May 12, 2011
— DrewM Not pissed off enough at the GOP? I can fix that.
For a moment last October I had some hope that the incoming GOP House majority might really be getting it. Then Speaker in waiting Boehner proposed forcing each agency and department to justify its budget separately and not as part of one of the 13 gigantic appropriation bills. Boehner said it would make cutting spending easier.
Not to be Mr. Wet Blanket but I think we're all a little worried that while getting the GOP back in power is necessary, it's also necessary to make sure they don't immediately go back to the GOP circa 2000-2006 on spending.No one is going to confuse presumptive Speaker in waiting John Boehner with a tea party activist but it's good to see he recognizes that if the GOP gets a second chance so soon, they need to really change things.
It's a process and inside baseball thing but it might actually lead to some spending discipline.
Oh wait, I believed something a politician said during a campaign? My bad. I guess I should have known better and deserve to be smacked around. .
Boehner issued the plan in a speech on congressional reform last September, but the Appropriations Committee says it received no instructions from the leadership to follow through with it.
Bait and switch, it's as simple as that.
Posted by: DrewM at
02:13 PM
| Comments (412)
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Killerdog at May 12, 2011 02:17 PM (JNbb1)
Posted by: Killerdog at May 12, 2011 06:17 PM (JNbb1)
Don't use 'em?....they don't HAVE them.
Posted by: Tami at May 12, 2011 02:18 PM (VuLos)
Posted by: George Orwell at May 12, 2011 02:19 PM (AZGON)
—Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: oblig. at May 12, 2011 02:19 PM (xvZW9)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 02:20 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: Blacksmith8 at May 12, 2011 02:21 PM (Q1qy3)
Posted by: George Orwell at May 12, 2011 02:22 PM (AZGON)
They're like crack ho's on welfare. They'll say and do anything to get their fix.
Posted by: dogfish at May 12, 2011 02:23 PM (N2yhW)
Then you can start cutting - the voting population isn't angry enough yet. They won't give up their various benefits until stuff is burning.
The TEA party is a vanguard; but they aren't the proletariat yet.
Posted by: Jean at May 12, 2011 02:23 PM (7P7Ij)
Posted by: Ben at May 12, 2011 06:21 PM (DKV43)
If that bastard Gingrich can make a comeback, so can I!
Posted by: Bob Michel at May 12, 2011 02:23 PM (dXPup)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 06:20 PM (P+zzG)
That's what it sounds like to me. Appropriations deciding that they'll do what they want by blaming Boehner for not being too formal.
I don't even think it's about the money so much with those guys. I think it's about the power.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 02:24 PM (73tyQ)
They don't technically need them. Appropriations just decided it was going to do what it wanted to do.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 02:24 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: Blacksmith8 at May 12, 2011 06:21 PM (Q1qy3)
Actually, they're the Jihadis of the War On Debt.
They don't need instructions, they need regular, brutal beatings.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 12, 2011 02:24 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: IE Con at May 12, 2011 02:24 PM (/COcn)
Posted by: TexasJew at May 12, 2011 02:24 PM (L8Let)
Posted by: The Beltway frame of mind at May 12, 2011 02:25 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: Killerdog at May 12, 2011 02:25 PM (dBLO3)
"Another Appropriations cardinal, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), said drafting separate bills for each agency 'decreases the flexibility' for lawmakers because it would make it harder for members to shift funds between departments during an open amendment process on the floor.
“It would create havoc on the floor and it would take a lot more floor time,” Simpson said. “I can’t see the advantage.”
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 02:26 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: Tea Party Activists at May 12, 2011 02:27 PM (j4xgZ)
Posted by: George Orwell at May 12, 2011 02:27 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: Vic at May 12, 2011 02:28 PM (M9Ie6)
The appropriators would feel a need to not act like the relentless suckers of cock they are if any realistic segement of the Republican leadership was serious about cutting spending.
The continued game with appropriations demonstrates that this is all a show.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 02:28 PM (VoSja)
Wait a second. Didn't His Orangeness shed some tears and get like, all serious and shit, when the gavel was passed to him? Didn't he realize the severity of the moment?
Reform? Pfft....
Posted by: Olliander at May 12, 2011 02:29 PM (j4xgZ)
DrewM:
Why does thou protest so much? Speaker Boehner is just behaving as Mike Castle does, with no conservative bona fides.
We do have those chairmen positions in the House . . .
Posted by: Scoob at May 12, 2011 02:31 PM (T7+JL)
It's convenient. The problem is that Boehner has refused to exert power over them and they're already writing the appropriations bill.
I don't even think it's about the money so much with those guys. I think it's about the power.
Nobody wants to be the first one on Appropriations, but they love being on it. It will turn the head of the best conservative. I will also say that I've heard budgeteers disdain appropriators.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 02:31 PM (P+zzG)
Uhhh......I'm not the particularly violent type but are the voters going to have to go all Seal Team 6 on these politicians to get their attention? The elections have been pretty decissively against the Democrat's shenannigans and even the so called "conservatives" aren't getting the message they were appointed to send.
Oh and the front page of USA Today: "401K Contributions Up" .....how's that for putting the best possible spin on the failing economy? The housing slump has taken the majority of citizen's equity with it and retirements are becomming a fantasy for most people. But take a look at the paper and guess what conclusions THEY come to for this sudden pension contribution increase....
Posted by: MrObvious at May 12, 2011 02:31 PM (H87Hu)
Posted by: Rand Paul at May 12, 2011 02:31 PM (1fanL)
“It would create havoc on the floor and it would take a lot more floor time,” Simpson said. “I can’t see the advantage.”
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 06:26 PM (P+zzG)
And would take away valuable time needed to fuck male interns.
Posted by: TexasJew at May 12, 2011 02:32 PM (L8Let)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 02:34 PM (P+zzG)
Funny, but that sounds fucking awesome to me. You mean we can do something to make it more difficult for the government to screw us over?
Posted by: buzzion at May 12, 2011 06:32 PM (oVQFe)
Agreed. Gridlock is your friend. Gridlock is good for the Republic. The infinitely wise Founders designed the gummint for gridlock.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 02:34 PM (1fanL)
So, uh, this sure puts a new wrinkle in the ongoing Purity Wars, doesn't it? How is this any different or worse than not having a majority in the House?
I'm beginning to think that maybe-- just maybe-- we are actually massively boned.
I wonder. *adopts concerned expression*
Posted by: Lance McCormick at May 12, 2011 02:34 PM (zgHLA)
I'm beginning to think that maybe-- just maybe-- we are actually massively boned.
Posted by: Lance McCormick at May 12, 2011 06:34 PM (zgHLA)
Nah. There are going to be cuts. The question is whether they'll be voluntary.
And the answer is No.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 02:35 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: The Chicken at May 12, 2011 02:36 PM (AZGON)
#35
In 2004, total federal spending was $2.3 trillion. In 2012, we are expecting $3.7-3.8 trillion from the Republican budget.
What exactly are they appropriating at 2004 levels?
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 02:37 PM (VoSja)
Posted by: Cherry π at May 12, 2011 02:37 PM (+sBB4)
Posted by: TexasJew at May 12, 2011 02:37 PM (L8Let)
Posted by: The Chicken at May 12, 2011 02:38 PM (AZGON)
Funny, but that sounds fucking awesome to me. You mean we can do something to make it more difficult for the government to screw us over?
Simpson is almost as bad as Rogers. I've watched him speak on the House floor (via C-SPAN) and he'll do anything to save funding for his Subcommittee. It's for the caribou!
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 02:39 PM (P+zzG)
First, Boehnhead said he was open to the idea of taxing oil companies more, then he wasn't, then he apologized and now he's confused.
Can you turn up a tanning bed to "fry"?
Posted by: TexasJew at May 12, 2011 02:39 PM (L8Let)
Posted by: Doom at May 12, 2011 02:40 PM (AZGON)
#34
I question your party loyalty. Most Republicans I've talked to are absolutely disgusted by the increase in male intern fucking and would probably agree to reducing it to 2007 levels.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 02:40 PM (VoSja)
Posted by: Killerdog at May 12, 2011 02:41 PM (V6EE3)
What exactly are they appropriating at 2004 levels?
You're talking about Obama's budget request, not the R budget.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 02:41 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: Cherry π at May 12, 2011 02:41 PM (+sBB4)
#34
I question your party loyalty. Most Republicans I've talked to are absolutely disgusted by the increase in male intern fucking and would probably agree to reducing it to 2007 levels.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 06:40 PM (VoSja)
You made Larry Craig cry in his stall.
Posted by: TexasJew at May 12, 2011 02:42 PM (L8Let)
Misleading title:
SpeakerÂ’s proposal to break up funding bills abandoned by GOP
That is not what they are talking about here. The 12 funding bills are still planed. What they are talking about is the individual department zero budget idea.
House Republicans have abandoned a campaign proposal by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to draft spending bills by agency instead of lumping Cabinet departments together in bulky appropriations measures.
It is not "House Republicans", it is the appropriations committee Republicans who may have a bone to pick with Boner on this.
BoehnerÂ’s proposal met resistance from top Republicans on the Appropriations Committee, and the item was not included in the GOPÂ’s Pledge to America, which was issued the week before Boehner's speech. Since Republicans took control of the House in January, panel members said there has been little talk of putting it into practice.
As I said, a bone; because we are boned.
Posted by: Vic at May 12, 2011 02:42 PM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Darth Rove at May 12, 2011 02:42 PM (GfYt/)
Posted by: George Orwell at May 12, 2011 02:42 PM (AZGON)
Put on your big boy boots boys and girls can wear their big girl panties 'cus we're gonna do some big time ass kicking in '12. Run 'um out of town.
Posted by: Fish the Impaler at May 12, 2011 02:43 PM (ndqJC)
#50
I got that from another thread. I can't remember the overall number in the Rep. budget. It is still $1 trillion over the 2004 number, correct?
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 02:44 PM (VoSja)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 02:45 PM (P+zzG)
I would have to go check but the initial was back to '06. They came-in under that.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 02:47 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: Darth Rove at May 12, 2011 02:47 PM (GfYt/)
Deciding how to spend $3 - $4 trillion needs to be streamlined. How else would the important work of naming post offices and listening to celebrity testimony on pet causes take place? There's only 24 hours in a day wingnuts!
Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at May 12, 2011 02:47 PM (+lsX1)
#60
Trolling for trannies is considered off-budget and cannot be considered when reducing male intern fucking to 2007 levels.
Posted by: Distinguished Office of the Speaker of the House at May 12, 2011 02:49 PM (VoSja)
Bunch of old shitbirds with one arm around an intern and the other around the scotch bottle.
We need to move the capitol to the center of the country. Something in the water in Washington, DC gives assholes amnesia. I think it's called bribery.
Posted by: sifty at May 12, 2011 02:49 PM (2dbd9)
In two years, Rogers pushed through 135 earmarks worth $246 million. He’s brought tens of millions of dollars into his hometown of Somerset, Ky., so much so that the town has been dubbed ‘Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood.’” Among the most egregious earmarks was a $17 million grant Rogers obtained for an “Airport to Nowhere,” a Kentucky airport with “so little traffic that the last commercial airline pulled out in February (2010).
But the most serious charge against Rogers involves an earmark he obtained that could benefit one of his own family members.
Rogers secured $5 million in the House for conservation groups that work with wild cats, including the Cheetah Conservation Fund, a Namibia-based organization that employs RogersÂ’ daughter Allison. In fact, Allison Rogers serves as grants administrator. After she joined the organization in 2007, Congressman Rogers began his push for funding. In 2009, with help from Rogers, the bill passed the House by a 2-1 margin. (It has yet to be voted on in the Senate.)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 02:50 PM (P+zzG)
I don't get why you are letting Boehner off the hook. It was his idea, he's the Speaker and he worked hard to get Rogers the chairmanship over the objections of more fiscally conservative members.
It's not like the Speaker doesn't have ultimate say on something this big.
If Boehner wanted his plan to happen, he could have made it happen.
Posted by: Bob Michel at May 12, 2011 02:51 PM (dXPup)
Well done at the federal level, guys. You're managing to make yourselves irrelevant before the echoes from the reading of the Constitution have left the building. Who knew the national mandate was "to do the same ol' shit that got us kicked out"?
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 12, 2011 02:51 PM (DAEhL)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 02:52 PM (P+zzG)
We need to keep firing these useless sellout fuckers after one term until they get the message.
Posted by: sifty at May 12, 2011 02:54 PM (2dbd9)
"As a voter I love love love where Obama is taking us but I would like to get there a little slower. The DC Republican establishment is my ideal party!"
Posted by: Shiggz at May 12, 2011 02:54 PM (mLAWK)
This is what my forefathers fought and died for.
Posted by: Lady in Black at May 12, 2011 02:55 PM (XK4nA)
OMG! The election is tomorrow and we only have Newt! We're fucked!
Wait, the election isn't for another year and half?
Oh, nevermind.
Posted by: ErikW at May 12, 2011 02:58 PM (aZ0V4)
I'm not. Though first of all, the reason Rogers got it was because no one wanted to join or lead. It was equally ridiculous on the part of the more conservative members to pass just to maintain cred. As for Rogers, you're right, Boehner let him have the chairmanship. Why he did so considering he always hated appropriators and their ilk is rather odd.
With regards to this situation, you'll note I said upthread that Boehner has refused to push Appropriations back at almost every turn. That's his fault. However, I'm not about to allow Hal Rogers off-the-hook for claiming he needed Boehner to formally tell him to follow a pledge. As the articles make clear, the Appr. hierarchy simply didn't want to do this. That's on Boehner, but it's also on them.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 02:58 PM (P+zzG)
Cause look at this: "Economic Bust in Australia:Near-Record Corporate Bankruptcies, Employment Drops Unexpectedly; Rise in Bad Home Loans;Record Low Property Transactions"
Posted by: curious at May 12, 2011 02:59 PM (k1rwm)
In 2004, total federal spending was $2.3 trillion. In 2012, we are expecting $3.7-3.8 trillion from the Republican budget.
What exactly are they appropriating at 2004 levels?
Discretionary spending, supposedly.
The $3.8 trillion figure includes entitlement spending, which can't really be cut without reform. They can't just say "I propose a 10% cut in Social Security spending" without cutting benefits, increasing the retirement age, means testing, etc.
Without entitlement reform, we're going to see the overall budget continue to increase even with "extreme" cuts in discretionary spending, because you'd only be cutting a fraction of a fraction of the overall budget.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 12, 2011 03:00 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 03:00 PM (MtwBb)
Liberal.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 07:00 PM (P+zzG)
the place is a mess. It's like one of the PIGS.
Posted by: curious at May 12, 2011 03:01 PM (k1rwm)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 03:02 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 03:02 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 03:04 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: ErikW at May 12, 2011 03:06 PM (aZ0V4)
It's a good thing we have all these experienced politicians on our side. I shudder to think of just how boned we'd be without them.
Oh wait...
Posted by: Burn the Witch at May 12, 2011 03:07 PM (A/oSU)
The $3.8 trillion figure includes entitlement spending, which can't really be cut without reform. They can't just say "I propose a 10% cut in Social Security spending" without cutting benefits, increasing the retirement age, means testing, etc...
It would be discretionary because discretionary spending is appropriated. Like you say, mandatory is on set on autopilot and it's a requirement based on existing law.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 03:08 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 03:08 PM (qIHlG)
Fox News is a soap opera program now. Nothing gets on there that hasn't been covered here or the places Ace steals from.
And here I don't have to look at that fuckin Phantom of the Bathhouse Sheppard Smith.
Posted by: sifty at May 12, 2011 03:09 PM (2dbd9)
Posted by: Cooter at May 12, 2011 03:10 PM (7aowq)
Got it.
Posted by: sifty at May 12, 2011 03:11 PM (2dbd9)
*Which still seems like a contradiction to me.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 03:13 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: Darth Rove at May 12, 2011 03:14 PM (GfYt/)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 03:15 PM (dZ756)
Guess what the Lefty smug cocksuckers are doing now?
They're printing up Bachmann/Trump 2012 stickers to show how funny they are.
Some asshole in Camridge (of course) has one on his/her Prius.
Posted by: soothy sales at May 12, 2011 03:17 PM (El3KV)
Posted by: Downsized Upscale at May 12, 2011 07:07 PM (IhHdM)
I don't care much at all for Gingrich as a person but if he's actually serious and can get the job done, I'll vote for him. Considering the field so far, he might actually be the most effective one.
There sure as fuck isn't anyone else who even pretends to be serious.
Posted by: ErikW at May 12, 2011 03:17 PM (aZ0V4)
Posted by: Northwesterner at May 12, 2011 03:18 PM (/Ft4q)
Posted by: Jean at May 12, 2011 03:20 PM (7P7Ij)
And if a few people get gunned down or slaughtered by drug cartels, no big deal.
??? You mean the hippies up in Mendocino? Are you serious? Or are you just a tool? Come to think of it, if we re-criminalized alcohol, we could get rid of all the problems associated with alcohol. You *do* support doing that, right?
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 03:21 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: sifty at May 12, 2011 03:22 PM (2dbd9)
* Boehner said he would encourage good accounting by making departments have to budget.
* Appropriations said no, we're going to do it the traditional way, with the usual 12 bills-- and oh look! We already started it that way!
* The excuse is that Boehner didn't direct them to follow-through on #1. But he wasn't required to remind them. So they did it because they didn't want to be more honest in their accounting.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 03:24 PM (P+zzG)
Oh, you're right. There is no crime or human misery whatsoever connected with marijuana trafficking. In fact, I bet if you walked right up to a drug dealer and demanded a dime bag he'd just politely hand it over.
Posted by: sifty at May 12, 2011 03:24 PM (2dbd9)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 03:24 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 03:26 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: icemike at May 12, 2011 03:27 PM (oid06)
I've been waiting all year for him to do that. He keeps nudging him and forcing him to do his job but that's not good enough.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 03:27 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 03:27 PM (qIHlG)
this Brazilian woman just won the legal right to wank 18 times a day at the office. Party at her cubicle!
http://tinyurl.com/4429p5l
Posted by: Mephistefales at May 12, 2011 03:27 PM (bNlTl)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 12, 2011 03:29 PM (oDMwn)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 07:24 PM (P+zzG)
I still don't get this. Isn't the speaker of the house OVER the head of the appropriations committee? And as I've said before when we have these 'Boehner is a wuss' threads....this would not of happened to Scary Nancy.
Posted by: Tami at May 12, 2011 03:29 PM (VuLos)
"On April 25-27, 2011, fourteen servicemen and women wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan joined President George W. Bush for a 100 kilometer mountain bike ride in Big Bend State Park."
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 03:29 PM (P+zzG)
We don't mean what you geniuses think it means anymore. Ain't no we, it's every man for himself
Posted by: Ex-Republican genius at May 12, 2011 03:30 PM (le5qc)
Still maddening....
I'm wondering. For those not into the entire DOOM scenario. 2012 comes. And it's a sweep for OUR side. You get your President _________! The GOP is now HEAVILY influenced by the Tea Party. We control the House!. We control the Senate!
Do the necessary cuts get made then?
How about when the media starts howling and showing every individual suffeing deprivation because of the evil Rethuglicans?
Posted by: Canadian Infidel at May 12, 2011 03:30 PM (GKQDR)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 12, 2011 03:31 PM (oDMwn)
What exactly are they appropriating at 2004 levels?
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 06:37 PM (VoSja)
The paper clip budget.
Posted by: KG at May 12, 2011 03:31 PM (4L0zr)
Oh, you're right. There is no crime or human misery whatsoever connected with marijuana trafficking. In fact, I bet if you walked right up to a drug dealer and demanded a dime bag he'd just politely hand it over.
Stupidity is the capacity to take a narrow statement and blow it up into utter hyperbole. (That's pronounced "hy-per'-bo-lee".) Medical marijuana shops aren't getting their stuff from Mexican cartels. That stuff isn't remotely good enough to be sold to people who have the opportunity to shop around; you know, how capitalism is supposed to work. Now, please point me to bona fide sources showing that these shops are, in fact, supporting the cartels. Perhaps the misery is caused by fools like you who support keeping it illegal. After all, there is no misery associated with alcohol because it *is* legal.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 03:32 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 03:33 PM (qIHlG)
Can't Boehner get caught with a male page or cheat on his income taxes? That way he could fill one of Obama's staff positions and we would be rid of him for good.
Posted by: Marcus at May 12, 2011 03:33 PM (wipRO)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 03:34 PM (qIHlG)
Yes he is, but he's also not their babysitter. When they say that Boehner had to formerly tell them to this, that's just an excuse. San Fran Nan had all kinds of accounting tricks and other things pulled on her watch but she was fine with that. With regards to Boehner, this wouldn't happen if he would let the appropriators know their place, but he won't. So it's ultimately on him but they too bear responsibility for this.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 03:36 PM (P+zzG)
Just freeze all spending at current levels and absolutely no new appropriations, the current Senate isn't going to pass any cuts anyways.
No new highway funds, fighter jets or copiers. Nothing.
A pipe dream sure but I'm really getting sick of this shit. What are we borrowing now, forty cents on every dollar spent? It's just fucking insane, I mean it, it's fucking nuts and no one at any level of the federal government, elected or otherwise is taking this shit seriously.
Posted by: lowandslow at May 12, 2011 03:39 PM (GZitp)
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4397
I loved him circa 1994, but he's an utter self-promoter and blowhard.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 03:40 PM (dZ756)
I think my feelings about Newt can be summed up in a bumper sticker sized message: "Yeah, I'd vote for that summa bitch."
Posted by: Downsized Upscale at May 12, 2011 07:30 PM (IhHdM)
Or, "At least he isn't Jug Ears!"
Posted by: ErikW at May 12, 2011 03:43 PM (aZ0V4)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 03:44 PM (fLt3S)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 03:46 PM (qIHlG)
Yesterday NPR was gleefully trumpeting a poll that said half of Republicans would rather have a third party. It's not hard to see why.
Oh, and today they had a story on Maverick's latest reach around across the aisle.
Fuck these people.
Posted by: Ace's liver at May 12, 2011 03:47 PM (XIXhw)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 03:48 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: Coldwarrior57 at May 12, 2011 03:49 PM (nYTrG)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 03:51 PM (fLt3S)
Are they all gullible ,leftwing , idiots ?
Posted by: awkward davies at May 12, 2011 03:51 PM (YCW1b)
Yes, people on alcohol, nicotine, oxycontin, sugar, they're all gullible. Outlaw it all. No running! (Creates endorphins, after all, which are morphine-like substances.) Evolution! Oh wait, I just realized, you're being sarcastic. (OTOH, if people on drugs are gullible, maybe we can convince drug-using libs to vote for conservative policies.)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 03:52 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 03:52 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 12, 2011 03:53 PM (oDMwn)
Posted by: Ex-Republican genius at May 12, 2011 03:54 PM (le5qc)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius
In the ridiculous prosecution category, the brand new GOP-led NC Legislature is thisclose to repealing a bunch of post-Columbine knee-jerk "school security" measures. Stupid stuff like drawing a picture of a gun meaning expulsion, third graders busted for pencil sharpeners with "razor blades" in them, etc.
A tiny victory for shrinking government stupidity.
Posted by: Lincolntf at May 12, 2011 03:56 PM (xMT+4)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 03:56 PM (qIHlG)
Libertarians and Ronpaulians have an uncanny knack of eventually voting "D" on election day...if they show up to vote.
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 12, 2011 03:57 PM (DTy7x)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:00 PM (fLt3S)
Why?
Because once it gets legalized, users get in the dunking booth with smokers and drinkers. Government regulation of producers, taxes, taxes and taxes, and the finger-wagging lectures from health "advocates."
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 12, 2011 04:00 PM (oDMwn)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 12, 2011 04:02 PM (oDMwn)
Libertarians and Ronpaulians have an uncanny knack of eventually voting "D" on election day...if they show up to vote.
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 12, 2011 07:57 PM (DTy7x)
What's the point of voting Republican if they behave like Democrats as soon as they're elected?
Posted by: Ace's liver at May 12, 2011 04:02 PM (XIXhw)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:02 PM (fLt3S)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:02 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 12, 2011 08:02 PM (oDMwn)
And the food smokers love to munch on....it's bad for them anyway...
Posted by: Canadian Infidel at May 12, 2011 04:04 PM (GKQDR)
What's the point of voting Republican if they behave like Democrats as soon as they're elected?
Let's not go overboard. They behave like unambitious Democrats as soon as they're elected
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 12, 2011 04:04 PM (L0wbB)
I love the use of the generic, and somewhat demonic-sounding, "drugs". You have yet to deny that you want to criminalize alcohol or any other substance that creates pleasure. You know what? When I'm in my basement writing songs or at my computer writing lyrics, or enjoying something on TV, or a fabulous tri-tip with a lush petite sirah (fucking NOM), I really don't need to reason or judge. BTW, it's "judgment", not "judgement". ;->
BTW, Dock Ellis had pretty good reason and judgment that day. Or well, pretty good control. ;->
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 04:05 PM (dZ756)
Man I'm pissed off.
Posted by: lowandslow at May 12, 2011 04:05 PM (GZitp)
Politico says that Obama is ending staged photos and that he actually said the word 'jihad' on TV.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 04:06 PM (P+zzG)
I'm beginning to think that maybe-- just maybe-- we are actually massively boned.
We're so far past boned we couldn't catch a bus back to boned.
These stupid bastards are going to run it off the cliff and we'll have a disorderly crash that will make the Great Depression look like a good time and both parties will be responsible.
Posted by: Professor Fate at May 12, 2011 04:07 PM (iWaVX)
Libertarians and Ronpaulians have an uncanny knack of eventually voting "D" on election day...if they show up to vote.
Well, I'm a registered Libertarian and 420-friendly (if that weren't obvious), I live in a swank/liberal neighborhood in S.F. I haven't voted D in any statewide or national election since 1988. I haven't voted for a single bond since 1988. In fact, I will never again vote for a D or a bond. Weed only increases my paranoia at what the Left is doing to this country.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 04:07 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:07 PM (fLt3S)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:08 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 12, 2011 04:09 PM (oDMwn)
They didn't drop entitlement reform. That was a story largely invented by the WaPo and Politico. I'm sure a majority of the Rs would love to drop it, but they haven't.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 04:09 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:10 PM (qIHlG)
Back in the day, I would never have supported marijuana use being a law and order type since grade school. Along the way, I noticed the incredible power that the state had gathered unto itself in the ostensible "war on drugs", and I began to question the rationale behind this. As usual, it seemed that money and power were the key ingredients and that the actual drug use issue was secondary or tertiary. I still don't support the use of drugs for any reason, but I now think that society would be far better off with less war on drugs authoritarianism and more personal freedom. Tax it like alcohol (even though excess use of Valu-Rite is not recommended either), let it be a free market product, define it as a use at your own risk product so that the USG/FDA doesn't get involved, and stand back. There is no panacea for the drug problem, but what we have now is a disaster.
Posted by: Hrothgar at May 12, 2011 04:11 PM (gZt79)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:12 PM (fLt3S)
Posted by: TheGarbone at May 12, 2011 04:12 PM (KUjSN)
We either elect fascist assholes who lie to us, or fascist assholes who don't lie to us.
What an awesomely great choice.
Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz at May 12, 2011 04:12 PM (s5aNX)
I feel ya, though I am a more-or-less Mark 1 Mod 0 social conservative living in an increasingly overrun-by-hipster-douchebag-progtards Astoria NY.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 12, 2011 04:12 PM (oDMwn)
"For us to be able to definitively say, 'We got the man who caused thousands of deaths here in the United States and who had been the rallying point for a violent extremist jihad around the world' was something that I think all of us were profoundly grateful to be a part of."
We're never going to stop hearing about the 'greatness' of Obama's 'gutsy call'.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 04:12 PM (P+zzG)
I looked up "Judgement asshole" - I came up with "Noun - an asshole who likes to judge everyone who doesn't agree with his narrow-minded and inconsistent conceptions of what is and what should be." Congrats, you're in the dictionary. Now, if you had a dog named Shithead, you'd be somebody!
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 04:13 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: jewells45 at May 12, 2011 04:15 PM (Z71Vg)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:15 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 04:15 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:15 PM (fLt3S)
We either elect Democrat fascist assholes who lie to us, or Republican fascist assholes who don't lie to us.
What an awesomely great choice.
Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz at May 12, 2011 08:12 PM (s5aNX)
FIFY
Posted by: Hrothgar at May 12, 2011 04:16 PM (gZt79)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:17 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 08:16 PM (fLt3S)
Posted by: Hrothgar at May 12, 2011 04:18 PM (gZt79)
Really? You really think they're going to tackle entitlement reform when they can't even change their own appropriation system? No laws have to be passed mind you, just a change of policy on a congressional process on how federal agencies get funded and how much. That's that just to damn much work but yeah, they're going to address entitlement reform.
Posted by: lowandslow at May 12, 2011 04:18 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:18 PM (fLt3S)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 12, 2011 08:09 PM (oDMwn)
We'll be fine even if the JEF get's re-elected, which I doubt will happen.
Not to say we should be lax in our war with libtards but if things don't look so hot, don't despair. We win. The Big Dude says so.
Don't quit the fight.
Posted by: ErikW at May 12, 2011 04:19 PM (aZ0V4)
Libertarians and Ronpaulians have an uncanny knack of eventually voting "D" on election day...if they show up to vote.
Well, I'm a registered Libertarian and 420-friendly (if that weren't obvious), I live in a swank/liberal neighborhood in S.F. I haven't voted D in any statewide or national election since 1988. I haven't voted for a single bond since 1988. In fact, I will never again vote for a D or a bond. Weed only increases my paranoia at what the Left is doing to this country.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 08:07 PM (dZ756)
Bah. In California it doesn't matter how you vote. So many people in this state are living off the rest of us you can't even slow the gravy train down, let alone stop it. Even the Republicans offer a token resistance to fiscal insanity on their way to ensuring their own reelection.
Nothing will change until the shit hits the fan in a major, unambiguous way.
Posted by: Ace's liver at May 12, 2011 04:19 PM (XIXhw)
People who choose freely to live in San Fransicko and then speak down to other people are funny.
I'm no puritan, in fact I'm lucky to be alive and breathing free air.
Standard Drug User / Libertarian Fallback Answer A1A:
Legalize it, it's just like Budweiser!
Your libertarian fantasy-land where if everything is legal nobody puts the baby in the microwave anymore is just that, fantasy-land.
Denying that illegal drugs destroy lives in the real world is infantile at best.
Pretending that everything would be double rainbows and extra flowers if all the illegal shit you like to do was just legalized is stupid.
Marijuana is not heroin, but the same kind of people get rich off of grass as get rich off of heroin.
Marijuana is coming over the borders to feed a demand. And people are killing to make sure nobody stops the flow. The evil cocksuckers who produce it aren't going to put on ties and go to an office 9-5 if it's legalized. They are bad people. They will keep killing people.
I'm glad you are proud of the fact your tiny personal amount of dope doesn't come from Mexico and is produced on peaceful non-profit communes by pacifists and Smurfs. Huzzah.
You do illegal shit, I get it. You don't want to go to jail for it, I get it.
That doesn't make it legal or the scumbags who grow it or traffic it into good people.
Fuckin Charles Manson was a hippy too.
"SFGoth" <---skinny jeans, tattoo sleeves and nose piercings come with that nic?
Posted by: sifty at May 12, 2011 04:19 PM (2dbd9)
He may be, but read the actual article. He's saying that Obama & co. violated that and have jeopardized lives. Actually haven't seen Gates much since the SEALs killed bin Laden.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 04:20 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: Beto at May 12, 2011 04:21 PM (H+LJc)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:21 PM (fLt3S)
185 182 You could have done that yourself, if you weren't so high towelie.
You do realize that these two posts are gibberish. The first one is also incredibly ironic in that you're accusing me of being a left-wing loser because I enjoy weed, yet you call me a loser because I vote right.
p.s. Eeyore, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/judgment
"Also, especially British , judge·ment."
Oh, and by the way, we'd have President Gore if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't reversed the Florida Supreme Court's "judgment": http://supreme.justia.com/us/531/98/case.html
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 04:22 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: Gomer Muthafuckin' Pyle at May 12, 2011 04:22 PM (xy9wk)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 08:15 PM (P+zzG)
Wow!....every comment on there trashes Obama.
Posted by: Tami at May 12, 2011 04:23 PM (VuLos)
Posted by: Beto at May 12, 2011 04:23 PM (H+LJc)
Posted by: Dr, Heinz Doofensmirtz at May 12, 2011 04:24 PM (19zLP)
I think we're going to get some form of entitlement reform cobbled together by both parties. It will likely be some tinkering around the edges with a least two of them, though there is more agreement on Social Security. So they'll raise some retirement ages and a few other things, then leave the heavy lifting to the 113th.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 04:25 PM (P+zzG)
@13: "the voting population isn't angry enough yet. They won't give up their various benefits until stuff is burning.
The TEA party is a vanguard; but they aren't the proletariat yet."
Um, the TEA Party started, in large part, to prevent cuts to Social Security in Medicare. They saw ObizzleCare as a threat to their entitlements.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at May 12, 2011 04:25 PM (xy9wk)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:26 PM (fLt3S)
Posted by: Dr, Heinz Doofensmirtz at May 12, 2011 08:24 PM (19zLP)
and making stock-for-debt transfers common for settling accounts vs cash.
Posted by: Jean at May 12, 2011 04:27 PM (7P7Ij)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:27 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: sifty at May 12, 2011 04:27 PM (2dbd9)
Posted by: lowandslow at May 12, 2011 04:30 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: Jean at May 12, 2011 04:30 PM (7P7Ij)
Nope. Well, ok, skinny jeans, since I do work out. The fat jeans just make me look like I'm a fat, slacker alcoholic. No tats nor nose piercings at all. Only piercing is my left earlobe. I also have a full head of hair at age 43. BP 106/68; cholesterol 102 LDL, 70 HDL. Not much I can do about being 5'8 except to try to keep my weight to 150-155.
Next nonsense-based stereotype?
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 04:30 PM (dZ756)
Swank / Liberal Neighborhood in San Francisco
Definition: An area so nice that the bums shit in the bushes and not on your front doorstep.
Posted by: sifty at May 12, 2011 04:30 PM (2dbd9)
Posted by: Ex-Republican genius at May 12, 2011 04:31 PM (le5qc)
Posted by: Beto at May 12, 2011 04:31 PM (H+LJc)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:32 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 04:33 PM (P+zzG)
Commentbot Flavius, at it again. Chuckle
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 04:34 PM (dZ756)
Yes, and thus you demonstrate two arguments for legalization of dope
Posted by: El Kilo at May 12, 2011 04:35 PM (le5qc)
Marijuana is coming over the borders to feed a demand. And people are killing to make sure nobody stops the flow. The evil cocksuckers who produce it aren't going to put on ties and go to an office 9-5 if it's legalized. They are bad people. They will keep killing people.
I'm glad you are proud of the fact your tiny personal amount of dope doesn't come from Mexico and is produced on peaceful non-profit communes by pacifists and Smurfs. Huzzah.
That occasional, recreational line you snort helps keep the price of crack low in the inner city. Keep snorting: The young gang-bangers selling the stuff need to build a rep.
Posted by: fluffy at May 12, 2011 04:35 PM (SwkdU)
Posted by: Tough US Immigration Policies at May 12, 2011 04:36 PM (x/4B/)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 08:30 PM (dZ756)
Does having one ear ring in your left ear mean your gay or is having one ear ring in your right ear mean your gay? I can never remember.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 04:37 PM (MtwBb)
Swank / Liberal Neighborhood in San Francisco
Definition: An area so nice that the bums shit in the bushes and not on your front doorstep.
///
Ironically, come to think of it, there aren't any bums in my neighborhood. Probably because it's too hilly. Well, there are "bums" -- they're the libtards who push this global warming crap and then drive monster SUVs, taking up 3 street parking spots in the process (2 for the vehicle and 1 b/c they're too self-absorbed to pull all the way forward).
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 04:37 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:38 PM (qIHlG)
Try ripping off a pot dealer. Will he give you a big hug and ask you to pay it back when you can, or will he bury you, still twitching, in a pit of quick lime?
Posted by: fluffy at May 12, 2011 04:39 PM (SwkdU)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 04:39 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: Tough US Immigration Policies at May 12, 2011 08:36 PM (x/4B/)
"He was sentenced to five years in prison, but freed in order to organize appeals."
Posted by: Tami at May 12, 2011 04:41 PM (VuLos)
I think this is true. It think it's also true (well, obvious, actually) that without enormous, politically impossible cuts Medicare and Social Security can't survive even if Obamacare is repealed completely. Something that won't happen with people like Boehner running the Republican party no matter who is elected. This guy is cut from the same cloth as Lott and Hastert.
Posted by: Ace's liver at May 12, 2011 04:41 PM (XIXhw)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:41 PM (qIHlG)
///
LOL, "[w]hen you misspell a word spellcheck underlines it in red". GIGO Spellcheck only underlines what the spellcheck programmer flags as misspelled, like "Prius", "judgement", "dumbfuck", and "spellcheck" -- oh hey Ace, you must be a dumb fuck.
This site is way more fun than Hillbuzz.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 04:42 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: El Kilo at May 12, 2011 04:42 PM (le5qc)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:43 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: sifty at May 12, 2011 04:43 PM (2dbd9)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 04:44 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:44 PM (fLt3S)
Fuck the War on Drugs.
Start killing drug dealers like we did Osama and the VC.
Operation Linebacker III. Kill them, salt the fields.
Posted by: sifty at May 12, 2011 04:44 PM (2dbd9)
If all rip-off artists got the chair the world would be a better place. What is your point?
Posted by: El Kilo at May 12, 2011 04:45 PM (le5qc)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:45 PM (fLt3S)
I just ignore her and the stories written with obvious bias. Most things in quotes can be fact-checked against a transcript or video.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 04:46 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: Lincolntf at May 12, 2011 04:46 PM (xMT+4)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:46 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:47 PM (fLt3S)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:48 PM (fLt3S)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 04:49 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: icemike at May 12, 2011 04:49 PM (oid06)
Stoner: That's my buddy Walter dude. We were getting stoned and he said he could fly to the store for more frozen burritos.
Police: Why didn't you try to stop him?
Stoner: I thought he had it made.
Posted by: Beto at May 12, 2011 04:49 PM (H+LJc)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:51 PM (qIHlG)
My point is that the same people trafficking in heroin are trafficking pot. If you let the resin clear out of your brain, it won't be so difficult to catch the not-so subtle points.
Posted by: fluffy at May 12, 2011 04:52 PM (SwkdU)
Only in L.A. I'm not sure we have any Koreans in S.F. OMG, he posted something without using the word "asshole". I'm impressed.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 04:52 PM (dZ756)
I agree. If I could have a dollar for every time I saw the MFM cause trouble through an invented headline, I'd be rich. The AP and Politico have been manufacturing news like crazy lately. One such story was a hit piece on Eric Cantor over Medicare which they got from a story in the WaPo. The WaPo clearly quotes Cantor saying Medicare is on the table while admitting they might not get everything, which is stupid to admit but an obvious remark. Politico takes that and says Cantor gave-up completely on Medicare when he had clearly outlined his terms. The WaPo issued a correction but the outlets took it and ran with it.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 04:53 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:54 PM (fLt3S)
I'm checking into Betty Ford .
Thanks , for saving my life and sanity with your well intentioned comparisons , now fuck off .
Posted by: awkward davies at May 12, 2011 04:54 PM (YCW1b)
Posted by: El Kilo at May 12, 2011 04:54 PM (le5qc)
Posted by: Ken, Ken, the Best of Men at May 12, 2011 04:54 PM (XjhLP)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:56 PM (qIHlG)
My point is that the same people trafficking in heroin are trafficking pot. If you let the resin clear out of your brain, it won't be so difficult to catch the not-so subtle points.
///
They are? I've never heard of Mendocino heroin. I do hear, however, that the same people trafficking heroin are trafficking alcohol and cigarettes. Ban them all. Kill drunk drivers. Kill the dealers who supplied the alcohol. Kill the people who make the alcohol. Alcohol is a DRUGS. DRUGS are bad. Everyone that uses DRUGS is bad. Good enough?
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 04:57 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 04:57 PM (fLt3S)
My point is that the same people trafficking in heroin are trafficking pot.
Only because it's illegal. We also smuggling Palestinian freedom fighters, no-tax cigarettes, and Gucchi handbags. Make something else illegal please, my younger brother needs some honest work.
Posted by: El Kilo at May 12, 2011 04:58 PM (le5qc)
I need morons.
I just sat through hell - a 2 hour T ball game played by 3 - 5 year olds!
AAAHHH!
I couldn't handle their fucking parents. Holy shit were they aggressive and fucking stupid!
Posted by: momma at May 12, 2011 04:58 PM (penCf)
I'm checking into Betty Ford .
Thanks , for saving my life and sanity with your well intentioned comparisons , now fuck off .
Posted by: awkward davies at May 12, 2011 08:54 PM (YCW1b)
I've known dozens of tokers in my life, and in that time there was only one who let it get out of hand, in the sense that he probably would have amounted to more if he didn't toke up every few hours.
It's just too benign to waste a lot of time thinking about, from a societal perspective.
Posted by: Ace's liver at May 12, 2011 04:59 PM (XIXhw)
Posted by: fluffy at May 12, 2011 08:52 PM (SwkdU)
The Afghans are trafficking marijuana? Who knew?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 04:59 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 04:59 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: awkward davies at May 12, 2011 08:54 PM (YCW1b)
If it wasn't for all the murders, violence and robberies your habit causes I wouldn't care what you did. I don't understand how stoners ignore that.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 04:59 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: zombie Bob Marley at May 12, 2011 08:57 PM (SwkdU)
Unless Marley's lung cancer started in his toe and developed into gangrene, pot had nothing to do with his death.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:00 PM (1fanL)
They've made it far more difficult to uncover the spin in some cases, too, especially in some stories dealing with statements made by Republicans. I can read one story at Politico that gives a distinctly different impression than a piece at NRO, and they're about the exact same incident. But it's incredibly hard to follow sometimes.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 05:01 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 05:01 PM (fLt3S)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 05:01 PM (qIHlG)
If it wasn't for all the murders, violence and robberies your habit causes I wouldn't care what you did. I don't understand how stoners ignore that.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 08:59 PM (MtwBb)
Rage Against The Alcohol!
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:01 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: El Kilo at May 12, 2011 05:03 PM (le5qc)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 05:03 PM (fLt3S)
Posted by: icemike at May 12, 2011 05:04 PM (oid06)
///
Yup :-> I think about pussy and my gay neighbors find that filthy.
Think I'll go home, knock back a bottle of Wild Turkey and then cheat on my wife. After all, the Turkey's legal (and therefore must be good) and cheating on your wife is what Republican politicians do (and they're anti-weed, so they make good role models). Then I'll drive home. After all, if drunk driving were a serious concern, alcohol would be illegal.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 05:04 PM (dZ756)
Why? Because Newt said there is a reason "collapse of Detroit and the rise of Texas,”
OY!
Couldn't be that Detroit has been ran by Ds for years, could it?/
Posted by: momma at May 12, 2011 05:04 PM (penCf)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 09:01 PM (fLt3S)
Not necessarily. I've seen it posited that if the stuff was legal, it'd be in a less virulent form. Like cocaine. Instead of crack, or pure cocaine, it'd be more like the leaves the Columbians chew all their lives, because there'd be no need to package it as concentrated as possible.
There are logical arguments out there forwarded by non-evil-drug-abusers for why it might be better if drugs were legal.
Is the War On Drugs working? From the comments here, I'd say no.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:04 PM (1fanL)
An old soldier told me today "They tell a giant lie right out of the bag now because they know it works." "Even when it's picked apart and they admit it was wrong, that part is ignored by the public at large."
Posted by: Beto at May 12, 2011 05:05 PM (H+LJc)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 05:06 PM (fLt3S)
Wow, you kicked my ass!!
Posted by: Straw Man at May 12, 2011 05:06 PM (SwkdU)
Posted by: Zombie Ted DrunKenneddy at May 12, 2011 05:06 PM (qIHlG)
What did they keep striking out?
Posted by: buzzion at May 12, 2011 09:00 PM (oVQFe)
It was t-ball and the parents were bitching about the coach, demanding the other team's players don't get to stay on base if they get out (which in t-ball, every one hits, every one runs the bases), blah, blah, blah.
Then they told their kids 'You won!' 'You kick their butts!'
Um, there is no score in t-ball.
Instead of telling the kids the truth, they lied.
Posted by: momma at May 12, 2011 05:07 PM (penCf)
I'm sure it happens occasionally , hell we're talking about tens of millions of people .
Oh wait , pot is the same as heroin , I forgot .
Off to Betty Ford .
Posted by: awkward davies at May 12, 2011 05:08 PM (YCW1b)
Posted by: Beto at May 12, 2011 05:08 PM (H+LJc)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 09:06 PM (fLt3S)
Wouldn't Field Sobriety Tests work? If not, why not?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:08 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 05:09 PM (fLt3S)
Wrong. Who you choosing to decide? The abortionists or the circumcisers? I want to choose for myself
Posted by: El Kilo at May 12, 2011 05:09 PM (le5qc)
Since when did I claim not to be a kid? Adults don't play Civ IV. I also like ride to Big Wheels and hide pornography so no one will find it. Oh yeah, and I still cry when Old Yeller dies.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 05:09 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 09:09 PM (fLt3S)
Doesn't have to be blanket. Legalizing coca leaves, say, would cut down the demand for cocaine and crack. Wouldn't it?
Under my plan, the FDA would be disbanded.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:10 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 05:10 PM (qIHlG)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 05:11 PM (fLt3S)
Small. Incredibly small. Trying to keep up with it all is difficult, especially when you have to follow statements over entire weeks. Blogs are largely beneficial in that respect but people can't spend every waking moment fact-checking everything. So the MFM will continue to make news where there is none and bury it when it helps Republicans and conservatives, all the while smiling because most people will never know.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 05:11 PM (P+zzG)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at May 12, 2011 05:11 PM (qIHlG)
I'm sure it happens occasionally , hell we're talking about tens of millions of people .
Oh wait , pot is the same as heroin , I forgot .
Off to Betty Ford .
Posted by: awkward davies at May 12, 2011 09:08 PM (YCW1b)
It happens about once a month here. Happened not to long ago just down the street from me. A guy growing medical pot home was invaded by some stoners and he ended up shooting a couple of them.
That's not what I am talking about though and you know it.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 05:11 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 05:12 PM (fLt3S)
We need this with respect to the terrorists as well. Never doubt the ingenuity and ability of the American people to solve a problem. They can do it way better than the govt.
Posted by: KG at May 12, 2011 05:12 PM (4L0zr)
Posted by: MissTammy at May 12, 2011 09:10 PM (SsG4J)
Time has nothing to do with it. Profit margin does. Reduce the profit margin, dealers and smugglers and bears would find something else to do.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:12 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 05:14 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 09:11 PM (MtwBb)
Yeah, those motivated, violent stoners. So you have an even bigger hard-on for alcohol, right? To be logically consistent and all.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:14 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 05:15 PM (fLt3S)
Where in the hell do you live , Kabul ?
Posted by: awkward davies at May 12, 2011 05:16 PM (YCW1b)
Yeah, those motivated, violent stoners. So you have an even bigger hard-on for alcohol, right? To be logically consistent and all.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 09:14 PM (1fanL)
I haven't heard of a lot of home invasions to steal your beer. Does that happen where you live?
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 05:16 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Joe Kennedy at May 12, 2011 05:17 PM (1fanL)
Yeah, those motivated, violent stoners. So you
have an even bigger hard-on for alcohol, right? To be logically
consistent and all.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 09:14 PM (1fanL)
I haven't heard of a lot of home invasions to steal your beer. Does that happen where you live?
////
That's why I never tell anyone I drink Glenmorangie 18.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 05:17 PM (dZ756)
I don't understand why some of these sports parents refuse to allow their kids to be kids. Some of them feel the need to humiliate their children in public for what they feel is poor performance and/or they'll rage against the coach. I remember being in 5th grade and watching a parent get tossed from the game because they refused to stop screaming their opinion across the gym. As a player, it was hard to focus on the game with all that yelling, and they weren't even yelling at me or about me.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 05:18 PM (P+zzG)
Where in the hell do you live , Kabul ?
Posted by: awkward davies at May 12, 2011 09:16 PM (YCW1b)
No, Kirkland, Washington. Yeah it was home invasion and self defense. It was also a gun fight. The stoners were shooting too they just missed.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 05:18 PM (MtwBb)
I haven't heard of a lot of home invasions to steal your beer. Does that happen where you live?
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 09:16 PM (MtwBb)
Oh. So you don't want to be logically consistent. Alcohol is responsible for more deaths every year than pot. Alcohol is worse for you than pot. You can actually be physically addicted to alcohol, as opposed to pot. And of course, there is never any alcohol-induced violence or murder.
Come on.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:19 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: El Kilo at May 12, 2011 05:19 PM (le5qc)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 05:19 PM (fLt3S)
///
Old Milwaukee is surprisingly potable. Not great, but potable. Generally, though, I can't remember which cheap beers are ok; high school was too long ago.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 05:20 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: El Kilo at May 12, 2011 05:21 PM (le5qc)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 09:19 PM (fLt3S)
Is there a principle here? Or is it more of an ad hoc thing? And actually, the fact that a more damaging drug like alcohol is more popular should redouble our efforts at prohibition, no?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:21 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 05:22 PM (fLt3S)
///
Then let's outlaw fat chicks. The skinny ones are way more popular.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 05:22 PM (dZ756)
Sen. Charles Schumer countered with a reference to a unicorn. Sen. Pat Roberts suggested a rhinoceros. It was a fit opening for a show where the oil executives served as props for politicians needing to show voters that they, too, are angry about $4 a gallon gasoline.
"This is not going to change the price at the gas pump," Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus admitted as he gaveled the proceedings to a close.
"I grant you," the Montana Democrat added, "we've got to develop an energy policy in this country."
The hearing didn't get Congress any closer to doing that. But it
did provide Senate Democrats a televised chance to challenge the
nation's five largest oil companies to defend their generous tax breaks
amid huge profits. At issue, Democrats said, was a bill by Sen. Robert
Menendez, D-N.J., to repeal the tax breaks granted to the five companies
testifying.
Posted by: momma at May 12, 2011 05:24 PM (penCf)
Oh. So you don't want to be logically consistent. Alcohol is responsible for more deaths every year than pot. Alcohol is worse for you than pot. You can actually be physically addicted to alcohol, as opposed to pot. And of course, there is never any alcohol-induced violence or murder.
Come on.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 09:19 PM (1fanL)
You keep moving the goal posts but I will try and keep up.
There have been about 35,000 killed in the last couple of years by drug gangs in mexico, add that to the thousands that are killed here every year over drug deals and I don't see how you can claim that.
If you are talking about health problems due to drinking, I already said I don't care if you drink yourself to death or smoke yourself to death.
My concern are the people that have to die to get your weed to you.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 05:24 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:25 PM (1fanL)
Unfortunately Obama and the left only have the Alynski playbook so they can destroy enemies, get power, and retain power but it doesn't teach them how to accomplish anything about governing. At that point they have to trade in Alynski for Marx and his old dusty book is full of theories with pages so soaked in the blood of peasants and so heavily discredited even most Marxists Don't like to talk about them.
Anyone in Boehners position couldn't do much. Until something is peacefully done about the MFM and the Alynski left, Republicans will be useful only as a speed bump.
Posted by: Shiggz at May 12, 2011 05:25 PM (mLAWK)
My concern are the people that have to die to get your weed to you.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 09:24 PM (MtwBb)
And why are people killed? Because it's illegal here, and thus prices are sky-high, and thus profits are huge, and thus people are willing to kill over them.
Zombie Joe Kennedy just emailed me: How'd Prohibition work for robtr?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:26 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 05:27 PM (fLt3S)
Oh wait .
Posted by: awkward davies at May 12, 2011 09:19 PM (YCW1b)
You stoners are funny, they don't rob liquors stores to get liquor. They rob them for the same reason they rob banks. They have money.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 05:28 PM (MtwBb)
Well ok, it may not be that nice and tidy, but I do believe that this way would be far more effective in attacking the drug cartels' operations in our country, than the govt's efforts.
Posted by: KG at May 12, 2011 05:28 PM (4L0zr)
Posted by: awkward davies at May 12, 2011 05:28 PM (YCW1b)
My concern are the people that have to die to get your weed to you.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 09:24 PM (MtwBb)Mine doesn't come from Meheco. People have to die to get your freedom to you. Outlaw it? Just some logical consistency.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:29 PM (1fanL)
My concern are the people that have to die to get your weed to you.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 09:24 PM (MtwBb)
Bwahahahahahahaha.
Posted by: El Kilo at May 12, 2011 05:30 PM (le5qc)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 09:29 PM (1fanL)
Ok now you are just trolling him.
Posted by: KG at May 12, 2011 05:30 PM (4L0zr)
Posted by: humphreyrobot at May 12, 2011 05:30 PM (EiH7n)
Posted by: awkward davies at May 12, 2011 05:31 PM (YCW1b)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 09:27 PM (fLt3S)
Alcohol is a drug. A physically addictive one. And many Americans feel unfairly punished NOW, for taking pleasure in a toke or two. And pot is not physically addictive.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:31 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at May 12, 2011 05:31 PM (VidfH)
Posted by: humphreyrobot at May 12, 2011 05:32 PM (EiH7n)
Ok now you are just trolling him.
Posted by: KG at May 12, 2011 09:30 PM (4L0zr)
I go by the logic other people use in their arguments. There is no principled justification for the disparate treatment of pot and alcohol.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:32 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 05:33 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 09:29 PM (1fanL)
That stuff must be hard on you FUBAR, now you are equating my freedom to live here under our laws and my service and others to defend that with your desire to break the law because you like to smoke pot?
That's fuckin sick
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 05:33 PM (MtwBb)
I go by the logic other people use
in their arguments. There is no principled justification for the
disparate treatment of pot and alcohol.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 09:32 PM (1fanL)
Perhaps not. People, and I mean in a very general sense, as in the American people, are pretty much always going to be illogical in many ways. We may accept some things, but not others even if it logical that we should do so.
Personally, I just can't stand the smell of pot, ugh.
Posted by: KG at May 12, 2011 05:35 PM (4L0zr)
It's like calling someone who supported the war in Iraq a chickenhawk.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:35 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 05:36 PM (fLt3S)
My concern about weed though is not its effects on health but rather its severe affect on personality, hygiene, and musical tastes.
But I cant blame weed for those things anymore then I can blame a gun for violence or an open road for speeders or babys for dirty diapers. Its just part of the price of freedom and civilization. A price much much lower then the alternative.
Posted by: Shiggz at May 12, 2011 05:36 PM (mLAWK)
That stuff must be hard on you FUBAR, now you are equating my freedom to live here under our laws and my service and others to defend that with your desire to break the law because you like to smoke pot?
That's fuckin sick
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 09:33 PM (MtwBb)
I'm using your sick logic. See above re: ad hominem fallacy. I don't want to break the law. That's why I'm for legalization. I have yet to see a substantive argument from you about why pot is legal and alchohol isn't. Keep attacking me personally, though, if it makes you feel better.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:38 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 05:38 PM (fLt3S)
I'd rather be in a smoke filled bar where I'm the only one without a cigarette than in a room where there is one guy smoking joint.
Posted by: buzzion at May 12, 2011 09:36 PM (oVQFe)
If you could get a cigar with an asshole lined wrapper...pretty sure it would smell like a joint.
Posted by: Red Shirt at May 12, 2011 05:38 PM (FIDMq)
I don't have a problem legalizing pot. My point is if that is what you want to do then do it.
Using it while it's against the law is causing a bunch of problems. That's my point.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 05:38 PM (MtwBb)
Perhaps not. People, and I mean in
a very general sense, as in the American people, are pretty much always
going to be illogical in many ways. We may accept some things, but not
others even if it logical that we should do so.
Posted by: KG at May 12, 2011 09:35 PM (4L0zr)
If the policy is illogical, and results in thousands of deaths and millions of incarcerations, shouldn't we think about fixing it?
Abortion. Just accept it?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:40 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: steevy at May 12, 2011 05:40 PM (fLt3S)
I'd rather be in a smoke filled bar where I'm the only one without a cigarette than in a room where there is one guy smoking joint.
Posted by: buzzion at May 12, 2011 09:36 PM (oVQFe)
Cigarette smoke makes me nauseous, and I'll eventually puke. Outlaw cigarettes?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:41 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 05:42 PM (TXKVh)
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 05:42 PM (TXKVh)
Using it while it's against the law is causing a bunch of problems. That's my point.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 09:38 PM (MtwBb)
When using alcohol was against the law, and was causing a bunch of problems, what was the solution?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:42 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: dagny at May 12, 2011 05:43 PM (mQQMY)
I'm using your sick logic. See above re: ad hominem fallacy. I don't want to break the law. That's why I'm for legalization. I have yet to see a substantive argument from you about why pot is legal and alchohol isn't. Keep attacking me personally, though, if it makes you feel better.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 09:38 PM (1fanL)
No you're not, you are making up some fantasy that people who die protecting the country are the same as people that die because of drug smuggling and dealing.
That's sick.
As to you other question about why alcohol is legal and pot isn't, because that is the fucking law. If you don't like it change it. Why is abortion legal and shooting some dumbfuck isn't ? Because it's the law.
How hard is that to understand?
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 05:43 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 09:42 PM (TXKVh)
Plenty of non-drug-using pieces of shit in the world. More. I assume you want less of those? So it's not the drug-using part, it's the piece of shit part.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:44 PM (1fanL)
When using alcohol was against the law, and was causing a bunch of problems, what was the solution?
Making Kennedy rich and leaving us a rich legacy of douchebags? Giving Canada expertise in one field?
Posted by: dagny at May 12, 2011 05:45 PM (mQQMY)
No you're not, you are making up some fantasy that people who die protecting the country are the same as people that die because of drug smuggling and dealing.
That's sick.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 09:43 PM (MtwBb)
It's your logic. People have to die for you to have this thing you want. Therefore, you should quit wanting it. Or what is your logic?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:45 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 05:46 PM (TXKVh)
Making Kennedy rich and leaving us a rich legacy of douchebags? Giving Canada expertise in one field?
Posted by: dagny at May 12, 2011 09:45 PM (mQQMY)
THat wasn't the solution, that was the problem. When Prohibition ended, Kennedy quit bootlegging.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:46 PM (1fanL)
When using alcohol was against the law, and was causing a bunch of problems, what was the solution?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 09:42 PM (1fanL)
Do you just read the last part of what I write? I said if you want to legalize get to work on it and do it. I.don't.care.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 05:46 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 09:46 PM (TXKVh)
He just used bullets. Is that a meaningful distinction?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:46 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: awkward davies at May 12, 2011 05:48 PM (YCW1b)
Do you just read the last part of what I write? I said if you want to legalize get to work on it and do it. I.don't.care.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 09:46 PM (MtwBb)
It's not just the reading, it's the reading comprehension. If you want to solve the problem, shouldn't you support legalization? Want the murders to go way down? The incarcerations? Or do you want to feel superior to a bunch of murder-supporting, stupid drug addicts?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:49 PM (1fanL)
Plenty of non-drug-using pieces
of shit in the world. More. I assume you want less of those? So it's
not the drug-using part, it's the piece of shit part.
No. They had jobs and then started using. Now they've managed to get so fucked up with drug induced bi-polar bullshit they can't hold down a job. It was the drugs that made them what they are today.
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 05:50 PM (TXKVh)
Take away the huge profits, take away the violence. Allow marijuana growers and sellers to call the police when they get threatened, take away the violence.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:51 PM (1fanL)
He just used bullets. Is that a meaningful distinction?
He didn't kill normal citizens. Just fellows "in the business". That a big fucking distinction.
Next.
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 05:52 PM (TXKVh)
If they legalized it, they could/would tax the hell out of it.
ATF would have to change their name and require more funding!
Growing Government via whatever means possible.
Posted by: CatLady at May 12, 2011 05:52 PM (CyPWX)
It's your logic. People have to die for you to have this thing you want. Therefore, you should quit wanting it. Or what is your logic?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 09:45 PM (1fanL)
My logic is that keeping your country, home and family safe is worth dying for. Innocent poeple dying just to keep Americas supply of illegal drugs is a tragedy and the only reason it happens is because people want to smoke pot.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 05:52 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: FUBAR
LOL!!! And the cops will ride unicorns!!!
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 05:53 PM (TXKVh)
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 09:50 PM (TXKVh)
It's kinda like food. Abuse it, and you get all kinds of health problems. I assume you're against the gummint telling us what and how to eat. I assume you're against Michelle lecturing us about eating.
It's kinda like EVERYTHING. Abuse it, and you have problems.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:53 PM (1fanL)
Amen. Pot in your lungs, blood on your hands.
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 05:54 PM (TXKVh)
Posted by: FUBAR
LOL!!! And the cops will ride unicorns!!!
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 09:53 PM (TXKVh)
Did you miss the part where I asked why it'd be different for marijuana prohibition than it was for alcohol prohibition?
My kingdom for logic and consistency. Eh, just stick to the hilarious one liners.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:55 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 09:54 PM (TXKVh)
Support the war in Iraq? Blood on your hands. Use oil? Blood on your hands. Are you a liberal?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:55 PM (1fanL)
It's kinda like food. Abuse it, and you get all kinds of health problems. I assume you're against the gummint telling us what and how to eat. I assume you're against Michelle lecturing us about eating.
It's kinda like EVERYTHING. Abuse it, and you have problems.
Wrong. I drink but I've never been drunk. You can't say that about pot. Unless you're Bill Clinton, I guess.
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 05:56 PM (TXKVh)
@66: "Apparently we still haven't reached the hill to die on. We'll all be dead before we reach the hill to die on. Such is the state of the GOP.
Well done at the federal level, guys. You're managing to make yourselves irrelevant before the echoes from the reading of the Constitution have left the building. Who knew the national mandate was "to do the same ol' shit that got us kicked out"?"
Oh ye of little faith. We have forged our battleplan based on a classic hammer-and-anvil attack as executed by one of America's bravest and most famous generals.
Specifically, we're emulating Custer at the Little Bighorn. We'll die in penny-packets on 5, count 'em, 5 different hills! Sure, that battle was known as Custer's Last Stand, but in the long run, it was really the Indians who lost - they were all on the reservation in pretty short order thereafter.
Posted by: The GOP Elites at May 12, 2011 05:57 PM (xy9wk)
Posted by: robtr
Innocent people dying just to keep America's supply of drugs illegal. And Dang? Why would it be different than it was for alcohol Prohibition? Let me predict that you won't answer with anything approaching coherent logic.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:57 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 09:56 PM (TXKVh)
Right. And the cops will ride on unicorns.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 05:59 PM (1fanL)
Support the war in Iraq? Blood on your hands. Use oil? Blood on your hands. Are you a liberal?
Wars are necessary. So is oil. Getting high isn't. Unless your a fucking addict. So I guess you support terrorists? No. I didn't think so. But your drug affected mind would probably jump to that also stupid assertion.
Next.
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 05:59 PM (TXKVh)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 09:49 PM (1fanL)
See that's always the delimma isn't it? I don't smoke pot but I need to help you legalize it so the killing stops right? It's my problem all this killing because of pot because I am not out lobbying to get it legalized.
Ever think that maybe people smoking it could say hey this shit isn't worth people dying over and quit? Afterall everyone tells me it's not addictive they could quit whenever they wanted.
So is it my inaction on getting a drug legal that I don't use killing people or is it people who are using an illegal drug killing people?
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 06:01 PM (MtwBb)
Next.
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 09:59 PM (TXKVh)
Oil is necessary? The world did without it for 4 billion years, except the last 100. More ad hominem attacks. Usually means your arguments are weak.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 06:04 PM (1fanL)
See that's always the delimma isn't it? I don't smoke pot but I need to help you legalize it so the killing stops right? It's my problem all this killing because of pot because I am not out lobbying to get it legalized.
Ever think that maybe people smoking it could say hey this shit isn't worth people dying over and quit? Afterall everyone tells me it's not addictive they could quit whenever they wanted.
So is it my inaction on getting a drug legal that I don't use killing people or is it people who are using an illegal drug killing people?
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 10:01 PM (MtwBb)
Nah, I don't need your help. I just figured you wanted to be logically consistent. But hey, keep destroying those straw men.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 06:05 PM (1fanL)
I don't want thing to get worse than they already are. Legalize drugs and they will.
I'm guessing you don't know any users who are true fucked up losers on a downward spiral. Good for you. Have a few enter you life and you will hate what they've done with their lives. Squandered and wasted.
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 06:06 PM (TXKVh)
Posted by: The Chicken at May 12, 2011 06:07 PM (zgslf)
Who supports the drug terrorists? You do. By supporting prohibition, you help keep prices and profits high. That's what motivates the drug terrorists. You have blood on your hands.
I want drugs to be so cheap, and profit margins so narrow, that it doesn't pay to smuggle them and kill people over them.
On to the next logical fallacy!
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 06:07 PM (1fanL)
Oil is necessary? The world did without it for 4 billion years, except the last 100.
You're asking people if they are liberal? No offense FUBAR but that is something you could read on Daily KOS.
I don't think the pot is neccessary and oil is not argument will get you may converts.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 06:07 PM (MtwBb)
Oil is necessary? The world did without it for 4 billion years, except the last 100. More ad hominem attacks. Usually means your arguments are weak.
Posted by: FUBAR
Fucking pathetic. College student I'm guessing?
Sure get rid of oil. You support the Great Depression? I thought not. Just pretending to be a pot head.
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 06:08 PM (TXKVh)
I don't want thing to get worse than they already are. Legalize drugs and they will.
I'm guessing you don't know any users who are true fucked up losers on a downward spiral. Good for you. Have a few enter you life and you will hate what they've done with their lives. Squandered and wasted.
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 10:06 PM (TXKVh)
Like what happened with alcohol, right? So you want to bring back Prohibition.
Do you have ANY evidence for your assertions that ending drug prohibition will be different than ending alcohol prohibition?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 06:09 PM (1fanL)
Ah, I didn't say anything about accepting it.
I'm just going to second buzzion's response to you.
Posted by: KG at May 12, 2011 06:10 PM (4L0zr)
Sure get rid of oil. You support the Great Depression? I thought not. Just pretending to be a pot head.
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 10:08 PM (TXKVh)
I'm 40, and I have degrees in mechanical engineering and law - typical squanderer and waster, right? And your bona fides? What's fucking pathetic is your inability to address the arguments instead of calling names and relating anecdotes.
And of course, you miss the point entirely once again.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 06:11 PM (1fanL)
You're asking people if they are liberal? No offense FUBAR but that is something you could read on Daily KOS.
I don't think the pot is neccessary and oil is not argument will get you may converts.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 10:07 PM (MtwBb)
You're the ones calling names and yammering about blood on my hands. That's something you'd read at fucking Kos. I'm just using your same logic to demonstrate how completely assinine it is.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 06:12 PM (1fanL)
I'm just going to second buzzion's response to you.
Posted by: KG at May 12, 2011 10:10 PM (4L0zr)
Same logic.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 06:14 PM (1fanL)
Nah, I don't need your help. I just figured you wanted to be logically consistent. But hey, keep destroying those straw men.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 10:05 PM (1fanL)
I am consistant FUBAR, pot is illegal, lots of people die getting it to pot consumers. If people quit smoking pot that would stop.
Now If I was sitting here enjoying this nice cold beer and people were getting shot in the streets to get it to me because it's illegal then I would be inconsistant and a hypocrite.
As it stands now I'm just an average American.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 06:14 PM (MtwBb)
I want drugs to be so cheap, and profit margins so narrow, that it doesn't pay to smuggle them and kill people over them.
On to the next logical fallacy!
Posted by: FUBAR
You want to sell drugs to kids? That would make 'em real cheap! Expand your market! Follow that "logic"?
Seriously, are you in college?
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 06:15 PM (TXKVh)
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 06:17 PM (TXKVh)
As it stands now I'm just an average American.
Posted by: robtrGood night, average American. I'm going to bed. Wish I had a beer.
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 06:18 PM (TXKVh)
You want to sell drugs to kids? That would make 'em real cheap! Expand your market! Follow that "logic"?
Seriously, are you in college?
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 10:15 PM (TXKVh)
Name calling. Personal attacks. No attempt to address actual arguments. Who's in college again?
What if people were killing each other over freedom? Make it illegal? See how illogical and inconsistent your arguments are.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 06:19 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: Dang at May 12, 2011 10:18 PM (TXKVh)
Yeah, that's about what I figured, you fucking screaming ninny.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 12, 2011 06:20 PM (1fanL)
I was going to say something about having to take the smelly cat box to the dumpster. Got back in the house and remembered I forgot to pick up litter stuff at my last trip to the store.
Anyway, had a huge pile of junk mail and bills i don't want to pay, so fired up the shredder and the cats are happy.
Posted by: CatLady at May 12, 2011 06:28 PM (CyPWX)
Posted by: curious at May 12, 2011 06:57 PM (k1rwm)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 12, 2011 07:47 PM (9Eut1)
Eye, mote, beam, some disassembly required.
Posted by: sum(random) at May 12, 2011 08:56 PM (Urtd5)
Rush Limbaugh is a prophet -- if the GOP does not stand with conservatives then it will be replaced by a party that does. The Tea Party thing is a glimpse of the future if Boehner and his ilk do not get onboard -- no more talk, we want to see the walk.
Posted by: Full Moon at May 13, 2011 04:50 AM (m75CK)
1/1/2013
Rise of the Constitution Party, end of the GOP (remnants of which return to their original homesite in the Demoncrat party).
Posted by: chuck in st paul at May 13, 2011 06:37 AM (EhYdw)
convert pdf files pdf files converter transfer pdf files
* Optimal preset formats for iPad, Galaxy Tab, Dell Streak, iPhone, iPod, Gphone, Blackberry, PS3, Xbox, PSP, Wii, DV, etc.
Posted by: romains at May 14, 2011 07:39 AM (IOJrp)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.264 seconds, 540 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Ben at May 12, 2011 02:15 PM (DKV43)