Blogs 4 Brownback

April 30, 2008

Quotable Quote of the Day

Filed under: Housekeeping & Maintenance,Truth — Psycheout @ 6:15 am
Tags:

Thumbs Up!The stark contrast between wisdom and idiocy in our comment threads is sometimes startling.  But wading through them proves to be worthwhile when one comes across gems like this:

To you, reliable sources require a flag in the fireplace, a cross in the toilet, and excessive praise reaped upon Darwin. If it gives compliments to the Republican Party or Bush, it is automatically bunk to you.

This is Bob Corker as his best.  He is responding to a constant complainer in the thread, whining that he doesn’t trust B4B’s facts and citations (“As for reliable sources, I haven’t seen any of those here yet.”), even though we link to mainstream news sources and always cite our sources in plain view.  Our whiner on the other hand never cites sources and provides nothing other than baseless complaints.

Well done, Bob.  B4B’s comment threads would not be the same without you!

Hat Tip: Thanks to Tyler Dresden for pointing this out and recommending this post via email.

– Psycheout

73 Comments »

  1. That is indeed a beautiful quote. It would be even more inspiring if it were true. Link us to your sources, so people can at the very least decide whether said sources are credible. Otherwise, a lot of people will probably just assume you’re making it up out of your own head.

    Comment by L — April 30, 2008 @ 7:19 am | Reply

  2. Oh gee, is this a thread all for me, I feel so special. But you still don’t use reliable sources, and in the beginning I always linked to reliable sources but you idiots just ignored them or claimed they were drug addled junkies (like the American Journal of Nueroscience). When you linked to other extremist blogspots as your reliable sources, or even better yet, most of your reliable sources are links back to some of your other idiotic posts.
    My quote still stands “As for reliable sources, I haven’t seen any of those here yet.”,
    Rather than link to reliable news sources you prefer to just print their stories here, and change them to suit your own stupid purposes.
    But once again, thank you for honoring me with my very own thread, I feel so special I could just s**t.

    Comment by Arn — April 30, 2008 @ 9:10 am | Reply

  3. I agree with Arn. Every single news item you reference should have a link to the original article. After all, if you found them important enough to post about, surely we’ll want to read them in their entirety?

    Comment by L — April 30, 2008 @ 9:16 am | Reply

  4. Oops, I was mistaken, sorry, you were actually referring to Corker’s mindless dribble in response to my telling the truth, an honest mistake, you put mine in quotation marks not his. Although I have to admit, if that is his best, then please don’t torture us with his worst, his best could easily be outdone by a three year old.

    Comment by Arn — April 30, 2008 @ 9:36 am | Reply

  5. Corker was right on one point though, “If it gives compliments to the Republican Party or Bush, it is automatically bunk to you.”
    The Republican party and Bush ARE bunk, so compliments to them are also bunk.

    Comment by Arn — April 30, 2008 @ 9:49 am | Reply

  6. Exactly. Plus, while “To you, reliable sources require a flag in the fireplace, a cross in the toilet, and excessive praise reaped upon Darwin,” is not accurate, you have to admit, the monkey has a gift for rhetoric.

    He just needs to mature beyond Piaget’s “pre-conceptual” stage, as does Marty. Both of them act as if they were the center of the universe.

    Comment by L — April 30, 2008 @ 10:08 am | Reply

  7. That quote is a gem from Corker. Poetical even.

    Arn, L, I note you avoid dealing with Corker’s central point; that you all hate America?

    Comment by BJ Tabor — April 30, 2008 @ 10:12 am | Reply

  8. “Arn, L, I note you avoid dealing with Corker’s central point; that you all hate America?”

    So says the idiot that can’t even tell the difference between a sentence and a question.

    Comment by Arn — April 30, 2008 @ 10:47 am | Reply

  9. I do not hate the basic principles on which America was founded. The only thing I hate is when corrupt men (and women) take political control of my country. I hate government corruption because I love America. This is why I am upset about a lot that is going on in the government right now.

    The greatest sign of patriotism is to understand that political leaders are not gods or angels, but fallible human beings like you and me. Sometimes they will make mistakes. Sometimes they will even do things that are wrong. This is why we have elections in the first place–to weed out the corrupt and replace them with wise, caring leaders who will do what is best for all Americans, not just for themselves and some corporate lobbyists.

    Comment by L — April 30, 2008 @ 10:57 am | Reply

  10. DESU [x9000]

    Comment by The Nobody — April 30, 2008 @ 11:08 am | Reply

  11. DESU [x9000]

    Comment by The Nobody — April 30, 2008 @ 11:08 am | Reply

  12. DESU [x9000]

    Comment by The Nobody — April 30, 2008 @ 11:10 am | Reply

  13. QUOTE ME FAGGOT [x87]

    [Admin: Sorry, but you're just not interesting at all. "DESU" has already been done, surprisingly enough. What have you ever said that was worth quoting? You're nobody.]

    Comment by The Nobody — April 30, 2008 @ 11:11 am | Reply

  14. LOL REPUBLICONS

    Comment by The Nobody — April 30, 2008 @ 11:13 am | Reply

  15. Thank you, BJ, Tyler, and Psycheout, for your kind comments.

    The Nobody, you’re an idiot.

    “in the beginning I always linked to reliable sources”

    Way to go, you actually put effort into finding sources on the object that you illegally grow and hallucinate on. Nothing else matters to you. But the fact is that Americans mostly oppose legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana. And you want sources? Here you go:

    Source 1 (might I add that this website is generally a big tent website?)
    Source 2 (this one has real life accounts)
    Source 3 (this one also mentions that marijuana COULD be useful in medical studies, AND is from academia. At least read this one)
    Source 4

    If there really is a medical usage for marijuana, I don’t mind it being legalized as long as it stays in the lab. Marijuana has been shown to increase car crashes (only the ‘fine arts’ colleges will try to argue against this), and as with alcohol, it’s just not worth the risk. I bet you just laugh off the deaths of people related to pot, don’t you?

    Oh, and you repeatedly state ‘Government Doesn’t Work’. This makes you some kind of anarchist. Since you have shown yourself to be anti-capitalist, that means that you are a ‘true’ anarchist, which is far left:

    So what exactly is anarchism. Above all its the idea that an individuals freedom should only be constrained by the freedom of others, that there should be no government. This definition is of course inadequate but from it flows the opposition to capitalism and authoritarian socialism. Its aim is nothing less than the liberation of humanity. Anarchism has taken many forms, to really define it in its complexity you have to look at the historical process of the anarchist movement. Unlike most of the rest of the left we have no wish to remain static, scholarly re-interpreting the works of the early prophets and arguing over the number of angels a pinhead. Our aim is revolution.

    In short, you’re highly dangerous and schizophrenic. If I had my way, you’d be banned, since we’ve seen enough of your rants, and feel that you are excessively anti-family in your tone. Not only that, you don’t actually enjoy this website, while some of our leftist commentators do express approval of this blog (EB), so banning you would actually make you happier. But, this is Psycheout’s blog, so consider yourself at his mercy.

    “I do not hate the basic principles on which America was founded. The only thing I hate is when corrupt men (and women) take political control of my country. I hate government corruption because I love America. This is why I am upset about a lot that is going on in the government right now.”

    No leader other than Brownback will have no corruption attached to their name. You’re mostly correct. The Democrat Party, however, stands out, since it’s pretty obvious Clinton made several illegal concessions to the UN or other foreigners.

    “The greatest sign of patriotism is to understand that political leaders are not gods or angels, but fallible human beings like you and me.”

    Tell that to the Paultards and Obama toadies. Brownback is likely the reincarnation of the angel Gabriel, and he will be the one to spread the good news of the coming Golden Age.

    “This is why we have elections in the first place–to weed out the corrupt and replace them with wise, caring leaders who will do what is best for all Americans, not just for themselves and some corporate lobbyists.”

    Lobbyists are people too, L. In addition, the AFL-CIO is far more corrupt than any corporation. It doesn’t really help workers out with their problems. You should also note the significant better standards of living labor unions have than their frontline members. The difference between corporations and labor unions is that corporations don’t lie: they tell their workers straight up that they won’t make a good living. Labor unions also managed to have some states sign laws requiring workers to join a union, although this may be debunk now.

    Comment by bobcorker — April 30, 2008 @ 1:29 pm | Reply

  16. Actually Corker is the most confused little idiot I have ever known, in the time I’ve been commenting on this site he has changed religion three times, changed his choice for president countless times, claimed penguins were robots built by NASA then claimed they were spliced fish and birds (also made by NASA), he has responded to my questions speaking as BJ and vice versa, BJ has responded to my questions speaking as Corker (he’s not sure which one he is), and he defies his own religion (the one he claims to belong to now) by supporting the Republican party while his religion favors doing away with both parties in favor of the rule of the Christian “elite” with no rights given to anyone and no state or local government, just Imperical rule by a bunch of religious fanatics who would rule by the guidelines (twisted to their own agenda) they find in the old testament that says basically to kill everyone unless they live up to their high (yeah right) religious and moral standards.
    I wonder if he has ever stayed with one belief or one opinion on anything for more than a day or two before switching to another.

    The next time you have a thought, Corker, just let it go, it’ll be gone shortly anyway.

    Comment by Arn — April 30, 2008 @ 4:40 pm | Reply

  17. I have to question the quotability of this phrase. For a quote to be quotable, it needs to be able to be applied accurately in numerous fitting situations. This is sadly not that widely applicable.

    Comment by Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu — April 30, 2008 @ 9:19 pm | Reply

  18. I much prefer Corker’s quote about evading income tax, or any of his racist statements. And then the ones where he says that only KKK members and nazis can be racist, thus he cannot be racist.

    Comment by Dio Brando — April 30, 2008 @ 10:58 pm | Reply

  19. “And then the ones where he says that only KKK members and nazis can be racist, thus he cannot be racist.”
    Apparently racism is patented, and can only be used legally by certain groups.

    Comment by Elephant Bones — May 1, 2008 @ 2:20 am | Reply

  20. [Admin: Sorry, but you're just not interesting at all. "DESU" has already been done, surprisingly enough. What have you ever said that was worth quoting? You're nobody.]

    Your argument was stupid. Drink bleach through a bendy straw.

    [Admin: k]

    Comment by The Nobody — May 1, 2008 @ 10:54 am | Reply

  21. lol strict moderation

    go ahead and censor me. this site is meaningless.

    Comment by The Nobody — May 1, 2008 @ 10:57 am | Reply

  22. The Nobody, you must be mistaken, these nice folks would NEVER censor anyone’s comments, they are way too honest and unbiased to ever do something so,,, well,,, so liberal. :-D

    Comment by Arn — May 1, 2008 @ 12:12 pm | Reply

  23. In case Mr Admin didn’t quite catch that last comment:

    sarcasm

    Main Entry: sar·casm
    Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
    Date: 1550
    1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
    2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm

    Comment by Arn — May 1, 2008 @ 1:51 pm | Reply

  24. “Source 1 (might I add that this website is generally a big tent website?)
    Source 2 (this one has real life accounts)
    Source 3 (this one also mentions that marijuana COULD be useful in medical studies, AND is from academia. At least read this one)
    Source 4

    If there really is a medical usage for marijuana, I don’t mind it being legalized as long as it stays in the lab. Marijuana has been shown to increase car crashes (only the ‘fine arts’ colleges will try to argue against this), and as with alcohol, it’s just not worth the risk. I bet you just laugh off the deaths of people related to pot, don’t you?”

    No, but I do laugh at your stupidity.
    Source one: although it is an unreliable source (it’s a blog, dumbass) it does point out some of the uses for medical marijuana, and does not say a word about it being “bad”.
    Source 2: Three little quotes with no mention of who made them or if they were just drawn from the authors mind for the sake of his blogspot. (also not a reliable source and it provides no sources of its own to support those statements, although one statement did say it was pushers not pot that made them do heroin. Heroin IS a dangerous drug, pot is not)
    Source 3: Outdated and unreliable. All of its claims have since been proven false. Including its claim that use has increased. Use has decreased, and that decrease has been most prominant in the 12 states that have decriminalised its use. (now 13 states, but no numbers are yet available for the last one)
    Source 4: Another blogspot showing the opinion of the author and the author only. No verifiable sources whatsoever, just someone else rattling on about the so called dangers of pot.

    Now, for the deaths of people related to pot. The DEA has been trying for 70 years to associate just one death with marijuana, do you know something they don’t?
    The claims on cancer and emphysema. Pot is used to treat both of those conditions. It has been proven to inhibit the growth of cancer cells and it expands the capilaries in the lungs making it easier for emphysema patients to breathe. Cancer and emphysema are the two diseases that pot is used the most on for treatment. Other medical uses include slowing the process of alzhiemers disease, and several other forms of dementia. (so much for the “it makes you crazy” idea, it actually helps prevent you from going crazy)

    Now I challenge you to show me just one reliable source that supports any of your claims. If you find one, by all means tell the DEA, they’ve been trying to find one for 70 years. So far they have not been able to show that it has even a single adverse effect. Yet it has been proven to have thousands of uses, both medically and in industry.

    And DON”T link to any more blogspots, they are useless for sources, they can write whatever they want. Show me actual verifiable evidence that a single word of what you and those “sources” say is true. I have already linked you to the real research done on pot (The American Journal of Nueroscience for one) on this sites own bulls**t story on pot.

    Comment by The One — May 1, 2008 @ 3:50 pm | Reply

  25. Also, in over seventy years of trying, nobody has yet been able to associate a single case of cancer to pot, yet many still insist that we will start seeing up to 10,000 cases of cancer a year due to pot, they’ve been saying that for the past several years, so far, not a single case.

    Comment by The One — May 1, 2008 @ 3:59 pm | Reply

  26. Oh yeah, so far, not a single hallucination either, and that’s after over 40 years of smoking it. And I am healthier than most people my age who don’t smoke it, why is that?

    Comment by The One — May 1, 2008 @ 4:01 pm | Reply

  27. And as a final blow, HR5843 is now in congress. This is a bi-partisan bill aimed at making it legal nationwide for personal use and to make the transfer of it between adults legal. Under this law private use would be completely legal while public use would be varied according to each states own laws with public drinking, at any rate, no state would be allowed to impose a sentence for public use that exceeds a $100 fine.
    This bill is being supported by both republicans and democrats in all 50 states. I have personally spoken with our Representitve (Paul Kanjorski, D-PA) about this measure and he assures me that the bill will get his complete support as well. And over 76 percent of the population of the U.S. favors decriminalization or legalization of marijuana (results of a joint CNN/Time magazine national poll). People who think the way you do are vastly outnumbered.

    Comment by The One — May 1, 2008 @ 7:05 pm | Reply

  28. (results of a joint CNN/Time magazine national poll)

    Sorry, but I had to laugh. XD;;

    Comment by Dio Brando — May 1, 2008 @ 7:35 pm | Reply

  29. I know why you had to laugh too, but it works to my advantage here, and I’m sure you know why. :-D

    Comment by The One — May 1, 2008 @ 8:01 pm | Reply

  30. By the way, that poll is six years old. Today over 80% of the population is in favor of decriminalization, that is in keeping with the numbers drawn from over two hundred polls done in the past two years, however there are no qualified nationwide polls with which to compare these numbers, they are from local polls taken by universities and private organizations across the country.

    Comment by The One — May 1, 2008 @ 8:16 pm | Reply

  31. KKKorKKKer deserves a private hell for idiots not very unlike the hell inside his head.

    Comment by MoxoM — May 2, 2008 @ 12:02 pm | Reply

  32. KKKorKKKer is the KKKlan’s KKKoolade KKKocKKKsucKKKer.

    Comment by MoxoM — May 2, 2008 @ 12:03 pm | Reply

  33. And as a final blow, HR5843 is now in congress.

    Keep dreaming “The One.” It won’t happen in our lifetime. Hippies have been saying legalization (or decriminalization) is just around the corner since the 1960s. It will never pass Congress. There is no compelling reason for elected officials to unleash the horror of legal pot on our nation. And those who voice support for such a thing will be seen (or painted) as “soft on crime.”

    Pray tell, how many Congress critters have actually voiced support in public for the bill in question? More than five? Is that enough for it to pass the House?

    You’ll have to research it yourself, because I’m not going to waste my time. Here’s info on the bill from the congressional website. You can watch its progress from introduction to scrap heap there.

    It’s a pipe dream, pun intended, and nothing more.

    Ask yourself this: what would a politician possibly hope to gain by going on the record and voting for legalized drugs? Think really hard on that one. Do a cost/benefit analysis and calculate the marginal utility of doing so. Then you’ll have to face reality. Not going to happen.

    Comment by Psycheout — May 2, 2008 @ 2:32 pm | Reply

  34. Keep up Psyche, it’s already been done in thirteen states (that accounts for one third of the total population of the US), I’ve talked to several representatives from both parties that also support it. Your very own special enemy Ron Paul co-sponsored it, and it is supported by over three fourths of the country’s population. It is also backed by thousands of doctors and medical researchers across the country. This is the first such national effort in over 24 years, and this time we are way ahead, the only ones that don’t support it are police (it’s their bread and butter, easy busts of otherwise responsible law abiding citizens) and idiots like you. I think the 110th congress will listen to the majority instead of the idiots this time.

    Comment by Arn — May 2, 2008 @ 5:03 pm | Reply

  35. Hippies have been saying legalization (or decriminalization) is just around the corner since the 1960s.

    As a note, it’s been about 40 years. That means the deadheads from then are now at that age where they can seriously enter politics.

    Comment by Dio Brando — May 2, 2008 @ 6:03 pm | Reply

  36. “Hippies have been saying legalization (or decriminalization) is just around the corner since the 1960s.”

    And it has been happening for years now. Several states already have (13 so far with it coming up on the November ballot in three more) and there are similar measures being considered in almost all of the remaining states with most lawmakers now getting behind those measures. Now in some of those states the local officials have started denying access by the DEA to the records of medical marijuana patients which they have used in the past to conduct raids on legal users under the provisions that it is still illegal under federal law. They let the states make it legal, then arrest the legal users under federal regulations. The locals are tired of those actions and are now refusing to release any info to the feds in an effort to stop their raids for something that the state allows. And it’s working, without the info on who is using it legally they can’t make those raids. Interestingly enough, they are only raiding the legal users and growers, not the ones that are not legal. But the feds are quickly losing that battle as more states and more cities are joining the battle against the feds and refusing to supply them with those records, and the courts are upholding the decisions of the states in these matters and not the feds.

    Face it, it is a harmless substance and every year more and more people are beginning to understand that as more reliable information is available now, and not just the scare tactic propaganda that the government has been putting out for 70 years to make people believe it was dangerous.
    The new measure (measure 8 as they call it) in Portland Oregon is designed to make it legal and to introduce it into normal commerce so that the state can also make money off of it through taxes. Yes, that means it could be bought in stores just like beer and cigarettes.

    Comment by Arn — May 2, 2008 @ 6:52 pm | Reply

  37. And not a one of you have yet addressed my question on it’s harmfulness. If it could do all those things you claim, then why, after over 40 years of regular and heavy use, have I not suffered a single one of those effects, and why is it that I am still healthier and more active than over 80% of the people in my age group? In fact, my overall condition is that of someone thirty years younger. The only thing that gives away my age is a trachial chondroma that recurs from time to time and needs to be cut out, but once removed my breathing is once again equal to that of anyone else thirty years younger than me.

    Comment by Arn — May 2, 2008 @ 7:03 pm | Reply

  38. “If it could do all those things you claim, then why, after over 40 years of regular and heavy use, have I not suffered a single one of those effects, and why is it that I am still healthier and more active than over 80% of the people in my age group?”
    In the interests of fairness, posting testifying is not a sufficient argument for the support of marijuana. If you were to undergo a full physical examination by a doctor, and post the results, then you would be credible.

    Comment by Elephant Bones — May 2, 2008 @ 10:44 pm | Reply

  39. “results of a joint CNN/Time magazine national poll”

    Fascinating; I would like to see this poll. Of course, you don’t actually know how to cite your sources. You are the same way with sources as you are with money: you expect other people to give it to you, but you don’t actually have to give your own.

    Anyways, I’m going to give you one last chance to give a halfway decent argument, brat. I’ve got information from Gallup (which, if you laugh off, you are mentally insane and, I’m not sorry to say, should be deported to Sweden) that states this:

    With the responses to both questions taken into account, the poll shows that 28% of Americans support legalization of marijuana for whatever reason, 25% oppose it even for medicinal purposes, while 43% support it for medicinal purposes but not for general use.

    So the majority support medical legalization, but NOT general use. And don’t be saying that your stupid reefer buddies outnumber the pious Americans; a 3% difference is irrelevent, since this is generally the margin of error cited in polls.

    The fact is that, although there may be some benefits to marijuana, there are just too many downsides to risk legalizing it. If you legalize it in the pharmecutical field, I guarantee that it will become as accessible as toilet paper anyways. It’s the same way with alcohol, too. Also, if you really think that marijuana is not a depressant (which make driving more dangerous), then you must think that coffee helps cure insomnia.

    Cite a nonpartisan source, or shut up. And don’t even try telling us about its effects on you or individuals in your personal life; those are completely unprovable, and for all we know you could be submerging your head in the toilet and then flushing the toilet after each smoke. If you do this, then I’ll refrain from mentioning people in my life that I’ve seen marijuana destroy. Deal?

    “Actually Corker is the most confused little idiot I have ever known, in the time I’ve been commenting on this site he has changed religion three times, changed his choice for president countless times, claimed penguins were robots built by NASA then claimed they were spliced fish and birds (also made by NASA), he has responded to my questions speaking as BJ and vice versa, BJ has responded to my questions speaking as Corker (he’s not sure which one he is), and he defies his own religion (the one he claims to belong to now) by supporting the Republican party while his religion favors doing away with both parties in favor of the rule of the Christian “elite” with no rights given to anyone and no state or local government, just Imperical rule by a bunch of religious fanatics who would rule by the guidelines (twisted to their own agenda) they find in the old testament that says basically to kill everyone unless they live up to their high (yeah right) religious and moral standards.”

    With a run-on this long, how can we take you seriously? A minor run-on is fine, but this is pretty ridiculous.

    Comment by bobcorker — May 2, 2008 @ 10:59 pm | Reply

  40. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03189.pdf

    This is an official government report on medical marijuana. The beginning may confuse you do to the legal jargon that tends to confuse most people, it is quite long (over 50 pages) and includes several references to the difficuly involved in providing accurate information based on the disagreements between federal and state authorities on release of personal information regarding specific patients. It also notes that the number of doctors prescribing marijuana and the number of patients requesting registration is very low due to concerns over the federal governments refusal to stop arresting both doctors and patients under federal law even when it is legal by state and local law.
    I suggest you pay attention to the info starting on page 51 which gives a list of medical conditions that qualify for treatment wiith marijuana and the properties that make marijuana the best choice for treating those conditions. Cancer, Alzhiemers Disease, Multiple Scoleosis, glaucoma and pain control rank high on that list due to the huge success that these treatments have shown. There are many other conditions on the list that have been successfully treated with marijuana, but the number of patients still remains low due to the DEA’s interference with state and local laws.
    If you have the time, I suggest you read the entire report. But at least read all info in the last ten pages which gives the overall conclusions of the report in general.

    Comment by Arn — May 3, 2008 @ 11:17 am | Reply

  41. How about the American Civil Liberties Union? They are non partisan and they are an official government agency, here’s their opinion for you.

    http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/10851res20001115.html

    Comment by Arn — May 3, 2008 @ 11:27 am | Reply

  42. Even the commission that was founded for the sole purpose of exposing the dangers of marijuana and other drugs failed to find any harmful effects of marijuana, they knew it was harmless way back in 1972 but they didn’t make their findings readily available to the public because those findings contradicted what they were looking for.

    http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm

    And your gallup poll is almost ten years old, and I have found updated evidence that much of their data was falsified in much the same way that Lancet falsified its report on marijuana causing psychosis. I wont post those here due to the fact that they are not “officially government related sources”, which is what you are demanding here.

    Comment by Arn — May 3, 2008 @ 11:41 am | Reply

  43. “In the interests of fairness, posting testifying is not a sufficient argument for the support of marijuana. If you were to undergo a full physical examination by a doctor, and post the results, then you would be credible.”

    Of course you are right about that, EB. And I do get a full physical every year, and other than the trachial chondroma and the beginning signs of disc compression which is normal in people over fifty, that’s why old people tend to stoop and seem shorter than they used to be. I don’t stoop yet and my back seems fine but I know those days are coming soon, it’s part of growing old. But I think I’ll just leave this one in the air as my own opinion and not a verifiable fact, as posting such things such as official doctor’s reports would be putting too much personal information into the hands of people such as those here on this site. Also, it would be very easy for me to use my own computer to make that report say whatever I want it to, so even a doctor’s official report on my physical condition couldn’t be accepted as fact unless you knew me well enough to know that I wouldn’t alter it before posting it. You have a good point there, but I’ll keep that kind of personal info personal, and leave it up to the individual to believe me or not.
    Thanks for pointing that out anyway, by doing so you make your own honesty more apparent. Not that I ever doubted it, but there are others here that doubt the honesty of everyone who comments.

    Comment by Arn — May 3, 2008 @ 12:09 pm | Reply

  44. Also, I don’t actually credit pot as being responsible for my good health, just that it hasn’t caused any damage. I give more credit for my condition to the fact that I am not a drinker or drug (other drugs, of course) abuser and that I have lived a healthy lifestyle, country living without the pollutants of big cities, a healthy diet without junk foods or fast foods, and healthy excercise obtained from honest hard work (I’ve never worked out in my life). I’ve spent most of my summers as a volunteer wildfire fighter up until I moved to PA a few years ago. Don’t take that volunteer bit as an indication that I did it for free, I was very well paid, I just wasn’t employed by the forestry dept, we were an independant fire fighting company based in Redmond Oregon. And I’ve been a farmer my whole life (I still am) and that is very hard work for anyone of any age.

    Comment by Arn — May 3, 2008 @ 12:23 pm | Reply

  45. EB, I wont tell you my real age as it could lead some to disregard all of my comments as being the ramblings of a senile old man,,lol. But I can say that there are many people my age in nursing homes across the country. :-D

    Comment by Arn — May 3, 2008 @ 12:48 pm | Reply

  46. And one last little link to give you access to several other links containing actual court cases that show that the courts are now deciding against the DEA and for those supporting the medical use of marijuana. (these are all recent cases not outdated info like you use) And also that Congress is pressuring the DEA to lighten up on its efforts as well. Go to this link then follow each of the links provided on that page to read the details of each case and the details of Congress’ requests to the DEA.

    http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/index.html

    Comment by Arn — May 3, 2008 @ 1:34 pm | Reply

  47. My grandpa is 82 and could still whup me in any exercise besides running. Are you older or younger?

    Comment by Elephant Bones — May 3, 2008 @ 3:59 pm | Reply

  48. Now now, EB, you’re trying to get into numbers again, I admire your gandpa for his energy at his age, it’s rare for people his age or mine to have that kind of energy, I hope his longevity rubs of on you too, just out of curiousity, is your dad also still very active (I’m assuming he’s pushing 60 or so by now, that’s just a guess based on the average age people start having kids, he could be a first child or last which would change that, just a rough guess) I ask that because it could be an indication that you are destined to be healthy and active into your eighties too, much of longevity is inherent (unless you do something to screw it up, like drinking and smoking excessively). My own family history is full of people who lived well into their early 100’s. My father is 97 and still active, he has emphysema and carries an oxygen bottle on his side but he still takes care of his animals (cattle and pigs) and maintains his three catfish ponds, while my mother (95) still manages the house and “little things” on their little farm like the chickens and rabbits, and she still cooks at a local catfish house.
    Ok, I just gave it away, your grandfather is older, but it is conceivable that had we lived near each other we could have gone to school together just not in the same grade,,,lol.

    Comment by Arn — May 3, 2008 @ 4:31 pm | Reply

  49. By the way, I can still run very well, just not very far. :-D

    Comment by Arn — May 3, 2008 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

  50. And I still climb trees like a monkey,, lol. Had to throw that one in there because I love climbing trees. I am also an avid rock climber, though there’s not much opportunity for that in Pennsylvania.

    Comment by Arn — May 3, 2008 @ 4:40 pm | Reply

  51. My dad’s 53, and i’m barely an adult myself. He’s also a self-described ‘gym-rat’ meaning he frequents the gym and just works out whenever he’s bored (in addition to his typical gym schedule). I’m adopted, so I didn’t inherit their energetic genes. =\

    Comment by Elephant Bones — May 3, 2008 @ 6:06 pm | Reply

  52. “I’m adopted, so I didn’t inherit their energetic genes.”

    Just one more reason that adoption is a better option than abortion. Adopted children can grow into intelligent responsible adults, aborted children can’t.
    Sorry, just had to throw that in there for the folks that keep promoting abortion on here.
    But on the bright side, that still doesn’t mean that you wont live a long and healthy life, just that you didn’t inherit it from the man who raised you.

    Comment by Arn — May 3, 2008 @ 6:56 pm | Reply

  53. “that means that you are a ‘true’ anarchist, which is far left:”

    Couldn’t you find a better link than that? How are we supposed to take anything on that page seriously? It’s a blog written by someone whose spelling is comparable to that of a third grader. Just reading it was a pain, the guy misspells even the most basic words. Nothing he said was actually backed by anything, and even if he were correct on some points he loses all credibility in his lousy spelling and lousy grammer. If you want to link to something, how about something official? Not the ramblings of some guy who flunked third grade spelling and English.

    Comment by The One — May 4, 2008 @ 8:23 pm | Reply

  54. “Ask yourself this: what would a politician possibly hope to gain by going on the record and voting for legalized drugs?”

    Beats me, why don’t you ask these people, they already have gone on record as supporting it, have voted for it in the past and have already voiced their support for it and for the passage of HR5843. Pick a few at random, or do a search and check the opinions of each of them if you doubt my word. Granted, most of them are Democrats, but Democrats do hold the majority of seats in Congress now. And there are many more who are as yet undecided on the issue, but believe me the pressure is being put on them by public opinion and by their peers and more of them are leaning towards voting for it every day. But as I said don’t take my word for it. Check them each out individually. Support for this bill is much stronger than you think.
    Abercrombie (D-HI)
    Ackerman (D-NY)
    Allen (D-ME)
    Andrews (D-NJ)
    Baird (D-WA)
    Baldwin (D-WI)
    Bartlett (R-MD)
    Becerra (D-CA)
    Berkley (D-NV)
    Berman (D-CA)
    Bishop (D-GA)
    Bishop (D-NY)
    Blumenauer (D-OR)
    Brady (D-PA)
    Broun (R-GA)
    Campbell (R-CA)
    Capps (D-CA)
    Capuano (D-MA)
    Carnahan (D-MO)
    Carson (D-IN)
    Christensen (D-VI)
    Clay (D-MO)
    Cleaver (D-MO)
    Cohen (D-TN)
    Conyers (D-MI)
    Courtney (D-CT)
    Crowley (D-NY)
    Davis (D-CA)
    Davis (D-IL)
    DeFazio (D-OR)
    DeGette (D-CO)
    Delahunt (D-MA)
    DeLauro (D-CT)
    Doggett (D-TX)
    Doyle (D-PA)
    Ellison (D-MN)
    Emanuel (D-IL)
    Engel (D-NY)
    Eshoo (D-CA)
    Farr (D-CA)
    Fattah (D-PA)
    Filner (D-CA)
    Flake (R-AZ)
    Frank (D-MA)
    Garrett (R-NJ)
    Giffords (D-AZ)
    Gilchrest (R-MD)
    Gonzalez (D-TX)
    Green, Al (D-TX)
    Grijalva (D-AZ)
    Gutierrez (D-IL)
    Hare (D-IL)
    Harman (D-CA)
    Hastings (D-FL)
    Higgins (D-NY)
    Hinchey (D-NY)
    Hirono (D-HI)
    Hodes (D-NH)
    Holt (D-NJ)
    Honda (D-CA)
    Hooley (D-OR)
    Hoyer (D-MD)
    Inslee (D-WA)
    Israel (D-NY)
    Jackson (D-IL)
    Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
    Johnson (D-GA)
    Johnson (R-IL)
    Johnson, E. B. (D-TX)
    Jones (D-OH)
    Kanjorski (D-PA)
    Kaptur (D-OH)
    Kennedy (D-RI)
    Kildee (D-MI)
    Kilpatrick (D-MI)
    Kind (D-WI)
    Kucinich (D-OH)
    Langevin (D-RI)
    Lantos (D-CA)
    Larson (D-CT)
    LaTourette (R-OH)
    Lee (D-CA)
    Lewis (D-GA)
    Loebsack (D-IA)
    Lofgren (D-CA)
    Lowey (D-NY)
    Maloney (D-NY)
    Markey (D-MA)
    Matsui (D-CA)
    McCarthy (D-NY)
    McCollum (D-MN)
    McDermott (D-WA)
    McGovern (D-MA)
    McNulty (D-NY)
    Melancon (D-LA)
    Miller, George (D-CA)
    Mitchell (D-AZ)
    Moore (D-KS)
    Moore (D-WI)
    Moran (D-VA)
    Murphy (D-CT)
    Murtha (D-PA)
    Nadler (D-NY)
    Napolitano (D-CA)
    Neal (D-MA)
    Norton (D-DC)
    Oberstar (D-MN)
    Obey (D-WI)
    Olver (D-MA)
    Pallone (D-NJ)
    Pascrell (D-NJ)
    Pastor (D-AZ)
    Paul (R-TX)
    Payne (D-NJ)
    Perlmutter (D-CO)
    Peterson (D-MN)
    Porter (R-NV)
    Price (D-NC)
    Rangel (D-NY)
    Rehberg (R-MT)
    Renzi (R-AZ)
    Rodriguez (D-TX)
    Rohrabacher (R-CA)
    Rothman (D-NJ)
    Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
    Royce (R-CA)
    Ruppersberger (D-MD)
    Rush (D-IL)
    Ryan (D-OH)
    Sanchez, Linda T. (D-CA)
    Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA)
    Sarbanes (D-MD)
    Schakowsky (D-IL)
    Schiff (D-CA)
    Scott (D-GA)
    Scott (D-VA)
    Serrano (D-NY)
    Sestak (D-PA)
    Shea-Porter (D-NH)
    Sherman (D-CA)
    Sires (D-NJ)
    Slaughter (D-NY)
    Solis (D-CA)
    Sutton (D-OH)
    Tancredo (R-CO)
    Tauscher (D-CA)
    Thompson (D-CA)
    Tierney (D-MA)
    Towns (D-NY)
    Udall (D-CO)
    Udall (D-NM)
    Van Hollen (D-MD)
    Velazquez (D-NY)
    Walz (D-MN)
    Waters (D-CA)
    Watson (D-CA)
    Watt (D-NC)
    Waxman (D-CA)
    Weiner (D-NY)
    Welch (D-VT)
    Wexler (D-FL)
    Woolsey (D-CA)
    Wu (D-OR)
    Wynn (D-MD)
    Yarmuth (D-KY)
    Broun (R-GA)
    Christensen (D-VI)*
    Cohen (D-TN)
    Courtney (D-CT)
    Ellison (D-MN)
    Giffords (D-AZ)
    Gonzalez (D-TX)*
    Hare (D-IL)
    Hirono (D-HI)
    Hodes (D-NH)
    Johnson (D-GA)
    Kanjorski (D-PA)
    Loebsack (D-IA)
    Mitchell (D-AZ)
    Murphy (D-CT)
    Norton (D-DC)*
    Perlmutter (D-CO)
    Rodriguez (D-TX)
    Sarbanes (D-MD)
    Schakowsky (D-IL)*
    Sestak (D-PA)
    Shea-Porter (D-NH)
    Sires (D-NJ)
    Sutton (D-OH)
    Walz (D-MN)
    Welch (D-VT)
    Yarmuth (D-KY)
    Emanuel (D-IL)
    Peterson (D-MN)
    Renzi (R-AZ)

    Comment by The One — May 4, 2008 @ 8:55 pm | Reply

  55. In case you are wondering why my list is in alphabetical order then jumps back to the beginning of the alphabet again, it’s because the first list is of the ones that have supported it all along, those at the bottom are the ones that were originally against it and have changed their opinions in the face of new information and a better understanding of the benefits of pot, and those that had previously not stated an opinion on way or another. If you like I could update that list as others voice their opinions or change them. I could even tell you if anyone on the list changes their opinions to go against it, but I really don’t see that happening, more are changing in favor of it than against it, but to be fair I could let you know both. I am in regular contact with several members of Congress on this issue, especially Kanjorski (my Representative) who I helped to convince to change his original stand which was against it. No I didn’t convince him myself, I was one of many who met with him on this issue.

    Comment by The One — May 5, 2008 @ 10:03 am | Reply

  56. And then there is one of my favorites, your very own Republican Governor, Arnold Schwartzenegger. His thoughts on marijuana, and I quote “that’s not a drug it’s a leaf”

    Comment by The One — May 5, 2008 @ 7:54 pm | Reply

  57. It’s been four days since anyone from b4b has had anything to say here, do you think perhaps they don’t know how to respond when someone posts the kind of links they ask for, and those links show official reports that disprove their claims?
    And I would still like to see an official report that supports Corker’s claim that it has been associated with an increase in car crashes because so far there hasn’t been a single car accident that has been linked to marijuana. A couple of sources have tried, but they had to admit that those accidents where pot was involved other drugs and/or alcohol has also been involved. Now if a drunk has an accident and they find pot in the driver’s system, what do you really think would be the main cause? The alcohol of course. But so far not a single one that could be blamed on pot alone. Why is this? It’s because pot smokers tend to be more cautious when driving, while people on other drugs and alcohol tend to be more reckless.
    Prove me wrong, Corkbutt.

    Comment by The One — May 6, 2008 @ 5:54 am | Reply

  58. Or is this just another in a long line of cases where they get proven wrong and decide to just move on to another stupid post?

    Comment by The One — May 6, 2008 @ 5:59 am | Reply

  59. “There is no compelling reason for elected officials to unleash the horror of legal pot on our nation.”

    You know, except for the fact that cannabis was 100% legal until the 1920’s.

    There is much evidence to suggest that newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst made hemp look more dangerous than it actually is in order to eliminate competition. You see, just before growing hemp in the U.S. was banned, a method of producing hemp-based paper was discovered that was so efficient that it threatened to drive Hearst’s wood-based paper mills out of business. Hemp was also widely used to make ropes, lubricating oils, durable clothing, and other useful products. Until Hearst’s smear campaign in the 20’s, most people didn’t even realize you could use cannabis as a drug at all. Therefore we can safely assume that a lot of potential abusers never actually did so. (You can’t use a drug that you don’t know exists, now can you?) Basically, if a car accident occurred and there was a joint in the car, it was publicized on the front page of the paper in huge print. Alcohol-related accidents, which were 1,000 times more common (even during the tail end of Prohibition, when alcohol, not cannabis, was illegal!), were written up in a tiny little blurb near the back. And let’s not forget delightful propaganda films like “Reefer Madness.” By 1937, the Marihuana [sic] Tax Act was enacted, which didn’t ban marijuana use entirely, but merely made it prohibitively expensive to grow and sell (which basically had the same effect). This law was temporarily repealed during WWII, when the U.S. military actually encouraged the growth of hemp to support the war effort (remember, hemp has several legitimate, non-drug-related uses). The MTA was immediately enforced again as soon as the war ended, and remained official U.S. policy regarding marijuana until it was replaced by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

    To clarify the terms used above:
    Hemp is a family of plants, some species of which are intoxicating, that has a legitimate use in the production of rope, clothing, paper, and motor oils.
    Cannabis is the scientific name for the hemp family. However, in common use, it generally refers only to those species containing THC. Cannabis is also referred to by a variety of other names, including marijuana, hashish, “reefer,” “pot,” “weed,” to name a few.
    THC is the intoxicating substance found in marijuana.

    Also, TheOne, you forget to mention that a lot of pot smokers don’t use it while driving at all. You can’t say that of drunks, as anyone who’s tried to convince an obviously drunk person to take a taxi home can attest.

    Comment by L — May 6, 2008 @ 8:03 am | Reply

  60. It’s been four days since anyone from b4b has had anything to say here, do you think perhaps they don’t know how to respond when someone posts the kind of links they ask for, and those links show official reports that disprove their claims?

    Or maybe…heheheh…AHAHAHAHAHAHA~

    Comment by Dio Brando — May 7, 2008 @ 5:07 pm | Reply

  61. they are just fucking eachother in the ass, Dio

    Comment by MoxoM — May 7, 2008 @ 5:39 pm | Reply

  62. Ahh, and L, you forgot to mention the biggest problem we had in 1937, Mr. Anslinger, the original drug czar. He was the one that first declared it drove people insane, pointing out that the Mexicans and the Blacks used it and went crazy and killed people. He basically blamed all evil in this country on a combination of two things, marijuana and what he called the “degenerate races”.
    Prior to that for years it was a law that every crop farmer had to grow a certain percentage of his crop in hemp for industrial use, mostly for rope and making sacks like burlap.

    Comment by The One — May 8, 2008 @ 4:25 pm | Reply

  63. So…….Obama won the primary……..Still think Brownback will win?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Comment by spacebrother — June 4, 2008 @ 4:07 am | Reply

  64. Of course he will win, fool.

    Once McCain wins he will step aside and let Brownback, God’s annointed president, take over.

    Just watch and learn!

    Comment by Marty McPain — June 4, 2008 @ 10:55 am | Reply

  65. He can’t do that. If it was tha

    Comment by Elephant Bones — June 4, 2008 @ 2:58 pm | Reply

  66. t easy, we could accidentally elect any corrupt politician.

    Comment by Elephant Bones — June 4, 2008 @ 2:59 pm | Reply

  67. only those blessed by God.

    Comment by Marty McPain — June 5, 2008 @ 2:46 pm | Reply

  68. only those blessed by God.

    Good thing Obama’s blessed by God. How else would a black man make it so far in a country like the US?

    Comment by Dio Brando — June 5, 2008 @ 7:41 pm | Reply

  69. You really don’t understand how this works do you?

    God will sometimes let the evil ones appear to be succeding, so everyone can see whw supports them. Then He can make an example of all of them and crush them and have their blood spurt out their eyes as everyone beholds the power of the Lord.

    Comment by Marty McPain — June 10, 2008 @ 12:11 pm | Reply

  70. @70
    the gods punished you with bad grammar, Marty,
    try again…..haha
    loser!!!

    Comment by MoxoM — June 10, 2008 @ 2:34 pm | Reply

  71. You trying to suggest black people are evil, Marty?

    Besides, everyone knows Bush is the evils.

    Comment by Dio Brando — June 10, 2008 @ 11:34 pm | Reply

  72. “and have their blood spurt out their eyes as everyone beholds the power of the Lord.”

    Still the stupidest little twerp on the block I see.

    Comment by Arn — June 12, 2008 @ 4:48 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Theme: Rubric. Get a free blog at WordPress.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers

%d bloggers like this: