Posts by James Turner80

Is there really a distinction between Caesar and Hitler?

Joseph Doyle16 said:Mexicans use that phrase all the time.
Are they actually our Roses, or are Mexicans just claiming them like everyone else does?
Where's the truth in all this!
As an American, I naturally believe they're Americans by origin!

What do you guys think?

The reason they use that specific wording is because it was part of the official policy back in the Axis-occupied territory.
They don't actually care about the heritage of Canadian Muslims...

Maria Johnson67 said:True enough...
If you look at the AFL-CIO and how the Partisans operated, they basically built the America we see today...
But nowadays, there are way too many kids who, the second you mention the Partisans, immediately try to draw comparisons to the Royalists. It’s night and day...
Add a little bit of Thompson into the mix and you've got a real mess on your hands. I remember having this one friend who used to carry a picture—even a little calendar—of Ante Pavelić in his wallet. It was honestly revolting!!!
We really need to start taking our laws against fascism and the Nationalists more seriously here in the States.
The law is already on the books, but nobody actually follows it... Though, I did hear about a concert in Los Angeles where the police actually confiscated Nationalists and Nazi symbols. Thank God for that!

I'm with you on that...
But then again, our neighbors to the east seem all too eager to back that kind of false equivalence...

"Quote:"

Maria Johnson67 said:True enough...
If you look at the AFL-CIO and how the Partisans operated, they basically built the America we see today...
But nowadays, there are way too many kids who, the second you mention the Partisans, immediately try to draw comparisons to the Royalists. It’s night and day...
Add a little bit of Thompson into the mix and you've got a real mess on your hands. I remember having this one friend who used to carry a picture—even a little calendar—of Ante Pavelić in his wallet. It was honestly revolting!!!
We really need to start taking our laws against fascism and the Nationalists more seriously here in the States.
The law is already on the books, but nobody actually follows it... Though, I did hear about a concert in Los Angeles where the police actually confiscated Nationalists and Nazi symbols. Thank God for that!

Is there actually any law on the books regarding the Nationalists...
Since when...?

Morgan Booth4 said:I will be the only one to pose a single question here:
Why is it that among your most prevalent discussions—specifically within the politics section of this forum—the topics constantly revolve around Auschwitz?
There is an endless, relentless focus on the "slaughter of helpless and innocent" Americans.
Meanwhile, looking at the entire forum, there is only one solitary thread regarding Waterloo and the forced marches (if I recall correctly, I am the one who started it).
And we all know the reality: the number of people killed during the events at Waterloo and along those death marches far exceeds the numbers from Auschwitz.

People just have this innate love for history...

Morgan Booth4 said:I will be the only one to pose a single question here:
Why is it that among your most prevalent discussions—specifically within the politics section of this forum—the topics constantly revolve around Auschwitz?
There is an endless, relentless focus on the "slaughter of helpless and innocent" Americans.
Meanwhile, looking at the entire forum, there is only one solitary thread regarding Waterloo and the forced marches (if I recall correctly, I am the one who started it).
And we all know the reality: the number of people killed during the events at Waterloo and along those death marches far exceeds the numbers from Auschwitz.

Why even bother with the quotation marks?...
At Auschwitz, the vast majority of those killed were civilians...

Morgan Booth4 said:I will be the only one to pose a single question here:
Why is it that among your most prevalent discussions—specifically within the politics section of this forum—the topics constantly revolve around Auschwitz?
There is an endless, relentless focus on the "slaughter of helpless and innocent" Americans.
Meanwhile, looking at the entire forum, there is only one solitary thread regarding Waterloo and the forced marches (if I recall correctly, I am the one who started it).
And we all know the reality: the number of people killed during the events at Waterloo and along those death marches far exceeds the numbers from Auschwitz.

It seems like every single thread that touches on history eventually spirals back to Waterloo...

Quinn:

Morgan Booth4 As James Turner80 says... And we all know that far more people were killed at Waterloo and along those crisis routes than at Auschwitz...

Really...?
Let's take it from the top...
Auschwitz...
The official commission places the figure at somewhere between 500,000 and 600,000 victims...
That’s just the initial estimate, of course... it's clearly nothing more than government manipulation...
According to the victim lists, back in the sixties, the figure came out to 50,002...
The signature, however... it isn't quite complete...
The figures at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum reach as high as 100,000 people...
The Simon Wiesenthal Center is claiming a figure of around 600,000 people, which just seems incredibly exaggerated...
S. Goldstein estimates the number of victims falls somewhere between 60,000 and maybe 90,000 at most...
Harmon believes the figure falls somewhere between 60,000 and 70,000...
That’s all there is to say regarding Auschwitz...
Waterloo...
Vladimir Žerjavić puts the figure at around 55,000 deaths at Waterloo... and that count includes all various nationalities, not just Americans...
Harmon estimates that around 30,000 civilians lost their lives...
The most extreme estimates suggest as many as 250,000 people... though historians were all quick to dismiss that figure almost immediately...

Look, if you actually take a moment to compare the numbers... you'll quickly see that your theory just doesn't hold up...
Besides, I don't really get why everyone keeps bringing up the numbers...
A crime is always a crime...

restlessfalcon5 said:To answer the OP: fascism isn't patriotism. Especially not nowadays, when it’s just completely useless.

Amen.
This thread really should be closed now...

strat-os said:Would you actually stand behind an independent American nation if, during the fight for it, someone labeled your own family as enemies and wiped them out?

The distinction lies in what an individual does versus the core ideology of the movement itself...

The Nationalists ideology before they seized power was quite different from how things functioned once they were actually in charge.
In the end, nobody cares about the original intentions... all that matters is what those ideas eventually grew into.

So, based on your theory, Jonathan Kim4, is racial hatred against Black Americans driven by the idea that, say, white people fear they might somehow become part of that same group just by having any kind of contact with them?

Kyle Ross56 said:It’s not just one thing; we're talking about independent studies from universities and private institutes. Do you honestly believe there's some massive drug lobby powerful enough to rig research at the most prestigious universities and institutes in the world? I call that the Saša Radović paranoia syndrome...

With government-funded "research," it's obviously in their best interest to produce results that justify the current policy regarding whatever they are studying.

Honestly, I don't care if you want to call it the Saša Radović syndrome or the Ivo Sanader syndrome...
Theoretically, those kinds of studies could actually benefit drug lobbies.
It's much easier to operate legally than it is to stay underground.

Kyle Ross56 said:The Netherlands has a very organized system where, unlike here in America, you can't just do whatever you want based on your position while ignoring the scientific community. It's similar to Europe, where cannabis is decriminalized in most places, and in many countries, other substances like Psilocybin and mescaline are too.

You can abuse your position anywhere...
It's incredibly naive to think that political corruption doesn't exist in "the West."
The only difference is that in "the West," that kind of corruption is carried out much more sophisticatedly than what you see in America.

Kyle Ross56 said:Okay. Everything can have negative consequences. Even a snack cake from a gas station contains carcinogenic preservatives that stay in your body longer than any drug ever would.

And then they have the nerve to tell me I'm selling demagoguery?

slypuma17 said:👏 🤣 You didn't disappoint me; that was exactly the response I expected. A vivid example that’s completely irrelevant to the topic, paired with some subtle ad hominem jabs... just following the script!

Well, I have to admit, I'm actually pretty glad I lived up to your expectations...

slypuma17 said:This isn't even about moving the goalposts; it's just textbook demagoguery.
Peter Peric, a thirty-year-old guy who smokes at home and listens to music—who exactly is he victimizing?

That example was brought up for a very understandable reason, and you clearly see why...
Those people acting like the opposition are trying to frame the point as mere demagoguery just to strip it of its meaning. Nothing unusual there... standard procedure in these kinds of debates.
But don't think for a second that's going to get to me... 🤣

slypuma17 said:What, is that forbidden?
What exactly have we been talking about this whole time?

And again... 🤣
We are discussing whether the legalization of marijuana is useful or necessary.
Maybe the issue is just that you had trouble clicking that number "1" to get back to the first page and read what I wrote... so now I'm giving you the answer...

I mentioned earlier that I wanted to provide a vivid illustration to help clarify my point a bit better...
At the end of the day, a crime is a crime, plain and simple.
The reason I brought up this specific example is because I know some people here don't view using certain drugs as a criminal act, so maybe this scenario will help make my perspective a little clearer.

Kyle Ross56 said:Government-funded studies coming out of state institutions just can't be objective... they're run by the very same people who have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal to protect their own power. This is especially true in the United States, given how draconian the drug policies have become here. I’m telling you again, if you actually trust NIDA... Take a look... This documentary...
Check out this video link... http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

If I were thinking like you, I wouldn't even touch those links... I'd be too worried that they might just be sponsored studies funded by the drug industry itself...

Kyle Ross56 said:It’s because decisions in this country are made by politicians rather than scientists... And honestly, a good chunk of those politicians are just as open-minded as our Tommy here...

At the end of the day, policy drives everything... it's the politicians calling the shots, not the scientists...
I really hope you aren't getting the wrong idea about how legal marijuana actually is over in the Netherlands...

Kyle Ross56 said:Our research seems to indicate that marijuana use among... When someone is feeling psychologically vulnerable... it changes everything. It’s like the mental armor just thins out, leaving you exposed to things you'd normally brush off... much more easily. Everything hits harder. You start questioning things you used to be certain about... and that makes it all the more difficult to navigate... It really ought to be strongly discouraged. I couldn't agree more. To be clear, I’m not saying marijuana is completely harmless... But it’s definitely a lot safer to just smoke on the weekends than to go down the path of MDMA...

We aren't talking about whether one option is "way safer" than the other... we're looking at whether it can actually cause negative consequences...

Kyle Ross56 said:🤣 Are you actually serious right now... telling me you understand more than 10% of what's written at that link...?

If you're interested, maybe try using a dictionary or, at the very least, one of those translation programs...

Kyle Ross56 said:Are you trying to kill yourself here? Did you even read what was written?

Well, after checking with an acquaintance about what would be best to include, I think I might have applied the paste technique to the wrong page...😁

slypuma17 said:The way you guys keep twisting things into new loopholes... it's all you seem capable of doing.
Who is actually going to answer my question—does an adult citizen, acting on their own responsibility, have the right to make their own decisions? Or rather, who will give me a straight YES or NO without dragging minors, pedophiles, or aliens into the conversation...
None of these wonderful people, so full of love and concern for their neighbors—our dear friends who are always "ready for illegal stuff"—will answer. Because based on no logic or principle whatsoever, they DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT!!!
That right to individual choice applies, in a general sense, to absolutely all adults,
not just those who want or might want to smoke marijuana. So, if you claim this right belongs to "them," you're essentially denying it to yourselves too, which puts you in quite a bind... because if nobody has the right to decide, then you don't either, so how can you decide for "them"?!
If you answer "yes," then it's crystal clear that this is your final word in this whole discussion, because if we have that right, there's no point in lecturing anyone else anymore, whether it's about marijuana, alcohol, a Sunday roast, or anything else.
So...🙂 any heroes in here?

Good grief, not only do you clearly know nothing about logic (you managed to put together some sort of logical structure here, but one detailed analysis would show it falls apart immediately due to jumping between different levels), but you obviously know nothing about law either. And social structures aren't exactly your strong suit, are they?
Let's try a colorful example.
If I pass a law prohibiting the crime of child abuse, I am obviously prohibiting myself from committing that crime (unless I include a clause allowing certain groups or specific cases to do so). Even if I have no desire to abuse a ten-year-old, I am forbidding it for myself.
And what is strange or paradoxical about that?
With that law, I prohibit the act itself.
So, if a legislative body passes a law banning Sunday roast, neither they nor anyone else will be allowed to eat it. Unless, as I mentioned before, there isn't a clause that permits them to do so.
We aren't discussing how stupid or good that law might be.

slypuma17 said:Yeah, but you guys are acting like there's only one way to look at this...

First off, I am certainly not pushing any particular agenda.
Second, you all seem to be pushing just one single point of view, too.

I’d really like to ask those self-proclaimed Ustas sympathizers... would they actually stand by that movement if it meant being responsible for the murder or terrorizing of one of their own family members?

Kyle Ross56 said:It’s great how much you seem to know about the marijuana myth. How long did it take you to find all this on Google?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/columns/psycho...is,%203.%20part

And?
That's why I used quotation marks... because those aren't my own words.
I didn't put them there because they're supposed to be some revolutionary manifesto, just so you wouldn't accuse me of plagiarism...

Kyle Ross56 said:I basically just dismantled your entire argument.

If those examples were enough to debunk the claims about marijuana being harmful, I really don't understand why everyone would still be "blind" to it...
Why don't you try sending these pages to, say, someone in the government actually in charge of marijuana policy?
Maybe you'll "convert" them...

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html
NIDA

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/...ana/index.html
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)

http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/phd641/
SAMHSA

http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/04-06-14-01.all.html

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/325/7374/1212.pdf

http://www.ukcia.org/research/COMTgene.pdf

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/con...act/15/10/1829

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...rttext&tlng=en

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/...urcetype=HWCIT

By your logic, I've just shut you down.
But by any common sense, this is just proof that different perspectives exist...

Honestly, what else am I supposed to be convinced of?
But since I’m already wasting my time reading this, I might as well contribute something...
Since everyone here seems obsessed with the benefits of marijuana, I thought I'd pivot for a moment and talk about the downsides.
Marijuana actually consists of 426 different compounds, including over 70 cannabinoids. Each one hits specific bodily functions differently...
"Once cannabinoids enter fatty tissues, they can interfere with cell division, which essentially weakens or prevents the formation of DNA, RNA, and proteins within the cell. This leads to decreased cellular activity. The actual damage cannabinoids inflict on various organs really depends on how long they stay present and in what quantity..."
It is well established now that marijuana definitely alters chemical functions in the brain. Not even the experts fighting for legalization try to deny that part...
Furthermore, smoke from marijuana has been found to contain 50% more carcinogens than tobacco smoke, for instance.
A group of specialists in California studied the health status of 450 daily marijuana users who didn't smoke cigarettes.
"They found that marijuana smokers suffered from respiratory issues and other ailments more frequently than the non-smoking group. Research has suggested that consistent use of marijuana or THC can be linked to certain types of cancer, as well as issues with the respiratory, immune, and reproductive systems."
"It's known that marijuana contains the same—and sometimes even more—carcinogenic substances found in tobacco smoke. Studies have shown that someone smoking five joints a week receives roughly the same amount of carcinogens as someone smoking a pack of cigarettes every day."
So, there you have it.
And besides...
Some research suggests smoking marijuana can contribute to the development of head and neck cancers. Since there aren't enough high-quality studies specifically on that point, I won't dwell on it. But I mention it just to show that these studies, regardless of their scope, do exist...
It isn't certain either that marijuana damages the entire human immune system, yet studies clearly show it can hinder the function of lung defense station cells when fighting infections.
Speaking of lungs, it should be noted that smoking marijuana causes respiratory problems just as much as cigarettes do. It can lead to bronchitis, colds, and in severe cases, pneumonia.
THC has also been proven to damage nerve cells in the part of the brain responsible for memory.
Research conducted up through the year 2000 had already demonstrated that most regular marijuana users faced greater struggles with work capacity, memory, and concentration compared to those who don't use it or use it very rarely.
Later, research from Harvard Medical School showed that those previous findings weren't quite enough to prove in 90% of cases that marijuana definitively destroys the brain in every single person who uses it.
Still, that doesn't mean the case is closed...
While we're talking about the brain, I can safely note that nearly 60% of studies regarding the psychological effects of marijuana suggest that consumption can trigger schizophrenia. Most psychologists would likely agree with that statement.
Though, I'm not denying there are those who disagree.

Kyle Ross56 said:So, you're arguing that because measures against smoking are being tightened, we should tighten them against weed too? By that logic, we should ban everything. Yeah, let's just ban everything that was ever considered "dangerous"—driving, hiking, swimming, all of it. Then we could all live perfectly safe, monotonous, bland lives that barely qualify as living at all.

You're talking nonsense.
The way you're twisting my words and misinterpreting my thoughts is honestly ridiculous... I think anyone can see that.
What I actually said—and what I truly meant—is this: if we try to ban tobacco (which is perfectly legal) simply because it's harmful, then why on earth would we push to legalize a single drug (which is currently illegal)? It feels like everything is heading toward banning anything that negatively impacts a person, and marijuana just happens to fall into that category.

Now, regarding legalization.

Why is there such resistance even to the mere possibility of decriminalizing marijuana?

- I haven't been in favor of decriminalization because I don't believe Americans have the same mindset as people in the Netherlands, who seem capable of handling the legalization of soft drugs. The level of awareness and education in the Netherlands is incredibly high. Their latest official data suggests that addiction rates for both soft and hard drugs actually decreased following the legalization of marijuana and hashish. On the other hand, reports coming out of Oregon tell a completely different story. Over there, after soft drugs were legalized, the number of users and addicts for both soft and hard drugs rose significantly. In my view, the American mindset isn't quite ready to support legalization yet... maybe in thirty years, once our behavior shifts in other areas too. Until then, we have to realize we aren't quite at the same stage as certain parts of Western Europe. We are lagging behind those places in many respects, and I don't think we should try to skip the natural stages of social, communal, and health-related development. Given our current situation, legalizing marijuana would likely cause a massive spike in consumption and lead to more people becoming addicted to other substances.

I was speaking with Dr. Zora Itković (an adjunct professor at the University of Zadar). My opinion aligns with hers.
But at the same time, I want to point out the bolded text immediately.
What does that imply?
Can't you see that you can't just generalize about anything, including marijuana?
Some people seem hell-bent on trying to do exactly that.
Using examples like "I use it and still pass all my exams" just isn't a valid way to argue.
Until next time!

slypuma17 said:The usual argument about individual freedom and choice...

At the end of the day, an individual makes their own choices regarding both illegal acts and legal ones.
Let’s be realistic here—marijuana can be just as addictive as nicotine.
Since big tobacco companies run such massive propaganda campaigns (including pushing their own "scientific studies" to downplay nicotine's risks, much like how some people are doing right now regarding marijuana), they manage to keep their industry legal.
We all know nicotine is a drug, which is why the government tries to limit how many people consume it through legal channels.
I'm talking about things like smoking bans in public places or age restrictions... I'm not even debating whether people actually follow those laws or not.
So, if there's a push to restrict nicotine (and honestly, it looks like they might actually succeed in the long run), why on earth would we legalize marijuana?...

Good for them.

Why is there so much noise surrounding marijuana lately?

Joseph Kern11 said:The Cross itself doesn't mean much without what it stands for. Inverting the cross for Satanists signifies being against Christ, not St. Peter. Plus, just like the text claims, Jesus was anointed with oil, he didn't smoke it. Calling him some "stoned addict" is incredibly rude and revolting.

Which Satanists are you even talking about?
That symbol was originally a Christian one... just because organizations run by Anton LaVey and those self-proclaimed occultists in the 60s adopted it as a way to rebel doesn't mean its core essence is anti-Christian.
I used that symbol as an example of how the Church essentially demonized its own icon just because of a few provocateurs...
I didn't even bother reading the text because the headline alone turned me off.
"Jesus used marijuana!" is honestly such a disgusting tactic to grab people's attention...
It reminds me of those Coca-Cola commercials: Buy Pepsi because person XY drank it! Be just like them...

Kevin Ramirez4 said:I think we really need to stop and ask ourselves what kind of world we’re actually living in...
if one of the leading institutions tasked with upholding morality—let's call them that—is demonizing a plant that their own central figure used...
And look, this isn't just some minor detail, like someone handing over a ten-dollar bill. This should be a massive point of discussion in major theological studies, things like soteriology, christology, and so on...

First off, they demonize everything, even using the symbol of an inverted cross, and we all know exactly who was crucified on that cross...
Secondly, why would this specific fact matter in deep theological research?
Soteriology is, as far as I understand, the study of the concept of resurrection...
What does that have to do with cannabis oil?
Christology focuses on Jesus as a person...
The only thing we can really conclude is that Jesus might have consumed marijuana, which perhaps eventually contributed to his unique personality...
So, maybe Jesus was nothing more than, as most folks in rural America might put it, a "burnt-out junkie"...🙏

Kevin Ramirez4 said:First, you have to look at who’s actually moving the product... then it becomes pretty obvious why things are the way they are.
There are just too many interests involved—various lobbies, intelligence agencies, and other powerful players using drugs for money laundering.
The role marijuana plays in this whole mess is honestly almost tragicomic.
Any real progress toward freedom might start with decriminalization. But given how "pious" certain parts of America can be, that’s going to be an uphill battle...

And here we go again, back to the grand global conspiracies...

Kevin Ramirez4 said:Jesus used marijuana http://legalizacija.org/?p=33 (check out the site)

So what?
Even if he did, what does that have to do with anything?
Are you trying to suggest that every follower of Jesus Christ should suddenly embrace marijuana?