Police State?

[Severian]

Not even the widest interpretation of Executive Order would allow a President to order the opposite. 

You are quite incorrect, my friend:

In a recent Rolling Stone interview, Obama provided a factually wrong answer that radically distorted the nature of federal law in an attempt to deflect criticism for the federal crackdown on medical marijuana. Obama claimed he “can’t nullify Congressional law” when it comes to medical marijuana, even though the Controlled Substance Act actually gives the Executive branch the authority to “reschedule” (reclassify) marijuana without Congressional action. By simply moving marijuana to a lower schedule the Obama administration could make medical marijuana legal under federal law. Obama would not need to nullify this Congressional law, because Congress already gave him the authority to change marijuana’s legal status.

http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2012/04/30/holder-admits-obama-misled-rolling-stone-about-marijuana-law/

[1714678118]

1714678118

[1714678118]

1714678118

[1714678118]

1714678118

[1714678118]

1714678118

[Hawker]

Not even the widest interpretation of Executive Order would allow a President to order the opposite. 

You are quite incorrect, my friend:

In a recent Rolling Stone interview, Obama provided a factually wrong answer that radically distorted the nature of federal law in an attempt to deflect criticism for the federal crackdown on medical marijuana. Obama claimed he “can’t nullify Congressional law” when it comes to medical marijuana, even though the Controlled Substance Act actually gives the Executive branch the authority to “reschedule” (reclassify) marijuana without Congressional action. By simply moving marijuana to a lower schedule the Obama administration could make medical marijuana legal under federal law. Obama would not need to nullify this Congressional law, because Congress already gave him the authority to change marijuana’s legal status.

http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2012/04/30/holder-admits-obama-misled-rolling-stone-about-marijuana-law/

I was wrong. 

[Severian]

I was wrong. 

It takes character to admit that. I know because I have to do it a lot at home.

[myrkul]

There is a distinction between using a power in a way you disapprove of and abusing a power.

So there is, but when "a way I disapprove of" is defined as "outside the constitutional limits of that power," then it's a meaningless one.

[malevolent]

Cop or Soldier quiz

[myrkul]

Cop or Soldier quiz

I got 18/21. Some of the later ones were only given away by the fact that "POLICE" had rather obviously been blacked out. If they'd been properly 'shopped, I'd never have guessed.

[ButchHashidy]

Propaganda, my friend, is a hell of a drug.  You think the majority of the American people actually understand anything beyond what mainstream media feeds them?  It's a task in and of itself to read between the lines.  The mistake here would be to blame Americans for things they know very little about.  The average American citizen is not the enemy.  Follow the money, and you'll find the culprits.

I never fell prey to the propaganda.  I've never been a nationalist, never worn a flag, owned one, etc...

I may not have known the truth, and used to find thinking hard, but I always knew when I was being lied to, even if I didn't know exactly what the truth was.  I don't have a lot of sympathy for the above view.  Do Americans not know that people die in wars?

How many people know but don't care because that is the way they make a living because they have a job at a military contractor?   They want the propaganda so they don't have to face the truth.  Supply and demand.   Media supplies what the people demand.   

At one point I remember it being more dangerous to live in DC then to be a soldier in Iraq.  Not many Americans have died in the oil wars.  No offense to anyone that's served, I'm just using this to make a point.  I believe the point of propaganda is to shape public opinion.  Mainly for re-election.  It's a smoke screen.  If the majority of American people actually knew how many innocent Iraq civilians died for no good reason, for instance, I'm sure there would of been a lot more resistance.  People like you, me and a lot of the other on these forums are rarer breed then the majority.  We have evolved BS detectors lol.  You'd be surprised at how many people believe corporate media word for word.

[pekv2]

I think I like this ButchHashidy guy, if I read correct.

[myrkul]

die usa haben ein großes problem....selbst gemacht zum großen teil

Ja, sehr wahr. 

[TomUnderSea]

...

I understand this is quite an intensive process and many are traumatised by their times in a warzone.  And if they aren't, it means they are most probably psychotic.   

...

Nice.  That veteran is either a whack job because of his/her experiences or is a whack job because his/her experiences did not effect him.

So basically in your world, prior military service equals mentally unstable.

Don't bother responding.

[myrkul]

Nice.  That veteran is either a whack job because of his/her experiences or is a whack job because his/her experiences did not effect him.

Have you ever killed a man? And not just in self-defense, but by kicking in his door and shooting him in the face?

I haven't either, but I'm pretty damn sure that would scar me. And if it didn't, you'd be justified in calling me a psychopath.

[hawkeye]

...

I understand this is quite an intensive process and many are traumatised by their times in a warzone.  And if they aren't, it means they are most probably psychotic.  

...

Nice.  That veteran is either a whack job because of his/her experiences or is a whack job because his/her experiences did not effect him.

So basically in your world, prior military service equals mentally unstable.

Don't bother responding.

Mentally instability quite often comes from being traumatised.

Being traumatised does not necessarily make you mentally unstable.  Trauma can be overcome.

Are you saying warzones are not traumatic?

[Spendulus]

Nice.  That veteran is either a whack job because of his/her experiences or is a whack job because his/her experiences did not effect him.

Have you ever killed a man? And not just in self-defense, but by kicking in his door and shooting him in the face?

I haven't either, but I'm pretty damn sure that would scar me. And if it didn't, you'd be justified in calling me a psychopath.

Why would anyone be concerned if you were scared?

You do what you have to to sometimes.

[malevolent]

Nice.  That veteran is either a whack job because of his/her experiences or is a whack job because his/her experiences did not effect him.

Have you ever killed a man? And not just in self-defense, but by kicking in his door and shooting him in the face?

I haven't either, but I'm pretty damn sure that would scar me. And if it didn't, you'd be justified in calling me a psychopath.

Why would anyone be concerned if you were scared?

You do what you have to to sometimes.

One of the definitions

scar /skɑr/
a lasting aftereffect of trouble, especially a lasting psychological injury resulting from suffering or trauma.

[TomUnderSea]

Have you ever killed a man? And not just in self-defense, but by kicking in his door and shooting him in the face?

Why is my personal combat experience relevant to this discussion?

I haven't either, but I'm pretty damn sure that would scar me. And if it didn't, you'd be justified in calling me a psychopath.

So you have no personal experience and can point to no science based studies but insist that a combat veteran is either

a) psychologically scarred due to battlefield experience

or

b) is already a psychopath if battlefield experience did NOT scar him.


For clarity in the terms being used, here is the Wikipedia a link to "Psychopathy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Please pay particular attention to the PCL-R entry since that is the "gold-standard" for establishing a diagnosis of psychopathy.

[TomUnderSea]

...

I understand this is quite an intensive process and many are traumatised by their times in a warzone.  And if they aren't, it means they are most probably psychotic.  

...

Nice.  That veteran is either a whack job because of his/her experiences or is a whack job because his/her experiences did not effect him.

So basically in your world, prior military service equals mentally unstable.

Don't bother responding.

Mentally instability quite often comes from being traumatised.

Being traumatised does not necessarily make you mentally unstable.  Trauma can be overcome.

Are you saying warzones are not traumatic?

Are you saying that once a person has an experience that induces trauma, the person is always going to be suspect of mental instability?

For clarity, here is a link to the APA website defining trauma from a psychological aspect.

http://www.apa.org/topics/trauma/

[myrkul]

Have you ever killed a man? And not just in self-defense, but by kicking in his door and shooting him in the face?

Why is my personal combat experience relevant to this discussion?

Well, for one, it would explain your reaction, if you yourself had combat experience, and therefore assumed we were calling you crazy.

I haven't either, but I'm pretty damn sure that would scar me. And if it didn't, you'd be justified in calling me a psychopath.

So you have no personal experience and can point to no science based studies but insist that a combat veteran is either
a) psychologically scarred due to battlefield experience
or
b) is already a psychopath if battlefield experience did NOT scar him.

A wiki link for you to peruse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder

For clarity in the terms being used, here is the Wikipedia a link to "Psychopathy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Please pay particular attention to the PCL-R entry since that is the "gold-standard" for establishing a diagnosis of psychopathy.

High PCL-R scores are positively associated with measures of impulsivity and aggression, Machiavellianism, persistent criminal behavior, and negatively associated with measures of empathy and affiliation.

Yes, I would say that if kicking down a door and shooting a fellow human being in the face did not induce psychological trauma, that would show high aggression, and low empathy, would it not?

[Spendulus]

Have you ever killed a man? And not just in self-defense, but by kicking in his door and shooting him in the face?

Why is my personal combat experience relevant to this discussion?

Well, for one, it would explain your reaction, if you yourself had combat experience, and therefore assumed we were calling you crazy.

I haven't either, but I'm pretty damn sure that would scar me. And if it didn't, you'd be justified in calling me a psychopath.

So you have no personal experience and can point to no science based studies but insist that a combat veteran is either
a) psychologically scarred due to battlefield experience
or
b) is already a psychopath if battlefield experience did NOT scar him.

A wiki link for you to peruse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder

For clarity in the terms being used, here is the Wikipedia a link to "Psychopathy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Please pay particular attention to the PCL-R entry since that is the "gold-standard" for establishing a diagnosis of psychopathy.

High PCL-R scores are positively associated with measures of impulsivity and aggression, Machiavellianism, persistent criminal behavior, and negatively associated with measures of empathy and affiliation.

Yes, I would say that if kicking down a door and shooting a fellow human being in the face did not induce psychological trauma, that would show high aggression, and low empathy, would it not?

I must comment that although I follow your argument, and would not refute it as ocassionally happening, I will refute it in the general.

I have worked with mental patients several times and got to know them well, as people.  Some had various types of "psychopath" labels.  Often this was qualified in various ways.

I'm ALSO familiar with the issues relating to combat.

This is not similar to so called post tramatic stress disorder, and the two should not be confused or considered similar.

[myrkul]

I must comment that although I follow your argument, and would not refute it as ocassionally happening, I will refute it in the general.

I have worked with mental patients several times and got to know them well, as people.  Some had various types of "psychopath" labels.  Often this was qualified in various ways.

I'm ALSO familiar with the issues relating to combat.

This is not similar to so called post tramatic stress disorder, and the two should not be confused or considered similar.

1. Combat is traumatic.
2. Trauma sometimes results in "scars," which sometimes manifest as PTSD, or other psychological disorder.
3. If, for a particular person, combat is not in the least traumatic (not, he can deal with the trauma, it is not traumatic) then that person is most likely a psychopath or suffers from some other defect which has damaged his humanity. If Tom does, indeed, have combat experience, I'm sure he has met some of these folks, and, unless he himself is one (I certainly can't judge based on two posts) he was most likely very worried by his encounters with them.

Pvt. Joker: How can you shoot innocent women and children like that?

Helicopter gunner: It's easy. You just don't lead them as much.

Which one here's the psychopath?

[Spendulus]

I must comment that although I follow your argument, and would not refute it as ocassionally happening, I will refute it in the general.

I have worked with mental patients several times and got to know them well, as people.  Some had various types of "psychopath" labels.  Often this was qualified in various ways.

I'm ALSO familiar with the issues relating to combat.

This is not similar to so called post tramatic stress disorder, and the two should not be confused or considered similar.

1. Combat is traumatic.
2. Trauma sometimes results in "scars," which sometimes manifest as PTSD, or other psychological disorder.
3. If, for a particular person, combat is not in the least traumatic (not, he can deal with the trauma, it is not traumatic) then that person is most likely a psychopath or suffers from some other defect which has damaged his humanity. If Tom does, indeed, have combat experience, I'm sure he has met some of these folks, and, unless he himself is one (I certainly can't judge based on two posts) he was most likely very worried by his encounters with them.....


I started my comment with...

I must comment that although I follow your argument, and would not refute it as ocassionally happening, I will refute it in the general.

No more needs be said.  Maybe one thing. 

You seem to use a dictionary definition of psychopath to prove a point.  As I noticed, there is incredible diversity in actual people diagnosed as and treated as psychopaths.  What this means is that I can refute your argument in a backwards method, starting with the bell shaped curves in psychopathic behavior, then going to the single phenomena you claim.

Nonetheless, I know the point you are trying to make, which is along the lines of something like, uh, "killing people is bad and has bad karma" or something like that?