Federal agents raid Calif. marijuana university

Judged:

4

2

2

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:

More free speech suppression by feral dea thugs! This is a rogue agency that should be disbanded.

Judged:

2

1

1

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:

Jesus ronald you need to get back on your meds! Are you really advocating stealing property from American citizens who have committed no real crime? Your obsession with 'revolutionary councils' is totally insane. If you're going to provide links at least use credible sources instead of propaganda! You sound like a typical self righteous twit!

Judged:

3

2

2

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:

Jesus ronald you need to get back on your meds! Are you really advocating stealing property from American citizens who have committed no real crime? Your obsession with 'revolutionary councils' is totally insane. If you're going to provide links at least use credible sources instead of propaganda! You sound like a typical self righteous twit!

Judged:

2

1

1

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Breaking the law is a crime........
Just because you don't think pot is a crime it still is...
Nambla does not think that men having sex with children is a crime either......
So should that law not be enforced also??

Judged:

3

1

1

Len in NY wrote:

<quoted text>
Another stupid argument from the reefer madness disciples.
Men having sex with boys involves a victim (the boy who cannot legally consent). The responsible use of cannabis victimizes noone except the profits of the alcohol and pharma industries.
If you knew anything about what you speak, you'd realize that cannabis prohibition is a law to benefit those who profit from prohibition has nothing to do with protecting the public from having their rights/life interfered with by others(which is the basis for laws in a civilized society).
Most laws that many find unjust are allowed to be debated and the debates are listened to. However, the pols refuse to take this argument seriously because they are making too much money from a prohibition that, quite frankly, has done more damage to this country than cannabis ever would. Instaed they spew the same outdated and biased information in order to keep the status quo.
You're argument is flawed.

Judged:

1

1

1

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong again moron.......LOL
If you have ever read anything I have posted you would know that I am a libertarian and I don't think the government has any business in your bedroom or why you do in your house....
My point is that it is a law and that law is broken.
You may disagree with that law but many other people disagree with laws that you may think is important......
Like Nambla......
Now until the law is changed anyone that breaks the law is a criminal..........Period

Judged:

2

1

1

Len in NY wrote:

<quoted text>
I only made the assumption because the "NAMBLA/let's not obey any laws we don't agree with" argument has been made by many anti-cannabis dolts. Anyone who believes that is the real moron.
Your insinuation that a cannabis smoker is on the same level as a child molester is ludicrous.
Laws that are blatently unjust and exist only to profit a small and influential portion of society(as cannabis prohibition is), are not real laws. Especially when those laws exist despite overwhelming evidence of the misstatements and perversion of fact that helped make the law in the first palce.
If you are the libertarian that you say you are, then you can't really believe that someone using cannnabis while hurting noone is truly a criminal act. I also notice that you do not disagree with any of my other points made.
My only misspeak in my original post is that you were a RM disciple (for that I apologize), however, I stand by the rest of my post. If you are a real libertarian, then you would as well.

Judged:

1

1

1

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes a pot smoker does not create a victim with the act of breaking the law......
Not staying that there are no victims related to drug use....
I don't think the government should be telling anyone what they consume.....
From raw milk to pot......
But just because you don't like a law does not make breaking the law ok..........
Look at all of the gays defending the two guys that were having sex on a boat in front of 100s of people including families with small children.....
They claim they two were wrongfully targeted because they are gay......
Having sex in front of the public and children is a crime if you are gay or straight......
But gays say they two pedophiliacs did nothing wrong
Look at the Zimmerman martin case........
Moronic liberals are defending martin even as we have three witness that say martin punched Zimmerman in the face and knocked him down. Martin then jumped on top of Zimmerman and was slamming his head on the ground...
Please answer me these two questions
1. Were the gays having sex breaking a law that should be enforced???
2. If martin attacked you or a loved one would you or them have the right to shoot him????

Judged:

2

1

1

Len in NY wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Having sex in front of folks who happen to have kids there is inconsiderate and construes breaking indecent exposure laws as others could see what they were doing. The victim here is the people who should not have to witness that, that doesn't make them pedos, just exhibitionists who took it too far and encroached on others' rights. For that, they deserve prosecution. Same as if it were a hetero couple. Noone wants to see it.
2. Zimmerman is not the victim you portray him to be. He was told not to encounter Martin. If he follows orders, none of that takes place. The guy is a wannabe cop who was looking to get into something, no doubt.
As far as the witnesses, if that had happened, he would have been in a lot worse shape than he was on the video when they got back to the station. Bottom line here is that Zimmerman had no cause to follow Martin except that he didn't like the way Martin looked. He is in the wrong because he provoked the encounter.
As far as Martin being the angel he was portrayed as, I have my doubts. The facts dictate, however, that whatever happened between Zim and Martin, it would've been avoided if Zim follows orders and stays in the car.
If someone is attacked without provocation, they are within their rights(IMHO) to defend themselves as much as they can to guarantee the attacker cannot hurt them. This is not the case with Zim and Martin however.

Judged:

2

1

1

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
1. according to people on the dock and over 20 called the police they yelled at the couple and told them there were children there and the couple got up and moved closer to the railing and one took of his shirt to give a better view........
2. 991 will always tell someone to not get involved because if they did not and Zimmerman got hurt the city could be sued. But there is no law that says you must listen to a operator.
Yes a wanabe cop but he was protecting his neighborhood and he has the right to do that.
Martin was walking on a private lawn in the side yard between two houses so Zimmerman did have a right to ask him what he was doing..
There is no law that sates one must listen to an operator and a operator can not give orders only recommendations.....
If martin had not punched Zimmerman in the face he would be alive today....
And nobody should have to back down to any perp under any situation......
If this happened more often maybe the youth of today would start to learn they they must respect other people and follow the laws or they may die also.....

Judged:

2

1

1

Len in NY wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok, now that we've gotten totally off the subject...what perp??? Had Martin comitted a crime? No. He was only walking home armed with skittles when he was the one who was originally accosted by Zim. Martin had done nothing wrong and Zim had no reason to detain him.
I never said there was a law that said Zim had to stay in the car. They advise these guys not to encounter someone not because of suits, but because these guys are not trained to diffuse a possible situation. Instaed, Zim is the one who made the situation worse. If he doesn't accost Martin for no other reason except the way he looked, none of this happens.
Zim was protecting noone and was not following someone who had committed a crime. He was following , and was intent on causing trouble with, someone HE didn't like the look of. It was nothing more than that, and for that, he got punched.
As you say and I agreed, if one is threatened with no provocation as Martin was by Zim, he has every right to defend himself. It's almost as if Zim prodded the attack by Martin so he'd have an excuse to shoot him.
Sorry, Zim was wrong and he should've been charged.
BTW would you have a link to the sex story? I cannot seem to find it anywhere. Thanks.

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
He committed a crime when he punched Zimmerman in the face.........And he dies for that crime....
There had been many robberies in the area and martin looked out of place Zimmerman told the 911 operator that....
His race never came up until the operator asked him
Just google guys busted for having sex on cruise ship
Then google couple arrested for having sex in public and see the difference
The gay couple got a small fine
many straight couples have been thrown in jail and charged with a sex crime

Judged:

2

1

1

Len in NY wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but Zim was following and hassling him long before he got hit in the face. So I'll ask again, what crime did Martin commit that warranted Zim hassling him ??? Zim was the one who committed the crime in the first place when he hassled the kid for no other reason except for the way he looked. He was the initial aggressor. Martin defended himself against a larger man who was hassling him FOR NO GOOD REASON. Again, if Zim does what he is told, he doesn't get hit and there is no shooting.

Judged:

3

1

1

Len in NY wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but Zim was following and hassling him long before he got hit in the face. So I'll ask again, what crime did Martin commit that warranted Zim hassling him ??? Zim was the one who committed the crime in the first place when he hassled the kid for no other reason except for the way he looked. He was the initial aggressor. Martin defended himself against a larger man who was hassling him FOR NO GOOD REASON. Again, if Zim does what he is told, he doesn't get hit and there is no shooting.

Judged:

2

1

1

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
One does not have to commit a crime for a person to ask them a question......
There is no law that says anything Zim did was wrong..........Period
The perp punched Zim and then jumped on top of him and continued the assault.....
In all 50 states if Zim was legally caring the gun it would be a justifiable homicide.......Period..
Show me any law that says when laying on the ground because you were punched in the nose hard enough to break your nose and the perp is continuing the assault that you can't defend your self with deadly force.......

Judged:

4

2

2

Len in NY wrote:

<quoted text>
Zim is not a law enforcement officer. He is a neighborhood watch. He had NO legal right to confront Martin, nor was he supposed to.
Again, if Martin did what you say he did, Zim would've shown it in the video, he didn't show ANY signs of getting hit repeatedly.
You make it sound as if Zim was just walking and Martin attacked him unprovoked when it was Zim who was the initial aggressor.
How would you react if a private citizen with a chip on his shoulder decided to hassle you while you were just minding your own business because he didn't like the way you looked??? You would defend yourself if you felt threatened. Martin felt threatened by Zim and defended himself. That's when the pussy took out his gun and shot Martin. Zim was in the wrong the minute he confronted Martin. Justify it any way you want, but that's teh bottom line. BTW, with the way you rant about liberal tis and liberal that, you sound more like a tea partier than a libertarian.

Judged:

1

1

1

Here Is One wrote:

<quoted text>
One does not have to commit a crime for a person to ask them a question......
There is no law that says anything Zim did was wrong..........Period
The perp punched Zim and then jumped on top of him and continued the assault.....
In all 50 states if Zim was legally caring the gun it would be a justifiable homicide.......Period..
Show me any law that says when laying on the ground because you were punched in the nose hard enough to break your nose and the perp is continuing the assault that you can't defend your self with deadly force.......