It is going to get worse. (Politics and $$$ related)
LaserWolf
Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
LaserWolf
Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
Comments
If your rich enough your allowed to molest children and the courts are more worried about a rich person not fairing well in prison that what the scum did to his daughter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/30/robert-richards-rape_n_5060386.html
Interesting post! I think the problem might be even more complex / fucked up then you suggest it is.
Your post makes it seem as if weed-smokers banded together, said "enough is enough," and, on the strength of their unified convictions, managed to undo the laws of the "capitalist oligarchy." To me, that seems like the sort of comforting, self-serving myth which lots of successful movements subscribe to.
I mean, you're probably right, some of pro-weed's success has been based on people getting organized around a shared cultural/moral position (that smoking teh doobies ain't all that bad, and that prohibition is unjust). But I'd argue that the movement's success is also because they play the same game that you're denouncing in the rest of your post -- that is, the pro-marijuana campaign, which has existed as an idea/value for a long-ass time, owes its recent success to the fact that it's now backed by a shitload of money. Dirty hippies buy the law, too!
It'd be fun to see pro-weed (or anti-slavery, or black rights in America, or gay rights, etc.) as this of-the-people movement which is toppling the evil/fascist capitalist state, but you could just as easily see it as being part of a new/emerging "capitalist oligarchy."
So, here's the mindfuck: if the above is true (if pro-weed just represents a different/new/emerging capitalist power), then your post isn't anti-capitalist at all, is it?
tldr: Abandon hope.
Something tells me it's not just dirty hippies fronting the cash, but maybe that was your point.
Because Brian thinks he could lickspittle his way into comfort in the Rollerball world.
And he probably could.
Don't even try to see it as a victory for the people because what we really want is decriminalization and not just another means for the government to get more involved in our personal lives.
Fuck medicinal benefits and tax money as the kickers. We just want to get high in peace.
dude
I'm not even sure what you are saying, but I think I agree with your general point .
The majority of people support legal marijuana so we are getting it because it generates tax dollars and keep people sedated so they don't cause trouble. I'm not saying it's going to topple anything it's just becoming mainstream like alcohol and cigarettes. Popular support pushed the issue but if it didn't benefit the rich we wouldn't be getting it.
The majority of people support gay marriage but the religious right will continue to control this issue for a while. And the politician will pander to the religious minority and extreme right as long as that's where their campaign funds come from. This recent funding ruling will just make it worse. A basic human freedom being denied for money.
The majority of citizens, politicians and even NRA members support some for of gun control via back ground checks and limits on high capacity magazine and assault rifles. This may never happen because a very small minority with a lot of money who profit from gun sales keep this issue form progressing. Perfect example of a capitalist oligarchy maintain control against the people's and governments wishes. Even the president can't do anything about it.
AHC was passed based on popular support but a small minority still want to repeal it because it goes against their plan for "us". I.E. keep us working and in debt to fund their uber-lifestyle. Insurance is more about making big money for corporations than it is helping people. I'm not saying the companies shouldn't make money but they should have a system where profits aren't put ahead of people.
My concern is that this funding ruling is precisely timed to help the conservatives win the next election with money.
It shouldn't even come to that. I mean, of course cannibus has a ton of medicinal benefits that should be freely available to all. But to have to utilize that argument, and/or that regulated weed can enhance tax revenue, in order to say just don't fucking tread on me misses the point IMO.
In fact, it invites more treading.
1st - I love the fact that a post about a SCOTUS ruling of money in politics has turned to a thread about weed in about 5 steps.
2nd. - Fully agree with Harvey here. And I am pretty sure that Rick Steves (travel guide extraordinaire) is also huge proponent of not propping up legalization solely by exploiting its medical benefits (i.e. they are separate causes)
I suspect the reality is that you need the medicinal benefit argument to really get those on the other side to at least open the door -- people are more likely to be open minded to this issue if they see the benefits of helping a young kid with seizures as opposed to just an opportunity for "the burnout Chad" to get his weed. Silly perspectives of course, but that is the reality these days.
Not what I was expecting. It's what makes this place great.
But the SCOTUS ruling will not have a great effect on social issues like marriage, marijuana and munitions.
Both sides of those issues will raise lots and lots of money.
This is about transferring the wealth from us to the 1%.
This is to assure that no banker goes to jail, and all bankers get their bonuses.
This is about making sure that fracking is not regulated.
This is about making sure that GMOs are not regulated.
My prediction for first visible effect of the ruling, feds assure Herbalife stock tanks.
I'm appalled. We should be able to do it in three steps. The terrorist have won.
more lelz
I think maybe *everything* is gonna get worse.
Wealth distribution.
Environment going down the shitter (scaremongering!!)
Politics getting even more removed from the common man.
There is no doubt about it. Scientist are pretty much saying we are f'd if we don't make major changes soon regarding climate change. Our great grand kids could very well be living Mad Max style.
The wealth distributions is already in hands of the 1% so it's pretty bad.
NSA spies on everyone, gay marriage still being debated, and guns for everyone because the elites income trump children being murdered. All of this funded by the taxpayers no less.
Umm, you lost me bigtime there. Guns are to protect individual selves as well as to protect us collectively from tyranny.
You can't want freedom and not want individuals to be free to own their own guns.
Dude, I'm talking about proper background checks, wait periods and no extra large clips. None of these infringe on your rights. If your actually worried about having an extra large clip to defend your self against government agents then news flash, it won't help. They will just drone you into oblivion.
We are living under tyranny right now, all the civilian guns have done nothing to stop this. Your gun is not stopping NSA from collecting all your personal info and unregulated spying on innocent civilians is a form of tyranny.
Your a smart guy Harvey but your falling right into the NRA's trap in thinking a gun in your closet makes you free.
You hadn't made any of those distinctions.
But hell yeah, all the guns owned by civilians in the US has slowed the tyranny of executing or throwing any more of us into prison over political reasons.
And while you say I'm aping the NRA (I'm not at all), you sound like you are aping the other end of the extreme...as if it's specifically large clips that has killed the children you mentioned.
I actually want civilians to have access to ALL weapons in existence as that what's governments (with 95% of them proven to be corrupt) have. Okay, maybe not nukes...but nobody should have those, governments included.
My point was that capitalism is so pervasive that we can't even think/act outside of it. It's embedded in us, such that even when we try and make explicitly anti-capitalist arguments (such as your own), we often unintentionally and implicitly support/enshrine/reproduce capitalism. It seems to me that your post intended to be anti-capitalist, but you unintentionally supported a capitalist movement when you implied support for pro-marijuana.
That's no kind of knock on you, for the record. I'm sure most people who identify as anti-capitalists inadvertently reproduce capitalism multiple times a day (that goes without saying on this particular forum). And that's what's so scary about capitalism.
Really? Which "us"?
I grew up hunting and target shooting and all my family and in-laws own guns. Not one of us sees the need to own anything other than shotguns, rifles (hunting not assault) and pistols that hold the standard amount of bullets. The only reason you need large clips is to kill people. Yes, people kill people but guns make it easier and quicker to kill people. You could not kill 20 people in a movie theater if you had to strangle them. Seriously when has an armed citizen ever stopped a shooting spree because he was allowed to carry a concealed large clip gun? Never. What rights are you preserving having a gun in your house? None. Who will you stop from taking over with that gun? Nobody. The only thing your going to succeed in doing is to go down shooting, but your still going down. Your fully entitles to own a gun and defend your self but to actually claim you are going to stop tyranny with your gun is total la la land.
Or the dictatorship camouflages itself as a two party system, calls it "democracy" and lets you buy all the guns you want to enjoy the illusion of being free and empowered. It's also called "friendly dictatorship" and apparently it works fairly well.
I realize there is no getting out of capitalism. I'm just saying it's very rare that we get what we want out of it. Marijuana legalization is one of the few things.
no one can buy all the guns they want and i'd imagine there's a strong anti-government sentiment (and thus under no illusion that freedom and empowerment springs forth solely from gun ownership) common among people who actually believe in the constitution and exercise their constitutional rights.
i'd agree with your sentiment given almost any other example