|
On April 24 2011 09:42 Offhand wrote:
The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws.
yes tell me how those mexicans are doing with all those profits they are getting from this.
|
On April 24 2011 12:26 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 09:42 Offhand wrote:
The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws. yes tell me how those mexicans are doing with all those profits they are getting from this.
The few cartel head boss dudes are among the richest men in the world. Their underlings die often, but if you've ever seen police raids of the actually big guys, I remember one of them had a classic gun collection larger than that of museums.
|
On April 24 2011 12:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 12:26 sermokala wrote:On April 24 2011 09:42 Offhand wrote:
The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws. yes tell me how those mexicans are doing with all those profits they are getting from this. The few cartel head boss dudes are among the richest men in the world. Their underlings die often, but if you've ever seen police raids of the actually big guys, I remember one of them had a classic gun collection larger than that of museums.
the entire nation of mexico is gripped in a bloody civil war. Normal everyday people are being kidnapped and the cartels gangs are robbing hospitals and schools. you can hire a hit for only $20 and you think that the fact that a few are richer then the rest (not even close to the american super rich) make your argument even remotely good?
Edit: And guess where pot is legal?
|
On April 24 2011 12:38 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 12:32 Mohdoo wrote:On April 24 2011 12:26 sermokala wrote:On April 24 2011 09:42 Offhand wrote:
The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws. yes tell me how those mexicans are doing with all those profits they are getting from this. The few cartel head boss dudes are among the richest men in the world. Their underlings die often, but if you've ever seen police raids of the actually big guys, I remember one of them had a classic gun collection larger than that of museums. the entire nation of mexico is gripped in a bloody civil war. Normal everyday people are being kidnapped and the cartels gangs are robbing hospitals and schools. you can hire a hit for only $20 and you think that the fact that a few are richer then the rest (not even close to the american super rich) make your argument even remotely good? Edit: And guess where pot is legal?
Pot isnt truly "legal" anywhere in the world.
that being said. Legalizing pot would screw the mexican cartels as the tobbacco companies would run down their main bussiness.
|
On April 24 2011 12:38 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 12:32 Mohdoo wrote:On April 24 2011 12:26 sermokala wrote:On April 24 2011 09:42 Offhand wrote:
The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws. yes tell me how those mexicans are doing with all those profits they are getting from this. The few cartel head boss dudes are among the richest men in the world. Their underlings die often, but if you've ever seen police raids of the actually big guys, I remember one of them had a classic gun collection larger than that of museums. the entire nation of mexico is gripped in a bloody civil war. Normal everyday people are being kidnapped and the cartels gangs are robbing hospitals and schools. you can hire a hit for only $20 and you think that the fact that a few are richer then the rest (not even close to the american super rich) make your argument even remotely good? Edit: And guess where pot is legal?
Decriminalized isn't legal. Legal means that there is a government sanctioned market. You know how tobacco companies don't send kill-squads to kill competing CEOs? That's because tobacco is legal.
|
On April 24 2011 07:11 419 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 04:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 24 2011 04:08 Maxwell3 wrote:
These are the same conservatives that would never support a Liberal because "deyr takin rrhhh rights awayz!" As much of a sweeping generalization as that may be, I was always curious as to how someone could be a rampant gun owner because *it's a freedom thing* but also couldn't stand to let others have their own drugs because... it's not a freedom thing? It's just so obviously wrong? Something else? If someone could clarify that, I'd be most appreciative! Hey, I'm conservative and I'm quite strongly against the War on Drugs, at least against pot. That said, I also believe being high on marijuana while on driving should have equal penalties to DUI. Do whatever you want, don't do it in a way that can harm me, is my policy. But I think a lot of conservatives do think that the decline in society has been in large part caused by drugs (crack cocaine was the most destructive thing to urban culture since LBJ's Great Society) and maybe generalize that to all things falling into that category? There's also a concern that "self-induced life ruining" is a drain on the taxpayer (I realize a good portion of potheads are productive members of society--nevertheless, there's a highly negative stereotype among the middle-class that they, in general, are not--productive meaning "tax-paying" in this case). "Do whatever you want, but don't ask me to subsidize your behavior once you fuck up your life," I think is the idea here. Now since its impossible to prevent the latter, you attack the former. Does this make any sense? To put it into another context: Can you think of any productive tweakers? Well -- they are certainly very rare. Yet society can't find itself to be heartless to these people, and deny them 'assistance payments'/welfare. So, society does the next most logical thing to do--prohibits the drug use. (Note: I know that meth is very different from pot, but in theory, this is where the opposition to legalizing it comes from.) PS. marijuana is quite closely connotated with hippies...and we are indeed quite anti-hippies.
Thank you for the reply  I can kind of see how a train of thought might be that if we can ban certain products that ruin lives, then people may become more productive. However, I don't think that trumps the inherent right and liberty we have to make our own decisions, besides the fact that conservatives aren't pushing to ban alcohol (which ruins plenty of lives as well) or other products.
|
This law is an utter joke and just another example of how stupid and hopeless society is even when facing an inevitable end to what they know. Like really how broke do you have to be before you're willing to budge from your ignorant, fascist views.
On April 24 2011 12:05 tryummm wrote:
They're crowding up the prisons with people who aren't even violent...This is completely ridiculous.
When you turn the prison system into a business things like this tend to happen.
|
On April 24 2011 10:27 MiniRoman wrote:
In my city and detroit there have been house explosions lately because of the butane used in the conversion process. Explosions can send brick walls flying randomly so I understand the need to crack down. Life in prison is a maximum, prolly more of a show than anything
That's what happens when you criminalize it. Instead of it being produced in a proper enviroment by professionals, you get a bunch of amateurs dicking around in their basement.
|
On April 24 2011 17:28 Lann555 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 10:27 MiniRoman wrote:
In my city and detroit there have been house explosions lately because of the butane used in the conversion process. Explosions can send brick walls flying randomly so I understand the need to crack down. Life in prison is a maximum, prolly more of a show than anything That's what happens when you criminalize it. Instead of it being produced in a proper enviroment by professionals, you get a bunch of amateurs dicking around in their basement.
to be fair, if these guys are using butane to make their hash, then it's dangerous and is a fair reason to crack down on hash making.
|
On April 24 2011 09:01 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 08:06 Thorakh wrote:I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not. I think that argument is hilarious, "I don't need alcohol to have fun." I always think of the phrase "No you don't need alcohol to have fun. But why start a fire with sticks and flint if you have a lighter?" I can have fun without alcohol. But I've had some of the best times of my life on alcohol. Clearly a vast, vast, VAST majority of the GLOBAL population agrees. Danger to the person around me? If I can't control myself. But guess what, I don't drive drunk, ever. You're going to prohibit me from drinking because you assume I might not control myself? Should we have monitors on all poor people because they're more likely to steal? The effect of having a smoker in your life? WHAT? You want to outlaw cigarettes because of the effect of second hand smoke? The STENCH of cigarettes? My rooommate has nasty ass BO sometimes, can I send him to jail? That is a flawed comparison. Using a lighter has no negative impact on you and neither on the people around you.
It's hilarious you think you can control yourself while drunk. Yeah, you can say you don't drunk drive, just like the rest of all people, who is going to say they drive drunk? But in reality, tons of people drive drunk and make accidents happen. But because the majority wants it, it must be right, right? " " Most of the world bashes each others head in for having a different opinion too, that must mean that is the correct thing to do, right?
Also, second hand smoking is very real and it kills people who don't even smoke themselves. If you want to kill yourself by using chemicals that supposedly make your life happier, go ahead, but you better not be affecting my life in a negative way.
Haha this is what I call the 'wet blanket' response, you can't fathom altering your mental state so it automatically makes you more superior than the rest of the population... however I ask you just to think of the mere mortals who do imbibe, they won't stop if it is illegal. America tried it once and it didn't work, when prohibition was in full swing there was more speakeasy's in NYC than there currently is liquor stores in america right now.
It truly doesn't matter what you ban because you believe it is bad for people, no one will stop just because it is illegal. Think about it, you can score drugs in prison... if there is one place on earth you should be able to eliminate the supply of a substance it should be there. There is just no way a government can effectively limit supply of any substance that has demand to it, they just hand markets directly to gangs and cartels and the most violent people of said markets. Banning any substance is just stupid. The religous right who care about the 'family' or the liberals who want to friggin nanny everyone to death don't do shit but give power to criminals and put addicts behind bars. I already said a ban on alcohol is completely impractical, but it should happen nonetheless. It's just retarded hypocrisy from governments around the world, alcohol kills millions of people while marijuana kills nothing. Yet alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't.
I'm not trying to 'nanny' anyone to death. I am merely trying to protect millions of people. There is a government for a reason, it's not only there to build roads and cities. It has a duty to protect it's citizens. Whether the citizens agree with the protection is irrelevant. Most citizens are too dumb to understand anyway.
|
On April 24 2011 09:01 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 08:06 Thorakh wrote:On April 24 2011 07:40 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 24 2011 06:53 Thorakh wrote:On April 24 2011 06:50 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 24 2011 05:43 Thorakh wrote:On April 24 2011 04:51 Deja Thoris wrote:On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote:
Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.?
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind.
One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case? Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years" I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it). Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man. Yeah man, fuck me for wanting to criminalize (nonessential) things that are extremely dangerous to other people. I'm such a stupid person! I don't even understand how you can be against criminalizing alcohol and ciggarettes (or at least limiting ciggarettes to specific places so all the smokers can go kill each other with lung cancer). Cigarettes are extremely dangerous? Please. It's called personal freedom, and the ability to enjoy yourself. There's a reason alcohol is such a highly demanded substance. Because 1% of the population that uses it is dangerous, you want to criminalize it for the other 99%? Reason it's in demand? Because it makes life exponentially more fun. I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people. Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others. On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded. EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not. I think that argument is hilarious, "I don't need alcohol to have fun." I always think of the phrase "No you don't need alcohol to have fun. But why start a fire with sticks and flint if you have a lighter?" I can have fun without alcohol. But I've had some of the best times of my life on alcohol. Clearly a vast, vast, VAST majority of the GLOBAL population agrees. Danger to the person around me? If I can't control myself. But guess what, I don't drive drunk, ever. You're going to prohibit me from drinking because you assume I might not control myself? Should we have monitors on all poor people because they're more likely to steal? The effect of having a smoker in your life? WHAT? You want to outlaw cigarettes because of the effect of second hand smoke? The STENCH of cigarettes? My rooommate has nasty ass BO sometimes, can I send him to jail?
I think it's sad that you can't have as much fun sober as you can drunk. (At least I can remember the fun times I've had...) And the fact that you're making a statement based off the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy (a lot of people have a lot of fun when they're drinking alcohol, so it's gotta be good!) shows how weak your argument is.
I'm happy you don't drive drunk. I also am all for letting people do to their bodies whatever they want, so go right ahead and get shitfaced with your friends and act like idiots (assuming you're of the legal age and you're not doing anything illegal). But your post seems to have a level of immaturity in it that just reads "alcohol = partying and fun woohoo!" as opposed to the sad reality that alcohol actually has very real consequences and hurts people far more often than it rewards them.
But obviously, you have the right to do as you please, as long as you don't hurt anyone else, so I'm personally not a fan of making alcohol or other drugs illegal.
|
On April 24 2011 17:59 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 09:01 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 24 2011 08:06 Thorakh wrote:I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not. I think that argument is hilarious, "I don't need alcohol to have fun." I always think of the phrase "No you don't need alcohol to have fun. But why start a fire with sticks and flint if you have a lighter?" I can have fun without alcohol. But I've had some of the best times of my life on alcohol. Clearly a vast, vast, VAST majority of the GLOBAL population agrees. Danger to the person around me? If I can't control myself. But guess what, I don't drive drunk, ever. You're going to prohibit me from drinking because you assume I might not control myself? Should we have monitors on all poor people because they're more likely to steal? The effect of having a smoker in your life? WHAT? You want to outlaw cigarettes because of the effect of second hand smoke? The STENCH of cigarettes? My rooommate has nasty ass BO sometimes, can I send him to jail? That is a flawed comparison. Using a lighter has no negative impact on you and neither on the people around you. It's hilarious you think you can control yourself while drunk. Yeah, you can say you don't drunk drive, just like the rest of all people, who is going to say they drive drunk? But in reality, tons of people drive drunk and make accidents happen. But because the majority wants it, it must be right, right? " " Most of the world bashes each others head in for having a different opinion too, that must mean that is the correct thing to do, right? Also, second hand smoking is very real and it kills people who don't even smoke themselves. If you want to kill yourself by using chemicals that supposedly make your life happier, go ahead, but you better not be affecting my life in a negative way. Show nested quote +Haha this is what I call the 'wet blanket' response, you can't fathom altering your mental state so it automatically makes you more superior than the rest of the population... however I ask you just to think of the mere mortals who do imbibe, they won't stop if it is illegal. America tried it once and it didn't work, when prohibition was in full swing there was more speakeasy's in NYC than there currently is liquor stores in america right now.
It truly doesn't matter what you ban because you believe it is bad for people, no one will stop just because it is illegal. Think about it, you can score drugs in prison... if there is one place on earth you should be able to eliminate the supply of a substance it should be there. There is just no way a government can effectively limit supply of any substance that has demand to it, they just hand markets directly to gangs and cartels and the most violent people of said markets. Banning any substance is just stupid. The religous right who care about the 'family' or the liberals who want to friggin nanny everyone to death don't do shit but give power to criminals and put addicts behind bars. I already said a ban on alcohol is completely impractical, but it should happen nonetheless. It's just retarded hypocrisy from governments around the world, alcohol kills millions of people while marijuana kills nothing. Yet alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't. I'm not trying to 'nanny' anyone to death. I am merely trying to protect millions of people. There is a government for a reason, it's not only there to build roads and cities. It has a duty to protect it's citizens. Whether the citizens agree with the protection is irrelevant. Most citizens are too dumb to understand anyway.
YOU are a fascist if this is your true opinion. Forcing shit on people who don't want it. The government is me and you and everyone in the respective country. So, if people don't want to get "protected" by something, then the government loses it's authority if it forces this shit on people. in a police state you also get "protected" by everything the government deems "dangerous".
|
Drugs shouldn't be illegal, because that is just handing money to crooks, what the government needs to do is legalize all illegal drugs and tax them heavily. Whoever wants the drugs will get them anyway, so the government should do its job of protecting people by regulating the dangerous drugs and make money while they're doing it.
There is no time in history where making a substance illegal has stopped the people from using that substance. Doing so is not only illogical it is dangerous to the very people it is supposed to protect. The mob got its power base in the US during prohibition because alcohol being illegal gave them a large reliable income that it use to gain power.
|
On April 24 2011 23:24 BlackFlag wrote:YOU are a fascist if this is your true opinion. Forcing shit on people who don't want it. The government is me and you and everyone in the respective country. So, if people don't want to get "protected" by something, then the government loses it's authority if it forces this shit on people. in a police state you also get "protected" by everything the government deems "dangerous". Argumentum ad populum.
Democracy is the most retarded form of government there is. There is no single person on earth that has the knowledge and thinking capabilities to make a correct vote. Let alone all the billions of dumb people in the world. I'm fucking scared of the USA, you know why? Because it has millions of dumb people that are allowed to vote and arguably the most power in the world. Technocracy is the only good practical form of government. Even in the best case scenario democracy is retarded since if every person knows everything, there would be no need to vote!
Your comparison of my view on governments to police states is laughable at best.
|
I'm honestly not sure why I bother reading these threads any more, because they just make me fucking furious.
The fact of the matter is this: as long as weed is illegal, the drug cartels will simply make more money. If it were legal, people would buy from a legal avenue in lieu of the dealers. Literally all marijuana sales would be diverted from illegal to legal means, without a doubt. The drug cartels would lose their biggest cash crop and virtually fade away.
|
On April 24 2011 10:27 MiniRoman wrote:
In my city and detroit there have been house explosions lately because of the butane used in the conversion process. Explosions can send brick walls flying randomly so I understand the need to crack down. Life in prison is a maximum, prolly more of a show than anything
Im sorry but no. Butane is not used for making Hash. NO.
Butane can be used as a solvent for an extraction process of THC, but you get BHO, but Hash. BHO is Butane Honey Oil, which is about 99% THC, and kinda like weed crack. The problem there is the retards doing this INSIDE. This is a matter of human stupidity, nothing more.
|
On April 24 2011 17:59 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 09:01 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 24 2011 08:06 Thorakh wrote:I'm sorry but if you need toxic chemicals to make your life exponentionally more fun, I wouldn't want your life. Not to mention the toxic chemicals are also a danger to people around you. Drunk driving, drunk aggression, effect of having a smoker in your life, extreme stench of ciggarettes. Granted, ciggarettes are a lesser evil than alcohol to other people.
Also, if even only 1% of people drinking alcohol results in deaths or severe injuries that's a major fucking reason to criminalize alcohol. I'm all for freedom, unless it results in the harming of others.
On the topic of marijuana, if it (as some posters in this thread pointed out, thanks) is not even dangerous to the person using it then this law is retarded.
EDIT: Some people interpret me wrong, stuff that hurts yourself and others is bad. Marijuana evidently is not. I think that argument is hilarious, "I don't need alcohol to have fun." I always think of the phrase "No you don't need alcohol to have fun. But why start a fire with sticks and flint if you have a lighter?" I can have fun without alcohol. But I've had some of the best times of my life on alcohol. Clearly a vast, vast, VAST majority of the GLOBAL population agrees. Danger to the person around me? If I can't control myself. But guess what, I don't drive drunk, ever. You're going to prohibit me from drinking because you assume I might not control myself? Should we have monitors on all poor people because they're more likely to steal? The effect of having a smoker in your life? WHAT? You want to outlaw cigarettes because of the effect of second hand smoke? The STENCH of cigarettes? My rooommate has nasty ass BO sometimes, can I send him to jail? It's hilarious you think you can control yourself while drunk. Yeah, you can say you don't drunk drive, just like the rest of all people, who is going to say they drive drunk? But in reality, tons of people drive drunk and make accidents happen.
Just replying to this point:
At least where I am from, (in upstate NY) we never let people drive home after partying unless there is a DD. Not everyone has zero self-control, and even more importantly not everyone doesn't have friends that give a shit (because we do). Not making a fight here, just saying that there are drunk bastards that are harmless :p
|
When is the war on the drugs gonna be done with?
For how many years has it been a war on the poor at this point? It doesn't serve a purpose anymore, just filling up the prisons with a lot of people that don't belong there.
Smoke weed? Go and sit in a cell for 5 years with a gang member.
|
Anyone in prison for marijuana related "crimes" is a waste of taxpayer money. My stance is legalize it and make a profit.
|
On April 25 2011 01:27 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 23:24 BlackFlag wrote:YOU are a fascist if this is your true opinion. Forcing shit on people who don't want it. The government is me and you and everyone in the respective country. So, if people don't want to get "protected" by something, then the government loses it's authority if it forces this shit on people. in a police state you also get "protected" by everything the government deems "dangerous". Argumentum ad populum. Democracy is the most retarded form of government there is. There is no single person on earth that has the knowledge and thinking capabilities to make a correct vote. Let alone all the billions of dumb people in the world. I'm fucking scared of the USA, you know why? Because it has millions of dumb people that are allowed to vote and arguably the most power in the world. Technocracy is the only good practical form of government. Even in the best case scenario democracy is retarded since if every person knows everything, there would be no need to vote! Your comparison of my view on governments to police states is laughable at best.
are you a real person?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
