RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb

RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

kdsub -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (9/29/2007 9:26:26 PM)
Of course I understand… pompous and ass are such a bad words. I surely can see where calling someone…just in this thread… racist… bigoted….using such clean language as ….old fucks…oh lets not forget niggers… is just fine because you are making a point. My MY you are full of yourself…. will not to worry mod 11 I will not use bad language where it is inappropriate. Butch

thompsonx -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (9/29/2007 9:42:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Of course I understand… pompous and ass are such a bad words. I surely can see where calling someone…just in this thread… racist… bigoted….using such clean language as ….old fucks…oh lets not forget niggers… is just fine because you are making a point. My MY you are full of yourself…. will not to worry mod 11 I will not use bad language where it is inappropriate. Butch Butch: Perhaps I was unclear in my post about the old fuck...the old fuck I was referring to was me. To point out that someone is a bigot or a racist is hardly a slur. The context of the use of the word "nigger" was hardly inappropriate. thompson

kdsub -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (9/29/2007 9:46:23 PM)
Will in the context pompous ass was hardly inappropriate either. But it is time for me to apologize and stop messing up the thread. Butch

seeksfemslave -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (9/30/2007 1:23:45 AM)
*quote:* Using a larger font is for old fucks who are too vain to wear glasses. Many Old effs actually have to take their specs off to read screen text.[:D] Stop using coloured text. I errr insist. you old eff[:D]

Politesub53 -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (9/30/2007 3:27:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Crack and Cocaine are two different drugs from the same plant. Cocaine has been treated to make it a powdered form and it takes between 10 and 15 minutes to produce a high. Crack only takes 10 seconds. it is also way more addictive, that is why there is a difference in sentancing, nothing to do with race at all. Politesub: You are partially right but completely wrong. A quick look at the PDR will verify that cocaine is neither lethal nor addictive. It is the adulterant in crack that make it both lethal and addictive. If all drugs were legal and priced at their actual value no one would even think of using meth or crack. Just as no one would drink gasoline if Jamison's were the same price as gasoline. thompson Thompson, Cocaine in any form can be lethal. Snort it enough and you will OD. Snort some thats been cut with the wrong stuff and the same thing happens. Granted that crack is more likely to be lethal than powder. Both forms are also addictive if you do some research. http://www.emedicinehealth.com/cocaine_abuse/article_em.htm If your point about the price were true, why does affluent society now take crack and not stick to powder ? The simple answer is they need the faster and higher rush that smoking it gives.

EPGAH -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (9/30/2007 9:08:40 AM)
Actually, these days, "justice" is a popularity contest...If your side organizes huge marches, whining out about past misdeeds of the other side, the law will "adjust" downward in punishment... If you're rich, or have a huge organization backing you, ONE PERSON is all it takes, like the self-proclaimed witch that got the city of Republic, MO to take the fish off their sign, because it MIGHT be a Christian symbol, and Christian symbology offended HER...Even other Wiccans said it was OK, but she got the ACLU involved, and so because of ONE PERSON, Republic had to waste taxpayer money defending itself (They lost), they had to change the signs, and THEN the self-proclaimed witch MOVED AWAY! Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but couldn't she have done that in the first place, and avoided this whole mess? (Added for clarity) It was just a FISH, in a town that decades ago was a FISHING TOWN! NOT one of the fishes with "Jesus" in it, or the fish with the word "Darwin", or the fish-with-turtle-feet, also marked "Darwin", or the fish marked "Darwin" EATING the fish marked "Jesus"! All of these are clever, clever bumper-stickers, which Republic could have sued for, since after all, a "similar" logo WAS on their signs, but they chose not to... For other ironies demonstrating my point more cleverly, look up "Faulkner vs. Citadel" and "Nation of Islam marches support Michael Jackson" Or perhaps, the 20,000 marchers in Jena, a small town of about 3,000? Gee isn't that 6-to-1 again? Do you think implied threats might be changing their minds? As to implied threats, some noose sites--er--NEWS sites--claim that the "nooses" hung from the tree were made of ribbon or yarn, rather than rope...Noone has any pictures of the nooses in question (And yes, an image search shows a lot of nooses, but not THOSE nooses) Yarn or ribbon would be lethal, yes, but the nooses were hung with noone IN it, and were supposedly finger-sized nooses...They could asphyxiate the pinkies of a few people...There were no pictures of these (in)famous nooses...No noose is good noose, but...Are you free, in a free country to express hatred, as long as you don't hurt someone? Even some blacks are admitting that the "Afrocentrism" crap led to this national scandal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxOfpr54lxQ&mode=related&search They asked permission of the school's administrators to sit under the tree...Why not ask the kids who had "claimed" it? UNLESS THEY REALLY WANTED TO CAUSE A PROBLEM! (There is actually ON RECORD a black guy who was so racist, he burned a cross in his OWN yard, but later confessed to the police that he did it only to get nationwide attention...I think that's called "Murgatroyd By Proxy", but the colloquial term is "Exploiting the goodwill of the nation for perceived personal gain") Check the first three links: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Black+man+burned+cross+on+OWN+lawn Are hate-crime/hate-speech laws ONLY against the majority? Or do you believe all white people are racist to some degree at some point in space and time? These nooses, then, were put up with the cooperation of the whole town, or even the whole nation? Hell, with that conspiracy theory, maybe I faked that YouTube vid?

Dominatist -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (9/30/2007 5:54:33 PM)
deleted

Sinergy -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (9/30/2007 10:31:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub they find you all that do they...lol.. hmm we must not be reading the same posts I guess... oh by the way to the “profound, correct, accurate, definitive and occasionally witty. you forgot to add Pompous Ass Of course, considering you have not actually addressed any point he has made with anything other than snide comments and attacks on his font, perhaps you are projecting your own, inner, "pompous ass" thing on him. Sinergy

thompsonx -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (9/30/2007 10:54:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Crack and Cocaine are two different drugs from the same plant. Cocaine has been treated to make it a powdered form and it takes between 10 and 15 minutes to produce a high. Crack only takes 10 seconds. it is also way more addictive, that is why there is a difference in sentancing, nothing to do with race at all. Politesub: You are partially right but completely wrong. A quick look at the PDR will verify that cocaine is neither lethal nor addictive. It is the adulterant in crack that make it both lethal and addictive. If all drugs were legal and priced at their actual value no one would even think of using meth or crack. Just as no one would drink gasoline if Jamison's were the same price as gasoline. thompson Thompson, Cocaine in any form can be lethal. Snort it enough and you will OD. Snort some thats been cut with the wrong stuff and the same thing happens. Granted that crack is more likely to be lethal than powder. Both forms are also addictive if you do some research. http://www.emedicinehealth.com/cocaine_abuse/article_em.htm If your point about the price were true, why does affluent society now take crack and not stick to powder ? The simple answer is they need the faster and higher rush that smoking it gives. Politesub: Perhaps you are content with an anti drug website for your information. If so please continue. If you are interested in something a bit less biased you might avail yourself of a copy of the PDR Physicians Desk Reference. It is the definitive reference for all things pharmacopeia. Should you avail yourself of this publication please note that there is no LD 50 for cocaine or heroin. You will also note that they state that cocaine is not addictive. As for your contention that "affluent society" is now using crack I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. thompson

stef -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (10/1/2007 1:45:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx If you are interested in something a bit less biased you might avail yourself of a copy of the PDR Physicians Desk Reference. It is the definitive reference for all things pharmacopeia. Should you avail yourself of this publication please note that there is no LD 50 for cocaine or heroin. And for good reason. Since cocaine and heroin production were outlawed in the US in 1914 and 1924 respectively, why would they be included in the PDR? The PDR only contains drugs approved for prescription by the FDA. ~stef

Alumbrado -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (10/1/2007 4:57:00 AM)
quote: Perhaps you are content with an anti drug website for your information. If so please continue. If you are interested in something a bit less biased you might avail yourself of a copy of the PDR Physicians Desk Reference. It is the definitive reference for all things pharmacopeia. Should you avail yourself of this publication please note that there is no LD 50 for cocaine or heroin. You will also note that they state that cocaine is not addictive. As for your contention that "affluent society" is now using crack I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. And don't forget the Acme anvil to hand to the addict while they are in midair... [sm=biggrin.gif]

Politesub53 -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (10/1/2007 8:34:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Politesub: Perhaps you are content with an anti drug website for your information. If so please continue. If you are interested in something a bit less biased you might avail yourself of a copy of the PDR Physicians Desk Reference. It is the definitive reference for all things pharmacopeia. Should you avail yourself of this publication please note that there is no LD 50 for cocaine or heroin. You will also note that they state that cocaine is not addictive. As for your contention that "affluent society" is now using crack I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. thompson Thompson, unlike yourself i looked at several sites on the web about cocaine. The link i gave you was for a site about general medical health. I cant be responsible if you think that`s an anti drug site but no matter. Type in cocaine abuse to goggle and maybe the numerous links there will help you learn more than just the one book. Do the same about crack users and you will find the information i did. Edited to add the NYT link that i had read. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD1730F932A35753C1A96F948260

samboct -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (10/1/2007 1:11:34 PM)
To Edwards point- The recent statistics I saw based on recent census data was that more blacks in the 18-24 year old bracket are living in prison than in on campus housing in college. Also the rate of incarceration was up, and the rate of living on campus was down- and the trend was rapid in the last 6 years or so? I suspect that the confusion resulted from the idea that living in on campus housing meant being enrolled in college, but for students from less affluent backgrounds, living at home or off campus is a common solution. Hence, I think Edwards is probably a bit mixed up, but it's understandable. He's not mixed up that blacks make up a disproportionately large percentage of the prison population, and are far more likely to be given death sentences than whites. Butch- let me suggest a first hand line of research for you- go to any courtroom in an inner city and tell us all about what goes on. My experience with the prosecutors in Norwalk, CT (a racially mixed town) quickly convinced me that the prosecutors were arrogant, ambitious, and completely without a conscience. I would not trust them with the life of a gerbil- never mind a human being. The idea that any of these people would be kept awake at night by sending an innocent person to jail is completely laughable. While in theory you may be correct, that the code of justice is colorblind, in practice, there is a gaping color divide. A couple of other points- to a geneticist- race is a null concept. There are no "race" genes- race is such a broad grouping as to be largely meaningless. What this means is that certain "blacks" are closer genetically to "whites" than they are to other "blacks" and vice versa. "Race" is rarely predictive in terms of genetic diseases for example, although there are some exceptions. Family genetics and ancestry play a much larger role -I think it's Genghis Khan who has lots and lots of descendants and IIRC, they are certainly not restricted to "Asians". To an anthropologist- there are clearly cultures based on the concept of "race", but these cultures are not defined genetically. With respect to the debate on drugs-we spend a pathetically small amount researching the causes of addiction (a decade ago- maybe less- the guy who was looking at addiction and wrote a nice paper in Science was at Dartmouth- don't remember his name though), research in this area was less than $10M/yr. Hence, we don't know how to treat it, or how to identify which genetic markers indicate addictive personalities. The debate over which drugs are "addictive" or not is largely pointless- to some humans with one set of genes, the aforementioned cocaine, crack, crystal meth- whatever will be highly addictive. For other humans with a different set of genes, they will be able to try stuff and walk away- wondering what all the fuss was about. Also- I'm not so sure the distinction between physical addiction and pyschological addiction is very useful- I suspect that all drugs affect brain chemistry, so what exactly is a purely "psychological" addiction anyway? My grumble is that we don't know how to identify who these folks are, and we don't know how to treat addicts- yet we continue spending billions on incarceration- "for their own good"? I'm sorry- but I think prisons should be reserved for people who are a threat to others, not to themselves. We should have hospitals and treatment for the latter- it'd probably be cheaper in the long run. Sam

Politesub53 -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (10/1/2007 1:24:48 PM)
Samboct i agree entirly about prosecuting lawyers and to some degree Judges. Many in the UK seem to have an eye on the morning headlines when making comments to the press. The more sensational the better the promotion prospects. The whole problem with drug addiction treatment is that there is hardly any. Although many law abiding citizens would not be prepared to pay extra taxes to pay for it. As grim as some of them were, at least the old mental institutions here did try and help people. I think the real solution lies in better education in schools about long term effects of drug use.

Alumbrado -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (10/1/2007 1:26:49 PM)
Good points Sam

samboct -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (10/1/2007 3:28:05 PM)
Politesub53 I agree that better education might help- but really it would also help to make sure that we have some useful information to impart- other than Nancy Reagan's rude and ill informed suggestion to "Just say no." We don't know enough about the causes of addiction to design effective treatment- hence the comment that people might not pay for treatment centers is probably a bit premature. I tend to view this type of behavior as something of a disease- but it's also clear that there's an age related component- since most people using recreational "substances" are under the age of 35 (with the exception of alcohol.) It's quite probable that treatments would be far less expensive than jail- and again- do we view alcoholism as a disease- or is it a crime? I tend to think crimes impinge directly upon others. Sam

thompsonx -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (10/1/2007 5:42:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx If you are interested in something a bit less biased you might avail yourself of a copy of the PDR Physicians Desk Reference. It is the definitive reference for all things pharmacopeia. Should you avail yourself of this publication please note that there is no LD 50 for cocaine or heroin. And for good reason. Since cocaine and heroin production were outlawed in the US in 1914 and 1924 respectively, why would they be included in the PDR? The PDR only contains drugs approved for prescription by the FDA. ~stef Stef: Both cocaine and morphine, from which heroin is extracted, are in the PDR. thompson

Alumbrado -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (10/1/2007 5:57:57 PM)
Yeah...as schedule II... "Schedule II Drugs in this schedule have a high abuse potential with severe psychic or physical dependence liability. Included are certain narcotic analgesics, stimulants, and depressant drugs. Examples are opium, morphine, codeine, hydromorphone, methadone, meperidine, oxycodone, anileridine, cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, phenmetrazine, methylphenidate, amobarbital, pentobarbital, secobarbital, methaqualone, and phencyclidine. " Which is of course, exactly the same as quote: they state that cocaine is not addictive [sm=biggrin.gif] That anvil getting heavy?

Anguisette1 -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (10/1/2007 6:09:23 PM)
Just in case anyone's interested...among the criteria for being classed as schedule II you will find: "that abuse...may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence". Two cents from the Forensic Tox department :)

luckydog1 -> RE: John Edwards drops a racial bomb (10/1/2007 6:16:11 PM)
Now are we going to believe what thompson says they say, or what they actually do say?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875