March 10, 2014
— Ace Turley avoids calling him a dictator and in fact says he's not.
But...
The United States is at a constitutional tipping point: The rise of an uber presidency unchecked by the other two branches.This massive shift of authority threatens the stability and functionality of our tripartite system of checks and balances....
James Madison fashioned a government of three bodies locked in a synchronous orbit by their countervailing powers. The system of separation of powers was not created to protect the authority of each branch for its own sake. Rather, it is the primary protection of individual rights because it prevents the concentration of power in any one branch. In this sense, Obama is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he has become the very danger that separation of powers was designed to avoid.
The suspension of a portion of the ACA is only the latest such action related to the healthcare law...
Not even the power of the purse, which belongs exclusively to Congress, is sufficient to deter the White House. The Obama administration took $454 million from a fund established to help prevent illness and put the money instead toward paying for the federal health insurance exchange. Even leading Democratic members denounced this as "a violation of both the letter and spirit of this landmark law."
Meanwhile, Peggy Noonan questions whether Obamcare is even a "law" anymore.
@charlescwcooke summed this up a while back on the podcast: It's not a law. It might have been passed in a law-like form, but it has been "interpreted" by Obama to not be a law at all.
It is simply an Enabling Act, a block grant of legislative authority to the executive on anything in the category of "health care."
This, of course, is illegal, and unconstitutional. Even if Congress wished to give their powers to the Executive, it would be illegal for them to do so, and the Supreme Court would call it illegal.
And yet here the President simply asserts that Congress has handed him his powers, and only a brave few say anything about it at all.
Posted by: Ace at
01:53 PM
| Comments (348)
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.
Yeah I'm not so sure about that statement.
Posted by: lowandslow at March 10, 2014 01:55 PM (IV4od)
It is simply an Enabling Act,
Damn. Let's go all Godwin right from the beginning.
Not disagreeing with the idea, mind you......
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 10, 2014 01:55 PM (TIIx5)
Posted by: rickb223 at March 10, 2014 01:55 PM (GjYxB)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 01:56 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 01:57 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 01:57 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: rickb223 at March 10, 2014 01:58 PM (GjYxB)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 01:58 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 10, 2014 01:58 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 01:58 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Ezra Klein at March 10, 2014 01:59 PM (slXFW)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 01:59 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: hello, it's me also a creep-assed cracka.. at March 10, 2014 01:59 PM (9+ccr)
Caudillo Barack Obama. All he needs now is the epaulettes.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 05:57 PM (8ZskC)
Naw. Communists always do bland. It'll be a Mao suit, or some other plain commie uniform.
If nothing else, right-wing dictators do it in STYLE, with fancy uniforms.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 10, 2014 01:59 PM (TIIx5)
Posted by: L, elle at March 10, 2014 01:59 PM (0xqKe)
Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2014 01:59 PM (hFL/3)
Posted by: MSM at March 10, 2014 02:00 PM (oFCZn)
The only thing I want to hear from the Magic Dolphin Lady is the sound of her shutting the fuck up and staying that way.
She is one of those in the brigade of elite Acela-corridor media mavens who helped inflict this utter disaster on the country in the first place, by boosting and endorsing Obama. Because perfect polished pants creases. And smoothly sonorous speeches.
And also because of Noonan's utter horror over Sarah Palin, the declasse unpolished backwoods imbecile snowbilly bitch with the weird accent and the moose burgers, who nevertheless has been absolutely 100% correct about every single major policy issue since 2008.
Posted by: torquewrench at March 10, 2014 02:00 PM (gqT4g)
Posted by: Yip at March 10, 2014 02:01 PM (/jHWN)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 10, 2014 02:01 PM (qw/qU)
Posted by: palerider at March 10, 2014 02:01 PM (dkExz)
Seriously, has ANYONE had the media shield Obama has? It amazes me how committed the Left is, in its entirety, to ensuring that the least qualified and most useless man to hold the Presidency not be seen as failing, reality be damned.
Posted by: acethepug at March 10, 2014 02:01 PM (UNcun)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:01 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Mark Levin at March 10, 2014 02:01 PM (lq3Ak)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 10, 2014 02:01 PM (9JPz+)
Posted by: Chavez the Hugo at March 10, 2014 02:01 PM (Q8vlx)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 05:59 PM (IXrOn)
Roberts will go down in history as one of the great Supreme Court villains. He inexplicably rolled over for an unprecedented power grab by a tyrannical executive and a corrupt Congress. Roger Taney had better move over and make some space in the SCOTUS Hall of Shame.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 02:02 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: steevy at March 10, 2014 02:02 PM (zqvg6)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 05:57 PM (8ZskC)
And the fez hat! Posted by: L, elle
pffffft
Posted by: Zombie Zaddafi, in a muu-muu and feather boa at March 10, 2014 02:02 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 10, 2014 02:02 PM (qw/qU)
Posted by: Yip at March 10, 2014 02:02 PM (/jHWN)
Posted by: Zombie Zaddafi, in a muu-muu and feather boa at March 10, 2014 02:02 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: rickb223 at March 10, 2014 02:02 PM (GjYxB)
Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at March 10, 2014 02:02 PM (kUgpq)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:03 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: steevy at March 10, 2014 02:03 PM (zqvg6)
He abuses those who have been gulled into putting their hope and faith into him.
Posted by: Timothy Jones at March 10, 2014 02:03 PM (y+0FJ)
Posted by: MTF at March 10, 2014 02:03 PM (LISuA)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:03 PM (IXrOn)
Say what?
**hides behind back the draft of bill allowing POTUS to raise the debt ceiling if Congress fails to vote to do so**
Posted by: Mitch McConnell at March 10, 2014 02:03 PM (TGvyc)
Posted by: Li'l Joey boo Boo at March 10, 2014 02:04 PM (XUKZU)
The thing that I think took the wind out of everyone's sails was Chief Justice Roberts' betrayal of law, the constitution, and his own integrity. He had a chance to do it right and block Obamacare, and he chose to do what he though was the "historical" thing that would best preserve his legacy.
Well, its preserved. You'll be known forever as the guy who presided over the death of the republic.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 02:04 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2014 02:04 PM (hFL/3)
Posted by: tangonine at March 10, 2014 02:04 PM (x3YFz)
*hic*
Now where'd that houseboy go? I need him to do the job no American will do.
Posted by: John Boehner at March 10, 2014 02:04 PM (8ZskC)
I think the only thing that could possibly get the attention of runaway Washington DC is a massive tax revolt. No taxes? No programs.
Posted by: kathysaysso at March 10, 2014 02:05 PM (6H6o8)
Posted by: Taxman Roberts, Chief Taxman, SCOTUS at March 10, 2014 02:05 PM (qw/qU)
Posted by: wheatie at March 10, 2014 02:05 PM (8quPO)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 10, 2014 02:06 PM (XyM/Y)
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 10, 2014 02:06 PM (ZshNr)
Posted by: Chavez the Hugo at March 10, 2014 02:06 PM (Q8vlx)
Posted by: L, elle at March 10, 2014 02:06 PM (0xqKe)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 02:07 PM (zfY+H)
Did you read the next part where Obama illegally took money from one fund and used it for another purpose? Even if Congress said, "Nothing gets any funding except the military." Obama would continue funding whatever he chose.
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 10, 2014 02:07 PM (P7Wsr)
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX (@Teresa_Koch) at March 10, 2014 02:07 PM (PZ6/M)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:07 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Mitch McConnell at March 10, 2014 02:07 PM (XUKZU)
Posted by: The Yellow Pug at March 10, 2014 02:08 PM (r7mtu)
Posted by: tangonine at March 10, 2014 02:08 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: wheatie at March 10, 2014 02:08 PM (8quPO)
Posted by: Gmac-Pondering the coming implosion, and hoping its 404care at March 10, 2014 02:09 PM (baiNQ)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 10, 2014 02:09 PM (nzKvP)
Posted by: grammie winger at March 10, 2014 02:09 PM (oMKp3)
Posted by: Y-not on the phone at March 10, 2014 02:09 PM (HyIce)
Posted by: tangonine at March 10, 2014 02:09 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 10, 2014 02:10 PM (BAqy2)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 10, 2014 02:10 PM (ZPrif)
Hardly inexplicable. He was likely threatened with having his small children taken away.
Roberts and his wife adopted a boy and a girl from Ireland. But Irish law prohibits adoption by non-Irish nationals. So the Robertses paid the birth mothers to travel outside Ireland for the formalities. This is shady stuff and it's the sort of thing that could hypothetically result in the nullification of the Robertses' parental status, if someone made a big enough stink.
Needless to say, this kind of skirting of the law is not what you want to have in the personal history of a SCOTUS nominee. Because it may make them vulnerable to pressure by whomever is in power elsewhere in the government at that time. And anyone who thinks that the Chicago gang would be so timorous as to refrain from exerting such pressure needs to review history.
Another George W. Bush vetting failure. I suppose things could be worse. If Bush had had this way, we'd have Harriet freaking Miers up there on the Supreme Court next to the Dread Justice Roberts.
Posted by: torquewrench at March 10, 2014 02:10 PM (gqT4g)
I've got charts and stuff?
No?
Posted by: Karl (Turd Blossom) Rove at March 10, 2014 02:11 PM (Ojgjr)
Posted by: rickb223 at March 10, 2014 02:11 PM (GjYxB)
Posted by: Killerdog at March 10, 2014 02:11 PM (Iv2Hz)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:11 PM (IXrOn)
If you look at the history of dictators, a whole passel of them used the veneer of legality. They didn't just come out and say, "By the power of my office, I'm legalizing killing off the Uzbecks" or whatever. They hid that sort of thing, disappeared anyone who spoke out about it, and took over their legislatures and media outlets to give a bit of respectability to their actions.
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 10, 2014 02:11 PM (P7Wsr)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 10, 2014 02:12 PM (BAqy2)
Posted by: Albie Damned at March 10, 2014 02:12 PM (cGaCp)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 06:02 PM (8ZskC)
History is written by the winners. We need to step it up if we want history to even mention what a disastrous Chief Justice Roberts has been. As for President Obama, he could deep fry live kittens on network television and history will say how great he was, how beneficient, how noble, because the first black President absolutely cannot be perceived as a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure that he truly is, now or ever. And no, I'm not writing that because I'm some ignorant racist. I'm writing it because it's true. The President knows this truth better than anyone and uses it as both shield and club.
Posted by: troyriser at March 10, 2014 02:13 PM (O66NZ)
Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2014 02:13 PM (hFL/3)
Posted by: grammie winger at March 10, 2014 02:13 PM (oMKp3)
quite whining.
Posted by: B.obama2 at March 10, 2014 02:13 PM (nqBYe)
Just checking, Jonathan. You might want to consider what drives your political choices in life.
Oh, who am I kidding. I'm sure he has a perfectly reasonable explanation that he uses while standing in front of the mirror.
Posted by: GnuBreed at March 10, 2014 02:13 PM (wNF3N)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero)
To tell the citizens to sit down and pay their taxes.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i][/b] at March 10, 2014 02:14 PM (Y/M/K)
Posted by: Justamom at March 10, 2014 02:14 PM (Sptt8)
Posted by: tangonine at March 10, 2014 02:14 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: steevy at March 10, 2014 02:14 PM (zqvg6)
Posted by: Chavez the Hugo at March 10, 2014 02:15 PM (Q8vlx)
Posted by: steevy at March 10, 2014 02:15 PM (zqvg6)
Posted by: wheatie at March 10, 2014 06:05 PM (8quPO)
+++
You seemed so engrossed in whatever it was you were doing over there. By yourself.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at March 10, 2014 02:15 PM (IN7k+)
and hard.
Posted by: B.obama2 at March 10, 2014 02:15 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:17 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: rickb223 at March 10, 2014 02:17 PM (GjYxB)
amirite or amirite?
Posted by: B.obama2 at March 10, 2014 02:17 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: tangonine at March 10, 2014 02:18 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: dfbaskwill at March 10, 2014 02:18 PM (ndlFj)
Posted by: zombie at March 10, 2014 02:18 PM (mizYg)
He helped pass it by rewriting the piece of drek and calling it a tax.
just like those 2 maine sisters? helping to bring it on.
Posted by: B.obama2 at March 10, 2014 02:19 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 10, 2014 02:20 PM (ZshNr)
Posted by: tangonine at March 10, 2014 02:20 PM (x3YFz)
Even if Congress wished to give their powers to the Executive, it would be illegal for them to do so, and the Supreme Court would call it illegal.
HAS called it illegal, not that anyone seems to care:
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (199
, is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. The decision of the Court, in a six-to-three majority, was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens.Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 10, 2014 02:20 PM (kdS6q)
Ron Paul -- Crimea has a right to join Russia and US sanctions would be "criminal"
Rand Paul -- The US must take strong action against Russia's aggression.
Both articles are currently up at Hot Air (one is in the Headlines section).
Like father, like son on foreign policy? Methinks you worry too much Drew.
Posted by: GnuBreed at March 10, 2014 02:20 PM (wNF3N)
Posted by: willow at March 10, 2014 02:20 PM (nqBYe)
Well, it is like 100 years old and stuff. Or 1,000. Or something like that.
Posted by: Ezra Klein at March 10, 2014 02:20 PM (8ZskC)
When even emptying phasers into Kome hordes isn't enough you need a Shatner.
Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at March 10, 2014 02:20 PM (DL2i+)
Posted by: Chavez the Hugo at March 10, 2014 02:20 PM (Q8vlx)
Apparently Debbie Whatshername Schlong thinks women need to be assertive and act like leaders. Judging from her track record, I'd vote "barefoot and pregnant." We girls really do need to learn how to get along, don't we?
Posted by: tcn at March 10, 2014 02:21 PM (fwcEs)
Posted by: Justamom at March 10, 2014 02:21 PM (Sptt8)
thanks, shudder, now i want to jump off a cliff.
Posted by: willow at March 10, 2014 02:21 PM (nqBYe)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:22 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 05:57 PM (8ZskC)
Naw. Communists always do bland. It'll be a Mao suit, or some other plain commie uniform.
If nothing else, right-wing dictators do it in STYLE, with fancy uniforms.>>
Yeah...do it plain...like Stalin http://tinyurl.com/nwpa8l5
Posted by: Albie Damned at March 10, 2014 02:22 PM (cGaCp)
Posted by: Brewer at March 10, 2014 02:23 PM (eV1I0)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:24 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at March 10, 2014 02:24 PM (JQuNB)
Posted by: Justamom at March 10, 2014 02:25 PM (Sptt8)
Posted by: steevy at March 10, 2014 06:03 PM (zqvg6)
Haven't you watched House of Cards? Of course he was coerced. Maybe if he had been happy with a little brown skinned baby like I was, we wouldn't be in this mess. But, no, he wanted to pass his kids off as his bio-spawn. So, we are boned.
Until Mr. Cruz takes the stage. Then, all bets are off.
How did we get so "ruled" by such a limp-wristed and limp-dicked asshat as the SCOAMF?
Posted by: tcn at March 10, 2014 02:26 PM (fwcEs)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at March 10, 2014 02:26 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: tangonine at March 10, 2014 02:26 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 02:27 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:29 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 10, 2014 02:29 PM (BAqy2)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at March 10, 2014 02:30 PM (RZ8pf)
BINGO! As a lawyer, I recommend that you immediately stop paying your taxes. If you're ever prosecuted, just repeat "Obamacare is bullshit" while tapping your heels together three times. They have to let you go. It's right in the Constitution under the Olly Olly Oxen Free Codicil of the Good N Plenty Clause.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 02:30 PM (8ZskC)
Carl Rove's PAC, I think it's Crossroads America, raised $100 million for the 2012 election. That's why he was relevant; since then he's only raised $6 million. Money talks.
That plus his architecting ain't been building anything piles of shit on the lawn for the last several years.
Posted by: GnuBreed at March 10, 2014 02:30 PM (wNF3N)
131 And...Rand Paul has been doing robo-calls for Karl Rove's pac.
Not sure what to make of that.
Posted by: wheatie at March 10, 2014 06:19 PM (8quPO)
It's like he's flying consistently under the radar, while he quietly builds.
pjmedia has a piece on Why Rand Paul is Winning. It's an interesting read.
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 06:22 PM (IXrOn)
-------------
Maybe so, but...
Making robo-calls for Rove...against a Libertarian candidate, for a Rove-supported candidate...doesn't seem like 'flying under the radar' to me.
Posted by: wheatie at March 10, 2014 02:30 PM (8quPO)
Posted by: tangonine at March 10, 2014 02:30 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: tubal at March 10, 2014 02:30 PM (YEQ2h)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:31 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 02:31 PM (zfY+H)
The orange Dorito prints all over the driver's side window always give the game away.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 02:33 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at March 10, 2014 02:33 PM (jucos)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 02:33 PM (zfY+H)
But with Hillary, first woman president won't have the same protection. It will have some, but nowhere near what Obama has.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 02:34 PM (0LHZx)
You forgot to tell him how the fringe on the US flag in court means it's an Admiralty Court and cannot try you for tax fraud.
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 10, 2014 02:34 PM (P7Wsr)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 10, 2014 02:34 PM (BAqy2)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:35 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at March 10, 2014 02:35 PM (jucos)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 10, 2014 02:35 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: Aetius451AD at March 10, 2014 02:36 PM (TGgNi)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 02:36 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: L, elle at March 10, 2014 02:36 PM (0xqKe)
Posted by: Navycopjoe at March 10, 2014 02:36 PM (rRol4)
Except on religion, where he went off the rails like a screaming imbecile.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 02:37 PM (zfY+H)
I don't know. It seems that the leftist media has figured out that people will ignore a whole lot of flaws in Dem Presidents if they choose not to report them. I don't know why they would go back to reporting on Dems like they did with Carter, or even Clinton, given what they're willing to ignore.
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 10, 2014 02:37 PM (P7Wsr)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at March 10, 2014 02:37 PM (FagYF)
Even if they found out that Pot was giving babies cancer and causing the oceans to rise, all that sweet, sweet tax money is too good to give up. No way this is reversed now no matter what they find out. I expect all 50 states to legalize pot within 5 years because of the tax money, its like when states started up lotteries.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 02:38 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:38 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 10, 2014 02:38 PM (ZshNr)
Odor, appearance or importance in pop culture?
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 02:39 PM (8ZskC)
Exactly. The news media has figured out that if they do not work 100% of the time every single minute of the day to support and protect their guys, then they start to lose. By doing so, by working full time as hard as they can, they squeak out wins nationally, even with the help of ... extra ballots, shall we say.
They're not going back to the days when they were willing to report bad news about their guys except on page B-37 and in the most careful terms and timing.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 02:40 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at March 10, 2014 02:40 PM (RZ8pf)
Posted by: tubal at March 10, 2014 02:40 PM (YEQ2h)
Posted by: Marmo at March 10, 2014 02:40 PM (pcgW1)
This is the only thing McCain and I have generally agreed upon over the last 8 years. Interestingly, he'd stab me in the back over this too, if the old fucking horndog had the opportunity.
Posted by: Fritz at March 10, 2014 02:40 PM (PnMCP)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 10, 2014 02:41 PM (BAqy2)
Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at March 10, 2014 02:41 PM (LWu6U)
166 I'm sure when a rethugikkkant president gets elected the presidential powers will get put into their proper place
Posted by: Navycopjoe at March 10, 2014 06:36 PM (rRol4)
----------
The DNCmedia will suddenly become strict Constitutionalists again, if a Republican is in the WH.
So yeah, presidential powers would get reigned in.
Posted by: wheatie at March 10, 2014 02:41 PM (8quPO)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:41 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: One Hat To Rule Them All at March 10, 2014 02:41 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 10, 2014 02:41 PM (HVff2)
Yeah, that's the thing. So many utterly stupid, lying arguments used. The whole "hemp economy" thing, the "medical marijuana" thing, it was all stupid lies.
Maybe that's what it takes to get something done today though. Nobody wants the truth, nobody believes you are telling the truth, they just want cleverly delivered, comforting lies.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 02:41 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: tangonine at March 10, 2014 06:30 PM (x3YFz)<<<
We set up a speed trap across from the Taco Bell -- can snag all the stoners hurrying to get to the late night drive through before it closes.
Posted by: CO State Patrol at March 10, 2014 02:41 PM (TGvyc)
Posted by: Justamom at March 10, 2014 02:42 PM (Sptt8)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:43 PM (IXrOn)
Yeah, but you can't get buzzed on pills.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 02:43 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: L, elle at March 10, 2014 02:43 PM (0xqKe)
"Nevertheless, a preliminary tally counts 99,690 crashes reported to law enforcement in 2013, an increase of just 72 from the year before, State Patrol spokesman Bob Calkins said. Of those, 443 were fatal -- compared to 444 in 2012, 454 in 2011 and 521 in 2008. The trend line for fatal accidents "has been strongly down for several years, and we are not seeing a change in that trend since the legalization of marijuana," Calkins said.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 02:44 PM (0LHZx)
Can't they put it in pills or something? Surely they don't have children smoke or eat pot brownies, do they?
Big Tie-Dye Shirt is behind smoking it, even for kids.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 02:44 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: steevy at March 10, 2014 06:02 PM (zqvg6)
That sounds more like Kathleen "why isn't her ass ginormous like mine" Parker.
Posted by: Captain Hate at March 10, 2014 02:44 PM (5H/Nk)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at March 10, 2014 02:44 PM (RZ8pf)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at March 10, 2014 02:44 PM (FagYF)
Posted by: Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest at March 10, 2014 02:44 PM (LWu6U)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:44 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at March 10, 2014 02:45 PM (C0PvV)
Of course he's not a dictator. He's the Noble Tyrant - because he's just trying to make things better.
Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at March 10, 2014 02:46 PM (BZAd3)
There are weed products without the snoed effect that do help people.
I know actual people who have been helped by it.
However, a few bong tokes makes music so much better.
Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Commissar at March 10, 2014 02:46 PM (HQml1)
Posted by: pleasurehead at March 10, 2014 02:47 PM (LHgfw)
Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at March 10, 2014 06:45 PM (C0PvV)
____________
What about alcohol?
This is the thing that annoys the hell out of me about the anti-pot people. The arguments you make against pot could be made verbatim for alcohol. Yet you are perfectly fine with booze being legal.
What you're essentially saying is that your trust people to not get drunk and drive or not get drunk and operate heavy machines. But you don't trust people to do the same with pot.
Which is pretty stupid.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 02:47 PM (0LHZx)
Thanks so much for that image.
I hope to return the favor some day.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 10, 2014 02:47 PM (QFxY5)
Same thing as working with a boozer, although right now few drink on the job but smoking weed is socially protected so its probably more likely to be an issue.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 02:48 PM (zfY+H)
Of course it is. You have to have the will to use it.
---
But they did. And the result was the government "shut down", even though 80% of operations continued, and it continued to borrow and spend off the books. And the areas curtailed were calculated to inflict maximum punishment on the citizens, while government propaganda outlets blamed the party trying to rein in the Executive. The Executive enlisted agencies to act as private Gestapos - which they did with glee - to inconvenience, embarrass and punish citizens, even holding them hostage.
In the end, the opposition caved, as they always have. And they promised never, ever to do it again.
I don't think the Founders really thought this one through.
Posted by: whoever at March 10, 2014 02:48 PM (pjMym)
You forgot to tell him how the fringe on the US flag in court means it's an Admiralty Court and cannot try you for tax fraud.
Posted by: bonhomme
I hold allodial title on this post, therefor it can not be taxed.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 10, 2014 02:49 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: pleasurehead at March 10, 2014 02:49 PM (LHgfw)
Posted by: Ugg Boots at March 10, 2014 06:47 PM (oGrEy)
Join us!
We are much, much more fun.
[and I think Ace would join us too. We don't nag]
Posted by: Drunks Against Mad Mothers at March 10, 2014 02:49 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at March 10, 2014 02:49 PM (RZ8pf)
Children!
Posted by: pleasurehead at March 10, 2014 06:47 PM (LHgfw)
________
The same liberty loving conservatives who think Mike Bloomberg is the next Hitler for banning 16 oz Cokes and salt. He did that and it's the end of the republic as we know it. But banning a plant? Hey man, totally cool with that. Same with banning gambling.
For the Children of course....
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 02:49 PM (0LHZx)
The one good thing about States legalizing marijuana?
It strengthens States Rights.
And at a time when Barky and the liberal courts have been taking bites out of States Rights.
If states can make their own marijuana laws...uncontested by the Feds...then they can make their own laws about other things that contradict Federal laws.
Like outlawing Sharia law and same-sex marriage.
Posted by: wheatie at March 10, 2014 02:50 PM (8quPO)
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 10, 2014 02:50 PM (ZshNr)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at March 10, 2014 02:50 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 10, 2014 02:50 PM (HVff2)
We are much, much more fun.
[and I think Ace would join us too. We don't nag]
Posted by: Drunks Against Mad Mothers at March 10, 2014 06:49 PM (QFxY5)
___________________
Youi Bledder blieve it buddy...
Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at March 10, 2014 02:50 PM (jucos)
Sure they did. They warned us over and over that the system only works with a virtuous public. If the people stop being good, then the government necessarily follows this. Politics is downstream from culture. If the culture rots away, so does the political arena.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 02:50 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 10, 2014 02:50 PM (P7Wsr)
A Republican President who tries to, say, abolish the IRS or the EPA, will not only NOT get tyrant Obama's Praetorian Guard Media assisting him, but will be outright attacked and lied about.
Destroy the Left, destroy the Media (but I repeat myself).
Posted by: acethepug at March 10, 2014 02:51 PM (UNcun)
It strengthens States Rights. "
That was an interesting aspect of it. Of course they carefully chose a time when they had a president they knew would do nothing about it.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 02:51 PM (zfY+H)
Which is pretty stupid.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 06:47 PM (0LHZx)
3,000 years of a culture of drinking has taught us how to manage it. Not perfectly, but it will never go away.
Marijuana has far more unknowns than knowns.
And really, is that your best argument?
"Well, you drink, so I should be able to get high."
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 10, 2014 02:52 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 10, 2014 02:52 PM (nzKvP)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 10, 2014 02:52 PM (j/G/e)
But I suppose you and your little precious ones are impervious to injury
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 10, 2014 06:50 PM (HVff2)
______________
Ladies and gents, I give you the winner of 2014's Most Oblivious Post of the year Award.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 02:52 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: teej-who must be doing pretty much everything wrong at March 10, 2014 02:53 PM (JCIjD)
Those magic words have defeated us! We must keep others ignorant of those magic words!
Posted by: The IRS[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 10, 2014 02:53 PM (P7Wsr)
Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at March 10, 2014 02:54 PM (jucos)
Marijuana has far more unknowns than knowns.
And really, is that your best argument?
"Well, you drink, so I should be able to get high."
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 10, 2014 06:52 PM (QFxY5)
______________
Yes we manage it really well.
"Alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 31% of the total vehicle traffic fatalities in 2011. Between 1991 and 2011, the rate of drunk driving fatalities per 100,000 population has decreased 49% nationally, and 63% among those under 21. These statistics and others are positive indicators of the gains being made to fight drunk driving, and while The Century Council cannot claim to be the sole influence in these reductions, it is likely we have played a significant role in reaching these historic low levels. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 32,367 people died in traffic crashes in 2011 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 9,878 people who were killed in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). Among the people killed in these drunk driving crashes, 66% were drivers (6,507), 27% were motor vehicle occupants (2,661), and 7% were non-occupants (710), with an average of one person dying in a drunk driving fatality every 53 minutes."
Yeay BOOZE!!
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 02:54 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Justamom at March 10, 2014 02:55 PM (3R0Zs)
Posted by: L, elle at March 10, 2014 02:55 PM (0xqKe)
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 10, 2014 02:56 PM (ZshNr)
Posted by: tangonine at March 10, 2014 02:56 PM (x3YFz)
But EVERYONE who smokes pot smokes it 24/7 and is high 24/7/365.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 02:56 PM (0LHZx)
Correct for vastly improved automobile safety and an aggressive seatbelt stance in the entire nation.
Then talk to me.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 10, 2014 02:56 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: The Potlitical Hat at March 10, 2014 02:57 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at March 10, 2014 02:57 PM (jucos)
Posted by: Justamom at March 10, 2014 02:58 PM (3R0Zs)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 10, 2014 02:58 PM (nzKvP)
Two weeks ago two sixth graders at my daughter's school got busted for buying and selling.
Not legal in MO.
Posted by: Justamom at March 10, 2014 06:55 PM (3R0Zs)
_________
So 6th graders can get it now. But if we make it legal it will become too easy to obtain.
I see....
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 02:58 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: YTown Guy at March 10, 2014 02:58 PM (das+y)
Posted by: Jay and Silent Bob at March 10, 2014 02:58 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 10, 2014 02:59 PM (IXrOn)
Posted by: Fritz at March 10, 2014 02:59 PM (PnMCP)
Posted by: L, elle at March 10, 2014 02:59 PM (0xqKe)
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 10, 2014 03:00 PM (84gbM)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 10, 2014 03:01 PM (j/G/e)
We'll agree to legalize weed if you agree to outlaw hippies.
Deal?
Posted by: The Potlitical Hat at March 10, 2014 06:57 PM (XvHmy)
________
How about this deal?
"Freedom loving" conservatives don't ban shit they don't like.
Crazy stuff I know.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 03:01 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at March 10, 2014 03:01 PM (RZ8pf)
Because that has worked every time it's been........ *sigh*
Ah fuck it!
I'm a lying sack of self-preserving primordial festering shit.
Just kill me. Kill me now!
Posted by: The GOP on Sodium Pentothal at March 10, 2014 03:02 PM (Ojgjr)
I think the only thing that could possibly get the attention of runaway Washington DC is a massive tax revolt. No taxes? No programs.
Posted by: kathysaysso at March 10, 2014 06:05 PM (6H6o
You obviously don't know the beast with which you contest. It has learned to feed on air in the guise of "deficit spending." Cutting off tax money will not impede it at all.
Posted by: D-Lamp at March 10, 2014 03:02 PM (XnALK)
Posted by: tubal at March 10, 2014 03:02 PM (YEQ2h)
With alcohol...you get an 'Alcohol Content' on the label.
That way, you know how strong it is.
But do they do that with Pot?
I'm asking because I don't know...
Do they put any sort of 'THC Content' on the labeling of the legalized pot?
Or any sort of warning about how strong it is?
Like...
"This Shit Will Put You In A Coma"
Or...
"Stay Away From Heavy Machinery When You Smoke This"
Posted by: wheatie at March 10, 2014 03:03 PM (8quPO)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at March 10, 2014 03:03 PM (RZ8pf)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 10, 2014 03:03 PM (j/G/e)
I hold allodial title on this post, therefor it can not be taxed.
Those magic words have defeated us! We must keep others ignorant of those magic words!
Posted by: The IRS
No Attainders, No Emoluments!
*attempts to fit asthma inhaler thru mouth of Guy Fawkes mask* *fails and passes out from anoxia*
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 10, 2014 03:03 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Slapweasel at March 10, 2014 03:03 PM (lq3Ak)
Posted by: grammie winger at March 10, 2014 03:04 PM (oMKp3)
Posted by: The Hemp Hat at March 10, 2014 03:04 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: Justamom at March 10, 2014 03:04 PM (3R0Zs)
Obviously we should adopt our enemy's platform and crush our own base!
Because VICTORY!!!
Posted by: The GOP at March 10, 2014 03:04 PM (Ojgjr)
Similar to an offer I have made on several occasions.
If you honor the original intent of the 2nd Amendment I will start a rose petal company and provide free petals for every gay wedding in the country, and throw them myself at the local ones.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at March 10, 2014 03:04 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 10, 2014 03:05 PM (j/G/e)
You know why we had to fight so hard to legalize ganja?
Cause if people knew the truth, it would ruin corporate profits.
Heart disease, cancer, AIDS? Ganja cures all that stuff. It's nature's medicine, man.
If Corporate America had people rejecting their expensive drugs in favor of a free plant that anyone can grow and that cures all disease, you know what would happen to their holy church of profit.
Wait, what? You're asking what again?
So you say that if weed cures heart disease, cancer and AIDS, why did Jerry Garcia die of a heart attack, why did Bob Marley die of a brain tumor, why did Fela die of AIDS?
::: chuckles cynically while rolling another doob :::
Those guys didn't die of natural causes, man. They were taken out by the CIA.
You're an intelligent individual. It's surprising you have to have these simple facts explained to you. Maybe you should open up your mind more, man.
Posted by: Stoners at March 10, 2014 03:05 PM (gqT4g)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at March 10, 2014 03:05 PM (RZ8pf)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 10, 2014 03:05 PM (nzKvP)
Posted by: tangonine at March 10, 2014 03:05 PM (x3YFz)
That way, you know how strong it is.
But do they do that with Pot?
I'm asking because I don't know...
Do they put any sort of 'THC Content' on the labeling of the legalized pot?
Or any sort of warning about how strong it is?
Like...
"This Shit Will Put You In A Coma"
Or...
"Stay Away From Heavy Machinery When You Smoke This"
Posted by: wheatie at March 10, 2014 07:03 PM (8quPO)
_____________
LOL. This is coming from the same "freedom loving" conservatives who scream communism and fascism when restaurants are forced to put the calories on menus. That's fascism. But labeling potency of pot.....FOR THE CHILDREN!
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 03:05 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 03:06 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Slapweasel at March 10, 2014 03:06 PM (lq3Ak)
Posted by: grammie winger at March 10, 2014 03:06 PM (oMKp3)
Posted by: The Hemp Hat at March 10, 2014 03:06 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at March 10, 2014 03:06 PM (C0PvV)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 10, 2014 07:05 PM (nzKvP)
__________
So conservatism is now about regulating stuff? Interesting. Here I thought it was about freedom to live your life as you see fit, free of govt intervention.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 03:06 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 10, 2014 03:06 PM (dfYL9)
Posted by: tangonine at March 10, 2014 03:07 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at March 10, 2014 07:06 PM (C0PvV)
_________
No. My argument is, I want the freedom to do whatever the fuck I want. That includes drinking beer, wine, coffee, 100 oz Slurpees, eating nothing but pizza every day and smoking pot.
It's not a "my drug is better than your drug" argument for me. It's a "let me live my fucking life" argument. And it pains me that so many so-called conservatives don't understand this.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 03:08 PM (0LHZx)
How about this deal? "Freedom loving" conservatives don't ban shit they don't like.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo
How about this deal. You leave us alone and go glean for jimsonweed on the shoulder of the I-5?
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 10, 2014 03:08 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 03:09 PM (8ZskC)
Its the thing that's keeping the world hypnotized. Sure the guys out there suck but what difference does that really make in my life? (nose stuck in phone again).
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 03:09 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Nasty Prisms Good Sir at March 10, 2014 03:09 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 10, 2014 03:09 PM (j/G/e)
A few white screens but not too bad yet.
Nice point above re taxed vs non taxed.
And finally,,,, drum roll ,,, it's nice out!!!Posted by: teej-who must be doing pretty much everything wrong at March 10, 2014 03:09 PM (+jNI+)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 10, 2014 03:09 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: Justamom at March 10, 2014 03:09 PM (3R0Zs)
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 10, 2014 07:08 PM (kdS6q)
_______
Another new conservative trait (in addition to regulating things).....squelching voices of those with whom we disagree.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 03:10 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: tubal at March 10, 2014 03:10 PM (YEQ2h)
Posted by: Slapweasel at March 10, 2014 03:10 PM (lq3Ak)
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 10, 2014 03:11 PM (ZshNr)
Posted by: grammie winger at March 10, 2014 03:11 PM (oMKp3)
Posted by: L, elle at March 10, 2014 03:11 PM (2tljF)
Posted by: rickb223 at March 10, 2014 03:11 PM (GjYxB)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 10, 2014 03:11 PM (nzKvP)
273...LOL. This is coming from the same "freedom loving" conservatives who scream communism and fascism when restaurants are forced to put the calories on menus. That's fascism. But labeling potency of pot.....FOR THE CHILDREN!
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 07:05 PM (0LHZx)
----------
No...just the opposite.
If they are going to 'regulate everything'...which they are already doing...then why does Pot get a pass?
If the Left is going to require Content Labeling on something as innocuous as a hamburger...then why does an intoxicating drug get a pass?
Posted by: wheatie at March 10, 2014 03:12 PM (8quPO)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 03:12 PM (zfY+H)
Even if Congress wished to give their powers to the Executive, it would be illegal for them to do so, and the Supreme Court would call it illegal.
Nah, this group of progressive SC justices (an oxymoron if ever one was uttered) would call it a tax.
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 10, 2014 03:12 PM (o3MSL)
Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at March 10, 2014 03:12 PM (RZ8pf)
A little harsh perhaps, but they are a pain in the ass and expensive to maintain, unless you're happy with a 14' Jon for fishing then, .... who cares!
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 10, 2014 07:09 PM (j/G/e)
_____________
That's because people go insane when they buy boats. I have a friend who bought a $70K brand new boat. Fucking insane. And of course he whines perpetually about how much it costs to own and insure and maintain.
I make twice as much money as him. My boat? Cost me $12K. Costs nothing to insure. I don't panic if it gets a little scrape or ding here and there. And when I go to sell it, I'll probably get $8-10K out of it since it's so old it doesn't really depreciate any more.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 03:12 PM (0LHZx)
Legend is told of a hero in a black mask and cape who will appear when libertarianism is threatened. He is known as El Culo de la Vaca. He fight for de people.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 10, 2014 03:13 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: tangonine at March 10, 2014 03:13 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 10, 2014 03:13 PM (nzKvP)
If they are going to 'regulate everything'...which they are already doing...then why does Pot get a pass?
If the Left is going to require Content Labeling on something as innocuous as a hamburger...then why does an intoxicating drug get a pass?
Posted by: wheatie at March 10, 2014 07:12 PM (8quPO)
__________
Again you are missing the point. I want LESS govt. You want MORE govt. I don't want any labeling. But for you, it's an us vs them mentality. My hamburger is regulated/labeled, so I want to retaliate and make their pot regulated/labeled.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 03:14 PM (0LHZx)
For the same reason they will fight to stop you from smoking tobacco anywhere, but want to legalize smoking pot all places. Consistency is not a strong point here.
It just cracks me up that post after post says "I don't want to criminalize pot, I'm not talking about laws, I don't mean we should ban it" and yet the same stupid "YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY MY FUN SOCON SCUMbAG!!1!!!11!!" crap always shows up.
Its like some folks cannot, or do not want to, read.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 10, 2014 03:14 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Justamom at March 10, 2014 03:14 PM (3R0Zs)
Posted by: teej-who must be doing pretty much everything wrong at March 10, 2014 03:15 PM (+jNI+)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 10, 2014 03:15 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 10, 2014 03:15 PM (P7Wsr)
Posted by: grammie winger at March 10, 2014 03:15 PM (oMKp3)
Posted by: tubal at March 10, 2014 07:10 PM (YEQ2h)
_________
So you're cool with Bloomberg's ban on 16 oz Cokes then? Hey man it's local government and everything.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 03:16 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Waterhouse at March 10, 2014 03:17 PM (s2tRT)
I like to drink, so alcohol is fine.
I don't like those stinky hippies, so we must ban pot.
For the children of course.
"freedom loving " conservatism at its finest.
And yet for some reason, nobody under 30 votes GOP anymore, I wonder why. Total mystery.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 10, 2014 03:18 PM (0LHZx)
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 10, 2014 03:19 PM (HVff2)
Posted by: Committee to Abolish Luxemberg at March 10, 2014 03:20 PM (XvHmy)
Posted by: Justamom at March 10, 2014 03:20 PM (3R0Zs)
Not much is free, not like it used to feel, anyway.<<<
Your typical habitual pot smoker wouldn't touch the shit grown in the backyard. It's not potent enough to incapacitate the habitual pot smoker into a state of quivering drool.
Posted by: Fritz at March 10, 2014 03:20 PM (PnMCP)
Posted by: Justamom at March 10, 2014 03:23 PM (3R0Zs)
Posted by: Slapweasel at March 10, 2014 03:24 PM (lq3Ak)
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 10, 2014 03:25 PM (ZshNr)
Posted by: rickl at March 10, 2014 03:28 PM (sdi6R)
Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at March 10, 2014 03:28 PM (C0PvV)
Posted by: Under 30 Voter at March 10, 2014 03:32 PM (C0PvV)
Posted by: Slapweasel at March 10, 2014 03:33 PM (lq3Ak)
I like to drink, so alcohol is fine.
I don't like those stinky hippies, so we must ban pot.
For the children of course.
"freedom loving " conservatism at its finest.
And yet for some reason, nobody under 30 votes GOP anymore, I wonder why. Total mystery.
And the pedophiles are upset too! Because all bans are simple absolutes without distinctions!
Brilliant reasoning Mr Poo Poo.
There's no intellectual distinction or logical reasoning in your straw-man argument for a moronic pyromaniac like yourself, is there.
Posted by: Something at March 10, 2014 03:33 PM (Ojgjr)
Posted by: rickl at March 10, 2014 03:37 PM (sdi6R)
Posted by: Under 30 Voter at March 10, 2014 03:38 PM (C0PvV)
Posted by: grammie winger at March 10, 2014 03:39 PM (oMKp3)
Posted by: Slapweasel at March 10, 2014 03:41 PM (lq3Ak)
ace, Enabling Act, Godwin's Law, etc. - oops, never mind, most who would invoke that stupid "law" won't even recognize the allusion
Turley? Meh. What "balance"? He hadn't noticed the already-shattered balance that's been a-building for decades, in recent ones most quickly, in which the judicial branch is simply making shit up?
Of course the system has a built-in remedy for this. The legislative is given the power to circumscribe the ambit of the judiciary. And - though I don't think this even crossed the mind of the Founders, why should it? - of course there is the nuclear option of amending the constitution. Which used to be done, not lightly or frequently, but when there was sufficient consensus to actually change the rule book a bit (not saying some of these amendments haven't been disastrous, just a process point).
Another issue that has destroyed the balance, though less important, is in fact the delegation of Congress' power to the bureaucracy of the now-rampant administrative state. Congress to blame, of course.
10,000 years ago, in the Senate, we would be reminded, even in times of great distress, that ultimately the electorate would make the call on many issues - and it was often indeed amazing to see how the accountability did shape the final outcome of many contentious disputes. Now? One does not get the sense that 1) there are more than a handful of serious, responsible people in Congress, and more importantly 2) there is simply no accountability, as the electorate has disappeared as a serious check on or guide for the government.
Posted by: non-purist at March 10, 2014 03:44 PM (afQnV)
I don't think the Founders really thought this one through.
Having just kicked England out I don't think they expected us to elect TFG and the GOPansE.
Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at March 10, 2014 03:51 PM (DL2i+)
ATF Form 4473, Section A, question 11e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any other depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Would marijuana users honestly give up their right to firearms, or Heaven forbid! lie when filling out this application?
I trust they would never lie, because Screw The Man! and Freedom!
Posted by: Fritz at March 10, 2014 03:53 PM (PnMCP)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 10, 2014 03:57 PM (oFCZn)
She often does make the hero stupid.
Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at March 10, 2014 04:03 PM (DL2i+)
Maybe so, but...
Making robo-calls for Rove...against a Libertarian candidate, for a Rove-supported candidate...doesn't seem like 'flying under the radar' to me.
This is another one of those 'libertarians' that the democrats run to siphon off the 5% of the votes the Republican needs to win. See 2012 Montana Senate, 2013 Virgina Governor, etc. Good for Rand for trying to call BS on this BS.
Posted by: Fritz (not Fritz) at March 10, 2014 04:23 PM (U0t2o)
Posted by: NYC Parent at March 10, 2014 04:30 PM (yUOm5)
Posted by: MikeJ at March 10, 2014 04:54 PM (GeVrd)
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at March 10, 2014 05:04 PM (MBo83)
Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at March 10, 2014 05:08 PM (wyUSq)
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at March 10, 2014 05:39 PM (AQTz3)
Posted by: troyriser at March 10, 2014 06:13 PM (ptcFO)
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at March 11, 2014 06:05 AM (1hM1d)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2643 seconds, 476 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Judge Baradd at March 10, 2014 01:55 PM (SY2Kh)