Skip navigation

diversitylane_rope_for-blog

Advertisements

40 Comments

    • Steve T
    • Posted July 27, 2009 at 8:08 am
    • Permalink

    Zack – now you stirred the ‘pot’ (pun intended). Now, we are going to hear from all the ‘hemp-heads’, pot smokers, and the crowd that endlessly snivels that “…pot is less harmful that alcohol”, or some such bilge.
    Sierra looks a bit younger – did she find Michael Jacksons plastic surgeon?

    • Steve T
    • Posted July 27, 2009 at 8:21 am
    • Permalink

    I missed something obvious – is Diversity on a first-name basis with her mother-?!?
    And her dad (Alex) too-?

    Yep, that is a “progressive” family!

  1. Hahaha good one Steve (MJ’s plastic surgeon). Though, there’re many in this household ahead of Diversity when it comes to the plastic surgery line.

  2. And thanks for catching that too, Steve T. Yes indeed, I try to stay on top of all the latest in Progressivism. “Mom” and “Dad” are SO yesterday…

    • onward christian lol
    • Posted July 27, 2009 at 9:06 am
    • Permalink

    what

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted July 27, 2009 at 11:05 am
    • Permalink

    OCL: Hemp, or marijuana, is used to make rope. Pot-heads discovered that many of the Founding Fathers grew hemp on their farms, and assumed that they smoked the nasty weed. Nope, they made rope out of it.

    Decriminalize tobacco before legalizing pot! Permit medical tobacco prescriptions along with medical marijuana!

    • buckitz
    • Posted July 27, 2009 at 2:11 pm
    • Permalink

    I am on a first name basis with my mother- still am.
    I don’t recall when or why it started.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted July 27, 2009 at 4:33 pm
    • Permalink

    Then again, I only want to politely disagree with fellow Conservatives such as William F. Buckley (peace be upon him) whose libertarian tendencies showed when he supported marijuana legalization.

    I’m a recovering libertarian, and I oppose the legalization of invariably mind altering drugs. I can smoke tobacco and still be an alert and productive citizen. I can have a beer or glass of wine with dinner and still be safe to drive home (even in California). But one never just takes one hit of pot; one invariably becomes completely intoxicated. Those people who can never take just one drink without ending up plastered should seek help (such as AA).

    And every meth cooker should be strung up by his thumbs and pinata-ed to death for making it more difficult for me to get my anti-histamines!!!

  3. Norman: I agree with you, and not WFB, about the legalization of pot. More and more damning medical evidence is coming out about this herb, so beloved and hailed as A/O.K. because it’s “from nature!” Heroin, too, is from nature.

    That’s such a great point about nobody approaching pot in the way many people drink: for a light hint of a high, a loosener-upper and nothing more. 100% of smokers imbibe their 3 to 8 tokes and proceed to get quite mentally smashed.

    P.S. Thanks for explaining the cartoon to OCL. You have more patience than I these days.

  4. buckitz: That doesn’t automatically make her or you a liberal . If she smoked pot with you when you were growing up, that would make her a liberal.

    • you
    • Posted July 27, 2009 at 7:38 pm
    • Permalink

    I dont understand the relationship between smoking pot and being liberal. So I suppose advocating family first values and abstinence only education, “protecting the sanctity of marriage from gays”, then cheating on your wife or husband (Sanford, Paul Stanley etc) or engaging in gay sex in airport bathrooms makes you a conservative republican?

    • you
    • Posted July 27, 2009 at 7:40 pm
    • Permalink

    I would like to say though that despite the obvious republican bias and left-wing hate, the art is decent.

    • buckitz
    • Posted July 27, 2009 at 9:08 pm
    • Permalink

    haha-Believe me, it makes her a liberal!
    After I posted, I recalled when I started to call her by her first name-

    She palled around my friends so much in high school, that no one knew who I meant when I said “Mom.” All my(her) chums called her by her first name, so to cut down on confusion, so did I.

    Moral? Beware the Perpetual Childhood, lest you be sucked forever into liberalism.

    • Jake
    • Posted July 27, 2009 at 9:20 pm
    • Permalink

    Yeah, Conservatives never smoke pot. They just snort a bunch of coke and then get drunk and cruise around stealing Christmas decorations like their hero, Dubya.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted July 28, 2009 at 6:29 am
    • Permalink

    Leave P.J. O’Rourke out of this.

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted July 28, 2009 at 7:28 am
    • Permalink

    Jake: Since when do two wrongs make a right? If it was bad for Bush II to snort coke, it’s bad for Sierra to smoke pot. “We might be bad, but you’re bad, too.”

    you: One can only be a hypocrit if one HAS morals and values to violate; the problem we have with the left is that you have NO morals; e.g., are immoral.

    • Jake
    • Posted July 28, 2009 at 7:33 am
    • Permalink

    So, I guess I can expect Zack to put up a cartoon depicting Bush on a coke fueled bender, right? He is all about being balanced and getting rid of bias, so I think the Bush Bender comic fits the theme of the site.

    • Jake
    • Posted July 28, 2009 at 7:57 am
    • Permalink

    I can see it now. Bush is speeding along in a convertible holding a beer in one hand while snorting a line off a hooker’s ass and saying “This sure beats honorably serving my country in Vietnam. Good thing I have a rich, well-connected daddy to keep me from being shipped overseas.”

    Get to drawing, Zack. I already gave you the scene and script. It’s going to be awesome, and it will prove that you are an honest truth-seeker as opposed to being a partisan hack.

    • you
    • Posted July 28, 2009 at 8:09 am
    • Permalink

    Norman: Morals are subjective. I have a lot of morals. In fact, do not commit adultery is pretty high up there. Does it feel nice on your high horse?

    The left has morals. They just dont force them on other people. And when we break them we dont claim that it makes us better people (Sanford)

    • Norman Hines
    • Posted July 28, 2009 at 8:48 am
    • Permalink

    Don’t force them on other people? Cap and Trade forces your eco-morals on the entire country. O’Bamacare forces your medical and socialist morals on the entire health care industry. The Simulus package forces your disproven Keynesian economic morals on the economy.

    By the way, it’s not breaking my moral standards (and getting caught) that makes me a better person; it’s acknowleging my sin, taking my just punishment, and repenting that makes me a better person.

    Oh, and Jake, what’s so wrong with being biased towards republicans, when most of the media is biased towards O’Bama and the Democrats? And we don’t put Bush II on a pedestal like you lefties do O’Bama; our pedestal only big enough for Ronald Reagan (peace be upon him!) and Lady Margaret Thatcher.

    • Jake
    • Posted July 28, 2009 at 9:20 am
    • Permalink

    Ok, we can have Reagan and George H. W. Bush meeting with Noriega and promising to give him a raise.

    Don’t you think it is a bit hypocritical for a site that decries “bias” and “brain-washing” to present deliberately distorted and one-sided views in order to create an echo chamber?

    I’m pretty sure not doing the sin in the first place is what makes you a better person. Jesus was free from sin, and we are supposed to attempt to emulate him, so perhaps that means we should not sin, eh?

    • you
    • Posted July 28, 2009 at 1:08 pm
    • Permalink

    Norman: So it’s OK as long as you ‘repent’ for your sins? That’s the biggest cop out ever.

    “Eco-Morals” are not morals. They are “guidelines on how not to destroy the planet”. Believe it or not the free market doesnt care about environmental impacts and will gladly destroy and desecrate entire swathes of land just for profit. It’s not a “moral” thing, it’s a “we dont want life on the planet to end and become unsustainable because we actually care about future generations” thing. You wouldn’t understand. Global warming is a myth, right? So is evolution.

    The same goes for health care. It’s not a “moral” thing. It’s a “we believe every human being deserves to be guaranteed the basics in life, like food, shelter, and health care”. We dont want people to die and we don’t play favorites. Republican thinking seems to be “if they dont have the money they dont deserve health care”. Unlike republicans, democrats dont play favorites when it comes to essential services. Like sustaining people’s lives. Or are you afraid of “waiting in line” because other people need health care too? Dont be so selfish. You are not superior to them. They deserve to live too.

    Why do you keep saying the media is biased towards the democrats. Are you crazy? The media is almost entirely right wing, even the ones that try to remain impartial end up spewing more republican talking points. The media is quite clearly republican (I bet you think Fox News is the only unbiased news outlet right?)

    Ronald Reagan was a hack and one of the worst presidents America has ever seen.

    • ikabod
    • Posted July 29, 2009 at 4:41 pm
    • Permalink

    Lets remember you that during the 80’s the staffing of political talk On the so-called conservative network shows where as follows:
    1 weak conservative.
    1 strong centrist
    1 strong liberal democrat.

    Strong centrist normally sided with the liberal democrat.

    • ikabod
    • Posted July 29, 2009 at 4:52 pm
    • Permalink

    Yep “guaranteed” food, shelter and health care. The trouble is the ability to pay for such guarantees normally falls onto the people through taxation. Taxation that will eventually dry up as more and more monies will be required to prop it up. We have don’t have to look very far as to what we will have with GovCare than the DMV, Veterans administration, and Social security. 3 prime examples of how to run a bureaucracy. Guarantees such as what you are demanding are great until the money runs out.

  5. The commentor named “you” recommends an all out socialist structure through which all essential needs are met for everyone: food, shelter, healthcare… In other words, you posit a Neediness Mentality upon mankind. Yes, the genuinely needy are a great concern to all of us, and as a matter of fact conservatives give greater amounts to charity than liberals do (this is well-documented). There should always be safety nets for such unfortunates. But what do you think your government-sponsored, cradle-to-grave giveaways for everybody do for the Striving Impulse in man– that yearning to achieve, learn, self-improve, accomplish? When handed everything, people en masse learn not to strive, not to achieve, not to bother bettering themselves, educating themselves, getting their act together so as to be marketably viable… why should they when they can lay back and get it all for free? In short such a nation becomes like the old Soviet Union, full of widespread despair and drunkeness. Or the current Sweden, fed up with the razing of it’s national soul through socialism and now turning its back on that failed form of government. Try thinking outside the Neediness box: your suggestion, like all massive socialist plans, is actually a DEPRIVING structure: it DEPRIVES people of the achievement impulse. Without a dream, most men die inside, to a greater or lesser extent: become shells of men with little meaning. Striving to grow and improve is like a sunlight of the soul. This is what you take from people through socialism and its spin-offs.

  6. Good point, Ikabod. Aside from it’s soul-killing function, the socialist model is also unworkable financially– without crushing taxation on, among others, the very businesspeople who have the wealth to hire lots of the rest of us. Result: more and more lay-offs.

    • Jake
    • Posted July 30, 2009 at 6:39 am
    • Permalink

    You claim on one hand that the “Striving Impulse” is a part of man’s nature; and yet you also claim that the “Striving Impulse” only exists when it is cultivated by the government. There seems to be a fetishization of government authority inherent in the system of views you have proposed. Your claims seem to indicate a belief that man is only capable of doing that which the government tells him to do. If the government says, “go forth and achieve,” man will do so. If the government does not directly tell man to achieve, than he will not. You seem to view man as possessing an extremely fragile spirit. If giving man food and healthcare is all it takes to break his will, than man is truly a weak creature.

    If the “Striving Impulse” of which you speak is truly part of man’s nature, should it not manifest itself independent of the government? If man is given food and medicine, why would he not find some other dream for which to strive? Do you believe man to be so base as to strive solely for food, shelter, and medicine? Are the arts not an example of worthy pursuits for man’s “Striving Impulse” outside of his immediate biological needs? Providing for man’s basic needs should allow him to focus his energy on higher, more intellectually satisfying pursuits.

    Why do you believe the will of the government to be stronger than the will of man? Why do you believe the government to be a higher authority than man’s own nature? Why do you feel that man can succeed only if the government tells him to do so? Do you not believe in the indomitable spirit of man? Would such a spirit not follow its “Striving Impulse” regardless of government incentives?

    • you
    • Posted July 30, 2009 at 8:17 am
    • Permalink

    Yes Zack R you are totally right and countries like Switzerland are socialist hellholes which contribute nothing to larger society because all their basic needs are met and thus they have nothing in terms of innovation or invention or creativity whatsoever.

    Fact is, socialism works. Capitalism does not. Especially capitalism without regulation. It may work in the short run (Which republicans seem to love. It’s all about the short-term gains) but in the long run it’s destructive. But who cares about the next generation right?

    • ikabod
    • Posted July 30, 2009 at 4:44 pm
    • Permalink

    Socialism works? Really? I know you want to believe that. You have been told that, books have been written yet once the money is gone it falls apart. When the workers do control the means of production the dirty little secret is that mediocrity triumphs. Whats the point of working any harder, striving for a better world when all that matters is that you get your free handout? I realize that for the last 100 plus years all the countries that have tried socialism have been doing it wrong. We should just give it one more try. Just keep trying. Regulation does work, and can work with capitalism, yet blaming conservatives for greed and corruption for the mortgage mess is a little disingenuous when Barney Frank and pals where doing there best to make sure anyone and everyone whether they can afford a home or not. This so called guarantees in life are such that the more the government controls and or gives away the more they can control YOU. Guaranteed employment, Guaranteed food, water, clothing, shelter will also mean that the government will have to sit limits for you. Its not the utopia of a workers paradise that lies at the end of a socialist rainbow. Its despair, misery and the squelching of liberty. Now true you can point out the beacons of socialism such as Cuba and perhaps even China but, Cuba survives from massive petro-dollars (being purchased from the evil Capitalist) from Hugo Chavez. Once the Soviets collapsed Cuba had really no means to support itself economically. And no you can’t blame America for Cuba’s tourism woes, since well the rest of the world are perfectly able to visit. As for China, well they are getting the hint as well, sure i bet they guaranteed lunch will continue free housing and such but dang can’t really do much without the government telling you how many kids you can have. Nice place. But hey getting a job for a dollar a day is great if you can get it. The best part is… its not about you, your just part of the collective. Things are improving, why… because the Chinese have gotten a real taste. Not REAL socialism but capitalism and all the evil that comes with it…

    • ikabod
    • Posted July 30, 2009 at 4:57 pm
    • Permalink

    Jake, innovation, invention, creativity strives DESPITE government. You cannot tell me that the dear leader that will provide all of us (our lowly children) the means to everything we want can, and without a second thought take it away. “What? You didn’t attend the workers meeting this morning? You can forget this months ration of meat!” The soviets concern for innovation was only limited to what it could steal from the US. You think the Glorious peoples space shuttle looked a lot like the US because that was ONLY way it could be designed? It never worked. And since they ran out of other peoples money they couldn’t fix it either. Socialism doesn’t work with a population more than 1000. You can’t have a nation of producers supporting just as many non producers. Freemen, are not inspired by what government can give them, they innovate, create, and strive when the government gets out of there way. One word I have never hear a Socialist use: Liberty! Now why is that?

    • you
    • Posted July 30, 2009 at 5:18 pm
    • Permalink

    @ikabod, it’s fine if you dont think socialism works. I understand that and there are a few reasons to think so (as well as a few reasons to think capitalism doesnt work, etc).

    But what is so wrong about providing the basic necessities to every human being? Ensuring that no one suffers? Making sure people are taken care of no matter how bad things get? This doesnt take away choice. If they dont want to accept government money/housing/health care they don’t have to. And if they want to pay for their own they can. Yet they always have that safety net to make sure that no one in society is oppressed and can function on a basic level. What’s the harm in that? If they want a better standard of living, they’ll have to work, so it doesn’t take away from any incentives to do better.

    Also, by your logic, inheritance should not exist, because the children of affluent parents will not strive to achieve because they have all that money. Why bother?

    • Jake
    • Posted July 30, 2009 at 7:57 pm
    • Permalink

    The idea that innovation will not proceed without government support is Zack’s idea, not mine. If you are going to criticize that belief, you should direct your comments to Zacky.

    • Longfellow
    • Posted August 6, 2009 at 1:31 pm
    • Permalink

    Just felt like pointing out that any self-respecting (insert air quotes as desired) pot-smoking liberal would know full well that industrial hemp doesn’t contain near enough tetrahydracannibinol to have any kind of effect, regardless how much you smoke.

    • CajunCommie
    • Posted August 8, 2009 at 1:55 pm
    • Permalink

    Industrial hemp doesn’t contain enough THC to get you high, any farmer could tell you this.

    Also marijuana prohibition is the dumbest thing in the world.

    Also the American revolutionaries (like Jefferson, Washington etc) grew hemp on their farms, and Jefferson got stoned. Growing hemp was required by law.

    Marijauan prohibtion was founded on racism. The figured by banning weed, it would top Mexicans from coming to the States and it would stop Blacks from being poor and violent (because weed makes you violent?).

    It was also founded for purely economic reasons. William Randolf Hurst–a paper baron–lost market share to hemp, which is cheap to grow and process. So he spent 20 years in the newspapers he owned lying his ass off about the dangers of weed.

    Partnership for a drug free America is funded by tobacco and alcohol lobbies.

    • Steve T
    • Posted August 8, 2009 at 3:18 pm
    • Permalink

    Zack – this took much longer than I thought! Here are some of the (very) old, urban myths in defense of pot smoking.
    CajunCommie; The fact that hemp (as in the jump rope) does not have enough THC to get you high, is not the point. The cartoon is illustrating the dizzy-brain nature of a Woodstock hippie desperate to get a buzz from any possible source, however weak it is.
    You assertions about our Founding Fathers getting stoned are totally unfounded, without proof and have been passed around the ‘pot-head’ culture since long before you were born. If you ever bother to read the journals of G. Washington, Jefferson, these gentlemen had extremely sharp, clear minds, were multi-lingual, and had the incredible insight to pen the documents that have lead to the freedom of more people in the world, than ever before (YES – the US Constitution & Declaration of Independence has been the guideline for numerous other democracies getting their start).
    All this does not come from men who are floating their brains in clouds of THC intoxication.
    Regardless of what “racism” or W R Hurst prompted (heck, racism has been behind gun control in large cities, dating back to the early 1900’s), nearly ALL companies drug test all job applicants, and provide for occasional drug testing anytime during their employment.
    Why – why would all these companies, as tight as their budgets are, together dump untold billions of $$ each year into drug testing-?
    There is a very, very good reason, even though they have many other competing needs within their operation budgets.
    THC has a significantly negative effect on the brain, that it alone, impedes memory, trashes long-term memory, and dulls and interrupts judgment and critical thinking. Those are medical FACTS, they have been repeatedly proven with double and triple peer-reviewed studies. The cost to private industry of stoned employee’s has been huge.
    These medical findings are not debatable (among rational, non drug-using people).
    You want to use the straw-man argument about alcohol doing this -or that ??
    What alcohol is, or does, it completely irrelevant. It is legal, it is an entirely different chemical, with very different properties (alcohol is water soluble, THC is fat soluble) with entirely different biochemical reactions in the human brain. Yes, being drunk on the job is a career killer, too.
    I have listened to these pot-head arguments for 35+ years. They do not change, but they do get passed from older pot-heads to new & upcoming pot-heads, who glom onto them with all the youthful energy.

    • Steve T
    • Posted August 9, 2009 at 4:44 am
    • Permalink

    Zack — do you think I ‘dazed & confused’ the cajun-pinko-?

    Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

    -John Adams, ‘Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,’ December 1770
    US diplomat & politician (1735 – 1826)

  7. Steve T: I think maybe the commie forgot how to get here. Too much pot will do that to the memory, you know. Or maybe he’s toking up in order to get some of those famous inspirational mental breakthroughs that come with clouding the brain with PCP. Anyway, I’ve read your in-depth comment and it’s fantastic. Practically each year brings new research into the destructive properties of excess pot-smoking (even carcinogenic evidence is now cropping up, so to speak) and you lay the case before us right nicely. Thanks for taking the time, and oh yes, also for reassuring us that George Washington was not, after all, heavy into weed, man.

    • asdfsadf
    • Posted August 11, 2009 at 2:59 am
    • Permalink

    I’m still pretty baffled by this comic.

    Hemp is related to marijuana, but it is not marijuana. You cannot get high smoking hemp.

    Why does the author think you can smoke hemp?

    • Steve T
    • Posted August 11, 2009 at 3:42 am
    • Permalink

    asdfsadf – if you notice the book next to Sierra, you will notice she is seeking any ‘high’ she can scrape up.
    True – hemp is a poor source of THC,…but as you get to be more familiar with Sierra, this will be easier to understand–
    Right, Zack-?

    • joe
    • Posted August 11, 2009 at 6:53 am
    • Permalink

    Do you really believe that products made from hemp, i.e. rope, clothes, paper etc… can be smoked to get you high? The Hemp that is grown to make the rope, clothes, paper etc… doesn’t even have THC in it. (THC is the active drug in cannabis) The reason that the hemp that is used to make the aforementioned products is illegal in the U.S.A has nothing to do with drug abuse. It has to do with someone who owned newspapers in several cities including (ironically) San Francisco. I am not going to tell you the specifics, I am going to make you look them up otherwise you won’t learn anything.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: