Endorsement: I know that all of you fucking discordians are just a bunch of haters who seem to do anything you can to distance yourself from fucking anarchists which is just fine and dandy sit in your house on your computer and type inane shite all day until your fingers fall off.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Even do i just read now rather than posting, i will say some things because im outraged...
I know that its harder to discern the extremes and consequences of the drug war in a 1st World country that imports drugs rather than manufactures, and has an expensive infrastructure (AKA Police-State) so that the violence is only exersiced from State to citizens... because also, money laundering from Cartels actually benefits your county's elite - how many banks would not have died if it wasnt for the liquid assets the Cartels provided for you?
But people (specifically you RWHN), if you would pull your head out of your 'Murrican egocentrical perspective butt, you could perhaps consider the effects of prohibition ON OTHER COUNTRIES.
USA's drug black market funds Mexican and South American Cartels... the USA also forces their stupid prohibition agenda upon the Mexican government, and what is the result?
BETWEEN 60,000 TO 100,000 DEATHS IN 6 YEARS
So fuck off.
I brought this up earlier, but it was waved aside by RWHN.
Mexican kids aren't on the list to be protected when he says "the children".
I think i posted that from visceral outrage, and also a morbid curiosity on how he can rationalize an answer to that... also, offering up a larger context so that what is happening might become clearer, just in case anyone is sitting on the fence... prohibition isnt just about ruining individual marginal lives, but compromising the well-being of entire countries which might not be directly apparent.
As many of you know, National Review is not a non-profit — we are just not profitable. A lawsuit is not something we can fund with money we don’t have. Of course, we’ll do whatever we have to do to find ourselves victorious in court and Professor Mann thoroughly defeated, as he so richly deserves to be. Meanwhile, we have to hire attorneys, which ain’t cheap.
Dr. Mann complains about two statements: 1)that as "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph," he is "the very ringmaster of the three-ring circus" on climate change; and 2) that he "could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet." Neither of these statements is actionable. Moreover, if Dr. Mann decides to pursue this matter, he and his research would be subjected to a very extensive discovery of materials that he has fought so hard to protect in other proceedings. Such materials would be required for National Review to defend itself.
Here, "even the most careless reader must have perceived" that Mr. Steyn's use of the term "fraudulent" did not accuse Dr. Mann of fraud in the criminal sense, but rather was used to call out his conclusions on climate science as intellectually suspect.
I debated whether or not to share this story.
And then I debated whether or not to put it on Tumblr…but I decided it was important. Because in my own way, I can (unfortunately) point out exactly what is wrong with men when they don’t realize how hard it is to be a woman. How we do not have equal opportunities and freedoms in everyday life. How most men, even good caring men, have no clue what we go through on a daily basis just trying to live our lives.