Kellie

Sammysaint, on 23 February 2010 - 04:08 PM, said:

whoa... a nigger in a forum...

Welcome to the world of being grown up. No friends; no life. Enjoy working until you die.

NERD RAGE

I get technology rage sometimes, RAGE AGAINST THE WASHING MACHINE

XsimXlacX, on 09 January 2010 - 01:59 PM, said:

you've done it again. if you use the word "gay" as an insult, don't be surprised to be called homophobic.

but the best part about people being racist is most don't realise that they are. Oh and my all time favourite is when puerto ricans call each other "niggas" and "niggers" when they aren't African or when they call them self black or what ever.

RancidPunk, on 19 December 2009 - 02:54 AM, said:

Getting someone to take your side while avoiding the actual problem? AWESOME.

We should tell racists that they shouldn't hate black people because they make basketball more entertaining.

I don't think non-violent people should ever be put in prison no matter what.

I think mentally ill violent people should only be held in confinement until they can be made non-violent through whatever treatment available.

And I would think habitually violent people people should be released when they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are no longer going to cause harm to a community. But each type of case should be looked at differently. For example, people who commit gang violence would probably benefit most by being separated from their gangs and deconditioned over a period of time. Gangs are a way for people to meet their basic need of having a place among other humans who care about them. So they can be helped by allowing them to interact with other people. If they have actual families, they should have a supervised reintegration with them and I think with therapy and counseling, an inclination to a gang would be greatly reduced if these people could form stronger ties with their parents, siblings, children.  

Then again, I think gangs are generally a product of capitalism and abolishing capitalism greatly would reduce the existence of gangs. Not completely, but significantly.

Crimes of passion are a complicated issue too. There are many people who even kill and would never kill again. As contradictory to all we've been told our lives as a society, that should not end the rest of their lives, literally or essentially like spending decades in prison. They should be treated and not desensitized to their actions, but be able to come to terms with it and if they will not be violent again, they should be released. But the welfare of a community should be taken into account too, and these people might need to be released somewhere else and allowed to start over there.

There are very few cases where someone would have to be permanently confined or confined for years and years at a time. But I think even extreme violence can be calmed with sedatives, and then properly medicated and watched even they should have a chance to integrate with others. I am completely against anyone being deprived of human interaction and socialization in all cases.

I think this principle of absolute minimal imprisonment would work for a state or a stateless community. Perhaps an anarchist may have a problem with imprisonment even as a temporary and minimally used system even in the most humane way possible, in which case I would just like to know what alternative they'd have.

SPAZ, on 26 November 2009 - 02:54 AM, said:

have you heard of punk? do you remember what your parents said it was about?
a thread about rich pretty people? do you know what shame is? have you felt it?
really. punk was about rejecting this superficial rich shit.

Steve, on 23 September 2009 - 07:18 PM, said:

Actually, staying vocal and active, even if it doesn't (it often does) have a direct effect on any policy makers, has many indirect contributions:

1.  It inspires other people to research into subjects that they would otherwise know nothing about.  (This is true for all forms of art and demonstrations.)  Protests in large numbers also make it clear to observers that there is a legitimate amount of support for these ideas, making them more attractive in the process.
2.  It creates optimism and legitimacy for the people already in the political scene such as Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and others, who only started/continue to fight because they feel it be in a high enough demand.  As a result, their ideas, whether through literature, speeches, or interviews bring in even further education to populations.  
3.  It's a counter-balance to right-wing protests, to show how and why their ideas are not attractive, or highly supported.

It's not smart or funny to type in capital letters as if you're some pre-teen Democrat who just got into politics.  I know you believe in violent revolution, but your ideas would be much different today if it weren't for this "pointless activism" to get you, and the people who infleunced you (that means everyone; not just some anarchist author who's book you read after you were already a leftist), into politics in the first place.

Discuss.

Well... I just finished the two books proceeding The Lightning Theif, by Rick Riordan. (Sea of Monsters and Titan's Curse) Some of my favorite books. Now I'm reading Maximum Ride: Max. Best series evaar. (READ THEM. But start with the first book.)

Quote

Bullshit. You can never justify this addiction. You were psychologically dependent. Addiction was a word created to describe physically addictive substances, namely opium. You using something as a psychological crutch has nothing to do with addiction; that is such a bastardization of concepts I won't speak on it further.

You think you listing your past "sins" is somehow going to prove some point to others? Oh, no, it's so easy to blame weed, isn't it? Could you not have done those things because of some deficiency in your character? i.e. your upbringing, your nature, etc?

You even mention anxiety meds. Could you not have been self-medicating with a less-than-optimal drug? Perhaps you simply did not have access to the specific strains of quality weed often enough. Perhaps societal forces are what made weed bad, and not the effect itself. Rather, you defy all scientific reasoning and instantly blame a plant. It seems so convenient.

Quote

Because it's not fucking real. Marijuana does not do that to you.

Some kind of emotional state, maybe.

Quote

Being high doesn't make you not give a shit. Indica makes you slightly sedated and that's about it.

Maybe you just genuinely didn't give a shit, thus you smoked a lot.

Quote

What? All of this "happened" to you while it was illegal. Cannabis issues were unheard of prior to their illegality, and it was widely available and widely used.

Here's the deal: you think what I do should be criminal simply because you tell us some vague and obviously biased story that contradicts all science and reason. I'm not down with that.

Unmedicated thirteen year old kids with anxiety issues shouldn't be smoking pot every day. They shouldn't be drinking or smoking, either. Nobody should be eating fast food on even a semi-regular basis. You shouldn't ride a bike without a helmet. You shouldn't drive a car without a seat belt. You shouldn't dance on a frozen sidewalk. Socially isolated people shouldn't play WoW all day.

You see, there are certain people who have certain conditions where certain activities will have harmful effects. That does not make the item itself a danger. It makes the person a danger. The youthfulness and anxiety is the problem. The dietary habits are the problem. The unprotected head is the problem. The lack of seat belt is the problem. The frozen sidewalk is the problem, and the isolationist lifestyle is the problem. It is not the weed, the very existence of fast food, the bike, the car, the dancer, or the fucking game.

Now, when you can be an honest person and realize it was YOU and not the weed, you may then be mature enough to come to a reasonable, non-historically inaccurate point of view.

Back on topic:  Anti-Flag will be rallying there.  Hopefully I'll have more details later so you can meet up with them if you'd like.

Republicans are going to try and re-invent their party for 2012.  Expect someone young and hip, like Obama.

Unless Obama really messes things up.  Then expect an elderly wise man.