[mos6507]

So what? Bush II and Bush III (Obama) are also, and have killed more people than Capone.

Could you please avoid finger-pointing people as murderers when you have a long trail of advising megadeth solutions to our problems?

[mos6507]

It's the rot in the pampered, spoiled souls of the US that are to blame.

Why does the blame have to reside in only one place? Why can't Mexicans (a catholic country, BTW) value life above getting a quick buck from drug running and terrorizing the townspeople? Why can't Mexicans develop their own economy so that the lure of drug running isn't so strong?

[mos6507]

Mos prefers unlimited government power.

Stop the straw-man arguments.

I support legalization. But I also believe in holding individuals accountable for their actions instead of always saying "It's not my fault! The system made me a criminal, waaa!"

[mos6507]

Unlimited emissions etc - No (should be sued in civil court for damages)

What good is a lawsuit in a case like Fukushima or the methane bomb going off? We need to at least try to prevent environmental damage before it causes permanent impacts.

[DomusAlbion]

Mos, In no way am I giving the Mexicans a break on this. They share in the problem. I'm just saying that all that money in the US that was/is being spent on illegal drugs is what is driving the industry and violence of the drug lords in Mexico and S. America.

The ideal situation is to make these drugs legal have the government(s) control the sale and derive a profit from it. The profits can then be used to help those who have let the drugs run and ruin their lives.

[nobodypanic]

hell let's just legalize everything!

i mean i wouldn't want criminal organizations to form.

Works for me, but then I'm one of those evil Libertarians.

so let's start a list:

child prostitution, unlimited emissions of heavy metals and toxins... etc.

still work for you?

OK
1. Drugs for adults - Yes
2. Prostitution between consenting adults - Yes
3. Child prostitution - No (children are not adults)
4. Unlimited emissions etc - No (should be sued in civil court for damages)
5. Gambling by adults - Yes

So have you figured out the difference yet? Pretty easy when you think about it. So ya, it still works for me.

i have figured this much out... you refuse to support the argument that criminalization should be overturned on account that it may create a criminal organization. and, contrary to you prior post you don't want to legalize everything.

[Cid_Yama]

This is not in protest to the war on drugs. This is the revolution that has been going on since Calderon stole the presidential election with the help of the Bush Administration.

The revolutionaries have all been characterized as "drug traffickers" and the "War on Drugs" has been cover for Mexico's war on it's own people. It has also been cover for the US to provide military assistance to Calderon for his war.

The US is seen as propping up an illigitimate regime in Mexico. Thus the anger towards the US.

When this first started the Mexican military targeted journalists, who were then declared to have died in the crossfire or accused of fighting with the rebels, quickly renamed drug traffickers.

The revolutionaries have blown up oil and gas pipelines all across Mexico. Strikes at factories in the early days were put down brutally by the Mexican military. In one factory they fired on protesters who refused to leave with automatic weapons.

This is a civil war. But it is one pitting the wealthy of Mexico against the workers.

Makes a lot more sense when looked at from the perspective of what is actually going on.

In exchange for Bush Administration assistance in stealing the election Calderon opened up the state owned oil company to foreign investment. Something the Mexican people strongly opposed.

[Oneaboveall]

Mos prefers unlimited government power.

Stop the straw-man arguments.

I support legalization. But I also believe in holding individuals accountable for their actions instead of always saying "It's not my fault! The system made me a criminal, waaa!"

I'm confused. I thought you were in support of temperance.

[Loki]

Characterizing the US as being the root cause of the violence is just as wrong-headed as absolving the US of their role in the drug supply and demand chain.

It's the drug dealers who are killing people in the border region and they deserve to be held accountable for their murders regardless of whether drugs are legal or not.

I agree, but to be fair there's no indication in the article that the people in the street were protesting US policies. The reference in the OP to the US war on drugs is the only reference in the piece to US policy, the rest of the article made it seem more like an anti-Calderon protest than anything.

But I know next to nothing about these protests. I get most of my news from NPR, a news organization that is unaware of Mexico's existence. If it's not related to Muslims, New York City, and/or sports, NPR won't report on it.

[rangerone314]

So what? Bush II and Bush III (Obama) are also, and have killed more people than Capone.

Could you please avoid finger-pointing people as murderers when you have a long trail of advising megadeth solutions to our problems?

If its good enough for them, maybe it is good enough for me, although they kill people for money.

Besides, the solution to overpopulation IS death. Duh!

[careinke]

What good is a lawsuit in a case like Fukushima or the methane bomb going off? We need to at least try to prevent environmental damage before it causes permanent impacts.

Well if it is enforced, it could act as a deterrent. After a few CEO's get taken to the cleaners maybe they will consider the full costs in their decisions. I also think corporations should not be considered as a person. Let the CEO's take the liability personally. You can't really throw a corporation into jail, but you can throw a CEO in jail.

[Cid_Yama]

I also think corporations should not be considered as a person. Let the CEO's take the liability personally. You can't really throw a corporation into jail, but you can throw a CEO in jail.

Careinke, you amaze me. I thought you were a hopeless Conservative. The Tea Party would burn you at the stake for the above statement.

[careinke]

i have figured this much out... you refuse to support the argument that criminalization should be overturned on account that it may create a criminal organization. and, contrary to you prior post you don't want to legalize everything.

OK, after re-reading your initial post, I realize that you meant everything EVERYTHING, not everything just related to drugs. Therefor your statement above is correct.

[mos6507]

I also think corporations should not be considered as a person. Let the CEO's take the liability personally. You can't really throw a corporation into jail, but you can throw a CEO in jail.

I'm with you on that one.

[dsula]

I also think corporations should not be considered as a person. Let the CEO's take the liability personally. You can't really throw a corporation into jail, but you can throw a CEO in jail.

I'm with you on that one.

Correct. That way we can be certain nobody wants to start a business anymore. Because hey, it's better to be on welfare than start a business and get thrown in jail by a lunatic suitor.

I'm operating a small stand at the local farmer's market. They make you carry a liability insurance which is not cheap. Because you won't believe it, somebody can just come along and sue you, the market, the locality, and even the town. And you're saying corporations do have power? Mine doesn't. Limit the redicoulous sue power of peons, I say.

[mos6507]

Limit the redicoulous sue power of peons, I say.

Fine. I understand we're in a sue-happy world. Reform the justice system to prevent frivolous lawsuits while we're at it.

But issuing fear-based arguments to preserve the status quo ain't cutting it for me.

[rangerone314]

I also think corporations should not be considered as a person. Let the CEO's take the liability personally. You can't really throw a corporation into jail, but you can throw a CEO in jail.

I'm with you on that one.

Correct. That way we can be certain nobody wants to start a business anymore. Because hey, it's better to be on welfare than start a business and get thrown in jail by a lunatic suitor.

I'm operating a small stand at the local farmer's market. They make you carry a liability insurance which is not cheap. Because you won't believe it, somebody can just come along and sue you, the market, the locality, and even the town. And you're saying corporations do have power? Mine doesn't. Limit the redicoulous sue power of peons, I say.

I got a neat idea. Ban lawsuits against corporations, allow for no LEGAL recourse for the little guy. Then when someone like me has a kid that dies etc from a corporation, someone like me will seek a 2nd AMENDMENT recourse.

[mos6507]

...someone like me will seek a 2nd AMENDMENT recourse.

Someone like you indeed. When you first started talking about your permaculture stuff I thought you were a pretty respectful guy, but this endless droning on about violence as a solution, whether at the micro or macro level--you really are the type of person who will be more of a liability than an asset to your community post-peak.

[vision-master]

Is post-peak like post-adolescent?

[rangerone314]

...someone like me will seek a 2nd AMENDMENT recourse.

Someone like you indeed. When you first started talking about your permaculture stuff I thought you were a pretty respectful guy, but this endless droning on about violence as a solution, whether at the micro or macro level--you really are the type of person who will be more of a liability than an asset to your community post-peak.

Violence IS the solution against entrenched, immovable interests. It has resolved more issues than any other technique in human history. It is used over and over again by people like the Romans or the Mongols or the Vikings because it works. Your revered Barack Hussein Obama believes in violence as a solution.

Take that 25-yr old guy who watched his 20-yr old sister get dragged off by someone outside his house into the woods, as described in the news today. The dude who dragged her off got what HE wanted. I don't think she did or her brother who just watched got what THEY wanted. I guess you would just watch like he did. I would do more than just watch.

People like Thomas Jefferson realized this and revolted against the likes of the British and their East India Corporation. Instead of one East India Corporation, this country now has MANY.

YOU will be the liability to your community when you build a shining beacon of permaculture that attracts the raiders who will come in and destroy and take everything you have (and probably your neighbors' stuff, too)

We're not a country anymore. We're just a group of different people who just happen to live on the same continent, dominated by a handful of nearly untouchable elites, who you think we can negotiate with.

You think we can play by their rules forever, but it is like betting against the house in a casino. You thinking there are major differences between libtards and conartists is just thinking it makes a difference betting on the red or black numbered pocket on the roulette wheel.

The house rules and the house always wins (unless it burns down).