Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Mark Steyn heralds the demise of the CHRA's hate messages censorship clause | Main | With Conservatives like these... »

Friday, September 18, 2009

Cops Are Drug War Victims

So states a Washington Post op-ed. Here is an interview with the authors of that op-ed, one of which is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

-----------

freedommanitoba.blogspot.com

twitter.com/freedommanitoba

I welcome feedback and I ask for civility in the exchange of comments. Vulgarity is discouraged. Please express yourself creatively with other language. We discuss ideas here, attacks on a person are discouraged.

Posted by Freedom Manitoba on September 18, 2009 in Crime | Permalink

Comments

The original point is being forgotten, in that Cops also get killed in this needless drug war.

Quite rare in Canada actually. In fact I'm not aware of a single Canadian officer being shot for enforcing the drug laws. The four Mounties in Mayerthorpe were investigating reports of stolen property, not a grow op.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-21 5:29:12 PM


In fact I'm not aware of a single Canadian officer being shot for enforcing the drug laws.

1. Here ya go
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2006/12/08/winnipeg-shooting.html
"A Winnipeg man has been charged with attempted murder after three police officers were shot during a drug raid at a south-end home"

2. I don't only care about Canadians

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-21 5:50:32 PM


Maybe those cops would be healthy today if guns were legalized.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-09-21 6:17:16 PM


"I KNOW you are a criminal, and what is more, so does the law. It's not a matter of opinion. And like I said, attitudes like this are the reason pot is still illegal. Because most of its users seem to be immature dickheads."

Oh it is your opinion. I don't think of myself as a criminal, nor does anyone that knows me that I'm aware of. I am only a criminal in your mind because I break a stupid law. A law I and many others think is wrong for so many reasons. I also speed once in awhile. Jaywalk occasionally. Warming up the rope, my fascist friend? And what attitude should I have? Preach to me brother.

"Except I'll be right and you'll be wrong"

In your opinion.

"Yes, indeed, Steve. Hands up, anyone else who became an internationally wanted criminal and drug smuggler"

If you mean international to mean the USA, then you are right. He wasn't wanted here, in Canada. Or anywhere else that I am aware of.

"No, he's a victim of his own grandstanding. Everything that is happening to him he caused to happen, devoted his every waking minute to making it happen."

Can't argue to much here. But someone has to do it. Prohibition is stupid and costly. Someone has to stand up. Someone has to say enough. Someone has to get in the face of authority, when authority has overstepped its bounds, and make a scene. For now, its Marc. If he's ok with that, so am I.

"Don't hate the player, hate the game"

Don't hate Marc, hate Prohibition. Man, you really do live in a bubble. You say your only 40ish? You sound like some opinionated old fart. Damn kids these days, why back in my day..... Sound familiar? Just checking.

"Well, if you haven't heard about it, that must mean it hasn't happened, because like Budoracle who discovered the secrets of stellar fusion while hang-gliding stoned, you know everything."

I read a lot of news. How about Vancouver, lots of other seed sellers there. How are they doing?

"Again you reveal your simplicity of thinking. Unless there's a bleeding corpse on the sidewalk in front of you the instant you take the first puff, you acknowledge no victim. It's all about you. With your every word you further prove my longstanding assertion that potheads are selfish creeps. And then you can't understand why polite society shows you their backs."

Where is the bleeding corpse? And if there is one, prohibition is what put it there. Not the drug. With your every word you further prove my longstanding assertion that religious right wing conservatives are assholes. Polite society? What is that? Another one of your grand generalizations I suspect. Like your response to Freedom. "Because I want to." Yeah, like all criminals use that excuse.

"Actually, the overwhelming show of force is supposed to increase everyone's chances of walking away from the situation, by defusing any conflict before it starts. A man stupid enough to fight a single cop is less likely to offer resistance to a half-dozen men with subguns. Result: They live, he lives. I agree the optics are terrible, and that kind of power is a dangerous intoxicant; but the fact remains that suspects and cops are dying less now than they were 30 years ago, when unarmoured police carried six-shot revolvers."

Its supposed to, but often doesn't. Cops should never be "single", but often are. If that truly is a fact, I would have to say its not because the cops are gearing up to take on the world. I would guess there is another reason for it. Admittedly, I don't know.
And finally, your ways do increase crime rates. Drugs are not going away. Incarceration and punishment doesn't seem to be working. Perhaps a new way to handle the drug problem is in order, right after we end prohibition. Which will save cops lives as well as the citizens they are sworn to protect.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-09-21 11:22:01 PM


1. Here ya go

My mistake. I meant, "shot dead." So your best example is a few woundings? Wow. I am in awe.

2. I don't only care about Canadians

You care about anyplace you can dredge up statistics that support your point of view, whether they apply to our situation, or not.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-22 7:17:18 AM


Oh it is your opinion. I don't think of myself as a criminal, nor does anyone that knows me that I'm aware of.

What you think does not matter. If you break the law you are a criminal. It is not a matter of opinion. Get over yourself, already.

I am only a criminal in your mind because I break a stupid law.

You expect to be taken seriously after uttering such an incredibly stupid sentence? When that sentence is pared to reflect facts only, it reads: "I am only a criminal because I break the law." Thanks for the confession, dude.

A law I and many others think is wrong for so many reasons.

And that many others, including the sitting government, don't. Next.

And what attitude should I have?

You can start by ditching the criminal mentality.

In your opinion.

In fact. If you break the law you are, by definition, a criminal. Again, not a matter of opinion. Crack the dictionary (if you have one) and look up "criminal."

If you mean international to mean the USA, then you are right. He wasn't wanted here, in Canada. Or anywhere else that I am aware of.

Are you high right now, Steve? He had multiple convictions here and would not have rested until he had added a few more. And yes, the U.S. does count as "international." We are not the 51st state.

Can't argue to much here. But someone has to do it.

No they don't.

Prohibition is stupid and costly.

No, DOING DRUGS is stupid and costly. And breaking a law without a pressing reason, given the demonstrated consequences of breaking that particular law, is just plain evil.

Someone has to get in the face of authority, when authority has overstepped its bounds, and make a scene.

Spoken like a true hippie.

You say your only 40ish? You sound like some opinionated old fart.

Why, because I demonstrate more maturity than you do? That would only require a developmentally-delayed 16-year-old.

I read a lot of news. How about Vancouver, lots of other seed sellers there. How are they doing?

You said the seed sellers were in America. So by "Vancouver," you must mean "Vancouver, Washington," am I right?

Where is the bleeding corpse? And if there is one, prohibition is what put it there. Not the drug.

Again, the outlaw blaming the lawman. It's your default fallback position when on even slightly unfamiliar ground. You don't need to keep proving that you have a criminal mentality, Steve. It's already established.

With your every word you further prove my longstanding assertion that religious right wing conservatives are assholes.

When did I bring religion into it, Steve? By uttering that caricature you succeed only in revealing your own bias, your own hatred. Because in almost all fights between Right and Left these days, it is the Left that mentions religion first, accusing the Right of using religion to justify their views when the Right has not said any such thing. As for being assholes, I don't float my drug of choice to me across a lake of blood. You're in no position to call anyone an asshole. You're an accessory to murder, don't mind that you're an accessory to murder, practically rejoice in being an accessory to murder. Yes, what a find, upstanding specimen of the Canadian polity you are.

Yeah, like all criminals use that excuse.

You're a criminal. You use it. [RIM SHOT!]

Its supposed to, but often doesn't. Cops should never be "single", but often are. If that truly is a fact, I would have to say its not because the cops are gearing up to take on the world. I would guess there is another reason for it. Admittedly, I don't know.

Well, I do know. So I presume that, given your freshly-confessed ignorance on the matter, it's that last we'll ever hear from you on it, pending further research by yourself, yes?

And finally, your ways do increase crime rates.

No they don't. I don't commit any.

Drugs are not going away.

Neither are thieves and murderers. That is an argument for nothing.

Incarceration and punishment doesn't seem to be working.

Then why are drug traffickers fighting over the crumbs of a drying-up supply and why is the addict rate today half of what it was in 1900?

Perhaps a new way to handle the drug problem is in order, right after we end prohibition.

Drugs aren't prohibited. They're restricted.

Which will save cops lives as well as the citizens they are sworn to protect.

Taken to its logical conclusion, we could make sure that no cop ever dies by legalizing everything, thus removing the need to have cops at all. Certainly an old outlaw like yourself would rejoice at any such development. But, it's not going to happen.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-22 7:35:52 AM


So when are you going to run for leader of the Canadian Nazi Party mathews so you can implement the police state you desire? I guess you could just run as a Conservative MP, that would be the next best thing.

Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-09-22 10:04:25 AM


Greenthumb, you don't even know what a police state is. So until you've given up pot and given your brain a chance to recover from years of downing reefer joints like breath mints, try sticking to words of one syllable or less.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-22 10:37:49 AM


"What you think does not matter. If you break the law you are a criminal. It is not a matter of opinion."

For some laws, yes it is a matter of opinion. It was the opinion of someone long dead that pot is evil and must be eradicated. I didn't get a say, nor did any other citizen. Was there a vote? Was there even a public discussion? In order to change a law, you must break it. In the eyes of authority, I am a criminal. In the eyes of my peers, I am not.

"And that many others, including the sitting government, don't. Next."

And thats one of many reasons the sitting government must go. Just because the government says so, doesn't make it right.

"Are you high right now, Steve? He had multiple convictions here and would not have rested until he had added a few more. And yes, the U.S. does count as "international." We are not the 51st state."

Yes. He had no outstanding warrants in Canada, he was not a wanted man here, and his convictions are all related to his cause. Frankly, I find that admirable. He is not hurting any one. He is a protester. International to me meant world wide or at least more than 2 countries. How about that, I learned something new today.

"When did I bring religion into it, Steve? By uttering that caricature you succeed only in revealing your own bias, your own hatred. Because in almost all fights between Right and Left these days, it is the Left that mentions religion first, accusing the Right of using religion to justify their views when the Right has not said any such thing. As for being assholes, I don't float my drug of choice to me across a lake of blood. You're in no position to call anyone an asshole. You're an accessory to murder, don't mind that you're an accessory to murder, practically rejoice in being an accessory to murder. Yes, what a find, upstanding specimen of the Canadian polity you are."

You didn't. I only said that to pigeon hole you. Like you do to me all the time. How does it feel? Nice diatribe by the way. I am no fan of religion, but to each their own. Where is this lake of blood you talk of. Is it called Lake Prohibition? I am not an accessory to murder any more than you are. Did you say you were a practicing catholic? Catholicism has taken a heavy toll on the human race. Do I blame you? Of course not. People die, welcome to Earth.

"You're a criminal. You use it. [RIM SHOT!]"

I mean real criminals, not political ones. And I bet it was a rim shot. lol Your probably to old to get that.

"Well, I do know. So I presume that, given your freshly-confessed ignorance on the matter, it's that last we'll ever hear from you on it, pending further research by yourself, yes?"

mmmmmmmm, no. But not right now.

"No they don't. I don't commit any."

You support prohibition, you support the crime associated with it. I want to end prohibition and the crime associated with it. I know, tough concept. When the goose stepping in the streets starts, I'm sure you will join right in.

"Neither are thieves and murderers. That is an argument for nothing."

We have a somewhat effective strategy for dealing with thieves and murderers. The strategy for dealing with the drug problem is not, in fact it is making it worse.

"No, DOING DRUGS is stupid and costly. And breaking a law without a pressing reason, given the demonstrated consequences of breaking that particular law, is just plain evil."

Says you. And now breaking that law is evil? I'm evil because I enjoy how pot makes me feel at the end of the day? What is the demonstrated consequence of breaking this law. When I got busted 20 years ago for having an quarter of weed (that some how was only 1/8 by the time the judge gave me my fine) it was a $150.00 fine. Yep, I'm evil all right. Bringing good and evil into it seems a bit religious don't you think?

"Then why are drug traffickers fighting over the crumbs of a drying-up supply and why is the addict rate today half of what it was in 1900?"

Crumbs? Are you high? There is more dope out there than ever. Maybe the addict rate is lower cause you can't buy heroin at the drug store anymore? And there are way more pot smokers now than in 1900.

"Drugs aren't prohibited. They're restricted."

Whats the difference?

"Taken to its logical conclusion, we could make sure that no cop ever dies by legalizing everything, thus removing the need to have cops at all. Certainly an old outlaw like yourself would rejoice at any such development. But, it's not going to happen."

There ya go, stretching into the absurd. That may be your logical conclusion, but not mine. I have no desire to harm anyone. I'm a peace, love and understanding hippie, remember? There are obviously good laws, and bad ones. Lets change the bad ones.


Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-09-22 7:00:42 PM


"You said the seed sellers were in America. So by "Vancouver," you must mean "Vancouver, Washington," am I right?"

You are wrong. I said "There are still lots of seed sellers out there sending seeds to the USA." From Vancouver most likely.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-09-22 9:24:24 PM


For some laws, yes it is a matter of opinion.

No it isn’t.

It was the opinion of someone long dead that pot is evil and must be eradicated. It was the opinion of someone long dead that murder is evil, too. Your point being?

I didn’t get a say, nor did any other citizen.

Yes, you did, and so did everyone else. Every time you voted. Not one member of the Marijuana Party has ever been elected to office. The people have had their say and it is against you. Was there a vote? Was there even a public discussion?

In order to change a law, you must break it.

No, you must repeal it. Parliament repeals laws or sections of laws all the time, most of it with little or no fanfare. Join us in the 21st century, dude. The Sixties have been over for forty years.

In the eyes of authority, I am a criminal. In the eyes of my peers, I am not.

How many of them are crooks like you?

And thats one of many reasons the sitting government must go. Just because the government says so, doesn’t make it right.

Doesn’t make it wrong, either.

Yes. He had no outstanding warrants in Canada, he was not a wanted man here, and his convictions are all related to his cause. Frankly, I find that admirable.

I find both his cause and his methods despicable. Next.

International to me meant world wide or at least more than 2 countries. How about that, I learned something new today.

International means what the dictionary says it means, not what the pothead criminal says it means.

You didn’t. I only said that to pigeon hole you. Like you do to me all the time. How does it feel?

Like a clumsy, amateurish attempt to throw a big old wad of dirt at someone in the hopes that some will stick. What I say about you is true, confirmed by your own words. I put it in less than flattering terms, but I feel no need to spare the feelings of an outlaw.

Where is this lake of blood you talk of. Is it called Lake Prohibition? I am not an accessory to murder any more than you are.

You use a blood product, an illegal product. I don’t.

Did you say you were a practicing catholic? Catholicism has taken a heavy toll on the human race.

More anti-religion potshots. And you complain of being pigeonholed? It is to laugh. The charity work done by the Church over the past 2,000 years is beyond estimation. For much of that time it was the poor’s only succour.

I mean real criminals, not political ones. And I bet it was a rim shot. Lol Your probably to old to get that.

You are a real criminal. A political criminal is someone who commits political crimes. A (poor) case could be made for calling Emery a political criminal, but certainly not you. And I’m not the one talking like a leftover from 1968, dude.

You support prohibition, you support the crime associated with it.

More blaming the lawman for lawlesness.

I want to end prohibition and the crime associated with it. I know, tough concept.

You want to end law. That would end all crime. Quite coincidentally, I’m sure, it would end all responsibility on your part.

When the goose stepping in the streets starts, I’m sure you will join right in.

Keep those amateurish Leftist clichés coming. Don’t let the facts get in your way.

We have a somewhat effective strategy for dealing with thieves and murderers.

How do you figure? During the 1970s crime was skyrocketing, in spite of all efforts to contain it. Using your logic, we should have repealed those laws too.

Says you. And now breaking that law is evil? I’m evil because I enjoy how pot makes me feel at the end of the day?

You’re evil because you’re willing to fund criminal activity to feel that way, because feeling that way is more important to you than the welfare of your fellow man.

What is the demonstrated consequence of breaking this law.

Among other things, dead cops.

When I got busted 20 years ago for having an quarter of weed (that some how was only 1/8 by the time the judge gave me my fine) it was a $150.00 fine. Yep, I’m evil all right. Bringing good and evil into it seems a bit religious don’t you think?

No. Good and evil are questions of morality, not religion. Selfish jerks are not well thought of in most cultures. The fact that you surround yourself with like-thinking people doesn’t change what you are.

Crumbs? Are you high? There is more dope out there than ever.

Not from Mexico, there isn’t. B.C. Actually supplies only a small fraction of the total weed consumed by the U.S. Most comes from Latin America, and it is this supply that is drying up. The violence between gangs is caused both by turf wars and by gangsters who can suddenly no longer pay their debts.

Maybe the addict rate is lower cause you can’t buy heroin at the drug store anymore?

EXACTLY! RESTRICTING A SUBSTANCE REDUCES USE! GIVE THAT MAN A KEWPIE DOLL.

And there are way more pot smokers now than in 1900.

Pot use was virtually unknown in 1900.

Whats the difference?

“Restricted” means accessible under certain conditions. I have a license to own both non-restricted and restricted firearms. Marijuana is accessible to patients who use it medicinally (although its efficacy as a medicine is far from proven and it is not currently in the pharmacopoeia, which makes one wonder just what the judges who insisted on its availability under those conditions were smoking). Not everyone qualifies. You certainly don’t.

There ya go, stretching into the absurd.

The logic is exactly the same.

That may be your logical conclusion, but not mine.

Logical conclusions are not owned, nor are they matters of opinion. That’s your problem, Steve; you think your opinion ought to carry the same weight as demonstrable fact. You do think that much of yourself. Well, that’s one vote.

I have no desire to harm anyone.

So why do you?

I’m a peace, love and understanding hippie, remember?

Peace, love, and hippie are nouns, not adjectives.

There are obviously good laws, and bad ones. Lets change the bad ones.

The “bad ones” being anything that stands between you and anything you might happen to want, am I right?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-22 9:25:20 PM


"Yes, you did, and so did everyone else. Every time you voted. Not one member of the Marijuana Party has ever been elected to office. The people have had their say and it is against you. Was there a vote? Was there even a public discussion?"

Oh please, the MJ party is a publicity stunt. They have one issue. Its like having a Budweiser party. Who is going to take that seriously?

"No, you must repeal it"

Really? You paying?

""International to me meant world wide or at least more than 2 countries. How about that, I learned something new today.

"International means what the dictionary says it means, not what the pothead criminal says it means.""

Uhhh, thats what the dictionary said. 2 or more countries. You were right. Your not reading so well tonight.

"More blaming the lawman for lawlesness."

More drivel. No one blames the lawman, we blame the law. Player....game.....ah forget it.

"I find both his cause and his methods despicable"

So it really is about what you feel, you just think its despicable. So its not ok for anyone else, if you think its despicable. Na, no bias here.

"Not from Mexico, there isn’t. B.C. Actually supplies only a small fraction of the total weed consumed by the U.S. Most comes from Latin America, and it is this supply that is drying up. The violence between gangs is caused both by turf wars and by gangsters who can suddenly no longer pay their debts."

It'll die down and it will be business as usual in no time. Most weed in America is grown in America. Mexican weed rarely makes it past the southern states. Very few people in Canada smoke weed from Mexico anymore. We produce some of the best in the world, why would we want Mexican dirt weed?

"EXACTLY! RESTRICTING A SUBSTANCE REDUCES USE! GIVE THAT MAN A KEWPIE DOLL."

You would think that wouldn't you? But if its a substance that millions of people want, what do you do? Lock em all up? BCs economy would drop in the toilet. There has to be a more sensible approach. Its been 40 years since Nixon kicked off this war, and it isn't being won. Much like Afghanistan, as long as prohibition is in place, we can't win.

""Logical conclusions are not owned, nor are they matters of opinion. That’s your problem, Steve; you think your opinion ought to carry the same weight as demonstrable fact. You do think that much of yourself. Well, that’s one vote.
"You want to end law. That would end all crime. Quite coincidentally, I’m sure, it would end all responsibility on your part.""

What I was trying to address is your habit of stretching things to the extreme. And your logic is faulty. Just because I and others want to change one law, or policy, does not mean we want to end all laws. Your just being a spaz.

" The “bad ones” being anything that stands between you and anything you might happen to want, am I right?"

No you are wrong, or I would be advocating murder.
Seriously now, thats just messed up. Don't you think I know the difference between right and wrong? Of course you don't. You think I'm an outright lunatic lawbreaking maniac. Out to rape your daughters, steal your tv and play that funky music. Is this the part where you advocate death for drug users?

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-09-22 11:37:02 PM


Oh please, the MJ party is a publicity stunt. They have one issue. Its like having a Budweiser party. Who is going to take that seriously?

And yet you expect people to take Marc Emery, the founder of that party, seriously.

Really? You paying?

Repeals cost nothing. They are standard government business. As I said, Parliament repeals legislation or sections thereof all the time. Stop making lamer excuses.

Uhhh, thats what the dictionary said. 2 or more countries. You were right. Your not reading so well tonight.

I was reading fine. My direct point was that your initial thought was wrong, and my indirect point, that you rely entirely too much on personal feelings and beliefs that often turn out to be wrong. That’s why your arguments don’t convince; they’re based not on recorded facts, but rather on the World According to Steve.

“More blaming the lawman for lawlesness.” More drivel. No one blames the lawman, we blame the law. Player....game.....ah forget it.

That is wise. Lawman, law, same thing—you blame anyone or anything but yourself for your own lawbreaking. It’s always someone else’s fault.

So it really is about what you feel, you just think its despicable.

No, it isn’t. Any more than it is about what YOU feel. It’s the easiest and laziest thing in the world for you to justify policy based on “I feel X.” The corollary is that it’s just as easy for me to say, “Well, I don’t.” What is proven by that exchange? Nothing. Exactly my point.

It’ll die down and it will be business as usual in no time.

Once again the crystal ball. The Mexican government has committed SOLDIERS against the drug lords. It will not be business as usual for some time, if ever.

Most weed in America is grown in America. Mexican weed rarely makes it past the southern states.

And two of those southern states are the most populous in the country. California has 36 million, Texas 24 million, and Florida 18 million. That’s a lot of pot.

Very few people in Canada smoke weed from Mexico anymore. We produce some of the best in the world, why would we want Mexican dirt weed?

Very few ever did. That’s not the point. Most of our pot is destined for export. Which is why legalizing here will be impossible unless America does so first. Something Obama has indicated he has no intention of doing.

You would think that wouldn’t you?

So would you. You said it.

But if its a substance that millions of people want, what do you do? Lock em all up?

If necessary. Millions of people want free housing, too. Popularity does not equal justification.

Bcs economy would drop in the toilet. There has to be a more sensible approach.

You really do think that most people are potheads like you, don’t you?

Its been 40 years since Nixon kicked off this war, and it isn’t being won.

Actually, this “war” began in the States in the early 20th century, when many states independently outlawed marijuana. And the British Empire outlawed cannabis ten years before the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Spare me the pre-Bush favourite Vietnam-era whipping boy potshots at Nixon. It’s more of your inept and unsupportable pigeonholding. Your Woodstock is showing again.

Much like Afghanistan, as long as prohibition is in place, we can’t win.

Oh, we can win...maybe not at a moral price we’d be willing to pay. Just blow up all the roads and railways leading out of the country, destroy every aircraft, ignite every oil field, poison every well, contaminate every scrap of arable land with defoliants (or just plain salt) and guard the borders against incoming shipments of food, supplies, and weapons. Then wait. A year, two at most, and Afghanistan will be effectively depopulated. Not that hard at all really, even if morally indefensible.

What I was trying to address is your habit of stretching things to the extreme. And your logic is faulty. Just because I and others want to change one law, or policy, does not mean we want to end all laws. Your just being a spaz.

You want to end all laws that stand between you and anything you desire. Your entire reason for wanting pot legalized is self-serving; it’s certainly no flash of altruism on your part.

No you are wrong, or I would be advocating murder.

You already bankroll murderers. Not much of a step up really.

Seriously now, thats just messed up. Don’t you think I know the difference between right and wrong?

No, I don’t. Because you bankroll criminals rather than give up something totally unnecessary. Your actions speak for themselves.

Of course you don’t. You think I’m an outright lunatic lawbreaking maniac. Out to rape your daughters, steal your tv and play that funky music. Is this the part where you advocate death for drug users?

No, just the part where they line the pockets of drug lords and gangsters is good enough reason for that. And when asked why they do it, they respond in one voice: “Because I want to,” or “everyone else is doing it.” Back to the mental age thing again, I see.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-23 12:27:56 AM


Has anyone besides me notice that Shane thinks everyone who has different ideas than him are drug users and law breakers? However their is proof on this blog that Shane is the criminal. I've lost track of the number of people he has libled. I myself had this paragon of society accuse me of being a drug user and a drug dealer just because I agree with the idea of de-criminalizing marijuana. However I don't do drugs, I don't drink and I don't smoke, all by personal choice.

Dr. Matthews has said that everyone elses ideas are destroying the country, but would anyone want a leader with Shane's attitude running Canada?

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-09-23 10:14:22 AM


Has anyone besides me notice that Shane thinks everyone who has different ideas than him are drug users and law breakers?

Probably not. The reason I think Steve is a drug user and a law breaker is because he has said he is a drug user and a law breaker. Granted, I have not actually seen him use the stuff.

However their is proof on this blog that Shane is the criminal. I've lost track of the number of people he has libled.

I can believe you've lost track, Doug; it wouldn't take much, once you ran out of fingers. However, "libling" someone is not an offence at all (there being no such word), and "libeling" someone is not a criminal offence, but a tort. And you'll have a hard time making any charges of libel stick after a multi-thread persecutory piss-a-thon that had even the other bloggers telling you to knock it off. Don't even suggest that you came off looking the better man after that last exchange, my friend.

Dr. Matthews has said that everyone elses ideas are destroying the country, but would anyone want a leader with Shane's attitude running Canada?

I can't stand it. It's too easy. Now you are the one opening himself to libel charges. You will, instantly, supply a verbatim quote (of me and of no one else) that states, exactly, that "Everyone else's ideas are destroying the country." If you can't--and trust me, you won't be able to--you stand convicted of the very thing you accused me of, without substantiation, in the previous paragraph.

You really do have the attention span of a flea, don't you, Doug? Either that, or your hate has blinded you to the point that you look in the mirror and see your own flaws as other people's, because your narcissistic brain can't deal with the possibility that you might be less than perfect. I'm beginning to suspect that your graduating cum laude is a tissue of lies, too. You don't write like an educated man, and you don't act bright enough to have graduated high school, much less obtained a double-major master's degree.

P.S. I am fairly certain that more people would repose power in a man like me than a man like you. Bitter, hate-filled, petty and vindictive, a head full of neo-anarchist pap, a stunning indictment of the quality of instruction at contemporary universities (on the public dime I might add). A cum laude graduate whose most memorable writing quality is bad sentence structure, poor grammar, nonexistent spelling ability, preposterous prose, and pestiferous punctuation. A cum laude graduate who can't even remember what he said two minutes ago and makes others hold his faults for him because he can't admit them to himself.

Either you're doing an incredibly convincing job of faking people out (as Bill Cosby once said, only a real genius can fake such stupidity), or you really are a deluded whacko of sub-mediocre literary and intellectual ability with the emotional maturity of a schoolyard bully, badly disadvantaged in an arena that doesn't allow you to use your muscles to back up your boastful taunts (assuming you even have any muscle to speak of to begin with). Either way, you're unelectable in your current state. You are far too pathetic.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-23 10:41:36 AM



Game. Set. Match.

Posted by: BoomNoZoom | 2009-09-23 4:04:38 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.