen method of loving your country is beneficial to it.

Because some dirt farmer in Yemen angry at the US--which does oppress him--is literally not a threat to us in any way whatsoever. Maybe we should stop funding our economic collapse with drones over his nation and propping up his oppressive authoritarian overlords and stop giving him a reason to be angry at us. What do you know, that's good for us and him. The only people it's not good for are the globalist authoritarians you blindly serve out of some misguided and ignorant notion of patriotism.

At my perspective,

Social conservatives are as evil as new leftists. They want their conception of "the good" to be privileged by the state, whereas I want people to be free to pursue their own conception of "the good," provided it is consistent with freedom and equality (as in no nobility)

The Yell,

You're comparing oil tankers supplying an enemy at war with US citizens living abroad living in residential neighborhoods, in nations which are not our enemies, which are not "at war" with or threatening harm to the US in any way. What are you talking about? An American watching television and eating with his family in Yemen, who trash talks the USA, is parallel to an oil tanker bound for Japan while we were at war with them? Yeah, that's a little bit of a stretch. That's ridiculous.

I'm not "blaming" America. But I'm not supporting the terrorists it funds, either. I'm pointing out facts which you seem unaware of. You do realize that the US funded the oppression of the Iranian people before their revolution and new government which hates us and actively seeks to kill Americans when it can--which is only when we're in neighboring countries oppressing their peoples as well? You do realize that we actively fund authoritarians and tyrants all over the world, and that their peoples know that we're their oppressors' source of money and power, right?

It's a fact that we oppress people across the world--much worse than the British ever oppressed us, which we reacted to with revolution. Are you disagreeing with this fact?

It's a fact that we've funded and even trained many Al Qaeda leaders and other "threats," some of which happened rather recently. Are you disagreeing with this fact?

it's a fact that nobody in Yemen is any threat to us whatsoever. Are you disagreeing with this fact?

It's a fact that Congress's legal authority to conduct war is not permission to ignore the rest of our laws and the rights of US citizens, as guaranteed by the Constitution. You clearly disagree with this fact, but it's obvious that you're just blurring law with bizarre comparisons because you know you're wrong.

Please be specific with what you agree with. If you disagree that we've funded and trained Al Qaeda leaders, say it clearly. I'll take the time to link you sources for my claims before ignoring you in the future because you're apparently taking a position on facts you know absolutely nothing about. If you disagree that the American people haven't been harmed by Al Qaeda in the past decade, please inform us of what attacks have killed American civilians and assets that I'm not aware of.

You're ignoring the underlying questions I pose in favor of this vague nit-picking. You haven't told us what we supposedly gain from our meddling in the region. I know that the military-industrial complex gains a lot. I know that radical leaders gain a lot in the power vacuums we create. But what does our nation--it's people--gain? Absolutely nothing. So you ignore this question. You ignore the violation of our rights--the law--and every time I point it out. You ignore our government's connections--and funding and training--of Al Qaeda senior leaders. It doesn't even raise your eyebrows a little bit? Because you've said absolutely nothing about it. I think it's, at the very least, a little curious!

Hell, to this day we arm and fund Al Qaeda in Syria. But you disagree! Everything is alright. Nothing to see here. Keep losing your rights while we bankrupt your nation. Because supporting Al Qaeda in Syria is worth economic collapse, in your opinion. Blowing up people in Yemen is worth economic collapse, in your opinion. They're a threat! It doesn't make any logical sense to make that claim, but damnit you're sure of it.

"You're comparing oil tankers supplying an enemy at war with US citizens living abroad living in residential neighborhoods, in nations which are not our enemies, which are not "at war" with or threatening harm to the US in any way. What are you talking about? An American watching television and eating with his family in Yemen, who trash talks the USA, is parallel to an oil tanker bound for Japan while we were at war with them? Yeah, that's a little bit of a stretch. That's ridiculous."

Fooey. Anwar Al-Awlaki urged attacks on US targets and encouraged the Ft. Hood shooter to wage jihad, and also corresponded with the guy who planted that truck bomb in Times Square.  He was not harmless.  Those were continued attacks on the USA during the past decade.  Also that underwear bomber in Detroit. 

"It's a fact that we've funded and even trained many Al Qaeda leaders and other "threats," some of which happened rather recently. Are you disagreeing with this fact?

>>It's a fact that nobody in Yemen is any threat to us whatsoever. Are you disagreeing with this fact?<<

That is a lie, as there is Al Qaeda in Yemen.  As you know.

>>I'm not "blaming" America. But I'm not supporting the terrorists it funds, either. I'm pointing out facts which you seem unaware of. You do realize that the US funded the oppression of the Iranian people before their revolution and new government which hates us and actively seeks to kill Americans when it can--which is only when we're in neighboring countries oppressing their peoples as well? You do realize that we actively fund authoritarians and tyrants all over the world, and that their peoples know that we're their oppressors' source of money and power, right?
It's a fact that we oppress people across the world--much worse than the British ever oppressed us, which we reacted to with revolution. Are you disagreeing with this fact?<<

^^ Blaming America.

You dance between arguing there is no threat, and then arguing the threat is our fault so we're wrong to fight it.
All your whining about US aid to the Shah is irrelevant if there is no terrorist threat.  Unless you're trying to explain why people who are no threat to us are our own creation?

" You ignore the violation of our rights--the law--and every time I point it out."

Nope.  I refuted it totally.  In every war we've had there have been restrictions on American speech, commerce, and life itself. That bit about the American Kraut in the Wehrmacht in D-Day in "Band of Brothers" - that wasn't invention.

The "endless" nature of the war is in part due to the halfass way its being run.  The answer is to war harder.

>>"Hell, to this day we arm and fund Al Qaeda in Syria. But you disagree! Everything is alright. Nothing to see here. Keep losing your rights while we bankrupt your nation. Because supporting Al Qaeda in Syria is worth economic collapse, in your opinion."<<

So? You don't think they're a threat - and then, you can point out we "meddled" in "the region" - justifying their hatred of us.  Let's get it straight with your own example - do YOU think Al Qaeda in Syria are a fit target for US bombs or not?

>>Laws and law enforcement are not exclusive to social conservatism, The Yell. I'm pretty sure this is a well-established fact.<

Yeah I wanted him to recognize that the difference he imagines between SoCons calling on the state, and freedom loving whoremongers, is totally illusory.  Given victory, he'll call on the State himself.

I stand corrected. War is peace. Freedom is slavery.

Let's stay at war forever. Rights and peace are overrated. Hell, they're not gonna send you over there. Who cares? Failed bombings by two incompetent idiots are obviously just cause for anything deemed appropriate by our overlords.

Obviously a mass shooting by a crazy lunatic who should have been given attention long before the shooting, save for political correctness, is justification for the mobilization of the largest military force on earth. One man's extremism and psychotic behavior is obviously a logical cause for taking a nation to war. You make a good point.

That dirt farmers in Yemen are not a threat to us and the fact that the US oppresses people and pisses them off are not mutually exclusive facts. You seem very confused. I'm not sure how you think one rules out the other.

"do YOU think Al Qaeda in Syria are a fit target for US bombs or not?"

No. We're funding Al Qaeda in Syria to attack Assad's regime. We're paying them and arming them, not bombing them. This is really tiring. You have absolutely no idea what's going on in the region or its history--and our role in it, which is 100% oppressive and corrupt.

I'm not "justifying" attacks on America to acknowledge that our funding authoritarians who oppress their peoples sometimes upsets people. As I pointed out, we had a revolution in response to less. As usual, you do not respond to this point.

Your solution to people objecting to oppression is to oppress them more? Martial law in every nation we oppress until resistance is impossible? Again, more specificity from you would be helpful.

The difference between SoCons and whoremongers calling on the state is the basis for the laws they support. You want bedroom police who care who you sleep with and if money is involved. He wants laws against murder and robbery enforced. The difference between these types of laws is not illusory.

If you think the meaning of life is God, wife and eight children, then that is your choice. But you should not be able to use the state to in any way privilege your ideal way of life above others. And that is also why, for example, I believe marriage ought to no longer be recognized by the state.

So your question seems meaningless.

You're acting like referring to acceptance of laws against yelling fire in a crowded theater negates all law.

Accepting that yelling fire in a crowded theater is harassment, theft, assault, and whatever else does not mean rejection of the first amendment. Accepting that yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a part of the freedom of speech protected by the Constitution does not logically lead us to conclude anything about what is protected by the fourth or fifth amendments.

If you want to make some argument about what is or is not covered by these laws, go for it. But referencing a specification of what is covered by the first amendment and what is not is not an argument.

Make sense if you're going to post, not more incoherent rambling pls

He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.
Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.
It was the latest in a series of "red flags" about his state of mind that have emerged since the massacre at Fort Hood, America's largest military installation, on Thursday.
Hasan, armed with two handguns including a semi-automatic pistol, walked into a processing centre for soldiers deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, where he killed 13 and injured more than 30.
Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about religion and that he openly claimed to be a "Muslim first and American second."
Related Articles
Fort Hood: fears of backlash against Muslim troops 08 Nov 2009
Fort Hood shooting: senator calls for investigation 09 Nov 2009
Fort Hood shooting: FBI to investigate reports gunman said non-Muslims should be beheaded 09 Nov 2009
Fort Hood shooting suspect awake and talking 09 Nov 2009
Fort Hood killer linked to September 11 terrorists 07 Nov 2009
One Army doctor who knew him said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim soldier had stopped fellow officers from filing formal complaints.
Another, Dr Val Finnell, who took a course with him in 2007 at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland, did complain about Hasan's "anti-American rants." He said: "The system is not doing what it's supposed to do. He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out. I really questioned his loyalty."
Selena Coppa, an activist for Iraq Veterans Against the War, said: "This man was a psychiatrist and was working with other psychiatrists every day and they failed to notice how deeply disturbed someone right in their midst was."
One of Hasan's neighbours described how on the day of the massacre, about 9am, he gave her a Koran and told her: "I'm going to do good work for God" before leaving for the base.
A civilian police officer who shot him, bringing the rampage to an end, said Hasan appeared "calm" during the massacre, hiding behind a telephone pole and shooting fellow soldiers in the back as they tried to get away.
"He was firing at people as they were trying to run and hide, said Sgt Mark Todd. "Then he turned and fired a couple of rounds at me. I didn't hear him say a word, he just turned and fired."
Hasan flinched after he was shot and slid down against the pole still clutching his gun, which had a laser sight on it. The officer kicked away the weapon and handcuffed him.
He said: "The guy was breathing, his eyes were blinking. I could tell that he was fading out and he didn't say anything. He was just kind of blinking."
Senator Joe Lieberman, who chairs the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security, said there had been "strong warning signs" that Hasan was an "Islamist extremist".
The committee would ask "whether the Army missed warning signs that should have led them to essentially discharge him, he said. He added: "The US
Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone."
But General George Casey, the Army's Chief of Staff, said it was "speculation" that military authorities failed to pick up on warning signs. "I don't want to say that we missed it," he said.
Asked if military authorities had missed warning signs Gen Casey, the Army's Chief of Staff, added: "We have to go back and look at ourselves ,and ask ourselves the hard questions. Are we doing the right things? We will learn from this.
"It's too early to draw conclusions but we will ask ourselves the hard questions about what we are doing and the changes we should make as a result of this."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … s-cut.html

Yeah it was totally coincidental this radical Muslim chose to write to an Al Qaeda cleric about the right and wrong of working in the US military.

I didn't say we were though I'm sure we will.

YOU admit Al Qaeda's in Syria, making it one  of the few places you admit Al Qaeda is at.

Should we bomb them?  Yes or no?

Yes.

or

No.

I'd point out that if you think leaving Al Qaeda alone instead of bombing them and trusting they won't be a threat, is pretty damn offensive.  I mean, if I had joined a We Hate America fan league, and America cut us off from $60 million, I'd be PISSED.

Me I say bomb them.  With gas.