Better at what? I never said that weed is "better" than alcohol or tobacco for anything. I said it's not as destructive... meaning "not as bad" for your health or the wellbeing of others. And BTW, "not AS bad" isn't the same thing as "not bad".

I think it all comes down to how people use it. Just like anything else. There will always be a detriment to inhaling smoke and there could be some long term effects from the THC although studies so far are inconclusive on what those effects are. But on the counter-balance, there are some pluses too. I know several people who use it to help them sleep which could actually be improving their health more than the other way around.

I've also seen people smoke it specifically to get stoned out of their minds. But that's a problem they have before they even spark up.


"Marijuana" lol


Yeah, you know why? Because it's been illegal for so long. But controlled experiments aside, there ARE millions of pot-smokers out there. Millions that have smoked it for 60+ years and are fine. And millions more have smoked it then stopped without much effort because it's NOT that addictive.


That doesn't mean those making that assumption are right. There was a time when everyone thought the world was flat too... for as long as they could remember.


So when Nixon figured he could wage a war on drugs using law enforcement at the border to cut off the traffic from Mexico, Americans started to grow their own, eventually making cannabis the biggest cash crop in America and along the way they figured out how to increase the potency.


Are you patting yourself on your back for a job well done?


Why is this not the right place for it? Controlled substances are public issues.

Other way around for me. Maybe you're hanging out with the wrong kind of people.

I don't think it's a gateway drug at all. Some people are simply more drawn to hard drugs than others and it's typical for them to discover weed first because weed is so commonplace.

Well, I'm sure that's not what Liberal Lily had in mind. lol... But if you want to turn this into a battle against Fentanyl and heroin, then be my guest.


Look, no one here is "pushing" pot in the faces of children under bleachers so get off your high horse. There is a wide world of mature adults who DO care about what they smoke and where it comes from. You need to get a grip.

As for the kids getting bad weed off the street. That's another issue and I agree it's one we need to concern ourselves with. We probably don't agree on the best approach but I think legalizing it so it can be supplied through legitimate commerce is a step in the right direction. Legitimate commerce can be regulated and monitored by agencies like the USDA so that clean products on the market will draw customers away from the black market, which has always been a more effective way to solve the problem than law enforcement could ever be.

Did law enforcement win the war against the bootlegger-gangs during prohibition? No. They did not. Ending prohibition did.

Hi Lily... thanks for posting a positive message. It's nice to see every now and then. I noticed you got a rash of negative responses, but that's what you get here with a name like "Liberal Lily" - lol

I'm just going to point out that cannabis, even with it's higher THC content (compared to the old days), is FAR less destructive than booze, cigarettes, a lot of the OTC drugs out there and even a lot of processed food we buy. From a legal perspective it's never been a matter of how bad a substance is for your health, it's ALWAYS been a matter of how much profit corporations are making from it.

Pontificate all you want - It still comes down to the same two options. Leave peacefully or commit an act of war by refusing to leave. Trump would have either done the same thing Biden did or he would have done worse by committing an act of war.


Two of three years ago? As in however many years Biden has been in office? ;) Here's why your response tells me that you're just looking to blame Biden without knowing ANYTHING about the situation. Last July there was a coup d'état in Niger that replaced the Seventh Republic of Niger with the a military regime. So ANY diplomatic efforts made two or three years ago would have been with the Seventh Republic and would have had ZERO effect on the current situation. Like I said... you should do a little more research before posting your shots in the dark.


Because there is a difference between attacking someone for his actions and attacking someone simply because he was in office when something happened.

totally!
Ya know what I wouldn't be doing if I was there? ...talking politics. ;)

So here's how I am reading this... your capacity to be misled is unlimited.


Huh - I didn't know Biden was responsible for the country of Niger. lol


So here's your synaptic abyss on this example. If you click on the first link presented in the text of the article you referenced, another document tells you that the REASON for the withdrawal is that Niger's government has revoked the agreement that allows U.S. troops to be stationed there.

So... WTF do actually expect Biden to do here? We don't just station our troops wherever we want. Our stations are installed in countries we have agreements with. If one such country rips up the agreement, there isn't much we can do about it. We can leave or refuse. If we refuse it would be an act of war. Do we want a war with Niger now?

Instead of obsessing over how many of these claims you've collected, maybe you can take deeper look at any one of them to see if you're not actually just collecting evidence of your short-sightedness.

So when you say "explain", do you want me to explain basic economics? I ask because the assumption that you can blame two presidents out of the last 16 years can only be made in complete ignorance of how the economy works.

I noticed you haven't actually specified what they did to "hit" the middle-class and that you're careful to blame only the Democrats and not the one Republican. Clearly, you are parroting right-wing propaganda without the slightest clue about how things really work.

I'm going to explain anyway, not that you will understand or even want to, but because you're not the only one reading this thread (which means I don't care if you don't read this).

1. Middle-class doesn't mean anything... Working class does:
I'm going to use the word "working-class" instead of "middle-class" because the later term is intentionally vague so as to obscure the division between the classes that actually do exist... The wealthy class and the working class. The wealthy class contains the people that have enough money to where they never actually have to work and the working class is everyone else.

So now instead of guessing between arbitrary income levels to decide if you're in the middle-class, you can ask yourself a very simple question... Do you have to work for a living? If you answer yes, you are in the working-class. This is important to understand because all of the economic policies are designed to help one class or the other.

2. The working-class has been in constant decline since 1972 almost entirely due to the free market
The working class is "hit" all the time, usually as a result of economic developments that have nothing to do with the government. I would guess that 90% of the decline of the working class is due to corporate decisions, not government decisions.

If you are locked into right-wing media as many of you are, then you are not allowed to know this. The reason why is that the government is one of the few institutions to which the working class can turn for help and conservative leaders don't want that to happen, so they are trying to convince you turn your backs on the government. The only other place for workers to turn is the labor union and we know how conservatives feel about that. It's the same thing.

So now I should explain why the right is so opposed to the worker having any place to turn when corporations turn the screws of exploitation. You probably won't like this...

3. The American tradition that conservatives defend without understanding is to screw the worker.
As you might know... the conservative right is interested in preserving traditional systems. The problem for the worker is that the American tradition has ALWAYS been based on the exploitation of workers. There is a strong argument that the American Revolution itself was a fight to preserve slavery since abolitionism was already rampant in Britain and in 1775 their parliament was passing legislation to ban the slave trade.

So what I am saying here is that the status quo that conservatives continue to defend has ALWAYS been detrimental to the working class from day one. It was in fact the government, that finally banned slavery in 1865. But that didn't stop corporations from keeping children out of school and in coal mines or in spanking rooms. It didn't stop corporations from forcing workers into 16 hour shifts for company scrip that could only be used in company stores, effectively controlling the workers entire economic existence wile also preventing them from seeking a better situation elsewhere... One example of slavery without chains.

4. Every policy protecting the American worker from abuse comes from progressive legislation.
Every single step away from slavery and abuse was a battle fought against the corporation by the government. Child Labor Laws, the 8-hour day, the minimum wage, the right to take a vacation, safety regulations and most importantly the right to bargain collectively. These were all pushed through the government by liberals in the face of opposition by conservatives who started off as a class of politically astute corporatists but eventually included working class people, fooled into fighting against their own interests.

OK, so here's what happened (generally speaking)...

By the 1950s, American industry had become globally dominate. The corporations were making record-breaking profits and because of progressive policies, the American worker was getting a decent share of it. Conservatives today often pine for those days, without realizing that without the progressive element, the American worker would still be getting squat.

5. The real culprit... resource peaks and capitalism.
But by the time the 1970's rolled in, something happened that no one was counting on. Resource peaks. The first thing we should understand about industrial capitalism is that it's basically a conversion of resources into profit. This leads to the second thing we should understand... that the cheaper the resources are, the greater the profit will be.

When the cost of acquiring resources exceeds the profit that can be made from the enterprise, that is considered the resource peak. The most famous one is the oil peak of 1972. It was then that big oil started to realize they can make higher profits from buying cheaper oil from OPEC than to spend the money on the deeper drills needed to reach the remaining oil on American land.

But oil wasn't the only resource with a peak. Labor was too. By the 1970's American labor was way more expensive than foreign labor and so corporations started to look for ways to export jobs to foreign labor markets.

As a result of these resource peaks, the American worker has been under a constant threat of decline, mostly coming from corporations seeking better profits by excluding or minimizing the more expensive American resources (human and otherwise) and this trend will most likely continue into the future as long as the market remains free.

6. The tiny role of a president.
So what role does a president play in all this? A tiny one. As I said the working-class decline is an inevitable result of a free market responding to the dynamics of capitalism seeking cheaper resources and it would be unconstitutional for the government to interfere with that.

Even then, the president doesn't have the power to legislate so for that minor influence we have to look at Congress first... You mention hits to the middle class under Obama... Obama's 8 years were affected by a Senate that was controlled by Republicans for 6 of those years.

7. Conclusion.
So if you're trying to pin the blame for hits to the middle-class on a president you really need to get a little more policy-specific. And considering the 50-year, free-market trend that's driving the decline, it nothing less than absurd to blame one president, wait 4 years then blame the next one just because the two you are blaming are Democrats.

LOL - they do get defensive.

Thanks for sharing. I certainly agree that for decades Democrats have invested more in The People where Republicans did more for the billionaires. The alt-right is an interesting turn in that respect in which they very much see themselves as the champions for the little guy but they still can't seem to escape the conservative doctrine that repels them from the progressive approach the Democrats are more comfortable with. This leaves them in a state where they don't really know what to do, because for the last 150 years, progressive politics have been the ONLY salvation for the working class.

It seems, the vacuum is being filled with an open-ended attack on the establishment as an end to itself. It's a movement charged with anger but offering no solutions. I would say 90% of alt-right politics is obsessed with destroying anything liberal.... kinda like Trump's presidency... "Repeal and Replace"!

Well, speaking for myself, I never confuse the two meanings. If anything, I see patriotism as a form of chauvinism and arrogance. It's definitely a moral weakness in which people can't do anything good without expecting a medal for it.

Indoctrination is basic brain washing... a practice that has been developed for thousands of years by various religions and armies and perfected by the sales and marketing teams of modern capitalism. All Americans are indoctrinated to some extent, including yours truly. My parents were very brand-oriented and would irrationally pass a better deal to buy a product that reflects their brand loyalty... That's commercial indoctrination.

Indoctrination is also exceedingly important in the military where conscientious objection can't be tolerated.

All the political factions indulge in some degree of indoctrination. But it get's stronger as you make your way toward the extremes because indoctrination has that power to push an agenda beyond the realm of common sense, much like buying an inferior product out of loyalty or being able to slaughter women and children in a "human shield".

All that being said, I do think that Patriotism goes hand in hand with indoctrination. They feed off each other. Patriotism is a high octane emotion that seeks gratification in the doctrine which in turn spurs the desire to be a patriot. A fanatic cycle of idiocy.

I would argue that there is a extreme faction on the left, let's just call them communists, that are nevertheless outside the power structure. They don't even have the numbers to qualify for a seat in Congress. The mainstay of power in the Democratic Party, are much closer to the center and well within the realm of rational thought.

I would also argue that on the right, the picture is not the same. The rational moderates are actually being pushed out while the indoctrinated alt-right is moving in to power.

In fact, I would also argue that this irrational doctrine is the secret to Trump's success at becoming an idolized "il Duce" to his followers.

So, without a doubt Trump supporters almost as indoctrinated as the North Koreans, many of whom seriously believe their leader doesn't shit.


LOL - Biden has only been in office for 3 years. What are you using to get to 15 countries so you can have in depth conversations with all those people within the last three years? Santa's sleigh?

I've been around the world too... Only a few other countries but I've actually lived in them as a civilian and that makes a huge difference because people feel more relaxed about their opinions when you're wearing a t-shirt and jeans. If you go there in a military uniform, there's a greater chance they are telling you what they think you want to hear. Especially if your being all patriotic.

I've had conversations with Europeans that are nothing like what you've described. I haven't been outside the country since Biden took office , but from what I remember of my conversations in Europe, they really don't get all that opinionated about our partisan divisions. They tend to focus more on the U.S. as a singularity. Or at least they did when I was there.

Aside from a general view that Americans tend to be obnoxious, their opinions differ widely on our politics as they do on their own politics. They do however prefer their own systems to ours which would suggest a stronger alignment with Democrats.

Any attempt to distance yourself from some of the regulars here is a good decision. We should be able to come here to share ideas without being assaulted with the forced feedings that are so essential to the dogmatic narratives of religious extremism.

That being said, I'm curious about your attempt to draw a difference between liberal and leftists. I also feel there is a difference but it gets blurred by the rabid attacks on both.

Personally, I see liberalism as a move to liberate something from the status quo, in opposition to conservatism that seeks to conserve it. Oversimplified? Absolutely but I still think it serves as a root meaning. U.S. history is a chronology of snapshots that often preserve these social labels in antiquated context. Hillary Clinton a few years ago had suggested that Democrats are actually more conservative today than Republicans are and with the alt-right taking over the GOP, I tend to agree with her. It seems that today it's the Republicans that are liberating themselves from the status quo of a republic that has essentially been progressive for about a century now.

Leftist is another ambiguous term, but there is an evident pattern world-wide and historically deep, in which all movements bearing the "leftist" label are driven by inclusion... Including women and black people in our democracy is leftist, including LGBT in our civil rights is leftist, including immigrants in our society, including workers in the profit margins and labor negotiations. These are all leftist.

By contrast, the right side is almost always driven by exclusion, such as the exclusion of nonbelievers from salvation, the exclusion of immigrants at out border, the exclusion of Jews by the Nazis in Germany, the exclusion of Palestinians by the Zionists in Israel, The exclusion of Israel by the Islamic Resistance. These are all referenced by historians and analysts as "right-wing".

How are you seeing the difference?

First of all, I do think that many Trump supporters are indoctrinated, but this indoctrination is not so much based on Trump himself as it is based on decades of slow-cooked, right-wing propaganda which Trump is leveraging.

Over the course of the last 20 years, I have made several automotive journeys from coast to coast and all you have to do is turn the radio on to really feel the weight of this propaganda. You can only hear a full spectrum of music and news for about 2% of the journey. The rest of it is all country music and right-wing propaganda on AM radio for thousands of miles of emptiness and there is literally no escaping it without turning the radio off. It was like this 20 years ago and it's like this now.

This is what Trump chose to tap into and it makes sense, because no other realm of opinion is as willing to accept a narrative without question. With red-state America being almost entirely defined by faith, questions and challenges are almost entirely eliminated and an overwhelming sense of pride drives it home with an obsession toward supremacy and righteousness.

So in the confidence game, in which Trump is a superstar athlete, marking red-state Americans that are already prone to faith-based, pride-driven narratives almost guarantees a mesmerizing show that obscures the little man behind the curtain.

This is why I always refer to Trump's one-term presidency as a parade of PR stunts. With a complete absence of bi-partisan legislation, multilateral diplomacy and long-term strategy, Trump's super-biased agenda was entirely composed of one-sided PR stunts in which he scored brownie-points for affirming the righteousness of the alt-right and suggesting the demise of everyone else. Any of the previous presidents could have achieved the same level of dedication among his followers if only they could have abandoned their work on hard problems and chose instead to patronize his base.

It's not *your* thread. You may have started it but you don't own it.

If you're going to post your opinions on the Internet for all to see, you should expect to deal with contrary opinions from those reading it.

If what you are posting is nasty... such as implying that fellow members want to see Trump murdered, then you should expect a little heat.

Personally, I like the humorous route, which is why I said Trump's murder would spoil the fun of watching him destroy himself.

If that kind of response get's you so riled up that you feel compelled to insult others, maybe don't post such antagonizing messages to start with. As they say, if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

LOL - aw, did that conversation not go your way?