That Oliver Willis (Occupation: Toole) is praising the possibility of increasing America’s crack cocaine supply.
Another politician in South America with a leftist message wins office.
The South American politician with the “leftist message” in question is socialist, Evo Morales, friend to Castro and Chavez.
His “leftist message”: To become “A Nightmare” to the US by kicking out US drug enforcement advisors and re-legalizing the growing of the coca plant in Bolivia (which would explain the white stuff in the above picture of Evo).
Of course, Evo says he only wants to grow coca for ‘Traditional Uses’.
Minor correction: you can’t call all socialists “Chavez”, although it seem appropriate. This turd’s name is Evo Morales.
BTW, did you give up on trackbacks?
Thanks for the correction. That is what happens when I get stuck between posting and having to go back to work for a meeting.
As for the trackbacks, we get so much trackback spam that I made it so that I have to turn them on for each post. If’n you want them, I’ll turn them on for this post.
That Oliver Willis (Occupation: Toole) is praising the possibility of increasing America’s crack cocaine supply.
What about powder cocaine? The consumption of powder is greater than crack. That raises the question of why you specified crack.
Anyway, who cares about the supply? If there’s no demand, in other words, if there weren’t so many cokeheads in this country, no one would bother supplying it.
How about instead of whining about what Latin Americans are doing, we get our own house in order? Oh, I forgot; that War on Drugs– it’s going great, isn’t it?
One more thing: you’re a liar. Oliver Willis wasn’t praising anything. If anything, I’d say his tone was implying that ‘leftists’ getting elected was a bad thing.
Ahhh… it’s the old “Supply vs. Demand” argument. So we shouldn’t punish distributors of illegal narcotics, we should focus on the users. Not the first time that point has been made. I do understand what you mean, we tend to villify the dealers and treat the users or “customers” as victims, which is not correct. Maybe equal blame can be given to both, as the crimes that result from the filthy busines affect those who are obeying the law, these are the REAL victims of drug abuse.
BTW, in Analogkid’s defense, I think “Liar” is maybe too strong a word to use here, as I don’t think he is maliciously trying to mislead anyone. Now you know how the President feels when people say he “lied” about WMD’s!
I think the fact that South America is steadily pumping coke (which becomes Crack in some cases, more profitable, you know) into our country and this idiot Morales wants to encourage the production of the stuff, knowing well what the real purpose will ultimately be, is significant enough to merit our attention, whether our “house” is in order or not.
Well, C Sec, in all honesty, I do not know the percentage of powder cocaine versus the crack cocaine use in the US. I had figured that crack was used in higher numbers, but am willing to admit I’m incorrect if presented some reliable numbers (something I’ve never seen out of O-Dub). Maybe you can point me towards some figures posted by the USDEA?
Speaking of the USDEA, since Evo wants them booted from his country and to increase the coca supply, just where do you think that coca is going to go, China? Your mockery of the War on Drugs is moot since I’m a libertarian and don’t believe it could ever work (and you’d know this if you did some reading round here).
Why is worrying about hostile neighbors a bad thing to you? Oh, that’s right, you don’t care about anything but bashing the US! The US is always the bad guy, it could never be anyone else’s fault!
And if you believe that Oliver thinks that ‘leftists’ getting elected is a bad thing, why doesn’t he call Evo what he truly is? Evo ran under the socialist banner, so why doesn’t Ollie say that? Because he likes the fact that we now have two die hard enemies south of our border.
He likes that because as soon as a leftist gets elected into office in the US, that leftist is going to go down there to ‘make peace’ with these socialists, Chaves and Morales, and Ollie will be able to praise the leftist leader’s diplomacy and bash Bush all at the same time, for years afterward.
Of course, said leftist leader will be ‘making peace’ with the socialists by appeasing with my tax dollars, which the socialists will quickly spend on their private armies that will soon start killing/kidnapping innocent civilians who are said to be against the beloved socialist leader.
That sure is some big chunk of ‘peace’!
As for me ‘Lying’, I only present the case of Ollie’s praising of Evo’s ascention to office. Since Evo wants to increase the coca supply and boot the USDEA out of his country, I can only guess that Ollie doesn’t mind that the newly increased supply will be entering the US.
Now, since I had to show you a very straight line of logic on that, you will apologize to me or you will not post here again, comprende puta?
“As for me ‘Lying’, I only present the case of Ollie’s praising of Evo’s ascention to office. Since Evo wants to increase the coca supply and boot the USDEA out of his country, I can only guess that Ollie doesn’t mind that the supply entering the US will increase.?”
You know, after reading your entire response, maybe I should apologize. If you used what you think is ‘logic’ to formulate that ridiculous excuse for reasoning, then maybe you were being honest when you smeared OW. (Honestly stupid.)
Also, are you threatening not to let me post here again? I would say that you are just minding your own house, but your expressed fear of poor little Bolivia (‘die hard enemy’!) leads me to believe that you are more likely a coward.
As I said to some other numbskull, I still follow a few Christian values instilled in my upbringing, the first being to avoid hypocrisy:
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?� (Matthew 7:2-4)
I’m not worried about some little Latin American upstart threatening to grow coca when my own government has invaded and is occupying a sovereign nation illegally, and when that same government is threatening my civil liberties daily.
Anyway, I thought you right-wingers were all about personal responsibility. Why are you so worried about what Bolivians might do? Shouldn’t we Merrkins be taking care of our own business, like not doing coke anymore? Supply-side interdiction is the prerogative of a nanny state. I don’t want any coke, so I don’t need the government telling me whether or not I can take it.
But I guess when it all boils down, you wingers will always show your true colors. That’s why you wingers love guns so much– you’re mostly a bunch of whining, infantile pussies who need your hands held (“please, Unca Georgie! Protect me from the faggots and the brown people!”), and those deadly metal rods take the place of your spines (and other things, to be sure).
I won’t be wasting any more time in this den of weasels, so you can delete this, respond to it, or ignore it. I don’t care. Half of what you say doesn’t make sense, and the other half is just laughable. I feel like I’m debating with a chimp. Maybe Bullfrog will be kind enough to teach you how to think, because (God forgive me) I have not the patience.
Don’t bother kissing my ass on my way out…
Well C Sec, if I smeared Ollie, it was richly deserved. If you cannot follow the line of logic, well then, you must be a democrat. Only someone so lacking in reason would be sycophantic to an imbecile who has no problem with the US cocaine market getting flooded by an anti-US socialist who sides with Castro.
But hey, that is what I expect of someone who votes against their own freedoms.
I said that I wouldn’t let you post here again because you made baseless accusations in place of arguments. Why should your opinion matter if you cannot be honest?
Maybe you should take a look around, C Sec. You’ll see no claims of me being a Christian or a W Lover or even a repub, nor will you find myslef or anyone here spouting off any racist or anti-gay words. But I guess investigating before flapping your lips and making even more baseless accusations is just another sign of your democrat leanings. How truly sad. Of course the government is threatening my civil liberties, that is the nature of government. Only libtards like yourself think that more government, just with a different person at the helm, is a good thing.
I’m not worried about Bolivia as you seem to think I am, I am worried that people like yourself and O-Dub don’t seem to mind the spread of socialist drug runners and would rather argue that America needs to be reigned in and controlled while the world lets other countries put the heads of drug cartels into cabinet positions.
You and Ollie bitch, moan and whine about CheneyMcHaliburton being VP, but it is OK to have the Cali boys take money out of the coffers of the Bolivian people. Hey, anything to bash the US, right?
How hypocritical. How democrat.
You may not need any cocaine, but someone else out there is addicted to it and my tax dollars will be spent to treat them. Exactly how is that a logical concept when, in your mid, the supply should increase and the DEA should stop fighting the influx of the drugs? Not only that, but I’m going to have to listen to people like you and Ollie cry about how ‘we are letting these people down as a society’ or about how some flake made up some evidence that it was the government importing it. You also say that (to paraphrase) ‘we should be taking care of our own business, like not doing coke anymore’. How the fuck are we supposed to stop democrats from doing coke? Or are you implying that only conservatives do coke? Exactly what is your proof? Coke heads and other junkies did it to themselves, let them die from it if that is their goal, otherwise they can not get addicted in the first place or foot the bill for their own recovery.
More of that personal responsibility you keep saying you believe in.
Oh wait, you want the nanny state to hold your and everyone elses hand, even at the point of a gun. Which, BTW is why I love my firearms so much.
Another example of that personal responsibility, this time it is for my own protection, especially from the state. If you had it your way, we’d all be dialing 911 and waiting 30 minutes while our neighbors are beaten, raped and robbed. Just like in the UK and Oz.
Go ahead and make your not so subtle ‘guns = penis’ statements, C Sec, but any honest psychologist worth their degree will tell you that fear of inanimate objects that go bang is the true sign of a lack of manhood.
You should stop by tomorrow to see what we do to ignoramuses like yourself around these parts, C Sec. It will be amusing. For us at least.
And C Sec, you don’t have to worry about us kissing your ass, your shoulders are blocking all access.
Planet Earth to Church Secretary:
Why is the “consumers versus the suppliers” argument wrong to define suppliers as the inherently evil side in the drug biz, when in the gun-trafficking business you would deem the role to be reversed?
There’s simple logic here, and your argument either has it or it doesn’t.
Since I don’t want to raise a straw man (the gun control argument) without offering you the opportunity to tell me that suppliers of guns should NEVER be blamed when a gun is misused (just as supplier nations and cartels should never be blamed for violating another nation’s borders with a banned substance), I will offer you the opportunity to do so on MY blog, in case the mean, intolerant owner of THIS blog has banned you.
If you fail to respond to the new post I am about to put up on the Rivrdog blog, I will assume that your failure is due to your embarrassment at having used faulty logic above here on THIS blog.
Pingback: Nom de guerre: Rivrdog