EnviroLink Forum

General John Wayne Stollings??? I thought I was the John Wayne type. He certainly was a role model to this decorated veteran.

I think we need our military on the border more than in old cold war places. I would like to see government pay reduced to civilian, seeing it is 35 to 100% higher,

Legal, but somewhat controlled.

At least in jail there is a chance for some treatment, but the conservatives want to cut out any other assistance from the government.

That seems to be the will of the people, especially those of the conservative leanings.

Comparing Madoff's criminal activity with the so called "criminal" activity of a pot smoker is ludicrous.







We will need them for the homosexuals who have the nerve to attack the sanctity of the institution of marriage and the women who use birth control.

And for the marijuana criminals. Ron Paul isn't against any.

But it IS RELATED to US foreign policy and Ron Paul is the one candidate who would not have created these messes in the first place!

Therefore, he is unlikely to create further messes.

The American people are sick and tired of war, of the trillions spent on them and of the inexcuseable carnage and human suffering caused by them. If you don't send them in to begin with, there is far less to mitigate.

With trillions saved by NOT going to war, maybe we could begin to address some of the huge social and economic problems facing us now.

Paul is an isolationist, not a pacifist.

And then Obama was voted in on the promise of "change", but he failed. Makes one wonder if the "conspiracy theory" is a "theory" at all.

I'm sure the Tea Party had many legitimate concerns and the Occupy Movement is not the fringe.

In fact, it seems that many of the concerns held by the Tea Party are the same concerns held by the Occupy Movement.

The US has become a warrior nation and is itself, rogue, terrorizing nation after nation.

By definition one is not innocent if one commits a crime. Violence as a criteria would be something Bernie Madoff wold love to be able to use to claim his innocence too.

Yes, as other drugs should also be somewhat controlled with safe injection sites, education, prevention, etc

Many people who have not committed one violent crime in their lives and are sentenced to prison for drug related crimes, emerge from that experience as violent criminals. Apparently, prison seems to have similar capacities to screw with one's psychological well being as war does. Why not save the money it costs to incarcerate thousands of drug afflicted people and use it on prevention, education, etc in the first place? There could be a chance of treatment if the funds were spent differently. "Treatment in jail" seems like an oxymoron. How about a little inside gang warfare, with a sprinkle of rape and a further education in how to jack a car when you're in need of some economic assistance? Prison is not a very healing environment no matter how many social workers you throw at the system.

But not Ron Paul who would excuse every prisoner in jail due to marijuana. Obama isn't willing to take that step.

Comparing Madoff's criminal activity with the so called "criminal" activity of a pot smoker is ludicrous.

It is a critical aspect as well as civil liberties, foreign policy, property rights, and the 1.4 trillion spent on militarism. It's all critical.

And here is a more specific reply to your Madoff comment .....

http://www.naturalnews.com/034612_Snoop ... z1j4su03sT

No, but he would create whole new messes, which may be even worse.

Really? Did he not take the Hippocratic oath? I think he would be quite concerned with drug-addicted people (not that marijuana is physiologically addictive anyway), just as the medical system deals with all the other categories of mental health included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.





They don't volunteer for prison either. If we can realistically get them into prison, we can realistically get them into a treatment centre. What's lacking is a political will and a weird sense of morality as well as a healthy dose of racism and classism.



That would take some time for so many presidential pardons. How many crimes would be attached to those so released?

You'll have to ask Dr. Paul. The War on Drugs has been going on for almost 40 years; it might take a little time to unravel. The starting line is usually a good place to begin.



Comparing Madoff's criminal activity with the so called "criminal" activity of a pot smoker is ludicrous.



Lack of violence is a critical factor - I stated so explicitly. I would have thought that the fact that possession of marijuana is benign would be implicit. The actions of Madoff were not benign. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Here is a sample of the damage inflicted by Madoff on his victims. It's really not comparable to getting caught with a marijuana cigarette.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/docum ... 81215.html

Such a collosal waste of money and of young lives and such an excuse for the incarceration of the disnfranchised poor .... not to mention the warfare in Mexico! Talk about "felonious"! Adiction is clearly a social problem and not a felony. To treat it as a felony is to sweep it under the rug and create even more social problems. There is a movement afoot in the US to end the war on drugs and Ron Paul is at the forefront. This is BIG and no other right wing candidate (or left wing) has spoken to it with such clarity as Ron Paul has.



It is a critical aspect as well as civil liberties, foreign policy, property rights, and the 1.4 trillion spent on militarism. It's all critical.

More specific? In what way is it specific to give such a link? Where does it show Madoff used violence? The non-violent aspect was touted as an important factor in why someone should not be considered guilty of breaking the law. Both instances are non-violent and both are presently illegal, so how is one supposedly "innocent" and the other "guilty" if neither used violence and both have laws stating they are illegal?

Which Dr. Paul clearly seems to believe is not the responsibility of the government to provide.

Really? Did he not take the Hippocratic oath?

I think he would be quite concerned with drug-addicted people (not that marijuana is physiologically addictive anyway), just as the medical system deals with all the other categories of mental health included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

They don't volunteer for prison either.

If we can realistically get them into prison, we can realistically get them into a treatment centre.

What's lacking is a political will and a weird sense of morality as well as a healthy dose of racism and classism.

That would take some time for so many presidential pardons. How many crimes would be attached to those so released?

You'll have to ask Dr. Paul.

The War on Drugs has been going on for almost 40 years; it might take a little time to unravel. The starting line is usually a good place to begin.

Lack of violence is a critical factor - I stated so explicitly.

I would have thought that the fact that possession of marijuana is benign would be implicit. The actions of Madoff were not benign.

It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Here is a sample of the damage inflicted by Madoff on his victims.

It's really not comparable to getting caught with a marijuana cigarette

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/st_madoff_victims_20081215.html

It is a critical aspect as well as civil liberties, foreign policy, property rights, and the 1.4 trillion spent on militarism. It's all critical.

Well inaccuracies happen sometimes. Replace the word 'important' if the word 'critical' doesn't work for you.

More specific? In what way is it specific to give such a link? Where does it show Madoff used violence? The non-violent aspect was touted as an important factor in why someone should not be considered guilty of breaking the law. Both instances are non-violent and both are presently illegal, so how is one supposedly "innocent" and the other "guilty" if neither used violence and both have laws stating they are illegal?

I've answered this question in my previous post. The non-violence aspect is VERY important when the crime itself is benign. Madoff's crime was not violent but was extremenly harmful ... and that, of course, is an understatement. As stated in my previous post, it's like comparing apples and oranges .... Madoff steals millions of dollars while the 18 year old gets caught with a joint at a Grateful Dead concert.