BF2S Forums Legalize Marijuanna, save the United States and the World

Parker wrote:

lowing wrote:

Parker wrote:

proud, defiant AND successful lowing.
get it the fuck right.

I do not give a fuck how much you make, you are a drug addict. The Enron Executives were successful as well. do you think they have respect?

Drug dealers, and Britney Spears and Paris Hilton make more than I do, what is your point?

well, you tell me im a "drug addict", yet i function just fine, and contribute more to society than most people. the drug addicts i have ever had any interaction with cant even manage their lives enough to have a roof over their heads. but this will lead us to that gray area regarding addictions, and based off what you have already said, im sure you have your narrow mind already made up about that.

i really dont make that much money, but thank you....in fact, come to think of it, i make MUCH less than all those people you listed.
i think your views on success may be slightly skewed. as far as im concerned, none of the people you listed are successful.

its sad that you measure success only in financial gains, but it explains a lot about you as a person.


also, your "respect" is about as valuable to me as these little karma points.

I get it, you are one of those people who have been doing drugs every day for the past yeat and can quit whenever ya want huh?

You have no idea how I gauge success, but one way that is definately not on the list, is how much drugs you do and can still drive to work on time.

I never thought for a second that you were looking for respect from me, then again, it isn't me whose life you affect. I am sure your parents or your kids must be so proud of their drug abusing son and daughter and mother and father. So knock yourself out.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Hell ya we can..lol. JP Morgan just made a bid. It's the gov that prompted that... not really something to hold JP Morgan at fault for (That's what they do).

Surely, you jest.  JP Morgan had a hand in pushing for the bailout, just like the groups that bought out the S&L's back in the 80s.  It's all connected.  Corporations and government are virtually one and the same these days.

Everyone pushes for things in thier best interest. It's not exactly late breaking news. Hold the people who make the decisions responsible. It's entirely hypocritical to pretend you wouldn't want your company to do well. This holier than thou attitude is complete BS. The entire market benefited when the fed bailed them out. Credit concerns eased and the DOW went up across the board. At least for a few days..lol

The people stuck with the mortgages didn't benefit...  C'mon...  you know it's a simple matter of the government only caring about the big wigs.  It's always been this way, and it always will be.

Kmarion wrote:

The people stuck? You mean the people who sat down and willing (and usually eagerly) entered into a legally binding contract. Yea.. I guess it is pretty simple.

As someone who understands this situation better than I, would anything negative have happened to the people with mortgages if that bank had gone belly up?  That is, why should the Feds pay for the fast-and-loose lending habits of that bank and not do anything for its customers?  (At least, that is how I understand it.  I haven't been paying much attention to it all.)

Turquoise wrote:

Be careful, you might be labeled as the second most confusing member.

pshaw!

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Everyone pushes for things in thier best interest. It's not exactly late breaking news. Hold the people who make the decisions responsible. It's entirely hypocritical to pretend you wouldn't want your company to do well. This holier than thou attitude is complete BS. The entire market benefited when the fed bailed them out. Credit concerns eased and the DOW went up across the board. At least for a few days..lol

The people stuck with the mortgages didn't benefit...  C'mon...  you know it's a simple matter of the government only caring about the big wigs.  It's always been this way, and it always will be.

The people stuck? You mean the people who sat down and willing (and usually eagerly) entered into a legally binding contract. Yea.. I guess it is pretty simple.

The Government is dammed either way with you Turquoise. A few post ago you were complaining they government should be do more to regulate. Now you swear everything they do is in service to "big wigs". You officially get the title of most confusing person on this forum.

I'm saying everything they do has a big wig slant.  As Senor pointed out, you said it was a good thing that they bailed out the big wigs, but you're against bailing out the little guy.

I'm against bailing out both, but I'd rather help the common man than a bank.

Kmarion wrote:

Loans are bought and sold all the time.. usually without the homeowners knowing ahead of time. The homeowners can only be bound by the original terms of the contract. The homeowners are effected when people default on their loans. The market floods and basic supply and demand principles drive home values down.

So, my $1000 question is:  Why is the government bailing out the bank and not the consumers also?  The bank made a whole host of bad decisions, and they should probably pay for it...  Or would that have been a horrid mess for the homeowners? 

I just want to understand the rationale behind buying out the bank.

SenorToenails wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Loans are bought and sold all the time.. usually without the homeowners knowing ahead of time. The homeowners can only be bound by the original terms of the contract. The homeowners are effected when people default on their loans. The market floods and basic supply and demand principles drive home values down.

So, my $1000 question is:  Why is the government bailing out the bank and not the consumers also?  The bank made a whole host of bad decisions, and they should probably pay for it...  Or would that have been a horrid mess for the homeowners? 

I just want to understand the rationale behind buying out the bank.

Yes banks need to pay for bad decisions, just like every other business. The fed bail out was an attempt to try and stop the spread to other industries and to control inflation. Homeowners would have had their mortgages bought for less than they were worth (As lenders went bankrupt). It was the only bailout of it's kind since the great depression. Many analyst contribute the severity of the great depression as a result of government meddling.

Edit: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/20/f … arns_first
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar20 … -m18.shtml

Kmarion wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Loans are bought and sold all the time.. usually without the homeowners knowing ahead of time. The homeowners can only be bound by the original terms of the contract. The homeowners are effected when people default on their loans. The market floods and basic supply and demand principles drive home values down.

So, my $1000 question is:  Why is the government bailing out the bank and not the consumers also?  The bank made a whole host of bad decisions, and they should probably pay for it...  Or would that have been a horrid mess for the homeowners? 

I just want to understand the rationale behind buying out the bank.

Yes banks need to pay for bad decisions, just like every other business. The fed bail out was an attempt to try and stop the spread to other industries and to control inflation. Homeowners would have had their mortgages bought for less than they were worth (As lenders went bankrupt). It was the only bailout of it's kind since the great depression. Many analyst contribute the severity of the great depression as a result of government meddling.

Edit: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/20/f … arns_first
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar20 … -m18.shtml

So, aren't you saying that the bailout will essentially have the opposite effect in the long run?  The government bailout was meddling for sure.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Yes banks need to pay for bad decisions, just like every other business. The fed bail out was an attempt to try and stop the spread to other industries and to control inflation. Homeowners would have had their mortgages bought for less than they were worth (As lenders went bankrupt). It was the only bailout of it's kind since the great depression. Many analyst contribute the severity of the great depression as a result of government meddling.

Edit: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/20/f … arns_first
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar20 … -m18.shtml

So, aren't you saying that the bailout will essentially have the opposite effect in the long run?  The government bailout was meddling for sure.

Yes, it will. Bailouts are for covering asses. They usually deepen an already existing crisis.

Retribution is inevitable. Nobody wants to hear that and politicians like to pretend they can fix it. When the "little man" believes that the government has the answers to business they have truly succumbed to propaganda and political bs.

So basically...  we need to overthrow the government.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Yes, it will. Bailouts are for covering asses. They usually deepen an already existing crisis.

Retribution is inevitable. Nobody wants to hear that and politicians like to pretend they can fix it. When the "little man" believes that the government has the answers to business they have truly succumbed to propaganda and political bs.

So basically...  we need to overthrow the government.

lol.. something like that.

The more feasible option is to become rich and be part of the big wigs...  sort of...

lowing wrote:

Parker wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do not give a fuck how much you make, you are a drug addict. The Enron Executives were successful as well. do you think they have respect?

Drug dealers, and Britney Spears and Paris Hilton make more than I do, what is your point?

well, you tell me im a "drug addict", yet i function just fine, and contribute more to society than most people. the drug addicts i have ever had any interaction with cant even manage their lives enough to have a roof over their heads. but this will lead us to that gray area regarding addictions, and based off what you have already said, im sure you have your narrow mind already made up about that.

i really dont make that much money, but thank you....in fact, come to think of it, i make MUCH less than all those people you listed.
i think your views on success may be slightly skewed. as far as im concerned, none of the people you listed are successful.

its sad that you measure success only in financial gains, but it explains a lot about you as a person.


also, your "respect" is about as valuable to me as these little karma points.

I get it, you are one of those people who have been doing drugs every day for the past yeat and can quit whenever ya want huh?

You have no idea how I gauge success, but one way that is definately not on the list, is how much drugs you do and can still drive to work on time.

I never thought for a second that you were looking for respect from me, then again, it isn't me whose life you affect. I am sure your parents or your kids must be so proud of their drug abusing son and daughter and mother and father. So knock yourself out.

nope, i would probably have a really hard time quiting. just like people that smoke cigarettes, i have a routine.
so, no you dont "get it". you like to make assumptions, but you dont "get it".

i dont drive to work (assumption again), so i can smoke AS MUCH pot as i want, and walk my happy ass out to my backyard.....see, thats one of the many perks of doing drugs AND owning your own business (or two).


the only way you could gauge success to me, or success in my case would be more appropriate, is by financial standards. like i said, its sad that you use that as a measurement, but to each his own.

as far as my family is concerned (which is yet again ANOTHER assumption on your part):
my mother couldnt be happier for me.
i already run one business, getting ready to start another. im a craftsman....i make things with my hands you couldnt hope to do in your lifetime. my work is compared with people that have been making things for 25 years....and im 26. im with the woman i love and everything in my life is great. i could use more time, but then im sure thats the case with everyone......or maybe its just a "drug addict" thing?
maybe you could fill me in....if you "get it"......


and with that, im done with this sad little debate.
you WANT to see people that smoke pot fail. thats fine, maybe you were victimized at some point by a violent pothead (now im making assumptions lol).
good luck making that money

Last edited by Parker (2008-04-15 06:44:28)

lowing wrote:

I get it, you are one of those people who have been doing drugs every day for the past year and can quit whenever ya want huh?

On this particular point lowing, firstly I want to make it clear that, as the topic of this subthread (sorry op for my part in the derail ) is legalisation of 'non-medical' marijuana, I shall deal with your question in terms of the pharmacological effects of THC as compared to say opiates, alcohol and nicotine, to varying degrees.

THC and the other cannabinols bind with specialized cannabinol receptors in the brain and these have varying effects depending on the precise levels of the different cannabinols.

Now, most importantly, considering the question is the ease with which one can 'come off' a particular substance, these cannabinol receptors are not linked into the primal pleasure circuits, and do not cause the brain to 'crave' more and more. The brain does get 'used to' cannabinols, but a short break, often as little as a week for even a heavy smoker, will 'reset' the cannabinol receptors.

Opiates, alcohol and nicotine, on the other hand, all, alongside various other effects, do affect the primal pleasure circuits and cause the brain to 'crave' more and more. Along side the other varying symptoms of withdrawal, this is the main reason these drugs are hideously difficult to give up. The logical, rational, part of your brain knows it wants to give up, but the primal, reward driven, pain/pleasure drive overrides.