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 284
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

8742 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Nov 2012 at 7:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-20 09:31:01 PM

basemetal: Someone stands to lose money.


ding ding ding!

Link

Yes the paper is 8 years old, but it gives an idea on the scale.

Global pharma donations to the UN for HIV/tuberculosis/malaria in 2003 alone: $2 billion

"Pssst, that's a lovely pile of free medicine and tools you have there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."
 
2012-11-20 09:31:55 PM

X-boxershorts: Yeah, I'm pretty damn pissed off that a Republican congress and the Bush administration passed these powers on to a Democrat


No, you aren't. Otherwise you be mad at the "hope and change" candidate, but you aren't. That's funny. "I'm not mad at my guy for killing people without trial! I'm mad at the people who gave him that opportunity". It's someone else fault he kills people without trial. You are as big a problem with the country as the Republicans who gave your poor guy his "unfortunate" powers.
 
2012-11-20 09:33:15 PM

muck4doo: X-boxershorts: Yeah, I'm pretty damn pissed off that a Republican congress and the Bush administration passed these powers on to a Democrat

No, you aren't. Otherwise you be mad at the "hope and change" candidate, but you aren't. That's funny. "I'm not mad at my guy for killing people without trial! I'm mad at the people who gave him that opportunity". It's someone else fault he kills people without trial. You are as big a problem with the country as the Republicans who gave your poor guy his "unfortunate" powers.


You have no qualifications to assume what goes on in my conscious stream. You can't even find your own.
 
2012-11-20 09:34:05 PM

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

Case in point

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

You cluseless farktard. Powers claimed by the executive are intended to be checked by the congress you idiot,

Look upthread moron ...Civics lessons, how do they work?

The farking problem is CONGRESS you ignorant tool.

YOU ARE PART OF THE GOD DAMN PROBLEM if you think Obamney is the root of the ills facing the nation,


You mad bro. But it's with everyone else not buying into your bullshiat shilling. You and turd blossom would make a great couple.
 
2012-11-20 09:36:59 PM

X-boxershorts: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: Yeah, I'm pretty damn pissed off that a Republican congress and the Bush administration passed these powers on to a Democrat

No, you aren't. Otherwise you be mad at the "hope and change" candidate, but you aren't. That's funny. "I'm not mad at my guy for killing people without trial! I'm mad at the people who gave him that opportunity". It's someone else fault he kills people without trial. You are as big a problem with the country as the Republicans who gave your poor guy his "unfortunate" powers.

You have no qualifications to assume what goes on in my conscious stream. You can't even find your own.


All I need to see is the derp you keep posting to know what goes on in your semi-concience stream. Poor Obama and the powers he was given.
 
2012-11-20 09:38:33 PM
Dear UN,
Fark you! You have no standing in this matter and you have no jurisdiction as the American people have not given you any standing or authority over them.
 
2012-11-20 09:39:48 PM

muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: Yeah, I'm pretty damn pissed off that a Republican congress and the Bush administration passed these powers on to a Democrat

No, you aren't. Otherwise you be mad at the "hope and change" candidate, but you aren't. That's funny. "I'm not mad at my guy for killing people without trial! I'm mad at the people who gave him that opportunity". It's someone else fault he kills people without trial. You are as big a problem with the country as the Republicans who gave your poor guy his "unfortunate" powers.

You have no qualifications to assume what goes on in my conscious stream. You can't even find your own.

All I need to see is the derp you keep posting to know what goes on in your semi-concience stream. Poor Obama and the powers he was given.


Congress gave those powers, congress can rescind them

Imagine Jill Stein or Jon Hunstman or the MitWitt with these powers. Think it through melon head.
 
2012-11-20 09:41:12 PM

X-boxershorts: Yeah, I'm pretty damn pissed off that a Republican congress and the Bush administration passed these powers on to a Democrat


I've seen this argument several places (wiretap laws, patriot act, keeping detainees forever without charging them) and I've never understood it. No matter your political stripe or affiliation, right is right and wrong is wrong, correct? If you're against 'x' it shouldn't matter if it is Bush or Obama or Clinton or whomever doing 'x'. If you thought the curtailed freedoms that occurred under Bush were wrong, there is no reason to accept them now, just because 'your guy' is in charge.

It swings both ways, too. If you think 'y' is good, it shouldn't matter who is doing 'y'. Unfortunately there is too much my side/your side acceptance and not enough right side/wrong side expectations.
 
2012-11-20 09:41:20 PM

X-boxershorts: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: muck4doo: X-boxershorts: Yeah, I'm pretty damn pissed off that a Republican congress and the Bush administration passed these powers on to a Democrat

No, you aren't. Otherwise you be mad at the "hope and change" candidate, but you aren't. That's funny. "I'm not mad at my guy for killing people without trial! I'm mad at the people who gave him that opportunity". It's someone else fault he kills people without trial. You are as big a problem with the country as the Republicans who gave your poor guy his "unfortunate" powers.

You have no qualifications to assume what goes on in my conscious stream. You can't even find your own.

All I need to see is the derp you keep posting to know what goes on in your semi-concience stream. Poor Obama and the powers he was given.

Congress gave those powers, congress can rescind them

Imagine Jill Stein or Jon Hunstman or the MitWitt with these powers. Think it through melon head.


How cute. The party shill is getting mad.
 
2012-11-20 09:45:05 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Are there weederies in Washington yet? I'll be there in a few weeks


December 6th, if the Feds sit on it. No tellin' what their response is gonna be...or when
 
2012-11-20 09:45:11 PM

mjbok: If you thought the curtailed freedoms that occurred under Bush were wrong, there is no reason to accept them now, just because 'your guy' is in charge.


Just what makes you think I accept or approve?

Please, you and MuckMind tell me what it is that I said that makes you think I approve of the current administration having these powers?

Since some in this thread have issues with big words. here you go....I do not
 
2012-11-20 09:47:30 PM

muck4doo: How cute. The party shill is getting mad.


How foolish, the ignorant troll insists on banking on false assumptions.
 
2012-11-20 09:50:05 PM

X-boxershorts: Just what makes you think I accept or approve?


You are doing a hell of a job shilling for your party, and are quick to attack third parties. But more power to ya. Be happy when Obama sends his raiding party on you. It's not really his fault, he was forced to have the powers he uses to oppress people who aren't doing anything wrong other than smoking some grass.
 
2012-11-20 09:50:53 PM

X-boxershorts: muck4doo: How cute. The party shill is getting mad.

How foolish, the ignorant troll insists on banking on false assumptions.


What are you mad at then?
 
2012-11-20 09:53:41 PM

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

This is my question.


Thirded, fourthed or whatever we're up to.

The whole Pot illegality is pretty weird when its illegality is due, in part, to international treaties. I mean, additionally weird on top of making such a relatively harmless substance so illegal all over the world.
 
2012-11-20 09:56:40 PM

muck4doo: You are doing a hell of a job shilling for your party, and are quick to attack third parties


What party did I shill for? Please, dig through and find it....

What I DID do was blame a corporate owned congress for granting ridiculous (and likely unconstitutional) powers to an incompetent stooge of a president
only to have that president pass those same powers to his successor, a spineless compromiser that refuses to poke our corporate overlords in the eye.

You're having a hard time wrapping your tiny brain around that..I get it.
 
2012-11-20 10:02:07 PM

X-boxershorts: Please, you and MuckMind tell me what it is that I said that makes you think I approve of the current administration having these powers?


You blamed the party that granted the powers, not the party using them (currently). Sarcasm is hard to detect in some posts, so I don't know what you total intention was. However if you read the rest of my post you'd see that lumping me in with someone that you're having a baiting (take that however you wish) contest with is a reach.
 
2012-11-20 10:03:36 PM

X-boxershorts: muck4doo: You are doing a hell of a job shilling for your party, and are quick to attack third parties

What party did I shill for? Please, dig through and find it....

What I DID do was blame a corporate owned congress for granting ridiculous (and likely unconstitutional) powers to an incompetent stooge of a president
only to have that president pass those same powers to his successor, a spineless compromiser that refuses to poke our corporate overlords in the eye.

You're having a hard time wrapping your tiny brain around that..I get it.


So why did you mock Ron Paul then when i brought up the subject of third parties? I didn't even mention Paul. Instead you went into the usual attack mode derp that the Dems and Reps do. If you don't want to be looked at as a shill, then stop acting like one. Your post didn't make you look like you had a big brain on you, Brad.
 
2012-11-20 10:04:36 PM

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.


The pro-UN crowd isn't much better, seeing them as the saviors of civilization from American fascism. Between the rednecks and the hippies, the collective head-spinning here should be enough to solve the energy crisis.
 
2012-11-20 10:07:31 PM
By the way, Ron Paul ran as a Republican this year, not a 3rd party candidate.

/Facts are difficult for x-boxershorts types.
 
2012-11-20 10:12:54 PM
Doesn't the UN have genocide, wars, and dictators to worry about? farkin losers.
 
2012-11-20 10:15:16 PM

TheJoe03: Doesn't the UN have genocide, wars, and dictators to worry about? farkin losers.


No. The marijuana is public enemy number one. Our president will make sure to appease them.
 
2012-11-20 10:19:22 PM
Listen to this, smoke a bowl, take a shot or two, go fark your wife or a willing partner, and quit worrying the fark about what everyone else is doing. Life is short. Focus on making yours happy, and less on what others are doing to achieve the same.
 
2012-11-20 10:22:50 PM

Mouser: 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.

The pro-UN crowd isn't much better, seeing them as the saviors of civilization from American fascism. Between the rednecks and the hippies, the collective head-spinning here should be enough to solve the energy crisis.


Maybe the combined left-right wailing will finally push the war on drugs out the window.
 
2012-11-20 10:25:36 PM

muck4doo: TheJoe03: Doesn't the UN have genocide, wars, and dictators to worry about? farkin losers.

No. The marijuana is public enemy number one. Our president will make sure to appease them.


I'm not optimistic but I hold some hope that Obama and Holder will ease up now that Obama doesn't have to run again. It's bigger than his administration though, the Feds LOVE the drug war.
 
2012-11-20 10:27:44 PM

TheJoe03: muck4doo: TheJoe03: Doesn't the UN have genocide, wars, and dictators to worry about? farkin losers.

No. The marijuana is public enemy number one. Our president will make sure to appease them.

I'm not optimistic but I hold some hope that Obama and Holder will ease up now that Obama doesn't have to run again. It's bigger than his administration though, the Feds LOVE the drug war.


It's money that everyone is happy with. From the corps that run the private prisons to the public sector unions who supply them with prisoners, and get that sweet cash from busts. It's not ending anytime soon.
 
2012-11-20 10:36:54 PM

Suede head: derp.

 
2012-11-20 10:42:02 PM

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.


inflation-adjusted?
 
2012-11-20 10:46:54 PM

TheJoe03: muck4doo: TheJoe03: Doesn't the UN have genocide, wars, and dictators to worry about? farkin losers.

No. The marijuana is public enemy number one. Our president will make sure to appease them.

I'm not optimistic but I hold some hope that Obama and Holder will ease up now that Obama doesn't have to run again. It's bigger than his administration though, the Feds LOVE the drug war.


What I find odd is that, while the war on Marijuana started because of US interests (We goaded most of the world into this mess), the UN isn't welcoming a potential end to our second prohibition failure.
Its not just people in the US making money by bilking taxpayers for law enforcement equipment and prison space.
There's also all the people who sell us the drugs, terrorists and businessmen alike, that don't want this free ride to end.

The level of corruption this war pays for must be something insane.
 
2012-11-20 10:57:48 PM
Nobody cares about drug users. We are a nation of punishing, not helping. Look at the Fark threads on meth users here, and you will see what i mean.
 
2012-11-20 10:58:53 PM

mjbok: I don't remember which way prop 8 was phrased (was it formally banning gay marriage or legalizing it)


It was trying to formally ban it, since California had actually already begun issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.


mjbok: 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?


So, Prop 8 was a ban on gay marriage that was actually passed.
If I interpret you correctly, you're assuming Prop 8 was a specific allowance for gay marriage that was voted down, and are asking me if "the will of the people" would stand in this case since it is redundant with the constitution?

I would assume that the vote would stand, but that it would have no practical effect since the default position of the state in any case was to grant gay marriages legal status. Such a proposition would not have existed in reality, however, since in 2008 when Prop 22 (basically the old Prop 8) was struck down by the CA Supreme Court, California had already started granting state-approved gay marriages. In fact it still would be granting them if it weren't for the fact that Prop 8, which bans them, is still awaiting its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. So in a way the voters still got what they wanted -- temporarily at least.
 
2012-11-20 11:04:46 PM

Gawdzila: 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,


You are correct. The "will of the people" is essentially an averaging of the misinformed masses. We should never lower our standards to average in the "hookers and blow" crowd. We have much more intelligent people that should be making policy decisions than the unwashed masses. I cringe just thinking about our world being controlled by the whim and whimsy of uneducated slime. Just let us do the work already, and accept the better-informed outcomes.
 
2012-11-20 11:07:45 PM

trappedspirit: Gawdzila: 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,

You are correct. The "will of the people" is essentially an averaging of the misinformed masses. We should never lower our standards to average in the "hookers and blow" crowd. We have much more intelligent people that should be making policy decisions than the unwashed masses. I cringe just thinking about our world being controlled by the whim and whimsy of uneducated slime. Just let us do the work already, and accept the better-informed outcomes.


I for one am happy we have selfless people like Gawdzilla that are so fearlessly willing to make decisions for us all.
 
2012-11-20 11:14:48 PM
Well, once the UN recognizes that Weed ain't a Narcotic - all wishful thinking to the contrary, then they can stop worrying.

When CO and WA start growing Opium Poppies, then the UN might worry.

But at the moment, Mr. Wassisname? GTFO and over to Afganistan, grab a rifle and man the front lines, I hear they have a record crop, or are you a swivel-chair warrior? Yea, thought so.

We need some cartel to plant a couple hundred grams of pure Horse on this guy next time he goes to Singapore - I hear they hang drug smugglers there....
 
2012-11-20 11:16:56 PM

trappedspirit: You are correct. The "will of the people" is essentially an averaging of the misinformed masses. We should never lower our standards to average in the "hookers and blow" crowd. We have much more intelligent people that should be making policy decisions than the unwashed masses. I cringe just thinking about our world being controlled by the whim and whimsy of uneducated slime. Just let us do the work already, and accept the better-informed outcomes.


I'm assuming this is sarcasm, but the thought that "much more intelligent" people include politicians by default is laughable. Whether you're the secretary of the Treasury and you can't properly pay your taxes, are afraid an island will tip over because too many soldiers are placed on it, or "won't get fooled again", the fact you're a politician far from guarantees intelligence. Many politicians (nearly all) are in the 1%. This does not make them bad people (necessarily), but it does mean that they are pretty out of touch with how the world works for everybody else. The fact that people that don't use services are responsible for legislating them is scary.
 
2012-11-20 11:17:44 PM

dr_blasto: We're signatories to a treaty, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.


The Federal Government is, but not Colorado or Washington. One thing is true, the way the US is organized tends to make foreigners heads assplode. Kind of like Canada trying to get the Feds to promise that California wouldn't put Charles Ng to death after he was extradited.
 
2012-11-20 11:20:27 PM
I'm not at all surprised. I cant think of a single thing the UN ever did that I thought made even a little bit of sense.

I mean, blue helmets!? c'mon.

And that bit about the UN rescuing rangers in Somalia made me shoot vodak out of my nose and on to my screen.
 
2012-11-20 11:26:28 PM
Un-American
 
2012-11-20 11:33:47 PM

gibbon1: dr_blasto: We're signatories to a treaty, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

The Federal Government is, but not Colorado or Washington. One thing is true, the way the US is organized tends to make foreigners heads assplode. Kind of like Canada trying to get the Feds to promise that California wouldn't put Charles Ng to death after he was extradited.


Problem being the treaties entered into by the US government are, per the Constitution, the law of the land.

The trouble is this: SCOTUS decided Wickard v. Filburn, and now the Commerce Clause means they can regulate production or non-production of crops (economic activity) as those crops somehow affect, even if locally grown and consumed, the interstate market. They later reinforced it with Gonzalez v Raich.
 
2012-11-20 11:34:40 PM

mjbok: 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.


that is not true. If what was posted is true, the voters needed to do more - take it to court. Your obligation as a citizen does not start and end with voting.
 
2012-11-20 11:36:55 PM

mjbok: I'm assuming this is sarcasm, but the thought that "much more intelligent" people include politicians by default is laughable.


Agreed. The intelligentsia I speak of are not the political dog and pony show. I would say it's who they appoint to committees and boards, but the idea that they actually have exclusive, personal control of who these appointees are is also laughable.
 
2012-11-20 11:38:11 PM

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.


It's 77% more than I was paying 20 years ago.
You got ripped off.
 
2012-11-20 11:38:54 PM

muck4doo: Listen to this, smoke a bowl, take a shot or two, go fark your wife or a willing partner, and quit worrying the fark about what everyone else is doing.


Can you imagine what kind of world it would be if more people thought like this? I don't think it would be all kumbaya and love instead of war, but it'd be a large step in the right direction. It disgusts me to no end that all of the things you listed here, right down to worrying about what others are doing, is illegal somewhere or in some context in the US.

It's like if you sat down and made a retarded list of how things shouldn't be and then enacted it. I don't think it's been done on purpose, and we're obviously a whole lot better off than various places and times throughout history, but we're pretty farking far from ideal. There have been some steps in the right direction lately, I just hope we keep making them and don't do 1 step forward 2 steps back.
 
2012-11-20 11:43:27 PM

Suede head: Ah, American right-wingers and their UN hatred.

Funny, you liked the UN when their troops had to come and rescue your elite rangers in Mogadishu.


Two of my BCT Drill Sgts were in that incident. One was among the stranded, and one went in later to get them out. Both really great instructors, though we didn't get to be too personable with them as recruits. I happened to be among just a handful of trainees that heard the (very brief) story from the one who got stranded. He didn't say much about it but you could definitely see the change in his demeanor.

I am pretty liberal, but as someone up thread said, the UN stood and watched those guys go in and get attacked. They're so afraid of conflict they end up letting things get worse before trying to make them better. Also they should STFU about state politics. It's internal politics that at worst might increase trade with countries that produce the substances.
 
2012-11-20 11:56:36 PM

Eddie Ate Dynamite: muck4doo: Listen to this, smoke a bowl, take a shot or two, go fark your wife or a willing partner, and quit worrying the fark about what everyone else is doing.

Can you imagine what kind of world it would be if more people thought like this? I don't think it would be all kumbaya and love instead of war, but it'd be a large step in the right direction. It disgusts me to no end that all of the things you listed here, right down to worrying about what others are doing, is illegal somewhere or in some context in the US.

It's like if you sat down and made a retarded list of how things shouldn't be and then enacted it. I don't think it's been done on purpose, and we're obviously a whole lot better off than various places and times throughout history, but we're pretty farking far from ideal. There have been some steps in the right direction lately, I just hope we keep making them and don't do 1 step forward 2 steps back.


There will always be dicks wanting to impose their beliefs on everyone else. I was an idealist most my life, now I'm a realist. The funny thing is idealists like my own self wanted to impose our beliefs on everyone else as well.
 
2012-11-20 11:59:59 PM

muck4doo: trappedspirit: Gawdzila: 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,

You are correct. The "will of the people" is essentially an averaging of the misinformed masses. We should never lower our standards to average in the "hookers and blow" crowd. We have much more intelligent people that should be making policy decisions than the unwashed masses. I cringe just thinking about our world being controlled by the whim and whimsy of uneducated slime. Just let us do the work already, and accept the better-informed outcomes.

I for one am happy we have selfless people like Gawdzilla that are so fearlessly willing to make decisions for us all.


I don't know whether to think that this is a very poor and misguided attempt at sarcastic humor, a blatant display of intellectual dishonesty, or whether you're truly dense enough to actually believe that I'm advocating for running the country as an oligarchy.

The reason "the will of the masses" is not supreme is because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and, as demonstrated by everything from Prop 8 to Jim Crow, people will happily try to pass laws that contradict it or otherwise try and apply it selectively. But our Constitution guarantees all of us basic rights; you cannot take them away from people simply by getting a 51% vote, and anyone who likes even the idea of freedom should celebrate that fact. Yet here you are, suggesting that not bowing to the will of a simple majority is akin to running an elitist intellectual meritocracy. This is either a very stupid thought, or a very stupid joke.
 
2012-11-21 12:02:38 AM

Gawdzila: muck4doo: trappedspirit: Gawdzila: 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,

You are correct. The "will of the people" is essentially an averaging of the misinformed masses. We should never lower our standards to average in the "hookers and blow" crowd. We have much more intelligent people that should be making policy decisions than the unwashed masses. I cringe just thinking about our world being controlled by the whim and whimsy of uneducated slime. Just let us do the work already, and accept the better-informed outcomes.

I for one am happy we have selfless people like Gawdzilla that are so fearlessly willing to make decisions for us all.

I don't know whether to think that this is a very poor and misguided attempt at sarcastic humor, a blatant display of intellectual dishonesty, or whether you're truly dense enough to actually believe that I'm advocating for running the country as an oligarchy.

The reason "the will of the masses" is not supreme is because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and, as demonstrated by everything from Prop 8 to Jim Crow, people will happily try to pass laws that contradict it or otherwise try and apply it selectively. But our Constitution guarantees all of us basic rights; you cannot take them away from people simply by getting a 51% vote, and anyone who likes even the idea of freedom should celebrate that fact. Yet here you are, suggesting that not bowing to the will of a simple majority is akin to running an elitist intellectual meritocracy. This is either a very stupid thought, or a very stupid joke.


You're thinking too hard, and missing the obvious.
 
2012-11-21 12:05:33 AM

chuckufarlie: that is not true. If what was posted is true, the voters needed to do more - take it to court. Your obligation as a citizen does not start and end with voting.


And the courts are run by whom?
 
2012-11-21 12:08:54 AM

dr_blasto: Problem being the treaties entered into by the US government are, per the Constitution, the law of the land.


Just because something is against Federal law doesn't make it illegal according to state law. I suppose the Feds could try and cut of Washington and Colorado's highway funding. Wouldn't be very 'state rights' of them though. Not that has ever stopped Congress.
 
2012-11-21 12:10:34 AM

X-boxershorts: muck4doo: You are doing a hell of a job shilling for your party, and are quick to attack third parties

What party did I shill for? Please, dig through and find it....

What I DID do was blame a corporate owned congress for granting ridiculous (and likely unconstitutional) powers to an incompetent stooge of a president
only to have that president pass those same powers to his successor, a spineless compromiser that refuses to poke our corporate overlords in the eye.

You're having a hard time wrapping your tiny brain around that..I get it.


JFK was the last president who refused to compromise and attempted to stand up to our corporate (and union) overlords. We all know how that ended.
 
Displayed 50 of 284 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 »






Report