On 2003-05-13 11:53:00, ClayL wrote:
"Well if this doesn't seem like DFAF's standard operating proceedure.
Oh yeah! Let's not forget what happened to Radley Balko when he ran his interview with Sammie on
http://foxnews.com/ http://www.theagitator.com/straightfox.phpThen there's the time, a couple of years ago, when Calvina tried to have Lester Grinspoon's medical license pulled because he admitted to smoking pot in a High Times interview.
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/8jcl/8JCL83.htmOn 2003-05-13 11:53:00, ClayL wrote:
Their mouth piece well knows that the burden of proof in libel is on the plaintiff and the plaintiff must show ACTUAL harm. Not the supposed harm they seem to be taking issue to here. In my opinion I believe DFAF and the ilk who work for them would like to see the death penalty for smoking dope or perhaps thinking about a drink before driving.
That's actually documentable. Both DARE founder, Daryl Gates, and Wm. Bennett (the bookie of virtue) have made public statements to the effect that casual drug users ought to be executed as traitors in the War On (users of certain unpatentable) Drugs. And how many Program parents have made remarks to the effect that we all needed a little brainwashing and responded to questions about the obvious risk to life and sanity by claiming that we all would have been dead anyway? I have no doubt that you're right. These sadistic lunatics would love to employ summary execution like the Taliban did. In fact, they publicly applauded that as well.
On 2003-05-13 11:53:00, ClayL wrote:
I believe Ms. Fay would have no problem with most of straight's record. After all, it was for the good of the children and they were helping families for God's sake!
Yeah, sort of. But most people who advocate the program either deny that any abuse occured or hold that the abuse is/was an unfortunate coincidence to an otherwise good and worthwhile program. I can say that when I was a fifth phaser, and leading up to that time, I believed that anyone who got sat on or marathoned deserved it. Even when it was happening to me, I looked at it like going to jail for an act of civil disobedience. I didn't complain about it happening to me. I brought it on intentionally as a demonstration of dissent. Even afterward, when I had a chance to make a statement of criminal acts against me or sue civilly, I couldn't see the sense of it. My head was just that scrambled at the time.
And I think these people's heads are still that scrambled. I was just arguing with a former DA in another forum who stated that he'd gladly have his own son prosecuted if he were busted with drugs. Very sad. But that's what the situation is. These people are not
just greedy, power hugry sadists. They're altruistic tyrants who believe their cause to be so just and so far above reproach as to justify everything and anything they do.
I'm not trying to make Calvina out to be a mean spirited person. I'm just trying to make the point that, whatever their intentions may be, their actual behavior is criminal.
On 2003-05-13 11:53:00, ClayL wrote:
Further, the Supreme Court has stated plainly the Internet is a place where free speech is rampant and must be held to a freer (sp?) standard. If I wish to take to task DFAF and the persons, especially public spokes-persons in DFAF's emloyee, then I am not only capable, but encouraged to do so. If Ms.Fay has such a thin skin, she should find another line of work!
Clay"
Yes, this is very, very true. In the event that they're not satisfied with the retraction and they decide to sue me anyway, there will be some fundraising to do.
Innocence implies the ability to restrain from the initiation of aggression, and to question those who don't.
http://www.MisesRomania.org' target='_new'>Sorin Cucerai
