COMMENTS: 104
Cronkite vs. O'Reilly: May the Most Trusted Man Win
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Cronkite came up on O'Reilly's radar when he penned a fundraising letter for the Drug Policy Alliance, a nonpartisan group seeking a more humane approach to drug issues. "Today, our nation is fighting two wars: one abroad and one at home," Cronkite wrote. "While the war in Iraq is in the headlines, the other war is still being fought on our own streets. Its causalities are the wasted lives of our own citizens. I am speaking of the war on drugs."
In the letter, Cronkite explained his reasons for opposing the current drug war policies.
"And what is the impact of this policy? It surely hasn't made our streets safer. Instead, we have locked up literally millions of people … disproportionately people of color … who have caused little or no harm to others -- wasting resources that could be used for counter-terrorism, reducing violent crime or catching white-collar criminals.
"With police wielding unprecedented powers to invade privacy, tap phones and conduct searches seemingly at random, our civil liberties are in a very precarious condition," he added. "Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on this effort -- with no one held accountable for its failure."For O'Reilly, attacking drug reform is a favorite pasttime, and he was on Cronkite like a hungry dog on a juicy bone. On the Feb. 24 edition of "The Factor," O'Reilly began by portraying Cronkite as "a very far-left guy" who lives "in the same left-wing precinct" as Bill Moyers and Tom Brokaw. Not to put too fine a point on it, said O'Reilly, Cronkite is "more far-left; he's always been that way, but he masked it."
It sounds like O'Reilly is still sore at Cronkite for telling national TV audiences the Vietnam War was a failure back in the late '60s. The fact that Cronkite is trying to help a group that has also received funds from current conservative bete noire George Soros probably doesn't help either. In addition to funding drug reform, the Hungarian-born currency speculator and financier worked hard to defeat President Bush in 2004, infuriating O'Reilly and his conservative colleagues, some of whom refer to him as that rarest of all creatures, the "left-wing billionaire."
"Anyway," O'Reilly continued, "he wants to legalize drugs." Actually, Cronkite didn't say that, but for the talk show host it's "truthiness" rather than truth that counts. Worse, said O'Reilly, Cronkite "lied" by saying the war on drugs had not made our streets safer. "That's not true; the war on drugs broke the back of the crack that was out of control in major cities all across the country," O'Reilly claimed.
What really happened to the "crack wars" is a matter of serious debate, with the role of law enforcement being only one of many factors. Researchers also point to learning curves -- a crackhead is not a very enticing role model -- and the consolidation of markets as key factors and, of course, the crack trade is still going strong.
O'Reilly also attacked Cronkite for suggesting law enforcement has locked up millions who have done no harm to others. "Listen, violent crime is induced by hard drug use, Walter," O'Reilly lectured before adding, "I don't want to be too tough on you, you're 90."
But then it was back to full O'Reilly attack mode for the grand finale: "Now Walter Cronkite, the most trusted news broadcaster in American history … [is] embracing every left-wing, crazy theory there is and now says drug dealers cause little or no harm to others. I mean, it's staggering. It is staggering!"
Actually, drug-related violent crime is much more likely to be related to drug prohibition than the psychopharmacology of illicit substances. Police arrested more than 1.5 million people on drug charges last year, half of them for marijuana. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were about half a million people behind bars on drug charges on any given day last year. O'Reilly would have us believe they're all machine-gun toting Pablo Escobars, but for every drug kingpin, there are thousands of low-level drug offenders doing years in prison for nonviolent crimes.
Ask the kid from Washington, D.C., doing a mandatory minimum five-year sentence for a few dollars worth of rock. Ask the poor white guys in the Midwest serving three- or five- or 10-year sentences for a few flecks of methamphetamine. Ask the college student doing 30 days for a joint because he got caught in the wrong county.
It's not that O'Reilly hasn't had the opportunity to know better. In fact, dope is one of his hot-button issues, sure to get his fans all riled up as they ponder the decline of Western, Christian civilization. He has even had Drug Policy Alliance members on his show on several occasions.
In February 2003 he invited drug education specialist Marsha Rosenbaum onto the show, but used her mainly as a foil for his outrage over parents who had allowed teens to drink at a party while under adult supervision.
A year earlier, in a bizarre segment with Drug Policy Alliance executive director Ethan Nadelmann, following the drug czar's cue, O'Reilly tried to paint marijuana and ecstasy users as supporting terrorism. When Nadelmann explained that neither drug had much to do with Afghanistan or Al Qaida, and that ecstasy was being manufactured in Holland, O'Reilly objected.
"No, but it's not run by the Dutch, it's run by Middle Eastern guys," O'Reilly exclaimed, and challenged Nadelmann to a $100 bet. The next night, he gloated he had won the bet. "OK, here's what the Office of the National Drug Control Policy says, and we quote, 'Drug Enforcement Agency reporting demonstrates the involvement of Israeli criminal organizations in ecstasy smuggling. Some of these individuals are of Russian and Georgian descent and have Middle Eastern ties.'"
So, the presence of Israeli mobsters in the ecstasy trade constitutes "Middle Eastern ties" that link ravers to Al Qaida. Only in Bill O'Reilly's world. You know, the one where respected American newsmen and left-wing billionaires team up to wage "crazy" wars on the drug war, and undoubtedly, on Christmas, as well.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nonaste on Mar 2, 2006 6:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cronkite and the falafel man
Posted by: beemadj
» LIKE A LOST CHILD
Posted by: JayBee
» RE: Cronkite and the falafel man
Posted by: kabac55
» RE: Cronkite and the falafel man
Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Edison829 on Mar 2, 2006 6:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: dison829
Posted by: ConnecttheDots
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Envi on Mar 2, 2006 6:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: He should quiver
Posted by: gerty954
» O'Reilly v Cronkite? Oh how sad that we have declined to this . . .
Posted by: janvdb
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jwg on Mar 2, 2006 6:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ConnecttheDots on Mar 2, 2006 6:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Homegrown marijuana cuts terrorists completely out of the loop. As with all right-wing Christians, O'Reilly lets his beliefs trump facts.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: O'Reilly needs a fact checker
Posted by: jwg
» RE: O'Reilly needs a fact checker
Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
» RE: O'Reilly needs a fact checker
Posted by: aonghus36
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goldonthebeach on Mar 2, 2006 7:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: the war on drugs has proven to be profitable for many except those in prison
Posted by: Pinklillies
» RE: the war on drugs has proven to be profitable for many except those in prison
Posted by: aussidawg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: biped on Mar 2, 2006 8:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Could you edit this please.
Posted by: peritonlogon
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ChrisBieber on Mar 2, 2006 9:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Walter is correct but.......
Posted by: famouspipeliner
» RE: Walter is correct but.......
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Walter is correct but.......
Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Walter is correct but.......
Posted by: mombot
» Thanks for the referral!
Posted by: BruceLHill
» RE: Thanks for the referral!
Posted by: ChrisBieber
» RE: Thanks for the referral!
Posted by: Mycos
Comments are closed-
Posted by: adp3d on Mar 2, 2006 11:26 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: O'Really?
Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
» RE: O'Really?
Posted by: BostonGuy
» RE: O'Really?
Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Roverton on Mar 3, 2006 1:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An award should be given to all who bear the wounds of battling with these Tele-Cons. Brave souls each. It's almost an embarrassment NOT to be hated by O'Reilley.
"How evil would someone have to be, that Bill wouldn't hate them?"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: rover
Posted by: jwg
» RE: rover
Posted by: Roverton
» RE: rover
Posted by: montana freeman
» RE: rover
Posted by: Roverton
» RE: rover
Posted by: coalbanks
Comments are closed-
Posted by: farhada on Mar 3, 2006 3:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This important fact has been side stepped by almost all internation main stream media. The disasterous impact of this is now destroying the middle east an Europe, since the price of heavy drugs has gone done by almost 80% in some places since the fall of the Taliban.
This makes you wonder if the free world soldiers in Afghanistan are there to stop Bin Laden or create a safe heaven for the drug loards who are now a major part of the "free and democratic" Afghanistan?
The gross production of opium in Afghanistan is now about 4000 metric tons, and stands for almost 52% of the GDP of Afghanistan.
This is the shame of the Nato and the US government, but instead, we hear the president of the US calling Afghanistan a great example of success.
Sure it is a success, but for whom? And who pays the price?
/Farhad Abdolian
PS. Check the ADB review and United Nations office on drugs and crime for more information on this subject.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: War in Afghanistand and the war on drugs
Posted by: rkewen
» RE: War in Afghanistand and the war on drugs
Posted by: Deep
» RE: War in Afghanistand and the war on drugs
Posted by: farhada
» RE: War in Afghanistand and the war on drugs
Posted by: mkwagner
» RE: War in Afghanistand and the war on drugs
Posted by: farhada
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kww355 on Mar 3, 2006 4:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keith, you're in some mighty august company!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sleazy O'Reilly
Posted by: Pinklillies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TKO on Mar 3, 2006 5:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Or maybe he should go hunting with Cheney (NT)
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Or maybe he should go hunting with Cheney (NT)
Posted by: Envi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnnyM on Mar 3, 2006 6:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alcohol is the most abused "drug" in the west, not e or mary-jane...
Sure, crack and heroine et al are problems, but they're relatively minor, and the users need compassion, not jail. Obsessive-Compulsive personalities can get addicted to anything, including alcohol (W), cigarettes, food, money, power, crack, and in bill's case just being an asshole. Bill, you're overdue for a trip to AA (asshole's anoymous).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Mar 3, 2006 6:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If so-called "recreational drugs" are ever legalized then many a White suburban Republican household might have to decalre bankruptcy. The sale of illegal drugs by white suburbanites is a tax free, cash boost to the economy. And if the "war on drugs" takes inner city black and Latino kids off the streets, that just eliminates the competition.
The "war on drugs" has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with money.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "War on drugs" good business for O'Reilly
Posted by: Envi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: linguizic on Mar 3, 2006 6:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Kronkite should face O'Reilly on his show
Posted by: Envi
» RE: Kronkite should face O'Reilly on his show
Posted by: Doubtom
» Cronkite starts with a C
Posted by: carcinoid112
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bookwoman on Mar 3, 2006 6:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I think of Walter Cronkite, I remember him sitting for hours on end on stories such as President Kennedy's death or the initial events in the Space Program or farther back, when I was a teenager, as the host on "You Are There". However, when I look at O'Reilly, I still see him as the anchor man on "Inside Edition" or whatever mud raker show he used to be on. Actually, when you think about it he hasn't really moved very far, has he?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lamar on Mar 3, 2006 6:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill O'Reilly = the GOP. That should be enough to win the next couple of elections.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bill O'Reilly = the GOP
Posted by: Androgyne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 3, 2006 6:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, you might also want to consider that big pharma has managed to increase sales by funnelling drugs onto the black market through global internet sales. This is why abuse of 'legal' prescription knockoffs of heroin, meth, cocaine, etc. is on the rise. These drugs trigger the same biochemical channels as do their 'illegal' counterparts, but are patented and legal; go tell your doctor you have 'back pain' and you can get whatever you want. Rotten, rotten, rotten. Do you really think O'Reilly isn't lining up coke every night? How else could he spew forth his nonsense? It's like the Catholic bishop's approach to child abuse: sure it happens, but we shouldn't TALK about it!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Using the war on drug for political purposes
Posted by: JoAnne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cephalis on Mar 3, 2006 9:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One costly less publicized side effect: surrepticious military support for corrupt foreign regimes--disguised as aid for drug eradication.
The total cost to we taxpayers for all this BS is staggering.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cephalis
Posted by: gltirebiter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Mar 3, 2006 9:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah – it should be one of his issues: that he IS one.
We've all encountered at one time or another one of those annoying, yappy little dogs that think they're all big and bad, straining and whirling as they mount they're useless little "attack" at the end of a leash. That's Bill O'Reilly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veive on Mar 3, 2006 10:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoAnne on Mar 3, 2006 10:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/06/03/int06008.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picket on Mar 3, 2006 10:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is Bill O'Reilly, while millions are suffering, the effects of BIG PHARM's expensive toxic waste?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pomes on Mar 3, 2006 10:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jim's op/ed on Mar 3, 2006 12:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But if O'Reilly's illinformed words bring attention the cause, then great!
If I was Mr. Cronkite, I wouldn't give Or'Reilly the attention he struggles for.
linked text
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Orwells_nightmare on Mar 3, 2006 1:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The man is a human spleen in a bad suit and a worse rug. He deserves no more attention than the village idiot who gets laughs by pissing himself in public.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Does oxycontin count?
Posted by: Pinklillies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wli on Mar 3, 2006 3:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's also a pretext for mass imprisonment within the US. If someone is a bit too politically active and on the wrong side of the powers-that-be, planting a bit of dope suffices to put them away for a very long time. The usual ethnic cleansing also goes on.
Prisoners of the Census has a bit of information on how this is furthermore used for direct political manipulation.
Also notable is that Wackenhut, a prominent facet of the prison-industrial complex, has many CIA -affiliated people on its board of directors. A number of other prominent companies and organizations of the prison-industrial complex have similarly ominous ties.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: munchkinpup on Mar 3, 2006 7:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: phil the pill
Posted by: TKO
» RE: phil the pill
Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gathaiga on Mar 4, 2006 7:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Orwells_nightmare on Mar 4, 2006 11:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com
Apparently, the site runner has challenged O'Reilly to put up or shut up and join him on a travelogue to Darfur, and is asking for people's support to convince him.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: domlingus on Mar 5, 2006 5:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prior to 1914 when cocaine was not prohibited, there was a widespread use of it both in the USA and the UK. It's use was initially pioneered by doctors and there is no doubt that as a local anaesthesia it was invaluable at that time. Alas many physicians also used it for personal reasons, and many of those became addicted. Articles in The American Medical Press from 1886 onwards will confirm that fact.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no one contemplated the prohibition of cocaine, nor did anyone seek to condemn those who had become compulsive, and/or addicted users, on the contary, the outcome for such unfortunates was attributed to being ill advised by physicians.
The following 5/6 years saw a change in such liberal attitudes, as medical use was rapidly overtaken by more widespread use among the general and criminal populations, from there its use increased and it was particularly popular among the so called middle classes.
However it was among the criminal classes that usage remained high and the addictive nature of cocaine led to further violent crime in order to fund the habit for those who had become addicted, and used violent crime to fund their needs; this despite that fact that at that time cocaine was remarkably cheap at $2.00 an ounce.
Quite unfairly, much of this crime was blamed on black people, overlooking the fact that addiction is non discriminatory in nature. Addicted users robbed ordinary citizens, attacked police and raped women.
Inevetiably talk of prohibition emerged, some anti prohibition people, including many from the medical profession based their arguments on misleading statements, such as that if denied cocaine, people would turn to hard liquor which was much more dangerous. This groundless argument conveniently overlooked the fact that users were already using alcohol anyway, and had discovered the synergistic effect between both. Fuelled by high octane alcohol and cocaine all moral and personal values were forgotten in the need for funds to continue their habit, violent crime was rampant.
The anger felt by non users toward criminal and minority (blacks) users, who felt that their personal safety was in jeopardy, put pressure on their politcal representatives and laws were passed that cocaine could only be otained with a medical prescription. Now it is in this context that Smith has chosen to distort the truth, because of course what happened was that the criminal emelment in the underworld started to source and supply what was already an established need. violent crime associated with cocaine prior to this was already widespread, so I suggest to Smith that he checks his facts, because whatever his true reasons are for seeking to legalise cocaine, he cannot claim that it will reduce the violent crime associated with it. It was not until 1914 that cocaine was prohibited, and consumption declined until the 1960s.
As an addictions counsellor, I say to all users if your drug(s) of choice are not costing you any more than money, your money that is, then by all means keep going, enjoy! On the other hand if your habit is causing you mental, physical and personal problems, and leading you to harm others, do not blame prohibition for your problem.
Peter O'Louglin,
Addictions Counsellor UK.
Acknowledgements.
I am indebted to David T. Courtwright and the Karl Loren website and also to Professor David Clark of Swansea UK, for the valuable information they have published, which allowed me to write most of the foregoing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Drug Related Violent Crime
Posted by: saywhat?
» RE: Drug Related Violent Crime
Posted by: doneman2000
Comments are closed-
Posted by: saywhat? on Mar 5, 2006 7:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: schism
Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Slowburn on Mar 5, 2006 8:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sure the war on drugs is a multimillion dollar business what with testing labs, surveillance equipment trials and sales, Private prisons, and state driver licensing programs. and i do admit that man made compounds are a cancer on our society.
but it is a documented fact that legalized compounds are by far abused by more people than illegal compounds and the only cure for both is education at early age as to the effects on a persons body and mind.
What happened to organized crime after prohibition was repealed?
having said that lets talk about something as natural as air,
sun light, and GRASS. it was growing wild before man took his first step it will be around when he takes his last.
unlike those with an agenda like Bill O'realy's it is obvious that grass is a god given commodity mostly harmless and deserving of being separate from the man made compounds that are sucking the the life out of the hopeless unemployed that are self medicating themselves in order to shut out the reality that O'riley and all those like him puke out.
If bush and his war mongering fuko friends ever figured out that they could fund all the wars they wanted by simply legalizing grass subsidizing tobacco farmers to grow it and collecting ten our fifteen dollars in war tax on each pack the war mongers would have what they wanted all along. a subdued public that would fund their wars for them.
they would have it on the shelves in one year.
the sales slogan ( buy a pack of Victory smokes for Freedom).
Or forget about wars and use all the tax revenue for social programs, U.S. inferstucture, and health care god only knows how much good that much money could do here. maybe even have enough left to rebuild the gulf coast? HUMMM!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ejboyle@olypen.com on Mar 6, 2006 5:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That should be his coat of arms,...
Posted by: Orwells_nightmare
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Orwells_nightmare on Mar 7, 2006 9:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rich folks have substance dependency problems.
Scapegoats are made of one.
Excuses are made for the other.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: In a nutshell,...
Posted by: coalbanks
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dvis on Mar 8, 2006 2:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And as far as O'Reilly is concerned, well, he is a liar and a fraud. Why anyone even listens to him is a mystery. One only need look at his face to see that he is a tangle of all that is bad in us, compressed and magnified. I think he should broadcast live from Main Street in Fallujah.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Good thing we have facts
Posted by: bansidh@citlink.net
Comments are closed-
Posted by: soosano on Mar 8, 2006 12:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Can't O'Reilly be sued for libel or slander?
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: signalfire on Mar 9, 2006 11:26 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And as far as Walter Cronkite goes, we need him to come back and save us from these idiots. I nominate Bill Moyers for President, Walter for Vice-President, and that reverend that gave chimpie hell at Coretta King's funeral for Secretary of State. And the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, and Jimmy Carter for whatever. Maybe take over Condoleeza Rice's job...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: AD CROSSING THE RUBICON!!
Posted by: bernie867
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dedhedesq on Mar 14, 2006 7:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It goes to show that O'Reilly, Limbaugh and the rest are just hot air and full of excrement, with no honesty, consistency or real ideology (or is it that the drug laws in this country, racist in their inception, impact most heavily on poor and non-white males, and those people scare the crap out of our friend Bill?)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veive on Mar 16, 2006 1:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: coalbanks on Mar 16, 2006 6:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Drug Sales + Free Enterpise = GOOD.
If free enterprise ran the drug business we would have low cost, good quality, abundance of supply to meet the market, hmmm? Does not appear to be working. Has Communism interfered? No, but Big Gov't has! Solution: Get Big Govt out of the drug business & let the Mob/Free Enterprise run it! Nope, that does not work. That is the current system & how well is that working? Hmm? HMM? Jail the users! Kill the producers! (Worked fine for the Taliban!). So what is the solution? Let everyone produce thier own? All drugs or just the "organics", ie opium, pot, ?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Burton on Mar 17, 2006 12:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was at Burning Man a few years ago. There was a lot of paranoia about undercover police officers setting up people by offering them drugs. Of course, it was perfectly legit for people to drink alcohol--plenty of bars at Burning Man handing out free liquor and I wonder how many undercover cops drank themselves into comas after a hard day of arresting pot smokers?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeDiablePlaisant on Mar 17, 2006 2:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lonpine on Mar 20, 2006 12:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have to get to the point where O'Reilly rants about everyone. Then we can point to him in a Reaganesque tone and say, "There you go again," and soon he'll be ignored. He's the Joe Mccarthy of our times, it seems.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 22, 2006 10:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The War on Drugs is over and the drugs won. The only things that profited from the war is the ever growing police state and the industrial complex that surrounds it and the drug cartels. Just like the Military-Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned us of, one has cropped up around police/prison/public safety. Many of the companies are the same.
Every community in the country has a squad of officers that look like a hollywood version of some gun nut's wet dream. Overweight officers dressed up like Special Forces wannabes. More interested in confiscation of property and drug money than in eliminating the problem. More police, bigger budgets, more arrests, more jails, more prisoners, less safe streets and communities, and the drugs are still out there.
Their very existence is dependent upon the drug problem and the new bogeyman-- 'Homeland Security'.
A Good Read on how the War On Drug has corrupted our Law Enforcement.
http://www.libertybill.net/dwa.html
http://www.libertybill.net/dpguest.html
http://www.libertybill.net/np.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FlightOfTheBumbleBees on Mar 22, 2006 1:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will somebody take this moron by the hand and bring him through the damn ghettos of America? Broke the back of crack? So dillusional.
oh my god WHAT AN IDIOT!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cmonhank on Mar 22, 2006 2:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Voting
Posted by: allensc777
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bansidh@citlink.net on Mar 29, 2006 12:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
My Experience with a Psychedelic Plant That Thousands Have Used for Release from Severe Addictions
Is Using a Checklist the Answer to All Your Problems?
On Anniversary of Iraq Invasion, Time to Rethink Anti-War Activism




