Man Gets 55 Years for Selling Pot!!!

[Fantasea]

To answer each statement individually:

1) They're homeless BECAUSE drugs are illegal. If drugs were legal, and thus a sane price, people could afford to maintain their habit with honest work just like smokers and drinkers maintain their habits.

2) Once again, stealing to support a habit wouldn't be an issue if drugs were sanely priced and legal. Also, if there is absenteeism then the employer can go ahead and fire the person for being stupid.

3) Another one with the money issue. If drugs were legal the teenager could get a part time job to get enough cash to support their habit.

4) If you decide to take your SATs while high, that is your choice to do so. I believe we are supposed to live in a world of CONSEQUENCES for our actions. If someone decides to be high while taking SATs, it's themselves they are hurting, not anyone else.

5) Peer pressure will always exist. It's still your own choice whether or not to light up.

6) Now your saying the government should be interfering with our marital affairs? Divorces happen all the time. Why should someone have to hide their affinity for drugs? It's who they are, and if the spouse can't accept it that's their own problem.

7) With all the restrictions forced on government to the unemployed, including the pitiful welfare system, people are unable to get back on their feet. Also, this again is with the money issue of how legal drugs would be affordable.

8 ) So what? They go to jail for crashing their car. Under your same logic here we could prohibit any and all forms of food, drink, and communication used while driving because it also impairs the driver's awareness. The point is people should go to jail for what they've done to others (such as car crashing) not what they've done to themselves (cell phone, drugs, coffee). Also consider that 6 out of 10 people in jail are in for NONVIOLENT drug crimes. This means they've done nothing to anyone but are wasting valuable jail space instead.

9) Once again the issue with money.

10) If drugs were legal, I'm sure the companies would put labels like "may cause harm to you" or "sideffects: loss of awareness, possible death" to prevent people from suing them over hurting themselves. Through awareness programs people are informed about what drugs do to them.

11) A step you choose to take. People are aware of what drugs can do. It's their decision whether the risks are worth the benefits of feeling 'high'.

If I came to your house and forced you to give up coffee at gunpoint, how would you feel? Wouldn't you wonder why I get to choose for you? How is it any different then when the government comes to your house at gunpoint arresting you for possessing drugs? Plenty of things in life are dangerous, and people always have the right to choose the less dangerous way out. Whether they make that decision is their own choice.



No, it's the duty of government to protect its citizens from violation of their natural rights. Harm is included in this, in the way of harm from others. Harming yourself is in no way unconstitutional. Drug use is an example of harming yourself.

If you're suggesting that we go 'Dutch Treat', perhaps there are a few things with respect to legalized drugs in the Netherlands of which you may not be aware.

A few words spoken in Congress:


HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON
in the House of Representatives
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1995

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring attention to the truth
about proposed legalization-decriminalization policies. Members have
recently heard from the CATO Institute announcing a policy forum
questioning the usefulness of continuing `the unwinnable war' on drugs.
This forum is clearly just a thinly-veiled attempt to legitimize CATO's
own prolegalization position.

However, what CATO refuses to publicly acknowledge are the devastating
results of legalization-decriminalization policy, as evidenced in the
Netherlands, where such a policy has been in place since the early
1980's. The president of the Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention,
K.F. Gunning, M.D., reports that crime and drug use have skyrocketed
since the implementation of legalization in the Netherlands. According to
the Dutch Government, their legalization-decriminalization has resulted
in: A 250-percent increase in drug use since 1993; a doubling of
marijuana use by students since 1988; armed robberies up by 70
percent; shootings up by 40 percent; car thefts up by 60 percent.

The number of registered addicts in the Netherlands has risen 22 percent
in the past 5 years, and there were 25,000 new addicts in 1993 alone. In
addition, the number of organized crime groups in the Netherlands has
increased from 3 in 1988 to 93 in 1993. For good reason, the American
public has zero tolerance for legalization schemes.

Mr. Speaker, drug legalization has clearly been a disastrous mistake for
the Netherlands. If organizations like CATO achieve their goals, drug
legalization will worsen the crime and drug problem in America as well.

 

[Gabo]

Then again why don't you look at Canada? They do fine with legal drugs.

Crime only grows when there isn't proper enforcement of laws.

 

[argexpat]

I don't know. From all you write, it seems that quite a few people have died as a result of activities involving marijuana.

Because it's illegal...do I really have to explain the black market to you? There would never have been an Al Capone without prohibition.

 

[argexpat]

If you're suggesting that we go 'Dutch Treat', perhaps there are a few things with respect to legalized drugs in the Netherlands of which you may not be aware.

A few words spoken in Congress:


HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON
in the House of Representatives
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1995

Solomon uses many words to express an opinion. He says he doesn't think it will work.

With fewer words, I now express an opinion, "I disagree. I think it will work."

What now?

 

[Fantasea]

Solomon uses many words to express an opinion. He says he doesn't think it will work.

With fewer words, I now express an opinion, "I disagree. I think it will work."

What now?

The congressman did not say, "I think." He presented documented proof of the shambles of misery and crime that is suffered in a country that caved in to pressure from those who claimed that drugs are harmless.

Having no way to refute the facts, you found yourself confronted with the classic choice; either stand tall and admit defeat, or skulk away.

Those who read your words will know the choice you made.

 

[Gabo]

Taking drugs does not harm anyone but yourself (except second hand smoke which is a different issue).

The reason countries fail to survive when drugs are legal is a flaw in their JUSTICE system. If someone crashes their car, they should be punished for it. Increasing crime rates only have to do with how much control the justice system has. If police weren't so busy snooping around for people that are "dangerous" because they use drugs and for gangs that fight consistently over the drug market, they'd have more time to catch the real criminals: people who crash cars, rape women, and shoot people.

Besides, the jails would actually have enough room to hold real criminal offenders if the countless of innocent drug users are allowed to resume their regular lives.

Here in the USA, we have a massive and convincing police force, yet tons of their expertise is wasted chasing people for hurting themselves. The police are not the baby patrol, they're law enforcers. Their job is to arrest the people that HURT OTHERS, which they already do fine at but would do better without stupid cat and mouse games.

 

[Fantasea]

Taking drugs does not harm anyone but yourself (except second hand smoke which is a different issue).

The reason countries fail to survive when drugs are legal is a flaw in their JUSTICE system. If someone crashes their car, they should be punished for it. Increasing crime rates only have to do with how much control the justice system has. If police weren't so busy snooping around for people that are "dangerous" because they use drugs and for gangs that fight consistently over the drug market, they'd have more time to catch the real criminals: people who crash cars, rape women, and shoot people.

Besides, the jails would actually have enough room to hold real criminal offenders if the countless of innocent drug users are allowed to resume their regular lives.

Here in the USA, we have a massive and convincing police force, yet tons of their expertise is wasted chasing people for hurting themselves. The police are not the baby patrol, they're law enforcers. Their job is to arrest the people that HURT OTHERS, which they already do fine at but would do better without stupid cat and mouse games.

Why not review the following list and tell us which items would be improved by the legalizing of drugs which would lower the cost, improve the distribution system, and make them far easier to get and accessible to far more people of all ages, including minors than they are now.

As you know, tobacco and alcohol are not legally available to minors. However, we all know there are millions of teen aged smokers and alcoholics, don't we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Consider the homeless who are that way because their habit consumed all of their assets and has rendered them unemployable.

Consider the businesses that suffer losses due to absenteeism, employee pilferage, shoplifting, etc. either to support, or because of, a habit. These losses have to be recouped by increasing the prices that consumers must pay for the goods or services.

Consider adolescents who can't finish high school because they have to get a job flipping hamburgers to afford their alternative 'high'.

Consider the high school graduates who can't get into a college because they couldn't get their SATs as high as they were at the time.

Consider those who succumb to the peer pressure of their new found friends in freshman year to light up together. Not only do they flunk out together, but they have a student loan upon which they will probably default.

Consider the marriages that go bust because one spouse can't put up with a habit of the other.

Consider the hungry kids whose food money, either earned or welfare, is used to feed a habit of either or both parents.

Consider that of the fifty thousand highway fatalities each year, half the drivers are found to have been intoxicated on something.

Consider the aged parents whose retirement nest eggs are stolen or begged away to support a habit of their children.

Consider the numerous prominent names who owe an untimely demise to something that wasn't supposed to hurt them.

The argument that pot doesn't hurt anyone ignores the fact that it is often the first step down the slippery slope.

If you can't see the victims in the few groups described above, it is because you don't wish to.

Every taxpayer is a victim, too, because of the direct burden placed upon the health care system by the user and those victimized by the user.

 

[argexpat]

The congressman did not say, "I think." He presented documented proof of the shambles of misery and crime that is suffered in a country that caved in to pressure from those who claimed that drugs are harmless.

Having no way to refute the facts, you found yourself confronted with the classic choice; either stand tall and admit defeat, or skulk away.

Those who read your words will know the choice you made.

Please tell me you recognize my "response":

"Solomon uses many words to express an opinion. He says he doesn't think it will work. With fewer words, I now express an opinion, 'I disagree. I think it will work.' What now?"

...as your reply, verbatim, to Paul Krugman's critique of the social security privitization scam? All I can say is...

"Having no way to refute the facts, you found yourself confronted with the classic choice; either stand tall and admit defeat, or skulk away. Those who read your words will know the choice you made."

 

[Fantasea]

Please tell me you recognize my "response":

"Solomon uses many words to express an opinion. He says he doesn't think it will work. With fewer words, I now express an opinion, 'I disagree. I think it will work.' What now?"

...as your reply, verbatim, to Paul Krugman's critique of the social security privitization scam? All I can say is...

"Having no way to refute the facts, you found yourself confronted with the classic choice; either stand tall and admit defeat, or skulk away. Those who read your words will know the choice you made."

So, what you are doing is ignoring my challenge to state which, if any, of my contentions will be improved by legalizing drugs. Right?

In reality, you are saying, I want what I want because I want it, and I want it now.

Most readers, myself included, would find it difficult, if not impossible to detect even a modicum of logic in the indefensible position you propound.

 

[out of the blue]

HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON
in the House of Representatives
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1995
<snip>
However, what CATO refuses to publicly acknowledge are the devastating
results of legalization-decriminalization policy, as evidenced in the
Netherlands, where such a policy has been in place since the early
1980's. The president of the Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention,
K.F. Gunning, M.D., reports that crime and drug use have skyrocketed
since the implementation of legalization in the Netherlands. According to
the Dutch Government, their legalization-decriminalization has resulted
in: A 250-percent increase in drug use since 1993; a doubling of
marijuana use by students since 1988; armed robberies up by 70
percent; shootings up by 40 percent; car thefts up by 60 percent.

The number of registered addicts in the Netherlands has risen 22 percent
in the past 5 years, and there were 25,000 new addicts in 1993 alone. In
addition, the number of organized crime groups in the Netherlands has
increased from 3 in 1988 to 93 in 1993. For good reason, the American public has zero tolerance for legalization schemes.
<snip>

1. Of course drug use has skyrocketed -- it's legal! But I'll go one step further. I will suggest that drug use hasn't actually skyrocketed. I'm going to suggest that people are simply more willing to admit to using drugs since their legalization. As for other types of crimes, that has to do with resource allocation.

2. Of course the number of registered addicts has risen -- it's legal! Who would want to register as a drug addict knowing that drugs are illegal and that they'd be setting themselves up as a target for the police?

3. Zero tolerance for legalization schemes? Hardly. I for one have never smoked marijuana, snorted cocaine, injected meth or used any other illegal drug. BUT, I believe the time has come for us to re-think our policies, particularly toward marujuana. A great, many non-pot-smoking, clear-thinking Americans agree with me.

If marijuana was legalized today, there would be an adjustment period that could last a decade or two. There would be an initial jump in pot use, followed by a leveling off and then a slight decline.

Law enforcement and the courts would take some time to react to the new realities. They would have to re-tool and redirect their resources to other areas. Jails would be less crowded because we would stop putting people in jail for marijuana offenses. Government coffers at all levels would be a little more full because they would save money by not chasing pot-heads and they would see new revenue via marijuana taxation.

New jobs would be created. Marijuana legalization would open the door for massive industrial hemp operations. Industrial hemp could prove to be a boon for the environment, as fewer trees would have to be cut to produce paper.

Marijuana legalization would open the door for cancer patients to relieve their symptoms without having to deal with the criminal element and without having to worry about being arrested.

Admittedly, legalizing marijuana will create a few new problems. But those problems would be nothing when compared to the number of lives and dollars that are ruined and wasted because of pot's illegal status.

 

[Gabo]

Why not review the following list and tell us which items would be improved by the legalizing of drugs

I already did quite a few posts back. I labelled each item in order, with a reason as well.

which would lower the cost, improve the distribution system, and make them far easier to get and accessible to far more people of all ages

What is the point here? That's like saying the legalization of candy makes it more available and cheaper. It makes no difference if its more available and cheaper.


Drugs are not a crime. Actions that violate another person's rights are crimes. If you think not enough "influenced" drivers are being convicted, don't look at the diet of the person, look at the flawed justice system. Each and every person that violates another person's rights should have to compensate for that loss.

 

[argexpat]

So, what you are doing is ignoring my challenge to state which, if any, of my contentions will be improved by legalizing drugs. Right?

In reality, you are saying, I want what I want because I want it, and I want it now.

Most readers, myself included, would find it difficult, if not impossible to detect even a modicum of logic in the indefensible position you propound.

What is it about "marijuana should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco" that you don't understand?

(FYI Presuming to speak for "most readers" is a one way ticket to pompousville.)

 

[Fantasea]

QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
So, what you are doing is ignoring my challenge to state which, if any, of my contentions will be improved by legalizing drugs. Right?

In reality, you are saying, I want what I want because I want it, and I want it now.

Most readers, myself included, would find it difficult, if not impossible to detect even a modicum of logic in the indefensible position you propound.

What is it about "marijuana should be legal just like alcohol and tobacco" that you don't understand?

I'll tell you what I do understand about all three. The insidious nature of all three lead to mental and physical health conditions that are responsible for the premature death of millions only after they have cost the public at large a tremendous amount of money spent on health care trying to prolong their lives. Add to this the fact that their final years are usually spent in misery and agony, not only for themselves, but for any family members that may have an attachment to them.

(FYI Presuming to speak for "most readers" is a one way ticket to pompousville.)

Pompousville is a wonderful place. It is warm, cozy, and inhabited by persons who are intelligent, knowledgeable, and filled with concern about their fellow man. They spend much of their time and effort attempting to clear away the cobwebs and faulty logic that infests and infects so many minds. Sometimes their enthusiasm gives a mistaken impression. However, at heart, they are truly unpretentious, humble, modest, and most of all unassuming

Why not choose it as your next vacation destination? A good dose of fresh air, water, and, especially, ideas will do you a world of good. C'mon down.

 

[Hoot]

Pompousville is a wonderful place. It is warm, cozy, and inhabited by persons who are intelligent, knowledgeable, and filled with concern about their fellow man. They spend much of their time and effort attempting to clear away the cobwebs and faulty logic that infests and infects so many minds. Sometimes their enthusiasm gives a mistaken impression. However, at heart, they are truly unpretentious, humble, modest, and most of all unassuming

Why not choose it as your next vacation destination? A good dose of fresh air, water, and, especially, ideas will do you a world of good. C'mon down.[/QUOTE]

Pretty good, Fantasea...LOL.

The trouble with Pompousville is...no one wants to talk to you!

Or anyone else for that matter.

They're all above that.

Gets boring after a while.

So, just to give you a thrill, and show you I'm not a bad guy...

I applaud Bush for finally expressing regret over certain statements made in his first administration....such as..."Bring it on."

I'm on the edge of my seat! This is close to admitting he made a mistake! LOL

Hoot

 

[Fantasea]

]Pompousville is a wonderful place. It is warm, cozy, and inhabited by persons who are intelligent, knowledgeable, and filled with concern about their fellow man. They spend much of their time and effort attempting to clear away the cobwebs and faulty logic that infests and infects so many minds. Sometimes their enthusiasm gives a mistaken impression. However, at heart, they are truly unpretentious, humble, modest, and most of all unassuming

Why not choose it as your next vacation destination? A good dose of fresh air, water, and, especially, ideas will do you a world of good. C'mon down.

Pretty good, Fantasea...LOL.

The trouble with Pompousville is...no one wants to talk to you!

Or anyone else for that matter.

They're all above that.

Gets boring after a while.

The only time someone in this forum stops talking is when they have nothing left to say.

So, just to give you a thrill, and show you I'm not a bad guy...

I applaud Bush for finally expressing regret over certain statements made in his first administration....such as..."Bring it on."

I'm on the edge of my seat! This is close to admitting he made a mistake! LOL

Hoot

Carefull there. Folks who have slipped off the edge of a seat have been known to suffer brain damage.

In the matter of the president, I'm glad he decided to throw a bone to the press. They've been salivating for so long looking for a juicy story. I guess he's starting to feel sorry for them.

But, that's the soft-hearted sheriff. Always looking out for the underdogs. Even after the way they pounced on that CBS/Dan Rather mis-adventure, he won't hold hard feelings.

Since there's no longer anything they can do to try to keep him from being reelected, I wonder how long it will be until they start referring to GWB as a lame duck?

 

[Gabo]

Pompousville is a wonderful place. It is warm, cozy, and inhabited by persons who are intelligent, knowledgeable, and filled with concern about their fellow man. They spend much of their time and effort attempting to clear away the cobwebs and faulty logic that infests and infects so many minds. Sometimes their enthusiasm gives a mistaken impression. However, at heart, they are truly unpretentious, humble, modest, and most of all unassuming

People that have "concern for their fellow man" are essentially people that want to forcefully make people behave kindly. Using force to make someone else not use force never works, but ends up in retaliation. By saying you want to help all people, you're saying you want to control all people.

I wouldn't consider you humble and modest since you want to force the nation to conform to your standards. By forcing the people of our nation to do anything, you will not get a positive response. You will either get anger or resentment.

 

[Fantasea]

People that have "concern for their fellow man" are essentially people that want to forcefully make people behave kindly.

We claim to be intelligent people who have respect for others and for their rights. Right?

If this is so, then why should it be necessary to 'forcefully make people behave kindly'?

Using force to make someone else not use force never works, but ends up in retaliation. By saying you want to help all people, you're saying you want to control all people.

The use of force to counter undesirable behavior is the responsibility of government. I have no power to force anyone to do anything.

My help can only be in the form of advice, counsel, instruction, and the like, which one is free to accept or reject.

I wouldn't consider you humble and modest since you want to force the nation to conform to your standards.

You are, of course free to accept or reject any ideas I express, just as I am free to accept or reject any ideas that you express. Isn't this how it works?

My representative and senators hear from me whenever there is something I want them to know. Sometimes their votes support my views, sometimes not.

By forcing the people of our nation to do anything, you will not get a positive response. You will either get anger or resentment.

Responsible persons never have to be forced to do anything. Since the laws are based upon the 'Golden Rule', "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.", everyone understands the concept of responsible conduct.

Those who choose to act in an irresponsible manner should not be surprised if the law enforcement folks step in.

 

[Gabo]

We claim to be intelligent people who have respect for others and for their rights. Right?

If this is so, then why should it be necessary to 'forcefully make people behave kindly'?

It isn't necessary, yet that's what the government keeps trying to do! Some people are mean, but that doesn't give the government the right to force them to be nice. The only right the government has is to make criminals pay retribution for the rights of others which they've violated.

The use of force to counter undesirable behavior is the responsibility of government. I have no power to force anyone to do anything.

Nobody in this world, whether a group or individual, has the right to use aggression. This is how the justice system should work. However, right now the government itself is an aggressor. And when the government itself is an aggressor, it's setting a bad example for all the people.

Responsible persons never have to be forced to do anything. Since the laws are based upon the 'Golden Rule', "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.", everyone understands the concept of responsible conduct.

Those who choose to act in an irresponsible manner should not be surprised if the law enforcement folks step in.

But when law enforcement begins to act in an irresponsible manner, disregarding people's rights, we can do nothing to stop them. Republicans and Democrats have turned this society into one in which only the people with the same views as them are right, and people with opposing views have no say in the matter because they don't hold the majority. America is currently functioning as a Utilitarian society, not a Democratic society.

 

[Fantasea]

Nobody in this world, whether a group or individual, has the right to use aggression. This is how the justice system should work. However, right now the government itself is an aggressor. And when the government itself is an aggressor, it's setting a bad example for all the people.

I pay taxes to support a legislative system, law enforcement system, judiciary system, and penal system. None of this would be necessary except for the fact that there are individuals who choose to be 'aggressors'.

Have you noticed that the only folks who seem to have trouble with an 'aggressor' government are those who, themselves, are individuals who use aggression against peaceful persons?

These aggressors who prey on others know exactly what they are doing, they understand the penalties involved, and the physical risks to which they expose themselves. When they act up, they are rolling the dice. Sometimes, they lose.

But when law enforcement begins to act in an irresponsible manner, disregarding people's rights, we can do nothing to stop them. Republicans and Democrats have turned this society into one in which only the people with the same views as them are right, and people with opposing views have no say in the matter because they don't hold the majority. America is currently functioning as a Utilitarian society, not a Democratic society.

My observation is that those in the law enforcement community have a difficult job and strive to do it in a civil and restrained manner. If a mistake occurs, that is regrettable. However, in the larger view, many of those 'aggressor' types you mention escape the justice they deserve.

In any society, there are some facets which must be absolute.

 

[Gabo]

How does stealing american taxdollars to fund NASA bring criminal justice?

How does overregulating businesses so new ones won't start bring criminal justice?

How does "aiding" third world countries, which in fact prevents them from advancing, bring criminal justice?

How does monopolizing energy, education, retirement, and other fields bring criminal justice?

How does prohibiting substances that effect no one but the user bring criminal justice?

The list goes on forever!



Besides, how can you say the ones that want the government to be an aggressor are peaceful??? By supporting aggression, you are no better than the aggressors themselves.

Government is supposed to provide justice through RETALIATION, that is the retribution for damage done to our rights. When the government becomes an aggressor, it just adds on to the fires rather than squelch the flames.

 

[argexpat]

In the matter of the president, I'm glad he decided to throw a bone to the press. They've been salivating for so long looking for a juicy story. I guess he's starting to feel sorry for them.

Bush's collosal incompetence, deadly miscalculations and bald-faced lying have already given the press a plethora of juicy stories, all of which make the gates Water and Monica seem quaint and are grounds for impeacing Bush a dozen times over. The press, as constitutionally sanctioned surrogates for We the People, merely ask Bush to account for his blunders, which he has done by blaming subordinates, the mark of a true coward. To you, Fantasea, the press is only doing its job when it parrots Republican talking points. You would have loved Pravda.

Since there's no longer anything they can do to try to keep him from being reelected, I wonder how long it will be until they start referring to GWB as a lame duck?

Bush was always lame.

 

[Fantasea]

Bush's collosal incompetence, deadly miscalculations and bald-faced lying have already given the press a plethora of juicy stories, all of which make the gates Water and Monica seem quaint and are grounds for impeacing Bush a dozen times over. The press, as constitutionally sanctioned surrogates for We the People, merely ask Bush to account for his blunders, which he has done by blaming subordinates, the mark of a true coward. To you, Fantasea, the press is only doing its job when it parrots Republican talking points. You would have loved Pravda.

Bush was always lame.

I know exactly how you feel. I felt the same way, myself, during the Clinton years.

Pravda? I once had a trial subscription, however I didn't renew it. It was printed on paper so thin that I could see right through every story.

 

[argexpat]

Pravda? I once had a trial subscription, however I didn't renew it. It was printed on paper so thin that I could see right through every story.

I feel the exact same way when I watch Fox "News."

 

[Ashley]

I understand what the people are feeling when it comes to many of the drug laws America is facing.

Most of them are unjust and are putting normally good citizens in prison cells while other people (rapist, hijackers) as you stated in your post are being let off easy.

I do NOT agree with your statment about legalizing Pot.

However I do feel that the sentencing needs to losen up, and certain laws need to be altered... It still needs to be stern but not so stern that harmless Americans are filling up jail cells for years when the crime committed doesnt match the punishment.

I feel that your jail time shouldn't be based on how much your caught with, it should be the same no matter what.

This would still illiminate many of the drug dealers on the street, but be a little easier on those who are doing it for a way to survive. (Not saying its a just reason... but for many people governmental funding programs such as "Wellfare" arn't working.)

 

[Fantasea]

I feel the exact same way when I watch Fox "News."

I'm glad to know that you watch the 'Fair and Balanced" news on Fox.

However, whenever what you see appears to be too transparent for your liking, may I suggest that you adjust the contrast until the differences between black and white are shown to you with sufficient clarity as to make them easily understood and fully acceptable?

Of course, if I many not suggest this, then don't do it; but keep watching anyway.