Liberals need to change their language

[KNB]

But the one thing you don't seem to have a grasp on is if hemp were such a great raw material other countries would grow it, process it and export the products to the US. Like I said you will likely understand by the time you get our of Jr. High school.

Other countries are growing it. Russians are growing it at Chernobyl to clean radioactive pollution from the soil. England is growing it and making cars out of it. Look up the 2010 Lotus Eco Elise. Germany is growing it and doing well. But the country that is doing the best is China. China grows $500 million worth of hemp products which are imported to the US. $500m a year. $500m leaving our economy and going to China for the same plant fibers that our DEA spends $20 BILLION a year to cut down and burn. We can keep that money in our economy without putting more people in prison, costing the taxpayers even more, if we legalize it and charge an appropriate tax, just like we did to win World War II.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf

Hemp and Marijuana are Cannabis Sativa Linneus. 99% of the "Marijuana" destroyed by the US Federal government each year is wild hemp. Industrial hemp is the real target of Marijuana prohibition. Marijuana the drug is not dangerous because it has not killed anyone, ever. Not one overdose, ever. The science is in. It was in a long time ago. Nixon appointed the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse in 1972 to determine just how dangerous Marijuana is. The report of the Shafer Commission concluded that Marijuana is not dangerous and that Marijuana should be legalized, and the War on Drugs has escalated every year since.

Americans who grew marijuana in 1942 were called patriots. Now we're called criminals. Go fuck yourselves, GOP.

WOW, 500 million is a 15 trillion economy, yep that could save us, NOT. Tell me, who is lining up to process the plants being raised for commercial sale in CO and WA, once the buds and leaves are harvested there is a lot of waste.

You really should read that US Federal government report in the link that I posted.

You didn't count the $20 billion each year that the US spends on marijuana prohibition, plus the billions more on incarcerations, legal proceedings, prison and jail maintenance, plus the billions upon billions more for over-inflated medical bills caused by toxic pills with terrible side effects because a natural remedy from Cannabis is unavailable. Plus the TRILLIONS spent on war for fossil fuels and the TRILLIONS more spent on constantly upgrading the world's most advanced military to "stay one step ahead" of the black market terrorist groups and drug cartels that wouldn't make those black market profits if the drugs were legal and taxed.

So, yes, marijuana prohibition is keeping TRILLIONS of dollars going up the 1% every single year instead of that money circulating among society.

 

[occupied]

This isn't about Republicans or Democrats. It's about the 1%. Who do you think is keeping weed illegal? Industrial hemp is a massive threat to the consolidation of wealth because the supply cannot be controlled and it can be used for almost everything, from fuel to food to plastic to a possible cure for cancer. All without corporate control. Anyone can grow pot. The legalization and mass production of Cannabis Sativa will rearrange the global market, changing the way that the entire world does business by making every country on Earth more self-sufficient without international corporate control. We have the technology and we have the Natural right, but we don't have the legal right because of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. At our Occupy rallies, I was planting seeds in our city's public planter boxes. I still do. Everyone should. Hemp For Victory proves that growing marijuana can support our troops in war, and we're at war.

Liberals need to change their language. We need to tell Monsanto and the DEA to go fuck themselves. You want victory in the class war? Hemp For Victory.

I heard Phillip Morris is poised to be the Pot dealer to America, probably with a host of other corporate entities just itching to tap this market. Do not fool yourself into thinking that it will remain a cottage industry, there is just too much money to be made and there is a bunch of venture capital on a hair trigger to own that market. Who else could actually grow enough to keep us supplied?

 

[KNB]

This isn't about Republicans or Democrats. It's about the 1%. Who do you think is keeping weed illegal? Industrial hemp is a massive threat to the consolidation of wealth because the supply cannot be controlled and it can be used for almost everything, from fuel to food to plastic to a possible cure for cancer. All without corporate control. Anyone can grow pot. The legalization and mass production of Cannabis Sativa will rearrange the global market, changing the way that the entire world does business by making every country on Earth more self-sufficient without international corporate control. We have the technology and we have the Natural right, but we don't have the legal right because of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. At our Occupy rallies, I was planting seeds in our city's public planter boxes. I still do. Everyone should. Hemp For Victory proves that growing marijuana can support our troops in war, and we're at war.

Liberals need to change their language. We need to tell Monsanto and the DEA to go fuck themselves. You want victory in the class war? Hemp For Victory.

I heard Phillip Morris is poised to be the Pot dealer to America, probably with a host of other corporate entities just itching to tap this market. Do not fool yourself into thinking that it will remain a cottage industry, there is just too much money to be made and there is a bunch of venture capital on a hair trigger to own that market. Who else could actually grow enough to keep us supplied?

Who grew enough to keep us supplied during World War II? We did. Whoever paid a tax of $5 was legally allowed to be a Producer of Marihuana. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $80 today. And then we will have an annually-renewable natural resource creating a multibillion-dollar industry providing thousands of jobs in every state, completely without corporate control. Monsanto can't patent marijuana. We grow more marijuana than ever before and Monsanto doesn't own a single seed. This is why industrial hemp was outlawed as marijuana. Production cannot be controlled by the 1%.

According to the film, from 1942 to 1943, American Cannabis production increased by "several thousand percent". That's in the first year of legalization and with the government's encouragement. We can do even better with the agricultural technology that we have today.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Change their language?

Why, so we have to spend two or three years removing the brainwashing of the NEW terms, since we have been very successful in the last year at undoing the current brainwashing?


And no matter how much you change the language, the majority of Americans will always believe Edward Snowden is a hero, regardless of party. So that should give you a hint what most Americans believe at heart, and how you sickos take advantage of their innocence and "political ignorance" and make them believe that your agenda is align with their common and normal desires.

 

[occupied]

This isn't about Republicans or Democrats. It's about the 1%. Who do you think is keeping weed illegal? Industrial hemp is a massive threat to the consolidation of wealth because the supply cannot be controlled and it can be used for almost everything, from fuel to food to plastic to a possible cure for cancer. All without corporate control. Anyone can grow pot. The legalization and mass production of Cannabis Sativa will rearrange the global market, changing the way that the entire world does business by making every country on Earth more self-sufficient without international corporate control. We have the technology and we have the Natural right, but we don't have the legal right because of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. At our Occupy rallies, I was planting seeds in our city's public planter boxes. I still do. Everyone should. Hemp For Victory proves that growing marijuana can support our troops in war, and we're at war.

Liberals need to change their language. We need to tell Monsanto and the DEA to go fuck themselves. You want victory in the class war? Hemp For Victory.

I heard Phillip Morris is poised to be the Pot dealer to America, probably with a host of other corporate entities just itching to tap this market. Do not fool yourself into thinking that it will remain a cottage industry, there is just too much money to be made and there is a bunch of venture capital on a hair trigger to own that market. Who else could actually grow enough to keep us supplied?

Who grew enough to keep us supplied during World War II? We did. Whoever paid a tax of $5 was legally allowed to be a Producer of Marihuana. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $80 today. And then we will have an annually-renewable natural resource creating a multibillion-dollar industry providing thousands of jobs in every state, completely without corporate control. Monsanto can't patent marijuana. We grow more marijuana than ever before and Monsanto doesn't own a single seed. This is why industrial hemp was outlawed as marijuana. Production cannot be controlled by the 1%.

According to the film, from 1942 to 1943, American Cannabis production increased by "several thousand percent". That's in the first year of legalization and with the government's encouragement. We can do even better with the agricultural technology that we have today.

It's just not going to be that way, I'm sorry to say. Who owns our ag. infrastructure? Who already has a world-wide distribution network in place? Most importantly, who now has the ability to promote their products in all media? The pot/hemp industry will be a big business enterprise just like anything else that is lucrative these days. Please don't get me wrong here, I fully support legalization, I just know how big business works to kill off the competition.

 

[rdean]

Every time I hear the phrases 'income inequality' or 'wealth redistribution' it makes me cringe.

These phrases play right into the hands of conservatives. They imply the worst communist economic reforms.

'Income inequality' implies that everyone's income should be equal. That's pure nonsense. No one in their right mind believes that everyone's income should be equal. The problem is not 'income inequality', the problem is 'EXCESSIVE income inequality'.

The inequality in incomes has become too drastic. It's getting to the point that the standard of living for working people is degenerating and the economy as a whole is being destroyed.
Some sort of government action to close the income gap a little, may be appropriate, but by no means should there be 'income equality'.

The same holds true for the phrase 'wealth redistribution'. This implies the government seizing people's asset and redistributing them, in a way that's a lot more drastic than increased taxation. Nobody wants that.This phrase also plays right into the hands of conservatives.

The solution should not be 'wealth redistribution', it should be 'FAIR wealth distribution' going forward. People getting paid on par with the value of their work.

These sort of rhetorical errors allow the conservatives to control the dialogue on these issues. They willingly misinterpret these phrases in the most drastic and negative way possible, build their straw men, then attack it.

Liberals need to make it clear that we by no means promote 'income equality' or 'wealth redistribution'. Make it clear that we want to end 'EXCESSIVE income inequality' and promote 'FAIR wealth distribution'.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that Republicans truly believe what's best for the nation is to concentrate the wealth of the nation into the hands of the top 1%. The wealth has already been "redistributed" with the Bush Tax Cuts and all the no bid contracts after disasters like Katrina and the money making war of choice in Iraq.

 

[candycorn]

Every time I hear the phrases 'income inequality' or 'wealth redistribution' it makes me cringe.

These phrases play right into the hands of conservatives. They imply the worst communist economic reforms.

'Income inequality' implies that everyone's income should be equal. That's pure nonsense. No one in their right mind believes that everyone's income should be equal. The problem is not 'income inequality', the problem is 'EXCESSIVE income inequality'.

The inequality in incomes has become too drastic. It's getting to the point that the standard of living for working people is degenerating and the economy as a whole is being destroyed.
Some sort of government action to close the income gap a little, may be appropriate, but by no means should there be 'income equality'.

The same holds true for the phrase 'wealth redistribution'. This implies the government seizing people's asset and redistributing them, in a way that's a lot more drastic than increased taxation. Nobody wants that.This phrase also plays right into the hands of conservatives.

The solution should not be 'wealth redistribution', it should be 'FAIR wealth distribution' going forward. People getting paid on par with the value of their work.

These sort of rhetorical errors allow the conservatives to control the dialogue on these issues. They willingly misinterpret these phrases in the most drastic and negative way possible, build their straw men, then attack it.

Liberals need to make it clear that we by no means promote 'income equality' or 'wealth redistribution'. Make it clear that we want to end 'EXCESSIVE income inequality' and promote 'FAIR wealth distribution'.

Agreed. Good point.

 

[OKTexas]

Other countries are growing it. Russians are growing it at Chernobyl to clean radioactive pollution from the soil. England is growing it and making cars out of it. Look up the 2010 Lotus Eco Elise. Germany is growing it and doing well. But the country that is doing the best is China. China grows $500 million worth of hemp products which are imported to the US. $500m a year. $500m leaving our economy and going to China for the same plant fibers that our DEA spends $20 BILLION a year to cut down and burn. We can keep that money in our economy without putting more people in prison, costing the taxpayers even more, if we legalize it and charge an appropriate tax, just like we did to win World War II.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf

Hemp and Marijuana are Cannabis Sativa Linneus. 99% of the "Marijuana" destroyed by the US Federal government each year is wild hemp. Industrial hemp is the real target of Marijuana prohibition. Marijuana the drug is not dangerous because it has not killed anyone, ever. Not one overdose, ever. The science is in. It was in a long time ago. Nixon appointed the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse in 1972 to determine just how dangerous Marijuana is. The report of the Shafer Commission concluded that Marijuana is not dangerous and that Marijuana should be legalized, and the War on Drugs has escalated every year since.

Americans who grew marijuana in 1942 were called patriots. Now we're called criminals. Go fuck yourselves, GOP.

WOW, 500 million is a 15 trillion economy, yep that could save us, NOT. Tell me, who is lining up to process the plants being raised for commercial sale in CO and WA, once the buds and leaves are harvested there is a lot of waste.

You really should read that US Federal government report in the link that I posted.

You didn't count the $20 billion each year that the US spends on marijuana prohibition, plus the billions more on incarcerations, legal proceedings, prison and jail maintenance, plus the billions upon billions more for over-inflated medical bills caused by toxic pills with terrible side effects because a natural remedy from Cannabis is unavailable. Plus the TRILLIONS spent on war for fossil fuels and the TRILLIONS more spent on constantly upgrading the world's most advanced military to "stay one step ahead" of the black market terrorist groups and drug cartels that wouldn't make those black market profits if the drugs were legal and taxed.

So, yes, marijuana prohibition is keeping TRILLIONS of dollars going up the 1% every single year instead of that money circulating among society.

From a few hundred billion to now trillions per year going to the one percent. You really need to step away from the bong.

 

[SmedlyButler]

"America is truly inoculated against revolutionary thought. We are probably the most easily distracted mass of humanity in the world, we get mad about things but never mind that shit, look at the 500 channels of glorious corporate propaganda that gets pumped into our homes. A month without TV would have us all erecting a gallows on Wall Street."

Wait until these guys get their wish and net neutrality is completely dismantled. When they have no free and open forums from which to whine and bash. At least we won't have to listen to their torturous logic blaming Obama and the left for that one.

 

[Flopper]

I agree that 'income inequality' sounds terrible. Liberals don't believe that everyone should earn the same amount of money. That's absurd. But 'income inequality' makes it sound like we do. I'm not so sure adding 'excessive' to the phrase is the answer either. I don't really know how to phrase it. I would just like incomes to be more fairly distributed. This requires state action. Reliance on the free market leads to those with power hogging as much of the created wealth for themselves. Higher taxes for the overpaid, and higher minimum wages always work, and liberals should always insist on both going UP.

why should incomes be more fairly distributed? If a person goes to medical school or law school or better yet, is the best in the world at their job, they shouldn't be properly compensated? Even if that means they get top dollar? I just don't get this thinking that says incomes have to be artificially suppressed. It's called creating artificial ceilings which are illegal. Plus, & this is what liberals don't understand, businesses can potentially generate an unlimited amount of money if they are successful enough. There isn't a finite amount that states if person X earns this, it just means there is dollar amount Y for everyone else. We pay top talent top dollar to generate more money. That's capitalism 101. The rest just invites mediocrity.

Of course the doctor who has spent many years preparing for his profession should receive much more compensation than a high school dropout washing cars for a living. Likewise, a business man who has risked his capital and worked to build the business should be compensated. I don't think any one with a grain of intelligence would disagree. However when income ratios between the wealthy and poor reach a 100 or 1000 to 1 or more, taxes, subsidies, and entitlements should be used to lower the ratio but not to extent that it snuffs out the incentive to increase wealth.

 

[OKTexas]

I agree that 'income inequality' sounds terrible. Liberals don't believe that everyone should earn the same amount of money. That's absurd. But 'income inequality' makes it sound like we do. I'm not so sure adding 'excessive' to the phrase is the answer either. I don't really know how to phrase it. I would just like incomes to be more fairly distributed. This requires state action. Reliance on the free market leads to those with power hogging as much of the created wealth for themselves. Higher taxes for the overpaid, and higher minimum wages always work, and liberals should always insist on both going UP.

why should incomes be more fairly distributed? If a person goes to medical school or law school or better yet, is the best in the world at their job, they shouldn't be properly compensated? Even if that means they get top dollar? I just don't get this thinking that says incomes have to be artificially suppressed. It's called creating artificial ceilings which are illegal. Plus, & this is what liberals don't understand, businesses can potentially generate an unlimited amount of money if they are successful enough. There isn't a finite amount that states if person X earns this, it just means there is dollar amount Y for everyone else. We pay top talent top dollar to generate more money. That's capitalism 101. The rest just invites mediocrity.

Of course the doctor who has spent many years preparing for his profession should receive much more compensation than a high school dropout washing cars for a living. Likewise, a business man who has risked his capital and worked to build the business should be compensated. I don't think any one with a grain of intelligence would disagree. However when income ratios between the wealthy and poor reach a 100 or 1000 to 1 or more, taxes, subsidies, and entitlements should be used to lower the ratio but not to extent that it snuffs out the incentive to increase wealth.

Why?

 

[dblack]

Excessive and fair as qualified by whom?

That's the salient question in all of this. Should we be free to judge for ourselves what is excessive and what is fair? Or should government be the 'decider'.

 

[Bfgrn]

The US economy exploded in the 80s under trickle down economics....while today the liberal strategy of stealing from the rich to fund community projects/green projects has failed causing the most people to be out of the workforce since the 1930s.

It is as if you idiots live on another planet and just arrived today.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[dblack]

Excessive and fair as qualified by whom?

History...

"History" can't make judgements and decisions, only people can. And the question remains, who will make the call? Will it be up to each of us to decide for ourselves how to fairly and equitably spend our money? Or will government be in charge of such decisions?

 

[Bfgrn]

Excessive and fair as qualified by whom?

History...

"History" can't make judgements and decisions, only people can. And the question remains, who will make the call? Will it be up to each of us to decide for ourselves how to fairly and equitably spend our money? Or will government be in charge of such decisions?

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

 

[dblack]

History...

"History" can't make judgements and decisions, only people can. And the question remains, who will make the call? Will it be up to each of us to decide for ourselves how to fairly and equitably spend our money? Or will government be in charge of such decisions?

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

Heh.... alrighty then.

 

[dblack]

History...

"History" can't make judgements and decisions, only people can. And the question remains, who will make the call? Will it be up to each of us to decide for ourselves how to fairly and equitably spend our money? Or will government be in charge of such decisions?

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

Are you just posting via a random quote generator?

 

[OKTexas]

Excessive and fair as qualified by whom?

That's the salient question in all of this. Should we be free to judge for ourselves what is excessive and what is fair? Or should government be the 'decider'.

Yep, everyone should want a bureaucrat deciding their value to society, forget this unlimited potential BS.

 

[Bfgrn]

"History" can't make judgements and decisions, only people can. And the question remains, who will make the call? Will it be up to each of us to decide for ourselves how to fairly and equitably spend our money? Or will government be in charge of such decisions?

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

Are you just posting via a random quote generator?

No, I decided this quote was more appropriate.

 

[norwegen]

Change their language?

Why, so we have to spend two or three years removing the brainwashing of the NEW terms, since we have been very successful in the last year at undoing the current brainwashing?


And no matter how much you change the language, the majority of Americans will always believe Edward Snowden is a hero, regardless of party. So that should give you a hint what most Americans believe at heart, and how you sickos take advantage of their innocence and "political ignorance" and make them believe that your agenda is align with their common and normal desires.

Yes, change the language. Because excessive income inequality is not income inequality.



Who knew?