George H.W. Bush was a Mass Murderer

[Snouter]

Odd that Neocon Bibi was not at the Neocon's Swampfest after #41 was called upon to invade Iraq for PNAC and obediently did his duty to the foreign state.

 

[Norman]

He was not good, but anything beats you heros Castro, Jim Ung.

 

[Wyatt earp]

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

That was Reagan..

 

[Snouter]

brock hussaine and crooked hillary caused Europe to be invaded by disgusting, low IQ savages who rape unless they are killed on the spot as they should be.

 

[JWBooth]

They are all corrupted death dealing douche bags. Are you just now noticing?

 

[BULLDOG]

brock hussaine and crooked hillary caused Europe to be invaded by disgusting, low IQ savages who rape unless they are killed on the spot as they should be.

Are you and Dale twins?

 

[MordechaiGoodbud]

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

That was Reagan..

Bush bombed Panama in 1989, a year after Reagan left office.

 

[basquebromance]

in 1931, as America continued to suffer from its free fall of the great depression, Prescott bought an 8-bedroom Victorian house to accomodate his growing family.

they were fortunate to not be affected by the great depression.

while americans suffered, they lived high on the hog

 

[g5000]

[infowarsmode]
Here is a photo of George W. Bush laughing at his dad's fake funeral. He then delivered a fake eulogy and fake cried. Dubya laughing at the funeral is evidence that H.W. didn't really die, just as the laughing dad at Sandy Hook proves it was a false flag operation.

George H.W. Bush faked his death to avoid prosecution by Mueller for participating in the child porn ring at Comet Ping Pong.

We can glean all this just from a single photo from a funeral.

[/infowarsmode]

 

[beautress]

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

Lemme see, what's more important? 500 people die, or 20 million Americans die because of drug imports caused by a maggot in Central America who gets fat off the sellers of raw drugs.

Five hundred innocent? Twenty million innocent? Five hundred, innocent? Twenty million, innocent?

That's such a hard question for some people who are disingenuous when it comes to mathematics. *sigh*

20 million people didn't die because of cocaine smuggled by Noriega. Anyway, cokeheads chose to take a risk with drugs. They weren't innocent, you idiot. The people burned to smithereens in those villages were.
Man, you are just stupid.

I was counting the number of years. Here's just one year, although more recent, it doesn't tell the entire story:

​

*U. S. Population in 2015 was 320,090,857. Noriega ran drugs/cooperated with drug cartels for over 30 years, murdered political opponents, cheated on vote elections by changing votes (reported by Jimmy Carter in the Spring election of 1989). A former American ally, not only did he falsely accuse his political opponents, he also lied about President GHW Bush using the same lie he used against people who actually had won the election even though Noriega's regime had rigged the elections with false counts.
Former General and Secretary of State Colin Powell once described Manuel Noriega as "pure evil." Lying about and murdering political opponents is exactly that.

Manuel Noriega, Panamanian strongman toppled in U.S. invasion, dies at 83 - The Washington Post

 

[beautress]

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

Lemme see, what's more important? 500 people die, or 20 million Americans die because of drug imports caused by a maggot in Central America who gets fat off the sellers of raw drugs.

Five hundred innocent? Twenty million innocent? Five hundred, innocent? Twenty million, innocent?

That's such a hard question for some people who are disingenuous when it comes to mathematics. *sigh*

20 million people didn't die because of cocaine smuggled by Noriega. Anyway, cokeheads chose to take a risk with drugs. They weren't innocent, you idiot. The people burned to smithereens in those villages were.
Man, you are just stupid.

I was counting the number of years. Here's just one year, although more recent, it doesn't tell the entire story:

​

*U. S. Population in 2015 was 320,090,857. Noriega ran drugs/cooperated with drug cartels for over 30 years, murdered political opponents, cheated on vote elections by changing votes (reported by Jimmy Carter in the Spring election of 1989). A former American ally, not only did he falsely accuse his political opponents, he also lied about President GHW Bush using the same lie he used against people who actually had won the election even though Noriega's regime had rigged the elections with false counts.
Former General and Secretary of State Colin Powell once described Manuel Noriega as "pure evil." Lying about and murdering political opponents is exactly that.

Manuel Noriega, Panamanian strongman toppled in U.S. invasion, dies at 83 - The Washington Post

 

[McRocket]

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

Lemme see, what's more important? 500 people die, or 20 million Americans die because of drug imports caused by a maggot in Central America who gets fat off the sellers of raw drugs.

Five hundred innocent? Twenty million innocent? Five hundred, innocent? Twenty million, innocent?

That's such a hard question for some people who are disingenuous when it comes to mathematics. *sigh*

Oh come on now? 20 million? That is TOTALLY ridiculous.

Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives?
And I want proof, please - not guesstimates/theories...otherwise your statement has no foundation in fact.

Besides, getting him did little or nothing to stop the flow into America...supply and demand. Guaranteed.


And try to remember, if people want to do coke, crack, pot....that is their choice and NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

Booze is FAR more destructive than pot is - for example. Yet the former is legal and the latter still is more-or-less not.

 

[McRocket]

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

Just about every POTUS is technically either a murderer or complicit in murder.

Does not make it right...just sayin'.

 

[CowboyTed]

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

Just about every POTUS is technically either a murderer or complicit in murder.

Does not make it right...just sayin'.

Yea your right... It has more to do with the circumstances you inherit as much as the decisions the POTUS makes himself. Bush II as much as I though his invasion of Afganistan was ill thought out and possibly unnecessary (Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over) but I wouldn't say it as bad as someone trying to invade Iran when a peace deal is in place...

In all fairness the present guy has set a bar so low G.W. Bush is looked back fondly...
Donald Trump may be the best thing that ever happened to George W. Bush

The thing is there is far more moderates in the Dems than in GOP... GOP has ran the moderates from there party...
Trump owns a shrinking Republican party

GOP can comeback but it won't be by insulting there own members (Dems didn't invent the term RINO)...

 

[beautress]

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

Lemme see, what's more important? 500 people die, or 20 million Americans die because of drug imports caused by a maggot in Central America who gets fat off the sellers of raw drugs.

Five hundred innocent? Twenty million innocent? Five hundred, innocent? Twenty million, innocent?

That's such a hard question for some people who are disingenuous when it comes to mathematics. *sigh*

Oh come on now? 20 million? That is TOTALLY ridiculous.

Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives?
And I want proof, please - not guesstimates/theories...otherwise your statement has no foundation in fact.

Besides, getting him did little or nothing to stop the flow into America...supply and demand. Guaranteed.


And try to remember, if people want to do coke, crack, pot....that is their choice and NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

Booze is FAR more destructive than pot is - for example. Yet the former is legal and the latter still is more-or-less not.

I definitely did not say "getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives." I'm saying that in his long career of profiting from the drug trade 20 million Americans died. I looked up dozens of references before then of actual people who died of overdoses, killings/murders of first responders, killings/murders caused by cocaine/drug users, #s of police, sheriffs, border patrollers, hospital personnel, and other first responders, substance abuse-induced suicides etc., but getting information from the late 60s and early 70s was largely unavailable, likely due to disinterest of current agencies to research that far back. It is well known that in the late 1800s there were popular drugs from both the oriental countries and from central and south America, and before that, hemp smoking of roping materials. Just no stats on the havoc caused by condensed coca leaves into powders; heroin, alcohol poisonings, etc. Old country doctors were just too busy bringing babies into the world and dealing with their community's needs, they likely didn't go after statistics like we occasionally see today. Right now, it seems it's out of vogue to point out to people that alcohol and nicotine cause a huge percentage of deaths as do cocaine, heroin, and other drugs. Today's academia frowns on pursuing infirmities caused by illicit drugs, because it beats up on those who report statistics that show that their favorite high just may cause some serious problems when people become addicted to nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, meth, weed, etc. twenty years ago, nicotine caused 33% of deaths in America. When the surgeon general pushed for and got requirements for cigarettes to carry the warning "this product may be harmful to your health" on it, a lot of people successfully got off the drug. Those who didn't continued to get lung cancer for the most part at the same rate sans counting nonsmokers. It is unpopular to tell the addict to any deleterious substance the consequences of his or her addiction. So a lot of scientific studies are not made because scientists are human beings, and they like anybody else, do not wish to lose friends, sponsors, and job opportunities over substance facts nor to be hated by immature jerks.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but some substances cause birth defects, but doctors do not tell their gynecological patrons that their baby's low birth weight, wide-spread eyes or other deformity is caused by which substance due to the suicide rates that increase in mothers whose habits deformed their baby for life. If you were born to a mother who drank and smoked her brains out while you were forming, and wound up with 5% vision or disfiguring hair lip, would you be bitter toward her when someone explained where your near-blindness or deformity was sourced? If details about preventable deformities were none of the government's business, you could not sue for recompense, because the Judicial branch is in the government's arena. I'm just saying.

All I can say about it is some researchers think paternity abuses may also cause some problems, but because that is harder to prove, they cannot get research funds for finding the answers to what role paternal abuse of drugs, STDs, and the like plays in birth anomalies. It therefore, is blamed on the female participant since her body is the host for the next generation.

DNA studies are harder, because the DNA molecule for human beings has not been totally nor completely accurate in mapping. Scientists like to have a happy ending when they do studies. If the truth is known about a lot of drugs, people who are addicted to a substance are seldom good sports enough to face their demons. It's the nature of the beast. I do think the calculation I made is conservative, however. And yeah, I take into account that nature of the beast, regardless of the disdain that might be rendered upon me like your little personal attack on my bias and lack of factual proof. When I studied human addictions in my college career back in the 80s, I read a lot of JAMAs, and they published the truth to the best of their means. Nowadays, publishing the truth has become an item of lessons learned from being burned for telling the truth, ergo "Why bother."

 

[McRocket]

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

Lemme see, what's more important? 500 people die, or 20 million Americans die because of drug imports caused by a maggot in Central America who gets fat off the sellers of raw drugs.

Five hundred innocent? Twenty million innocent? Five hundred, innocent? Twenty million, innocent?

That's such a hard question for some people who are disingenuous when it comes to mathematics. *sigh*

Oh come on now? 20 million? That is TOTALLY ridiculous.

Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives?
And I want proof, please - not guesstimates/theories...otherwise your statement has no foundation in fact.

Besides, getting him did little or nothing to stop the flow into America...supply and demand. Guaranteed.


And try to remember, if people want to do coke, crack, pot....that is their choice and NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

Booze is FAR more destructive than pot is - for example. Yet the former is legal and the latter still is more-or-less not.

I definitely did not say "getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives." I'm saying that in his long career of profiting from the drug trade 20 million Americans died. I looked up dozens of references before then of actual people who died of overdoses, killings/murders of first responders, killings/murders caused by cocaine/drug users, #s of police, sheriffs, border patrollers, hospital personnel, and other first responders, substance abuse-induced suicides etc., but getting information from the late 60s and early 70s was largely unavailable, likely due to disinterest of current agencies to research that far back. It is well known that in the late 1800s there were popular drugs from both the oriental countries and from central and south America, and before that, hemp smoking of roping materials. Just no stats on the havoc caused by condensed coca leaves into powders; heroin, alcohol poisonings, etc. Old country doctors were just too busy bringing babies into the world and dealing with their community's needs, they likely didn't go after statistics like we occasionally see today. Right now, it seems it's out of vogue to point out to people that alcohol and nicotine cause a huge percentage of deaths as do cocaine, heroin, and other drugs. Today's academia frowns on pursuing infirmities caused by illicit drugs, because it beats up on those who report statistics that show that their favorite high just may cause some serious problems when people become addicted to nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, meth, weed, etc. twenty years ago, nicotine caused 33% of deaths in America. When the surgeon general pushed for and got requirements for cigarettes to carry the warning "this product may be harmful to your health" on it, a lot of people successfully got off the drug. Those who didn't continued to get lung cancer for the most part at the same rate sans counting nonsmokers. It is unpopular to tell the addict to any deleterious substance the consequences of his or her addiction. So a lot of scientific studies are not made because scientists are human beings, and they like anybody else, do not wish to lose friends, sponsors, and job opportunities over substance facts nor to be hated by immature jerks.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but some substances cause birth defects, but doctors do not tell their gynecological patrons that their baby's low birth weight, wide-spread eyes or other deformity is caused by which substance due to the suicide rates that increase in mothers whose habits deformed their baby for life. If you were born to a mother who drank and smoked her brains out while you were forming, and wound up with 5% vision or disfiguring hair lip, would you be bitter toward her when someone explained where your near-blindness or deformity was sourced? If details about preventable deformities were none of the government's business, you could not sue for recompense, because the Judicial branch is in the government's arena. I'm just saying.

All I can say about it is some researchers think paternity abuses may also cause some problems, but because that is harder to prove, they cannot get research funds for finding the answers to what role paternal abuse of drugs, STDs, and the like plays in birth anomalies. It therefore, is blamed on the female participant since her body is the host for the next generation.

DNA studies are harder, because the DNA molecule for human beings has not been totally nor completely accurate in mapping. Scientists like to have a happy ending when they do studies. If the truth is known about a lot of drugs, people who are addicted to a substance are seldom good sports enough to face their demons. It's the nature of the beast. I do think the calculation I made is conservative, however. And yeah, I take into account that nature of the beast, regardless of the disdain that might be rendered upon me like your little personal attack on my bias and lack of factual proof. When I studied human addictions in my college career back in the 80s, I read a lot of JAMAs, and they published the truth to the best of their means. Nowadays, publishing the truth has become an item of lessons learned from being burned for telling the truth, ergo "Why bother."

In other words...no, you have no link.

Just as I thought.


And I do not care what drugs do to people. I don't care what the side effects are. IT IS THEIR LIFE. And sane adults should be able to do ANYTHING THEY WISH in the comfort of their own homes...without it being ANY of the government's business.
And NOTHING you can possibly say could change my mind about that.


Good day.

 

[Wyatt earp]

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

That was Reagan..

Bush bombed Panama in 1989, a year after Reagan left office.

Talking about the drugs



.

 

[beautress]

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

Lemme see, what's more important? 500 people die, or 20 million Americans die because of drug imports caused by a maggot in Central America who gets fat off the sellers of raw drugs.

Five hundred innocent? Twenty million innocent? Five hundred, innocent? Twenty million, innocent?

That's such a hard question for some people who are disingenuous when it comes to mathematics. *sigh*

Oh come on now? 20 million? That is TOTALLY ridiculous.

Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives?
And I want proof, please - not guesstimates/theories...otherwise your statement has no foundation in fact.

Besides, getting him did little or nothing to stop the flow into America...supply and demand. Guaranteed.


And try to remember, if people want to do coke, crack, pot....that is their choice and NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

Booze is FAR more destructive than pot is - for example. Yet the former is legal and the latter still is more-or-less not.

I definitely did not say "getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives." I'm saying that in his long career of profiting from the drug trade 20 million Americans died. I looked up dozens of references before then of actual people who died of overdoses, killings/murders of first responders, killings/murders caused by cocaine/drug users, #s of police, sheriffs, border patrollers, hospital personnel, and other first responders, substance abuse-induced suicides etc., but getting information from the late 60s and early 70s was largely unavailable, likely due to disinterest of current agencies to research that far back. It is well known that in the late 1800s there were popular drugs from both the oriental countries and from central and south America, and before that, hemp smoking of roping materials. Just no stats on the havoc caused by condensed coca leaves into powders; heroin, alcohol poisonings, etc. Old country doctors were just too busy bringing babies into the world and dealing with their community's needs, they likely didn't go after statistics like we occasionally see today. Right now, it seems it's out of vogue to point out to people that alcohol and nicotine cause a huge percentage of deaths as do cocaine, heroin, and other drugs. Today's academia frowns on pursuing infirmities caused by illicit drugs, because it beats up on those who report statistics that show that their favorite high just may cause some serious problems when people become addicted to nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, meth, weed, etc. twenty years ago, nicotine caused 33% of deaths in America. When the surgeon general pushed for and got requirements for cigarettes to carry the warning "this product may be harmful to your health" on it, a lot of people successfully got off the drug. Those who didn't continued to get lung cancer for the most part at the same rate sans counting nonsmokers. It is unpopular to tell the addict to any deleterious substance the consequences of his or her addiction. So a lot of scientific studies are not made because scientists are human beings, and they like anybody else, do not wish to lose friends, sponsors, and job opportunities over substance facts nor to be hated by immature jerks.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but some substances cause birth defects, but doctors do not tell their gynecological patrons that their baby's low birth weight, wide-spread eyes or other deformity is caused by which substance due to the suicide rates that increase in mothers whose habits deformed their baby for life. If you were born to a mother who drank and smoked her brains out while you were forming, and wound up with 5% vision or disfiguring hair lip, would you be bitter toward her when someone explained where your near-blindness or deformity was sourced? If details about preventable deformities were none of the government's business, you could not sue for recompense, because the Judicial branch is in the government's arena. I'm just saying.

All I can say about it is some researchers think paternity abuses may also cause some problems, but because that is harder to prove, they cannot get research funds for finding the answers to what role paternal abuse of drugs, STDs, and the like plays in birth anomalies. It therefore, is blamed on the female participant since her body is the host for the next generation.

DNA studies are harder, because the DNA molecule for human beings has not been totally nor completely accurate in mapping. Scientists like to have a happy ending when they do studies. If the truth is known about a lot of drugs, people who are addicted to a substance are seldom good sports enough to face their demons. It's the nature of the beast. I do think the calculation I made is conservative, however. And yeah, I take into account that nature of the beast, regardless of the disdain that might be rendered upon me like your little personal attack on my bias and lack of factual proof. When I studied human addictions in my college career back in the 80s, I read a lot of JAMAs, and they published the truth to the best of their means. Nowadays, publishing the truth has become an item of lessons learned from being burned for telling the truth, ergo "Why bother."

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

Lemme see, what's more important? 500 people die, or 20 million Americans die because of drug imports caused by a maggot in Central America who gets fat off the sellers of raw drugs.

Five hundred innocent? Twenty million innocent? Five hundred, innocent? Twenty million, innocent?

That's such a hard question for some people who are disingenuous when it comes to mathematics. *sigh*

Oh come on now? 20 million? That is TOTALLY ridiculous.

Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives?
And I want proof, please - not guesstimates/theories...otherwise your statement has no foundation in fact.

Besides, getting him did little or nothing to stop the flow into America...supply and demand. Guaranteed.


And try to remember, if people want to do coke, crack, pot....that is their choice and NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

Booze is FAR more destructive than pot is - for example. Yet the former is legal and the latter still is more-or-less not.

I definitely did not say "getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives." I'm saying that in his long career of profiting from the drug trade 20 million Americans died. I looked up dozens of references before then of actual people who died of overdoses, killings/murders of first responders, killings/murders caused by cocaine/drug users, #s of police, sheriffs, border patrollers, hospital personnel, and other first responders, substance abuse-induced suicides etc., but getting information from the late 60s and early 70s was largely unavailable, likely due to disinterest of current agencies to research that far back. It is well known that in the late 1800s there were popular drugs from both the oriental countries and from central and south America, and before that, hemp smoking of roping materials. Just no stats on the havoc caused by condensed coca leaves into powders; heroin, alcohol poisonings, etc. Old country doctors were just too busy bringing babies into the world and dealing with their community's needs, they likely didn't go after statistics like we occasionally see today. Right now, it seems it's out of vogue to point out to people that alcohol and nicotine cause a huge percentage of deaths as do cocaine, heroin, and other drugs. Today's academia frowns on pursuing infirmities caused by illicit drugs, because it beats up on those who report statistics that show that their favorite high just may cause some serious problems when people become addicted to nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, meth, weed, etc. twenty years ago, nicotine caused 33% of deaths in America. When the surgeon general pushed for and got requirements for cigarettes to carry the warning "this product may be harmful to your health" on it, a lot of people successfully got off the drug. Those who didn't continued to get lung cancer for the most part at the same rate sans counting nonsmokers. It is unpopular to tell the addict to any deleterious substance the consequences of his or her addiction. So a lot of scientific studies are not made because scientists are human beings, and they like anybody else, do not wish to lose friends, sponsors, and job opportunities over substance facts nor to be hated by immature jerks.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but some substances cause birth defects, but doctors do not tell their gynecological patrons that their baby's low birth weight, wide-spread eyes or other deformity is caused by which substance due to the suicide rates that increase in mothers whose habits deformed their baby for life. If you were born to a mother who drank and smoked her brains out while you were forming, and wound up with 5% vision or disfiguring hair lip, would you be bitter toward her when someone explained where your near-blindness or deformity was sourced? If details about preventable deformities were none of the government's business, you could not sue for recompense, because the Judicial branch is in the government's arena. I'm just saying.

All I can say about it is some researchers think paternity abuses may also cause some problems, but because that is harder to prove, they cannot get research funds for finding the answers to what role paternal abuse of drugs, STDs, and the like plays in birth anomalies. It therefore, is blamed on the female participant since her body is the host for the next generation.

DNA studies are harder, because the DNA molecule for human beings has not been totally nor completely accurate in mapping. Scientists like to have a happy ending when they do studies. If the truth is known about a lot of drugs, people who are addicted to a substance are seldom good sports enough to face their demons. It's the nature of the beast. I do think the calculation I made is conservative, however. And yeah, I take into account that nature of the beast, regardless of the disdain that might be rendered upon me like your little personal attack on my bias and lack of factual proof. When I studied human addictions in my college career back in the 80s, I read a lot of JAMAs, and they published the truth to the best of their means. Nowadays, publishing the truth has become an item of lessons learned from being burned for telling the truth, ergo "Why bother."

In other words...no, you have no link.

Just as I thought.


And I do not care what drugs do to people. I don't care what the side effects are. IT IS THEIR LIFE. And sane adults should be able to do ANYTHING THEY WISH in the comfort of their own homes...without it being ANY of the government's business.
And NOTHING you can possibly say could change my mind about that.


Good day.

You took advantage of not addressing what I said. You throw dirt at what you don't understand in the direction of someone who has closely examined human drug addictions of all types and who wrote volumes of papers in college years of examining and assessing scientific studies on addiction. Thanks to that kind of dismissal, children will be born with hair lips, visual handicaps, blindness, minus organs and body parts, etc. At least with thalidomide, its deformities were so egregious people noticed and it got withdrawn from use. People do not notice when a person is born with a propensity to addiction, or actual addiction, because it cannot be seen, but the child who suffers it can be BLAMED FOR BEING A VERY OBNOXIOUSLY FUSSY BABY.

 

[McRocket]

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

Lemme see, what's more important? 500 people die, or 20 million Americans die because of drug imports caused by a maggot in Central America who gets fat off the sellers of raw drugs.

Five hundred innocent? Twenty million innocent? Five hundred, innocent? Twenty million, innocent?

That's such a hard question for some people who are disingenuous when it comes to mathematics. *sigh*

Oh come on now? 20 million? That is TOTALLY ridiculous.

Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives?
And I want proof, please - not guesstimates/theories...otherwise your statement has no foundation in fact.

Besides, getting him did little or nothing to stop the flow into America...supply and demand. Guaranteed.


And try to remember, if people want to do coke, crack, pot....that is their choice and NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

Booze is FAR more destructive than pot is - for example. Yet the former is legal and the latter still is more-or-less not.

I definitely did not say "getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives." I'm saying that in his long career of profiting from the drug trade 20 million Americans died. I looked up dozens of references before then of actual people who died of overdoses, killings/murders of first responders, killings/murders caused by cocaine/drug users, #s of police, sheriffs, border patrollers, hospital personnel, and other first responders, substance abuse-induced suicides etc., but getting information from the late 60s and early 70s was largely unavailable, likely due to disinterest of current agencies to research that far back. It is well known that in the late 1800s there were popular drugs from both the oriental countries and from central and south America, and before that, hemp smoking of roping materials. Just no stats on the havoc caused by condensed coca leaves into powders; heroin, alcohol poisonings, etc. Old country doctors were just too busy bringing babies into the world and dealing with their community's needs, they likely didn't go after statistics like we occasionally see today. Right now, it seems it's out of vogue to point out to people that alcohol and nicotine cause a huge percentage of deaths as do cocaine, heroin, and other drugs. Today's academia frowns on pursuing infirmities caused by illicit drugs, because it beats up on those who report statistics that show that their favorite high just may cause some serious problems when people become addicted to nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, meth, weed, etc. twenty years ago, nicotine caused 33% of deaths in America. When the surgeon general pushed for and got requirements for cigarettes to carry the warning "this product may be harmful to your health" on it, a lot of people successfully got off the drug. Those who didn't continued to get lung cancer for the most part at the same rate sans counting nonsmokers. It is unpopular to tell the addict to any deleterious substance the consequences of his or her addiction. So a lot of scientific studies are not made because scientists are human beings, and they like anybody else, do not wish to lose friends, sponsors, and job opportunities over substance facts nor to be hated by immature jerks.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but some substances cause birth defects, but doctors do not tell their gynecological patrons that their baby's low birth weight, wide-spread eyes or other deformity is caused by which substance due to the suicide rates that increase in mothers whose habits deformed their baby for life. If you were born to a mother who drank and smoked her brains out while you were forming, and wound up with 5% vision or disfiguring hair lip, would you be bitter toward her when someone explained where your near-blindness or deformity was sourced? If details about preventable deformities were none of the government's business, you could not sue for recompense, because the Judicial branch is in the government's arena. I'm just saying.

All I can say about it is some researchers think paternity abuses may also cause some problems, but because that is harder to prove, they cannot get research funds for finding the answers to what role paternal abuse of drugs, STDs, and the like plays in birth anomalies. It therefore, is blamed on the female participant since her body is the host for the next generation.

DNA studies are harder, because the DNA molecule for human beings has not been totally nor completely accurate in mapping. Scientists like to have a happy ending when they do studies. If the truth is known about a lot of drugs, people who are addicted to a substance are seldom good sports enough to face their demons. It's the nature of the beast. I do think the calculation I made is conservative, however. And yeah, I take into account that nature of the beast, regardless of the disdain that might be rendered upon me like your little personal attack on my bias and lack of factual proof. When I studied human addictions in my college career back in the 80s, I read a lot of JAMAs, and they published the truth to the best of their means. Nowadays, publishing the truth has become an item of lessons learned from being burned for telling the truth, ergo "Why bother."

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

Lemme see, what's more important? 500 people die, or 20 million Americans die because of drug imports caused by a maggot in Central America who gets fat off the sellers of raw drugs.

Five hundred innocent? Twenty million innocent? Five hundred, innocent? Twenty million, innocent?

That's such a hard question for some people who are disingenuous when it comes to mathematics. *sigh*

Oh come on now? 20 million? That is TOTALLY ridiculous.

Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives?
And I want proof, please - not guesstimates/theories...otherwise your statement has no foundation in fact.

Besides, getting him did little or nothing to stop the flow into America...supply and demand. Guaranteed.


And try to remember, if people want to do coke, crack, pot....that is their choice and NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

Booze is FAR more destructive than pot is - for example. Yet the former is legal and the latter still is more-or-less not.

I definitely did not say "getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives." I'm saying that in his long career of profiting from the drug trade 20 million Americans died. I looked up dozens of references before then of actual people who died of overdoses, killings/murders of first responders, killings/murders caused by cocaine/drug users, #s of police, sheriffs, border patrollers, hospital personnel, and other first responders, substance abuse-induced suicides etc., but getting information from the late 60s and early 70s was largely unavailable, likely due to disinterest of current agencies to research that far back. It is well known that in the late 1800s there were popular drugs from both the oriental countries and from central and south America, and before that, hemp smoking of roping materials. Just no stats on the havoc caused by condensed coca leaves into powders; heroin, alcohol poisonings, etc. Old country doctors were just too busy bringing babies into the world and dealing with their community's needs, they likely didn't go after statistics like we occasionally see today. Right now, it seems it's out of vogue to point out to people that alcohol and nicotine cause a huge percentage of deaths as do cocaine, heroin, and other drugs. Today's academia frowns on pursuing infirmities caused by illicit drugs, because it beats up on those who report statistics that show that their favorite high just may cause some serious problems when people become addicted to nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, meth, weed, etc. twenty years ago, nicotine caused 33% of deaths in America. When the surgeon general pushed for and got requirements for cigarettes to carry the warning "this product may be harmful to your health" on it, a lot of people successfully got off the drug. Those who didn't continued to get lung cancer for the most part at the same rate sans counting nonsmokers. It is unpopular to tell the addict to any deleterious substance the consequences of his or her addiction. So a lot of scientific studies are not made because scientists are human beings, and they like anybody else, do not wish to lose friends, sponsors, and job opportunities over substance facts nor to be hated by immature jerks.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but some substances cause birth defects, but doctors do not tell their gynecological patrons that their baby's low birth weight, wide-spread eyes or other deformity is caused by which substance due to the suicide rates that increase in mothers whose habits deformed their baby for life. If you were born to a mother who drank and smoked her brains out while you were forming, and wound up with 5% vision or disfiguring hair lip, would you be bitter toward her when someone explained where your near-blindness or deformity was sourced? If details about preventable deformities were none of the government's business, you could not sue for recompense, because the Judicial branch is in the government's arena. I'm just saying.

All I can say about it is some researchers think paternity abuses may also cause some problems, but because that is harder to prove, they cannot get research funds for finding the answers to what role paternal abuse of drugs, STDs, and the like plays in birth anomalies. It therefore, is blamed on the female participant since her body is the host for the next generation.

DNA studies are harder, because the DNA molecule for human beings has not been totally nor completely accurate in mapping. Scientists like to have a happy ending when they do studies. If the truth is known about a lot of drugs, people who are addicted to a substance are seldom good sports enough to face their demons. It's the nature of the beast. I do think the calculation I made is conservative, however. And yeah, I take into account that nature of the beast, regardless of the disdain that might be rendered upon me like your little personal attack on my bias and lack of factual proof. When I studied human addictions in my college career back in the 80s, I read a lot of JAMAs, and they published the truth to the best of their means. Nowadays, publishing the truth has become an item of lessons learned from being burned for telling the truth, ergo "Why bother."

In other words...no, you have no link.

Just as I thought.


And I do not care what drugs do to people. I don't care what the side effects are. IT IS THEIR LIFE. And sane adults should be able to do ANYTHING THEY WISH in the comfort of their own homes...without it being ANY of the government's business.
And NOTHING you can possibly say could change my mind about that.


Good day.

You took advantage of not addressing what I said. You throw dirt at what you don't understand in the direction of someone who has closely examined human drug addictions of all types and who wrote volumes of papers in college years of examining and assessing scientific studies on addiction. Thanks to that kind of dismissal, children will be born with hair lips, visual handicaps, blindness, minus organs and body parts, etc. At least with thalidomide, its deformities were so egregious people noticed and it got withdrawn from use. People do not notice when a person is born with a propensity to addiction, or actual addiction, because it cannot be seen, but the child who suffers it can be BLAMED FOR BEING A VERY OBNOXIOUSLY FUSSY BABY.

This is simple...you believe that the government has the right to regulate what consenting, sane adults do.

I do not.

All drugs should be legal for sane adults. Suicide should be legal for sane adults. Just about EVERYTHING should be legal for and between sane, consenting adults.

Period.


Further discussion is clearly pointless.

We are done here.

Good day.

 

[beautress]

This disgusting monster should have gone to prison for war crimes. People forget how he bombed Panama and killed at least 500 innocent civilians. How does he slide on this? Then he had their leader kidnapped and put in jail for life. All because of his stupid war on drugs (which he lost).

'May His Many Victims Across the Globe Rest in Peace': George H.W. Bush Dead at 94

I also remember how he entrapped some poor Joe Shmo across the street from the White House and showed a bag of confiscated cocaine on national television. Why didn't he arrest his son as well? Jr. was a well known cokehead.

The way the media is fawning over this homicidal creep disgusts me.

Lemme see, what's more important? 500 people die, or 20 million Americans die because of drug imports caused by a maggot in Central America who gets fat off the sellers of raw drugs.

Five hundred innocent? Twenty million innocent? Five hundred, innocent? Twenty million, innocent?

That's such a hard question for some people who are disingenuous when it comes to mathematics. *sigh*

Oh come on now? 20 million? That is TOTALLY ridiculous.

Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives?
And I want proof, please - not guesstimates/theories...otherwise your statement has no foundation in fact.

Besides, getting him did little or nothing to stop the flow into America...supply and demand. Guaranteed.


And try to remember, if people want to do coke, crack, pot....that is their choice and NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

Booze is FAR more destructive than pot is - for example. Yet the former is legal and the latter still is more-or-less not.

I definitely did not say "getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives." I'm saying that in his long career of profiting from the drug trade 20 million Americans died. I looked up dozens of references before then of actual people who died of overdoses, killings/murders of first responders, killings/murders caused by cocaine/drug users, #s of police, sheriffs, border patrollers, hospital personnel, and other first responders, substance abuse-induced suicides etc., but getting information from the late 60s and early 70s was largely unavailable, likely due to disinterest of current agencies to research that far back. It is well known that in the late 1800s there were popular drugs from both the oriental countries and from central and south America, and before that, hemp smoking of roping materials. Just no stats on the havoc caused by condensed coca leaves into powders; heroin, alcohol poisonings, etc. Old country doctors were just too busy bringing babies into the world and dealing with their community's needs, they likely didn't go after statistics like we occasionally see today. Right now, it seems it's out of vogue to point out to people that alcohol and nicotine cause a huge percentage of deaths as do cocaine, heroin, and other drugs. Today's academia frowns on pursuing infirmities caused by illicit drugs, because it beats up on those who report statistics that show that their favorite high just may cause some serious problems when people become addicted to nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, meth, weed, etc. twenty years ago, nicotine caused 33% of deaths in America. When the surgeon general pushed for and got requirements for cigarettes to carry the warning "this product may be harmful to your health" on it, a lot of people successfully got off the drug. Those who didn't continued to get lung cancer for the most part at the same rate sans counting nonsmokers. It is unpopular to tell the addict to any deleterious substance the consequences of his or her addiction. So a lot of scientific studies are not made because scientists are human beings, and they like anybody else, do not wish to lose friends, sponsors, and job opportunities over substance facts nor to be hated by immature jerks.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but some substances cause birth defects, but doctors do not tell their gynecological patrons that their baby's low birth weight, wide-spread eyes or other deformity is caused by which substance due to the suicide rates that increase in mothers whose habits deformed their baby for life. If you were born to a mother who drank and smoked her brains out while you were forming, and wound up with 5% vision or disfiguring hair lip, would you be bitter toward her when someone explained where your near-blindness or deformity was sourced? If details about preventable deformities were none of the government's business, you could not sue for recompense, because the Judicial branch is in the government's arena. I'm just saying.

All I can say about it is some researchers think paternity abuses may also cause some problems, but because that is harder to prove, they cannot get research funds for finding the answers to what role paternal abuse of drugs, STDs, and the like plays in birth anomalies. It therefore, is blamed on the female participant since her body is the host for the next generation.

DNA studies are harder, because the DNA molecule for human beings has not been totally nor completely accurate in mapping. Scientists like to have a happy ending when they do studies. If the truth is known about a lot of drugs, people who are addicted to a substance are seldom good sports enough to face their demons. It's the nature of the beast. I do think the calculation I made is conservative, however. And yeah, I take into account that nature of the beast, regardless of the disdain that might be rendered upon me like your little personal attack on my bias and lack of factual proof. When I studied human addictions in my college career back in the 80s, I read a lot of JAMAs, and they published the truth to the best of their means. Nowadays, publishing the truth has become an item of lessons learned from being burned for telling the truth, ergo "Why bother."

Lemme see, what's more important? 500 people die, or 20 million Americans die because of drug imports caused by a maggot in Central America who gets fat off the sellers of raw drugs.

Five hundred innocent? Twenty million innocent? Five hundred, innocent? Twenty million, innocent?

That's such a hard question for some people who are disingenuous when it comes to mathematics. *sigh*

Oh come on now? 20 million? That is TOTALLY ridiculous.

Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives?
And I want proof, please - not guesstimates/theories...otherwise your statement has no foundation in fact.

Besides, getting him did little or nothing to stop the flow into America...supply and demand. Guaranteed.


And try to remember, if people want to do coke, crack, pot....that is their choice and NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

Booze is FAR more destructive than pot is - for example. Yet the former is legal and the latter still is more-or-less not.

I definitely did not say "getting Noriega saved 20 million American lives." I'm saying that in his long career of profiting from the drug trade 20 million Americans died. I looked up dozens of references before then of actual people who died of overdoses, killings/murders of first responders, killings/murders caused by cocaine/drug users, #s of police, sheriffs, border patrollers, hospital personnel, and other first responders, substance abuse-induced suicides etc., but getting information from the late 60s and early 70s was largely unavailable, likely due to disinterest of current agencies to research that far back. It is well known that in the late 1800s there were popular drugs from both the oriental countries and from central and south America, and before that, hemp smoking of roping materials. Just no stats on the havoc caused by condensed coca leaves into powders; heroin, alcohol poisonings, etc. Old country doctors were just too busy bringing babies into the world and dealing with their community's needs, they likely didn't go after statistics like we occasionally see today. Right now, it seems it's out of vogue to point out to people that alcohol and nicotine cause a huge percentage of deaths as do cocaine, heroin, and other drugs. Today's academia frowns on pursuing infirmities caused by illicit drugs, because it beats up on those who report statistics that show that their favorite high just may cause some serious problems when people become addicted to nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, meth, weed, etc. twenty years ago, nicotine caused 33% of deaths in America. When the surgeon general pushed for and got requirements for cigarettes to carry the warning "this product may be harmful to your health" on it, a lot of people successfully got off the drug. Those who didn't continued to get lung cancer for the most part at the same rate sans counting nonsmokers. It is unpopular to tell the addict to any deleterious substance the consequences of his or her addiction. So a lot of scientific studies are not made because scientists are human beings, and they like anybody else, do not wish to lose friends, sponsors, and job opportunities over substance facts nor to be hated by immature jerks.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but some substances cause birth defects, but doctors do not tell their gynecological patrons that their baby's low birth weight, wide-spread eyes or other deformity is caused by which substance due to the suicide rates that increase in mothers whose habits deformed their baby for life. If you were born to a mother who drank and smoked her brains out while you were forming, and wound up with 5% vision or disfiguring hair lip, would you be bitter toward her when someone explained where your near-blindness or deformity was sourced? If details about preventable deformities were none of the government's business, you could not sue for recompense, because the Judicial branch is in the government's arena. I'm just saying.

All I can say about it is some researchers think paternity abuses may also cause some problems, but because that is harder to prove, they cannot get research funds for finding the answers to what role paternal abuse of drugs, STDs, and the like plays in birth anomalies. It therefore, is blamed on the female participant since her body is the host for the next generation.

DNA studies are harder, because the DNA molecule for human beings has not been totally nor completely accurate in mapping. Scientists like to have a happy ending when they do studies. If the truth is known about a lot of drugs, people who are addicted to a substance are seldom good sports enough to face their demons. It's the nature of the beast. I do think the calculation I made is conservative, however. And yeah, I take into account that nature of the beast, regardless of the disdain that might be rendered upon me like your little personal attack on my bias and lack of factual proof. When I studied human addictions in my college career back in the 80s, I read a lot of JAMAs, and they published the truth to the best of their means. Nowadays, publishing the truth has become an item of lessons learned from being burned for telling the truth, ergo "Why bother."

In other words...no, you have no link.

Just as I thought.


And I do not care what drugs do to people. I don't care what the side effects are. IT IS THEIR LIFE. And sane adults should be able to do ANYTHING THEY WISH in the comfort of their own homes...without it being ANY of the government's business.
And NOTHING you can possibly say could change my mind about that.


Good day.

You took advantage of not addressing what I said. You throw dirt at what you don't understand in the direction of someone who has closely examined human drug addictions of all types and who wrote volumes of papers in college years of examining and assessing scientific studies on addiction. Thanks to that kind of dismissal, children will be born with hair lips, visual handicaps, blindness, minus organs and body parts, etc. At least with thalidomide, its deformities were so egregious people noticed and it got withdrawn from use. People do not notice when a person is born with a propensity to addiction, or actual addiction, because it cannot be seen, but the child who suffers it can be BLAMED FOR BEING A VERY OBNOXIOUSLY FUSSY BABY.

This is simple...you believe that the government has the right to regulate what consenting, sane adults do.

I do not.

All drugs should be legal for sane adults. Suicide should be legal for sane adults. Just about EVERYTHING should be legal for and between sane, consenting adults.

Period.


Further discussion is clearly pointless.

We are done here.

Good day.

You may be done here, but I did my homework. There is an entire body of evidence that if you do not stop some creep who markets a diet product that amounts to a piece of a tapeworm encapsulated into a sugar coating for public consumption, which results in that person getting tapeworm issues for life, he will keep on selling that disgusting item for profiting from someone's gullibility. Health crimes are not always noticeable, as in the case of Carter's Little Liver Pills:

Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the pills were advertised by Carter’s Products of New York. The pills were marketed in newspapers and on cards as a potential cure-all. Carter’s claimed the pills would ease a variety of ailments, including headaches, digestive issues, and so-called torpid liver. They were very common in American households and could also be found internationally.

Carter’s Little Liver Pills were billed as a medicine aiding bile flow in the liver. However, nearly a century later, they were proven to have nothing to do with the liver at all. Beginning in 1943, the Federal Trade Commission fought for a name change. By 1959, the case was settled and the product became Carter’s Little Pills, completely removing any reference to the liver.
Source: The History of Carter’s Little Pills
​

I am a little to the right of most conservatives, but I am also a consumer advocate who has studied frauds instituted against consumers that are now illegal as well as frauds instigated against people's health, as in the Carter's Little Liver Pills fraud, which was a for profit venture based on a huge lie.

Some things go against the limits, and exposing a child to illness and deformity prior to his birth is just plain wrong.

How would you like to pay more taxes so more people can have babies with AIDS? Are you okay with that? Well, if you are okay with that, there are a lot of unscrupulous people out there who'd like to cash in on your minding your own business. And some of us consumer advocates are trained to keep a keen eye on blatant consumer offenses wherever it may be found, because we think taxes are high enough without piling someone's road-to-riches-at-public-expense on top of it. Capiche?