Just an Objection, Don't Mind Me
That would explain why they don't hit drug end users hard. Going after the upstream sources just sees one replacing another. The simple answer that isn't implemented is to dry up the demand from end users ... who are collectively funding the top, by making the consequences of even casual use so painful/detrimental that the fear of such consequences drastically reduces demand and hence supply.
doesn't explain the basic core problem....why do so many people want these drugs in the first place? I think very easily one could end the problem for the most part by simply making it all legal and cheap to get. Totally remove the huge profits....money money is the driving force and make that just pennies that will be its end.
But it is the GOVERNMENT making the money which is WHY it is not made easier to get.
Also if it wasn't banned there wouldn't be such a demand anyway because who wants something that is freely available? There's no rebellion?? in that.
Also if it wasn't banned there wouldn't be such a demand anyway because who wants something that is freely available? There's no rebellion?? in that.
"Just think of it as leaving early to avoid the rush" - T Pratchett
Woo the internet is slow tonight, must be that thing.
Surely it was TV and fake news that propelled Mr Trump into office in the foist place?
America was ripe for it.
I propose a ban on box sets, boxes of chocolate, Netflix and computer systems except for bulletin boards.
And a time machine in which every person in the world has to go back to 1917 and 1942 for a day. And then write what they thought and felt about it.
Surely it was TV and fake news that propelled Mr Trump into office in the foist place?
America was ripe for it.
I propose a ban on box sets, boxes of chocolate, Netflix and computer systems except for bulletin boards.
And a time machine in which every person in the world has to go back to 1917 and 1942 for a day. And then write what they thought and felt about it.
+1Smithy wrote:Woo the internet is slow tonight, must be that thing.
Surely it was TV and fake news that propelled Mr Trump into office in the foist place?
America was ripe for it.
I propose a ban on box sets, boxes of chocolate, Netflix and computer systems except for bulletin boards.
And a time machine in which every person in the world has to go back to 1917 and 1942 for a day. And then write what they thought and felt about it.
Devuan Linux, Stardust 013 (4.31) updated [url]https://archive.org/details/Stardustpup013glibc2.10[/url]
s57(2018)barebone[url]https://sourceforge.net/projects/puppy-linux-minimal-builds/files/s57%282018%29barebones.iso/download[/url]
s57(2018)barebone[url]https://sourceforge.net/projects/puppy-linux-minimal-builds/files/s57%282018%29barebones.iso/download[/url]
I really think you should give some consideration to how the Republican Party leadership has dismissed it's own base supporters repeatedly for quite a few years as you ponder how a Trump could have risen to prominence, and as well it seems like the Democratic Party had some of the same issues with internal support for Clinton being quite soft and an outsider on the left, Sanders, gaining so much excitement...Smithy wrote:Woo the internet is slow tonight, must be that thing.
Surely it was TV and fake news that propelled Mr Trump into office in the foist place?
America was ripe for it.
I propose a ban on box sets, boxes of chocolate, Netflix and computer systems except for bulletin boards.
And a time machine in which every person in the world has to go back to 1917 and 1942 for a day. And then write what they thought and felt about it.
Surely it gets easy to see that the leadership of both parties are not listening to their respective base supporters...?
Just food for thought.
I think it goes in waves back and forth between arrogance and humility. I think politicians from all sides very often go into public survice with good intentions and motivations, only to be corrupted by an insular power culture that breeds a kind of dismissal and contempt for the people who sent them there.Burn_IT wrote:Since when has ANY politician listened to their consituents??
I'm sure that there's some truth to that, but I also thing there are some very ordinary issues that contribute to this. I know your Parlaimentary system is quite a bit different than our system over here, but one of the things that has happened to America is the nationalization of our federal elections. For example, even though our Senators are supposed to represent the interests of their states, our 17'th Ammendment caused them to be popularly elected, which is pretty odd since popular representation is supposed to take place in the House of Representatives, not the Senate. Another example, for most of our history, Congress was a part-time position. It has only been since the 1950's that Congress has become a full-time position which means that Representatives and Senators spend less time in their districts and states, and do not have to maintain outside employment, both of which help to create an insular culture. Another example is how money can go into campaigns from sources outside a Representative's district and outside a Senator's state. Why in the world do we allow this? Shouldn't a representative's funding come from his own district? A Senator's funding from within his own state? It should be obvious that money makes people beholden to interests of the donners. Why would we want Representatives to be beholden to interests from outside their district and Senators to be beholden to interests outside of their states? It just doesn't make any sense to me.Burn_IT wrote:Quite likely when you read about all all the secrets that new MPs discover the first time they enter the House. You only read that there are secrets not what those secrets are.
This may or may not be relevant... It feels relevant to me, but indirectly I guess....
The New York Times has just retracted it's claim that 17 American intelligence agencies have agreed that the 2016 election was hacked or attempted to be hacked by the Russians:
https://www.rt.com/viral/394821-nyt-int ... im-debunk/
This follows a string of retractions from CNN along with a number of firings of journalists responsible for stories about the Russia scandal which have turned out to be blatently false or non-credible.
The Russia scandal appears to be falling apart from numerous directions. That doesn't mean I think they didn't attempt to influence our election... why wopuldn't they? They are a competing world power who are pursuing their interests in the world just as America and it's allies do. In other words, I don't consider this particularly threatening. Do you? One of the benefits of America being a 'federal republic' rather than a democracy or nation is that our elections are completely decentralized and managed at the district level under the supervision of the states rather than the federal government. It is simply too spread out and decentralized to possibly build a conspiracy large enough to steal.
Any way... The Russia story in trouble. I think it bears at least some value to the effecacy of a collusion scandal.
The New York Times has just retracted it's claim that 17 American intelligence agencies have agreed that the 2016 election was hacked or attempted to be hacked by the Russians:
https://www.rt.com/viral/394821-nyt-int ... im-debunk/
This follows a string of retractions from CNN along with a number of firings of journalists responsible for stories about the Russia scandal which have turned out to be blatently false or non-credible.
The Russia scandal appears to be falling apart from numerous directions. That doesn't mean I think they didn't attempt to influence our election... why wopuldn't they? They are a competing world power who are pursuing their interests in the world just as America and it's allies do. In other words, I don't consider this particularly threatening. Do you? One of the benefits of America being a 'federal republic' rather than a democracy or nation is that our elections are completely decentralized and managed at the district level under the supervision of the states rather than the federal government. It is simply too spread out and decentralized to possibly build a conspiracy large enough to steal.
Any way... The Russia story in trouble. I think it bears at least some value to the effecacy of a collusion scandal.
The Associated Press (AP) is now following suit and correcting it's own reporting of the 17 agency misnomer which has been widely repeated by media personalities and politicians:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/COR ... CTION=HOME
Additionally, AP is correcting another story in which it claimed that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had a nefarious meeting with Andrew Liveris, CEO of Dow Chemical, and that 20 days later the EPA declined to ban Dow's pesticide 'chlorpyrifos' as an apparent result of this meeting; it seems to be a hint at a quid pro quo. This appears to be an attempt to advance a political narrative that says something along the lines of, 'Republicans want to kill the brains of babies with pesticides.'
This is not exactly related to the Russia/collusion story, yet in a round about way, it really seems to call into question pretty much any claim made by the main stream media. The media seems to be loosing it's mind with the frustration of seeing their prefered candidate loose, and seeing the President continue to triumph over pretty much every accusation and attack they launch at him.
As you all know, I'm not a fan of Trump and I didn't vote for the guy (nor Clinton... didn't like her either), but I'm also not a crybaby having a meltdown when I don't get my way. The distraction of Trump's Twitter attacks seem to be dismantling the ability of the media to think rationally, and in their zeal to destroy this President, they are in fact bringing their own credibility to an apocalyptic ruin. Alternative media is on the verge of simply replacing the main stream media, and the fanatical devotion to the idea of destroying Trump at any cost is becoming a kind of mob madness, not to mention the suicide of an entire industry.
I guess the point to all this is... my opinion... there is no collusion, there never was, and there was no obstruction either. This entire narrative is nothing more than pixie dust from folks who seem to be having a desparately difficult time dealing with the reality that their side lost an election.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/COR ... CTION=HOME
Additionally, AP is correcting another story in which it claimed that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had a nefarious meeting with Andrew Liveris, CEO of Dow Chemical, and that 20 days later the EPA declined to ban Dow's pesticide 'chlorpyrifos' as an apparent result of this meeting; it seems to be a hint at a quid pro quo. This appears to be an attempt to advance a political narrative that says something along the lines of, 'Republicans want to kill the brains of babies with pesticides.'
This is not exactly related to the Russia/collusion story, yet in a round about way, it really seems to call into question pretty much any claim made by the main stream media. The media seems to be loosing it's mind with the frustration of seeing their prefered candidate loose, and seeing the President continue to triumph over pretty much every accusation and attack they launch at him.
As you all know, I'm not a fan of Trump and I didn't vote for the guy (nor Clinton... didn't like her either), but I'm also not a crybaby having a meltdown when I don't get my way. The distraction of Trump's Twitter attacks seem to be dismantling the ability of the media to think rationally, and in their zeal to destroy this President, they are in fact bringing their own credibility to an apocalyptic ruin. Alternative media is on the verge of simply replacing the main stream media, and the fanatical devotion to the idea of destroying Trump at any cost is becoming a kind of mob madness, not to mention the suicide of an entire industry.
I guess the point to all this is... my opinion... there is no collusion, there never was, and there was no obstruction either. This entire narrative is nothing more than pixie dust from folks who seem to be having a desparately difficult time dealing with the reality that their side lost an election.
It occurs to me that one might wonder, since I don't really like the President... why defend him? I guess in order to answer that, I should explain why I don't like the guy. It has nothing to do with him publicly. Obviously he's an accomplished businessman and those talents may very well prove to be useful to my country. He's also quite the fighter, something the whimpy Republicans have lacked. He also seems to genuinely care about the future of the country. On the surface there seem to be some things to like or appreciate.
I don't like Trump personally. I am particularly repulsed by his treatment of women. Whenever a woman slights him, real or perceived, he attacks them based on an insult of their appearance, or their cycle (blood). I think President Trump comes up ridiculously short in the area of gentlemanliness. If someone had made such remarks about my own wife, and they were within reach, that person would get socked in the jaw. I also think it's an unbelievably poor reflection on The First Lady, who I consider gracious and dignified as I have not seen since Barbara Bush held the same title. Melania Trump is a very fine First Lady, and I wish her husband would make it his business to borrow some of her dignity until he develops a bit of his own.
So why defend him? A sense of fair play. Trump won fair and square with better messaging and a better approach to the Electoral College. Even though I didn't vote for him, I decided to give him a chance in his first term and we'll see how he does. The bogus attacks against Trump actually interfere in my ability to give him fair treatment to see what he can actually do as President. The endless fake scandals of invention and sour grapes distract his Presidency from it's full potential. No doubt that's the point, but my view is that this puts partisan rubbish above the country. I personally have no use for partisanship. I believe it creates false loyalties that undermine the best interests of the country and the people. What has been revealed in all of this is the level of dishonesty that has corrupted my country's institutions. It's really something that ought to offend everyone... but a lot of folks love their party too much to allow for honest discourse in the face of a Trump Presidency. I don't like him either, but I still want an honest public discourse.
I don't like Trump personally. I am particularly repulsed by his treatment of women. Whenever a woman slights him, real or perceived, he attacks them based on an insult of their appearance, or their cycle (blood). I think President Trump comes up ridiculously short in the area of gentlemanliness. If someone had made such remarks about my own wife, and they were within reach, that person would get socked in the jaw. I also think it's an unbelievably poor reflection on The First Lady, who I consider gracious and dignified as I have not seen since Barbara Bush held the same title. Melania Trump is a very fine First Lady, and I wish her husband would make it his business to borrow some of her dignity until he develops a bit of his own.
So why defend him? A sense of fair play. Trump won fair and square with better messaging and a better approach to the Electoral College. Even though I didn't vote for him, I decided to give him a chance in his first term and we'll see how he does. The bogus attacks against Trump actually interfere in my ability to give him fair treatment to see what he can actually do as President. The endless fake scandals of invention and sour grapes distract his Presidency from it's full potential. No doubt that's the point, but my view is that this puts partisan rubbish above the country. I personally have no use for partisanship. I believe it creates false loyalties that undermine the best interests of the country and the people. What has been revealed in all of this is the level of dishonesty that has corrupted my country's institutions. It's really something that ought to offend everyone... but a lot of folks love their party too much to allow for honest discourse in the face of a Trump Presidency. I don't like him either, but I still want an honest public discourse.
