Drug Policy

The US Willie Nelson Patrol?

|

Contributing Editor Jeff A. Taylor points to levels upon levels of footard behavior in the arrest of songster, tax protester, Carter-era White House guest, Reason Hero of Freedom, and a national treasure on par with the Grand Canyon Willie Nelson. From the John Locke Foundation's Carolina Journal blog:

All kinds of wrong here.

First, understand that the Border Patrol runs its own TSA-like operations across the Southwest — throwing up "checkpoints" across federal interstates to harass US citizens because it is easier than patrolling the actual border. It was at one such papers-please interrogation site on I-10 in Sierra Blanca, TX that Willie Nelson's tour bus rolled up on Friday.

A wily and courageous Border Patrol agent smelled pot — gasp! — and arrested Nelson. Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West via the El Paso Times:

"It's kind of surprising, but I mean we treat him like anybody else," West said.

"He could get 180 days in county jail, which if he does, I'm going to make him cook and clean," West said. "He can wear the stripy uniforms just like the other ones do."

A court date has yet to be set.

The Border Patrol checkpoint along Interstate 10 at Sierra Blanca averages 10 to 15 drug-related arrests a day West said, and he expects several more arrests during the weekend as holiday travelers pack the road.

Uh, sheriff — no it is not surprising. It is Willie Nelson. Perhaps one of the best known pot smokers on the planet. And why oh why is the Border Patrol making 70 to 100 "drug-related arrests" a week at a single US interstate barricade? That is not its job.

Just like it was not the TSA's damn job to accuse Charlotte banker Kathy Parker of money laundering and/or leaving her husband just because an invasive TSA search turned up checks the TSA deemed suspicious. But without mission creep — without the federales unilaterally moving to expand the scope of their jurisdictions to all manner of possible criminal conduct — we might have actual accountability and responsibility among our various federal police overlords. And we can't have that.

Better just book Willie Nelson and declare victory.

Whole thing.

NEXT: Reason.tv: Give Thanks...For Property Rights!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t care if Willie Nelson smokes pot. But why is he a “hero of freedom”? Because he’s an entertainer who smokes pot? That’s a rather low bar.

    1. You could read the article and find out…

    2. He fought against federal income taxation, drug laws, and it’s Willie Fuckin’ Nelson.

      1. hmm FTW

        1. WFN (Willie Fuckin Nelson) FTW. Then NPH showed up and the party got REALLY wild.

      2. Breaking stupid, freedom-encroaching laws does not automatically make one a hero of freedom. Does Willie Nelson also oppose laws against activities in which he does not wish to engage?

        If anything, those of us who oppose drug laws even though we have no desire to do drugs are more heroic.

        1. I don’t care. I also don’t expect him to go to the gallows to be name a hero.

          1. Wow, you’re quite promiscuous with your hero worship.

            1. heros don’t require worship. I know harvest just ended recently, but can you find something else to do with all that straw? You really are tossing everything from left field at this one. Almost as bad as the deadly snowballs of death.

            2. hmm gets the plusses. He put more effort in that take down than most paid columnist do for the entirety of their phoned in gibberish (see Kathy Parker’s latest hand ringings about centrist getting no respect for a prime example).

              Tulpa, when you can go back and time and write hits for Patsy Kline, give us a shout out, and you can be our designated hero. Until then, kick dirt.

        2. Good one, Tulpa…

    3. Well the good guys did listen to him in The Edge of Darkness (original TV mini-series).

    4. Follow the link – “Willie Nelson. One of the great crossover artists in popular music, the Texas legend pulled off a Martin Luther King Jr.-like achievement by uniting hippies and rednecks in a single audience. An inadvertent hero to tax resisters everywhere, Nelson brought the battle against puritanism to the very roof of the Carter White House, where he famously smoked dope to relieve his — and our — national malaise.

      1. He’s against taxes? Who isn’t? Being a “crossover” artist is heroic? Please. But to the point, being Willie Nelson doesn’t make him above the law, and I’d be willing to bet that if you asked him, he’d agree. This isn’t about whether there shouldn’t be income taxes or a drug war. It’s about whether Willie Nelson should be given a pass while the pickup truck-full of Hispanics behind him are busted for the same crime. Frankly, I’d be more outraged over that sort of preferential treatment.

        1. It’s Reason’s cosmotarian side showing.

          1. Reason has another side?

            1. Mmmm…a little bit of one, sometimes they give a little lip service to soveriegnty… but it is rare.

        2. It’s about whether Willie Nelson should be given a pass while the pickup truck-full of Hispanics behind him are busted for the same crime.
          And here I was, thinking it was about mission creep, jurisdictional overreach, wasted tax dollars, & the futility of the war on drugs. Thanks for setting me straight.

          1. You’re welcome. Try to focus next time.

            1. …we have yet another Law’n’Order right-winger in our midst…

              1. Well, the is law is the law.

                1. He said as he dropped in the Zyklon B canister.

        3. Shut up, obey all the laws, and never question those in power.

          1. Shut up, obey all the laws, and never question those in power.

            1. Shut the fuck up, obey all the laws, or I’ll come back there and kick the power out of both of you.

        4. OK fake…put the fuck up or shut up. List YOUR heroes. I can’t wait to rip that list apart.

        5. Liberals aren’t against taxes. And Willie is a political prisoner. As are all non-violent offenders.

      2. An “inadvertent hero” is not a hero at all.

        1. There’s a lot of historic figures that are no longer heros by your measure.

          You seem to be riding the moral high horse on this one.

          1. To quote the H&R required viewing:

            Jayne: Don’t make no sense. Wh-Why the hell’d that mudder have to go an do that for, Mal? Jumpin’ in front a’ that shotgun blast. Hell, there weren’t a one of ’em understood what happened out there. They’re probably stickin’ that statue right back up.
            Mal: Most like.
            Jayne: I don’t know why that eats at me so.
            Mal: It’s my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another. Ain’t about you, Jayne. It’s about what they need.
            Jayne: Don’t make no sense.

            1. to each is own, I was never one for required anything to participate. Tends to lump people all into one category which is counter productive.

            2. Those poor mudders.. *sobs*

              1. Think I’m gonna watch that today. While I wade through the office in my yearly “This shits gotta go.” OCD fueled cleaning fest.

                1. Good damn show. Wish they would have gone more than one season.

        2. An “inadvertent hero” is not a hero at all.

          Most, perhaps all, heroes are inadvertent ones. They don’t do what they do with the thought of becoming a hero uppermost in mind.

    5. Defending your right to engage in activities you personally would have engaged in … not particularly heroic.

      Defending the rights of others to engage in freedoms you don’t care for, and taking some significant hits for that … maybe then the hero label might be justified.

      When Willie Nelson goes to bat for freedoms that liberals don’t like — gun rights, property rights, the right to work for a given employer without joining a union even if 50.1%+ of the employees have voted to form a union there …

      When Willie Nelson starts advocating for those rights, then you can break out the hero talk and I might agree.

      1. Very good observation (IMO…), prolefeed – and I happen to be an admirer of Nelsons’ music a lot of the time – his socio-political stances (particularly this issue), some of the time….

      2. Wow, atruism == heroism? I see you’ve drunk the kool-aid, maybe you should head over to church and say a prayer. They seem more your speed over there (slow).

  2. If you like the Border Patrol busting Willie for pot possession, you’re gonna fuckin’ love Dept. of Homeland Security summarily closing down file-sharing websites!

  3. I suppose you would favor the Border Patrol ignoring a bound and gagged US citizen in the back of a van they stopped at a checkpoint. After all, it’s not the Border Patrol’s job to enforce federal kidnapping statutes.

    1. Careful, strawmen are flammable.

      1. And hyperbolic reductio ad absurdum strawmen even more so.

    2. Jesus fucking christ dude, you’re smarter than this strawman asshattery.

      1. It’s not a strawman at all. Gillespie opined that the Border Patrol should not arrest anyone for anything unrelated to border security and immigration.

        Drug possession and kidnapping are equally illegal under federal statute, and equally unrelated to the Border Patrol’s purpose.

        1. You’re missing one thing from the opining part.

          1) It was within the US at a checkpoint. (a whole mess o’ worms in itself)

          You’re still arguing a strawman.

        2. Both kidnapping and pot use are in fact illegal, and neither are in the Border Patrol’s area of responsibility. Perhaps they should have called the actual police, who are actually supposed to enforce laws of this nature? I think I would even be okay (in the kidnapping situation anyway) if they held the vehicle until the cops arrived. There are very different rules for an “imminent danger to life” situation, even for civilians.

          This is truly a terrible comparison. I don’t think there are many districts where MJ possession and kidnapping are the same level of crime. The article says “He could get 180 days in county jail” which seems a bit lax for kidnapping.

          Lastly, if it works in this direction, why not the other? If the Border Patrol should enforce laws like this, shouldn’t the police be enforcing immigration laws? Seems like the feds got pretty annoyed when AZ decided to do that.

          1. The Border Patrol is enforcing a federal law, the Controlled Substances Act. I think that law is unconstitutional, but from the viewpoint of the people who decide such things it isn’t.

            1. You dont go to county jail for violation of federal law.

        3. Well, for one they’re not equal. Kidnapping is one of the more serious felonies around, and mj possession, is well, not. Plus, there’s all kinds of case law (and common sense) that allows authorities a lot more latitude when there’s real imminent danger to a person.

          Note also that it’s the *county sherriff* that’s gleefully looking forward putting Nelson in the pokey, which seems to me he’s going to charged under state law.

          So really, this is no different than the border patrol wasting their time for hassling people over expired decals or misaimed headlights. Sure those things are also illegal, but they are also so far fucking afield of the core mission or any other reasonable (drink?) approximation of a general mandate for public safety that such actions would be be equally completely indefensible, as is what BP/ICE is currently doing.

          1. Since you seem intent on nitpicking at irrelevant differences in my analogy, how about a van with a dead body in the back with a bullet hole in the back of the head. Should the Border Patrol wave them through because murder has nothing to do with immigration and no people are in imminent danger?

            1. This wasn’t at the border. It was on Interstate 10, and my map lists Sierra Blanca as being at least 10 miles inside the border.

            2. To repeat, your whole ‘analogy’ in either format is a strawman (look up what that means in wikipedia if you need to).

              Nobody is saying and Jeff Taylor specifically isn’t saying that the Border Patrol shouldn’t act if it encounters serious crimes in the performance of its duties – keeping in mind that its primary duties are the interdiction of contraband stuff (and people) entering in the US without proper clearance (and putting aside the merits of those duties – that is arguable but no one is arguing that here).

              What Jeff Taylor said is

              And why oh why is the Border Patrol making 70 to 100 “drug-related arrests” a week at a single US interstate barricade? That is not its job.

              in the context (e.g. with ‘holiday travelers’ in the next sentence) that these are not only drug smuggling coyotes, but also just people driving around being busted for simple possession. Getting people for simple possession *is not* the Border Patrol’s job. And yes, if an organization is taking time to do stuff that is not part of its basic mission, the distraction detracts from that basic mission, as any MGT 101 MBA type can tell you. And this is distraction in particular is such an affront to basic libertarian principles, that is why it is wholly and completely indefensible. Stopping Wille Nelson (and likely a good portion the 6 to 9 other people a day) for a few oz of pot is not stopping anything In flagrante delicto (so to speak).

        4. Drug possession and kidnapping are equally illegal under federal statute, and equally unrelated to the Border Patrol’s purpose.

          I wouldn’t say they’re equally illegal. The border patrol will go after drug crimes much more vigorously than kidnapping because with drug crimes you can seize all those cool assets, shoot dogs, get your gun on, etc.

      2. No he’s not. Authority gives Tulpa a boner.

      3. Sez you.

    3. Tulpa,

      Do you buff the cop’s boots after you’re done licking them?

    4. Tulpa, there is a huge difference between kidnapping and possessing a few ounces of pot.

    5. Tulpa, if a law were passed requiring you to punch a random stranger once a day… would you comply?

      1. I’m getting real turned on by all this strawman on strawman action here.

        1. What’s wrong with the question?

          It was designed to see how far people will bend over to obey any law, no matter how asinine.

      2. I’m getting real turned on by all this strawman on strawman action here.

        1. I could go for a “roll in the hay” about now.

    6. This incident exposes the problem in allowing the Border Patrol to pursue their mandated mission within the country’s border.

      Stopping, interrogating and searching people on the street, indiscriminately and without probable cause, violates the constitution’s guarantee against unreasonable searches. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has ruled the police can establish random checkpoints on the highways with the caveat that the purpose of such checkpoints relate directly to furthering highway safety. When the Border Patrol sets up checkpoints inside the country’s borders they are stopping, interrogating and searching people without probable cause and beyond the safe harbor exception granted the police for the purpose of policing the highways.

      For better or worse, the border is a special place where constitutional rights have little meaning. Citizen or no, a person crossing the border is subject to policing practices that would categorically fail constitutional scrutiny if practiced within the boundary. The Border Patrol is mandated with securing the country’s borders. Where their jurisdiction begins is pretty clear, where it ends is problematic. When Border Patrol establishes checkpoints within the border, subjecting all passers to warrentless stops, interrogations and searches, they encroach upon civil liberties no other police authority is granted. That such checkpoints are one mile, ten miles or five hundred miles from a border makes them no less unconstitutional.

      As sworn officers of the law Border Patrol officers do, and should, have the authority to make arrests for crimes other than illegal border crossing. However, their special position as Border Patrol officers gives them no authority to act beyond constitutional limits or to act outside their jurisdictional authority. The border Patrol does not have the jurisdictional authority to establish random highway safety checkpoints. Random highway checkpoints are only constitutionally valid when they serve the purpose of furthering highway safety.

      What ultimately may happen, and not with the Willie Nelson case, is that a defendant will make a federal case out of her arrest emanating from a Border Patrol checkpoint and the stop will be found to have been initiated without probable cause and therefore to be unconstitutional. That, or the Supreme Court will find yet another justification for creating an exception to the fourth amendment and another safe harbor will be carved out for Border Patrol checkpoints.

      As far as I’m concerned, if the constitution is applied as it is currently interpreted, there is no Border Patrol checkpoint. There are no BP officers looking into the trunk of the car. The straw man’s body goes undiscovered. No arrest is made. It’s too bad that the straw man suffers, but it’s the price he pays for our liberties.

    7. A bound and gagged person could very well be an immigrant.

      This was too lame to even be a strawman!

  4. I’m against the drug laws. However, the laws of the land need to be repealed and not simply ignored. Nelson should be treated like every other schmuck who crosses a border checkpoint while high – his celebrity status notwithstanding.

    People getting their panties in a bunch because Good Ol’ Willie got popped just like the other 70-100 folks each day shows that the law was, in a small way, right on this issue. Few things annoy me more than when nobodies get the full force of the law whilst the connected elite class flaunt the very laws they use to control the people.

    Nothing screams “example” like giving somebody nobody has ever heard of the maximum sentence while letting “The Lohan” off with a slap on the wrist.

    Willie should know better. I mean the checkpoints are on the f’ing map.

    1. Perhaps I’m just too old fashioned but how is a checkpoint in the US, 20+ miles from the border, on a US Interstate Highway that at no point crosses the border, considered a border checkpoint?

      1. SCOTUS has ruled that border checks can be done at any point within 100 miles of the border.

        1. Yes, and because a star chamber has ruled so, it is right. All hail authority!

          1. I’m not saying I approve of that decision, but merely answering the question of why such a checkpoint is allowed.

            1. Ah, the good old days. Back when I was a yute, during the Cold War, my civics teacher used, as an example of why we were so great and the soviets so worthy of being nuked out of existence, the fact we could travel freely around our free country free of government interference. We had no permanent checkpoints, we didn’t have to carry identification papers or justify where we were going, that sort of thing. The very idea of that happening here was laughable. Only rat-bastard commies did that sort of thing.
              Wonder what they teach in civics class now?

              1. What civics class are you referring to? I don’t think they exist anymore. It would take away from the period they must use to study for the SOL’s.

              2. Answer from up thread: “Shut up, obey all the laws, and never question those in power.”

              3. Luckily the USSR is kaput, so instead we are comparing ourselves to Iran and other shit holes.

                Sure we have to carry papers and can be stopped at whim by LEO’s, but our chicks can wear thong underwear and act like sluts in public!

            2. That didnt answer the question. SCOTUS says so is not a legitimate answer.

          2. More importantly, when the day comes that the SCOTUS rules it illegal for US citizens to leave the US, it will be the law of the land and anyone who thinks otherwise will be shot as they try scramble aboard shoddy rafts. They shouldn’t have been breaking the law.

        2. That doesnt answer the question. SCOTUS says so is an appeal to authority and a fucking wrong one in this case at that.

          1. As I stated below I disagree with the ruling. The question was how this checkpoint was considered a border checkpoint. The executive branch operates according to what SCOTUS says is the law, not what a bunch of powerless people in a blog comment section think should be the law. Bitter pill, I know.

            1. Truth is what it is. SCOTUS doesnt declare the truth, therefore what they say doesnt matter.

              My answer is, no matter what the SCOTUS says, it isnt a border checkpoint, because it isnt on the border.

              1. The Border Patrol is still the Border Patrol even when they’re not at the border. Just like the Eagles are still the Philadelphia Eagles even though they’re playing a game in Chicago.

            2. What you should have said is “it isnt a border checkpoint but the morons on SCOTUS said anything within 100 miles qualifies.”

              You need to mock authority instead of just quoting it. Both declare the correct answer and what the authority jackasses claim the answer is.

              For someone who tries to deny he is a bootlicking authority-lover, you seem very unwilling to rip them even when you claim (later, after challenged) to disagree with them.

    2. However, the laws of the land need to be repealed and not simply ignored.

      Damn straight. If we executed all suppliers and consumers just quit…we wouldn’t have any problems. And they should’ve returned all those Negroes back to their proper owners. Every fucking law must be strictly adhered to , unless you are a bureaucrat or closely connected to such higher institutes of morality.

      Shut your fucking pie hole, you Chinese dissident motherfucker. We’ll put a bullet in your ungrateful head.

      1. I suppose you’d rather let the ruling and celebrity classes get off scott-free while the federales continue to bust Tyrone from Inglewood.

        Way to only punish the proletariat, Comrade.

        With that mindset we don’t need to repeal the laws, we’ll just keep them in our pocket to use against the undesirables.

        1. Wtf? Check your reading comprehension, Comrade. I made no reference or implication to Tyrone or a celebrity/ruler. I’m pretty sure I was using sarcasm to make a point about your irrational, servile adherence to laws contrary to natural individual rights.

          Is there some kind of Statist Manual for responses for which I am not aware? Retract head from anus would be a good start. You seem to think this post and subsequent discussion is about class discrimination. See aforementioned suggested rule number uno.

          1. You missed my point jackass. I don’t think anybody should be arrested for drug use and Reason is a great resource for seeing everybody who gets screwed by the man.

            That being said, so long as the lower classes are being rounded up for drug use it makes no sense, under the premise of equal protection, that Willie shouldn’t be treated the same.

            1. Its better for two people to be wronged that one person to be wronged.

              Got it.

              1. Nope. Celebrities should not get preferential treatment for breaking existing laws, regardless of how unjust those laws are. Giving Willie a pass would have done nothing to end the war on drugs and would have served only to reinforce the belief that the rich and powerful and famous are entitled to special breaks and privileges, while the poor and powerless have no such societal perks.

                1. Giving Willie a pass would have done nothing to end the war on drugs

                  So fucking what?

                  Should anyone go to jail for pot? No. Therefore Willie (and Tyrone) shouldnt go to jail for pot. If only Tyrone goes to jail, that is an injustice that still should be fought, but its better than both of them going to jail.

                  1. Nah you’ve got it all wrong. It’s not that he’s upset that Pablo isn’t getting national news face-time, it’s that he’s glad to see it’s happening to a rich, white guy instead.

    3. I think the article was less about Willy and more about the absurdity of the BP enforcing drug laws(and the absurdity of drug laws in general).

      1. Considering that the agency, which is part of Homeland Security, is titled “U.S. Customs and Border Protection” it makes sense that they bust people for drugs so long as drugs are illegal.

        The “Customs” part dictates that they enforce international trade laws. Drug policy finds itself wrapped in such trade law.

        Absurd? No. Asinine? Yes.

        1. Good points. But my main point was that the articles focus was not on Willy Nelson.

          1. The headline isn’t “Border Patrol Out of Bounds”.

            It is “The US Willie Nelson Patrol?”.

            I do take your point though and agree with the premise. It shouldn’t be about Willie, even if it is about him.

        2. Only if its foreign pot. If its american grown pots, its none of customs business.

    4. > the laws of the land need to be repealed and not simply ignored.

      What better way to repeal a law than ignore it?

      -jcr

      1. Step 1. Ignore law.
        Step 2. Flaunt law.
        Step 3. Jury nullification of law.
        Step 4. Law repealed.

        Tulpa opposes all of the first 3.

        1. So? Tulpa is an idiot.

    5. Piss up a rope.

  5. When everyone’s super, no one will be.

  6. Tulpa,
    Do you buff the cop’s boots after licking them?

    1. What we’ve got here is failure to identify the issue. It isn’t about cops or the drug war. It’s about preferential treatment of celebrities, which no real “libertarian” would favor.

      1. The issues has been IDed for quite sometime. It’s about the encroaching police state (in this case under the guise of catching illegal terrorist Mexicans), the emasculation of the Fourth Amendment (in this case in the name of the War on Drugs Liberty) the general government bureaucratic mission creep.

        Is the Border Patrol going to be handing out seat belt tickets and doing spot emission tests while they’re at it? Checking the dog’s license?

        1. Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the real issues.

          Any “special treatment” received by Mr. Nelson had more to do with his tour bus being searched because he’s Willie Nelson. Good ole boy Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West said *in the article* that Nelson won’t get any special treatment while in his “care”.

      2. The article wasn’t about Willy Nelson, it was about the Boarder Patrol enforcing drug laws. This just happened to make the news because he is famous. Reason does stuff all the time on no name people getting the shit end of the law stick. You’re the one focusing on Willy.

        1. AA|11.27.10 @ 1:51PM|#
          The article wasn’t about Willy Nelson

          The US Willie Nelson Patrol?
          Contributing Editor Jeff A. Taylor points to levels upon levels of footard behavior in the arrest of songster, tax protester, Carter-era White House guest, Reason Hero of Freedom, and a national treasure on par with the Grand Canyon Willie Nelson.

          Right. It isn’t about Willie at all. He’s mentioned by name in the header, the lede, and four more times in the story. But it is isn’t about Willie. It’s about Pablo Hernandez, the guy behind Willie in the checkpoint who also got busted. Never heard of him? That’s because he wasn’t mentioned in the story, because he isn’t a celebrity and his arrest would not have been newsworthy. Like the arrest of Willie Nelson. The guy this story isn’t about.

          1. Yo, fake…like I said, let us know who your heroes are so we can pick the list apart.

    2. I’ve condemned the actions of police in 95% of Radley’s recent blog posts about police interactions with citizens, so that dog won’t hunt. But if thinking I’m a cop lover keeps you cozy and warm by preventing you from having to consider other viewpoints from your own, so be it.

      1. Then why are you so fixated on Nelson’s celebrity status? Are you intentionally creating a distraction?

        1. Tulpa believes it to be puerile that when things occur to celebrities it makes news, never mind that in this news item several libertarian issues are involved. Only politicians are worthy of public comment, don’tcha know.

        2. I never said anything about Nelson’s celebrity status.

      2. 5% is way too fucking high.

        Get it down to .00005% and come back.

  7. “Raaaaacist!!”

  8. “Uh, sheriff ? no it is not surprising. It is Willie Nelson Paris Hilton. Perhaps one of the best known pot smokers cock suckers on the planet.”

    1. Willie obviously didn’t blame someone else on the tour bus for possession. He accepted responsibility instead of denying the marijuana was his. I’m sure there were members of his tour that would have been willing to take the fall for him, but that’s not the kind of guy Willie Nelson is.

      Whether you agree with his politics or not (and I dare say I don’t agree with all of his opinions on the role of government), to compare him to Paris Hilton just reveals your ignorance. Your words are those of an intellectual lightweight.

      1. There was a bust in 2006 where they found (IIRC) close to a pound of pot on his bus. They apparently knew the laws of the state they were in, because Willie and a few members of his band all claimed it was theirs. Due to this, they could only each be charged with misdemeanor possession. One person would have been charged with felony possession & intent to distribute.

  9. I’ll bet Willie Nelason wouldn’t share a joint with somebody who’s been sucking Ron Paul’s cock. He’d tell you to shove your market-worshiping, right-wing shit back up your fat ass where it came from, Gillespie.

    1. Max, you need to get back to your Gambler’s Anonymous 12-step meetings. You know nothing about Willie.

      1. Ignore Max. He has an unhealthy obsession with Ron Paul, among his many faults.

    2. So, libertarians would defend the rights of someone that would spit on them.* Hey, we are better people than I would have ever given us credit for being. Thanks for the compliment, Max.

      *He was a friend of Waylon Jennings so that very premise is stupid.

      1. But would libertarians be as committed as the ACLU?

        1. lol! I don’t really embrace pacifist doctrine, as it seems too me to have been attached to libertarian ideas about the same time that it became as easy as saying ‘Gandhi blah blah, Gandhi blah blah’ to score with hippie chicks, so, no, the ACLU is more committed than at least me. I would embrace the opportunity to legally get away with shooting a 3Kayer between the eyes.

          ‘Come a little closer with that torch, please.’

    3. So sorry Maxie boy:

      Jimmy Carter would be good, but I don’t think he would do it. I’ve been supporting Dennis Kucinich since he came out against the war. But his chances…who knows? I like the representative, Ron Paul, from Texas. He makes a lot of sense. Bill Richardson is a good friend of mine, too. He wouldn’t be a bad choice.”

      1. He said he likes Ron Paul, not people who suck his cock.

        1. Move those goalposts lil’ Maxie, move em!

        2. Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#

          Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post.

          1. Awwww. Don’t go away mad

            Just go away.

          2. Thank Gawd in Hebbin!

      2. He’s also a big fan of Obama, you dimwit piece of shit.

        1. Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#

          Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post.

    4. Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#

      Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post.

      1. This ‘last post’ you keep mentioning… I do no think it means what you think it means

    5. Juanita | October 26, 2007, 12:01pm | #

      This is a miscarriage of justice. He is clearly a predator and should be locked up for good for endangering the morals of the child he was with. No one under 18 should be doing this, and if they are caught, the male should be punished for this aberant behaviour. God demands that the sinners be punished severely, in the bible they stoned people for this kind of thing, which is the morally just punishment.

  10. Every time I’ve come by to visit Reason, I am amazed at how the trolls and law-and-order “social conservatives” have taken over the comments.

    It used to be, not all that long ago, that one coild visit the comments on reason for a good dose of hard libertarian philosophy. I’m just a run of the mill old school conservative (what the extreme right now calls a RINO and a squishy if you can believe that!), but it was always good to have my libertarian tendencies refreshed by the principles of libertarian intellectuals I’d encounter here.

    And now we’re arguing about whether or not Willie Nelson is a hero.

    1. Wow, you want your libertarian tendencies refreshed. Try sniffing your underwear.

      1. You’re an example of why children shouldn’t be allowed to read Ayn Rand, other than the True Classic’s Illustrated version.

      2. Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#

        Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post.

    2. Slow news week. Hey what about the Somali guy using FBI explosives to commit a terrorist act? How the hell does that go down without entrapment coming into play?

      1. No kidding. The day is coming when they pick a mark smarter than them that pulls a fast one on them if they keep playing that game.

      2. I bring this up every time, but who the fuck still buys a bomb ready-made in the US? That industry is entirely owned by g-men.

      3. According to the FBI affidavit, the case began in August 2009 when Mohamud was in e-mail contact with an unindicted associate overseas who was believed to be involved in terrorist activities. In December 2009, while the unindicted associate was in a frontier province of Pakistan, Mohamud and the associate discussed the possibility of Mohamud traveling to Pakistan to participate in violent jihad.

        The associate allegedly referred Mohamud to a second associate overseas and provided him with a name and e-mail address. In the months that followed, Mohamud made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the second associate.

        Ultimately, an FBI undercover operative contacted Mohamud in a June 2010 e-mail under the guise of being an associate of the first unindicted associate.

        FBI thwarts terrorist bombing attempt at Portland holiday tree lighting, authorities say

        1. Seems to me the FBI did protect the rights of Americans in this case. I am open minded to solid evidence to the contrary though.

    3. Every time I’ve come by to visit Reason, I am amazed at how the trolls and law-and-order “social conservatives” have taken over the comments.

      You aren’t the only one. NutraSweet’s moniker “HitAndRunpublicans” is especially apt here.

      1. It’s because we have a whole burgeoning sector of republicans who don’t want the baggage that goes along with being a republican (or conservative), so they call themselves libertarian.

        Lo and behold they aren’t libertarian at all.

      2. It’s called dissent, Epi. Unmoderated comments mean asshats can post too.

        I wouldn’t say the trolls and socons have “taken over” — more like they’ve “been paid undue attention to instead of being ignored.”

        1. I never have, and never will, call for moderated comments or registration; I am in fact utterly opposed to such things. However, our population of social cons and TEAM RED boosters seems disproportionally large compared to, say, two years ago.

          1. Concern troll is concerned.

          2. Probably because two years ago was when this site switched from full-time Bush-bashing to full-time Obama-bashing. It does tend to attract a different clientele.

          3. I mean, back in 2005-06 when I was just lurking, there were a ton of liberals here. joe, thoreau, Jennifer, Chicago Tom, Pirate Jo, Elemenope, etc. Other than Mr Nice Guy/MNG they all seem to have left of their own accord.

            1. Jennifer is a liberal? Perhaps I missed it, but she didn’t seem like a left-statist to me.

              @ Epi — the TEAM RED vs TEAM BLUE ratio here seems to have tilted somewhat more to the red side since Obama got elected and the idiocy of the left thus got more attention.

              The overall ratio of troll and partisan comments to libertarian-ish comments — meh, seems about the same, even after subtracting the disproportionate suckitude of the thousands of joe postings.

              1. imho, Jennifer and thoreau were as liberal as John or RC Dean is conservative. ie, not really statist but still showing residual sympathies for the people on their end of the spectrum. (eg, John and RC oppose the drug war)

                1. Boy howdy, your reading comprehension skills suck. how does a moron like you even function/

              2. I resent that, you doo-doo head.

            2. joe was here until a few months ago. I think I hurt his feelings a few times.

              1. If I’m not mistaken, joe left here within three months of the Chosen One’s inauguration.

                I would have though his head had assploded from the cognitive dissonance of B Hussein Obama in practice except that he still seems to haunt other blogs.

                Especially the one where thoreau is peddling his brand of libertarianism now.

                thoreau is as annoyingly stridently anti-Obama as he was anti-Bush. joe seems to think this is very wrong.

                Apparently joe no longer believes that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

                1. joe left because criticism of Obama meant we were all a bunch of racists.

    4. You have to feel for this guy. He cruises Reason, looking for a little hard libertarian philosophy, and all he finds is limp noodles.

    5. There’s not much of a libertarian philosophy discussion to be had here. Everyone here agrees that marijuana should be legal.

      The topics open for discussion are (as you say) whether Willie is a hero, and, given the US Code as it currently stands, what parts of it should the Border Patrol be enforcing. Neither of those is a libertarian issue.

      1. The topics open for discussion are (as you say) whether Willie is a hero, and, given the US Code as it currently stands, what parts of it should the Border Patrol be enforcing. Neither of those is a libertarian issue.

        Because you say so? Who made you the arbiter of what is a “libertarian issue”?

        1. I’m not arbiting, I’m recognizing. Libertarianism addresses the question of, under what circumstances is government coercion justified. It doesn’t attempt to address the mechanical issues of which govt agency should engage in which types of coercion, and it certainly doesn’t address aesthetic questions of who is or is not a hero.

      2. The topics open for discussion are (as you say) whether Willie is a hero, and, given the US Code as it currently stands, what parts of it should the Border Patrol be enforcing. Neither of those is a libertarian issue.

        Because you say so? Who made you the arbiter of what is a “libertarian issue”?

      3. More that that, whether the BP should be, you know, on the fucking border. Where their job is.

    6. It gets especially bad on weekends. I think people are feeling their political duopoly threatened, so they have to come here and tell us why we’re wrong not to worship the state.

  11. Max has never read Ayn Rand. Multisyllabic words are beyond him.

    1. Also, 1000 pages, and no pictures? Not fucking likely.

  12. Thread Jack (same line of thought):
    Sharpen the pitch forks and heat up the tar. A future dictator needs to be run out of town in a personalized chicken suit.

    http://www.chron.com/disp/stor…..13022.html

    1. More people need to understand the concept of Nullification.

      http://www.amazon.com/Nullific…..=dudugo-20

      1. John Calhoun likes this.

  13. The US Willie Nelson Patrol?
    Nick Gillespie | November 27, 2010
    ———————
    sloopyinca|11.27.10 @ 11:38AM|#
    And Willie Nelson once more becomes a victim of the drug war. Will the IRS want the taxes on his purchased goods as well? We’ll have to wait and see.
    ————————–
    Cool story, Nick. Although it feels like deja vu to me.

  14. Amity Shlaes joins the security theater crowd,

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/….._qkIMkzC88

    and even takes a content free swipe at libertarians while she does so. I say content free because she reduces the arguments against the current regimen of rape searches and porno scanners to knee jerk sentiments. I guess a snap kick is a reaction to groping that has been drilled into me so to that extent her claim may be fair as most everyone hates to be touched without consent, but you know Amity, there are REASONs to oppose this beyond sentimental love of liberty. That it is not effective in terms of both cost and practice is just one. Even that is somewhat secondary. You do know that you don’t really need to be inside of a plane to take one down. Terrorist are fucking with us based on that security blanket of an expectation they have conditioned into us (and will use against us in their next major move) alone.

    Notice, they send guys they know who are unhinged incompetents to do these penny ante attempts (compared to the more expensive operations) to see how much shit gets stirred and how uncomfortable they can make us all feel. When they are ready to get serious again, after the CIA has trained enough of their next generation of recruits for them in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they’ll get us, and it will be something done in such a way a handsy asshole working for his fat pension in your local airport will not be in a position to prevent.

    My humble prediction, they’ll hack the tracking information in a air traffic control station and use it for targeting. Cruise missiles are now old technology, and for some irrational reason we never expect them to be used against us when every technology short of a nuclear bomb has been used against us so far.

    Meanwhile, no discomfort or humiliation is too much, nor any pretzel like bending of our right to be safe in our person and effects, is too much to keep of the charade of safety is too stave off the systemic collapse of federal authority when they lose the confidence of the entire public. That is what it is really about, right Amity?

    1. crap, hate it when editing leads to mistakes that were not in the original draft.

      Meanwhile, no discomfort or humiliation is too much, nor any pretzel like bending of our right to be safe in our person and effects, is too much to keep of the charade of safety is too stave off the systemic collapse of federal authority when they lose the confidence of the entire public. That is what it is really about, right Amity?

      Meanwhile, no discomfort or humiliation is too much, nor any pretzel like bending of our right to be safe in our person and in our effects, is too much to keep up the charade of safety when you are trying to stave off the systemic collapse of federal authority when they lose the confidence of the entire public. That is what it is really about, right Amity?

    2. I’m on your side of this issue for the most part, but calling the backscatter scans and pat downs “pornoscans and rape searches” is not going to position you as a rational voice in the debate.

      If the new security procedures are that bad, exaggeration isn’t necessary when arguing against them.

      1. What would you be charged with if you copped a feel according to TSA procedure guidelines?

        How little do we remember. It was not that long ago that TSA admitted that the scanners expose genitalia for their examination. For several months they denied it, and their lackeys in the media ridiculed those who made what is now known to be an accurate assessment of the scanner capabilities.

        I’m not making an exaggeration. Your sensibilities have not caught up to the new reality.

        1. Tulpa, as far as I’m concerned, “pornoscans and rape searches” is soft-pedaling. Why pussy around when critiquing abuses of government?

          1. Because it’s wrong to lie, and your opponents are going to call you out for being hysterical about it?

            There’s nothing effeminate about restricting yourself to telling the truth. If anything, it’s emotional exaggeration like that on display here that’s part of the stereotypical female behavior.

            1. 1. So, anyone who doesn’t calmly lay out boring “this is wrong” commentary is “female behavior”?

              2. Where is the “lie”?

              1. The lie is implying that the pat downs are akin to rape and the scans are pornographic. That wasn’t too hard now was it.

                1. Explanations for why you are wrong in all three instances (lie, porn, rape) provided in great detail below. The only thing left is for you to admit you are wrong and apologize.

                2. Well, Tulpa, I guess we should do it your way when we address the grievances of an overreaching government… in a Ben Stein kinda voice, which is hard to type out on a keyboard.

                3. Stop the first woman on the street you see. Grab her boobs, fondle them and stick your hands down her pants. Then come back and tell us what the DA has just charged you with. $100 says it will be attempted rape. Attempted rape is indeed akin to rape or it would be called attempted fried chicken, innit?

            2. I like when you’re the hysterical, effeminate, emotional stereotype-sexy baby

        2. What would you be charged with if you copped a feel according to TSA procedure guidelines?

          Sexual assault. Which is not rape.

          Also, nude photographs with no prurient context are not pornography. Indeed, the backscatter scan images aren’t even really nude photographs, as they don’t include facial features or much visual information about other body parts, beyond the vaguest outline. If anything, it’s close to a Renaissance-style nude sketch, where the artist is careful not to include any vaginas or pubic hair.

          1. Right, because those images won’t be viewed in any prurient context by those noble and professional TSA agents who only care about your security.

            1. When I was a kid I used to beat off to the JC Penney catalog. That doesn’t make it pornography.

              1. so did I

              2. And your point is, other than you can get off on some really lame shit?

          2. Good God, like ‘a Renaissance-style nude sketch’, how disingenuous. Show a little respect if not to me, to yourself. There has to be a part of you who would not accept such an asinine rationale. Even in your answer you admit the actions that the agents commit on people who are submitting under duress is sexual assault, but I’m the one exaggerating? If you must know, when I was in the legal business (paralegal which means I did all the research for any given case assigned to me), sexual assault and rape did not have distinct meanings beyond set classification — all rapes were a form of sexual assault but not all sexual assaults are rape. Here, you can see for yourself —

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault

            Sexual assault is an assault of a sexual nature on another person . . .

            While sexual assaults are associated with the crime of rape, it may cover assaults which would not be considered rape.[2] What constitutes a sexual assault is determined by the laws of the jurisdiction where the assault takes place, which vary considerably, and are influenced by local social and cultural attitudes.

            I remember the case of a guy who stuck his thumb up another guys bum without consent, much like a TSA officer (you mean you haven’t seen the videos of people flinching when hands get shoved up their asses?). What was the charge? Rape.

            I use that word rape here not just to be dramatic but because I’m familiar with the laws on the books to a greater extent than your average joe. To be completely honest, I set that up as a trap for you, so you would cop to what most people assume to be a lesser offense, but isn’t given the sort of definitional distinction they assume, so I could rail road you into joining the forces of good on this issue.

            Yes, indeed, sexual assault searches, just as our brother Tulpa defines them.

            1. Oh look, an anonymous person is claiming expertise on the Internet. Nice “trap”, by the way. It reminds me of the times one of my students catches a mistake I make on the chalkboard in class, and I tell them I was just testing to see if they were paying attention.

              Tell me, O paralegal one, was the guy in that case wearing clothes over his crack? It sounds like you’re talking about actual penetration of the anal cleft, which does not occur when you simply give someone a wedgie.

              sexual assault and rape did not have distinct meanings beyond set classification — all rapes were a form of sexual assault but not all sexual assaults are rape.

              Your second sentence contradicts the first (which is good, because the first is wrong). The fact that “lion” and “mammal” have a subset-superset relationship does not mean they fail to have distinct meanings.

              Please give an example of a jurisdiction where groping someone on the outside is prosecuted as rape, while you’re at it.

            2. And if you want to call them sexual assault searches, at least you’re getting closer to reality (though it’s not nearly as catchy and brain-shutting-off). Of course, to be consistent that means you need to start calling arrest warrants “kidnapping warrants” and parking tickets “extortion notices”.

              1. Oh, Tulpa. That must have been a real butt hurting for you because your ego is wobbling around punch drunk. You should have just folded, but being you, you had to make an ass out of yourself instead.

                In your previous post, you treated rape and sexual assault as separate matters. I clearly demonstrated that they are not as a matter of law and logic. Your attempt to salvage your dignity by making a spurious claim that I contradicted myself when I pointed out the flaw in your argument with both reference and argument makes you look silly. If the logic of your original argument is extended to your latter analogy, the tiger would not have been a mammal but a bird on a flight of fancy. just admit you were wrong, it will make you fill a whole lot better.

                BTW, who the Hell claims they were a paralegal without ever actually having been one? It is not exactly the most dignified job in the world, in fact, you are kind of a bitch, gofer and overworked research assistant rolled into one in that occupation. If I was taking advantage of the anonymity of the internet, I would have just claimed to be a lawyer. You’re paranoid.

                1. I clearly demonstrated that they are not as a matter of law and logic.

                  No, you asserted that they were the same thing. Assertion is not demonstration, let alone the clear kind. Anyone in the legal profession should know that distinction.

                  Murder is a form of assault, but when people speak of assault they are almost never talking about murder. Likewise with sexual assault; usually rape will be called rape.

                  I notice that you neglected to (a) fill in the details of your putative example of external touching being prosecuted as rape, and (b) identify a jurisdiction where groping is prosecuted as rape. Come now, put that legal expertise to work.

                  who the Hell claims they were a paralegal without ever actually having been one?

                  Someone who wants to be treated as a legal expert but doesn’t want to push it so far that their opponents question it. If you didn’t think being a paralegal carried any weight you wouldn’t have mentioned it.

                  1. I notice that you neglected to (a) fill in the details of your putative example of external touching being prosecuted as rape, and (b) identify a jurisdiction where groping is prosecuted as rape. Come now, put that legal expertise to work.

                    I ignored that because you were merely grasping to get your dignity back by trying to put me on the defensive. I took it from you fair and square by besting you in the parameters that were set as every thing needed to make a complete claim against your original assertion was provided in my link, so no, you can’t have it. To jump through your hoops at this point would only serve your interest, be they to get a second chance at an argument you lost and now you are attempting to get me to step beyond the limits of the argument as I clearly stated them previously for a cheap Aha! moment, or because you have a prurient interest in anal thumb assertions, but do nothing to serve mine though no doubt you have a naive faith in the legal system if you think there is a real difference between third degree rape and a simple sexual assault charge when prosecutorial zeal is on display, as in my example. Mmm, sweet dignity, so tasty.

                    BTW, with out even having to find you case law without being paid a dime to do so, ask your self this, is there an example where simple assault, groping is considered rape? Yes. Does it occur in airports every day? Yes. Don’t be too quick this time, sunshine.

                    1. The only specific discussion of difference/similarity from the link you provided:

                      The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network defines “sexual assault” as

                      unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape or attempted rape. This includes sexual touching and fondling.

                      which backs up my interpretation of the term. So, try harder.

                    2. The only problem here is your limited level of reading comprehension. From the link I provided earlier.

                      While sexual assaults are associated with the crime of rape, it may cover assaults which would not be considered rape.[2] What constitutes a sexual assault is determined by the laws of the jurisdiction where the assault takes place, which vary considerably, and are influenced by local social and cultural attitudes.

                      Your interpretation does not give you the discretion to pick and choose as does the position I carefully devised. If even one part of that link contradicts your argument you need to admit to error.

                    3. By the way, I’m still only playing around with you like you are a mere toy for my amusement as I will now prove, remember my earlier post —

                      Even in your answer you admit the actions that the agents commit on people who are submitting under duress is sexual assault

                      Did you notice that I emphasized under duress? Did it occur to you that I may have done it so I could bring out a trump card to nail your ass later? You didn’t even bother to check out the connections between sexual assault, rape and duress did you? No, you assumed the mighty Tulpa can put all those loser libertarians in their places without putting any effort in it. I even gave you a warning in that post, and you did not bother to check it out.

                      I never debate someone for this length of time unless I planned from the beginning to totally fuck them over.

                      Here is you fucked over in triplicate.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

                      Duress may be actual or threatened force or violence against the victim or somebody else close to the victim. Even blackmail may constitute duress. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in its landmark 1998 judgment used a definition of rape which did not use the word ‘consent’: “a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive.”[17]

                      A physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive, or what I like to refer to as rape searches.

                    4. Dude, are you like 14? You sure as hell act like it. You must have been a paralegal for a junior high mock trial (great fun, by the way — I got to play Lewis Payne and act retarded and constipated).

                      Just keep talking. I’m not one to launch ad hominem attacks, but boy, it’s hard to take your position seriously after reading a few of your posts claiming victory and explaining how ingenious your plan for besting an opponent in a blog comment section was.

                    5. Oh, the irony burns. Go ahead, delude yourself. It was the immaturity, the ornery bull headiness, on display in your previous post earlier in the day that made me decide you needed to be taught a lesson.

                      I warned you where you were headed if you didn’t back down and admit error from the start, and I reminded you in most every post after that. At this point, to not gloat at the full collapse of your argument against the fair and rational description of TSA practice as rape searches (done in order to put their appalling behavior in perspective) would be much like your support of rape searches and porno scans, inhuman and indecent.

                      You support the indecent practice that you earlier conceded are sexual assault searches, you condone them, but I am the one that is being immature?

                      I admit to using certain techniques to get under your skin due to the fact you deserved no less, but let us keep it in perspective, shall we?

                      I at least deserve my own ewok luau after putting up with you for the entire evening. You would try to deny me that? And you call yourself a gentleman?

                    6. Alan, please be careful with little Tulpa. He masturbates to mail-order catalogues from JC Penny and your discourse may force him to break out the Sears catalogue.

          3. Sexual assault. Which is not rape.

            Um.. what?

    3. Science H Logic, what an idiot. According to her, we’re idiots for not falling to our knees and doing whatever our masters require. The way she falsely draws Hayek to her side is especially infuriating. Also, I’m pretty sure she’s on Hillary Clinton’s payroll.

  15. Willie’s a good guy and all, but that bullshit theater “Farm Aid” crap makes it really hard for me to take him seriously.

    And the BORDER PATROL should be patrolling the border.

    1. Yes they should…. and able to secure it, as well….

  16. calling the backscatter scans and pat downs “pornoscans and rape searches” is not going to position you as a rational voice in the debate.

    But brandishing a handgun in response to a snowball is perfectly reasonable.

    1. To paraphrase Burk, the law cannot expect dispassionate reflection in the presence of an upraised snowball.

      1. To paraphrase deform Burk, the law cannot expect dispassionate reflection in the presence of an upraised snowball.

        FIFY

      2. I laughed. Was that the proper response?

        1. It was if you’re a fair-weather libertarian who doesn’t care about self-defense and property rights.

          1. …something about a gun being drawn at that snowball incident…

  17. Juanita|2.18.09 @ 10:13AM|#
    How exactly is he to repay his debt to society if he doesn’t do at least some prison time? I think he should be required to make a series of PSAs about how marijuana ruined his life. This is only fitting since he is expected to be a role model.

  18. Why do people care about this? Hey, Juanita, why should he act like MJ “ruined his life”? I suppose you’re a perfect example of how to live

    1. Juanita|11.1.07 @ 9:45AM|#
      This is really just about the govenment protecting people from bad state laws.

  19. If anything, it’s close to a Renaissance-style nude sketch, where the artist is careful not to include any vaginas or pubic hair.

    Just exactly like that. And the “models” are “compensated” by being permitted to board an airplane.

    Good grief.

    1. Human subtlety will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature because in her inventions nothing is lacking, and nothing is superfluous.

  20. I believe it was jefferson that said, “when confronted by an unfair law, the only patriotic thing to do is disobey”

  21. The stoopid here rivals YouTube commentary.

    1. Nothing here rivals You Tube Commentary. Eva

      1. YouTube commentary on Prop. 19:

        SirWinstonChurchill: NOBODY TRUST THESE PROP. 19 FASCISTS…They want use? their fascist police thugs to take money away from you for growing pot and give it to their corporate puppeteers.

        sojjuro: i f ing hate california. there are more potheads in california than anywhere i have ever been and they are to selfish to do what is best for the whole of society.

        SpartanJon1337: You obey or you pay? You know, you and Hitler have a lot in common. I’m sure you guys would be great friends.

        GuitarGuy2010: go fuck yourself you? are a stupid dumb ass nothing you say is correct. you have no studies to back up what you say. please go educate yourself

        MrRepublicanpatriot: dope is grass moron. you smoke so much of it you don’t know what its called. i was working to bust every doper i see before your parents even fucked so don’t tell me shit, junior.

        vaasnaad: Okay here’s a good question for you. If marijuana dumbs down people, why is it clear that a non-smoker like yourself? lacks about 75 IQ points in comparison to even the most retarded stoner in this forum?

        H&R Commentary on Willie Nelson’s drug bust:

        Hypothetical: If a law were passed requiring you to punch a random stranger once a day… would you comply?

        J sub D: Do you buff the cop’s boots after licking them?

        Marcos El Malo: You’re an example of why children shouldn’t be allowed to read Ayn Rand, other than the True Classic’s Illustrated version.

        Kreel Sarloo: Boy howdy, your reading comprehension skills suck. how does a moron like you even function

        Tulpa’s boyfriend: I like when you’re the hysterical, effeminate, emotional stereotype-sexy baby

        alan: Oh, Tulpa. That must have been a real butt hurting for you because your ego is wobbling around punch drunk.

        the right does it too: Alan, please be careful with little Tulpa. He masturbates to mail-order catalogues from JC Penny

        1. It’s like running a day care center, except I’m not getting paid. Of course, I’m also not opening myself up to accusations of satanic child molestation either, so it all balances out.

  22. The border itself is a two-dimensional surface with no thickness going up from the ground, so restricting border searches to the border itself is going to make border searches impossible, since human movement (necessary for searches) requires three dimensions. Thus, there needs to be a set distance from the border within which border-style searches are permitted.

    Now, 100 miles is way too much. I’m thinking something like 5 miles would be appropriate.

    1. So Tulpa, I’ve been doing some reading since you pointed out the 100 mile info above (thanks, BTW) and have a question. Given that airports with international flights are treated as borders for the purposes of jurisdiction of ICE or CBP or whatever they are calling themselves, does that mean they have a 100 mile radius of operation from any domestic airport with international arrivals?

      1. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t say for sure. That’s a good question though.

        There was an H&R post about a year ago about this that included a map purporting to show where the 100 mile limit was…and the map treated the shore of Lake Michigan as an international border, which I thought was strange since it’s surrounded by US territory, and the water border with Canada does not pass through Lake Michigan at all. So, there are a lot of unanswered questions.

        1. Might as well extend the search parameters to “indefinite”, if we’re going to put an arbitrary 100-mile limit… why not? Let’s just give the Almighty FedGov power over all ground within the continental U.S. and its territories.

          1. Oops, forgot the /snark closure.

        2. Huh? You could easily drive a boat from Ontario to any point on Lake Michigan.

          For that matter, you’d have to include 100 miles inland from Lake Superior too.

          1. I would think that the Coast Guard would intercept anyone trying to do that.

            1. You must think the CG is one lucky bunch of bastards then.


              Sector Lake Michigan’s missions are accomplished by a dedicated workforce of 510 Active Duty, 225 Reserve, and 15 civilian personnel. The Sector’s vessel inventory includes 55 boats: 5 47′ Motor Lifeboats; 8 41′ Utility Boats; 1 45′ Response Boat – Medium; 19 25′ Response Boat – Small; 1 49′ BUSL; 3 21’/23′ TANBs; and 5 NSBs; plus 12 ice skiffs and an airboat.

              Yes that is 55 vessels to patrol 22,300 square miles of lake surface. That means every craft has to patrol a 20x20mile sector. And that is including the ice skiffs and the airboat. The sector grows to 26×26 if you drop those vessels.

              1. The vessel info came from here.

        3. Here’s the map, courtesy of the ACLU.

          The argument for Lake Michigan’s inclusion is that we’re talking about land and coastal borders, as checkpoints in the middle of the lake are unreasonable. I think that’s the right interpretation. Regardless, that’s extremely wide latitude for 4th Amendment exceptions.

          And here they are abusing that arbitrary power.

          1. They could have a checkpoint at the Straits of Mackinac. I mean, checkpoints in the middle of the Mississippi are unreasonable, but that doesn’t mean we consider St Louis to be a coastal city.

            1. I think they are worried about Canadians landing on the south shore of superior, carrying their boats across the UP and then relaunching in Lake Michigan. That is the only reason the checkpoint at Mackinac wouldnt work.

              Now the east coast of Michigan, that is wide open.

              1. I used to know a guy who was involved in a maple syrup and pharmaceutical smuggling ring. Said he barely escaped with his life after being chased down by a Coast Guard TANB on a Viagra run to Alpena.

                From what I hear they’re shifting their business to smuggling Four Loko now.

          2. Think of the percentage of the US population that lives in that border zone.

            1. Bah. Effete urban liberals.

    2. Im thinking the checkpoint should touch the border.

      They may need a few hundred or even a thousand feet.

      5 miles is WAY too much.

  23. I came for the Pancho and Lefty references, I leave disappointed.

  24. Willie Nelson only smokes killer weed

    And of course he’s a hero, Tulpa, you gaseous killjoy.

  25. Fuck off Tulpa, you pedantic piece of shit.

  26. Threads like this prove that so-called “libertarians” aren’t any smarter than the kids on the far-left blogs. Both resort to adolescent name-calling, obscenities, clique alliances, a vast array of logical fallacies…it’s like they’ve permanently atrophied, emotionally and intellectually, at an eighth-grade level. It would be shocking and sad if it really mattered, but it doesn’t. It’s just bored pseudo-intellectuals playing silly word games to kill time and evade reality.

    1. Well said, and spot on!

    2. The only people who aren’t evading reality are hedonists and suicides. The rest of us need some measure of self-delusion to get through this three billion year old joke played upon us by our DNA, otherwise known as life.

      1. Poor fellow, a stranger and afraid, in a world you never made.

        1. Little is the luck I’ve had,
          And oh, ’tis comfort small
          To think that many another lad
          Has had no luck at all.

    3. Yes, but it is fun to watch.

    4. But you do plan to make a donation anyway, right?

    5. Poor old fuck is ranting to ‘get off his lawn!’ when he isn’t even on his own lawn. Sad.

      1. A true hero does not only care about his own lawn.

        1. your heros are martyrs that died for someone else’s beliefs.

          1. From time to time the lawn of liberty must be watered with the blood of heroes.

            1. GET OFF MY LAWN!!

    6. And your point is?

    7. That was deep. You know what most observers are? People hiding behind a facade of intellectual superiority too scared to step into the fray.

      Ya, I called you a snobby pussy.

      1. too scared to step into the fray

        I’m not “scared” to step in dog shit. It simply makes more sense to walk around it.

        1. Like I said. All talk, and snip and no show.

          Put up or get mocked. You seem to have an affinity for reading “dog shit.” But think yourself to high and mighty to actually counter any of the points. Instead you toss out some absurd ad hom about and act superior.

          For fuck’s sake man that’s not even a good troll.

          1. Irony is two anonymous posters have a bitch-slap incognito contest

            1. Is that truly ironic?

              1. It is for posters who use their name or contact info.

          2. Put up or get mocked

            Oh, heavens. Mocked by adolescents! I couldn’t bear that.

            1. Observer|11.28.10 @ 8:51PM|#

              Put up or get mocked

              Oh, heavens. Mocked by adolescents! I couldn’t bear that.

              ‘Maturity’, the last refuge of the undeserving and deluded untermensh.

              1. Oh my! Now I’m being “mocked” by intellectual adolescents pretending to be dead German philosophers! How will I ever live this down?

                1. yawn.

                  Your affectations are banality squared.

                  I would pity you if pity were not high sin.

    8. Threads like this prove that so-called “libertarians” aren’t any smarter than the kids on the far-left blogs. Both resort to adolescent name-calling, obscenities, clique alliances, a vast array of logical fallacies…

      then

      it’s like they’ve permanently atrophied, emotionally and intellectually, at an eighth-grade level. It would be shocking and sad if it really mattered, but it doesn’t. It’s just bored pseudo-intellectuals playing silly word games to kill time and evade reality.

      So, if I read this correctly, you’re no better than these intellectually atrophied pseudo-intellectuals, since you’ve engaged in the very same adolescent name-calling.

      1. It’s not name-calling if you use big words.

        1. Or if it’s true.

  27. We need to legalize marijuana a lot faster, cause what I really want to legalize is LSD.

  28. Fuck you Gillespe. Go butt fuck Radley Balko’s scary looking, freckly, hairy butthole

    1. How do you know what Balko’s but hole looks like?

      Just curious.

    2. He’s got freckles on his butt he is nice.

  29. Hello. My friend

    === http://www.aeooe.com ===

    Dedicated service, the new style, so you feel like a warm autumn!!!

    WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

    YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

    thank you !!!

    === http://www.aeooe.com ===

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.