• Do NOT click on any vaporpedia.com links. The domain has been compromised and will attempt to infect your system. See https://fuckcombustion.com/threads/warning-vaporpedia-com-has-been-compromised.54960/.

getting a medical card and its long term consequences

OO

Technical Skeptical
Its sad how those camps arose out of the terrorism at pearl harbor. I wonder if thats why the Unites States feels the need to police the world, having seen first-hand how terrorism can turn a country against its own people (in this case our very own japanese american bretheren). I wonder if part of this country's need to police the world roots from the guilt of having fallen victim to the consequences of terrorism. Its plain to see that other countries have picked up on and have tried to exploit this weakness in that terror in the past has shown to create some divisions like the ones pearl harbor and 9/11 created.
This same effect can be seen by the sprouting of some gangs in that the terror the cops instill on the public has cause individuals to pin themselves against the whole country.

Yeah the dark knight was one of the best films ever made.

Pearl Harbor was far from "terrorism", which is a recent term used to describe tactics used against civilians. No, it was an attack on the forces which had been geared up to go head to head with the Japanese. It gets worse though, as the US played a large role in making Pearl Harbor happen in the first place, instigating the actions through embargos and the like.

Look up the history surrounding pearl harbor, peace medals, and the nuclear bombs.
It's my opinion that the US is "policing the world" in order to keep its citizenry focused away from just how bad things are here."Wag the dog" was NOT that far off...

It's an incredibly massive waste of money (ours, btw) that should be going to health care, education, and infrastructure (remember the I-35 bridge in Mpls?).

Policing the world seems much like keeping resources in check, which is usually the underlying theme of wars. If the goal was to divert attention, then far more resources would be directed at shifting focus to overseas casualties of war. In fact that's far from what is being focused on at the moment, as it seems that attention is being focused to domestic violence and by means of that, a militarized force to oversee the public.
 

satyrday

Well-Known Member
...the history surrounding pearl harbor...
If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend watching the 1973 BBC 26-part documentary The World at War, and for optimal impact do so whilst vaped to the gills. The episodes "Banzai!" and "On Our Way" cover Pearl Harbor and its antecedents excellently I feel.

This series is a brilliant, highly insightful, and deeply engaging documentary with dramatically perfect narration by Laurence Olivier. Also, whereas many of the later WW2 documentaries could really only include commentary from low-level soldiers (since they were young enough during WW2 to still be alive), TWAW came early enough to include interviews with many high-level commanders and other key operators. But primarily it is the writing and use of haunting, seldom seen footage that sets it apart. It really leaves Ken Burns documentary in the dust.
 

friedbanana8

Well-Known Member
Pearl Harbor was far from "terrorism", which is a recent term used to describe tactics used against civilians. No, it was an attack on the forces which had been geared up to go head to head with the Japanese. It gets worse though, as the US played a large role in making Pearl Harbor happen in the first place, instigating the actions through embargos and the like.

Look up the history surrounding pearl harbor, peace medals, and the nuclear bombs.


Policing the world seems much like keeping resources in check, which is usually the underlying theme of wars. If the goal was to divert attention, then far more resources would be directed at shifting focus to overseas casualties of war. In fact that's far from what is being focused on at the moment, as it seems that attention is being focused to domestic violence and by means of that, a militarized force to oversee the public.

You know, having grown up with the word i didnt realize how new the term "terrorism" is. I was referring to the root word terror, to clarify. Pearl Harbor caused wide spread panic and anger across the states just as the 9/11 attacks. Terror was a consequent of the attack although it was a military strike. But ofcourse all such attacks ensue some terror. Im just saying that the terror felt by the country from the attack played a role in straining the relationship americans had with japanese americans as it did with muslims after 9/11. To be more specific it played a role in pushing the racism in america to a breaking point against japanese, which were treated similarly like blacks were treated at the time. Apart from this and that human lives were lost in both situations and that they were both unexpected, i guess there aint much else the two events have in common.

You failed to mention that Americans were in the middle of negotiations with japan, and an official declaration of war had yet been deliverd by Japan before the "sneak attack" of pearl harbor. I think i read somewhere that Japan f'ed up the delivery of the message officially declaring war which actually arrived after the initial attack, but i guess they had intended it to arrive beforehand? Sounds strange to me if thats the case. As this would have weakened their success on attacking pearl harbor, which despite was still a failure. Although japan failed to give us warning ahead of time, we did give them warning about both the atomic bombs. Of course they didnt come out and say specifically that they were going to attack hiroshima with one atomic bomb cause that may have resulted in a failure of drop and possible seizure of the bomb by japan, which also could have been a reason why they couldnt demonstrate the bomb beforehand because it was too risky in that Japan might have filled the location set to be bombed with prisoners of war or planned a seizure of the bomb itself. Despite the dangers involved in doing so, days before the actual bomb was dropped, the united states dropped a million leaflets over japan with a list of more than 30 targeted cities and warning that they were going to bring about the destruction of these cities if japan did not surrender and that they should evacuate or convince their leaders to surrender. They informed japanese citizens that those cities had key military components which is why they were targeted. The united states had taken it upon themselves to inform the citizens of japan of how the war was proceeding because their leaders werent telling them anything. Like it even made a difference because even after witnessing the destruction of hiroshima japan failed to surrender. Hence the second bomb was dropped, with a warning ahead of time aswell.
Yes it was terrible, but if i employ the same logic you involved in justifying the attack on pearl harbor, it can be said that the United States was just as justified if not more in dropping those bombs. They were at war targeting military components is the condition your advocating as justification of such attacks if im not mistaken.
Also, the casualties that arose from the a-bomb werent as bad as the casualties from the smaller bombs that were already being dropped, again with warnings as well. So if america was targeting civilians then why would they have set up a systemized way to warn japanese citizens of danger?
Japan was stubborn and thats what led to their gruesome defeat. The anger that ensued from pearl harbor i suspect pushed the envelope on that aswell, but atleast america didn't lose their heads completely and attack without warning.

Not many people know that we warned them before dropping the bombs, but this is an article that dug up a lot of information on how the united states systematically delivered warnings and information about the war to japanese citizens.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008604.html


You have to scroll down for the actual article as it is introduced in the first few paragraphs.

I agree with your last point about drawing a lot of focus on domestic violence. Its like they are trying very hard to restrict the availability of guns to the public and to trigger the steady merger of military forces and our streets as was seen at the recent race in Kentucky. Reminds me of that movie "The Siege" with Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington.
 
friedbanana8,
  • Like
Reactions: ataxian

OO

Technical Skeptical
Let me start by saying I'm not someone who is prepared to debate actions taken during hostile times. Nor do I wish to, at least until I understand the situation better. I just feel your analogy is somewhat lacking.

Japan's infrastructure lends itself to a situation where the citizens would not have been able to leave their cities even if they wanted to, as resources were not distributed in ways that would allow for survival outside of the cities for very long. Evacuation would not have been a feasible option from what I understand. It's like having a building of people who can't leave the building, with you warning them that you are going to burn the building down due to some threat inside. Yes, but you'll also kill everyone else inside.

I don't think my analogy is even near perfect, but I do think it points out that it's not as cut and dry as those who would justify the actions make it sound. That being said, I'm not a person who is well equipped to speak on these topics, it is far from my interest and area of expertise.
 

friedbanana8

Well-Known Member
Let me start by saying I'm not someone who is prepared to debate actions taken during hostile times. Nor do I wish to, at least until I understand the situation better. I just feel your analogy is somewhat lacking.

Japan's infrastructure lends itself to a situation where the citizens would not have been able to leave their cities even if they wanted to, as resources were not distributed in ways that would allow for survival outside of the cities for very long. Evacuation would not have been a feasible option from what I understand. It's like having a building of people who can't leave the building, with you warning them that you are going to burn the building down due to some threat inside. Yes, but you'll also kill everyone else inside.

I don't think my analogy is even near perfect, but I do think it points out that it's not as cut and dry as those who would justify the actions make it sound. That being said, I'm not a person who is well equipped to speak on these topics, it is far from my interest and area of expertise.

I know i sometimes come a little strong and it may seem like im not welcoming debate, on the contrary its why i respond. i like to pick at people's brains so to speak. It helps me pick at my own brain. All in all i've had a great time debating with you, you're obviously not somebody that is easily persuaded and that tells me you have a strong mental which i can respect. Its obvious an event of such controversy never organizes itself into clear cut right and wrong. Im just hoping to get a clearer picture of such topics. So yes my analogy may be lacking, but its the best i could come up with until i can find the holes in my argument i wont be able to plug them up or change it. So that is why i welcome debate. You've done a great job in pointing out such holes which has allowed for more precision and clarity and i thank you for that.

The most obvious hole i think in my argument, as you do point out, is that if we were giving out warnings then why did so many people die? To which your answer does appear to fit, but since i dont know a thing about japans infrastructure i think this as far as i can contribute in this discussion in that respect. Some question do com to mind though, just to mention... i cant help but wonder why they would set up military components in such densely populated areas that would make evacuation so difficult? Maybe their population just got out of hand. I know in china they had that 2 child per person rule, but im not sure if japan ever had problems like that. Maybe thats why they were trying to expand into china; they were looking to upgrade to a bigger house for easier accomodations. Who can blame them if thats the case? It could also be that by surrounding these military components with civilians might psychologically affect and opponent into debating the ethics of attacking such a place and hinder such an attack, thus it would be a military strategy that is behind their infrastructure. i can only speculate though.
 

OO

Technical Skeptical
Thank you for the well written, and well thought-out response. Your attitude is very conducive to learning and enlightening debate.

I'm not sure exactly why the military ended up in the same area as the populous, I assume it's like how it is here, shipping ports are places of commerce, so naturally they become filled with people, but they also are strategic places you would need to protect, hence armed forces in the same area.

Often military bases lead to communities, because if there are people with money in an area, then there's money to be made, so businesses will open up in their locales.

Japan's population is now in decline, and it's a serious issue over there, less people are being born than need to be in order to support the previous generation.
 
OO,

friedbanana8

Well-Known Member
Thank you for the well written, and well thought-out response. Your attitude is very conducive to learning and enlightening debate.

I'm not sure exactly why the military ended up in the same area as the populous, I assume it's like how it is here, shipping ports are places of commerce, so naturally they become filled with people, but they also are strategic places you would need to protect, hence armed forces in the same area.

Often military bases lead to communities, because if there are people with money in an area, then there's money to be made, so businesses will open up in their locales.

Japan's population is now in decline, and it's a serious issue over there, less people are being born than need to be in order to support the previous generation.

Yeah i actually live about an hour from an airforce base (Edwards). But we are a small city over here in the antelope valley, CA. We are getting bigger though!

I didnt know about the population decline over there. People always say that the japanese have a very long life expectancy so i assumed they had the secret to life down pat. I guess we now know that secret. Dont have kids and you'll live longer. I always thought such advise was a joke, but maybe its not. Despite that, i like to think that children are the key to immortality in that we live on through the legacy that carries over from each generation to the next.

Back to the topic,
im getting repairs on my car so i wont be able to get my medical card for a bit. My friend recommended this place in hollywood, which im going to check out as soon as i can. This friend moved to Los Angeles last year but he bring his wife and kid back down here every couple weeks to visit his friends and family. I told him if he wouldnt mind picking up some wax for me come his next trip here. He told me that he didnt feel comfortable driving around with wax because hes not sure if concentrates are legal or not. I told him not to worry about it, i found another guy by where i live that makes his own wax, which should hold me over till i get my very own medical card or can go out to LA. So my question is whether its true or not that MMJ cards allow you to drive around with wax legally? I cant see why they wouldn't allow concentrates, so im thinking my friend is just paranoid.
 
friedbanana8,

smogmonster

Member
Its sad how those camps arose out of the terrorism at pearl harbor.

So, I know this is off-topic for this thread, but you've badly misrepresented the history of WWII.

The surprise attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor in WWII is not and was never referred to as 'terrorism.' The exact definition is somewhat elusive, since very often these days governments and foolish people will use the label pejoratively for effect as a propaganda effort (remember Sarah Palin calling Obama's friendly fist-bump with his wife a "terrorist fist-bump?' whatever that means ....)

Honestly you are the first person I've encountered in my 43 years who refers to Pearl Harbor that way. There were no acts of terrorism involved, which is best defined as asymmetric tactics or warfare, tactics used by groups and individuals which have no formal military organization, nor who are formally associated with any government. These tactics are chosen purposely for their economy and shock value to draw as much attention as possible to themselves, usually to achieve political goals through fear and coercion, not as any kind of military strategy. Terrorists typically don't engage in military combat and tend to avoid engaging even in war zones, but instead attack civilians and highly visible non-military targets.

Terrorist groups and individuals are at most loosely organized fringe militias far outmatched by any modern army - this is one reason they resort to acts of terror and not direct bombing campaigns of a military base with planes (plus, they have no planes or bomb factories). Bombing raids on military bases is very much a conventional combat tactic used by every nation involved in WWII, Axis and Allied (btw, have you read about the US firebombing of Dresden, Germany, which burned nearly the entire city to the ground, all civilians, because Dresden had no military bases - I mean if Japan committed acts of terrorism in WWII, then so did the US and all the Allied and Axis nations). Japan was not known for terrorism as a strategy, but they would have no good reason to use it anyway. They were known for their Kamikaze pilots at the time, but that too was not terrorism and has never been referred to as such in any history book.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a full-fledged military bombing raid and submarine attack on a military base, by an organized military representing a nation and wearing uniforms to designate who they are, none of which is characteristic of any terrorist organization. It was an act of war and has always been known historically as the Attack on Pearl Harbor, or the Battle of Pearl Harbor.

The internment of US citizens of Japanese origin during WWII was almost entirely motivated by racism, although it was a time of war and Japan attacked the US. Still, we didn't imprison Americans whose families originated in Germany during WWII, nor did we imprison Italian-Americans, and both those nations were at war with the US and were ruled by fascist governments.

/rant

So, edited to add so I don't post multiple messages ...

Im just saying that the terror felt by the country from the attack played a role in straining the relationship americans had with japanese americans as it did with muslims after 9/11. To be more specific it played a role in pushing the racism in america to a breaking point against japanese, which were treated similarly like blacks were treated at the time.

That's like saying, our racist actions were wrong, but they were asking for it.

Racism is an undercurrent of our culture and society and is depressingly common throughout the world, but victims of racism, like victims of abuse, are not responsible for acts committed against them. The internment of Japanese-Americans was reprehensible on its own terms, no excuses necessary. You seem to be making the case that Japan was responsible for the racism underlying the internment of Japanese-Americans, because they entered the war on the side of the Axis with a surprise attack on a US military base, which was horrifying for Americans, and this horror perpetrated by Japan on the US was what turned our country against its own citizens?

Should Japan have anticipated this reaction and perhaps rethought their bombing raid? How does that ethically tie together at all without blaming victims or turn into some weird ethical quandry where we look through the passage of time backwards and say that Japan should have known better than to mess with the US with its bigoted culture, because you'll just make them freak out and go full blown racist, and then if they do something racist it will be someone else's fault! The lesson being, before you act, you must take responsibility for the actions of other people and think of their dysfunction as something you can control if you're nice enough.

Does this mean that the US was responsible for the Holocaust, since we bombed Germany over and over and over during the war and killed many civilians and soldiers, destroying entire cities? Did the horror of all the numerous attacks on Germany by the Allies cause them to go over-the-top and exterminate millions of people? The US only suffered a single attack on its soil for the whole duration of the war, and they reacted by imprisoning millions of people who had similar ancestry and skin color, people who were citizens of the nation that was attacked. Surely more terror would result in more racism, right? The logic would seem to follow that way ...

You ever watch Laurel and Hardy? Great stuff, timeless. Oliver Hardy has a signature line which he says after he screws up in a spectacular way, or when he carelessly attacks and bullies his friend Stan Laurel: "Now look what you made me do!"
 

friedbanana8

Well-Known Member
So, I know this is off-topic for this thread, but you've badly misrepresented the history of WWII.

The surprise attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor in WWII is not and was never referred to as 'terrorism.' The exact definition is somewhat elusive, since very often these days governments and foolish people will use the label pejoratively for effect as a propaganda effort (remember Sarah Palin calling Obama's friendly fist-bump with his wife a "terrorist fist-bump?' whatever that means ....)

Honestly you are the first person I've encountered in my 43 years who refers to Pearl Harbor that way. There were no acts of terrorism involved, which is best defined as asymmetric tactics or warfare, tactics used by groups and individuals which have no formal military organization, nor who are formally associated with any government. These tactics are chosen purposely for their economy and shock value to draw as much attention as possible to themselves, usually to achieve political goals through fear and coercion, not as any kind of military strategy. Terrorists typically don't engage in military combat and tend to avoid engaging even in war zones, but instead attack civilians and highly visible non-military targets.

Terrorist groups and individuals are at most loosely organized fringe militias far outmatched by any modern army - this is one reason they resort to acts of terror and not direct bombing campaigns of a military base with planes (plus, they have no planes or bomb factories). Bombing raids on military bases is very much a conventional combat tactic used by every nation involved in WWII, Axis and Allied (btw, have you read about the US firebombing of Dresden, Germany, which burned nearly the entire city to the ground, all civilians, because Dresden had no military bases - I mean if Japan committed acts of terrorism in WWII, then so did the US and all the Allied and Axis nations). Japan was not known for terrorism as a strategy, but they would have no good reason to use it anyway. They were known for their Kamikaze pilots at the time, but that too was not terrorism and has never been referred to as such in any history book.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a full-fledged military bombing raid and submarine attack on a military base, by an organized military representing a nation and wearing uniforms to designate who they are, none of which is characteristic of any terrorist organization. It was an act of war and has always been known historically as the Attack on Pearl Harbor, or the Battle of Pearl Harbor.

The internment of US citizens of Japanese origin during WWII was almost entirely motivated by racism, although it was a time of war and Japan attacked the US. Still, we didn't imprison Americans whose families originated in Germany during WWII, nor did we imprison Italian-Americans, and both those nations were at war with the US and were ruled by fascist governments.

/rant

please read my posts. You'll see that i wasn't actually referring to the word terrorism. So you could keep that 43 year old record going. I feel like your post is a few posts late and that it just expanded on what was already said. It was some good information though; ill give you that much.
 
friedbanana8,

OO

Technical Skeptical
good stuff
I think the one thing you may have had incorrectly was the intention behind our member's post, as he really wasn't trying to justify the internment.

At least that is my opinion.

Thank you for bringing such detail to this thread, it's important to consider all perspectives, even those you disagree with. I'm not saying I disagree with you about the content ;)
 
OO,

friedbanana8

Well-Known Member
So, I know this is off-topic for this thread, but you've badly misrepresented the history of WWII.

The surprise attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor in WWII is not and was never referred to as 'terrorism.' The exact definition is somewhat elusive, since very often these days governments and foolish people will use the label pejoratively for effect as a propaganda effort (remember Sarah Palin calling Obama's friendly fist-bump with his wife a "terrorist fist-bump?' whatever that means ....)

Honestly you are the first person I've encountered in my 43 years who refers to Pearl Harbor that way. There were no acts of terrorism involved, which is best defined as asymmetric tactics or warfare, tactics used by groups and individuals which have no formal military organization, nor who are formally associated with any government. These tactics are chosen purposely for their economy and shock value to draw as much attention as possible to themselves, usually to achieve political goals through fear and coercion, not as any kind of military strategy. Terrorists typically don't engage in military combat and tend to avoid engaging even in war zones, but instead attack civilians and highly visible non-military targets.

Terrorist groups and individuals are at most loosely organized fringe militias far outmatched by any modern army - this is one reason they resort to acts of terror and not direct bombing campaigns of a military base with planes (plus, they have no planes or bomb factories). Bombing raids on military bases is very much a conventional combat tactic used by every nation involved in WWII, Axis and Allied (btw, have you read about the US firebombing of Dresden, Germany, which burned nearly the entire city to the ground, all civilians, because Dresden had no military bases - I mean if Japan committed acts of terrorism in WWII, then so did the US and all the Allied and Axis nations). Japan was not known for terrorism as a strategy, but they would have no good reason to use it anyway. They were known for their Kamikaze pilots at the time, but that too was not terrorism and has never been referred to as such in any history book.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a full-fledged military bombing raid and submarine attack on a military base, by an organized military representing a nation and wearing uniforms to designate who they are, none of which is characteristic of any terrorist organization. It was an act of war and has always been known historically as the Attack on Pearl Harbor, or the Battle of Pearl Harbor.

The internment of US citizens of Japanese origin during WWII was almost entirely motivated by racism, although it was a time of war and Japan attacked the US. Still, we didn't imprison Americans whose families originated in Germany during WWII, nor did we imprison Italian-Americans, and both those nations were at war with the US and were ruled by fascist governments.

/rant

So, edited to add so I don't post multiple messages ...



That's like saying, our racist actions were wrong, but they were asking for it.

Racism is an undercurrent of our culture and society and is depressingly common throughout the world, but victims of racism, like victims of abuse, are not responsible for acts committed against them. The internment of Japanese-Americans was reprehensible on its own terms, no excuses necessary. You seem to be making the case that Japan was responsible for the racism underlying the internment of Japanese-Americans, because they entered the war on the side of the Axis with a surprise attack on a US military base, which was horrifying for Americans, and this horror perpetrated by Japan on the US was what turned our country against its own citizens?

Should Japan have anticipated this reaction and perhaps rethought their bombing raid? How does that ethically tie together at all without blaming victims or turn into some weird ethical quandry where we look through the passage of time backwards and say that Japan should have known better than to mess with the US with its bigoted culture, because you'll just make them freak out and go full blown racist, and then if they do something racist it will be someone else's fault! The lesson being, before you act, you must take responsibility for the actions of other people and think of their dysfunction as something you can control if you're nice enough.

Does this mean that the US was responsible for the Holocaust, since we bombed Germany over and over and over during the war and killed many civilians and soldiers, destroying entire cities? Did the horror of all the numerous attacks on Germany by the Allies cause them to go over-the-top and exterminate millions of people? The US only suffered a single attack on its soil for the whole duration of the war, and they reacted by imprisoning millions of people who had similar ancestry and skin color, people who were citizens of the nation that was attacked. Surely more terror would result in more racism, right? The logic would seem to follow that way ...

You ever watch Laurel and Hardy? Great stuff, timeless. Oliver Hardy has a signature line which he says after he screws up in a spectacular way, or when he carelessly attacks and bullies his friend Stan Laurel: "Now look what you made me do!"

Sorry guys i had a final this week, so i was caught up with that.

Its true, racism had a lot to do with it, im sure i mentioned that. I didnt go into it as i felt that we were all in understanding of how much racism there had to be given that i said it was comparable to the racism towards african-americans at that time. And seeing as the racism towards african-americans at such a time is nowadays the most common example of strong racism in the U.S., which is where i assume my audience hails from, i felt that i sufficiently described the level of racism towards japanese americans at that day in age and felt my audience would not need such an in depth evaluation of that level of racism which you've provided. It is good information though and i feel that it does have its place in this discussion, but the reason for the presentation of this information is inconsistent with the opposition of what ive said which is where you believe yourself to be. Its like a bald latino thats put in jail, and instead of joining a latino gang which he would fit in better with than any other type of gang he tries to join the white skinhead gang thinking he'd fit in with them because of their baldness but is not aware that the reason the skinheads dont like the latino gang isnt because they have hair, but because of their skin color. He wrongly interpreted the gang. Just as you've put yourself in opposition of me but in truth i was never in opposition to you.

With that being said, give me some credit. I know the difference between japanese americans and the japanese. To say that japanese americans were asking to be put in internment camps because the japanese were attacking the U.S., which included japanese americans, would be a statement you'd expect from somebody highly uneducated. Now i ask you to run some statistics and measure the chance of running into somebody that stupid. You yourself even said that in your 43 years you never heard somebody say that, yet the fact that you interpreted what i was saying so hastily as that which you've never heard anybody say in 43 years doesn't seem reasonable.
Its plain to see what your opinion of me has become and that it has had an effect in twisting my words into an interpretation that you yourself said you've never come across before. Please take a step back and evaluate your perception of me.

I am now at a point where i acknowledge that my comparison of these two events was very vague which has made it appear very weak. Smogmonster and OO, you guys have really wreaked havoc on my comparison by revealing how vague it is and am now thinking it did more harm than good to my argument. To leave little ambiguity i state that the focus of my comparison was on the basis that both events were the pulling of the trigger to an already loaded gun.To clarify, both events led to americans trying to rationalize their racism; racism that was already there. In one instance, internment camps arose out of it, in the other, having already seen the aftermath of internment camps, it was rejected, but nonetheless racism sky-rocketed.

As OO said, i was not trying to justify the internment camps as you've so rigorously argued against.

OR am i the one that has wrongly interpreted you? It could be the case, as we are limited to the connotations we assign to the words we come across which may not be the same connotations another person assigns to them. We can only hope that sharing in the culture of the United States increases our chances of correctly understanding one another. But the cultures within this bigger culture (nation of many cultures) are pretty varied which no doubt results in misunderstandings. At this point the involvement of an unbias third party may serve to increase our chances of understanding each other correctly. With that, i point to OO's last post in which he provides his opinion which could serve as a third party in this instance. Since, OO is a stranger to us both, one might say his opinion would be unbias towards the both of us.
 
friedbanana8,

NYC5IKH5jabi

Well-Known Member
Policing the world seems much like keeping resources in check, which is usually the underlying theme of wars. If the goal was to divert attention, then far more resources would be directed at shifting focus to overseas casualties of war. In fact that's far from what is being focused on at the moment, as it seems that attention is being focused to domestic violence and by means of that, a militarized force to oversee the public.
Yep preach on brother! From sugar in Cuba to coffee in Colombia to opium in Asia. Every thing in each society that you are indoctrinated into is there for a reason. Much like we are indoctrinated into believing world hunger hasn't been ended yet, when it should have ended long go. The way we are indoctrinated into the illusion of separation. Me and you. Us and them. The illusion of separation and glorification of the ego are indoctrinated and inseminated into the minds of nearly every child in this world. He who searches for the truth shall see what all others are blind too.

Pick up any newspaper as an example. Read through the paper. Now take that information and set it to the side. Take off your ego and sense of self. Remove from the equation who you are, what you are, why you are. Just keep the sense of a human. Now accept for the moment that just as you have discarded the illusion of separation, you now are only what the newspaper is made for. A human, regardless of your looks, beliefs, life experiences. Now with this universal sense of a human, examine the info in that newspaper and know without a doubt that this information, it's tone, it's opinion, it's selective nature are all catered to not you the person but you the human.

Through information the media and government control the part of you that is not separate but conjoined to all human beings. The universal conscience is constantly being manipulated by the vested interests. What information they give you everyday to consume is the exact opposite of what you need to be in touch with your universal state of being. The only nourishment for the part of you separate from the ego yet at one with each and every person is truth. When you start to look for and live the truth, you will see how shallow and false the things you've been indoctrinated into by the world are. Most people still can't grasp their minds around the fallacy of sovereign governments and nations (most who do somehow dont realize that communism isnt a better alternative). Just as intellectuals agree that ultimately humanity is headed towards globalization, one world, one race, one belief. As great as this is, it also lends to the irrevocably horrid circumstances of a global world indoctrinated into anything other than the truth. It's our job to make sure that when we do finally end up with a one world, one nation existence, our children are born into and indoctrinated into the truth as opposed to any kind or ugly or beautiful lie. precisely, because in that existence there wouldn't be any second opinions anyway, everyone born into that world would hear only one side of everything. Atleast in this world good and bad are fighting with our individual lives serving as the battlefield. in that circumstance the battle is over. The ultimate expression of victory or defeat -_-
 
NYC5IKH5jabi,
  • Like
Reactions: mscm888

Crohnie

Crohn's Warrior
With medical marijuana soon to be a reality in Illinois, I'm concerned about getting a medical card. As some of you may know, the fight to get a medical marijuana law passed in Illinois has been a long and frustrating battle. It is by far the strictest such bill in the country. Illinois' Governor Quinn is expected to sign the bill into law within the next month which means the law would actually go into effect around January 1, 2014

Getting a medical card in Illinois will require getting a background check, fingerprints, and if you have a former felony drug conviction or have been convicted of a violent crime, you cannot receive a medical card. The part that worries me is that in the Illinois bill, your name is put on a government list. :mad:
 
Crohnie,

mistadontplay

New Member
Huh? In what state does this apply? I've never heard of this before.

its a federal law. you must have never applied for a firearm or a CCWP. Basically if you have an RX for Meds it's an addiction or something you have to have. On the application for a firearm it asks you if you are on any drugs or addicted to drugs. if you say no and have a med card it will reject you for lying. I may be forced to give up my out of state concealed permit for VA when the dispensary opens up here in DC. Now I do believe if you own a rifle or a shotgun at your home you will be able to keep that but you will not be able to carry a handgun or any firearm on you. and you may not be able to purchase any additional guns once you get a med card. I think the only place you may be able to get away with this is Colorado but I am not 100% sure.
 
mistadontplay,

lwien

Well-Known Member
its a federal law. you must have never applied for a firearm or a CCWP. Basically if you have an RX for Meds it's an addiction or something you have to have. On the application for a firearm it asks you if you are on any drugs or addicted to drugs. if you say no and have a med card it will reject you for lying. I may be forced to give up my out of state concealed permit for VA when the dispensary opens up here in DC. Now I do believe if you own a rifle or a shotgun at your home you will be able to keep that but you will not be able to carry a handgun or any firearm on you. and you may not be able to purchase any additional guns once you get a med card. I think the only place you may be able to get away with this is Colorado but I am not 100% sure.

I own two firearms and I am licensed and I don't remember any questions on any form that would deny me a license if I was a medical marijuana patient nor have I ever been denied a license.

I do have a card from my doctor stating that I am a medical marijuana patient but I have never applied for a State card. Maybe that's the difference.
 

goatgobaahh

Well-Known Member
its a federal law. you must have never applied for a firearm or a CCWP. Basically if you have an RX for Meds it's an addiction or something you have to have. On the application for a firearm it asks you if you are on any drugs or addicted to drugs. if you say no and have a med card it will reject you for lying. I may be forced to give up my out of state concealed permit for VA when the dispensary opens up here in DC. Now I do believe if you own a rifle or a shotgun at your home you will be able to keep that but you will not be able to carry a handgun or any firearm on you. and you may not be able to purchase any additional guns once you get a med card. I think the only place you may be able to get away with this is Colorado but I am not 100% sure.


Listen brother,

As I firearm owner and a person who enjoys the good green herbs. It is my duty as a responsible gun owner to know and understand the laws pertaining to firearms. I have never once heard of MMJ patients not being able to own a firearm. While I am not a MMJ patient I dont even live in herb friendly state. I strongly urge you to post a source because I haven't been able to find anything about this.

Till then I'll keep my vape on, my business to myself, and my mags loaded.
 
Top Bottom