[ilduclo]

the days when feminism asserted that abortion was a male-driven conspiracy to destroy minorities.

and that was when with which "feminists"? I think this canard is more a religious nut's idea.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Robert Fisk on Netanyahu's bizarre appearance at the UN this week:

"..."Iran is the centre of terrorism, fundamentalism and subversion and is … more dangerous than Nazism, because Hitler did not possess a nuclear bomb …" Bibi speaking on Thursday? Nope. The ex-Prime Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres, in 1996. And Peres himself said in 1992 that Iran would have a nuclear bomb by 1999! That's 13 years ago. And Ehud Barak – now Bibi's Defence Minister – said in 1996 that Iran would have a nuke by 2004. That's eight years ago. Maybe cartoons are all that's left."

The whole article here.

That bomb "graphic" was literally the most childish thing I've ever seen in international politics, and politics is pretty childish enough as it is. That racist asshole should be ashamed of himself, at least put up a substantive and informative chart with stats and numbers, not some cartoon. What a joke. Israeli and ALL Jewish people should rightfully be ashamed of such blatant fear-mongering..

Originally Posted by ilduclo

the days when feminism asserted that abortion was a male-driven conspiracy to destroy minorities.

and that was when with which "feminists"? I think this canard is more a religious nut's idea.

That was the radical Black and Chicana feminism of the 1960s and 1970s long before the Democratic party brainwashed women.

'll tell you like my poppa told me
Stay sucka free and fuck the police
What you know about honor, respect and loyalty?
What you know about the father, Che and Huey P?
What you know about being hung, stabbed in the grill?
Nothing cuz you don't know about the youngins on the hill
On the real, all these fake thugs know the deal
When we start the revolution, all they probably do is squeal

I told you, its not about religion. I don't impose my Faith on anyone. In our society, is murder ok? What about stealing? Those are universal norms which have little do with one's religion, it is just common decency which atheists and religious folks alike agree with. Sometimes the atheist crowd is even MORE vindictive than the religious folks, the Gospel says to love you enemies and visit the guilty in prison, some atheists believe in eye for an eye more than Bible thumpers.

My beef with abortion is cultural, philosophical, and deeply personal. Again, I accept that it is not going away, but what I can't for the life of me understand is why can't as a society we have a substantive dialogue? Why can't we have mutual compromises? If folks like myself compromise and accept abortion as a practical reality in our society, can't abortion folks compromise and respect folks like me's sentiments for the youth? If you read my criticisms it is about unabated and unrestricted abortion, not abortion in general. I personally feel that teenage girls should not be allowed to have abortion without adult consent (it doesn't have to be parents though I'd prefer that) and further I feel that there is no harm in having a mandatory waiting period for folks to sleep on the decision? Can't be a mature society and discuss these matters without relying on fear-mongering, hyperbole, or vilifying? I am not trying to demonize abortion, I am just trying to be reasonable and further express my serious and well grounded concerns about the young adults in our society.

But you know what, like Tupac said, "Fuck the world if they can't adjust, its just as well Hail Mary."

[Pookie]

Chomsky agrees with !@#$%! (up to a point).

How Progressives Should Approach Election 2012.

And also with Suchfriends (up to a point).

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Chomsky agrees with !@#$%!

poor chomsky! this is proof that senility can turn a genius into a caricature of his former self.

[demonrail666]

He also looks remarkably like my nan.

[!@#$%!]

i lissened to most of the interview and it was pretty good, though he's hard to understand cuz he sort of has a very low-volume growl. he doesn't project at all.

true story: i've seen chomsky up close and personal several times and i'm convinced that he's an alien for 2 reasons:

1) he has an enormous head. i mean ENORMOUS.

2) he glows in the dark. this i have seen with my own eyes.

--

i also read the robert fisk article-- a very good one! i haven't had time to reply due to work + my free time has been devoted to the UEFA games. prolly will reply closer to the weekend.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i lissened to most of the interview and it was pretty good, though he's hard to understand cuz he sort of has a very low-volume growl. he doesn't project at all.

true story: i've seen chomsky up close and personal several times and i'm convinced that he's an alien for 2 reasons:

1) he has an enormous head. i mean ENORMOUS.

2) he glows in the dark. this i have seen with my own eyes.

--

i also read the robert fisk article-- a very good one! i haven't had time to reply due to work + my free time has been devoted to the UEFA games. prolly will reply closer to the weekend.

I tried, but alas, it was too dribbling... I would have killed for a transcript

I did like how he rightfully mentioned the "other King Dream speach" (i.e. speaking out against Vietnam on April 4, 1967 and again on April 3, 1968) which doesn't comfortably fit into our liberalized narrative of King as not being a radical. To me, the Beyond Vietnam speech from 1967 is STILL a manifesto for my daily living. Every year on the anniversary of his passing, I listen to that speech to here the power of his voice, and meditate on the depth of his words. There is so much Truth resonating across even four decades, and it is as pertinent today as it was then. This is my premise for being more active than voting. YES King initially was very much involved in the legitimate political system, and yet, but he end of his life, I think he reassessed the successes and failures, and it seems from many of his speeches during 1967-1968 that he would have promoted a boycott of the 68 elections before he ever promoted a Rock the Vote kind of campaign like he had in 1964. It seems that the good Dr King had finally realized that the racist political machinery of his time had been USING him to pacify radicalism.

"Should he abandon his supposed obedience to the white-liberal doctrine of non-violence, and to embrace militant black nationalism, through Counter-Intelligence it should be possible to pin point potential trouble makers, and neutralize them"



Like Jah B (Bunny Wailer) said, "Some of the brothers may have gotten a bit, (hesitates) soft along the way, which may be why they are not here with us today, still, the flag has got to be hoisted!!!"

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Barack Obama winning the election in 2008 =

 

[evollove]

Hey suchfreinds,

Remember when California failed to legalize weed? You were all about state's rights.

Remember last night when Romney pushed for state's rights?

I guess this means you're gonna cast a vote for a republican this year.

(I absolutely could not resist.)

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by evollove

Hey suchfreinds,

Remember when California failed to legalize weed? You were all about state's rights.

Remember last night when Romney pushed for state's rights?

I guess this means you're gonna cast a vote for a republican this year.

(I absolutely could not resist.)

Based on our experience with medicinal cannabis I've changed my stance, corporations and cartels are worse than hippies and growing artists, keep that shit underground. Oh yeah, that is another hypocritical stance of Obama, in 2009 his administration issued a document stating that medicinal cannabis would be up to the states and that the DOJ would not push back on that. Since 2011 the feds have raided hundreds of medical marijuana growers and distributors

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Luckily this isn't a problem because they're not a nuclear state and have no intention of being one. That's why they're signed up to the NPT (and actually are pushing not only to end proliferation but start reducing the number of nuclear weapons) unlike Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East; and they have always cooperated with the IAEA, unlike Israel and America who refuse to let them inspect their already existing nuclear weapons. And incidentally I live in a "democracy" but I've never been able to vote on whether we have nuclear weapons and how they'll be used."Holding these arms is a sin as well as useless, harmful and dangerous" (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei).
How are they being threatened with annihilation?

Fuckin ell Pookie i didnt expect this from you

1. They have an active nuclear program, if you trust their motives with regard to this then you are a very trusting man

2. The president of Iran has referred to the Holocaust as if it never happened, not in a secretly taped conversation with donors, but at the fecking United Nations

3. Which American party that advocates the use of nuclear weapons against a particular race of people do you think will get elected?

[the ikara cult]

4: See Pont 2. Its not pretend rudeboy, its the real fucking world.

[floatingslowly]

the US electoral process is the endsum result of demonic vibrations from the lower levels of the aether.

until it's over, expect friends to disappoint you, enemies to seem sane and your grandmother to be a misinformed racist.

reanalize your channels for distortion. it's coming from subspace.

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Based on our experience with medicinal cannabis I've changed my stance, corporations and cartels are worse than hippies and growing artists, keep that shit underground.

as they say in the white neighborhood, let's cut the crap, guy.

you and I both know that you do not want jackboots having your state-issued and cross-referenced identification card devoured by Echelon and spat back at LAPD Mainframe:01; which would then, obviously, be forward the data to scores of other state agencies, namely, LAUSD-BoE and your local PTA.

I can dig it, jack.


if that shit were regulated like smokes and liquor (instead of a system that in spite of HIPAA certainly adds you to some .gov *sql, somewhere), you would be LOL-TTLY-4-IT.

just sayin'.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

as they say in the white neighborhood, let's cut the crap, guy.

you and I both know that you do not want jackboots having your state-issued and cross-referenced identification card devoured by Echelon and spat back at LAPD Mainframe:01; which would then, obviously, be forward the data to scores of other state agencies, namely, LAUSD-BoE and your local PTA.

I can dig it, jack.


if that shit were regulated like smokes and liquor (instead of a system that in spite of HIPAA certainly adds you to some .gov *sql, somewhere), you would be LOL-TTLY-4-IT.

just sayin'.

No seriously, the entire culture of the emerald triangle has changed, and quite literally on the streets the gangsters all push that "kush" now when they used to push speed and compressed mexican cess. Sensimilla used to largely be a holistic and local thing, and the stuff from the Triangle was equally reputable. Now that cartel hyrdo has taken over the market, it has gotten challenging (not impossible) to find decent, high-grade, flavorful, soil grown sensi... This major push began as the store front pot shops starting showing up around 2006 and 2007. We had this law since 1996 and it was strengthened in 2004 with a legislative refinement, but this law never supported shops which is why they never existed. If you ask me, you nailed it the mainframe aspect, I've always felt it was a ploy to lure all the underground growers and distributors under the guise of easy money and a sense of legitimacy. These guys do this for a living, a lot of them were fooled into believing suddenly they were like vineyardists because they worked with pot shops. Meanwhile as you mentioned, the Feds and the 1-timez were quietly raiding and shutting these things down daily. What is worse (and THIS IS HOW THE GANGSTERS GOT INVOLVED) (A) gangsters and cartels pooled their resources to invest in grow houses to supply pot shops, and (b) they began setting up unlicensed shops anywhere for a month at a time just to push. Strip malls are confused about the laws, so they just wait till the cops come, and a lot of these shops then (LA County estimates are upwards of 25-50% at any given time) are quick cartel operations. This is how gangs and drug cartels crept into what used to be a lovely craft industry in California.

In the early 2000s gangsters had crap weed, now they got the good shit and they know it. In the early 2000s a minority of professionals did all the growing, now a lot of cartels have gotten into that game because it is so much more lucrative than the old school "Mexican" compressed stuff they used to work with..

Further, the medical card movement is a joke, and it abused sick folks to make recreational consumers switch from breaking one law to the other. Either legalize it or don't. For me, the best thing has been the further decriminalization signed by Arnold, it reduced under an ounce to a parking ticket which is also not required to be reported to any agencies. In others words, like it never happened

Oh yeah, how is Obama in on all this? Well aside from obvious CIA and FBI connections with the dealers and networks (after all, its an American tradition), the Obama administration late in 2009 released an official statement through the Justice Department that they would not target medical marijuana in California. In actuality, the DEA just shut down 71 shops last week (which in all actuality they should be doing by the way, its kinda their gig and its a cat and mouse game many folks have grown to like) contrary to the White Houses public stance.

[floatingslowly]

It's a wonderful world, cuz.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Most small countries can be annihilated with nuclear weapons. My point was that nobody IS threatening to annihilate them.

hello spookie (if you see this)

i know i promised to reply sooner but eh! i was out of town.

anyway, i read the fisk article and i've been thinking about it and okay: iran is not going to nuke israel today. true dat. and all that "iran must stop" is probably just hysteria.

HOWEVER

there is a logic underneath the hysteria: having nukes would turn iran into the dominant power in the region. all sorts of regimes from iraq and saudi arabia all the way to israel would cack themselves in fear. which is why the west doesn't want that-- the west basically wants to keep propping up the gulf monarchies & keep the balance of power more or less where it is.

change the balance of power and really, but really-- who knows what could happen? iran smuggling nukes via syria, right at israel's doorstep? totally possible, like the famous cuban missile crisis.

nobody likes to have a knife at their throat, and the farther ahead you can prevent said knife to reach your throat the better. why wait when the blade is starting to push the skin.

if i were israel, i'd bomb iran too.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

if i were israel, i'd bomb iran too.

You know you are smarter than that. Israel can't just bomb Iran because (a) Iran has a strong SAM so if Israel were to do that, they'd lose a lot of aircraft which would hurt them when they try to defend themselves against retaliation (b) Iran got money and weapons, they just might have the balls enough to attack Israel where Lebanon and Syria and Egypt have always been to weak. Israel isn't hardly that stupid, which is why they want the US to attack Iran, not them

[Pookie]

Bit busy to reply now but I've just read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ions-suffering

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Bit busy to reply now but I've just read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ions-suffering

yesssss. that guy has it 100% right in how/why democrats support sanctions & drones over invasions. but he doesn't mention that non-interventionism isn't in the cards. intervention will happen-- the only question is how. i have no illusions about this and nobody else should.

the basic foreign policy issue of this election is about how to manage the american empire, not whether or not it should be dismantled. this in spite of what right-wing twats are saying-- that obama is some sort of anti-colonialist manchurian candidate (for a good summary on this, please see here).

why do i mention right-wing twats? because they exist and they exert political pressure sufficient to keep the empire going regardless of what others may say. any attempt to do otherwise will be swiftly marginalized (see for example how ron paul's "isolationist" candidacy never manages to take off among republicans). same thing with mainstream democrats by the way-- wasn't joe lieberman a VP candidate with al gore in 2000? yes he fucking was.

take a page from your own recent history: when argentina wanted to recapture the islands that britain had disputed with them for centuries (let's not look at the real motives of the 1982 argentinian military junta for now)---did the british public say "oh fuck yeah, we've been squatting at the door of the poor argies for nearly 2 centuries, let's give them back their doormat?". nope-- your country went rah rah rah behind pm thatcher and proceeded to raise their flag again over those fucking rocks for the glory of some sort of some shit.

my point being... people everywhere are greedy for power and love it when their state uses their muscle for their profit/convenience/comfort/"honor". nobody gets elected by promising to be meek.

so... the pullback/withdrawal/dismantling of the american empire is going to be a HUGE undertaking that's not going to be solved in one election-- more likely it will collapse and be replaced by a different and perhaps even more malevolent empire (very likely, considering world history). the election in november will simply move the needle of what's "normal" and "acceptable" either in one direction or another--mainly in the domestic arena, because in foreign policy the issue is basically one of choosing drones vs. marines as the way to enforce corporate interests, and ends up being a domestic issue (creating more veterans vs. developing technology).

of course there are 2 schools in this direction-- one wants to slowly move towards some day living sanely (i'm a reformist so that's me), the other is more maoist and would have the system "exacerbate its contradictions" so it can implode and some sort of cockamamie revolution will save everyone. oh, fuck, i've seen maoism at work and it's shit, and revolutions end up in tyranny. so i vote for the democraps because in balance things come out slightly better-- that's all you can do in this macro contex. no candidate is proposing to dismantle the american empire, certainly not tomorrow. it would be nice some day to have a "voluntary recall" of military forces around the world, but like i said with the malvinas/falklands example, the populace of "evolved" democracies loves to rule over others as much as any petty somalian warlord or third world country with nukes. the only question left then is "how".