Dude...move to California. You can get oils, tincture, salves, buds, keef, hash, edibles, etc in any concentration you wish...legally, some at the grocery store. I know from experience that it hurts to leave Texas, but trust me, you won't regret it. Just don't go straight to LA or SF.

Back in the day that was the way things were. There were no cause of redress.
I am not saying that is right but that that was the way.

Today there are laws that prevent this from happening.

I don't think you can look at yesterdays problems through the prism of today logic. If you did you would certainly come up with a solution using the judgements of today social thinking.


As for your statement:

I ( white people ) am blocked from voting.
Do I have cause for redress? -- Yes ( under todays laws and standards)

This occurs for next 150 years ( this sucks) then corrected.

Are my grand children due for the violation of their rights, but not yours? Depends of the customs/ standards/ law of the day that my right to vote were taken away. Would it not?


Now the BLM corrects and reverses the decision of its for fathers and allows Whites to vote. Should I be grateful No I should have had the right long ago.
If you can vote ( BLM) then I can vote ( whites).

Under you scenario BLM owes my grandchildren nothing. They legally voted me not to vote then generationaly later voted my grandchildren to vote. A sorry from the government would be appropriate but individuates owe me nothing. They did not make the law, only lived under it.


I hope I have answered your question.



? If you were born a white on the south with a family owing slaves and many of those in the community owned slaves..

You might accept this as the norm and go along with it and someday own some salves also.

As you grew up you might start to think that this is wrong but would you dare go against the grain? Only when you had a shit load of people think the same way do things change.

----------------

Another analogy of saying this is:

Using todays logic / ways of medicine on the way they practice medicine 150 years ago... Today we think how barbaric they were. But those living in the day it was all they knew.

Back in the day that was the way things were. There were no cause of redress.
I am not saying that is right but that that was the way.

Today there are laws that prevent this from happening.

I don't think you can look at yesterdays problems through the prism of today logic. If you did you would certainly come up with a solution using the judgements of today social thinking.



As for your statement:

I ( white people ) am blocked from voting.
Do I have cause for redress? -- Yes ( under todays laws and standards)

This occurs for next 150 years ( this sucks) then corrected.

Are my grand children due for the violation of their rights, but not yours? Depends of the customs/ standards/ law of the day that my right to vote were taken away. Would it not?


Now the BLM corrects and reverses the decision of its for fathers and allows Whites to vote. Should I be grateful No I should have had the right long ago.
If you can vote ( BLM) then I can vote ( whites).

Under you scenario BLM owes my grandchildren nothing. They legally voted me not to vote then generationaly later voted my grandchildren to vote. A sorry from the government would be appropriate but individuates owe me nothing. They did not make the law, only lived under it.


I hope I have answered your question.



? If you were born a white on the south with a family owing slaves and many of those in the community owned slaves..

You might accept this as the norm and go along with it and someday own some salves also.

As you grew up you might start to think that this is wrong but would you dare go against the grain? Only when you had a shit load of people think the same way do things change.

----------------

Another analogy of saying this is:

Using todays logic / ways of medicine on the way they practice medicine 150 years ago... Today we think how barbaric they were. But those living in the day it was all they knew.

Hello
Did you see my privet massage about my IP ?
Hope that problem salve soon.

Maybe I'm weird, but while all these people seem to struggle with old relationships and self-loathing, I simply struggle with the looming fact that I am ever so swiftly growing closer to the complete annihilation of self that is death.

They worry about who their Ex is seeing, I worry about my rational mind telling me that nothing exists (for me) after death so why bother with anything?

They try to salve their thoughts with the idea that they can improve if they work at it, while I try to desperately ignore all logical and scientific reasoning to try and have hope that there is some type of afterlife.

My 4 easy steps to losing weight:

1. Remove excess carbs
2. Drink lots of water
3. Exercise 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week
4. Realize that no matter what the fuck you do to lose weight, you are still going to die and, realistically, your weight doesn't matter as much as your overall health towards extending the date of your impending death sentence.

You're both wrong. It's a salve for their conscience. They help 1 poor schmuck to absolve themselves from fucking over 1000s.

@Sniper007

Colonisation of other planets, if it happens, will not ease overpopulation on Earth. Assuming it's actually done with humans rather than, say bacteria which are so much easier to transport; it must involve small seed populations of colonists, not firing billions of people off into space. Where do you imagine the energy required would come from? As it stands in 2014 we can barely move a handful of people into low earth orbit, a few hundred kilometres away.

Think about the logistics of transporting and housing all these billions of colonists in a hostile environment. Making the environment itself habitable is an even greater challenge; we can't even seem to fix the one we have on Earth, the one we spent billions of years evolving to suit.

The expansion of the universe, meanwhile, is always giving us less material to work with and perpetually moving it further away.

@SDGundamX

Relying on technology to solve overpopulation is like refusing to stop smoking because by the time you get cancer science will have found a cure.

Scientific advancement is not a given. It doesn't progress at a guaranteed rate and it isn't a genie that will automatically offer a salve to every need. Or, to coin a cliche, "Where's my jetpack?"

Luckily however, in the instant case scientists have offered an easy solution to overpopulation: Stop having so many children.

@RedSky

Poverty reduction without population reduction - reduction, not stabilisation - is catastrophic. The current global population of ~7.2 billion is only survivable, never mind sustainable, because most of those billions are impoverished peasants who barely consume any resources at all. Elevating the poor to a rich, westernesque lifestyle multiplies the effects of overpopulation tremendously, even if it slightly slows population growth in absolute terms.

Rosling doesn't seem to understand the actual problem, and his predictions are at any rate, horrifyingly optimistic.

We need to be shooting for a global population in the range of 100 million - 1 billion. Any substantially higher number than that is an apocalypse waiting to happen.

You need to learn how to read a story. that is not what it said or implied.

The Republican party can only tale a back seat to Democrats on playing the race card.

Your 2005 article indicates:
"Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South."

Now where did it say Republican party courted racist for their vote. If that was the case They would have gotten Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson to join the Republican.

As you said "appealing to racists to boost their vote" and exploited racial strife are not the same.

The article went on to say:
"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

The root of the Southern Strategy"
"Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.



To sum this up: Nixon Blamed Democrats for the racial mess of the mid late 60's in order to pull some white voters to switch from Democrat to Republican in order to gain votes.

And for that you call Republican Raciest??? Don't you really mean Democrats ?

After all Democrats were the south. Democrats kept the plantations. Democrats wanted to keep the salve system in place. Democrats started the KKK to keep blacks and whites from voting Republican.


I am sorry that if for some small amount to years that Republicans used race/ race baiting/ raciest to gain more Republican white votes is it is nothing to what Democrats have done. AT least they did not whip/ chain/ rape/ murder/ or lynch any one to gain or keep their vote.

Its true and YOU know it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Blankfist butter makes the best salve - it's a frictionless transaction.

(I kid @blankfist- he's the Libertarian man)



In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Gosh dag, that might be the most disturbing thing you've ever said to me. I mean I'm supposed to be the pervert around here, not you. Just because I've been slacking on my lecherous duties lately doesn't give you any right.
Let us never speak of this again.

In reply to this comment by dag:
I know it's self-indulgent masturbation but I'm trying to cut down on real masturbation - and this is a salve.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Look at blankfist and you debating political philosophy. It warms my heart. Makes me proud to be a homo sapien. Still, I hope you aren't debating him on the clock. When productivity suffers, you make the Invisible Hand cry.

Gosh dag, that might be the most disturbing thing you've ever said to me. I mean I'm supposed to be the pervert around here, not you. Just because I've been slacking on my lecherous duties lately doesn't give you any right.
Let us never speak of this again.

In reply to this comment by dag:
I know it's self-indulgent masturbation but I'm trying to cut down on real masturbation - and this is a salve.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Look at blankfist and you debating political philosophy. It warms my heart. Makes me proud to be a homo sapien. Still, I hope you aren't debating him on the clock. When productivity suffers, you make the Invisible Hand cry.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I know it's self-indulgent masturbation but I'm trying to cut down on real masturbation - and this is a salve.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Look at blankfist and you debating political philosophy. It warms my heart. Makes me proud to be a homo sapien. Still, I hope you aren't debating him on the clock. When productivity suffers, you make the Invisible Hand cry.

Maybe the renaming of the poll would do service to all concerned..."What Should WE do now?"

Republicrats and Demicons???...simply labels-Team Spirit is what humans being are accountable for...Most politicians are a malevolent, irrational, out-for-self brand of the most delusional segment of humans, akin to gnats or bedbugs....irritating and ever fucking present, but controllable with the proper salves and hygiene.

>> ^HadouKen24:
>> ^bluecliff:
heres a metaphor for you
your walking down a path which leads over a cliff, do you go ahead across the cliff and then if you fall blame gravity?
Hell, in the christian world view, is a constant of the human condition, it is the nature of the world, not of God. He doesn't send you to hell, you send yourself to hell - essentially speaking (although crudely put)
Now this leads you theological and cosmological problems about who created the world etc. but thats not his current argument.

That interpretation is not consistent with the plain language of the New Testament. Damnation always presented as an act of condemnation by a divine Judge. A more poetic interpretation may serve to salve one's conscience, but probably isn't very sound doctrine by Scriptural standards. The prose of the Pauline epistles does not really admit of the looseness of poetic interpretation.
Hell is not merely the suffering one inflicts upon oneself, either here or in the afterlife, but suffering that is inflicted by another.

I have no idea what you mean with your rant about how "the world is purely parodic." Whatever logical connection it has with the argument at hand didn't make it out of your head and into the post.


I was trying to discombobulate the torrent of sociological shit that often ails most of the comments.
(anyway its a quote from a french guy)
I suppose it ended as a FAIL...


But
I really don't think hell being "inflicted by another" is accurate. The standard theology goes (as far as I know) - hell is the absence of God. And the choice, in christian terms, is between the search for God and a life of sin, which is inherent to the world. It's a much more naturalist world view, if you look at it from that perspective. The "act of condemnation" is there, but need not be, it's only because the judeo-christian God communicates with his people, in a sort of one on one, that this is possible. As far as I know christians take this communication to be an act of divine mercy


(You may be right about St. Paul.)