08-20-2010, 11:06 AM
My understanding of Bob's position (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that up until now, passing a "low-priority ordinance" and crying wolf every time there's a copter in the sky has been, and will continue to be, counterproductive to the cause. The approach to date has been fueled by emotion, not sound strategies.
Bob and I don't always see eye to eye, and I believe his (sometimes) harsh approach pushes some folks buttons to the point that they don't want to listen to him. That said, I respect Bob's knowledge and the way he thinks through issues. What I believe he brings to the table is a combination of expertise in the law and the kind of strategic thinking needed to get the desired result (=keeping the peace-shattering copters away from innocent folks).
It's worth mentioning that the peaceful skies initiative had a strong presence years ago on this forum. I'll go on record here and say that although I agree with their objectives, I believe their strategies were flawed and naive. Well, Bob, with his charming, hyperbolic, sarcastic on-line persona, offered lots of great advice that fell on deaf ears. No one wanted to hear what he was saying but they should have listened; he was trying to help them think like the opposition so they could formulate a more effective approach to realizing their objectives. Now the law of unintended consequences is kicking in and the copters have come back with a vengeance. So I can only guess that Bob is gloating a bit, a natural human reaction when folks don't listen to sound advice.
That said, why haven't any Green Harvest supporters addressed the legality of our government presuming we're all guilty?
Are we not allowed to have a reasonable amount of privacy? (The answer is obviously no, but IN PRINCIPLE, shouldn't we?)
Why haven't any pro-Green Harvest folks addressed the issue of spending all this money while the state and country go broke? Do they really believe that the impossible task of eradicating a weed is more important than the huge problems our country and communities face? Certain right-leaning fiscal conservatives would have us believe that nationalized healthcare is a waste of money but not helicopters terrorizing innocent people. For what? A friggin' weed. Sorry folks, those are really screwy priorities no matter how you lean politically. (Disclosure: I'm FISCALLY conservative.)
These issues, in my mind, are much more important than whether or not a copter can sniff out pot plants. Seems to me the hardcore haters of pot are so blinded by their convictions that they avoid discussing--I don't mean yelling or making snarky comments toward those who don't agree with you--but really discussing the issues as mature adults. Based on this thread alone, I'm not confident we'll ever have this discussion.
Bob and I don't always see eye to eye, and I believe his (sometimes) harsh approach pushes some folks buttons to the point that they don't want to listen to him. That said, I respect Bob's knowledge and the way he thinks through issues. What I believe he brings to the table is a combination of expertise in the law and the kind of strategic thinking needed to get the desired result (=keeping the peace-shattering copters away from innocent folks).
It's worth mentioning that the peaceful skies initiative had a strong presence years ago on this forum. I'll go on record here and say that although I agree with their objectives, I believe their strategies were flawed and naive. Well, Bob, with his charming, hyperbolic, sarcastic on-line persona, offered lots of great advice that fell on deaf ears. No one wanted to hear what he was saying but they should have listened; he was trying to help them think like the opposition so they could formulate a more effective approach to realizing their objectives. Now the law of unintended consequences is kicking in and the copters have come back with a vengeance. So I can only guess that Bob is gloating a bit, a natural human reaction when folks don't listen to sound advice.
That said, why haven't any Green Harvest supporters addressed the legality of our government presuming we're all guilty?
Are we not allowed to have a reasonable amount of privacy? (The answer is obviously no, but IN PRINCIPLE, shouldn't we?)
Why haven't any pro-Green Harvest folks addressed the issue of spending all this money while the state and country go broke? Do they really believe that the impossible task of eradicating a weed is more important than the huge problems our country and communities face? Certain right-leaning fiscal conservatives would have us believe that nationalized healthcare is a waste of money but not helicopters terrorizing innocent people. For what? A friggin' weed. Sorry folks, those are really screwy priorities no matter how you lean politically. (Disclosure: I'm FISCALLY conservative.)
These issues, in my mind, are much more important than whether or not a copter can sniff out pot plants. Seems to me the hardcore haters of pot are so blinded by their convictions that they avoid discussing--I don't mean yelling or making snarky comments toward those who don't agree with you--but really discussing the issues as mature adults. Based on this thread alone, I'm not confident we'll ever have this discussion.
Tim
A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions--Confucius
A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions--Confucius