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.

(Denver Post)   The UN sends a letter to Eric Holder asking him to challenge the CO and WA marijuana ballot measures. If Holder does nothing, the UN will send another letter telling them how disappointed they are   (denverpost.com) divider line 280
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

8746 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Nov 2012 at 7:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



280 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-20 08:01:43 PM  
Hmmm...the boobies is right. I can already smell the cheap aluminum wiring melting in the brains of the TeaTards.
 
2012-11-20 08:02:19 PM  
"Both states are holding off on plans to regulate and tax the drug while waiting to see whether the Justice Department will assert federal authority over drug law."

No, they have a deadline of December next year to get all of the licensing and tax issues squared away... they aren't "holding off" on anything. While the Feds might prevent commercialization, they can't make law enforcement to arrest people for smoking weed in their houses.
 
2012-11-20 08:02:23 PM  

sometalker: This is THE MOST AWESOME troll in history - we also have a "protect States Rights" bill coming up to defend the states' MJ laws. In order to stand against pot legalization, conservative dickwads will have to bow to both the UN and Obama...heads will be asplodin' in D.C. for sure....


AND further alienate the under 30 crowd. Or is it 35 these days? I'm too old to keep track.
 
2012-11-20 08:02:50 PM  

Gawdzila: muck4doo: I'm in favor of watching the usual U.N. fans flip on the U.N. over this.

Since when does thinking an organization has worthy goals mean that you must agree with them on everything?
It isn't hypocritical to simultaneously approve of the U.N. as an organization and yet disagree with some of the things they do.


That messes up his neat and orderly labels though.
 
2012-11-20 08:02:53 PM  

sometalker: This is THE MOST AWESOME troll in history - we also have a "protect States Rights" bill coming up to defend the states' MJ laws. In order to stand against pot legalization, conservative dickwads will have to bow to both the UN and Obama...heads will be asplodin' in D.C. for sure....


States rights should rule. That goes with drugs, and prostitution, as well as many other things. The feds should look over basic human rights.
 
2012-11-20 08:03:09 PM  

vegasj: naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.

simple, the UN should STFU. They should have no say in any US laws.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-20 08:03:31 PM  

The WindowLicker: MooseUpNorth: / The UN is a debate club. Not an all powerful worldwide conspiracy theory.
// And pay your goddamn dues, already. The rest of us are sick of carrying you.

?

We contributed 22% of the UN budget last year. I don't know which 2nd rate country you live in, but y'all need to get on our level!


And only one paragraph further on that wikipedia article you've just read, you can find:

"U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts."

Pay your damn dues already.
 
2012-11-20 08:03:36 PM  

Gawdzila: Since when does thinking an organization has worthy goals mean that you must agree with them on everything?


Dude, have you seen what's happened in our own little corner of the earth these past few weeks?
 
2012-11-20 08:04:11 PM  

yeegrek: naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.

Really? I figured they'd go the other way with it. As in, "Hey libs, what you you think of your precious UN now, huh? Taking away your weed? Blar har har!"


That was my take as well.

This probably just seems par for the course on the UNs part from a right-wing perspective.

I suppose naughtyrevs premise was that right wingers dont smoke weed, which tells me he/she doesnt know any right wingers (or doesnt share his/her weed)
 
2012-11-20 08:04:31 PM  
I bet those Rhat Bastids had something to do with the Twinkee ordeal.



/maybe it's the weed talking
 
2012-11-20 08:04:51 PM  

Gawdzila: muck4doo: I'm in favor of watching the usual U.N. fans flip on the U.N. over this.

Since when does thinking an organization has worthy goals mean that you must agree with them on everything?
It isn't hypocritical to simultaneously approve of the U.N. as an organization and yet disagree with some of the things they do.


X-boxershorts: Gawdzila: muck4doo: I'm in favor of watching the usual U.N. fans flip on the U.N. over this.

Since when does thinking an organization has worthy goals mean that you must agree with them on everything?
It isn't hypocritical to simultaneously approve of the U.N. as an organization and yet disagree with some of the things they do.

That messes up his neat and orderly labels though.


America should do what is best for America. Yes, it's nice to hear others input, but then you get stupid shiat like this to go with it.

/Should offending people's religious beliefs be a crime?
 
2012-11-20 08:06:03 PM  

muck4doo:

/Have you labeled as the big government loving Libertarian. Just wanted to know if i could add U.N. loving to that as well.


I have never had much respect for the UN. it's mostly a shill for the security council members and a way to make the little fish countries think they're somehow important. the really important stuff gets decided behind closed doors by a very small group of countries. the UN is mostly theater.
 
2012-11-20 08:06:09 PM  

muck4doo: Gawdzila: muck4doo: I'm in favor of watching the usual U.N. fans flip on the U.N. over this.

Since when does thinking an organization has worthy goals mean that you must agree with them on everything?
It isn't hypocritical to simultaneously approve of the U.N. as an organization and yet disagree with some of the things they do.

X-boxershorts: Gawdzila: muck4doo: I'm in favor of watching the usual U.N. fans flip on the U.N. over this.

Since when does thinking an organization has worthy goals mean that you must agree with them on everything?
It isn't hypocritical to simultaneously approve of the U.N. as an organization and yet disagree with some of the things they do.

That messes up his neat and orderly labels though.

America should do what is best for America. Yes, it's nice to hear others input, but then you get stupid shiat like this to go with it.

/Should offending people's religious beliefs be a crime?


No, it should be mandatory...when do we start?
 
2012-11-20 08:06:42 PM  
Why can't we prioritize? Who cares about pot? How about we get rid of the death penalty and work on stopping wars or other extremely violent things. Stop violence and human trafficking and then you can start worrying about what my neighbor does in his basement while watching 'The Voice'.
 
2012-11-20 08:07:02 PM  

muck4doo: sometalker: This is THE MOST AWESOME troll in history - we also have a "protect States Rights" bill coming up to defend the states' MJ laws. In order to stand against pot legalization, conservative dickwads will have to bow to both the UN and Obama...heads will be asplodin' in D.C. for sure....

States rights should rule. That goes with drugs, and prostitution, as well as many other things. The feds should look over basic human rights.


Im in the other camp. There should be one set of American laws, and Citizens shouldnt have to read up on every weird state bylaw that changes after every internal state border they cross.

If something is illegal in one state, it should be illegal in another. Things would be SO much simpler. And no one would ever have to wonder if they are in some goofy state that doesnt allow right turns on red.

This is a single nation. E Pluribus Unum. "State's Rights" is as unamerican as you can get. It may be Pro- Kansas or Pro- Rhode Island, but it is Anti-American.

One country, one set of laws, for everyone. America!.
 
2012-11-20 08:07:47 PM  

Oznog: Elandriel: Ambivalence: Why would the UN care if marijuana is legalized?

Undermines anti-drug policies through the majority of member-nations of the UN if the most stringent anti-drug nation, the standard bearer as it were, relaxed its stance pursuant to ballot initiatives. They care because it hits them in the wallet through campaign contributions, grafting and kickbacks. Also because the leading politicians in those nations are ostensibly anti-drug, and as such would have the most to lose if their opponents could gain a foothold through this change in policy.

This is my armchair diplomat analysis. Amsterdam need not apply.

It's also casus belli for, well, not war but "intervention". Not very common, though. Frankly when it causes conflict, it's BECAUSE the drug trade IS a material problem. But if there's a drug-based conflict between nations or people, they don't want the US going "it's just drugs, it's your problem but you can't shoot people over it". They want the US leading the international community to back them up with "well, you do what you gotta do".


You know, no, I think it's that the US does directly send money to other governments in the name of the drug war. We paid the Colombian govt directly to be able to spray herbicide on the coca plant crops. That's power, propping up a regime outside of support and consent of the governed.
 
2012-11-20 08:08:35 PM  

ISO15693: muck4doo: sometalker: This is THE MOST AWESOME troll in history - we also have a "protect States Rights" bill coming up to defend the states' MJ laws. In order to stand against pot legalization, conservative dickwads will have to bow to both the UN and Obama...heads will be asplodin' in D.C. for sure....

States rights should rule. That goes with drugs, and prostitution, as well as many other things. The feds should look over basic human rights.

Im in the other camp. There should be one set of American laws, and Citizens shouldnt have to read up on every weird state bylaw that changes after every internal state border they cross.

If something is illegal in one state, it should be illegal in another. Things would be SO much simpler. And no one would ever have to wonder if they are in some goofy state that doesnt allow right turns on red.

This is a single nation. E Pluribus Unum. "State's Rights" is as unamerican as you can get. It may be Pro- Kansas or Pro- Rhode Island, but it is Anti-American.

One country, one set of laws, for everyone. America!.


In other words you don't like choice.
 
2012-11-20 08:10:39 PM  
The YOU ENN IS TAKEN MAH FREEDUMS
 
2012-11-20 08:10:50 PM  

muck4doo:
I'm in favor of watching the usual U.N. fans flip on the U.N. over this. It's important we do what makes other countries want us to do, right.


Which UN fans would those be? I haven't seen too many people who think the UN is awesome, just those who think it sucks less than the alternative, and that a lot of the anti-UN rhetoric on the right often has little to do with the UN's actual failings.

The UN is a glorified debating society, and we like it that way - precisely because of bullshiat like this.

/also because of putting the Sudan on the Human Rights Commission
//and the fact that they considered a resolution against "blasphemy"
 
2012-11-20 08:11:12 PM  

Weaver95: muck4doo:

/Have you labeled as the big government loving Libertarian. Just wanted to know if i could add U.N. loving to that as well.

I have never had much respect for the UN. it's mostly a shill for the security council members and a way to make the little fish countries think they're somehow important. the really important stuff gets decided behind closed doors by a very small group of countries. the UN is mostly theater.


Fair enough. Label will be "Big Government loving libertarian who believes U.N. is theater". Just so there is no confusion about that in the future.
 
2012-11-20 08:11:32 PM  

Gawdzila: Oh please, Prop 8 was unconstitutional BS.


While I agree, you can't roll out "will of the people" when (and only when) it fits your agenda.

Drug laws should be set a state level. However (and this is a big however) it is at the Federal Government's discretion to withhold federal funds if you fall outside what they want. See 21 year drinking age for a big example.

Watch pot get legalized and taxes and other surcharges make it more expensive than it is today.

//The UN is fairly toothless.

//Couldn't care less if pot is legal or not
 
2012-11-20 08:12:19 PM  

Mithiwithi: muck4doo:
I'm in favor of watching the usual U.N. fans flip on the U.N. over this. It's important we do what makes other countries want us to do, right.


Which UN fans would those be? I haven't seen too many people who think the UN is awesome, just those who think it sucks less than the alternative, and that a lot of the anti-UN rhetoric on the right often has little to do with the UN's actual failings.

The UN is a glorified debating society, and we like it that way - precisely because of bullshiat like this.

/also because of putting the Sudan on the Human Rights Commission
//and the fact that they considered a resolution against "blasphemy"


So you don't take them seriously either?
 
2012-11-20 08:13:33 PM  

MooseUpNorth: Okay, Americans? Don't simultaneously biatch that the UN can't get anything done while also biatching that the UN's going to take all your guns away. Especially not while yet also vetoing absolutely everything they try to get done.

/ The UN is a debate club. Not an all powerful worldwide conspiracy theory.
// And pay your goddamn dues, already. The rest of us are sick of carrying you.



Nothing in this post made any sense.
 
2012-11-20 08:13:41 PM  
The U.N. is standing up for other nations.

If the ballot measures in Washington and Colorado catch on it could endanger the economies of several Central and South American countries.
 
2012-11-20 08:14:46 PM  
Yeah, the UN can suck a dick on this one.

/ don't they have anything better to do ?
// cough... Syria... cough... Israel
 
2012-11-20 08:16:02 PM  

chiett: The U.N. is standing up for other nations.

If the ballot measures in Washington and Colorado catch on it could endanger the economies of several Central and South American countries.


Actually, it could be better, because then they would legalize and have a healthy profit.
 
2012-11-20 08:16:10 PM  
BUT IT SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE!!!
 
2012-11-20 08:16:20 PM  
How did the world ever survive before marijuana laws?
 
2012-11-20 08:16:40 PM  

Nick Nostril: Yeah, the UN can suck a dick on this one.

/ don't they have anything better to do ?
// cough... Syria... cough... Israel


We could bombard Israel and Palestine with tons and tons of weed, see what happens.
 
2012-11-20 08:17:06 PM  

MooseUpNorth: And only one paragraph further on that wikipedia article you've just read, you can find:

"U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts."

Pay your damn dues already.


I actually went right to the source at the UN (which I do notice is cited on wikipedia). Assuming you are one of those Canadian types, your country has contributed a miserly 3.2% of the budget.

Pardon me while I don't feel overwhelmingly obligated to pay an extra 600 million over the 582 Million we paid this year alone. Let us also not forget that we have to deal with all the diplomatic types in NY.

When you are only contributing 75 Million, I would not talk too much trash.
 
2012-11-20 08:17:17 PM  
COCKPUNCH
 
2012-11-20 08:19:30 PM  

MooseUpNorth: Okay, Americans? Don't simultaneously biatch that the UN can't get anything done while also biatching that the UN's going to take all your guns away. Especially not while yet also vetoing absolutely everything they try to get done.

/ The UN is a debate club. Not an all powerful worldwide conspiracy theory.
// And pay your goddamn dues, already. The rest of us are sick of carrying you.


We pay for the club house jerk!
 
2012-11-20 08:19:38 PM  

CygnusDarius: We could bombard Israel and Palestine with tons and tons of weed, see what happens.


Do you have a newsletter one could subscribe to?
 
2012-11-20 08:21:23 PM  

ISO15693: I get it. It's the old conservative "The UN is useless" meme.

Usually that's followed up with the "We are the last super power, and the world should listen to what we say" rant, and a GIF of a sparkly eagle. 

So here's the eagle, to get it over with.


Um, excuse me. You promised a sparkly eagle. That's a sparkly flag with a non sparkling eagle in front of it. I demand the sparkly eagle I was promised. This is America after all.
 
2012-11-20 08:22:38 PM  
EABODUN
 
2012-11-20 08:23:42 PM  

muck4doo: ISO15693: muck4doo: sometalker: This is THE MOST AWESOME troll in history - we also have a "protect States Rights" bill coming up to defend the states' MJ laws. In order to stand against pot legalization, conservative dickwads will have to bow to both the UN and Obama...heads will be asplodin' in D.C. for sure....

States rights should rule. That goes with drugs, and prostitution, as well as many other things. The feds should look over basic human rights.

Im in the other camp. There should be one set of American laws, and Citizens shouldnt have to read up on every weird state bylaw that changes after every internal state border they cross.

If something is illegal in one state, it should be illegal in another. Things would be SO much simpler. And no one would ever have to wonder if they are in some goofy state that doesnt allow right turns on red.

This is a single nation. E Pluribus Unum. "State's Rights" is as unamerican as you can get. It may be Pro- Kansas or Pro- Rhode Island, but it is Anti-American.

One country, one set of laws, for everyone. America!.

In other words you don't like choice.


Those are extremely poor "other words" that you've chosen to try and parap[hrase my opinion, since they basically don't represent anything close to what I was saying.
 
2012-11-20 08:23:59 PM  
Somehow I doubt this will be the time that the U.S. suddenly starts to care about what the U.N. has to say. If it is then someone needs to be kicked in the groin.
 
2012-11-20 08:24:06 PM  

Butthurted: I am not sure if I am part of the Anti-UN crowd. I never really paid much attention to them as they seem like a toothless blowhard, who's only real mandate in contemporary times is to appoint a Chief from a third world nation in an effort to say "Look, even those small nations, that are only good for cheap labor and resource exploitation, can have a seat at the big boy table too!"

/ How many third world nations have a permanent voting seat on the Security Council? That's right...its none.


I think the anti-UN "crowd" is mostly a figment of the imagination of some pants wetters. Criticizing the UN is not the same as being anti UN, just like criticizing government does not mean one must be anarchist. There is a spectrum of positions that aren't taken into account by a few to whom there is no middle ground. Everything must be black and white, us vs them, to such people..
 
2012-11-20 08:24:39 PM  

muck4doo: Mithiwithi: muck4doo:
I'm in favor of watching the usual U.N. fans flip on the U.N. over this. It's important we do what makes other countries want us to do, right.


Which UN fans would those be? I haven't seen too many people who think the UN is awesome, just those who think it sucks less than the alternative, and that a lot of the anti-UN rhetoric on the right often has little to do with the UN's actual failings.

The UN is a glorified debating society, and we like it that way - precisely because of bullshiat like this.

/also because of putting the Sudan on the Human Rights Commission
//and the fact that they considered a resolution against "blasphemy"

So you don't take them seriously either?


Depends on what you mean by "take seriously". The UN is about giving every nation's leadership, as well as various non-governmental organizations like this one, a chance to be heard - but what really matters is who heeds them.

And because everyone gets a voice, virtually every stupid idea ever with a following of more than a handful of people will turn up in the mouth of someone at the UN. Contrariwise, a lot of worthwhile ideas also turn up at the UN. It's kind of like Fark comment threads in that respect.

The key is to see who listens when the UN says something. If the world collectively says "Pfft, whatever" to this guy, I'll stop worrying about it. If someone wh actually matters says "Yeah, what he said", then I'll worry.
 
2012-11-20 08:24:56 PM  

ISO15693: muck4doo: ISO15693: muck4doo: sometalker: This is THE MOST AWESOME troll in history - we also have a "protect States Rights" bill coming up to defend the states' MJ laws. In order to stand against pot legalization, conservative dickwads will have to bow to both the UN and Obama...heads will be asplodin' in D.C. for sure....

States rights should rule. That goes with drugs, and prostitution, as well as many other things. The feds should look over basic human rights.

Im in the other camp. There should be one set of American laws, and Citizens shouldnt have to read up on every weird state bylaw that changes after every internal state border they cross.

If something is illegal in one state, it should be illegal in another. Things would be SO much simpler. And no one would ever have to wonder if they are in some goofy state that doesnt allow right turns on red.

This is a single nation. E Pluribus Unum. "State's Rights" is as unamerican as you can get. It may be Pro- Kansas or Pro- Rhode Island, but it is Anti-American.

One country, one set of laws, for everyone. America!.

In other words you don't like choice.

Those are extremely poor "other words" that you've chosen to try and parap[hrase my opinion, since they basically don't represent anything close to what I was saying.


One set of laws was your choice of words.
 
2012-11-20 08:25:09 PM  

picturescrazy: ISO15693: I get it. It's the old conservative "The UN is useless" meme.

Usually that's followed up with the "We are the last super power, and the world should listen to what we say" rant, and a GIF of a sparkly eagle. 

So here's the eagle, to get it over with.

Um, excuse me. You promised a sparkly eagle. That's a sparkly flag with a non sparkling eagle in front of it. I demand the sparkly eagle I was promised. This is America after all.


In the land of the free enterprise, we'll kill enough eagles to put a taxidermy piece in every household, then kill the rest for chicken nuggets.
 
2012-11-20 08:25:16 PM  

MooseUpNorth: // And pay your goddamn dues, already. The rest of us are sick of carrying you.


hmm...you wanna rethink that concept? 
static.ddmcdn.com 

For better or worse, for the last 60 years, US/UN/NATO policies have allowed the major European powers to divert defense funds elsewhere. We'll do the major blue water stuff, you guys do the brown water stuff (if that).

Hell yes it was in our national interest to do that, for various reasons. But you might want to rethink who is carrying who.

/channeling the inner Cartman - "Screw you guys, I'm going home!"
 
2012-11-20 08:27:02 PM  
The actual goal of the UN is to prevent World Wars, and not to... well, do much of anything else.

That has always been the goal, and if you think any differently, ask yourself why the system is designed upon two sides which will never agree to stop anything from happening.

We're not all at war with each other because everything gets to have their say no matter how shiatty they are, so the UN is doing its job.

This may be off topic but it's a UN thread so... nothing is off topic really.
 
2012-11-20 08:27:04 PM  
Aaaaaaannnnd who pressured the UN to have an Drug watchdog agency in the first place?

Anyone?..

Anyone?..

The USA.

Oh, the irony.
 
2012-11-20 08:28:49 PM  

gelovani: Aaaaaaannnnd who pressured the UN to have an Drug watchdog agency in the first place?

Anyone?..

Anyone?..

The USA.

Oh, the irony.


AAAAaaaaAAAAaaaAAAAAaaaannnnnd, we have a WINNER!!!!
 
2012-11-20 08:31:13 PM  
NOW both the Liberals and the Conservatives have a reason to hate the UN.
 
2012-11-20 08:31:15 PM  

RealAmericanHero: That has always been the goal, and if you think any differently, ask yourself why the system is designed upon two sides which will never agree to stop anything from happening.


I worded that like shiat. I was referring to the fact that the permanent members of the security council has always been, to some degree, made up of people who aren't going to give up any ground to each other.
 
2012-11-20 08:32:41 PM  

Butthurted: I am not sure if I am part of the Anti-UN crowd. I never really paid much attention to them as they seem like a toothless blowhard, who's only real mandate in contemporary times is to appoint a Chief from a third world nation in an effort to say "Look, even those small nations, that are only good for cheap labor and resource exploitation, can have a seat at the big boy table too!"

/ How many third world nations have a permanent voting seat on the Security Council? That's right...its none.


Third world nations do contribute the bulk of UN peace-keeping forces, though.
 
2012-11-20 08:33:44 PM  

Rockstone: NOW both the Liberals and the Conservatives have a reason to hate the UN.


How silly...you think it's only liberals who smoke weed....
 
2012-11-20 08:34:21 PM  

YouPeopleAreCrazy: For better or worse, for the last 60 years, US/UN/NATO policies have allowed the major European powers to divert defense funds elsewhere. We'll do the major blue water stuff, you guys do the brown water stuff (if that).

Hell yes it was in our national interest to do that, for various reasons. But you might want to rethink who is carrying who.


Very true. I look at it like a relationship. Is the US harmed if they drop out of the UN? Not really, and they would get some really valuable NY property back. Is the UN harmed if the US drops out. You bet, possibly irreparably. The US has the upper hand in this relationship.
 
Displayed 50 of 280 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report