You made the point that you're an intellectual coward. You would rather take the bitch route of applying the universally feared "RACIST!" label to me than to acknowledge or dispute the validity of my statement.

Basically the intellectual equivalent of turtling.

wrong. I didn't call you a racist. I don't even disagree with what you stated.
You filtered my statement noting only race as a factor and left out all of the other people who also voted. In 2010 more than in previous elections young white middle class people voted, and lots of non-minority voters who wanted to "be a part of history" voted as well. A broad swath of the Democrat base was energized about Obama, as well as being horrified about Palin. The statement you made was racist even though correct in my opinion.

lol intellectual coward. It was more like trollfishing to see how you'd respond.

wrong. I didn't call you a racist. I don't even disagree with what you stated.
You filtered my statement noting only race as a factor and left out all of the other people who also voted. In 2010 more than in previous elections young white middle class people voted, and lots of non-minority voters who wanted to "be a part of history" voted as well. A broad swath of the Democrat base was energized about Obama, as well as being horrified about Palin. The statement you made was racist even though correct in my opinion.

lol intellectual coward. It was more like trollfishing to see how you'd respond.

Racist is such a boring, overused word. It has really lost it's shock value, don't you think? Here a racist, there a racist, everywhere a racist racist. Basically everytime somebody mentions race it's racist. Well, **** all you sensitive little bitches that cry everytime someone says "black". Hell, I haven't even broken out any of my good slurs yet.

You know what's racist? Nah, I'm not going to say that since it is boring and lacks shock value. You know what's pro-bro? It's pro-bro when 96% of blacks vote for the black man on election day. Knowhaimsayin?

You know what's pro-bro? It's pro-bro when 96% of blacks vote for the black man on election day. Knowhaimsayin?

You meant 96% of them voted for the mild-mannered, self-made, Columbia and Harvard University educated, distinguished gentleman from Illinois, right?

Oh that's right...I forgot. He's black.

I guess many black people are smarter than you realized.

You meant the mild-mannered, self-made, Columbia and Harvard University educated, distinguished gentleman from Illinois, right?

Oh that's right...I forgot. He's black.

Blacks and other minorities damn sure didn't forget he was black on election day. Why should I?

Blacks and other minorities damn sure didn't forget he was black on election day. Why should I?

Because it doesn't matter anymore.

Because it doesn't matter anymore.

Then why did blacks turn out in droves to vote nearly 100% for the black man? It matters to them and it matters to me.

You telling me they were all just so inspired by his political message - moreso than any politician in the history of the country - and they were blind to the color of his skin? Sheeeeeeiiiit.

One of my main problem's with the "legalize marijuana" side is that many of their arguements are, well, stupid.
I prefer to think of it as the relegalize marijuana side.



William Randolph Hearst using irresponsible and inflammatory journalism? Now that I find absolutely plausible. Although I have a problem with the idea that he was a pawn of the timber industry...one would assume if there was a way to make newspapers out of something cheaper than timber, which would allow him to make even more obscene profits, he'd be all for it.
What I've read is that he wasn't a pawn of the timber industry- he was invested in it, and through that he used newspapers etc and the timber holdings as a sort of symbiotic relationship. However, you bring up a good point. I think that the main reason he had a marijuana smear campaign is that he was something of a puritan. In his over the top California castle (worth checking out if you're ever here, btw) there was no drinking or intoxication. I don't know about you, but if I built a goddamn castle in the middle of nowhere and entertained famous guests, there would be all kinds of crazy partying. I'll bet he loved the idea of criminalizing an intoxicant while tightening his hold over industry. At any rate, he published a lot of factually untrue journalism about marijuana. Hash making a sane man murderous? He probably also published an article about how having sex with brown women sends a proper rational white man into a homicidal voodoo trance, or how a shot of whiskey will make a man of science bust his head in with a hammer.




I keep hearing that there is no evidence of marijuana caused deaths, but I find it hard to believe. It's a substance that plays with the user's reflexes, judgement, and throught process, and is usually used by teenagers (a group that, on the whole, has the judgement and common sense of lemmings.) I mean, how unlikely is this:

"Dude, I'm high as hell!"
"Dude, I bet you won't go pet that cow!"
(Cue horrendous goring by 800 pound Brahma bull)
Alcohol can kill a person through organ failure, even without a bull present. Things like stupidity and teenagers with large animals are always going to kill people, but America seems to like to blame other things because they don't want to blame the stupidity of a dead kid. Remember when people were up in arms about Mortal Kombat ruining the youth of America? Or maybe rap, Marilyn Manson, scary movies, Doom, goth culture, emo culture, sagging pants, and every other dumb teenage thing? I don't think those things are to blame. To be fair, yes, an intoxicated teenager can get into trouble. Usually less than a drunk teenager, I'd say, but pretty much any marijuana legalization law includes an age limit like cigarettes and booze.


And yeah, alcohol could cause the same thing, as could plain old teenage retardation. But I'd count that as a marijuana caused death.
I'd call it a bunch of bull (see what I did there?). More seriously, yes it would be a contributing factor. However, IMO a bunch of teenagers who are high are actually a lot less likely to go out and imitate Jackass, because people who are stoned like to relax and hate being hurt in any way. But again, age limits like cigarettes and alcohol. Do they work? Well, sort of.

**** it. Let's assume Carl Sagan was blazing up ten times a day. Still, for every Carl Sagan smoking weed, you've got probably 100,000 Snoop Doggs.

You have no idea what you're talking about, because you have no clue how many normal and/or intelligent, productive people are smoking weed. They just don't run around advertising the fact for obvious reasons.


You know what's racist? Nah, I'm not going to say that since it is boring and lacks shock value. You know what's pro-bro? It's pro-bro when 96% of blacks vote for the black man on election day. Knowhaimsayin?

You're right, blacks should've totally voted for the Republican party on election day, because no one cares about the interests of minorities like Republicans. Oh wait...

You have no idea what you're talking about, because you have no clue how many normal and/or intelligent, productive people are smoking weed. They just don't run around advertising the fact for obvious reasons.

Spoken like a true pothead.

"I is smartt as ****! Suriously. Now, watch me lite this fart."

Well, boys and girls - time for me to head home to Whiteprivelegeville. In anticipation of your butthurt emo retorts to my rock solid reasoning - **** you.

**** it. Let's assume Carl Sagan was blazing up ten times a day. Still, for every Carl Sagan smoking weed, you've got probably 100,000 Snoop Doggs.

A world where everyone is Snoop Dogg or Carl Sagan? That's like something I'd ask a genie. Anyway, I assume what you're saying is that Snoop Dogg isn't exactly a rocket scientist. So, what does marijuana have to do with any of this? The Carl Sagans of the world are already few and far between.

Then why did blacks turn out in droves to vote nearly 100% for the black man? It matters to them and it matters to me.

You telling me they were all just so inspired by his political message - moreso than any politician in the history of the country - and they were blind to the color of his skin? Sheeeeeeiiiit.

Maybe it was because for the first time in 200 years there was a chance a smart black American had a chance to become President and they wanted to help make it happen. I know that's one reason I voted for Obama. Yes, it was time, and the Republican running made a fool of himself by joking about new wars he wanted to start, failing at debates, and oh yeah...nominating an utter lunatic as his VP.

Had he been a Jesse Jackson or an Alan Keyes (both of whom ran for president), I probably would have voted for McCain anyway.

Well, boys and girls - time for me to head home to Whiteprivelegeville. In anticipation of your butthurt emo retorts to my rock solid reasoning - **** you.

Fix your style field.

Moron. :icon_albi

your example with the flamethrower is fucking stupid for a fairly obvious reason- how often do you SEE a fucking flamethrower? weed is smoked everywhere. something like 60+ percent of peolpe in this country admit to having tried it at least once and 25-30% are regular users. thats a fucking lot of people, and yet where are all the deaths caused? how many times do you see someone in the news getting busted for having a secret flamethrower?

i mean really, your arguement in that regard is as dumb as your fucking face. jabroni.

Maybe it was because for the first time in 200 years there was a chance a smart black American had a chance to become President and they wanted to help make it happen. I know that's one reason I voted for Obama.

That's racist. We should all be blind to skin color.

Interesting timing. Just saw a news story that sums it all up pretty well:

Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran is blaming his party's losses last November in large part on voters who "don't want to be governed by an African-American."

The comments were made following President Obama's State of the Union speech Tuesday during an interview with Arab network Alhurra. Asked about the results of the midterm elections, the Virginia congressman compared the political environment to that which preceded the Civil War and suggested race was a determining factor.

"It happened ... for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States," Moran said. "Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn't want to see a president who was opposed to slavery.




So to summarize: If blacks vote for a black man because he's black - good to go. If whites don't vote for a black man because he's black - evil racists. Makes sense to me.