Barack Obama legalizes Marijuana
- Thread starter CrysisMcGee
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"Space colonisation to receive priority"
Sorry, ever since the USSR fell apart there no longer seems any 'my dick is bigger then yours' competition in our space exploration. Without that drive most space exploration and advancement was quickly pushed to the back burner. It was no longer 'cool' and only nerds seemed interested in it, so understandably it was all but shelved. Without that drive it is unlikely we will colonise anything until PRIVATE interests take... well a interest. Then you can bet the habitats on Mars or another star will, primarily, be sweat shops operating outside of earth based laws.
Cause if I had the money to build on Mars you can bet I would want a return on my investment. Fastest way, without those pesky laws, would be massive industry plants that use slave labour. I'm a decent enough guy, I think, and even I would do that!
How about:
"USA to move away from a war economy."
Nothing starts war faster then making sure your primary industry is based around pumping out bombs you then have to justify buying to a budget committee. Fastest way to 'need more bombs' is to... drop the ones you have on something. If you try and stop dropping the bombs your economy goes to hell and following it, your country... hence the term war economy.
No war based economy means less bullshit wars.
Sorry, ever since the USSR fell apart there no longer seems any 'my dick is bigger then yours' competition in our space exploration. Without that drive most space exploration and advancement was quickly pushed to the back burner. It was no longer 'cool' and only nerds seemed interested in it, so understandably it was all but shelved. Without that drive it is unlikely we will colonise anything until PRIVATE interests take... well a interest. Then you can bet the habitats on Mars or another star will, primarily, be sweat shops operating outside of earth based laws.
Cause if I had the money to build on Mars you can bet I would want a return on my investment. Fastest way, without those pesky laws, would be massive industry plants that use slave labour. I'm a decent enough guy, I think, and even I would do that!
How about:
"USA to move away from a war economy."
Nothing starts war faster then making sure your primary industry is based around pumping out bombs you then have to justify buying to a budget committee. Fastest way to 'need more bombs' is to... drop the ones you have on something. If you try and stop dropping the bombs your economy goes to hell and following it, your country... hence the term war economy.
No war based economy means less bullshit wars.
I've always wanted to pull this argument apart, the problem is it is a 'grey area' one. The free market advocates over state and over value how much trade will effect peace but they are not 100% wrong. Trade does decrease the likelihood of war! Both countries profit only a little less from open boarders and, regulated*, trade agreements then they would from taking over each others nation in a long, crippling, war. That little less isn't, normally, a large enough chunk of the pie to justify such a massive, risky and expensive military undertaking to get the whole of the pie. Worse, that could very well fail to archive the goal of more pie and leave you with less, or maybe none! It is much easier to share the pie, even if you are not getting as much as you would if you conquered the pie.Rolling Thunder said:
Hmmmm... when did I start making this all about pie? Damn you Penn and Teller and your pies!
Yet, in history, there have been MANY cases where nations have gone to war because of trade. The USA is a big example of this, with dozens if not hundreds of 'military actions' around the world that where designed because they did not like who they where trading with. It has got to the point that some of the greatest war hero have come forth and called themselves racketeers. Pointing out that they went to war not because of some moral and justified reasoning, but to ensure a more favourable outcome for a small group of rich families who would give a better deal in a trade then the 'other guys.' War not to make it possible for trade to exist but to ensure one side is getting a bigger chunk of the pie then they would otherwise have gotten in a fair and free market.
The free marketers don't like acknowledging this reality: That wars have started because of trade!
Trade does NOT bring around world peace... world peace brings about trade, which AFTERWARDS becomes one of MANY reasons not to start a war. While it is part of the puzzle it not the whole and can't be trumpeted as 'the solution.'
*If, for example, China wanted to sell lead filled toys for tots the USA should have the rights to say no...
Added: PS - Sorry for being off topic, I just never had a chance to state that!
Sadly the federal government, whom doesn't care about the bill of rights let alone the 10th, will still raid and arrest people. The courts will still, as they are now, uphold that the federal law trumps state (which it was never meant to... hence the 10th!) and many rail-roaded cases will be presented with many going the way of Ed Rosenthal*. Yet with real sentences even after the jury finds out just how badly they where played.axia777 said:
And the supreme... beh, they are stacked so heavily with pro-federal appointed positions that we can be sure the 10th will be well and truly dead if even one case gets to them.
*For those not in the know. Ed was HIRED by the state of California to grow cannabis for a medical initiative. Openly doing so he was arrested and tried for breaching FEDERAL law. In his court case he was forbidden, yes FORBIDDEN, to mention that he was hired by the state or that it was for medical use. This left him with no defence, not even able to point out the obvious entrapment, and a mountain of evidence of growing cannabis.
What few members of the jury that might of taken pity on him, or thought that growing cannabis shouldn't be that big of a deal was silenced by the judge. In closing this judge told the jury members that they HAD to fine Ed guilty. A few have come forth and said they would of been willing to acquit but they felt, had they done so, then they would be facing prison sentences themselves! None of them where informed of their right, as a jury, to rule anyway they saw fit... no they where told they had to find him guilty, or else.
The jury only found out the truth after he was convicted, and my where they pissed. Under public pressure the judge tried to save his own balls by only sentencing ed to time served. Some people in the court system didn't like what had happened and even tried to get said judge disbared! No, not for the behaviour the judge showed during this trial or the way the defence was forbidden to actually defend Ed. No they where pissed the judge gave him time served! That is the federal court system for you....
They also tired to get the sentence raised to the normal federal levels. A sentence that would of put this man behind bars for the rest of his life as the minimal is LONGER then most murderers get. I kid you not, growing and distributing a plant will get you anywhere from a few decades to even life in a high security prison if you are charged under federal law!
Outrage... you better be, I still am and it is years later!
Nah, never work- too many arguments would arise over whether or not picking Ryu after playing as Ken constitutes choosing a new character or merely living off the same one...Maheemo said: