• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

I felt my CONservative friends here are in need of watching this

You're going to really attempt to excuse the mans hypocrisy with a straight face? Really?

Just because a few minority members overcome the huge odds against them to have success in life while never taking a dime from social programs does not invalidate the idea of social justice. It's the equivalent of a financial advisors advice to you being; 'play the lottery'...... yeah somebody wins it.

Does your bloated government waste and rob when it's illegally and unnecessarily invading countries and spending trillions making defense contractors rich?

Funny how that never bothers you guys, in fact from the posts I've read on here it's actually fun stuff.

It's really simple. As he said, "Because one man's success story doesn't make the programs mentioned a winner."

The programs are not winners. They are not effective. The programs have destroyed black communities. They are massive, bloated programs that waste tax payer dollars.

I doubt you'd find a soul here against social justice. The fact is, the way it's being done now, by and large doesn't work, is wasteful, and actually increases the overall problem vs. helping it. Facts support this.

http://townhall.com/columnists/larr...ent-dem-malcolm-x-called-them-chumps-n1808196

When Blacks Voted 80 Percent Dem, Malcolm X Called Them 'Chumps'

White voters, X said, "are so evenly divided that every time they vote, the race is so close they have to go back and count the votes all over again. Which means that any bloc, any minority that has a bloc that sticks together is in a strategic position. Either way you go, that's who gets it."

Yet Democrats, said Malcolm X, failed to deliver on a promised and much anticipated new civil rights bill, knowing the party could still count on their blind support in the next election.

"You put them first," said Malcolm X, "and they put you last. 'Cause you're a chump. A political chump! ... Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can't keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you are dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party -- you're not only a chump but you're a traitor to your race."

What would Malcolm X say about today's 95 percent black vote? Did the Democratic Party keep its promises to promote family stability, push education and encourage job creation?

The black community, over the last 50 years, has suffered an unparalleled breakdown in family unity. Even during slavery when marriage was illegal, a black child was more likely than today to be raised under a roof with his or her biological mother and father. According to census data, from 1890 to 1940, said economist Walter Williams, a black child was slightly more likely to grow up with married parents than a white child. What happened?

When President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1965, 24 percent of black babies were born to unmarried mothers. Today that number is 72 percent. Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said in 2008: "Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves."

Not only has family breakdown coincided with increased government spending, but the money has not done much to reduce the rate of poverty. From 1965 until now, the government has spent $15-20 trillion to fight poverty. In 1949, the poverty rate stood at 34 percent. By 1965, it was cut in half, to 17 percent -- all before the so-called War on Poverty. But after the war began in 1965, poverty began to flat line. It appears that the generous welfare system allowed women to, in essence, marry the government -- and it allowed men to abandon their financial and moral responsibility, while surrendering the dignity that comes from being a good provider. Psychologists call dependency "learned helplessness."

About the importance of education, Malcolm X once said, "My alma mater was books, a good library. ... I could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfying my curiosity." What would he say about the Democratic opposition to school vouchers -- where the money would follow the student rather than the other way around?

Urban schools, where students are disproportionately black and brown, are simply not producing children who can read, write and compute at grade level. The dropout rate can approach 50 percent in some urban districts. Nationwide, 10 percent of parents send their kids to private school. But in cities like Philadelphia and Chicago, 40 percent or more of teachers send their own kids to private schools.

Democrats don't do blacks any favor by supporting "race-based preferences" in admissions to colleges and universities. Turns out, the more a school lowers standards to achieve "diversity," the greater the chance the "diverse" student drops out.

More than that, Democrats have convinced blacks that but for race-based preferences, black growth would suffer. Nonsense. Respected researchers Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom wrote: "The growth of the black middle class long predates the adoption of race-conscious social policies. In some ways, indeed, the black middle class was expanding more rapidly before 1970 than after."

Finally, as to the economy, then-chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., admitted: "With 14 percent (black) unemployment, if we had a white president we'd be marching around the White House. ...The President knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn't to someone white."

Democratic policies have contributed to family breakdown, maintained underperforming urban schools -- with no opt out for parents -- and have promoted tax-spend-and-regulate economic policies that have resulted in a level of unemployment described as "unconscionable" by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

So would Malcolm X call today's black voter a political "chump" -- or a political "traitor"?
 
Back before Christmas, or in the fall sometime, I can't quite remember, there was a situation in which a father was arrested for having sex with his daughter. The daughter actually defended the father by advancing he notion that there was love there, so no one should question it.

Maybe Jerry Sandusky should have used that as his defense. "Hey, I really just loved all those boys."

Before anyone gets all wound up and says something about "how can you associate homosexuality with that deviant behavior?,"remember, the principle advanced here was it is just about love. It is love, no one should question it. Well, if that is truly the case, do we need to accept any type of "love?"

So in other words, you can't see the difference between two consenting adults each choosing to have a relationship with each other as opposed to one adult preying upon children that were not willing participants in the "relationship", for lack of a better word, that Sandusky forced his victims into? Wow...
 
I didn't say give me an example of one person government programs helped, obviously they help some and some need them. I said give me an example of a SOCIAL PROBLEM government programs have corrected. If Ben Carson could do all that because of all of those government programs, why can't so many others? Why is it despite the fact that we are spending more on welfare programs right now since the depression, poverty is actually up?

You actually don't know the answer to such simple questions, or are you being coy?

The one glaring example of a social problem is slavery. That's what caused the current situation with African-Americans: Slavery>Civil War>Jim Crow>extreme poverty/lack of opportunity>social unrest>Civil Rights Act>Social Justice.........Again see Ben Carson.

CONservative answer:>Bury head in sand>Pretend there is no problem or blame victim

Many, many, have been helped by these programs you just don't hear about it because people would rather hear about the guy who really doesn't have a medical supply business and has robbed medicaid of millions, or the lady in California who flew from state to state collecting welfare benefits with different identities while driving a Benz and owning a huge house. Who cares about the guy who went to college and is now a professional paying taxes?

There are more people on welfare because the Republicans starting with the B actor elected in 1980 have sold this country out in the interest of the "free market" That's why your wages are stagnated and all our factories are gone. Some people who are working barely scrape by and have to use social programs to augment their income, thank progressivism for them being available.
 
So in other words, you can't see the difference between two consenting adults each choosing to have a relationship with each other as opposed to one adult preying upon children that were not willing participants in the "relationship", for lack of a better word, that Sandusky forced his victims into? Wow...

Read everything before you comment. I have admitted that the way I have argued this isn't the best. My point is that "love" can be used to justify a lot of things. I should have left it at that.
 
You actually don't know the answer to such simple questions, or are you being coy?

The one glaring example of a social problem is slavery. That's what caused the current situation with African-Americans: Slavery>Civil War>Jim Crow>extreme poverty/lack of opportunity>social unrest>Civil Rights Act>Social Justice.........Again see Ben Carson.

CONservative answer:>Bury head in sand>Pretend there is no problem or blame victim

Many, many, have been helped by these programs you just don't hear about it because people would rather hear about the guy who really doesn't have a medical supply business and has robbed medicaid of millions, or the lady in California who flew from state to state collecting welfare benefits with different identities while driving a Benz and owning a huge house. Who cares about the guy who went to college and is now a professional paying taxes?

There are more people on welfare because the Republicans starting with the B actor elected in 1980 have sold this country out in the interest of the "free market" That's why your wages are stagnated and all our factories are gone. Some people who are working barely scrape by and have to use social programs to augment their income, thank progressivism for them being available.

You do realize that under Reagan, the poor and middle class enjoyed a far better standard of living than they do today? Something people like you will never understand is that when the rich get richer, the poor get richer too. Yeah, trickle down economics WORKS. I know it's sacrilege to say that these days, but this idea of trying to create "equality" by bringing down wealthy people is idiotic. When you penalize and demonize the creation of wealth, all you do is inhibit investment and consumption, which power economic growth.

It's pointless to argue because people like you will always resent those who do "better", even if their doing worse means you do worse too.
 
My grandmother died at 99. She had a gay son, my uncle. She was very accepting. However, she never discussed it, either, which led me to believe that while being accepting, as we all have been, she never quite understood it.

I don't really care either. However, I feel I have the right to disagree with something. I am not running around doing anything that would harm gay people, and as long as I respect them, I have the right to disagree.

What are the anti-gay politics? I don't quite understand how a party that refuses to condemn what is being done to gays and women in Islamic countries is considered the champion of gays and women, and the party that condemns it, isn't.

Let's let the marijuana thing play out a bit. The Governor of Colorado has stated he thinks legalizing it has been a mistake. I don't remember the context of why he said that, but he did say he feels it was a mistake. Maybe the Repubs are not that far off with their opposition to that one.

Nice red herring.

The "mistake" the governor was talking about was in the regulatory sense as the legislation is being created from scratch and they are having to pioneer it. His advice to other states was for them to first wait and see what they do wrong and what they do right.

The other problem they have is banks in Colorado are afraid to finance grows because they don't know where they stand with the Feds, believe me they don't think it's a "mistake" they are drooling to get in because they see the profits being made and the revenue the state is collecting.

One day you'll wake up and realize that conservative propaganda like that in "The War on Drugs" is just that.

Much like most of the right wing platforms bread and butter, fear mongering and bigotry.
 
Nice red herring.

The "mistake" the governor was talking about was in the regulatory sense as the legislation is being created from scratch and they are having to pioneer it. His advice to other states was for them to first wait and see what they do wrong and what they do right.

The other problem they have is banks in Colorado are afraid to finance grows because they don't know where they stand with the Feds, believe me they don't think it's a "mistake" they are drooling to get in because they see the profits being made and the revenue the state is collecting.

One day you'll wake up and realize that conservative propaganda like that in "The War on Drugs" is just that.

Much like most of the right wing platforms bread and butter, fear mongering and bigotry.

One day you will wake up and realize not everybody is fighting with you. I clearly stated that I did not know the context, but I recalled the Governor saying it. Thank you for clarifying.

Maybe you can clarify a few other things I have briefly read. Unfortunately, I will read some things, get busy doing other stuff, and then don't follow up. I remember reading the Colorado was not seeing the money in tax dollars they were expecting. I also read something about the water situation in California. If I recall, farmers have water regulations, but pot growers, because it is new, do not fall under those conditions, so it is causing some issues. One last thing I recall reading was that to create more space for marijuana fields, so some old growth forests were being cut down in California.
 
Last edited:
I quickly looked a couple things up and I wasn't wrong. An article today in the Huffington Post was about California Marijuana Farmers bleeding streams dry (3/6/15)

Also, quickly looked something up about deforestation, and there was something in Mother Jones about a guy using google earth to show deforestation for marijuana farms.

From the LA Times:

The marijuana boom that came with the sudden rise of medical cannabis in California has wreaked havoc on the fragile habitats of the North Coast and other parts of California. With little or no oversight, farmers have illegally mowed down timber, graded mountaintops flat for sprawling greenhouses, dispersed poisons and pesticides, drained streams and polluted watersheds.

Because marijuana is unregulated in California and illegal under federal law, most growers still operate in the shadows, and scientists have little hard data on their collective effect. But they are getting ever more ugly snapshots.

A study led by researchers at UC Davis found that a rare forest carnivore called a fisher was being poisoned in Humboldt County and near Yosemite in the Sierra Nevada.

The team concluded in its July report that the weasel-like animals were probably eating rodenticides that marijuana growers employ to keep animals from gnawing on their plants, or they were preying on smaller rodents that had consumed the deadly bait. Forty-six of 58 fisher carcasses the team analyzed had rat poison in their systems.
 
Who cares about the guy who went to college and is now a professional paying taxes?

You mean like Ben Carson?

The path to success and staying out of poverty is clear. Finish high school, don't have kids until you are married, and don't get married until you have a decent job. Suggest that to a lot of African-Americans though and somehow you're a racist.
 
Last edited:
I quickly looked a couple things up and I wasn't wrong. An article today in the Huffington Post was about California Marijuana Farmers bleeding streams dry (3/6/15)

Also, quickly looked something up about deforestation, and there was something in Mother Jones about a guy using google earth to show deforestation for marijuana farms.

From the LA Times:

The marijuana boom that came with the sudden rise of medical cannabis in California has wreaked havoc on the fragile habitats of the North Coast and other parts of California. With little or no oversight, farmers have illegally mowed down timber, graded mountaintops flat for sprawling greenhouses, dispersed poisons and pesticides, drained streams and polluted watersheds.

Because marijuana is unregulated in California and illegal under federal law, most growers still operate in the shadows, and scientists have little hard data on their collective effect. But they are getting ever more ugly snapshots.

A study led by researchers at UC Davis found that a rare forest carnivore called a fisher was being poisoned in Humboldt County and near Yosemite in the Sierra Nevada.

The team concluded in its July report that the weasel-like animals were probably eating rodenticides that marijuana growers employ to keep animals from gnawing on their plants, or they were preying on smaller rodents that had consumed the deadly bait. Forty-six of 58 fisher carcasses the team analyzed had rat poison in their systems.

Now you move the point to California?
 
I quickly looked a couple things up and I wasn't wrong. An article today in the Huffington Post was about California Marijuana Farmers bleeding streams dry (3/6/15)

Also, quickly looked something up about deforestation, and there was something in Mother Jones about a guy using google earth to show deforestation for marijuana farms.

From the LA Times:

The marijuana boom that came with the sudden rise of medical cannabis in California has wreaked havoc on the fragile habitats of the North Coast and other parts of California. With little or no oversight, farmers have illegally mowed down timber, graded mountaintops flat for sprawling greenhouses, dispersed poisons and pesticides, drained streams and polluted watersheds.

Because marijuana is unregulated in California and illegal under federal law, most growers still operate in the shadows, and scientists have little hard data on their collective effect. But they are getting ever more ugly snapshots.

A study led by researchers at UC Davis found that a rare forest carnivore called a fisher was being poisoned in Humboldt County and near Yosemite in the Sierra Nevada.

The team concluded in its July report that the weasel-like animals were probably eating rodenticides that marijuana growers employ to keep animals from gnawing on their plants, or they were preying on smaller rodents that had consumed the deadly bait. Forty-six of 58 fisher carcasses the team analyzed had rat poison in their systems.

OK, now quickly look up the environmental impact of pig farming and chemical run-off from agricultural farming and then come back and tell us how we should make pork and corn illegal.

Even if everyone in the country were an all day everyday marijuana user, we'd still consume way more pork and corn than pot. If environmentalism is your argument, you have no perspective.
 
Snow day? I'm never on here during the day, but have posted quite a bit over the last few days. Damn snow.

Oh yeah I'm usually not on here in the day either. We have missed 14 days so far.
 
Last edited:
You actually don't know the answer to such simple questions, or are you being coy?

The one glaring example of a social problem is slavery. That's what caused the current situation with African-Americans: Slavery>Civil War>Jim Crow>extreme poverty/lack of opportunity>social unrest>Civil Rights Act>Social Justice.........Again see Ben Carson.

CONservative answer:>Bury head in sand>Pretend there is no problem or blame victim

Many, many, have been helped by these programs you just don't hear about it because people would rather hear about the guy who really doesn't have a medical supply business and has robbed medicaid of millions, or the lady in California who flew from state to state collecting welfare benefits with different identities while driving a Benz and owning a huge house. Who cares about the guy who went to college and is now a professional paying taxes?

There are more people on welfare because the Republicans starting with the B actor elected in 1980 have sold this country out in the interest of the "free market" That's why your wages are stagnated and all our factories are gone. Some people who are working barely scrape by and have to use social programs to augment their income, thank progressivism for them being available.

Under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20 percent, but under Mr. Obama, it has increased by 42 percent.

Black teenage unemployment fell by 16 percent under Reagan, but has risen by 56 percent under Mr. Obama.

The increase in unemployment rates has been far worse for blacks under Mr. Obama than for whites and Hispanics.

Inflation-adjusted real incomes are slightly higher for Hispanics and whites than they were in 2008, but are lower for blacks.

The labor force participation rate has fallen for all groups, but remains far lower for blacks than for whites and Hispanics.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/26/obamas-bad-news-for-blacks/#ixzz3TiWOUj8e
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 
OK, now quickly look up the environmental impact of pig farming and chemical run-off from agricultural farming and then come back and tell us how we should make pork and corn illegal.

Even if everyone in the country were an all day everyday marijuana user, we'd still consume way more pork and corn than pot. If environmentalism is your argument, you have no perspective.

No, it isn't my argument. Hell, I don't give a **** if it is legalized or not. Some of you get so emotional you cannot read. I gave no opinion on it.

I was just pointing out that there are some questions that I have heard. I think it is ironic, though. All these burners running around in their Bob Marley shirts going of into nature burning one down. Turns out the nature they are going to is being impacted negatively by the marijuana they adore. Here they all probably think they are just one with nature, they are the enlightened.

So what you weed guys want is not truth, but propaganda. Last thing you want is any negative stories on weed. Remember, this wasn't on Rush Limbaugh or something where I found that stuff. LA Times and Huff Post.

We can live without weed. Can we live without food?
 
Now you move the point to California?

What difference does it make where I move it too?

My original premise was that people may be questioning the legalization of marijuana, and gave some examples. Again, I really could care less. I won't smoke it. And not due to some moral objection. I don't like smoke. Never have. So I won't force myself to do something that I don't like just because.

It seems the supporters of legalization do not want to hear anything negative, though.
 
I think it is ironic, though. All these burners running around in their Bob Marley shirts going of into nature burning one down. Turns out the nature they are going to is being impacted negatively by the marijuana they adore. Here they all probably think they are just one with nature, they are the enlightened.

Well at least you haven't stereotyped marijuana users.

Oddly enough, the last time I burned one, it was thanks to my otherwise ultra conservative friend.
 
Well at least you haven't stereotyped marijuana users.

Oddly enough, the last time I burned one, it was thanks to my otherwise ultra conservative friend.

Aw, boo hoo for you. I have stereotyped weed smokers. Tough ****.

Like I said, I really don't care if it is legal or not. I just get tired of listening to the bullshit. Like weed ain't bad for you. C'mon. Smoking anything is bad for you. Your lungs do not want smoke in there. Otherwise, the first few times you smoke something your lungs wouldn't make you cough, hack and spit. It's ridiculous.

This had nothing to do with conservative or liberal. What don't you get? This was reported news in media outlets that marijuana growers are drying up streams in California and cutting down forests. And certainly not conservative media outlets. I didn't make it up, so don't shoot the messenger. Again, I was simply theorizing the possibility that people may reevaluate the legalization of it because of this
 
Last edited:
For over 25 years I have worked with kids in various capacities.

What some just do not seem to grasp is that maybe you guys who are older can handle smoking weed. You can keep it in proper perspective and so on. You can still work and be productive and so on. But I have seen countless high school kids burning it, and while a few of them do fine, there is that group that just stays in 2nd gear all the time. Well, it's a 5th gear world. It is just some of the stuff people do not consider.
 
For over 25 years I have worked with kids in various capacities.

What some just do not seem to grasp is that maybe you guys who are older can handle smoking weed. You can keep it in proper perspective and so on. You can still work and be productive and so on. But I have seen countless high school kids burning it, and while a few of them do fine, there is that group that just stays in 2nd gear all the time. Well, it's a 5th gear world. It is just some of the stuff people do not consider.

Just light up some chronic and relax, aight brah?
 
For over 25 years I have worked with kids in various capacities.

What some just do not seem to grasp is that maybe you guys who are older can handle smoking weed. You can keep it in proper perspective and so on. You can still work and be productive and so on. But I have seen countless high school kids burning it, and while a few of them do fine, there is that group that just stays in 2nd gear all the time. Well, it's a 5th gear world. It is just some of the stuff people do not consider.

When the heroin epidemic hit PA high schools in around 2007, back when I was living there and kids were going almost comatose left and right in class and falling out of their chairs to the floor, weed suddenly didn't seem like all horrible in the grand scheme of things. Now kids are wrecking their lives and getting hooked for life at 17 on prescription pills. I'm way, way, way more concerned with heroin and pills and kids OD'ing and dying than I am about kids smoking weed and turning into lazy ***** in school. Granted it's not good, but there are things out there that kids are doing that make weed seem like candy. Hell alcohol is way more dangerous for that age group too. And this is coming from a person who has never smoked a joint in my life and don't plan to, but I have sat through a hell of alot of D and A trainings from professionals who have seen and heard it all.
 
Last edited:
When the heroin epidemic hit PA high schools in around 2007, back when I was living there and kids were going almost comatose left and right in class and falling out of their chairs to the floor, weed suddenly didn't seem like all horrible in the grand scheme of things. Now kids are wrecking their lives and getting hooked for life at 17 on prescription pills. I'm way, way, way more concerned with heroin and pills and kids OD'ing and dying than I am about kids smoking weed and turning into lazy ***** in school. Granted it's not good, but there are things out there that kids are doing that make weed seem like candy. Hell alcohol is way more dangerous for that age group too. And this is coming from a person who has never smoked a joint in my life and don't plan to, but I have sat through a hell of alot of D and A trainings from professionals who have seen and heard it all.

You are absolutely right. There are bigger problems then weed. But weed was the discussion. I think part of the issue is it seems to be a little different now. I remember when I was young in the 70s and 80s. Sure, kids smoked weed, but (and I could be wrong here, I was never a weed guy) it seemed a little harder to get and wasn't as potent. So it wasn't all the time. Some of these kids are smoking it every day. They go home and burn with their parents. That has to affect a kid to some degree.

I always get a kick out of the legalize drug crowd, especially the kids. You know how it is in the schools. You have a damn good idea who might be dealing as well, but catching them is harder because you can't just go on a whim anymore and search lockers. We get a few each year when the cops bring in the drug dogs. But the conversation goes something like this when I talk with some of the more verbal kids who want everything legalized, and again, many of those kids you have suspicions are dealing:

Me: 'So you want drugs legal"

Kid: "Yeeah, dude!"

Me: "You sure, you want them to legalize drugs?"

Kid: "Yeah, man."

Me: "Realize now, if it is made legal, there is no market anymore for illegal drugs"

Kid: "Huh?"

Me: "Well, being that your grades are in the toilet, and you have never done any kind of a job, what are you going to do for money?"

Kid: blinking
 
Last edited:
Lol, nobody can ever accuse most heavy drug using teenagers of having solid decision making skills, that's for sure.
 
Aw, boo hoo for you. I have stereotyped weed smokers. Tough ****.

Like I said, I really don't care if it is legal or not. I just get tired of listening to the bullshit. Like weed ain't bad for you. C'mon. Smoking anything is bad for you. Your lungs do not want smoke in there. Otherwise, the first few times you smoke something your lungs wouldn't make you cough, hack and spit. It's ridiculous.

This had nothing to do with conservative or liberal. What don't you get? This was reported news in media outlets that marijuana growers are drying up streams in California and cutting down forests. And certainly not conservative media outlets. I didn't make it up, so don't shoot the messenger. Again, I was simply theorizing the possibility that people may reevaluate the legalization of it because of this

I don't get just about everything you're writing.

When did anybody say it wasn't bad for you?

What does legality have to do with the environmental impact anyway? Someone could easily argue that regulation would improve the environmental impact.
 
What does legality have to do with the environmental impact anyway?
Presumably we would be growing more of it and using more land and water.

Someone could easily argue that regulation would improve the environmental impact.
Maybe.
 
Top