Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WOW! ISN'T THIS DRUG WAR GREAT!
Boortz.com ^ | 11-22-2006 | Neal Boortz

Posted on 11/22/2006 7:35:17 AM PST by Dick Bachert

Atlanta police went to a home on Neal Street in Atlanta last evening to execute a search warrant. When they kicked the door in the only occupant of the home, a 92-year-old woman, started shooting. She hit all three police officers. One in the thigh, one in the arm and another in the shoulder. All police officers will be OK. The woman will not. She was shot and killed by the police.

I'm not blaming the cops here. Not at all. They had a valid search warrant, and they say they were at the right address. Shots were fired, three cops hit, and they returned fire. A 92-year-old woman who was so afraid of crime in her neighborhood that she had burglar bars on every door and window, is now dead.

The blame lies on this idiotic drug war we're waging. We have all the studies we need, all of the comprehensive data is in. We can do a much more effective job of reducing drug use in this country if we'll just take a portion of this money we spend for law enforcement and spend it on treatment programs. A Rand study showed that we can reduce illicit drug usage in this country a specified amount through treatment programs at about 10% of the cost of reducing drug usage by that same amount through criminalization and law enforcement.

There's just something in the American psyche that demands that drug users be punished instead of treated and rehabilitated. We think they're stupid and ignorant for getting mixed up with those drugs in the first place. And you know what? We're right? But look at the messages we send to our children every single day with cigarettes, alcohol, and an endless stream of drug ads on television and in magazines. Drug culture? You bet we have.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: cutandrun; donutwatch; druggy; drugwar; hempatarian; leo; stoner; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 551-573 next last
To: Lancey Howard

Unfortunately for the truth, the ONE potential witness for the other side is dead.

For this 92 year-old women to have gotten off 3 shots that found their marks, she and her targets almost certainly had to be well within that 21' range where most gunfights take place. I rather doubt the cops were "approaching" the house. My guess is that they made a racket coming on to her porch, quickly took out the door, she had her weapon handy -- thanks to the cops' inability to secure her neighborhood -- and let fly.


151 posted on 11/22/2006 10:19:22 AM PST by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Oh yeah, I forgot some tunes. Maybe some Allmans? Eat A Peach? Little Steely Dan perhaps? Or maybe you want something more up to date...a little Flecktones?


152 posted on 11/22/2006 10:19:31 AM PST by Huck (Soylent Green is People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Yet with other drugs the government self-righteously proclaims that people and their doctors are deemed incompetent to decide how the patient may medicate.

Exactly. Medical Marijuana for example. Some states have legalized it. Find a doctor who will fill out that prescription. They may tell you to continue or not object to your use of it. But would never jeopardize their profession but actually filling that prescription.
153 posted on 11/22/2006 10:19:50 AM PST by Phantom Patriot (From my cold dead hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Huck

So should we treat alcohol and tobacco like the other drugs? Or treat the other drugs like alcohol and tobacco?

Tobacco, specifically nicotine, is highly addictive. Since 1990 tobacco use has dropped 50% How was that accomplished? Education. The alcohol prohibition turf wars demonstrated that alcohol prohibition was a dismal failure. Politicians and bureaucrats chose to repeat history. The consequences to come from their choice was know yet they still made the choice. End drug prohibition and it ends the violent crime problem it facilitated. Then, and only then can the drug problem be addressed rationally, honestly.

154 posted on 11/22/2006 10:22:00 AM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

Someone's been drinking the ilk of human kindness.


155 posted on 11/22/2006 10:22:30 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Unknown Pundit

And we wonder where tyrannies arise from. Wonder no more, as tyrannical laws arise from folks who share the mentality, such as it is, like the Sam Hills of this world. So caught up in their fight against "evil", they can't see the evil they, themselves sponsor in the world.

People have been using mood altering drugs since the beginning of time. You and your ilk have succeeded in criminalizing the human condition. WOW. Jesus must be proud.


OHHHH SOOOOO TRUE!


156 posted on 11/22/2006 10:23:05 AM PST by Phantom Patriot (From my cold dead hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Huck

LOL. Cuz junkies first and foremost concern is their job security. Most jobs NOW don't tolerate junkies. That's why junkies do crimes, duh.

LOL -- So often you see alcoholics doing crimes to get their next fifth of whiskey because it's so expensive.

That's my point. Same crap, different day. Forced treatment, forced incarceration. Same difference.

It makes more sense to diminish the punishment in certain circumstances if the criminal agrees to pay for his/her rehabilitation.

157 posted on 11/22/2006 10:36:49 AM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
I haven't been able to find any information on this despite a number of searches.

Plain clothes police executing a no-knock warrant would be extremely unusual.

So unusual that I find it very hard to believe.

No-knock warrants are very dangerous for everyone involved, and they have very specific procedures to be followed.

Where did you hear that the officers were in plain clothes? Were they just assuming that because the woman shot at them that they must have been in plain clothes?

It's more likely that it was simply dark since they usually execute these warrants in the early morning hours when people are likely to be asleep so the officers can gain control of the situation before the occupants can react with violence or by destroying evidence.

Very unfortunately, that wasn't the case in this situation.

No knock warrants are very scary, and should only be used when necessary. If the Judge is issuing such warrants without good cause, that judge needs to be removed. If the officers are lying to attain such warrants, those officers need to be held accountable for that.

If everything was done properly, and this is just one of the rare cases where things go bad, it's very sad, but our rights only protect us from unreasonable searches, not all searches, and in some cases the police simply can't give the suspects a chance to dispose of the evidence.

However, that can create a situation that is ripe for disaster.

I know if I woke to someone breaking down my door the first thing I would reach for is my handgun, and if I didn't hear or understand their shouts of "police" the situation could get very ugly very quickly.

I agree that this situation will be spun by gun control advocates, and I understand that the police don't provide protection or security, they enforce laws, and try to catch criminals after laws have been broken.

I believe strongly in my right to self defense.

However, there are situations where no-knock warrants are justified and needed. I'm not going to judge if this particular one was justified or even executed properly based on as sparse of facts as are provided here.

158 posted on 11/22/2006 10:37:07 AM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unknown Pundit

"If you can't see the difference in trying to stop people from doing what they want to do to their own bodies versus actual criminal activity (murder, rape, robbery, etc.), there's really no use arguing with you."

This is the most preposterous and tiresome druggie argument of them all.

The same could be said of a suicide bomber. He was just blowing himself up. The others just happened to be there.

In our modern society -- for better or worse -- no man is an island.

No matter how what you may pretend, our society will not let drug addicts die on the street and their (mentally afflicted) children starve to death.

Also, believe it or not, drug addicts drive cars -- and once they get their inevitable rights -- trains, boats and planes.

They also burn down apartments in building where other people live.

You want to multiply these benefits to society a thousand fold. Or more.

And you pretend it's all because you are so principled. What a laugh.

The first principal of any society is to preserve itself.


159 posted on 11/22/2006 10:40:08 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Zon

But the criminal isn't a criminal until he's apprehended, hence all the same excess Boortz seemingly doesn't like.


160 posted on 11/22/2006 10:40:11 AM PST by Huck (Soylent Green is People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
What part of "the officers had a legal warrant and 'knocked and announced'" do you not understand?
That is the quote from the Police spokesperson.

Are you saying in one breath that the Assistant Chief of Police is a liar but in the next breath that you support the police?

Do you believe that every 92 year woman that uses deadly force should be met my deadly force by a police officer?

He better have tears in his eyes and be ready to explain it to St. Peter!

Where is Andy Taylor when we need him?

161 posted on 11/22/2006 10:40:20 AM PST by higgmeister (In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
Are you an alien?

Just asking.

162 posted on 11/22/2006 10:42:11 AM PST by higgmeister (In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
The same could be said of a suicide bomber. He was just blowing himself up. The others just happened to be there.

That makes no sense at all. A suicide bomber has intent to kill others, hence Fox News' (admittedly labored) phrase, "homicide bomber." Suicide bombers don't just happen to kill others and destroy property. It's their intent and you know it. How dumb do you think ppl are to make such an idiotic statement?

A heroin junkie or a crack addict may have ill effects on society, but it's pretty clear that they don't get high or become addicted with the intent of suicidally becoming a drag on others. What total nonsense!

163 posted on 11/22/2006 10:42:59 AM PST by Huck (Soylent Green is People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Zon
There's drug manufacturers advertising prescription drugs to people almost as though the audience is competent medical professionals able to decide self-medication. The advertisements suggest that they patient ask their doctor for advice. Yet with other drugs the government self-righteously proclaims that people and their doctors are deemed incompetent to decide how the patient may medicate.

Excellent points. And at the same time the Gov't decrees that we're all competent to decide on other drugs (caffeine, cold medicines, herbal remedies, etc.).

164 posted on 11/22/2006 10:46:53 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
They had to get in before she flushed her stash.

There was no stash. No drugs were found.

165 posted on 11/22/2006 10:47:28 AM PST by A.J.Armitage (http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DanTheAdmin

Tin hats, anyone?


166 posted on 11/22/2006 10:48:31 AM PST by truemiester (If the U.S. should fail, a veil of darkness will come over the Earth for a thousand years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

If drugs are legalized they won't be sold for long. The addicts will soon lose any ability to make a living and so will again resort to theft for their habits.

Right, just like it happened when alcohol prohibition was repealed and alcoholics couldn't hold a job and resorted to theft. Shootouts by alcoholics and distributors in front of liquor stores are so common these days.

167 posted on 11/22/2006 10:48:35 AM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)


168 posted on 11/22/2006 10:48:41 AM PST by rednesss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Huck

In fact, many suicide bombers are on heroin or some other drug -- mixed with their latest inspiration from Friday's prayer, so who knows what they are thinking.

In fact, trying to reason with them is exactly like trying to reason with the druggie crowd.

Just as they pine for the caliphate you druggies want your high.

And every thing and everyone else be damned.


169 posted on 11/22/2006 10:49:50 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: rednesss

('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

LOL

You're perfect.


170 posted on 11/22/2006 10:50:41 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"There was no stash. No drugs were found."

I know, I forgot the sarcasm tag. That's one of the perennial excuses for no-knock warrants.
171 posted on 11/22/2006 10:50:57 AM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage

You know this probably all came about because she sold a few of her prescription Vicodin's to someone to buy some food or something. How reprehensible.


172 posted on 11/22/2006 10:52:13 AM PST by rednesss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: rednesss; Sam Hill
Once again you assume my motivation here is to legalize drugs. I don't have a dog in that fight. I could care less about drugs or druggies. What I care about are the rights of American citizens and the U.S. Constitution.

Thank you for a sane comment. It's more important that the rights of individuals not be violated than it is to catch drug users or any other kind of criminal.
173 posted on 11/22/2006 10:52:54 AM PST by JamesP81 (If you have to ask permission from Uncle Sam, then it's not a right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Squeako

Nice post. When a drug dealer is taken off the streets -- imprisoned -- it creates a job opportunity for ten other people to become a drug dealer. They'll fight it out of course, to see who controls the turf. When a bank robber or murder is imprisoned the murder and bank robbing stops. That is, no one is waiting in the wings to fill their shoes.


174 posted on 11/22/2006 10:53:15 AM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

Thank you, truth is timeless.


175 posted on 11/22/2006 10:53:26 AM PST by rednesss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

"It's more important that the rights of individuals not be violated than it is to catch drug users or any other kind of criminal."

Right.

You guys would really love Somalia.

But you better get their quick before Sharia law gets imposed.

Though, come to think of it, that wouldn't faze you -- since they still allow (ney, encourage) doping yourself.


176 posted on 11/22/2006 10:55:00 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
These cops were clearly gunning for this old lady.

They weren't gunning for her as much as they just didn't care on way or another.
177 posted on 11/22/2006 10:55:12 AM PST by JamesP81 (If you have to ask permission from Uncle Sam, then it's not a right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
"If you spent the money you now waste on drug enforcement on enforcement of burglary and assault laws, you'd still get rid of the worst druggies and the recreational ones wouldn't matter."

Little if any motivation for mugging a dozen little old ladies each day to pay for the drugs -- if legalized, drugs shouldn't cost any more than untaxed legal drugs like aspirin and caffeine. Drug addicts could peacefully overdose on $2 worth of drugs in the privacy of their own homes.

I'd have to feel bad for the cop who has to deal with them two weeks later in response to the 911 call about the smell, but not as much as for the little old lady who is getting mugged right now.

178 posted on 11/22/2006 10:55:51 AM PST by Sooth2222 ("We have met the enemy and he is us." -Pogo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

In fact, many suicide bombers are on heroin or some other drug -- mixed with their latest inspiration from Friday's prayer, so who knows what they are thinking.

In fact, trying to reason with them is exactly like trying to reason with the druggie crowd.

Just as they pine for the caliphate you druggies want your high.

And every thing and everyone else be damned.

What a peice of work you are. I'd like to see you talk a pothead into blowing themselves up.


179 posted on 11/22/2006 10:56:50 AM PST by Phantom Patriot (From my cold dead hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister

Okay, you've missed my point. Perhaps it's my fault.

I did not call the Assistant Chief a liar. And I haven't a dog in this fight vis-a-vis whether or not the cops were right or not. I wasn't there, so I can never know what happened.

But, Neal has an AGENDA to advance when he presents this story; he is attempting to show that the War on Drugs has led to an overwhelming increase in the power of the police, and is a dangerous threat to civil liberties, all in the name of a "victimless crime", i.e. recreational drug use.
For almost all libertarians (Neal included), all subjects eventually come back to the stigmas and restrictions attached to "recreational" drug use. Particularly their own recreational use (although I cannot say with any certainty that Neal uses anything stronger than aspirin, and it is certainly not my intention to insinuate that he, personally, does).

Neal, incidentally, so far as I know, has no issue with the CIA wiretapping folks to snoop out terorrists, so I guess that's one trampling of civil liberties he can accept (unless the CIA manages to catch a guy talking to his dealer, and passes it on to local law enforcement for an arrest to be made. This, incidentally, is also the democratic stance against the Patriot Act; that in the process of searching for terrorists, the gov't may turn up evidence of other, unrelated criminal activities and prosecute). Nice way to be consistent, huh?

The way this was presented was to imply that a gross violation of civil rights occurred, without an attempt to put it in the proper context. Neal's objection is NOT that a 92-year old woman was shot, but that she was shot AS A RESULT OF GOVERNMENT PURSUING A FAILED ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY. Especially when said enmforcement strategy is aimed at not improving the state of society, after all, but only stomping upon the rights of the "recreational" drug user.

Just asking for a dash of truth and consistency here, that's all.


180 posted on 11/22/2006 10:57:18 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: calex59

The way to deal with this is to execute ANYONE guilty of drug manufacturing/selling within 7 days of arrest.

It works in Singapore!


181 posted on 11/22/2006 10:58:14 AM PST by BillM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rednesss

"Thank you, truth is timeless."

A lot of teens think Ayn Rand is a fount of wisdom.

Hopefully some day you will grow up.


182 posted on 11/22/2006 10:58:34 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

I don't know about that, isn't Indonesia the biggest Muslim country in the world??

Indonesia has some of the world's toughest drug laws.

Two Thai nationals were executed by firing squad last month after being found guilty of smuggling heroin into Indonesia a decade ago, while a 65-year-old Indian was shot in August after Indonesia's president turned down an appeal for clemency.

An Italian caught last year in Bali with 2g of marijuana is serving two years in prison.


183 posted on 11/22/2006 10:59:16 AM PST by rednesss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Nice way to be consistent, huh?

Actually, he is. Those "wire taps" are all on international calls. Are the Rights of those in other countries protected by our Constitution and our legal system? Don't be silly.

He is very consistant, and correct on this issue as well. But you've gotta know what the hell your talking about first.

184 posted on 11/22/2006 11:00:11 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
How about a Founding Father then troll boy...

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson

185 posted on 11/22/2006 11:01:14 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

Good for them, luckily I'm pushing 40 there "pops".


186 posted on 11/22/2006 11:01:34 AM PST by rednesss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: BillM
It works in Singapore!

They also cane people in Singapore for chewing gum.

187 posted on 11/22/2006 11:03:07 AM PST by Sooth2222 ("We have met the enemy and he is us." -Pogo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson


Nuff said.


188 posted on 11/22/2006 11:04:17 AM PST by Phantom Patriot (From my cold dead hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

"Actually, he is. Those "wire taps" are all on international calls. Are the Rights of those in other countries protected by our Constitution and our legal system? Don't be silly."

Oh heck, no! I never even made that argument that Constitutional rights were to be transnationally applied, or that the wiretapping was done willy-nilly. Nice try, though.

He should have posted, right in the first sentence, what his intention was in presenting the story. Instead, we got a cut-rate version of events, and are left to imply an awful lot, and if you are of the same political bent as Neal, you imply what he wants you to without realizing it.

That's what I'm talking about; be up front about your agenda and when you tell the story make it evident where your point of view lies. That's all. Is that too much to ask?


189 posted on 11/22/2006 11:05:35 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Patriot
Nuff said.

One would hope. From experience though, nothing dissuades a "true believer" in a totalitarian cause.

190 posted on 11/22/2006 11:06:37 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
Yes it is.

No, it isn't and apparently your sarcasm detector is off. He is making the claim that she's a drug dealer; he has to prove it. We have this thing called presumption of innocence; that means we automatically assume she's not a drug dealer until proven otherwise. It's a shame that this concept is no longer a part of our social consciousness.
191 posted on 11/22/2006 11:06:51 AM PST by JamesP81 (If you have to ask permission from Uncle Sam, then it's not a right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Neal has never said he wasn't a partisan. In fact, he takes pains to remind people often. That everything he states is HIS opinion and that nothing he says should be taken at face value unless you have researched it and come up with the same conclusions yourself.

Again, like I said, if you knew what you were nattering on about... you'd find something more interesting to talk about rather than push a bad position.

192 posted on 11/22/2006 11:08:31 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

No way a 92yo woman with no range time gets off three shots and three hits at moving targets at night. I don't care if she's sitting in a rocker right in front of the door.

Nope. She heard them coming and they were probably coming slowly.



193 posted on 11/22/2006 11:08:44 AM PST by VeniVidiVici (What's the one elected position Ted Kennedy has never held? Designated Driver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unknown Pundit
It's all about self-righteous power and control.

Hate to say it, but you've got something here. Some people get a real rush out of having authority of some kind over others. It's one of those nasty things about human nature that really could undo our republic in the future.
194 posted on 11/22/2006 11:09:04 AM PST by JamesP81 (If you have to ask permission from Uncle Sam, then it's not a right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

P.S., Re: wire taps.

If one of those international wire taps turned up evidence of a child porn ring operating across borders, would you be for or against the relevant government agencies passing this information on to local law enforcement, or do you consider it "fruit of the poisoned tree" (i.e. since this information was collected while looking for something else, it should not be used to prosecute anyone)?


195 posted on 11/22/2006 11:09:37 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

Hey, They came, they saw, they conquered -- but took some damage.


196 posted on 11/22/2006 11:10:18 AM PST by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101

Wombat: If I come up with a billion and one ireelevant strawmen, will you stop beating your wife?


197 posted on 11/22/2006 11:10:41 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
One would hope. From experience though, nothing dissuades a "true believer" in a totalitarian cause.


Perhaps one too many viewings of refer madness.
198 posted on 11/22/2006 11:11:34 AM PST by Phantom Patriot (From my cold dead hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
"Particularly their own recreational use"

Why do you suggest that libertarians necessarily use illegal drugs? The only mind-altering drug that I use is caffeine, and for that I even admit that I grind my own coffee beans.

Do you drink alcohol?

199 posted on 11/22/2006 11:11:38 AM PST by Sooth2222 ("We have met the enemy and he is us." -Pogo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Unknown Pundit

Speaking as a Christian, I think CS Lewis had something to say about tyrannies for our own good. And he was right about it too.


200 posted on 11/22/2006 11:11:48 AM PST by JamesP81 (If you have to ask permission from Uncle Sam, then it's not a right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 551-573 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson