turn back to god or dance with the devil 2020 The Choice is Simple, Socialism or Freedom

[bostonangler]

55 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

I  wish everyone would be honest and caring. And I wish they would be law-abiding. When Kamala Harris admitted to smoking marijuana it was illegal in the state of California. I'd rather have a hungover employee dinner employee who is willing to break the law.

 

Pot was legal for a longtime... Our founding fathers smoked it... Do you know why it was demonized and made illegal... One word. HEMP... You see hemp and marijuana are in the same family, and William Hurst had the patent on making newspaper out of wood pulp. When someone discovered a way to make it out of hemp, he decided to shut them down. He used his media empire to demonize marijuana and because it was linked with hemp he got them both outlawed to save his greedy business interests. Another reason was hemp's threat to corporations making synthetic clothing and plastics from oil. Hemp could do all those things more effectively and cheaper, but that would take away profits. Again corporate greed... Here read this it is an interesting story. It doesn't mention the Hurst side of it, but you can research that too.

 

For the first 162 years of America's existence, marijuana was totally legal and hemp was a common crop. But during the 1930s, the U.S. government and the media began spreading outrageous lies about marijuana, which led to its prohibition. Some headlines made about marijuana in the 1930s were: "Marijuana: The assassin of youth." "Marijuana: The devil's weed with roots in hell." "Marijuana makes fiends of boys in 30 days." "If the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster marijuana, he would drop dead of fright." In 1936, the liquor industry funded the infamous movie titled Reefer Madness. This movie depicts a man going insane from smoking marijuana, and then killing his entire family with an ax. This campaign of lies, as well as other evidence, have led many to believe there may have been a hidden agenda behind Marijuana Prohibition.

Shortly before marijuana was banned by The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, new technologies were developed that made hemp a potential competitor with the newly-founded synthetic fiber and plastics industries. Hemp's potential for producing paper also posed a threat to the timber industry (see New Billion-Dollar Crop). Evidence suggests that commercial interests having much to lose from hemp competition helped propagate reefer madness hysteria, and used their influence to lobby for Marijuana Prohibition. It is not known for certain if special interests conspired to destroy the hemp industry via Marijuana Prohibition, but enough evidence exists to raise the possibility.

After Alcohol Prohibition ended in 1933, funding for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the Drug Enforcement Administration) was reduced. The FBN's own director, Harry J. Anslinger, then became a leading advocate of Marijuana Prohibition. In 1937 Anslinger testified before Congress in favor of Marijuana Prohibition by saying: "Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind." "Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes." Marijuana Prohibition is founded on lies and rooted in racism, prejudice, and ignorance. Just as politicians believed Harry J. Anslinger to be a marijuana expert in 1937, many people still believe law enforcement officials are marijuana experts. In reality, law enforcement officials have no expert knowledge of marijuana's medical or health effects, but they do represent an industry that receives billions of tax dollars to enforce Marijuana Prohibition.

Before the government began promoting reefer madness hysteria during the 1930s, the word marijuana was a Mexican word that was totally absent from the American vocabulary. In the 1930s, Americans knew that hemp was a common, useful, and harmless crop. It is extremely unlikely anyone would have believed hemp was dangerous, or would have believed stories of hemp madness. Thus, the words marijuana and reefer were substituted for the word hemp in order to frighten the public into supporting Hemp Prohibition. Very few people realized that marijuana and hemp came from the same plant species; thus, virtually nobody knew that Marijuana Prohibition would destroy the hemp industry.

Bolstering the theory that marijuana was banned to destroy the hemp industry, two articles were written on the eve of Marijuana Prohibition that claim hemp was on the verge of becoming a super crop. These articles appeared in two well-respected magazines that are still published today. The articles are:

Flax and Hemp (Mechanical Engineering, Feb. 1937)
New Billion-Dollar Crop (Popular Mechanics, Feb. 1938)

This was the first time that billion dollar was used to describe the value of a crop. These articles praise the usefulness and potential of hemp by stating "hemp can be used to produce more than 25,000 products" and "hemp will prove, for both farmer and public, the most profitable and desirable crop that can be grown." Marijuana Prohibition took effect within one year after both these articles were written.

 

 

Another example of propaganda and corporate greed... Boys these guys are good!

B/A

Edited February 14, 2019 by bostonangler

[umbertino]

 

Even in this little, insignificant ( I'm aware of that) Country of mine, most drugs were allowed once...

 

My beloved Dad (RIP) told me maybe 40 years ago that as a law school student (in the 1940's), he'd take  simpamine ( also called benzedrine) to study several hours in a row a few days before he had to take an exam in order to stay awake without feeling the need for sleep....

 

 

Now  (it's been years actually) that is very banned

[nstoolman1]

I do know that states that have legalized it the youth usage has gone up.

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

6 hours ago, bostonangler said:

 

Pot was legal for a longtime... Our founding fathers smoked it... Do you know why it was demonized and made illegal... One word. HEMP... You see hemp and marijuana are in the same family, and William Hurst had the patent on making newspaper out of wood pulp. When someone discovered a way to make it out of hemp, he decided to shut them down. He used his media empire to demonize marijuana and because it was linked with hemp he got them both outlawed to save his greedy business interests. Another reason was hemp's threat to corporations making synthetic clothing and plastics from oil. Hemp could do all those things more effectively and cheaper, but that would take away profits. Again corporate greed... Here read this it is an interesting story. It doesn't mention the Hurst side of it, but you can research that too.

 

For the first 162 years of America's existence, marijuana was totally legal and hemp was a common crop. But during the 1930s, the U.S. government and the media began spreading outrageous lies about marijuana, which led to its prohibition. Some headlines made about marijuana in the 1930s were: "Marijuana: The assassin of youth." "Marijuana: The devil's weed with roots in hell." "Marijuana makes fiends of boys in 30 days." "If the hideous monster Frankenstein came face to face with the monster marijuana, he would drop dead of fright." In 1936, the liquor industry funded the infamous movie titled Reefer Madness. This movie depicts a man going insane from smoking marijuana, and then killing his entire family with an ax. This campaign of lies, as well as other evidence, have led many to believe there may have been a hidden agenda behind Marijuana Prohibition.

Shortly before marijuana was banned by The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, new technologies were developed that made hemp a potential competitor with the newly-founded synthetic fiber and plastics industries. Hemp's potential for producing paper also posed a threat to the timber industry (see New Billion-Dollar Crop). Evidence suggests that commercial interests having much to lose from hemp competition helped propagate reefer madness hysteria, and used their influence to lobby for Marijuana Prohibition. It is not known for certain if special interests conspired to destroy the hemp industry via Marijuana Prohibition, but enough evidence exists to raise the possibility.

After Alcohol Prohibition ended in 1933, funding for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the Drug Enforcement Administration) was reduced. The FBN's own director, Harry J. Anslinger, then became a leading advocate of Marijuana Prohibition. In 1937 Anslinger testified before Congress in favor of Marijuana Prohibition by saying: "Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind." "Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes." Marijuana Prohibition is founded on lies and rooted in racism, prejudice, and ignorance. Just as politicians believed Harry J. Anslinger to be a marijuana expert in 1937, many people still believe law enforcement officials are marijuana experts. In reality, law enforcement officials have no expert knowledge of marijuana's medical or health effects, but they do represent an industry that receives billions of tax dollars to enforce Marijuana Prohibition.

Before the government began promoting reefer madness hysteria during the 1930s, the word marijuana was a Mexican word that was totally absent from the American vocabulary. In the 1930s, Americans knew that hemp was a common, useful, and harmless crop. It is extremely unlikely anyone would have believed hemp was dangerous, or would have believed stories of hemp madness. Thus, the words marijuana and reefer were substituted for the word hemp in order to frighten the public into supporting Hemp Prohibition. Very few people realized that marijuana and hemp came from the same plant species; thus, virtually nobody knew that Marijuana Prohibition would destroy the hemp industry.

Bolstering the theory that marijuana was banned to destroy the hemp industry, two articles were written on the eve of Marijuana Prohibition that claim hemp was on the verge of becoming a super crop. These articles appeared in two well-respected magazines that are still published today. The articles are:

Flax and Hemp (Mechanical Engineering, Feb. 1937)
New Billion-Dollar Crop (Popular Mechanics, Feb. 1938)

This was the first time that billion dollar was used to describe the value of a crop. These articles praise the usefulness and potential of hemp by stating "hemp can be used to produce more than 25,000 products" and "hemp will prove, for both farmer and public, the most profitable and desirable crop that can be grown." Marijuana Prohibition took effect within one year after both these articles were written.

 

 

Another example of propaganda and corporate greed... Boys these guys are good!

B/A

I don't use it, and would never use it unless medical needs legitimately required. However, I am something of a libertarian, and as such I see no reason for the Federal Government to make a law telling someone what they can induce into their body. Nevertheless, the penalty for causing someone harm while under the influence should be the most extreme. People must be held responsible for there actions.

[nstoolman1]

18 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

I don't use it, and would never use it unless medical needs legitimately required. However, I am something of a libertarian, and as such I see no reason for the Federal Government to make a law telling someone what they can induce into their body. Nevertheless, the penalty for causing someone harm while under the influence should be the most extreme. People must be held responsible for their actions.

I will buy most of what you are saying with the exception to the part of hurting someone else. 

I would buy the complete premise if after killing someone while under the influence you would get a swift and speedy trial and if found guilty a swift and speedy execution.

I would even go as far as putting all drugs and alcohol in the same pot. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by nstoolman1

[MyLadiesDaddy]

5 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

I will buy most of what you are saying with the exception to the part of hurting someone else. 

I would buy the complete premise if after killing someone while under the influence you would get a swift and speedy trial and if found guilty a swift and speedy execution.

I would even go as far as putting all drugs and alcohol in the same pot. 

Then we completely agree

[MyLadiesDaddy]

.

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Ya just know their actually gonna pic this Pervert to be the candidate.

 

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Stunning what these Democratic Socialist believe

 

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

[bostonangler]

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 7:09 PM, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

However, I am something of a libertarian, and as such I see no reason for the Federal Government to make a law telling someone what they can induce into their body.

 

 

Ha Ha Ha… Now that's the funniest post in a while..

 

B/A

[MyLadiesDaddy]

9 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

 

Ha Ha Ha… Now that's the funniest post in a while..

 

B/A

Care to explain?

[bostonangler]

5 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Care to explain?

 

Yes... I find the libertarian comment funny. Only because you always post pro-conservative... Libertarians are not supporting either side of the government as it is today. Less government not more government... Both sides want more control over our daily lives..

 

B/A

[MyLadiesDaddy]

13 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

Yes... I find the libertarian comment funny. Only because you always post pro-conservative... Libertarians are not supporting either side of the government as it is today. Less government not more government... Both sides want more control over our daily lives..

 

B/A

I support more jobs, lower taxes, a strong economy, Border Security, Enforcement of ALL laws, for the betterment of my Children and all Americans. But What I love the most about President Trump is watching him drive people who don't support the above go crazy. 

I would much more prefer to have Ron Paul as my POTUS. 

The Democratic Socialist don't support a SINGLE ONE of the  afore  mentioned positions and thus I have nothing for them. That then leaves me

with Trump. 

[bostonangler]

4 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

The Democratic Socialist don't support system" rel="">support a SINGLE ONE of the  afore  mentioned positions and thus I have nothing for them. That then leaves me

with Trump. 

 

Calling them socialist doesn't make it true. It might make you feel good about your self, but the truth is not as general or simple as you like to portray it. I do think there are some democrats who do support the things you mentioned. And to say your only choice is Trump doesn't make sense when libertarians run a candidate in every election. So if you truly believe what you say, then voice your opposition to the corrupt parties and vote libertarian... Don't just say it. And don't say voting Libertarian is throwing your vote away... Voting for the same old crooked players is throwing your vote away. I've told you many times I couldn't with good conscience vote for either Trump or Clinton and voted Libertarian because my soul would have ached too badly if I had sold out to either of those crooked lying people.

 

B/A

[MyLadiesDaddy]

39 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

Calling them socialist doesn't make it true. It might make you feel good about your self, but the truth is not as general or simple as you like to portray it. I do think there are some democrats who do support system" rel="">support the things you mentioned. And to say your only choice is Trump doesn't make sense when libertarians run a candidate in every election. So if you truly believe what you say, then voice your opposition to the corrupt parties and vote libertarian... Don't just say it. And don't say voting Libertarian is throwing your vote away... Voting for the same old crooked players is throwing your vote away. I've told you many times I couldn't with good conscience vote for either Trump or Clinton and voted Libertarian because my soul would have ached too badly if I had sold out to either of those crooked lying people.

 

B/A

I call them Socialist because their actions and what they stand for is Socialism. Denying that doesn't make it false, though it may make

you feel better about yourself. 

 

Every single person that the Libertarian Party nominates is a complete lunatic. The Party has been overrun by a bunch of stone heads. 

And I won't condone that. Usually in that situation I don't vote at all. 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 

[umbertino]

 

Why does socialism have such a bad name in the USA? Is it only because it is often confused with communism or are there other reasons?

 

Common People respond

 

 

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-socialism-have-such-a-bad-name-in-the-USA-Is-it-only-because-it-is-often-confused-with-communism-or-are-there-other-reasons

[nstoolman1]

 

 

 

Comparison Chart

 

BASIS FOR COMPARISON	COMMUNISM	SOCIALISM
Meaning	Social organization system, that focuses on communal ownership and eliminating class distinction.	Theory of social organization where there is public or cooperative ownership of the means of production.
Ideology	Political and economic	Economic
Proposed by	Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels	Robert Owen
Main idea	To achieve equality among members of society and promoting classless society.	To achieve equality and fairness among the society members.
Basis of wealth distribution	According to the needs.	According to the efforts or contribution.
Means of production	Equally owned by the members of the state.	Owned by the citizens.
Management of resources	Lies on few people belonging to a particular authoritarian party.	Done by the people
Ownership of property	Private Property cannot be owned, but personal property can be owned.	Yes
Capitalism	It removes capitalism.	Can exist in socialism.

 

 

 

They both take away the incentive to achieve beyond what is expected. 

Why work hard to have it taken away.  

No guarantee that greed among the people who administrate the program will not occur. 

You are turning over your God given right to freedom to someone else to run your life. 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

10 hours ago, umbertino said:

 

Why does socialism have such a bad name in the USA? Is it only because it is often confused with communism or are there other reasons?

 

Common People respond

 

 

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-socialism-have-such-a-bad-name-in-the-USA-Is-it-only-because-it-is-often-confused-with-communism-or-are-there-other-reasons

Asking this question shows that you don't know what either are. So to put it in the simplest of terms, 

Socialism is Communism without the guns. Which is why Socialist ALWAYS  want to take away our guns, because 

Communism is the end goal of all Socialist. 

Also you recently stated that Switzerland was a Socialist nation. I've been looking into this and you are wrong.

Switzerland is a Capitalistic Nation with strong socialistic programs. It is not what the Democratic Socialist of America 

are attempting to create here. 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

This is another reason that

we reject the Democratic Socialist 

of America, These People are Sick

 

 

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Hey Pervert Bernie, Hows about 

we Keep Americas Economy so Booming 

that we don't need any bread lines