Grasscity.com Forums - Politics

Cheech & Chong visit Bill O'Reilly

Shade — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:00:14 GMT

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly & Cheech and Chong on...

I probably don't need to go into how moronic O'Reilly is, as I'm sure most of us have arrived at that conclusion, and retained it for some time now... but...

I think it's comical how he continues to use language such as 'ruse' when describing MMJ, as if the MMJ movement is some kind of 'grand scheme' to enable druggies and dealers. I also find it interesting how he decides to chop up the interview, interrupting it with random scenes from their movies in an effort to distract viewers and promote the misinformed stereotype and label of 'potheads'.

He also seems to go on to suggest that Cheech and Chong are only funny if the entire audience is stoned, which is rather insulting in a sense, as if they don't have any true comedic talent. Fortunately his little jabs don't seem to phase either of them.

He also attempts to claim that through 'his undercover people' he found that many drug dealers go into MMJ clinics to buy cannabis and then 'sell it to kids'. While a possibility, if only a rare one, I find this hard to believe, personally. In my long experience I've never known any dealer, pusher, supplier, or trafficker of cannabis of any kind to specifically target 'kids' as their primary customer. They typically target their peers as their primary customers, but don't tend to discriminate based on age... meaning they'll sell to both older people and younger people. But again, I've never known anyone to, for instance, go to an elementary school to push weight. :rolleyes:

Then he decides to go into the addiction claims. At first he says marijuana is "the top addiction of American teenagers." Chong quickly jumped in to clarify if he was talking about mental or physical addiction to which Bill responded "mental". So he DOES know the difference, he knows there are two different types of addiction, but he doesn't seem to care about how they are different or why.

Cheech and Chong go on to suggest that they'd like to see cannabis rescheduled to a schedule II drug, prescription only, but I think it's safe to say they are simply advocating that as a first step in an effort to appeal to a wider audience on the issue.

When is the last time you changed your political view?

Shade — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:20:42 GMT

...Be it on a single issue like healthcare or war, or an entire foundation (i.e. Dem -> Rep)... BASED on a discussion/debate you had with someone else who was arguing against your previous stance?

Why are Americans so ignorant of their own history?

TheDecline — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:50:30 GMT

I am talking specifically about the Revolutionary period and our Founding Father's.

I am tired of hearing about how George Washington was such a racist because he had slaves and that a bunch of old white crackers made a racist system.

These fools baffle me because if it was not for the fact that slavery was incompatible with the Revolutionary ideals and with the spirit of our Constitution and Bill of Rights there may have been slavery in America much longer, or even still today.

Blame falls on the low quality of most educators, the Prussian school system we adopted, and idiotic race baiting propaganda. For some reason "they" do not want us to know the truth of our own history and it is quite disturbing.

Definitive proof of global warming hoax has been found

Sir Elliot — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:51:21 GMT

Dear Blades,

The debate, as they say, is now over.

Definitive proof that leading global warming scientists have been conspiring for years to fake data, publish false papers by conspiring to get them past peer review censors, hide actual data, etc.

Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released � Watts Up With That?

Hadley hacked: warmist conspiracy exposed? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

And IMHO the best summary taken from multiple sources is found here:

Hot Air � Blog Archive � Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?

Conspiracy FACT

k.smith904 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:01:02 GMT

Just a short list of well-known facts that started out as conspiracy theories.

Operation Northwoods:
In the early 1960s, American military leaders drafted plans to create public support for a war against Cuba, to oust Fidel Castro from power. The plans included committing acts of terrorism in U.S. cities, killing innocent people and U.S. soldiers, blowing up a U.S. ship, assassinating Cuban �migr�s, sinking boats of Cuban refugees, and hijacking planes. The plans were all approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but were reportedly rejected by the civilian leadership, then kept secret for nearly 40 years.

The Iran-Contra Affair:
In 1985 and '86, the White House authorized government officials to secretly trade weapons with the Iranian government in exchange for the release of U.S. hostages in Iran. The plot was uncovered by Congress in 1987. It is also widely accepted that the CIA smuggled cocaine into the United States (Oliver North) and suckered a young black man into distributing the drugs and ultimately taking the fall (Ricky Ross).

MK-ULTRA:
In the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA ran a mind-control project aimed at finding a "truth serum" to use on communist spies. Test subjects were given LSD and other drugs, often without consent, and some were tortured. At least one man, civilian biochemist Frank Olson, who was working for the government, died as a result of the experiments. The project was finally exposed after investigations by the Rockefeller Commission.

Operation Mockingbird:
Also in the 1950s to '70s, the CIA paid a number of well-known domestic and foreign journalists (from big-name media outlets like Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS and others) to publish CIA propaganda. The CIA also reportedly funded at least one movie, the animated "Animal Farm," by George Orwell. The Church Committee finally exposed the activities in 1975.

Watergate:
Republican officials spied on the Democratic National Headquarters from the Watergate Hotel in 1972. While conspiracy theories suggested underhanded dealings were taking place, it wasn't until 1974 that White House tape recordings linked President Nixon to the break-in and forced him to resign.

The Dreyfus Affair:
In the late 1800s in France, Jewish artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus was wrongfully convicted of treason based on false government documents, and sentenced to life in prison. The French government did attempt to cover this up, but Dreyfus was eventually pardoned after the affair was made public (an act that is credited to writer �mile Zola).

The Mafia:
This secret crime society was virtually unknown until the 1960s, when member Joe Valachi first revealed the society's secrets to law enforcement officials.

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study:
The United States Public Health Service carried out this clinical study on 400 poor, African-American men with syphilis from 1932 to 1972. During the study the men were given false and sometimes dangerous treatments, and adequate treatment was intentionally withheld so the agency could learn more about the disease. While the study was initially supposed to last just six months, it continued for 40 years. Close to 200 of the men died from syphilis or related complications by the end of the study.

1990 Testimony of Nayirah:
A 15-year-old girl named "Nayirah" testified before the U.S. Congress that she had seen Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators, causing them to die. The testimony helped gain major public support for the 1991 Gulf War, but -- despite protests that the dispute of this story was itself a conspiracy theory -- it was later discovered that the testimony was false. It was actually the creation of public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for the purpose of promoting the Gulf War.

The 9 Most Shocking Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to be True

So the next time you decide you want to completely disregard a conspiracy theory, just remember that not all of them turn out to be false.

Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner

Shade — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:58:18 GMT

Blaze up and watch this, you'll laugh. :bongin:

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

Wtf @ hr 2454

Shade — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:22:37 GMT

What it is and where it's at...
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)

Why it sucks...
Top 10 Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade | FreedomWorks

What you can do...
Campaign For Liberty — Campaigns

This thing needs to die in the Senate.

Geithner Asked to Resign

aaronman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:49:04 GMT

YouTube - Rep. Kevin Brady Texas asks Timothy...

Hahahaha.

Muslim countries seek blasphemy ban

garrison68 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:05:58 GMT

More news about the "religion of peace", they're looking to censor the whole world. Now they're going for total islamization of everywhere, and if enough spineless jellyfish support them - they'll get it!

AP Exclusive: Muslim countries seek blasphemy ban
By FRANK JORDANS (AP) – Nov. 19 2009

GENEVA — Four years after cartoons of the prophet Muhammad set off violent protests across the Muslim world, Islamic nations are mounting a campaign for an international treaty to protect religious symbols and beliefs from mockery — essentially a ban on blasphemy that would put them on a collision course with free speech laws in the West.

Documents obtained by The Associated Press show that Algeria and Pakistan have taken the lead in lobbying to eventually bring the proposal to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly.

If ratified in countries that enshrine freedom of expression as a fundamental right, such a treaty would require them to limit free speech if it risks seriously offending religious believers. The process, though, will take years and no showdown is imminent.

The proposal faces stiff resistance from Western countries, including the United States, which in the past has brushed aside other U.N. treaties, such as one on the protection of migrant workers.

Experts say the bid stands some chance of eventual success if Muslim countries persist. And whatever the outcome, the campaign risks reigniting tensions between Muslims and the West that President Barack Obama has pledged to heal, reviving fears of a "clash of civilizations."

Four years ago, a Danish newspaper published cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad, prompting angry mobs to attack Western embassies in Muslim countries, including Lebanon, Iran and Indonesia. In a countermovement, several European newspapers reprinted the images.

The countries that form the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference are now lobbying a little-known Geneva-based U.N. committee to agree that a treaty protecting religions is necessary.

The move would be a first step toward drafting an international protocol that would eventually be put before the General Assembly — a process that could take a decade or more.

The proposal may have some support in the General Assembly. For several years the Islamic Conference has successfully passed a nonbinding resolution at the General Assembly condemning "defamation of religions."

If the treaty was approved, any of the U.N.'s 192 member states that ratified it would be bound by its provisions. Other countries could face criticism for refusing to join.

Just last month, the Obama administration came out strongly against efforts by Islamic nations to bar the defamation of religions, saying the moves would restrict free speech.

"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said. "I strongly disagree."

But there are signs the U.S. is worried by the Islamic Conference campaign. Behind the scenes it has been lobbying hard to quash the proposal, dispatching a senior U.S. diplomat to Geneva last month for talks described as akin to trench warfare.

"The U.S. presence can be significant in determining the whole destiny of the process," said Lukas Machon, who represents the International Commission of Jurists at the U.N.

From a legal point of view, "the whole exercise is dangerous from A-Z because it's a departure from the practice and concept of human rights," Machon said. "It adds only restrictions."

In a letter obtained by the AP, Pakistan said insults against religion were on the increase.

The Islamic Conference "believes that the attack on sacredly held beliefs and the defamation of religions, religious symbols, personalities and dogmas impinge on the enjoyment of human rights of followers of those religions," the letter said. It was sent last month to members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, a temporary committee created to consider a previous anti-racism treaty.

In a separate submission to the committee, Pakistan proposed extending the treaty against racism to require signatories to "prohibit by law the uttering of matters that are grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion."

It's not clear who would decide what is considered grossly abusive, but each country's criminal courts would likely have initial jurisdiction over that decision, according to Marghoob Saleem Butt, a Pakistani diplomat in Geneva who confirmed the campaign's existence and has lobbied for the ban.

"There has to be a balance between freedom of expression and respect for others," Butt said in a telephone interview.

"Taking the symbol of a whole religion and portraying him as a terrorist," said Butt, referring to the Muhammad cartoons, "that is where we draw the line."

One American expert with more than 20 years experience of the U.N. human rights system said the treaty could have far-reaching implications.

"It would, in essence, advance a global blasphemy law," said Felice Gaer, a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The independent, congressionally mandated panel issued a report last week warning that existing laws against blasphemy, including in Pakistan, "often have resulted in gross human rights violations."

In Egypt, blasphemy laws have been used to suppress dissidents, said Moataz el-Fegiery, executive director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies. Abdel Kareem Nabil, a blogger, was sentenced in February 2007 to four years in prison for insulting Islam and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

He said reformists who reinterpret traditional Islamic texts have also become the target of blasphemy accusations.

More broadly, introducing laws to protect religions from criticism would weaken the whole notion of human rights, said Sweden's ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, Hans Dahlgren.

"Religions as such do not have rights — it's people who have rights," he said, adding that the European Union, whose presidency Sweden currently holds, would oppose attempts to limit freedom of speech.

The treaty goes against the grain of recent efforts by Western and Muslim countries to find common ground on human rights.

Only last month a joint U.S.-Egyptian resolution on freedom of expression won unanimous support in the U.N. Human Rights Council, much to the surprise of seasoned observers. "We will engage, and we're going to keep engaging," said Michael Parmly, spokesman for the U.S. Mission in Geneva.

In a telephone interview Wednesday, the Ad Hoc Committee's chairman, Algerian Ambassador Idriss Jazairy, said concerns the treaty could stifle free speech have been "whipped up into a bugaboo."

Failure to agree on a treaty would boost extremists in the Arab world, said Jazairy, a former envoy to Washington now considered a key player in the U.N.'s human rights forum.

"If we keep hitting this glass wall and say there's nothing you can do about Islamophobia — you can do something about anti-Semitism but Islamophobia is out of bounds — you give an ideal platform for recruitment of suicide bombers," he said.