If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR) Ironic Right wing crackpot news organization NPR: Obama 'Devastating' For Civil Liberties   (npr.org) divider line 359
More: Ironic, President Obama, NPR, Jonathan Turley, Talk of the Nation, strong language, civil liberties, constitutional law, military tribunals  
•       •       •

2151 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Oct 2011 at 1:12 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



359 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-10-11 11:42:41 PM
Its okay. Bush did it first and we all know that if that is the case, no laws are ever broken.

OBAMA!
 
2011-10-11 11:44:31 PM
FTA: And to me, that smacks a lot like occulted personality.

Who took this transcript?

And, Jonathan Turley is right - I was an ardent supporter of Obama, as hope & change was necessary. It's obvious, however, that he's the prime example of a slippery slope. He's not going to restore this country's honor and dignity. On the contrary, he's already using the tools the Bush administration put into place as precedent for his own actions. It's damned depressing.

All I can say is that I hope the Democrats field an electable candidate other than Obama. The Republican candidates are, to a person, human flotsam - voting for any of them is right out. If Obama is all we have, then we're once again simply electing the lesser of two evils in 2012 - but it's going to be a close one.
 
2011-10-11 11:45:47 PM
How about a follow up tag, since this is an interview with the author of an op-ed that was greened about 2 weeks ago?

Link (new window)
 
2011-10-11 11:47:43 PM
FormlessOne: And, Jonathan Turley is right - I was an ardent supporter of Obama, as hope & change was necessary. It's obvious, however, that he's the prime example of a slippery slope. He's not going to restore this country's honor and dignity. On the contrary, he's already using the tools the Bush administration put into place as precedent for his own actions. It's damned depressing.

We Libertarians have been saying for years that when Government gets significant new powers they never give them up.

No one will change the course on these policies. If another Dem was elected, it would be the same shiat, different day.
 
2011-10-12 12:12:38 AM
bighasbeen: How about a follow up tag, since this is an interview with the author of an op-ed that was greened about 2 weeks ago?

Link (new window)


Tomorrow, I'm going to try to get a greenlight with a link to this thread. Headline: "Right-wing blog Fark.com: Obama 'Devastating for civil liberties'"
 
2011-10-12 12:15:09 AM
Right-wing crackpot tallguywithglasseson: "Obama 'Devastating' for civil liberties"
 
2011-10-12 12:17:08 AM
tallguywithglasseson: Right-wing crackpot tallguywithglasseson: "Obama 'Devastating' for civil liberties"

Crack-wing right glasseswithtallguyon: civil Obama for "Devastating" liberties.
 
2011-10-12 12:17:31 AM
cman: FormlessOne: And, Jonathan Turley is right - I was an ardent supporter of Obama, as hope & change was necessary. It's obvious, however, that he's the prime example of a slippery slope. He's not going to restore this country's honor and dignity. On the contrary, he's already using the tools the Bush administration put into place as precedent for his own actions. It's damned depressing.

We Libertarians have been saying for years that when Government gets significant new powers they never give them up.

No one will change the course on these policies. If another Dem was elected, it would be the same shiat, different day.


Yes, but you Libertarians say a lot of other shiat with which I can't abide, either. The epitome of "I got mine, screw you" does not a societal leader make.

The problem isn't party affiliation, it's simple ethics and morals. I'd vote for an ethical Republican, if I could find one that wasn't screaming about how the uninsured should die, or that aliens are poisoning the groundwater, or that the rest of us should be thankful the rich haven't ground us up for dogmeat yet. I'd vote for an ethical Democrat, if I could find one that wasn't talking out of both sides of his friggin' mouth whenever "liberty", "freedom", "civil rights", or "honor" enter the conversation. It's not just the President, either - the House is full of assholes who are competing for the coveted "bottom of the barrel" position when it comes to brains, while the Senate is full of assholes who would happily sell your kids to the Ugandans for sacrifice if it meant another term.

I'm the poster child of disillusionment today, I guess. I'll go have a drink.
 
2011-10-12 12:39:32 AM
Obama will be reelected easily. The GOP has no respectable alternative.

Also FTFA:They can't emotionally, politically, personally. They just have a very difficult time opposing a man who's an icon and has made history - the first black president, but also the guy that replaced George Bush. And the result is something akin to the Stockholm syndrome, where you've got this identification with your captor. I mean, the Democratic Party is split, civil libertarians are split, and the Democratic Party itself is now viewed by most of libertarians as very hostile toward civil liberties.
 
2011-10-12 12:40:55 AM
That whole issue and his economic team really, really make me not want to vote for him.
 
2011-10-12 12:48:06 AM
Irregardless: the Democratic Party itself is now viewed by most of libertarians as very hostile toward civil liberties

Joining the long list of things viewed by most libertarians as very hostile toward civil liberties, probably topped by "taxes".
 
2011-10-12 01:08:02 AM
Irregardless: Obama will be reelected easily. The GOP has no respectable alternative.

Also FTFA:They can't emotionally, politically, personally. They just have a very difficult time opposing a man who's an icon and has made history - the first black president, but also the guy that replaced George Bush. And the result is something akin to the Stockholm syndrome, where you've got this identification with your captor. I mean, the Democratic Party is split, civil libertarians are split, and the Democratic Party itself is now viewed by most of libertarians as very hostile toward civil liberties.


Yup, who the hell are civil libertarians going to vote for if not the Democratic nominee? As far as I've seen, the only civil rights issue non-Ron Paul Republicans seem to care about are body scans, and let's face it, if the TSA were only scanning Ahmed, Muhammed, and Fatma, they wouldn't give two sh*ts about that either.

BUT, lefty peeps like me could just stay home on election day. And if the economy continues to stink, which it most likely will, and Romney becomes the nominee, Obama might just lose the election.
 
2011-10-12 01:17:45 AM
I guess it's time to update the "Thanks for blaming it on the black guy" pic of Bush to read, "I screwed your civil liberties to Hell and back, but thanks for blaming on the black guy for not fixing it."
 
2011-10-12 01:20:33 AM
And they range. His position on torture and refusing to have people investigated or prosecuted for torture, on privacy lawsuits. He pushed aggressively for the dismissal of dozens of lawsuits brought by private interest organizations. He's for immunity for people who engaged in warrantless surveillance. He has fought standing for people even to be able to get courts to review his programs, much like George Bush. He kept military tribunals and the authority to make the discretionary choice of sending some people to a real court, some people to a military tribunal. He has asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens based solely on his own discretion, that he believes them to be a threat to the country.

wierd how I've heard all these exact same talking points from the usual gang of right wing shills around here.
 
2011-10-12 01:31:15 AM
oneutah.org
 
2011-10-12 01:37:09 AM
I'm going to be surprised if this thread goes very long, because I really doubt many people disagree with the story's premise....
 
2011-10-12 01:39:34 AM
log_jammin: right wing shills

I understand NPR is just full of right wing shills

/epic eye roll
 
2011-10-12 01:39:52 AM
FormlessOne: On the contrary, he's already using the tools the Bush administration put into place as precedent for his own actions. It's damned depressing.

You expect a president, any president to voluntarily reduce the power of his office?

Bad news: Those tools, that power will be the de facto Presidential standard until they are removed or checked by force of law. Doesn't matter if that President is black, white, Republican, Democrat or 3rd party.
 
2011-10-12 01:40:00 AM
I'm still waiting for the rationale BEHIND all these evil things that Obama has supposedly done. The torture thing, for instance. We've stopped the extraordinary renditions, as far as I know, and the reason Guantanamo hasn't been closed, or one of the main reasons, is that the REPUBLICANS have been screaming so loudly about the "threat to national security" if the prisoners are brought within an astronomical unit of the continental US. They have to go someplace, or stay there, so there they stay.

As far as having people investigated or prosecuted for torture, that's not within Obama's purview. He can order it done, but as President, he lacks the dictatorial authority to order, say, John Woo into the dock without all his due process rights being granted. (Ironic though that may be) Do people want Obama to act like Stalin and order mass trials of anyone he happens to think are guilty? To circumvent our own judicial system?

Most of the libertarian gripes against Obama, much like the Republican gripes, are of the same cut of cloth. They seem to assume the President has unilateral powers to GIT ER DONE which he hasn't got, and somehow cut through all the legal delay, the irksome due process and civil rights, and bureaucratic red tape that prevents anything from getting done; and magically--but without stepping on our civil rights EVEN MORE--get the wrongdoers into court.

Can he with a stroke of a pen close Guantanamo and release all the prisoners there? I guess...but then he wouldn't be acting as a democratically elected President anymore. Could he order the Marines to round up everyone who participated in sending "enemy combatants" down there and force them before a federal court to face indictments? Maybe, but I wouldn't want to live in America after that. Would you?

All this starts to sound like people whining "It's not fair!" and nobody promised you fair, IIRC.
 
2011-10-12 01:41:12 AM
His position on torture

He's against it. Link (new window)


and refusing to have people investigated or prosecuted for torture, on privacy lawsuits.

I don't even know what this means. "on privacy lawsuits"?


He pushed aggressively for the dismissal of dozens of lawsuits brought by private interest organizations.

did those dozens of lawsuits have grounds for dismissal? is he trying to claim everyone was a legitimate lawsuit? how do you "aggressively" push for dismissal? "Your Honor, I aggressively request this case be dismissed on these grounds".



He's for immunity for people who engaged in warrantless surveillance.

From the very beginning Obama was for telecom immunity for the warrantless wiretaps. anyone who paid attention during the campaign would know this.


He has fought standing for people even to be able to get courts to review his programs, much like George Bush.

hint:opposing something in a court of law is not devastating for civil liberties. its how our system is supposed to work. why is he assuming that they all had standing?


He kept military tribunals and the authority to make the discretionary choice of sending some people to a real court, some people to a military tribunal.

This right here is where he tips his hand. anyone with half a brain knows for a fact he just decide to keep tribunals. It was the blocking of prisoner transfers from gitmo by the republicans and some pussy democrats. it was down to either tribunals or no court at all.


He has asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens based solely on his own discretion, that he believes them to be a threat to the country.

and if you need any more evidence that this guy is a dishonest POS, there it is.
 
2011-10-12 01:42:03 AM
log_jammin: wierd how I've heard all these exact same talking points from the usual gang of right wing shills around here.

Yeah, just talking points. Not facts or anything. And only right wingers mention them. Not prominent civil libertarians or liberals so far left they moved to Sweden or anything.
 
2011-10-12 01:42:39 AM
glenn greenwald: I understand NPR is just full of right wing shills

yeah i totally said that.
 
2011-10-12 01:44:09 AM
swahnhennessy: Yeah, just talking points. Not facts or anything. And only right wingers mention them. Not prominent civil libertarians or liberals so far left they moved to Sweden or anything.

oh look. its you again. here to say absolutely nothing of substance.
 
2011-10-12 01:44:42 AM
log_jammin: glenn greenwald: I understand NPR is just full of right wing shills

yeah i totally said that.


Anyone who thinks otherwise didn't listen to the All-Teabagger All The Time format in the run up to november 2008. NPR was a 24/7 infomercial offering unedited and un-checked platform to every Teahadist they could possibly get on there.
 
2011-10-12 01:44:53 AM
log_jammin: oh look. its you again. here to say absolutely nothing of substance.

You've got some slobber there on your chin.
 
2011-10-12 01:46:08 AM
swahnhennessy: You've got some slobber there on your chin.

and I rest my case. absolutely nothing of substance.
 
2011-10-12 01:46:42 AM
At least Turley's consistent - he had the same complaints about Bush.
 
2011-10-12 01:48:36 AM
log_jammin: and I rest my case. absolutely nothing of substance.

Of course, it is just easier to brand people than it is to accept the evidence. You don't debate, you just claim people are right wing or would vote for Clinton if given the chance. Any criticism of Obama engenders a purge response from you.
 
2011-10-12 01:49:50 AM
Gyrfalcon: We've stopped the extraordinary renditions, as far as I know

You are incorrect.

The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration's practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday.

Human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying that continuing the practice, known as rendition, would still allow the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture. They said that promises from other countries of humane treatment, called "diplomatic assurances," were no protection against abuse.

"It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture," said Amrit Singh, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.

Ms. Singh cited the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian sent in 2002 by the United States to Syria, where he was beaten with electrical cable despite assurances against torture.


In addition, the Obama administration has worked overtime to prevent those we sent to be tortured under Bush from ever getting a day in court in the United States and even in other nations..

The US has threatened to withhold intelligence from the UK if evidence of the alleged torture of a British resident held at Guantánamo Bay is made public.

Details of how the "terrorist" detainee was allegedly tortured - and what UK intelligence services knew about it - must remain secret because of the American threats, the High Court ruled yesterday.

Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said lawyers for the Foreign Secretary had told them that the threat by the US still applied under President Obama. Oppostion MPs accused the Government of giving in to blackmail.

The disclosure that the US has threatened to re-evaluate sharing intelligence with Britain came only 24 hours after Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, lavished praise on the special relationship between the two countries.
 
2011-10-12 01:50:09 AM
log_jammin: His position on torture

He's against it. Link (new window)


and refusing to have people investigated or prosecuted for torture, on privacy lawsuits.

I don't even know what this means. "on privacy lawsuits"?


He pushed aggressively for the dismissal of dozens of lawsuits brought by private interest organizations.

did those dozens of lawsuits have grounds for dismissal? is he trying to claim everyone was a legitimate lawsuit? how do you "aggressively" push for dismissal? "Your Honor, I aggressively request this case be dismissed on these grounds".



He's for immunity for people who engaged in warrantless surveillance.

From the very beginning Obama was for telecom immunity for the warrantless wiretaps. anyone who paid attention during the campaign would know this.


He has fought standing for people even to be able to get courts to review his programs, much like George Bush.

hint:opposing something in a court of law is not devastating for civil liberties. its how our system is supposed to work. why is he assuming that they all had standing?


He kept military tribunals and the authority to make the discretionary choice of sending some people to a real court, some people to a military tribunal.

This right here is where he tips his hand. anyone with half a brain knows for a fact he just decide to keep tribunals. It was the blocking of prisoner transfers from gitmo by the republicans and some pussy democrats. it was down to either tribunals or no court at all.


He has asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens based solely on his own discretion, that he believes them to be a threat to the country.

and if you need any more evidence that this guy is a dishonest POS, there it is.


This right here is where he tips his hand.

FTFA: TURLEY: Well, certainly. I supported Barack Obama. I wasn't very quiet about my support. I thought he was going to be a refreshing change to George Bush. But what has happened is that we have an election that's become a single-issue election, and that issue is Barack Obama. And he's an icon to both sides. But what's happened to the civil liberties movement is that we generally have a pendulum swing back in favor of civil liberties, which we were building towards after the Bush administration.

Polls were showing that citizens were opposed to many of the abuses, that they wanted to see more protections, and Barack Obama really rowed that way. He portrayed himself as a civil libertarian. And then when he proved to adopt many of Bush's positions and adopt even worse positions in some regards, it split the base of the civil liberties movement.
 
2011-10-12 01:53:51 AM
swahnhennessy: Of course, it is just easier to brand people than it is to accept the evidence.

2011-10-12 01:41:12 AM

read that post and feel free to rebut.

swahnhennessy: You don't debate, you just claim people are right wing or would vote for Clinton if given the chance.


so "You've got some slobber there on your chin." was some real debate huh? or was "accept the evidence" your convincing argument?

swahnhennessy: Any criticism of Obama engenders a purge response from you.

I do not believe you're a right winger in any way. hell, you think clinton's admin was a neocon admin. but I do find it interesting how you end up using the same insults they do. I don't respond to "Any criticism of Obama" just the bullshiat criticisms of Obama. and that's pretty much all you have.
 
2011-10-12 01:53:54 AM
 
2011-10-12 01:59:03 AM
Why are you acting like that is unusual subby? All the Obama criticism on civil liberties comes from the left. The right has been willing to surrender everything to the government since 9/11 in the name of safety.

Well, everything but tax dollars.
 
2011-10-12 01:59:27 AM
BullBearMS: Obama opposed this right up until the moment he locked up the nomination

Im sorry. I guess I did lie. he didn't say he was for telecom immunity during the campaign, he only said it during the campaign.
 
2011-10-12 02:00:02 AM
log_jammin: This right here is where he tips his hand. anyone with half a brain knows for a fact he just decide to keep tribunals. It was the blocking of prisoner transfers from gitmo by the republicans and some pussy democrats. it was down to either tribunals or no court at all.

Lying again, I see.

President Obama's advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.
 
2011-10-12 02:01:33 AM
It's OK everybody. Don't be scared. We still have our Liberty and our Freedom. Stand up for yourself and don't let anyone control your thoughts or actions. The government and media spell over the people of this country is weakening. It's turning into vapor before our very eyes.
 
2011-10-12 02:01:39 AM
BullBearMS: Lying

unbelievable.
 
2011-10-12 02:03:00 AM
So, of course, vote Republican.
 
2011-10-12 02:06:38 AM
We interrupt our usual bashing of NPR as a left-wing propaganda outlet for this fascinating bit of confirmation bias.
 
2011-10-12 02:07:05 AM
log_jammin: BullBearMS: Obama opposed this right up until the moment he locked up the nomination

Im sorry. I guess I did lie. he didn't say he was for telecom immunity during the campaign, he only said it during the campaign.


No, he claimed he was against it right up until the moment he voted for it.

He locked up the nomination during the time the effort to push this through the Senate was being made. Before he had enough delegates to clinch the nomination, he was saying he would filibuster any bill that included telecom immunity.

As soon as he defeated Hillary, he voted in favor of the very thing he claimed to oppose.
 
2011-10-12 02:09:21 AM
I'm not surprised to hear this from Turley. I don't particularly disagree, either. Even if he's not as bad as the Republicans, or as bad as this op-ed paints him - he's not - the left should be better than that.

But Obama's not really much of a liberal. He didn't campaign as such and didn't get elected as such. In spite of a rebranding campaign to turn "liberal" into "libertarian" when it suits them, to turn positives traditionally associated with the left into things rightists could dishonestly run on, social and civil liberals have a hard damn time in this country. Everyone's against Guantanamo... But they'll flip their shiat to make sure it stays open if Those People might ever be on their streets. Everyone's against targeted assassinations... Right up until they're successful at bringing down a bogeyman like Bin Laden. Everyone's against expanded police power... Right up until the guy running for sheriff waves around scary pictures of latino gangsters.

People vote for lawnorder right up until it's their turn to wear a black bag over their heads, and then it's too farking late.
 
2011-10-12 02:10:54 AM
BullBearMS: right up until the moment he voted for it.

which was before the election. which was during the campaign. which was when Jonathan Turley "supported Barack Obama" and "wasn't very quiet about" it. which was my entire point.
 
2011-10-12 02:11:56 AM
Once again, no need to be so specific:

"U.S. federal government devastating for civil liberties."

Is a more accurate headline.
 
2011-10-12 02:15:47 AM
log_jammin: He pushed aggressively for the dismissal of dozens of lawsuits brought by private interest organizations.

did those dozens of lawsuits have grounds for dismissal?


Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying - that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one - not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration - has ever interpreted the law this way

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws.


dl.dropbox.com

/Damn all of LogJammin's right wing shills at the ACLU
 
2011-10-12 02:22:27 AM
A Dark Evil Omen: Even if he's not as bad as the Republicans, or as bad as this op-ed paints him - he's not - the left should be better than that.

Obama has continued or defended in court every single thing the Bush administration ever has done to weaken the Constitutional protections that are supposed to keep our Government within the bounds of law.

In addition, he has made even more extreme claims than the Bush administration ever did.

TFA: Polls were showing that citizens were opposed to many of the abuses, that they wanted to see more protections, and Barack Obama really rowed that way. He portrayed himself as a civil libertarian. And then when he proved to adopt many of Bush's positions and adopt even worse positions in some regards, it split the base of the civil liberties movement. There are many people that frankly cannot get themselves to oppose Barack Obama. They make a lot of excuse for him.

Indeed they do make a lot of excuses for him, Mr. TFA. Some of them just outright lie.
 
2011-10-12 02:23:25 AM
Obama: I'm liberal, vote for me.

Liberal: Well, okay.

Morons: SOCIALIST! KENYAN! WHAAAAAAARRRGAAAARRRBBLLL!

Liberals: Hmm, wait. Obama's not liberal.

Obama: Did I say I was liberal? Just kidding, I'm actually center-right and slightly authoritarian. Suck my dick.

Morons: Haha, looks like you got screwed because your politician turned out to be an asshole. You should have voted for our politicians, instead! They're even bigger assholes! Obama's not liberal enough, so vote Republican!

Liberals: I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

We might as well face it, folks: Obama is a massive disappointment for left-wing libertarians.
 
2011-10-12 02:28:06 AM
FormlessOne: All I can say is that I hope the Democrats field an electable candidate other than Obama.

Are you serious?

We've lost. It's all over but the statism. 15 years ago I thought and believed a strong libertarian streak in politics was possible but now it's a forgone conclusion. We lost.
 
2011-10-12 02:30:52 AM
On the subject of civil liberties and trying to bring a liberal streak back to politics:

There's about to be havoc at the Seattle occupation. The police are moving in with riot gear and vans; what I heard, they're coming in from Pine St. There's supposed a livestream up at http://www.livestream.com/owsoccupyseattle
 
2011-10-12 02:34:10 AM
log_jammin: BullBearMS: right up until the moment he voted for it.

which was before the election. which was during the campaign. which was when Jonathan Turley "supported Barack Obama" and "wasn't very quiet about" it. which was my entire point.


No, your entire point was to once again tell a blatant lie to shill for Obama. Here was your lie this time:

log_jammin: From the very beginning Obama was for telecom immunity for the warrantless wiretaps. anyone who paid attention during the campaign would know this.

This is a lie. Your entire point is to lie to shill for the Obama administration.

Here's another example where you lie to claim that Obama never promised not to prosecute those who provide or consume medical marijuana in states where it is legal.

log_jammin: yes I know. Notice how it doesn't say "I will no longer allow prosecutions against medical marijuana users and growers"? That's because he didn't say that.

This is completely the opposite of what the Obama administration did announce.

October 20, 2009|Josh Meyer

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration on Monday told federal authorities not to arrest or prosecute medical marijuana users and suppliers who aren't violating local laws, paving the way for some states to allow dispensaries to provide the drug as relief for some maladies.


How about you stop spreading your lies, you horribly ineffective shill?
 
2011-10-12 02:36:14 AM
The beauty of liberal politics is we are willing to rationally criticize our own.
 
Displayed 50 of 359 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »