------FORUM GUIDELINES------

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Originally posted by whyamIhere
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

Of all the people on ATS to fight with.

You choose the site owner?

Sheesh....Let me know how that works out for you.

what can i say, I like a challenge

and there is nothing in the T&C's that says "must agree with site owner" so I think i will be ok, nothing wrong with us disagreeing over the need for this forum,

I might disagree with the reasons cited in the OP for having this forum, but at the same time I am sure that it will produce some good threads at some point.

edit on 25-7-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

Yea, but picking a fight just to pick a fight doesn't really do much for anyone.

He acknowledged your points, and obviously read them, but what is he supposed to say? He responded back to you what he thought, only to have you tell him that he took your quotes out of context, and continue arguing about why YOU don't think HE needs another forum on HIS site.

Sorry, it just seems rather petty.


On topic, I'm glad to see ATS devoting a forum to this. Everything from the hot topic of domestic NSA surveillance, to the militarization of the police forces in this country, to the continuing destructive forces of the War on Drugs NEEDS to be discussed. Thanks for giving these issues their proper seat.

reply to post by iwilliam


This kinda thing makes me seething angry!

So stories that are not officially covered under the Posse Comitatus Act are also allowed I take it.

1. Like when my next door neighbors got raided big time and their place ransacked because the overhead chopper's heat detectors went off on an EXTREMELY small (barely larger than an old fashioned outhouse) out-building they had.

They PERMITTED the search.

That poor little shed had ONE light bulb to keep a couple dozen baby chicks warm.

OR

2. Like when I couldn't bathe or potty all night because the black choppers were hovering over my place all night. I had transferred money from checking to savings that was over the $5 grand mark that sets them off on a manhunt for terrorists.

OR

3. On a return trip from Mexico where we were handing out clothing to children ... we got something like 400 or so miles into Texas and were pulled over (at a place that just barely makes it inside the 100 mile border area because of the Gulf of Mexico) to be searched and the county deputy was within a hair of blowing off the head of an elderly female passenger in the front passenger seat because she wouldn't (couldn't) "get out of the van this instant!" She's bedridden and wheelchair bound; so, her wheelchair was in the backseat with me but the deputy would NOT allow me to get out and set up her chair for her. (Rest of long story skipped.)

Like that?

4. Or stories like this: ??? www.techdirt.com... ???

I see the list in the OP ... and it covers stuff not in Posse Comitatus ... so, will the list get longer?

So would this be the forum to talk about issues such as:

1. Pill mills - their intricate workings, how the DEA and the FBI shut them down, pile on the charges and let them plea out with basically a slap on the hand?

and

2. Minimum mandatory laws, how they vary from state to state? For instance what will give a person 3 years in Ohio can give a person in Florida 15 years.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Outstanding! Thanks SL It's nice to see this being done for those of us who like things open and discussed in a organized manner. I know many wil appreciate this.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Daedalus

 

But the "why" of it probably goes too far afield. Why there is a war on drugs in the first place is as irrelevant as the question of why people use them, and just as broad. It could easily have been "why is there a war on terror?", since many of the same tactics and equipment are employed, with fewer pitfalls. Drugs are a touchy subject, and promote emotional responses from both sides of the fence, and the next thing you know there's a brawl going on.

We don't need to dig into why there is drug use any more than we need to dig into why there is terrorism - it's pretty simple, really... because someone wants to. Likewise, the reasons for the war on drugs - OR the war on terror - are probably pretty much the same reasons. Money and control. It has nothing to do with "good or bad" or "right or wrong". We don't have to dig into the issue of why such things are viewed as "bad" by some, and not by others, in order to condemn the tactics used against them. Tactics which get innocents and "noncombatants" drawn into the crossfire in both cases.

On that account, we can probably mostly agree that the tactics are "bad", regardless of the stated taret. The stated targets are really irrelevant when overkill comes into play.

the difference, and the distinction, which is of utmost importance is that we can expose the war on terror as being a sham, by pointing out that we work with "the enemy" in other countries...they must not be so bad if we're working with them, right?...so why is there still a war on terror if the enemy they claim we're fighting isn't our enemy anymore?

with the drug war, we can't talk about why that's a sham, for fear that we'll be banned for advocating use...

being able to discuss the why, and the fallacious nature of the "wars" adds needed context, and underscores the totality of how corrupt the system is....in other words, it looks better, in terms of constructing a coherent argument, when you can show that you're being screwed for no good reason, than to just complain about being screwed...can you see my point now?

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by nenothtu
Why there is a war on drugs in the first place is as irrelevant as the question of why people use them,

Actually I would consider both extremely good questions.

I mean why are we spending billion on suppressing something while substances such as alcohol are freely available and shown to be just a dangerous as some hard drugs?

Precisely as I stated - money and control. The government, like me, could give a rat's ass how someone chooses to wreck their life. Unlike me, however, they covet control. It's not about the substances or the human toll. They don't care.

There is a turf war on between government and cartels, the prize of which is money and control. Neither side gives a toss who they hurt in the process, just as long as they get theirs.

I'm feeling...radioactive.

i really do wish people would read past the opening post...hell, i'd love it if they're read the whole damned thread before replying with "oh thank you conspiracy jesus, for lifting the ban, now i can finally talk about (insert s**t that will get you banned)"

if they read further into the thread they'd see they're a bit off the mark..

just an observation..

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Oh look a new home for me, and don't ya know it? I will miss you my dear friend Political Madness.

reply to post by Myrtales Instinct

2. Minimum mandatory laws, how they vary from state to state? For instance what will give a person 3 years in Ohio can give a person in Florida 15 years.

You don't get caught, you do no time. In any state. Unless you get set up.
And it does happen all the time. I have know idea what these facist communists want from us.
I just know they have a goal and what ever it is, they will get their way. But that won't be the end of it.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I love where this is going.

Count me in!

Originally posted by Daedalus

the difference, and the distinction, which is of utmost importance is that we can expose the war on terror as being a sham, by pointing out that we work with "the enemy" in other countries...they must not be so bad if we're working with them, right?...so why is there still a war on terror if the enemy they claim we're fighting isn't our enemy anymore?

with the drug war, we can't talk about why that's a sham, for fear that we'll be banned for advocating use...

being able to discuss the why, and the fallacious nature of the "wars" adds needed context, and underscores the totality of how corrupt the system is....in other words, it looks better, in terms of constructing a coherent argument, when you can show that you're being screwed for no good reason, than to just complain about being screwed...can you see my point now?

Innocent victims and the entirety of the citizenry being treated as criminals and terrorists isn't enough to demonstrate that it's a sham? The fact that it isn't working, and hasn't since it's inception, in actuality making things worse, not better, isn't sham-worthy enough?

I don't have to discuss and delineate the theory of electron flow vs. the theory of the flow of electron holes to tell you that sticking a butter knife in a wall socket is a bad idea, or to impress upon you WHY it is a bad idea. Likewise, I don't have to get into the topic of drugs themselves to demonstrate that if there is a "war on drugs", they're doing it wrong.

It's kinda like the "war on poverty" - I don't have to delve into economics to explain that they lost that war... all I have to do is show that there are still poor folks around, and their numbers are increasing, rather than decreasing.

This forum is a perfect timing of sorts as I have been mulling over a thread idea but was having a hard time figuring out which forum to place it in and limiting the ideas to that forum's subject matter.

great news! yet you still won't entertain notions of media fakery!

fishy fishy!

reply to post by TopsyTurvyOne


Education and Media: This forum is dedicated to the discussion of and speculation into methods of thought control and double speak used in education and mass media. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com\'s tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

Or are you thinking more of the Sandy Hook/Boston Bombing was paid actors stuff that is only slightly less inventive than pictures of frisbees as UFO's?

reply to post by nenothtu


bottom line, and I don't know how many other ways I can word this....

if you can't clearly demonstrate the absurdity of a thing, you can never have an intellectually honest discussion about it.

you're over simplifying it.

its not enough to say they're doing it wrong....because then the question of how or why you came to that conclusion comes up..and if you can't explain how the war on drugs is nothing more than a ploy to rob us blind, and exert undue control over us then the whole argument falls apart. its like boxing with one arm tied behind your back, and your free arm injected with muscle relaxant.

it is impossible to debate the topic in the same through and intelligent way we debate other topics of substance....

reply to post by Daedalus


Your inability to accept the word of a site owner is confusing, why are you insisting that if the members discuss what has been clearly asserted here as now acceptable will get people banned?

It makes no sense.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

This one i actually get (although not in the context of this forum) but all you are going to do is invite people to start up discussions about illegal substance misuse and fall into the same problems I am told you had with another forum about drugs.

Its a crime against humanity to have this conspiracy occur, to have good threads taken off like the US cancer research on their own government site, and then to have every person and their dog able to post in papers and give opinions, but oh no, not here, we're like little toddlers. Pat on the head and go have a sucker. I consider it evil to even try to suppress righteous discussion on freedom issues since anything else violates basic common law and is illegal fascism.

And I think anyone can spot the "user' type posts. We're not juveniles.

In fact, it was most likely a planned assault on the freedom of this board by those with a vested interest that even got that issue to the forefront.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Love it!!!! now we can speak our mind, and have a place to say once and for all it is still the BUSH run Reps and Dems that want total control of us all, and can prove it. 217 seems to be the ones that need voting out,. the 12 undecided need out as well, better to do something than nothing, not voting is doing nothing.