X-boxershorts: 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....

Well, conservatives are mostly cokeheads.

X-boxershorts: 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....

Conservative. Will admit i had a little this past weekend. I only do this once every one to three years. Nobody should be going to jail for it.

pion: Third world nations do contribute the bulk of UN peace-keeping forces, though.

As well as the bulk of the places those forces must be deployed.

ThrobblefootSpectre: 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..

Screw the UN, I hate those pant wetters who think everything is black and white.

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.

Because it's mind boggling that I could support organizations like UNCTAD, UNICEF, and UN Water development projects, yet also be against the UN when they say the AG should try to overrule the democratic process.

X-boxershorts: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: 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....

Conservative. Will admit i had a little this past weekend. I only do this once every one to three years. Nobody should be going to jail for it.

I used to be conservative, but some whackjobs done moved that goal post to another universe and I can't even find it anymore

I didn't move my goal posts. I don't like most Republicans, but i don't think moving to big government authoritarian douches for my vote is the solution.

pion: 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.

Lol you made an oxymoron...UN peace-keeping forces. aren't those the guys with blue helmets who watch women get raped and kids get killed and claim they are not authorized to intervene (Rwanda anyone?) The only time they seem to actually engage in hostilities is when the "UN forces" are actually U.S., British or Russian forces on loan.

X-boxershorts: muck4doo: I didn't move my goal posts. I don't like most Republicans, but i don't think moving to big government authoritarian douches for my vote is the solution.

Sounds like Romney...yah, what a total authoritarian douche he was.

Enjoy your drone strike. No trial necessary.

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

The anti-UN crowd is already a farce, what with believing both that the U.N. is a bunch of powerless letter writers, and at the same time a superpowered shadowy cabal that is conquering America from within.

Conspiracy theorists and cognitive dissonance go hand-in-hand. Sometimes they even do a little polka.

I can't polka but I do a pretty snazzy twist.Does that count?

The WindowLicker: When you are only contributing 75 Million, I would not talk too much trash.

Basic arithmetic (since it's in vogue this month) would suggest that -1.3 billion dollars

pion: Third world nations do contribute the bulk of UN peace-keeping forces, though.

And the US foots 27% of the bill. They might not have a lot of people involved there (they don't-around 200), but they pay for a helluva lot more than any other country. Well over double the number 2 (Japan) and around triple number 3 (Great Britain). Beyond number 3 all countries pay less than a quarter of what the US pays.

Sorry the will of the people is more important then the UN.

muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: I didn't move my goal posts. I don't like most Republicans, but i don't think moving to big government authoritarian douches for my vote is the solution.

Sounds like Romney...yah, what a total authoritarian douche he was.

Enjoy your drone strike. No trial necessary.

Like either candidate was seriously going to end that?

There is no party of small government... one wants to regulate the hell out of businesses, the other wants to regulate the hell out of bedrooms. Sadly, in the two party system, given that there's no chance of developing multiple parties and having ideas like coalition building, if you don't vote for one of the two, you've effectively given yet more power to the other one.

Perot begets Clinton
Nader begets Bush

Third parties just won't happen as long as we have the electoral college and gerrymandering. They kill the need to compromise, build bridges, or be reasonable... the process we have now cedes power to the most extreme elements of idiocy.

YouPeopleAreCrazy: But you might want to rethink who is carrying who.

There's only one plausible threat to Canada, and they didn't come by sea the last two times.

MooseUpNorth: The WindowLicker: When you are only contributing 75 Million, I would not talk too much trash.

Basic arithmetic (since it's in vogue this month) would suggest that -1.3 billion dollars is smaller than 75 million.

/ FTFM. Bloody html.

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'll pay our dues right as soon as UN diplomats want to pay their parking tickets.

//forwarded to the department of things that are never gonna happen.

So the UN is anti-democracy? Good to know.

mjbok: 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.

I mean, sure, but who was doing that? I was just repudiating the idea that "the will of the people" should be the supreme arbiter of what should and should not be made law, and pointed out that the example of Prop 8 is a good reason why exactly that is. You can't create laws that contradict the supreme laws of the constitution; civil rights is not up for debate, no matter how many people vote on it. In other cases where there is no such issue, popular vote wins the day.

firefly212: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: I didn't move my goal posts. I don't like most Republicans, but i don't think moving to big government authoritarian douches for my vote is the solution.

Sounds like Romney...yah, what a total authoritarian douche he was.

Enjoy your drone strike. No trial necessary.

Like either candidate was seriously going to end that?

There is no party of small government... one wants to regulate the hell out of businesses, the other wants to regulate the hell out of bedrooms. Sadly, in the two party system, given that there's no chance of developing multiple parties and having ideas like coalition building, if you don't vote for one of the two, you've effectively given yet more power to the other one.

Perot begets Clinton
Nader begets Bush

Third parties just won't happen as long as we have the electoral college and gerrymandering. They kill the need to compromise, build bridges, or be reasonable... the process we have now cedes power to the most extreme elements of idiocy.

Third parties won't happen because the public has been duped into thinking there are only two choices available, and the two always have their alarmists propaganda pigs out there saying a vote for anyone other than those two is a wasted vote.

X-boxershorts: muck4doo: firefly212: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: I didn't move my goal posts. I don't like most Republicans, but i don't think moving to big government authoritarian douches for my vote is the solution.

Sounds like Romney...yah, what a total authoritarian douche he was.

Enjoy your drone strike. No trial necessary.

Like either candidate was seriously going to end that?

There is no party of small government... one wants to regulate the hell out of businesses, the other wants to regulate the hell out of bedrooms. Sadly, in the two party system, given that there's no chance of developing multiple parties and having ideas like coalition building, if you don't vote for one of the two, you've effectively given yet more power to the other one.

Perot begets Clinton
Nader begets Bush

Third parties just won't happen as long as we have the electoral college and gerrymandering. They kill the need to compromise, build bridges, or be reasonable... the process we have now cedes power to the most extreme elements of idiocy.

Third parties won't happen because the public has been duped into thinking there are only two choices available, and the two always have their alarmists propaganda pigs out there saying a vote for anyone other than those two is a wasted vote.

How close was the election again?

And you blame the public?

How about the corporate propaganda machine that keeps that public uninformed.

Case in point.

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.


All true and well said. Someone else mentioned this effect strictly applied to 3rd world countries, but even in the US, can anyone name a multi-billion dollar industry that doesn't try to protect its market via the political process? It's no different with the illicit drug trade here.

But missing from this thread are the usual suspects opposed to legalization: pharmaceuticals, timber, paper, the prison/police industrial complex and oil/plastics, among others. They have political power in other countries too. Pharmaceuticals in particular have sway over the UN with leverage via their various humanitarian medicinal programs.

Gawdzila: You can't create laws that contradict the supreme laws of the constitution; civil rights is not up for debate, no matter how many people vote on it. In other cases where there is no such issue, popular vote wins the day.

I don't remember which way prop 8 was phrased (was it formally banning gay marriage or legalizing it), but assuming it was phrased creating a new law (allowing gay marriage) would the will of the people stand then since a new law (if the issue is a constitutional right) is not needed?

A better example (for me personally) was there was an issue on the ballot back in the 90's about adding a "temporary" tax to finance what is now Miller Park in Milwaukee. It was voted down, but was enacted anyway. Granted a politician lost his job because of it, but still the tax was implemented (and still exists). The will of the people is an illusion. Politicians will do whatever they want.

The main reason for the creation of the UN was to prevent wars. They have failed miserably at that. Now they are a waste of money and time. This crap is just another example. A powerless organization that sends out letters to govts. asking them to do what the UN thinks is correct. They are a large organization that spends its time spitting into the wind.

mjbok: Gawdzila: You can't create laws that contradict the supreme laws of the constitution; civil rights is not up for debate, no matter how many people vote on it. In other cases where there is no such issue, popular vote wins the day.

I don't remember which way prop 8 was phrased (was it formally banning gay marriage or legalizing it), but assuming it was phrased creating a new law (allowing gay marriage) would the will of the people stand then since a new law (if the issue is a constitutional right) is not needed?

A better example (for me personally) was there was an issue on the ballot back in the 90's about adding a "temporary" tax to finance what is now Miller Park in Milwaukee. It was voted down, but was enacted anyway. Granted a politician lost his job because of it, but still the tax was implemented (and still exists). The will of the people is an illusion. Politicians will do whatever they want.

The will of the people IS an illusion if the people sit on their fat asses and do nothing about a situation like this. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

X-boxershorts: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: firefly212: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: I didn't move my goal posts. I don't like most Republicans, but i don't think moving to big government authoritarian douches for my vote is the solution.

Sounds like Romney...yah, what a total authoritarian douche he was.

Enjoy your drone strike. No trial necessary.

Like either candidate was seriously going to end that?

There is no party of small government... one wants to regulate the hell out of businesses, the other wants to regulate the hell out of bedrooms. Sadly, in the two party system, given that there's no chance of developing multiple parties and having ideas like coalition building, if you don't vote for one of the two, you've effectively given yet more power to the other one.

Perot begets Clinton
Nader begets Bush

Third parties just won't happen as long as we have the electoral college and gerrymandering. They kill the need to compromise, build bridges, or be reasonable... the process we have now cedes power to the most extreme elements of idiocy.

Third parties won't happen because the public has been duped into thinking there are only two choices available, and the two always have their alarmists propaganda pigs out there saying a vote for anyone other than those two is a wasted vote.

How close was the election again?

And you blame the public?

How about the corporate propaganda machine that keeps that public uninformed.

Case in point.

Any day son...Oooh RON PAUL!!!

Case in point.

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

How do we always react to illegal UN demands?

You want to take away our [insert freedoms here]?

Come and get it!

/I welcome the pot heads to our side but, whatever you do, don't raid my bunkers Oreo stash.
/That would end... badly.

X-boxershorts: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: firefly212: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: I didn't move my goal posts. I don't like most Republicans, but i don't think moving to big government authoritarian douches for my vote is the solution.

Sounds like Romney...yah, what a total authoritarian douche he was.

Enjoy your drone strike. No trial necessary.

Like either candidate was seriously going to end that?

There is no party of small government... one wants to regulate the hell out of businesses, the other wants to regulate the hell out of bedrooms. Sadly, in the two party system, given that there's no chance of developing multiple parties and having ideas like coalition building, if you don't vote for one of the two, you've effectively given yet more power to the other one.

Perot begets Clinton
Nader begets Bush

Third parties just won't happen as long as we have the electoral college and gerrymandering. They kill the need to compromise, build bridges, or be reasonable... the process we have now cedes power to the most extreme elements of idiocy.

Third parties won't happen because the public has been duped into thinking there are only two choices available, and the two always have their alarmists propaganda pigs out there saying a vote for anyone other than those two is a wasted vote.

How close was the election again?

And you blame the public?

How about the corporate propaganda machine that keeps that public uninformed.

Case in point.

Any day son...Oooh RON PAUL!!!

Case in point.

So...bring it

You already did. Thank you.

X-boxershorts: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: firefly212: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: I didn't move my goal posts. I don't like most Republicans, but i don't think moving to big government authoritarian douches for my vote is the solution.

Sounds like Romney...yah, what a total authoritarian douche he was.

Enjoy your drone strike. No trial necessary.

Like either candidate was seriously going to end that?

There is no party of small government... one wants to regulate the hell out of businesses, the other wants to regulate the hell out of bedrooms. Sadly, in the two party system, given that there's no chance of developing multiple parties and having ideas like coalition building, if you don't vote for one of the two, you've effectively given yet more power to the other one.

Perot begets Clinton
Nader begets Bush

Third parties just won't happen as long as we have the electoral college and gerrymandering. They kill the need to compromise, build bridges, or be reasonable... the process we have now cedes power to the most extreme elements of idiocy.

Third parties won't happen because the public has been duped into thinking there are only two choices available, and the two always have their alarmists propaganda pigs out there saying a vote for anyone other than those two is a wasted vote.

How close was the election again?

And you blame the public?

How about the corporate propaganda machine that keeps that public uninformed.

Case in point.

Any day son...Oooh RON PAUL!!!

Case in point.

So...bring it

You already did. Thank you.

LOL....you're not rational son.
Whatever your assumptions are, if they bear any resemblance to the lines of logic you presented in this thread, then you have issues with reality.

We get it. Obama, Romney, otherwise nothing else.

Almost 200 comments, and nobody posted this?



/Fark, I am dissappoint

chuckufarlie: The will of the people IS an illusion if the people sit on their fat asses and do nothing about a situation like this. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

If you voted you did what is "your part" in the process.

X-boxershorts: muck4doo: We get it. Obama, Romney, otherwise nothing else.

Case in point

Glad we agree now comrade. Keep shilling for the party.

Do you think there is anyone on earth who's more of a square than Raymond Yans?

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!.

So I should listen to some fark-headed zealot in flyover country? No thanks, states should decide.

Deep Contact: $177.26, that is the retail price, according to Drug Enforcement Administration data, of one gram of pure cocaine from your typical local pusher. That is 74 percent cheaper than it was 30 years ago.

The drug war is a failure.

Cop math. It was $20 to $25 a quarter gram or for the math challenged $80 to $100 a gram back in 1990 in Oakland.

All the billions upon billions to fund other countries. Want to stop the debt crisis? Quit spending billions upon billions overseas, funding more than a fifth of the UN! And, look at MJ as a source of income.