The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

Ever try tea and gin you dumb whore? IT'S FUCKING DELICIOUS!!

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.

And more to the point, big pharma is only indirectly related. It is akin to yellow mustard sales in relation to spicy mustard sales. If you can't get yellow mustard, then most likely spicy mustard may go up. That is an indirect relationship. Conversely, the illegality of drugs directly affects all those other groups. In addition, in other talks, he mentions big pharma as they do, as you mention, indirectly benefit from the illegality of drugs. His views, if you do more digging than just this video, are more in line with a centrist position as he does advocate high taxation which is a depart from a more libertarian philosophy.


>> ^entr0py:

>> ^Taint:
This guy must be from the right wing since he manages to make a list of who profits from illicit drugs without citing private industry!
Sure, drug dealers, the government, and terrorists, but certainly not an unkind word toward our precious corporate America!
Dow chemicals, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and etc etc. The companies who fill up your commercial breaks with people wandering wistfully through fields with vacant smiles on their faces. Sure you could vaporize some marijuana harmlessly to combat your crippling depression, but then we'd lose the billion dollar industry of selling you laboratory created pills to do the same thing.
Funny thing about a weed is that it takes virtually no skill to grow some of it, and thus makes a difficult product to package and sell. For Judge Gray here to make his comprehensive list without including the people who stand the MOST to lose from removing prohibition is either amazingly narrow or entirely suspect.

I never know what I should make of claims like that. Pharmaceutical companies often cherry pick the studies that show efficacy, and ignore the ones that don't, especially when it comes to anti-depressants. But I would expect pot supporters to do the same. Meta analysis of available studies doesn't seem to show any clear consensus.
It seems like the biggest problem is the lack of double-blind, placebo controlled, studies set up to prescribe marijuana to non-users as a treatment for depression. All I've ever seen are observational studies, and those can only show correlation. It would take proper experiments to begin to demonstrate causality.

It's a two way street Netrunner. I made my position very clear. Most political speech in the US - including Beck's - is non-violent and in no way relates to blood libel. I made no bones about my position in that regard.

My initial post made no comment about whether Beck used violent or non-violent speech. It was just a full-context description of the Beck quote. I referred back to that initial post because that's what I thought you were talking about. I was mistaken in my understanding of what you were referring too. No need to go all drama-queen about it.

But on to the subtance rather than the pointless. You said, "You're saying Glenn beck talking about needing to shoot people in the head before they shoot us in the head is non-violent, while blood libel, which is just a made-up story about Jews using the blood of Christian children in religious rituals, is violent."

Your whole position seems to be that Beck's whole "you're going to have to shoot me in the head" schtick is the equivalent of Nazi blood libel... You've asked several times 'what's the difference'? I explained the difference. I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to accept the explanation. The only possible reason is that you reject the idea that what Beck said is 'not violent', but that you actually in fact and all reality believe that there is no difference.

I've said it afore in the Daily Show thread, and I'll say it again. I do not consider political bombast to be violent, nor is is a 'call' for violence, and it does not inspire or 'gin up' violence either. When politicians 'target' demographics, it is not violent speech. When the NRA says, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" it is not violent speech. When Glen Beck says, "You're going to have to shoot me in the head to get me to stop talking about the founders" it is not violent speech. When Robert Gibbs says, "We're going to put our boots on their necks" it is not violent speech.

No right-minded person who hears these things construes them as actual calls for real-world violence. These are political phrases, passionate rhetoric, 'metaphors' (as you once said), or stupid exaggerations. Bachman does not actually expect people to go around armed and dangerous. Obama does not really expect people to bring guns. Beck does not expect people to get shot in the head (himself or others).

What did you mean by "non-violent opinion"? Were you talking about Glenn Beck there? After all, that was what I had asked you about.

I didn't have Beck in mind specifically, but he is certainly included under the same rubrik. No one believes Beck was either calling for himself to be shot in the head, or for others to be actually shot in the head. Would I have used the phrase if I had a TV show? Highly unlikely. However, I defend the right of dummies to run off the mouth. It helps you see who they are. So when right wing bombasts like Beck flap their yaps, I applaud it. Much like when I applaud it when left wing bombasts like Maddow or Maher vomit out the true landscape of their minds.

I'm trying to depersonalize this, and not question your motives, while still making the case that my viewpoint (which obviously differs from yours) is based on things that are supported by objective facts.

Both liberals and conservatives base their underpinning concepts on things that are 'facts'. The interpretation of those facts is where the distortion lies. For example - Bachman’s full quote clearly proves she is talking about the dissemination of information about Cap & Trade and not violent rebellion. Obama’s “I want people angry” quote is likewise clearly not a call for violence.

Both quotes are factual. It is the interpretation that is biased. I extend both sides the benefit of the doubt and do not just go around assuming the worst on ‘their side’ and the best on ‘my side’. So when I hear leftists calling only right-wing speech 'bad' and ignoring the same crap from the left-wing, I call BS.

My point here is that not all gun metaphors are created equal. "We're going to stick to our guns on health care" is pretty different from "If ballots don't work, bullets will".

Joyce Kaufman is as irrelevant to this topic as Micheal Fiengold is - the guy who said Republicans “should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” Fringe crazies do not represent the majority. And I reject as poppycock any implication that the right has a greater number or percentage of these crazies compared to the left.

Part of your issue here is that you're not talking about anything in legislation, but something Obama said. The other issue is, you're quoting him way out of context

It IS in the legislation, and it is not out of context. Obamacare establishes the H&HS secretary as the party who makes decisions regarding what is and isn’t covered in plans. And his law requires all Americans to buy into these approved plans or pay fines and face possible jail time. It establishes government panels as entities that make health care rationing decisions based on economics and not doctors or patients. Calling them death panels is grandiose, but no different in concept than what liberals do when they say Bachman actually WANTS armed rebellion.

What Republican plan of privatization that worked for decades are you talking about?

I didn’t say “Republican Plan”. I said that a private system. The systems that work best do not come from Republicans or Democrats. They come from PEOPLE in a private system who creatively seek for profit by dealing in goods and services.


I mention Grayson as an outlier. He's unusually inflammatory for a Democrat, and even what he said wasn't particularly inciteful.

Because you agree with him. To a conservative, it is despicable. When a conservative exaggerates about a liberal, do you not find it despicable and ‘inciteful’? Is it not hypocritical to excuse it from one side, while condemning it on the other?

I say stretch, because Republicans never put together a fully formed plan of their own

Yes they did. Many times. Obama and the democrats rejected it and instead of negotiating they just crammed Obamacare through a midnight vote using unconstitutional processes to bypass the law and stifle debate.

I demand a source on this one. It's gotta be sifted here as a YouTube clip if that's accurate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/alan-grayson-to-republica_n_652244.html
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/best-quotes-alan-grayson
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/28/grayson-taking-opponents-quotes-context-taliban-ad/

Grayson is a source for a lot of fun stuff because he’s a certifiable lunatic.

"The Republican health care plan is: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." This one's debatable for the reasons I said above. But I think that the accuracy of the statement has a lot to do with whether that comment was okay or not. This one's at the edge, either way.

No –it isn’t debatable. It deliberately mischaracterizes the issue. Obama’s government solution of panel-based rationing is the exact same thing in a different form. Would you say it would be an unfair statement to say Obama’s plan is “Don’t get old, and if you get old die quickly”?

I don't think you understand the liberal side of arguments at all.

Au contraire. I understand them on more levels than liberals do themselves.

Litanies like this make it pretty clear that you're you're not interested in examining your own prejudices about liberals.

But litanies about conservatives are fine? That was a list of ACTUAL EVENTS. Real examples of real liberals doing real violence. Why is that a 'litany' that proves I’m not interested in examining things? Sounds to me like your response shows that you are not interested in examining liberal prejudices – whereas I have examined them far more thoroughly.

I see someone essentially saying "I'm right, you're evil, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise".

But your litanies do no such thing, I take it? You implied that the speech of the political right gins up right-wing crazies. I ask the perfectly fair question, “Did liberal speech gin up THESE left-wing crazies?” Goose for the gander. If you make the claim that right wing speech is done to gin up crazies, do you allow the same logic to apply to the left wing crazies – of which my evidence shows there is ample existence?

My sense is that you don't know (or don't care) about the way legitimate arguments get made.

Your sense is wrong. You can continue to believe it if that pleases you, but that does not make it correct.

The topic of what rhetoric is worthy of condemnation is going to be a little more slippery, but it's not impossible to have a civil discussion about what the important factors are in deciding whether a comment is appropriate or not.

Certainly. My assertion is that both sides get plenty of leeway to make strong political arguments. Free speech is hardly ever a bad thing. Let people say what they want and let the chips fall where they may. This attempt to stifle political speech has been done before, and by better people than our current crop of political doofuses. Their conclusion was the 1st Ammendment. It still works.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Stingray.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

In the interest of furthering knowledge and growing as people, why not talk specifics? Quote the supposed hate speech, and make a case that it is in fact, hate speech.

What you or I would define as 'hate speech' is very much a function of our personal political viewpoint. For example - I quote from your post above...

Never mind that one side is vindicated by the facts, and the other is just trying to gin people up to try to get political power

You believe this; with no reservation you accept that liberals always have the facts, and that conservatives are lying to gin people up and sieze power. To you it is self-evident. Anyone sensible and fair must agree with you. If they disagree, they're a tool of the right because who could possibly reject such a harmless, innocent, obvious comment?

But how would you feel if it had been ME who made the statement? What if I said, "They always foment hatred for thier own political gain, and only one side has truth." How would you honestly react to that?

Clearly such a statement is untruthful and insulting on its face. It is obviously biased, and needlessly demeaning - and the biased, negative tone begs a strong response. Do I hit near the mark, if not in the gold?

So... To sum up... YOU can say things that are insulting, defamatory, and provocative against conservatives and it is just harmless truth. But conservatives CANNOT do the same thing because they'd be 'lying' and 'ginning people up'. Does that sound about right?

What is 'hate speech'? To a liberal any conservative comment that challenges liberal beliefs is viewed as deceptive and provocative (IE hateful). For a conservative, liberal comments that challenge right-leaning beliefs are viewed similarly.

Above I quite brilliantly said, "Bias magnifies things you hate, and muffles things you like". So in our respective biases, what is defined as 'hate speech' is very different. What you see as harmless, I see as inflammatory and vice-versa.

Without any doubt, I know for a fact that the left-wing biased commentators like Matthews, Olbermann, Kurtz, Maher, et al... really and truly BELIEVE they not saying anything insulting and hateful when they myopically blame "only the right" for the so-called 'toxic environment'. That's because from their biased perspective, only right-leaning people say things that are hateful. All the hateful stuff from the left? M'eh - that's just the 'truth', or a 'joke', or 'thought provoking'.

So - you tell me - what comments above under that rubric are 'hate speech' when you look at it from the point of view of a conservative?

@JiggaJohnson, now add another element -- Girl A (aka Fox), actually wants bad things to happen to Girl B (everyone who disagrees with conservative dogma), but doesn't want to be held accountable for it.

Now you're where a diary making the rounds at Daily Kos today is, which calls this process stochastic terrorism.

It's a bit grandiose in name, but frankly it puts a finger on exactly what I think is going on at this point. These outbursts of violence are a feature, not a bug.

Cool kids also call this Becking.

I know I'm stepping on the thrust of Jon's message (rhetoric is no more to blame than rock music, and we should all just calm down and stop being so partisan), but it hearkens back to a moment in Rachel Maddow's interview with him where he said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "even if it's technically true that Bush is a war criminal, the left shouldn't say that he's a war criminal, because that's too partisan".

That's the problem we have right now -- when the left says the truth, it sounds partisan. While on the other hand you have the right constantly lying, and it comes out sounding like incitement to violence.

And the media is all too happy to look at the above and say "they're both doing it". Never mind that one side is vindicated by the facts, and the other is just trying to gin people up to try to get political power; you can't report that, because that would be "partisan"...

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.