Dear Irony [Archive] - HungAngels - Guide to TGirls and Transsexuals

maxpower

10-12-2012, 08:56 PM

Hello, first major-cool points for being so brazen as to walk into a voting booth with a bowl and taking a picture, also please know your post actually compelled me to stop my eight-months of lurking, create a HA specific email address and register to ask a question.

As such, I was just wondering what would make you as someone who obviously smokes, vote for Obama, a Gangster who has let the Department of Justice mercilessly harass and jail otherwise peaceful smokers, of which many live in states that have partially legalized or decriminalized marijuana?

It seems very antithetical.

Come on now, she did not bring a bowl into a voting booth and take a picture. She starts out by saying she was at her kitchen table (which you quoted). Obviously she has a mail-in ballot, so she probably took the picture, y'know...at her kitchen table. Also, if you read other posts Erika has made, you would see that she has only been pro-pot for a few days, and pro-Obama for, well...never. I don't know her personally, but she has been through some hard times as of late, and seems to be rethinking her stances on things, and opening herself up to other points of view.

I am as disappointed as you seem to be with Obama's backwards thinking and self-contradictory actions on the pot issue. But as Prospero also asked, do you really think Romney would be more progressive about it?

Erika1487

10-13-2012, 03:45 AM

pen from a Mental Hospital ?
Yes my flex pen. I was not allowed a regular pen to journal with in the state mental hospital, and was given this little pen. I hold on to it as a reminder of my experiances there.

Erika1487

10-13-2012, 03:55 AM

Come on now, she did not bring a bowl into a voting booth and take a picture. She starts out by saying she was at her kitchen table (which you quoted). Obviously she has a mail-in ballot, so she probably took the picture, y'know...at her kitchen table. Also, if you read other posts Erika has made, you would see that she has only been pro-pot for a few days, and pro-Obama for, well...never. I don't know her personally, but she has been through some hard times as of late, and seems to be rethinking her stances on things, and opening herself up to other points of view. Max you must of read my mind cause you took the words right of my mouth. lol
I might add the main reason I voted for Obama had nothing to do with pot and EVERYTHING to do with his stance on EQUALITY for us trans folks.

Lovecox

10-13-2012, 05:41 AM

I don't see the irony.

Lovecox

10-13-2012, 05:45 AM

... had you voted for Romney after taking a hit, then that would be quite ironic. As it stands it seems completely appropriate.

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-13-2012, 08:43 AM

Max you must of read my mind cause you took the words right of my mouth. lol
I might add the main reason I voted for Obama had nothing to do with pot and EVERYTHING to do with his stance on EQUALITY for us trans folks.

###

Shame on me for not realizing it was the kitchen table, great pic nonetheless, it does what art is supposed to do, evoke a reaction, start a dialog, etc etc, so yes the picture of a ballot sitting next to a bowl was the catalyst for my response.

Nevertheless, just because he has pandered to trans-folk means squat when he is throwing people in jail for smoking or consuming marijuana by other means.

Really? As long as he says some pretty words about treating TG people nicely, its okay to drone bomb teenagers and throw people in jail?

Not to mention, the Drug War is such an amazingly racist war as the Black rate of incarceration for non-violent drug crimes is 1 out of 14 compared to 1 out of 106 for whites.

So do you really think a man who allows his own race to be unjustly incarcerated at such a rate, really gives a care for Trans people?

He cares about getting re-elected and buying off the votes of Voting Blocs by pandering, not the lives of actual living, breathing people.

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-13-2012, 08:58 AM

...But as Prospero also asked, do you really think Romney would be more progressive about it?

###

Swear I posted a reply, but it apparently was lost.

Anyhow no, Romney is every bit of an evil sick person as the current Gangster-in-Chief.

Just another one of Goldman Sach's puppet candidates.

I mean the national government in DC is just an utter incestuous pit of slime, why anyone would want to play "Pick the New Slave Master for 4 Years" is beyond me.

Seriously, what the heck happened to this country; the President says he has the authority to assassinate or indefinitely detain any American???

He has justified the use of a Drone, resulting in the death of an American teenager, who was never charged with a crime or given a trial?

People walk through naked scanners with their arms over their head like a criminal, which is then manned by psychos who put their hands in adults and children's waistbands?

Does no one else not see the disgusting Irony of a man who was given the Nobel Peace Prize to unleash endless violence upon much of the Middle-East?

The President-Reality show is a farce, no matter which CANdidate wins, Goldman Sach's and their criminal banker friends on Wall Street and at the FED win, yeah more WAR and banking = great profits for bankers who finance the slaughter.

My stomach can no longer tolerate such blatant disregard for humanity, the Law, the Natural Rights of Man.

and if Governments derive their Just power to Govern via the Consent of We the People, it seems prudent to me that anyone who cared at all the slightest bit about their fellow man, could no longer Consent to participate in such a detestable system of violence.

Prospero

10-13-2012, 10:13 AM

A party political statement from the latest Tea Party member of Hung Angels - or perhaps an advocate of armed militias hiding the forests. .

The line is - of course - that the Government is more to blame for the evils of our society than the folk pulling the strings of all of this attack on "big government" and the branding of the Democrats as communists - multi-national corporations and big business... the real villains. The push against regulation and control of the excesses of business by the Tea party and the GOP is cynical beyond belief.

So people like our new scarecrow advocate what exactly? Armed insurrection? No Government? A Communist society? Anarchy? What exactly?
Oh maybe just sitting around and smoking dope and grumbling about how bad things are. Duh....
It's so much rhetorical hot air.

broncofan

10-13-2012, 05:19 PM

Darkskyscarecrow,
The President has not authorized the detention or assassination of ANY American as you say. Detention of some Americans? Yes, but that's nothing new. He has based his authorization to detain enemy combatants on the Authorization Use of Military Force (AUMF), legislation passed by Congress allowing the U.S military to detain those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Various decisions have defined the Habeas type proceedings required to review the detention. While the detention policy may be controversial at least Obama has based his right to do so on an act of Congress and not the inherent powers of the executive. There are indeed problems with indefinite detention in an indefinite war, but Obama has not exacerbated them. And I don't know what happened to your reply; perhaps Goldman Sachs erased it.

Ericka, good for you. I hope that you did not vote that way because you felt pressured but that you see some logic in voting for Obama. Best wishes.

buttslinger

10-13-2012, 08:31 PM

Don't smoke too much, Erika, you might write in Snoop Dogg.......

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-13-2012, 11:25 PM

Obama - a gangster... lol.... and you believe that voting for Romney would be better on the legalise dope front?

A party political statement from the latest Tea Party member of Hung Angels - or perhaps an advocate of armed militias hiding the forests

###

Prospero - your reliance upon Logical Fallacy [read: Jump to Conclusions] as a primary means to your Counterpoint, does you no favors as in both instances you are factually incorrect.

Obama being a Gangster does not equal support for Romney. - Strike 1.

Nor does advocating the peaceful withdrawal of consent = Tea Party member, as the Tea Party still advocates Violence actions of Government both Domestically and via an Imperial foreign policy. - Strike 2.

So people like our new scarecrow advocate what exactly? Armed insurrection? No Government? A Communist society? Anarchy? What exactly? .

###

People such as myself merely advocate the abolition of Violent Coercion from within society as a proper or just governmental structure. Further, the only legitimate function of Government is the Protection of the Liberty, Property, and Natural Rights of the People.

Moreover, there is no need for Armed Insurrection, for a person needs only to withdraw their consent from the system to the degree in which they feel most comfortable.

When enough of us stop consenting to a system that wages endless war, enriches its banker friends by stealing from the People, that system will collapse under its own hegemony.

One example is to ask yourself is the benefit to flying so wonderful that you are willing to be treated like a criminal, frisked, scanned, and molested merely to board a plane? For me and many others, the answer is a resounding 'NO'.

The historical fact is that People, not government are what push the human race forward. Whether it be by Nullifying the "Fugitive Slave Law", inventing the light bulb, uncovering the mysteries of flight, etc, it was People not Central Planners that elevated us to prosperity.

Such is the case for Marijuana, whereby the People of several states have told the federal government to butt out of their internal affairs regarding a matter in which the federal government has no enumerated power over in the first place.

Yet despite this clear delineation Washington still claims to know best how to handle a weed, and routinely dispatches its armed enforcers at the DEA/ATF to raid, incarcerate, confiscate, and destroy the property of Peaceful People working at dispensaries or farming the land.

It is sad that people despite all the evidence will still try to rationalize the violence of government as some sort of Christ like benevolent savior, when the reality is, all government does is destroy as violence or the threat thereof, is its only weapon.

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-13-2012, 11:38 PM

Darkskyscarecrow,
The President has not authorized the detention or assassination of ANY American as you say.

How I do wish you were correct, but unfortunately you are unaware of the facts of the matter.

Obama Administration Lawyers appealed and won stopping a federal judge from imposing a Permanent Injunction prohibiting implementation of the section of the NDAA, which allows the Executive Branch to detain any American for any reason, for an Indefinite period of time and without trial.

SOURCES: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/ndaa-case-indefinite-dentention_n_1885204.html

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/14/obama-administration-argues-that-blockin

####

And while I know it is hard to comprehend we live under a regime that would execute a teenager without trial, this unfortunately is the case.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/12/excuses_for_assassination_secrecy/

Pentagon, CIA Sued for Lethal Drone Attacks on U.S. Citizens

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/drone-attacks-lawsuit/

broncofan

10-14-2012, 12:35 AM

SOURCES: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/ndaa-case-indefinite-dentention_n_1885204.html

/ (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/drone-attacks-lawsuit/)

"person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, including U.S. citizens".

This is the relevant statutory information I plucked out of this article, not the conclusion you argue for. Technically any individual might substantially support Al-Qaeda, but the government could not hold them without them being able to file Habeas petitions. This is one of those issues that is only going to be unconstitutional as applied under 5th amendment due process concerns. What I mean is if they try to detain someone for support that is more nebulous than training with Al Qaeda or providing personnel support it will probably fail on void for vagueness concerns in that circumstance.

As for drone attacks I am against them. Killing opposing forces is an incident of international conflict but when you can't identify who is an opposing force and who is not it crosses the boundary into willfully killing civilians and violates norms of international conflict.

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-14-2012, 04:25 AM

"person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, including U.S. citizens".

As for drone attacks I am against them. Killing opposing forces is an incident of international conflict but when you can't identify who is an opposing force and who is not it crosses the boundary into willfully killing civilians and violates norms of international conflict.

###

Unfortunately, the act also delineates anyone who supports an "Associated Force" as a candidate for Indefinite Detention based on previous legal redefinition of what constitutes a "Terrorist" as passed and codified under the PATRIOT Act.

In addition, there mere implication of the law has already inflicted Material damage as its mere passage gives rise to a chilling effect on all forms of political speech, to wit the federal trial court judge agreed and issued her Permanent Injunction.

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=223

However, you make my stomach turn with your casual "oh well the teenager was in the wrong place at the wrong time, it was confusing for the Militarists" rationalization of an American President murdering an American teenager via an unmanned drone.

Such action is contrary to any semblance of Rights or Common LAW as far back as 1215.

Welcome to Feudalism 2.0

Prospero

10-14-2012, 11:23 AM

The feudalism you inveigh against Scarecrow will come if the free market triumphs - and is not held back or in check by regulation.

That is the clever trick currently being perpetrated against the American people by the new radical right - persuading them so-called radical left wing Government or simply Government at all is the issue when the real issue is the market and uncontrolled capitalism.

giovanni_hotel

10-14-2012, 12:48 PM

Keep pushing, Erika.

Too many people don't vote when the system is actually weighted to the collective power of the masses at the ballot box. That's why we don't have national holidays for Presidential elections, or a day off to vote for our U.S. Senators.

The powers that be really don't want that many people making their preferences known at the ballot.

trish

10-14-2012, 04:41 PM

Nothing wrong with Government, if it's of, by and for the people. The GOP is not against big government. They need the military-corporate-information complex to stabilize and grow their personal wealth. They're against your governance. They don't want the interests of ordinary people interfering with their planet devouring, wealth accreting machinations. For sure the DEMS are susceptible to lobbying by powerful private interests, but it's not part and parcel of their platform and philosophy. The DEMs do, when they can manage the 60% majority give us necessary regulation to protect our economy and our resources. They do pass legislation that helps students further their education, protects women in the market place and grants them province over their own bodies. They have given millions of uninsured secure healthcare. There is a difference. So vote.

Prospero

10-14-2012, 05:16 PM

spot on trish

broncofan

10-14-2012, 06:38 PM

###

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=223

However, you make my stomach turn with your casual "oh well the teenager was in the wrong place at the wrong time, it was confusing for the Militarists" rationalization of an American President murdering an American teenager via an unmanned drone.

Usually when you quote someone they actually said what you put in the quotations. If not, then at least you capture the gist of what they said. I said the opposite. I said drone attacks are wrong and even contrary to norms of international law.

Another case (in addition to the one you cite) decided under this section of the Patriot Act is Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project which was decided on declaratory judgment. Roberts said you cannot provide expert advice or assistance to groups designated as terrorist organizations by the Secretary of State. The Court actually said it is a content based restriction on speech and so they applied strict scrutiny. The organization in question wanted to provide legal advice to the PKK. But the Court did not rule out that this provision could be unconstitutional as applied in other cases.

However, the bottom line is that even in the case you cite, the President is being sued on the basis of a law that has been on the books since 2001. You are talking about individuals who are suing him and trying to get injunctions from the court based on what might be done pursuant to enforcing this law. He is neither the author of the law, nor did he sign it into law, and he is not responsible for someone suing to get the courts to determine whether they could be held or prosecuted under it.

Since you also misrepresented what I said in a pretty unreasonable way I think I've invested enough time discussing this with you.

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-15-2012, 08:04 AM

Here BroncoFan, let me quote you precisely:

As for drone attacks I am against them. Killing opposing forces is an incident of international conflict but when you can't identify who is an opposing force and who is not it crosses the boundary into willfully killing civilians and violates norms of international conflict.

###

So please do tell how your statement above is any other inference than "wrong place, wrong time."

An American teenager who has been convicted of no crime, who the government has brought no evidence before, nor has even convened a grand jury, was murdered and yet you act as Imperial-apologist, which by any stretch, is repugnant.

Furthermore, the Permanent Injunction issued by the federal judge specifically deals with the implementation of Section 1021 0f the NDAA 2012, not 2001.

Thus by all means spin the story how you wish, whether for your own head-in-the-sand benefit or because you believe in the Neo-Conservative philosophy of permanent preemptive war, but spare me your platitudes of being taken out of context.

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-15-2012, 08:19 AM

The feudalism you inveigh against Scarecrow will come if the free market triumphs - and is not held back or in check by regulation.

###
Yes because we need some more laws against fraud as apparently the existing law against fraud is what allowed the market to run rampant.

What about ENRON, brought down by existing state of Texas law against Fraud...

...but wait we need more regulation like SARBANES-OXLEY....

...but wait it failed to prevent the collapse of 2008...we need more regulation!

Let's pass DODD-FRANK, that'll do it, yeah Blue Team!

Guess what, that will not prevent the currency collapse headed our way now that Uncle Ben and his Crony banker friends of the FED have decreed they will print money endlessly vis-a-vis QE3.

YOu can argue for all the regulation in the world, but until you figure out that everyone of the regulatory agencies is stocked full of Wall Street criminals from the very firms they are to oversee (which is by design) you will always be chasing a ghost.

Nevertheless, you are far from the first pro-state crier who has bemoaned that "we just need better bureaucrats/laws", and I am sure you will not be the last.

That is the clever trick currently being perpetrated against the American people by the new radical right - persuading them so-called radical left wing Government or simply Government at all is the issue when the real issue is the market and uncontrolled capitalism.

###
Yes its a trick, unfortunately you and any one else who believes their is a substantive difference between the Party are the marks.

So by all means please keep cheering for Yankees -v- Red Sox, Coke -v- Pepsi or however it is you convince yourself that one party gives two shakes about you while the other is out to destroy you. Go TEAM!

You know it takes all of about five-minutes to look up exactly where the money comes from on "both" sides, and oh my gosh guess who are the biggest donors to "both" sides, surprise its the Criminal Bankers on Wall Street and the at the Federal Reserve.

Nevertheless, you most likely make your federal plantation slave master proud with your passionate defense of their hold on power.

Prospero

10-15-2012, 10:05 AM

What is your constructive alternative then Scarecrow?

broncofan

10-15-2012, 05:21 PM

As for drone attacks I am against them. Killing opposing forces is an incident of international conflict but when you can't identify who is an opposing force and who is not it crosses the boundary into willfully killing civilians and violates norms of international conflict.
I shouldn't have to explain why this statement is the opposite of the wrong place wrong time justification. You should have both the burden of showing how it is, but I will do so anyway because I think it aptly demonstrates either how bad your reading comprehension is or how cynical a manipulator of the truth you are.

I say I am against drone attacks. This first sentence means I think they are wrong whenever used. Then I say "killing opposing foces is an incident of international conflict". This clause is used to set up a rebuttal to this same clause and is an accepted principle of the law of armed conflict. Then I say how this maxim does not apply. When making an argument it is important to anticipate your adversary's stock position and so if you state it you can then rebut it which I do. Then I say "but", which is used to indicate the alternative position I am supporting. Subsequent to that I say, "when you can't identify who is an opposing force and who is not it crosses the boundary into willfully killing civilians and violates norms of international conflict."

That last clause is the rebuttal to that first part of the sentence. Here I say that by using unmanned drones the Unites States is not even attempting to identify who their enemy is. They are "willfully killing civilians" and "violating norms of international conflict". Usually people who support something don't say it willfully kills civilians or violates norms of international conflict. In fact, I doubt there's precedent for anyone supporting a measure by bragging about these features of it.

Conclusion- If you really are smart enough to interpret a paragraph someone wrote and believe others on this forum are not, then you vastly underestimate their intelligence. If, on the other hand, you really read that short paragraph several times and believe it means what you claim then you really need to work on your comprehension skills. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you cynically underestimate the intelligence of those on this forum. If that's the case, you are clearly wrong as there are a lot of bright people here. Afterall, look at the people who gave you negative ratings. They probably have nothing against you, are not neo-conservative dupes, but think you have willfully misrepresented a clear paragraph.

broncofan

10-15-2012, 05:33 PM

Thus by all means spin the story how you wish, whether for your own head-in-the-sand benefit or because you believe in the Neo-Conservative philosophy of permanent preemptive war, but spare me your platitudes of being taken out of context.
:-)

I never said I was taken out of context. In fact I think the paragraph you quote provides enough context. You accuse people of being beholden to slave masters and of being neo-conservatives on this site who are far left of center and strong supporters of civil rights. You don't even attempt to fairly justify your statements.

I think you assume you're talking to the Roman mob that listened to Brutus and wanted Antony's blood and then listened to Antony and thought Brutus was not an honorable man. I tell ya these folks are as constant as the Northern Star of whose true fixed and resting quality there is no scarecrow in the firmament. They won't go for that sort of demonization, particularly of Prospero. He is an honorable man.

Prospero

10-15-2012, 05:35 PM

Bronco comes over all Julius Seizure... thanks buddy.

broncofan

10-15-2012, 05:41 PM

Bronco comes over all Julius Seizure:D... thanks buddy.
Yes, but I'm afraid I compared you to Brutus.;) You couldn't pass through that metal detector these days.

trish

10-15-2012, 05:59 PM

...you and any one else who believes their is a substantive difference between the Party...Do think Gore would've gone to war against Iraq? There's a substantive difference. Do you think McCain would've ended the war in Iraq? There's a substantive difference. Do you the Dems would put idiots who promulgate against the big bang, evolution and climatology on the Science Committee? There's a significant difference. Do you think the Dems will push for measures that will make contraception difficult to obtain if not illegal? There's a significant difference.

Yes, there are Wall Street types lobbying both the houses, playing golf with the Chief Justices and writing legislation. But there's a significant difference between sitting on your hands giving it all away to Wall Street interests, and voting in an effective way for your own rational interests.

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-17-2012, 12:39 AM

Do think Gore would've gone to war against Iraq? There's a substantive difference.

###

Using the historical record, whereby the last century clearly demonstrates the "Democrats" played the role of the aggressive WAR party, coupled along with President Clinton's endless Iraq bombing campaign throughout the 1990's as well as General Wesley Clark's and Gary Hart's statements on the record following the attacks of September 11, yes in all likelihood Al Gore would have invaded the same as 'W.'

Further, that the Nobel Peace-Prize winning Gangster, Obama has expanded wars in Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen, should make it crystal clear that regardless of the Letter on their jacket, the political and banker classes love war for a variety of reasons.

Do you think McCain would've ended the war in Iraq? There's a substantive difference.

###

Unfortunately, you assume Obama actually ended the War in Iraq, as opposed to reality, Iraq's government demanded that we leave and refused to allow President Obama's desire to station 50,000 troops indefinitely, let alone all the special "Contractors" i.e Blackwater mercenaries still remaining under contract from DoD.

But, perhaps Imperial-Senator McCain would have committed more troops instead of pretending to end the war.

Obama tells lawmakers that troops will leave Iraq
by Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional officials say President Barack Obama has told lawmakers he plans to pull troops out of Iraq by August 2010.

His plan would leave behind 35,000 to 40,000 troops — possibly as many as 50,000 — to advise Iraqi troops and protect U.S. interests.

The officials disclosed Obama's plans after a meeting at the White House. Obama is expected to announce the new strategy on Friday.

Do you the Dems would put idiots who promulgate against the big bang, evolution and climatology on the Science Committee? There's a significant difference.

###

A. Why is it beneficial to allow the biggest polluters, i.e. the Federal Government, who also pass out liability limits to their Corporatist friends like BP, to continue to be in charge of the Environment?

B. The EPA was formed via an REO issued by Richard Nixon (R) in 1970.

C. Putting the Government in charge of what is and what is not Science makes about as much sense as letting government decided upon the approved STATE religion.

The greatest scientific discoveries have come from Private individuals laboring away to benefit humanity...

Like the Glass-Blower turned scientist Alexander Fleming who discovered antiseptics and penicillin, or...

the gifts from Nikola Tesla or the Private company that invested $40 million to sequence the Human Genome...or

Hughes Medical Institute set up by Howard Hughes upon his death and which boasts a $16.1 billion endowment and whose research in diabetes, stem cells and Parkinson's has led to some of the best treatment options currently available.

But by all means, patronize FDA approved government subsidized big-pharma, they appreciate your business.

Do you think the Dems will push for measures that will make contraception difficult to obtain if not illegal? There's a significant difference.

###
Not sure why it is preferable (nor is it in the Constitution) to have the federal government dealing with contraception at all, it is the responsibility of the consenting parties involved, not the criminals in DC.

Further documenting that Party is immaterial, Judge Augustus Noble Hand whose decision overturned the Federal Obscenity/Anti-Contraception policy known as the Comstock Act, was himself and was appointed by a Republican, President Coolidge.

The object of "The Party" is to pander to voting-blocs who are willing to sacrifice their dignity, humanity, and liberty in exchange for a special favor to their label, ergo gay, Christian, Woman, Latino.

Such bargaining is the mark of a slave, not a freeman.

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-17-2012, 12:53 AM

What is your constructive alternative then Scarecrow?

As stated previously, my constructive alternative is to withdraw your consent from participating in any manner or form connected to the federal government, to the degree in which you are most comfortable.

Whether this means refusing to be molested at the hands of the psychos at the TSA, refusing to vote in their reality-show, consuming RAW milk...etc cease playing their game and giving the Political Class the air of legitimacy.

For me this also means purchasing and concentrating locally, working within my city, county, and or state to see that the government closest to me either offers currently or is actively being pushed towards its only legitimate function, the protection of Liberty and property.

In hard times, it is your neighbors, friends, and family that are your best and strongest allies, not the scum in DC.

This is a nation of over 300 million, and the federal government was never meant to be a "National" government, the intent was for it to be a "General Legislature" tasked with handling its outlined responsibilities, such as minting a standard currency, negotiating international treaties, mitigating disputes between people and interstate business, enforcing contracts, and processing a standardized bankruptcy process...

...not dictating what type of milk an adult may consume, what weed may be smoked for pleasure or medication, actively waging Imperial campaigns of conquest, or spending to the degree of creating an insurmountable inter-generational Debt, with interest paid to a Private Bank.

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-17-2012, 12:57 AM

I shouldn't have to explain why this statement is the opposite of the wrong place wrong time justification. You should have both the burden of showing how it is, but I will do so anyway because I think it aptly demonstrates either how bad your reading comprehension is or how cynical a manipulator of the truth you are.

I will take poor Reading comprehension for $100.00.

While not reading your post on drone bombings religiously, it is evident that I was reading what I wanted to see and not what you wrote, to wit I am both apologetic and relieved to have finally stopped and digested all of your words.

I promise to quit posting whilst stoned and just prior to bed.

Nevertheless, I feel you are still underestimating the ramifications of the what the NDAA of 2012 and the injunction mean.

trish

10-17-2012, 01:06 AM

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-17-2012, 01:15 AM

Please, go ahead and drink all the raw milk you please. Or if you get backpain have a poorly regulated clinic administer a spinal shot of a drug produced by a poorly regulated pharmaceutical company. But when you get sick please don't hire any doctors whose education was partly financed through a Federal student aid or loan program. Don't hire any workers for your business or home, if they received a public education. If you learned to write in a public school, stop writing. Rip the plumbing from your home, because whether is delivers water or carries away waste it has nothing to do with liberty or property. Oh and stay off the roads, as they neither protect your liberty nor your property.

Sorry you felt it necessary to take the "Elizabeth Warren - then don't use the forced monopoly" philosophy once being shown there is no difference between the team you think you are on and your faux-opposition. Sorry you are ill equipped to understand a National Water dictate versus hiring a local unionized plumber and drilling a private well.

Some day you might wake up, oh and by the way the Compounding Pharmacy was FDA approved and the medication was administered in Government Approved clinics, whoops.

Don't Worry Eli-Lilly-Smith-Glaxo-Kline-Merk-Abbot-FDA will make sure the compounding pharmacy's liability is limited and protected from any costly class-action lawsuits.

Finally, since you choose to make light of the FDA sending in armed goons to arrest, seize, and destroy Raw Milk farmers, perhaps you should let these Terrorist-Farmers know how you feel.

I am sure they will appreciated your phony Limosine-Liberal compassion:

- 2009, January 16. Federal marshals raid Cocoon Nutrition (South Carolina), a nutritional supplement company, and arrest owner Stephen Heuer at gunpoint.

- 2010, April 14. Dozens of FDA, IRS, and FBI agents conduct full-scale raid on Maxam Nutraceuticals (Oregon). Company complies with all notices, but gets targeted anyway by a fully-armed, SWAT-style cadre of officers, who steal products, paperwork, computers, and personal files.

- 2010, April 20. Two FDA agents, two US Marshals, and one state trooper raid Rainbow Acres (Pennsylvania) at 5 am, breaking their warrant's restrictions instructing an inspection at "reasonable business hours." Agents scour the premises for hours and charge the farm with illegally selling raw milk across state lines.

- 2009, Fall. USDA inspector shows up at Dollarhite Family Farm (Missouri) and demands an inspection. After insisting there were no problems with the family's small-scale raising of bunny rabbits, USDA officials later try to fine the family $90,000 for alleged violations.

- 2010, May 26. Officials from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Department of Health send armed deputies to raid Hartmann Farm (Minnesota). Agents order Mike and Diana Harmann to stop selling all meat and dairy products, and to stop delivering raw milk.

- 2010, June 2. Agents from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, the Trade and Consumer Protection Agency, and local health officials, arrive unannounced at Hershberger Farm (Wisconsin). They violate private property signs, demand to do an inspection, and proceed to take shut coolers and order that raw milk be dumped in a field.

- 2010, June 10. Officials from various health and law enforcement agencies raid the personal home of Rae Lynn Sandvig (Minnesota), a raw milk and local food consumer, for allegedly "assisting in the sale of raw milk" from her home by sharing food with neighbors.

- 2010, June 30. Various federal agents, and even Canadian agents, raid Rawesome Foods (California), a private, raw food buying club, and steal computers, raw food products, and other materials. They hold members and workers hostage for many hours before finally leaving with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of product.

broncofan

10-17-2012, 01:23 AM

I will take poor Reading comprehension for $100.00.

While not reading your post on drone bombings religiously, it is evident that I was reading what I wanted to see and not what you wrote, to wit I am both apologetic and relieved to have finally stopped and digested all of your words.

I promise to quit posting whilst stoned and just prior to bed.

Nevertheless, I feel you are still underestimating the ramifications of the what the NDAA of 2012 and the injunction mean.
I will read up on the NDAA of 2012 and you stay away from all green herbs save basil and parsley;:)

trish

10-17-2012, 01:28 AM

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-17-2012, 01:41 AM

...

Additionally, yes my prescribed bio-identical HRT comes from a compounding pharmacy has for the last five years, and has been more effective at attaining the appropriate levels than either the patch or oral pill tried previously.

Not to mention it is more affordable.

But, please do not forget to line up like a good little slave for your FDA approved flu-shot, which OMG- who-woulda-thunk actually makes you more susceptible to the Swine Flu [read:H1N1]

Vancouver Sun: Vancouver researcher finds flu shot is linked to H1N1 illness
Published September 10, 2012 (http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Vancouver%2Bresearcher%2Bfinds%2Bshot%2Blinked%2BH 1N1%2Billness/7217609/story.html)

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-17-2012, 01:43 AM

The FDA's budget and jurisdictions have been severely restricted, as have the EPA's. Currently the responsibility for producing a safe product lies primarily with the pharmaseutical companies. Deregulation has brought with it the return of a newly conceived robber baron.

Oh right, we just need to steal more from people so the government can take out a larger loan from the Federal Reserve and this will make us all cozy and safe.

So, in your mind you see no conflict of interest in having the FDA staffed by former employees of the companies the FDA is to oversee or that the FDA limits the liabilities of the very same pharmaceutical companies who foist their "Legal" drugs upon the populace?

Brilliant!

trish

10-17-2012, 01:52 AM

So, in your mind you see no conflict of interest in having the FDA staffed by former employees of the companies the FDA is to oversee?So are you proposing this is a reason to disband the FDA, or are you proposing that the FDA shouldn't be staffed entirely by former employees of the companies they inspect. Surely you see yours is not a criticism of government per se nor of the FDA per se.

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-17-2012, 02:17 AM

So are you proposing this is a reason to disband the FDA, or are you proposing that the FDA shouldn't be staffed entirely by former employees of the companies they inspect. Surely you see yours is not a criticism of government per se nor of the FDA per se.

I am proposing to illuminate the scam of the entire Regulatory State that is concocted to provide competitive protection while simultaneously limiting the Liability of the companies said regulators are tasked with overseeing.

This is the abolition of what is any semblance of a "free-market" and supplants in its place a fascist Corporatacracy, where companies pay no attention to risk as they know the taxpayers will be forced to clean up their mess (think BP Deep Horizon, the FDA's Phen-Phen, Monsanto's BsT, etc)

Also, this model holds true whether you are talking about the SEC staffed by Golman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citi, BofA, or the FCC staffed by Vivendi, Universal-Comcast-NBC, Walt Disney or any other alphabet-soup agency.

The Regulatory State is a flat-out scam to provide a false sense of security while protecting the market for their cronies via the fleecing of the American Worker.

Option 1
As for a solution, we have a perfect working example of how the Free-Market can and does provide oversight while not limiting any potential liability.

Take a look how the "Underwriter's Laboratory" certifies electronics, and other products.

Would or do you ever buy an electrical item without the "UL" seal?

(FYI: Look carefully when buying imported items from China as many times those items are never submitted for testing and are never certified, and could pose a greater danger of electrical fire)

The same could occur for medication, food, or any other good or service you could possibly purchase.

Added Benefit: If a food or drug or product received "ABC's" seal of approval and was then found defective, people could actually sue and not be denied due to government imposed "Liability-Caps and Immunity" as the Pharmaceutical companies already receive....

...and if ABC Certification company was found to be repeatedly failing to provide honest ratings, guess what...it could go OUT of business, unlike the FDA, whose laundry list of mess ups is notorious; yet people still believe the FDA offers protection??????

But who enters a business to purposefully to try and anger their customers?

Option 2

So lets say you are not a fan of allowing a private certification market develop and instead desire some sort of governmental oversight...

...lobby your State legislatiors, you know the people who actually live in your state and are elected solely by your neighbors and fellow state citizens and create a state level oversight just as California has done with Utilities and other areas of business.

While Option 1 is my preferred direction as there was never any crisis over food and drug (there was some incidents at the turn of the century, but your odds of eating bad food were still far-far-far less that being blown up by your gas-stove or hit by a car still today)

All I ever hope is that maybe person/people will stop asking their Domestic-Abuser [read: Federal Government] to stop beating them and take a look at trusting your fellow man, not the scum who are drawn to dictating endless rrules and regulations to people.

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-17-2012, 02:32 AM

oh yes; as a side note, our state told the FDA to get-lost when it comes to Raw Milk and set up an oversight process for farmers who wish to sell Raw milk to consumers.

While not perfect, it is a step in the right direction towards letting adults consume the beverage of their choosing, wow what a concept - freedom.

trish

10-17-2012, 04:37 AM

I hope you're happy with your Mycobacterium bovis. But please don't give it to your children.

Prospero

10-17-2012, 10:47 AM

I promise to quit posting whilst stoned and just prior to bed.
lol

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-17-2012, 07:11 PM

I hope you're happy with your Mycobacterium bovis. But please don't give it to your children.

###
I really Love how you attempt to justify Violence by utilizing Fear, unfortunately for you, the statistics do not support you fear-mongering.

319 million gallons of Raw Milk consumed annually in U.S. (1)

Over the course of a 13 year study, 3 people fell ill and eventually died from the consumption of Raw Milk. (2)

2000 to 2010 - 452,000 Deaths from Accidental overdose or adverse reaction of FDA approved Prescription Drugs. (3)

(1) Based on National Dairy Council consumption figures.
(2) CDC Nonpasteurized Disease Outbreaks, 1993 - 2006
(3) FDA Adverse Event Reporting System for prescription drugs

Aw shucks, looks like the "inherently dangerous" products (which is how the FDA refers to Raw Milk) are FDA approved prescription drugs.

Thus, think our family will take our chances with good ole Bessie the Cow.

trish

10-17-2012, 07:30 PM

the statistics do not support you fear-mongering.Fear-mongering. You're the one talking about Scare-Crows, Puppet-Masters and slaves. Grow up costume boy.

You're so against violence and yet it's nothing to you if some child dies of tuberculosis, he's just a single statistic. Ever see the statistics before pasteurization was discovered and implemented?

Though raw milk can be a source of tuberculosis, once there is one infected person it can easily be spread through a community simply by sneezing and coughing. Ever see the statistics on how the spread of tuberculosis was halted by pasteurization?

If you're going to indulge in drinking raw milk, I would recommend you make sure you and your supplier engage in all the other safe practices that keep infection rates down; sanitary conditions, sterilized containers, sanitized teats, minimal exposure of milk to air etc. It's quite a risk to take for a very minimal, possibly non-existent, benefit. But good luck to you scarycrowdude.

martin48

10-17-2012, 07:54 PM

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-17-2012, 09:34 PM

Fear-mongering. You're the one talking about Scare-Crows, Puppet-Masters and slaves. Grow up costume boy.

You're so against violence and yet it's nothing to you if some child dies of tuberculosis, he's just a single statistic. Ever see the statistics before pasteurization was discovered and implemented?

Can you every post a reply without reliance upon logical fallacy of Ad Hom, Appeal to Pity and Jumping to Conclusions?

How you get to a conclusion, that not wanting violent thugs locking up farmers, stealing their property, and preventing a voluntary market transaction equates to "you do not care about the death of a child" is absurd.

In the end all you are doing is attempting to defend the Violence of a regulatory state and the injured victims of its actions by some ridiculous stretch of a child dying?

Give me a break, it is now obvious the entirety of your academic upbringing never saw you read or study one book not on an approved government school curriculum.

If the Death of a Child is your motivating factor, than what shall you say about the numerous young girls who have died upon receiving the Gardasil vaccine which was not only approved by the FDA, but wholeheartedly encouraged by the CDC?

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-17-2012, 09:52 PM

Let's have the full stats about unpasteurized milk

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/12/health/food-poisoning-protection-guide/index.html

Fluorine in the drinking water? Should we go through those arguments again???

###

Wow so CNN has the "full" stats as opposed to the actual study cited previously.

So let us take the numbers referenced in the article:

1,676 illnesses over 10 years from Raw Milk

or approximately 168 Raw Milk illnesses each year.

TOTAL Number of food borne illness including "legal" but improperly handled/cooked food...

= 3,000 per year

So of the 3,000 people sickened each year, Raw Milk represents 5.5% while your spinach, chicken, eggs, beef represent 94.5%

Phew good thing the FDA arrests those terrorists farmers selling Raw Milk.

trish

10-17-2012, 09:59 PM

How many girls would be dying still if Merck were allowed to continue Gardasil production?

I noticed that instead of acknowledging my questions and points you decided instead to whimper about Ad Homs. Look little costume boy, you invite the Ad Homs with every rancorous line you post. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. You call people uneducated slaves, thugs and fear mongerers, yet you're the one who apparently never read a book, uses scare tactics, adopts a tag that clearly advocates the use of scare tactics and who is down with risking the health of the children in his home and his community just in order to enjoy the non-existent benefits of drinking unpasteurized milk. All adolescent bullshit. If you're older than fourteen your intellectual development has been stunted at the Ayn Rand stage. Grow the fuck up.

DarkSkyScareCrow

10-17-2012, 10:56 PM

How many girls would be dying still if Merck were allowed to continue Gardasil production?

###

Um apparently you do not realize the FDA and CDC are still recommending Gardasil?

Based on the review of available information by FDA and CDC, Gardasil continues to be safe and effective, and its benefits continue to outweigh its risks.

FDA.gov (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm179549.htm)

I noticed that instead of acknowledging my questions and points you decided instead to whimper about Ad Homs.

###

Well I am still awaiting the answer to my question, whether you:
A.) Work for Government
B.) Are a Federal/State Welfare Recipient

Nevertheless, I assume you mean this question:

Ever see the statistics before pasteurization was discovered and implemented?

Well considering up until the 1930's most Americans consumed Raw milk, and considering Raw milk was not outlawed until 1987, I would love to see the statistics you claim if you have a source.

But you might also like to pass them along to the continent of Asia as well as New Zealand who still consume more Raw milk.

Look little costume boy, you invite the Ad Homs with every rancorous line you post. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.You call people uneducated slaves, thugs and fear mongerers

###
Trish, you can sling all the ad homs your heart desires, as your reliance upon them merely reinforces that you are an uneducated person who is a slave to the state, which provides to you a false sense of security, and allows you to abdicate responsibility for your own life while projecting the fear you harbor on to a population of 300 million via government dictate.

and who is down with risking the health of the children in his home and his community just in order to enjoy the non-existent benefits of drinking unpasteurized milk.

###
Risk is part of life and based on the previously documented probabilities the risk from Raw Milk to adult or child is infinitesimal when compared to just about anything else including, eating chicken, driving in a car, living in a city, cooking on a stove, etc.

So let us review:

You will support and make excuses for the violent use of force by the federal regulatory bureaucracy whether Raw Milk or Marijuana dispensary as you think it is better equipped to dictate how best to live to individuals.

As such, if being against Violence makes me "intellectually stunted at the Ayn Rand Stage", then such a station is fine by me.

All adolescent bullshit. If you're older than fourteen your intellectual development has been stunted

###
See I really love the Irony here as it is usually understood that Adolescents are more apt to resort to violence to achieve an end, than adults, or at least it use to be the case.

trish

10-17-2012, 11:39 PM

Answer to my question was "Same as before, NONE".
A. No
B. No

you can sling all the ad homs your heart desiresThank you, I will continue to pay you back in kind. So you can stop complaining, you little wimp.

Risk is part of life Take all the risks you want, except those that risk the lives of those around you.

martin48

10-18-2012, 12:13 AM

Here's a clear balanced piece:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=raw-milk-debate

Of course, you can just insult me.

broncofan

10-18-2012, 01:30 AM

###

Wow so CNN has the "full" stats as opposed to the actual study cited previously.

So let us take the numbers referenced in the article:

1,676 illnesses over 10 years from Raw Milk

or approximately 168 Raw Milk illnesses each year.

TOTAL Number of food borne illness including "legal" but improperly handled/cooked food...

= 3,000 per year

So of the 3,000 people sickened each year, Raw Milk represents 5.5% while your spinach, chicken, eggs, beef represent 94.5%

Phew good thing the FDA arrests those terrorists farmers selling Raw Milk.
Just curious, did you account for the difference in the number of people consuming raw milk and spinach, chicken, eggs, and beef? I'm not saying you did not, but I imagine many fewer people consume raw milk than these other items. I know I buy pasteurized at the store.

broncofan

10-18-2012, 01:37 AM

This CDC article I am looking at says that only 1% of the milk consumed is raw. Therefore, we can assume that if everyone drank raw milk there would be approximately 100 fold the number of illness outbreaks that are currently attributed to raw milk. This would not be 168 per year, but 16,800. This would then dwarf the number of people make sick by those other items you mentioned. I am not saying I am right on this but this is how the math works out for me.

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0221_raw_milk_outbreak.html

The 168 number I got from you (which you supposedly deduced from their numbers), and the 1% of all milk number is one of their estimates.

broncofan

10-18-2012, 01:59 AM

100 times the number of people made sick, not outbreaks. 168 people a year would presumably be about 16,800. Right?

broncofan

10-18-2012, 02:52 AM

###

319 million gallons of Raw Milk consumed annually in U.S. (1)

Over the course of a 13 year study, 3 people fell ill and eventually died from the consumption of Raw Milk. (2)

2000 to 2010 - 452,000 Deaths from Accidental overdose or adverse reaction of FDA approved Prescription Drugs. (3)

It is important to note though that when the FDA approves drugs through its pre-market approval process it tries to determine safety AND efficacy. Very dangerous drugs can be released to the public if the illnesses they treat have no medical alternatives. When the FDA is investigating drugs, they are often balancing safety against efficacy and are willing to accept greater risks for promising treatments.

I am someone who is alive because of drugs approved by FDA for asthma and the several cases of pneumonia I've had. Yet, steroids used to treat asthma and lupus as well as other autoimmune type illnesses are very harmful over time. However, the risks are outweighed by the benefits when properly prescribed.

Moreover, let's be fair and divide the deaths you report above from drugs by 10 which you do for the raw milk related illnesses reported over a decade. This makes 45,200 per year. Now it might not be a bad idea to take out those who accidentally overdosed from these drugs since the FDA requires thorough pharmacological and toxicological data to fill out a New Drug Application. If someone accidentally overdosed, it could be the result of their doctor not giving them proper instructions, or accidental misuse. A product is not inherently dangerous just because someone takes far too much of it. Futher, people who have terminal cancer receiving high doses of opiates would be included in your statistics, as would people receiving life saving treatments such as chemotherapy who have to take toxic doses in the hopes of increasing their chance of survival.

Finally, there is an important consideration that weighs against this comparison. Unpasteurized milk does not save lives, prescription drugs do. Should we not also subtract from the legitimate number of deaths from prescription drugs the number of lives saved every year by the availability of safe and effective drugs? Has raw milk ever saved anyone's life or made their last minutes bearable?