The Why Not Guy: And the second, which went up across from Mile High Stadium, featured a father asking for the regulation of legal marijuana to keep it out of his son's hands.

Conservatives scream "NANNY STATE" at any attempt to implement even the most necessary, sensible regulation. They mock Hillary Clinton for saying it takes a village to raise a child. They whine and moan about any program or law designed to help families. But when they need help raising their little precious, there they are with hand outstretched.

"It's different when we need it."

What's with emergence of religious freedom signs? Really? Who's oppressing you?

Crazy-assed Coot Johnson is right!

Fista-Phobia: What's with emergence of religious freedom signs? Really? Who's oppressing you?

Not being allowed to beat people over the head with your religion is oppression.

So, someone who is older, who may not be feeling as good as they did when they were younger, is suddenly in favor of a cheap drug that can also be a pain reliever?

I am shocked. Shocked, I tells ya.

Pat Robertson didn't turn moderate. He's the same self-centered farknugget he's always been

stoli n coke: So, someone who is older, who may not be feeling as good as they did when they were younger, is suddenly in favor of a cheap drug that can also be a pain reliever?

I am shocked. Shocked, I tells ya.

Pat Robertson didn't turn moderate. He's the same self-centered farknugget he's always been

But he uses such a soft soothing voice on the 700 Club!

Sabyen91: stoli n coke: So, someone who is older, who may not be feeling as good as they did when they were younger, is suddenly in favor of a cheap drug that can also be a pain reliever?

I am shocked. Shocked, I tells ya.

Pat Robertson didn't turn moderate. He's the same self-centered farknugget he's always been

But he uses such a soft soothing voice on the 700 Club!

And when he gets to Hell, the husbands of all those widows who he swindled out of their life savings will be waiting for him.

stoli n coke: Sabyen91: stoli n coke: So, someone who is older, who may not be feeling as good as they did when they were younger, is suddenly in favor of a cheap drug that can also be a pain reliever?

I am shocked. Shocked, I tells ya.

Pat Robertson didn't turn moderate. He's the same self-centered farknugget he's always been

But he uses such a soft soothing voice on the 700 Club!

And when he gets to Hell, the husbands of all those widows who he swindled out of their life savings will be waiting for him.

I hope I can hear the echoes of him squealing like a pig.

Legalize it, control it, tax it. It's a win-win-win.I can't wait to see the Super Bowl commercials.

Irregardless: Legalize it, control it, tax it. It's a win-win-win.I can't wait to see the Super Bowl commercials.

"Super Bowl" Gotcha ;)

GAT_00: I'm offering no commentary on the specific position Robertson has taken. I've found it makes little sense to offer commentary on this position since all I get is ignored, yelled at, and rarely if ever any kind if intelligent debate. Therefore it makes little sense to waste my time on an audience that has no intention of listening.

I love ya, Gat, but this is the single issue you have never once sought "intelligent debate" over. EVERY time the issue is raised, you engage in weird-ass fundie circular reasoning, hauling the goalposts around, and then finally sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to address the countless people pointing to the massive holes in your completely kneejerk argument. EVERY time. Please- let's have this intelligent debate you claim to seek. We don't have to do it here, because the Pat Robertson angle gives this thread the potential for heartier LULZ, but sometime. Let's have a debate, and we'll see if you can get involved without resorting to the tactics you condemn when presented by birthers and Fark Independents.

Next pot thread with 50 or more comments. Define your premises, get your evidence together, flush your logical fallacies, and there are any number of people here, who are generally on your side, who are willing to go to the table with you. Hell, I hope you win- anyone who can work his way out of the philosophical knots I've seen you tie yourself up in is deserving of no small degree of praise.

GAT_00: I like how someone who everyone is convinced is always wrong is suddenly definitely right when he says something you agree with.

Note: I'm not necessarily declaring judgement on this particular statement one way or another. This is simply an open question: if someone is wrong all the time, what are the odds that the time they are right is the time they agree with you?

Your prohibition stance is well documented.

But yes, if I think I am right, then those who agree are indeed also right. Why do you think it wouldn't or shouldn't work that way?

Fair_Poopsmith: GAT_00: I'm offering no commentary on the specific position Robertson has taken. I've found it makes little sense to offer commentary on this position since all I get is ignored, yelled at, and rarely if ever any kind if intelligent debate. Therefore it makes little sense to waste my time on an audience that has no intention of listening.

I love ya, Gat, but this is the single issue you have never once sought "intelligent debate" over. EVERY time the issue is raised, you engage in weird-ass fundie circular reasoning, hauling the goalposts around, and then finally sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to address the countless people pointing to the massive holes in your completely kneejerk argument. EVERY time. Please- let's have this intelligent debate you claim to seek. We don't have to do it here, because the Pat Robertson angle gives this thread the potential for heartier LULZ, but sometime. Let's have a debate, and we'll see if you can get involved without resorting to the tactics you condemn when presented by birthers and Fark Independents.

Next pot thread with 50 or more comments. Define your premises, get your evidence together, flush your logical fallacies, and there are any number of people here, who are generally on your side, who are willing to go to the table with you. Hell, I hope you win- anyone who can work his way out of the philosophical knots I've seen you tie yourself up in is deserving of no small degree of praise.

He's right Gat. In any legalization thread you become all the things you rail against. I'm not sure what it is about this subject that does this to you.

Pat Robertson could save a bus full of kitten carrying hot stripper-nuns on their way to perform at the MDA Telethon and still wouldn't warrant the hero tag.

keylock71: Whatever... He's still a religious fascist, hypocrite, and all-around asshole.

Totally sucks to have to agree with him on anything!

keylock71: Whatever... He's still a religious fascist, hypocrite, and all-around asshole.

I thought he was a former Republican presidential candidate. Oh, yeah . . . same thing.

Lansydyr: I'm all for legalization, even never having used any myself. But I found this part of the article funny:

And the second, which went up across from Mile High Stadium, featured a father asking for the regulation of legal marijuana to keep it out of his son's hands.

Because regulating alcohol has so successfully kept it out of children's hands?

Smackledorfer: GAT_00: I like how someone who everyone is convinced is always wrong is suddenly definitely right when he says something you agree with.

Note: I'm not necessarily declaring judgement on this particular statement one way or another. This is simply an open question: if someone is wrong all the time, what are the odds that the time they are right is the time they agree with you?

Your prohibition stance is well documented.

But yes, if I think I am right, then those who agree are indeed also right. Why do you think it wouldn't or shouldn't work that way?

No only that, but a little early morning googling showed me that Prop 30, the so-called "Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol" that Pat Robertson supports regulates marijuana only to the extent that it effectively outlaws it in Colorado (leaving its legalization up to the cops...). Prop 30 is so draconian that it enshrines marijuana prohibition in the state's constitution.

So yes, GAT's support of Robertson's position is consistent with his support for Prohibition.

Up next: in the spirit of conciliatory compromise, Al Gore will finally state publicly that, yes, gay people do indeed cause hurricanes.

I agree with him, though it could also be argued that what turns people into career criminals is also determined by how they're treated in prison and by how our society treats them after they get out.

If Pat R. can come out for legalization why the hell cant Obama AT LEAST stop the crack down on marijuana dispensaries?

And don't give the crap about he cant selectively enforce the laws. Obama just recently decided to selectively enforce immigration laws by not deporting illegals who came to the county before they were 16.