Concerned California Voters __________________ "Feinstein arguably has done more than any other senator to censor and regulate the Net. She repeatedly has attempted to ban bomb-making information, even though courts have ruled it's legal to publish it. She tried to make it a crime to discuss marijuana growing online -- or to link to drug related Web sites. And she has suggested banning encryption software that federal law enforcement officials can't monitor. It's not that anyone is for bomb-making or drug links, but that Feinstein's ham-fisted approach would be overly far-reaching."Yahoo Internet Life __________________ [list=1][*]Support for dumb laws - i.e. Internet censorship, anti-flag burning amendments to the constitution and laws to prevent people from talking about drugs on the Internet. Where does she come up with this stuff? Who is advising her? surely not the Dalai Lama. [*]Her support of a fundamentally fascist agenda - more government control over our lives. She is anti freedom. [*]She is a hypocrite. She is in bed with corporate criminals like Maxxam and David Hurwitz who seek to destroy the last of the old growth redwoods in California. DiFi is the henchman of wealth in California. While people in San Francisco sleep in doorways, DiFi owns lots of houses behind private gates. DiFi epitomizes what is wrong with politics in the United States where the rich do whatever they want on the backs of the poor[and tech workers]. She supports more taxes on working people to support the big government agenda supporting rich people and big corporations. Ask her about campaign finance reform. Ask her about what she and her husband own. [*]Her blind support for the Israel lobby. Her loyalties are to whatever the Israel wants - to hell with human rights for the Palestinians.[/list=1] Reefer Madness Perhaps one of the strongest positions of DiFi is her unconditional support of the War on Drugs[People]. The latest is the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act. If the measure becomes law, it will create a new federal felony -- punishable by a fine and three years in prison -- that covers Web pages that link to sites with information about where to buy "drug paraphernalia" such as roach clips, bowls, and bongs. Reefer Madness Hits Congress by Debbi Gardiner and Declan McCullagh [Wired, 6.Aug.99] "For decades, the War on Drugs has been presented to the public as the only way to "save our children." Today's college students, many of whom grew up in the 80's and 90's and were the very children this war was supposed to protect, have seen firsthand the failure of punitive approaches to discourage youth drug use." Students for Sensible Drug Policy Headwaters Forest, Maxxam and David Hurwitz "Last year Feinstein and Hurwitz realized they needed to throw a bone to the public to make us believe that Headwaters was going to be saved, which was clearly not the case," Earthfirst! activist Daryl Cherney said at a Sept. 14 press conference. "This year we're saying the deal stinks." ... Sen. Feinstein's press office refused to comment on continuing public opposition to the Maxxam deal. Thousands protest DiFi- Hurwitz deal Questions for Dianne Feinstein[list=1][*]How do you reconcile the First Amendment with your call to make it a felony to discuss drugs on the Internet? [*]Silicon Valley companies believe they need to be able to hire more engineers from foreign countries. Where do you stand on the issue of visas for technical workers? [*]People of California overwhelmingly approved Proposition 215 (medical marijuana). What gives the Federal government the right to counter the wishes of the voters of California? What is your position on medical marijuana? [*]Do you think that a U.S. President should be able to go to war without a congressional mandate? [*]Over 70 people on death row have been released based on DNA and other evidence of their innocence. Does this have affect on your support of the death penalty? [*]In the past you have advocated the creation of a National ID card. Where do you stand on this now? [*]Do U still have an interest in San Francisco's City Tow? [*]How many San Francisco taxi medallions do you or members of your family own? What is your annual income on these? [*]Where do you stand on use of secret "evidence" during criminal trails? [*]How much did you pay in Federal income tax last year? [*]How much has your family made playing stocks on the design of the new Bay Bridge [*]What did you do to stop Governor Gray Davis from cutting bicycles and pedestrians out of the biggest transportation package the state has ever seen? [*]How do you reconcile your opposition of the right to bear arms in the USA with your championing assault rifles for the Indonesian army to use against the people of East Timor? [*] Why do U feel progressives should vote for U over Tom Campbell, a candidate who strongly supports freedom of speech, curtailing government intrusion into our lives, and a woman's right to choose?[/list=1] http://www.stopdianneswar.com/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bye Bye Di! It was [notso]nice gnowin' u! ;0) __________________ Dianne Feinstein ... A piece of Work?Personally, I am not wild about Sen. Feinstein. I think that she believes that government exists to control people and not to serve them. I think that this is a fundamentally flawed view of the purpose of government. An example of this is Sen Feinstein's opposition to Proposition 215 on the California ballot (medical marijuana). She condones the hassling of doctors in the state by the Feds for prescribing marijuana for their patients. Proposition 215 got 56 percent of the votes in California yet Sen Feinstein cannot be bothered to tell the Feds to leave California doctors alone. Then there are the issues of encryption, gun control, and national ID. We already have too much fascism in this country - we do not need more. What do others think about the senator? -- richard (zpub@sirius.com), June 15, 1998 Answers The word you are looking for is not "work" it is "crap", "****" would also do just fine. You med mj smokers should not feel too bad,also voted to screw cigarette smokers with a big tax increase. -- james burns (jburns3@ix.netcom.com), June 17, 1998. I also believe that you should replace the word "work" with "****".Just for atarters,everything from her pro-communist china agenda to her anti-2nd amendment attitude is evil.I hope with all my heart that she loses her seat this year.If anyone can tell me where things stand with the polls, or if you think she will be able to continue to spew socialist dogma across our great nation, please email me. Cheers!--Damon Anthony Chiariello--damonch1@gte.net -- Damon Anthony Chiariello (damonch1@gte.net), July 22, 1998. She also supported the (Republican) constitutional amendment to outlaw the burning of the flag. Political expediency anyone? -- whitney wyatt (wwyatt1@flash.net), August 01, 1998. Piece of crap sums it up. She is a terrible excuse for an American. Obviously, she cannot read or she would realize that the second amendment is part of the Constitution. -- M. McKin (mmckin@yahoo.com), October 08, 1998. on the issue of gun control,she had a concealed weapon permit and carried a gun while mayor of s.f. for years. about the national i.d. card it would have been a felony to be caught out in public without one, sound like nazi germany? I wonder how many businesses she and her husband owns in china? and how many of them use slave labor? Has anyone heard about OPERATION GARDEN PLOT and OPERATION CABLE SPLICE? i wonder how much money she allowed to be spent on all of these barbed wired u.s. citizen holding camps that are in some of the closed military bases? like camp roberts. -- bob e. kelley (waterbuffalo@msn.com), August 28, 1999. She is worse than Hitler. Its politicans like her that would totally destroy our Constitution--and do it with a smile on her face. Well she doesn't have much longer. -- Mert (bbmert1247@aol.com), January 30, 2000. The biggest threat to our fine country are politicians like Senator Diane Feinstein. Our founding father were very concerned that people would give up their freedoms for safety. Feinstein uses the publics fear to take away our freedoms, and give them to the government. If she had her way the constitution would be abolished! Frank Engineer -- Frank Sabatino (gfewest@aol.com), March 20, 2000. Frankly the site I came here from isn't emphatic enough. They say that the ##### became mayor after a dual assassination. I think if we had any investigative reporters worthy of that description, we'd find she probably engineered the assassinations that catapulted her to power. Of course she has no respect for the rights of people, and she thinks the function of government is to rule rather than serve the people. Anybody suspect that her last name is maybe a cover so no body would realize that she's an escaped nazi at large? -- Jack Whitechapel (jaxwhite@netzero.net), October 01, 2000. ~~~ Certainly no~one in contention fer the Nobel prize in Literature, but none~the~less FRANK opinions ;0) [Edited by renots on 11-06-2000 at 07:12 PM] __________________ Let's say goodbye to DiFi's little warVote Campbell! __________________ While her Internet censorship stand is laughable, I respect at least the essence of the drug thing, if not the method.If we had the chance today, to strike the tabacco lobby, and decide with full information if cigarettes should be illegal, would we? I bet we would, or it'd be close at least. Thus, I cannot understand why legalizing drugs with MORE severe physiological effets than tabacco should be legalized simply because we're doing a ****ty job of making them illegal? Drunk driving is rampant, so instead of figuring out better ways to stop it, we should just make it legal? The FDA keeps drugs off the market because of their detrimental side effects; drugs should be controlled in some other way? I, of course, am not referring to marijuana. I admittedly know little about the long term effects of smoking reefer, but I've never heard of anyone getting lung cancer from the wacky weed. I have, however, seen people lose subtle muscle control (not to mention their mind) because of speed use, people die from heroin overdoses, and cocaine is, well, cocaine. Bud and "real" drugs are not the same, and I support any intentions to keep the latter to a minimum. It'd be nice if they could make bud a little less stinky, but hey, you that's pretty much the most insidious effect to non-smokers... __________________ renots,Just for you I voted for the republican candidate instead. I don't like him either but I do NOT want Feinstein in office. I would have liked to vote for the Benjamin but I think that Campbell is going to need all the help that he can get. __________________ Quote:
 Just a few more hours folks and then we can all say "Bye Dianne! ;0) __________________ Quote:
Try looking at it like this. Laws are supposed to be representative of the views of the people. If so many people are breaking a law that our society can't keep up with all the criminality going on (evident when looking at our soaring prison populations, sentences being cut for violent criminals to make cell room for druggies, etc), then you have to ask whether the law really serves the desires of the people. We have elected officials to protect us from "the tyranny of the majority," so why should we criminalize and marginalize 10 - 20 percent (at least!) of our population just because of some drug laws which I have yet to hear a sensible, reasonably logical argument for. Why should they be legal? Because they were all legal once, and they should never have been made illegal in the first place! Same goes for booze and ciggys and any other vice that harms no one except those commiting the act. Quote:
This is not a valid comparison. Drunk driving kills many innocent people. Drugs never kill anyone but the person who takes the drugs. The only other possible victims of drugs really victims of the DRUG WAR. Quote:
So what? If the drug user is willing to take the risk, who am I, or you, or anybody to tell him no. What gives us that right? Nothing, I say. What he does is his business, cause he's not hurting anybody else. I know you and I have argued this before, and I already am waiting for the reply (which will no doubt go into the poor little children of drug addicts, rampant chaos as cities and towns overrun with addicts burn and crumble, etc.) I don't want to argue anymore, because like I said, we've already been over it, and I've been in enough arguments lately (noticed I haven't heard much from Abbra, Oblong or the Squirrel the past couple days. Que sera sera). But to just clearly put my viewpoint down for all to see (and fire away at): YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE MORALITY. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE RESPONSIBILITY. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE WHAT PEOPLE DO WITH OR TO THEMSELVES. IT DOESN'T WORK. IT NEVER WORKED. IT WILL NEVER WORK. NOT SO LONG AS PEOPLE THINK FOR THEMSELVES AND WANT TO BE FREE. __________________ No, we can legislate responsibility. Drunk driving laws are a precise embodiment of that.I suppose the fulcrum of the argument is that addiction/abuse stems from the scarcity of the commodity. I still fail to see any rational justification to the positive. To say that drug use only affects the user is to ignore the varigated peripheral affects, as you said, children, etc, etc. Drunkard parents aren't that rare, and alcohol is legal. Imagine the children of speed, PCP, or worse, addicts. Frankly, I can't think of anything worse, but I'm sure there's something someone'll snort or smoke that's worse...  I know we've gone over it before, but your arguments still ring hollow to me. Taken literally, EVERYTHING was legal at one time. Killing is taken to be the "law of the jungle". "Just because everyone is doing it" is a very poor reason to legalize something; more likely, we're NOT talking about 20% of the population (are you trying to tell me 50 million-odd people are drug addicts?!), are we ARE talking about the will of the people. I frankly do not need a proliferation of speed freaks in stolen tanks crushing my car/house/child, and I think many would generally agree. We are not talking about a fundamental right here: nowhere in the Constitution do I see the right to hard, intraveneous narcotics! In short, I see a very real, tangible harm that drug addicts inflict. I see it on the news on a regular basis, and I certainly don't mean the trafficking of drugs. I'm talking about the people in an addicts' social circle that are directly affected by that substance. Those that support drug legalization are throwing the baby out with the bath water: enforce laws equally for all people, not just blacks. Don't do away with drug laws just because a disproportionate number of black folks are arrested. __________________  __________________ heheh Let me qualify that. I meant, YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ("you've been blessed with life, and as such you are responsible for respecting this gift by attending to yourself in such and such a manner" etc... Similar to morality but more like morality as it is applied to one's goals and one's perception of self in life) Of course, we have drunk driving laws. But what makes them valid is not that they attempt to reeducate potential offendors and make them "better, more responsible people," as drug laws do. They are valid because they attempt to prevent other people from getting hurt. (Damn, I was hoping not to get pulled into this again. Cannot... Stop.. typing... must...re..sist. Arrrghhh!!!!! Oh well, here goes...) I'm afraid you miss my argument still. First off, abuse is a silly word dripping with propaganda. If a user takes a drug, is it use or abuse? Abuse implies that there is a proper reason and an improper reason for using a drug. I say every individual's reasons are his own. I think we agree that if your not hurting anybody else, what you do with or to yourself is your business. So, if one assumes (and I know you don't, but I'm getting there) that drug use harms no one but the user, then the concept of abuse is really just an empty moral construct coined by people who want to stop other people from doing drugs, right? So let's just toss that out entirely as a bogus term. Now, addiction is real. Addiction can be harmful to addicts. Addiction stems from the power of the drugs and the weaknesses of the user. But these are personal problems that an individual must fight and overcome on his own. Or he could choose not to, for whatever reason. Its HIS life. Addiction does NOT have a relationship to the availability of a commodity. That's why addiction can be so harmful to addicts!!! It doesn't matter if there's a little or a lot to go around, addicts NEED to satisfy their addictions, and will pay WHATEVER PRICE to do so. That's why its really just the drug-related violence, addicts being reduced to robbery and other crimes to support their habits, and penniless, homeless addicts living in the streets that stem from the scarcity of the commodity. Eliminating the scarcity won't eliminate addiction. It will just eliminate the violence, the crime, and much of the homelessness. And that's really what society wants in the end, right? Many people are addicted to caffeine. Without it, they're not themselves in the morning, or sometimes any time of day. They would have difficulty functioning up to speed for some time until withdrawal wore off. They never seem to wake up, and are always irritable as hell. But thankfully, caffeine is legal. You can get it for change in just about every place that you can get food or drink. Do people go broke supporting their caffeine habits? Do people rob or kill for caffeine? Is caffeine distribution controlled by a violent hegemony of cutthroat cartels, ruthless organized crime families, and brutal street gangs? Cigarettes? Maybe in prison, but otherwise no. Alcohol? I've seen people reduced to begging for booze money (it is comparatively expensive), but have yet to hear of large numbers of people killing or robbing for it. Not since PROHIBITION, anyway. I'm not saying 50 million people are drug addicts. I'm saying that at least 10-20% of our population have at one time or another taken an illegal drug (and prescription drugs that weren't prescribed to you count), and in doing so have broken the law and are now felons. How's a country supposed to run if all those people were imprisoned? With prison labor? Drug laws do not work. We have Prohibition and years of experience telling us so. They do not work not because they are not enforced. They do not work not because there are not enough laws, or because the laws are not repressive enough, or because the prisons are not draconian enough. Drug laws do not work because intelligent people are naturally curious. Its part of being intelligent and having free will. Trying new things is natural and ok. Trying things we are warned about is also quite natural, and also ok, but if you're smart you'll heed the warnings and at least be careful. Trying new things, or even doing old things, that would hurt other people is not ok, and healthy people who mature in a household and community that values and accepts them will naturally learn and adhere to this ideology. That's why laws against actions that hurt others are proper and generally work. They adhere to the most basic human principals of what is right within a community or society. Laws which do not protect others directly, but seek to put boundaries on people's behavior in the attempt to indirectly prevent a potential threat, do not mesh with this natural principal. There is not enough of a moral imperative there to stifle an intelligent human's curiosity, and that curiosity will often overtake him. This is why all consensual crime laws fail, have failed, will fail. If you don't buy the curiosity principle for everyone (I don't), I'll add that human weakness is also a factor. People often turn to drugs not out of curiosity but out of weakness, as an escape from a world and reality that they feel they cannot cope with. Like curiosity, weakness is a trait that can get the better of people, and we can only hope that people make good choices for themselves, and try and help them when they don't. Imprisoning them is not the help that they need. I want to live in a society that will help lift the weak so they can learn to jump over the bar themselves, not a society that encourages them by shooting at their heels. Otherwise, what good is society? A man would be better off on his own in nature! Whew! Imagine if I HAD wanted to get into a discussion on this with you again! __________________ oh well she got reelected__________________ well I gues we can always hope for a random meteor...__________________ http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...tein001107.htm"A victorious Feinstein would have a golden opportunity to move on some issues that she feels need attention despite America's strong economy: education, health care and transportation." Well at least she's not babbling about extending the drug war or increasing Net Censorship. Thank GoD for small miracles ;0) Mavi forum |
Friday, June 8, 2007
Fer Heavens sake DONT VOTE FER FEINSTEIN whatever U do
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment