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  
•       •       •

8739 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
 
2012-11-20 03:43:47 PM
Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.
 
2012-11-20 03:47:33 PM

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


Heh... yeah, that could get entertaining

/as for myself, f*ck the UN
 
2012-11-20 03:56:47 PM
Why would the UN care if marijuana is legalized?
 
2012-11-20 04:01:16 PM

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


This is my question.
 
2012-11-20 04:06:44 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 04:07:42 PM

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

This is my question.


Because the War On Drugs® went international years ago and the powers that be in the US pulled the "Assasin of Youth" scam on them
 
2012-11-20 04:07:58 PM

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


Well, the article says the letter is from the head of the UN anti-drug watchdog agency. So presumably he's trying to make sure he has continued employment.
 
2012-11-20 04:17:34 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 05:00:14 PM
Are there weederies in Washington yet? I'll be there in a few weeks
 
2012-11-20 05:03:55 PM

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


i218.photobucket.com

Suck-up: Morning, Mr. Griffin. Nice day.
Peter: It's a little cloudy.
Suck-up: It's absolutely cloudy, one of the worst days I've seen in years. So, good news about the Yankees.
Peter: I hate the Yankees.
Suck-up: Pack of cheaters, that's what they are. I love your tie.
Peter: I hate this tie.
Suck-up: It's awful, it's gaudy, it's gotta go.
Peter: And I hate myself.
Suck-up: I hate you, too. You make me sick, you fat sack of crap.
Peter: But I'm the president.
Suck-up: The best there is.
Peter: But you just said you hated me.
Suck-up: But not you, the president, the you who said you hated you who...love, hate, Yankees, clouds...[head explodes]
Valet: I'll have that fixed for you tomorrow, sir.
 
2012-11-20 05:05:43 PM
Everybody hates Raymond.
 
2012-11-20 05:08:44 PM

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


came here to mention this.
 
2012-11-20 05:19:29 PM
Hi, can I have a pen and some paper?
Sure.
Do you have a stamp and envelope?
Yes, right here. Take two.
Thanks. This letter is for you. I'm keeping the pen.
 
2012-11-20 05:20:57 PM
Hey, UN! Would you prefer that we enact capital punishment for drug possession like so many other countries?
 
2012-11-20 05:22:05 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.


Conspiracy theorists and cognitive dissonance go hand-in-hand. Sometimes they even do a little polka.
 
2012-11-20 05:36:51 PM

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


It might impact US drug tourism to other countries.
 
2012-11-20 06:10:41 PM

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


We're signatories to a treaty, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.
 
2012-11-20 06:45:03 PM
Hey UN, why don't you work on trying to stop massacres of thousands of people you are supposed to be protecting - A JOB YOU MAJORLY SUCK AT BY THE WAY - and stop worrying about state laws in the U.S.
 
2012-11-20 07:18:41 PM
Someone stands to lose money.
 
2012-11-20 07:23:57 PM

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.


Yea that's what I thought too. Too many people across the globe have died because of the War on MJ. If the leading enforcer of drug laws suddenly relaxed on it, people would be rightfully pissed (which they should be anyway).

This is becoming more and more about saving face. These politicians are starting to sweat under the light and they don't like it.
 
2012-11-20 07:30:14 PM
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.
 
2012-11-20 07:30:33 PM

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.


Didn't those swamp Germans just make it fairly annoying as a foreigner to smoke the ganja?
 
2012-11-20 07:32:31 PM
I'm not anti-UN, and I've never smoked weed (or done any sort of recreational drug, legal or otherwise), but in this case, I say fark the UN, and legalize that sh*t at the federal level. Lord knows America needs all the revenue it can get.
 
2012-11-20 07:32:43 PM
Do if I am reading this right, they want to UN-legalize grass.
 
2012-11-20 07:32:52 PM
Shut up, UN.
 
2012-11-20 07:33:18 PM
And God help us if the Fed actually does try do challenge those laws.

"OMG! OBAMA'S IN THE UN'S BACK POCKET!!!!11111!"
 
2012-11-20 07:33:41 PM
How bout....Democracy works and the majority has spoken with a ballot initiative.
If this is rolled back, even though I do not live in either Colorado or Washington state, I am done with the US. This country is a lost cause when the paths PUT INTO PLACE TO EFFECT SYSTEM CHANGE are closed. Does anyone else see how serious of a problem this is?
 
2012-11-20 07:34:55 PM

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


I used to work for the UN (UNCTAD). On this particular issue, they can blow me. Neither they, nor holder, can make us waste more money on this failed drug policy. We're not going to throw people in jail and continue wasting billions of dollars pretending that smoking a joint warrants more government action than stealing billions of dollars.

Nobody from BP or Halliburton went to jail, but we're supposed to send some burnout, MS patient (me), or grandmom with cancer to jail... how the fark does that make sense to anyone?
 
2012-11-20 07:34:59 PM
Pot is evil. E-V-I-L. It just made me eat all of the deviled eggs I had made last night. All. The. Deviled. Eggs.

EVL
 
2012-11-20 07:35:20 PM
The ghost of Johnny says...........

worldclassshitty.files.wordpress.com



....and that's good enough for me.
 
2012-11-20 07:35:52 PM
Oh great, another Attorney General-WACO standoff.
 
2012-11-20 07:36:22 PM
fark UN drug opinions.

Sincerely, Portugal.
 
2012-11-20 07:36:25 PM

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

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


Good thing that pot isn't a narcotic, then.

/yes, I know
 
2012-11-20 07:36:34 PM
P.S.

Holder can go fark himself too...
 
2012-11-20 07:36:50 PM
images.sodahead.com
 
2012-11-20 07:37:06 PM
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.
 
2012-11-20 07:37:52 PM

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


Sorry. Not for another year. The liquor board must do their work.
 
2012-11-20 07:37:53 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.


We didn't love them when they refused to go in because it was too dangerous.

Also, I'm not right-wing, I support socialized medicine, legalizing pot, taxing cap-gains at the same tax rate as salary income, abolishing the death penalty, and plenty of other left wing causes. Being against pointless oppression and for fairer outcomes and second chances doesn't make me a crazy right winger, it makes me proud to be a liberal.
 
2012-11-20 07:38:57 PM
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Can you Imagine the herp derp if they tried to make it criminalize it again?
 
2012-11-20 07:38:59 PM
Yet another drug warrior trying to hold on to his job.
 
2012-11-20 07:40:41 PM

p4p3rm4t3: Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Can you Imagine the herp derp if they tried to make it criminalize it again?


speaking of herp derp....
 
2012-11-20 07:41:05 PM

LordJiro: I'm not anti-UN, and I've never smoked weed (or done any sort of recreational drug, legal or otherwise), but in this case, I say fark the UN, and legalize that sh*t at the federal level. Lord knows America needs all the revenue it can get.


Whatever, narc. NOBODY TALK TO HIM
 
2012-11-20 07:41:15 PM

Weaver95: naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.

came here to mention this.


Are you Pro-U.N. now?
 
2012-11-20 07:41:34 PM
Next month I'm dedicating the first bong-hit to the UN.

SCREW YOU! (gurgle gurgle gurgle gurgle gurgle)
 
2012-11-20 07:41:41 PM
Raymond Yans says the approvals send "a wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad."

The message it sends is that the war on some drugs was been colossal waste of money, time, and resources; and the people profiting from it for the last 40 years have to get a real job.
 
2012-11-20 07:41:47 PM
SCREW THE LYIN' UN. I didn't have an opinion till now, but, yeah, thanks assholes.
 
2012-11-20 07:42:11 PM

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


.
How the so called progressives react is way more amusing.
 
2012-11-20 07:43:00 PM
The U.N. speaks for the greater good! We must do as they say! Amiright?
 
2012-11-20 07:43:53 PM
Two. Two, ha ha ha, what comes next...?
 
2012-11-20 07:43:56 PM
Don't worry, Obama has his raiding teams warming up for CO and WA.
 
2012-11-20 07:44:09 PM
Get rid of religion, that is opium to the masses.
 
2012-11-20 07:44:15 PM

Silly Jesus: [images.sodahead.com image 300x350]


Fingers are fing...ing?
 
2012-11-20 07:44:25 PM

firefly212: 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.

We didn't love them when they refused to go in because it was too dangerous.

Also, I'm not right-wing, I support socialized medicine, legalizing pot, taxing cap-gains at the same tax rate as salary income, abolishing the death penalty, and plenty of other left wing causes. Being against pointless oppression and for fairer outcomes and second chances doesn't make me a crazy right winger, it makes me proud to be a liberal. rational

 

A little more accurate, because these positions are rational conservative positions.
 
Ehh
2012-11-20 07:45:14 PM
Never mind Agenda 21--here comes Agenda 420. This could lead to the de-Nazification of the world forever.
 
2012-11-20 07:45:19 PM

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

.
How the so called progressives react is way more amusing.


By ...lighting up? Hell yeah, enjoy!
 
2012-11-20 07:45:25 PM
$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.
 
2012-11-20 07:46:10 PM
Why does a pile of spineless farktard dickless washed up leaders from third world shiatholes care what WA and CO do with a minor offense marijuana law?

Don't they have some Baltics to be ineffectual in somewhere or something?
 
2012-11-20 07:46:23 PM

muck4doo: Don't worry, Obama has his raiding teams warming up for CO and WA.


The raiding teams rely on local assistance. They will get very little.
 
2012-11-20 07:46:25 PM

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!"
 
2012-11-20 07:46:55 PM
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.

nicholasburgess.com
 
2012-11-20 07:47:11 PM

Deep Contact: The drug war is a failure.


img189.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-20 07:47:14 PM
This is not a satirical piece?
 
2012-11-20 07:47:48 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.


Hey, they figured that out from reading the markings on the backs of road signs. Show them the respect they deserve.

Oh, wait. You already did. Carry on.
 
2012-11-20 07:48:21 PM

jafiwam: Why does a pile of spineless farktard dickless washed up leaders from third world shiatholes care what WA and CO do with a minor offense marijuana law?

Don't they have some Baltics to be ineffectual in somewhere or something?


Those 3rd world "leaders" get paid off buy the guys making billions off illegal drugs grown/produced in their countries. It's no wonder they are against people legalizing it and knocking the price down.
 
2012-11-20 07:48:25 PM
You know once we stop putting people in jail for stupid stuff like pot, maybe we'll have more resources to take care of things that actually have an effect on our lives.

I agree with the previous poster about him just keeping his job. These people were raised on drug-war propaganda and now their jobs depend on it. The "If we do this we look like fools." camp is right, except what makes them look like fools is that they continue to double down on the same failed policies that have made the drug war the complete failure that it is. I do not look to them for rational innovative solutions to the worlds problems.
 
2012-11-20 07:48:26 PM

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.


vicioushobbit: fark UN drug opinions.

Sincerely, Portugal.


See also: Cambodia, Cyprus, The Czech Republic, Ecuador, Peru, Spain, Switzerland and probably some others I'm missing.

I'm not a UN hater, but in this case they can go fark themselves.
 
2012-11-20 07:49:33 PM

Hagenhatesyouall: The ghost of Johnny says...........

[worldclassshiatty.files.wordpress.com image 541x480]



....and that's good enough for me.


Perfect.
 
2012-11-20 07:49:41 PM

DeathCipris: How bout....Democracy works and the majority has spoken with a ballot initiative.
If this is rolled back, even though I do not live in either Colorado or Washington state, I am done with the US. This country is a lost cause when the paths PUT INTO PLACE TO EFFECT SYSTEM CHANGE are closed. Does anyone else see how serious of a problem this is?


The people of California spoke when we passed Prop. 8.

/Waits for the hypocrisy fly out of stink holes.
 
2012-11-20 07:49:52 PM

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


"On one hand, I hate the UN. But I don't want drugs legalized." And then the thoughts clash together and all they could say is "Guh."
 
2012-11-20 07:50:20 PM

p4p3rm4t3: p4p3rm4t3: Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Can you Imagine the herp derp if they tried to make it criminalize it again?

speaking of herp derp....


It began the day after the initiative went though. ITGs called it Trojan horse legislation, where politicians would remove the legalization and keep the blood-level THC clause.

This would be a disaster, but I don't think it will happen. However, if the state is waiting for the Feds to approve this, we're never going to get it into effect. The deadline is supposed to be Dec. 6th for legalization in WA.
 
2012-11-20 07:51:09 PM
The important thing is we make people in other parts of the world happy. Somebody in Uzbekistan frowns on you pot-heads.
 
2012-11-20 07:51:36 PM
Usually, I like the UN. But now... Fark 'em. Time are changing, and they need to change too. Or we'll make our own global affiliation, with blackjack, and hookers.
 
2012-11-20 07:52:06 PM

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

This is my question.


Because many members of the UN probably make a ton of money selling it
 
2012-11-20 07:52:10 PM

phunkey_monkey: The people of California spoke when we passed Prop. 8.


Wasn't that motion to overturn the CA Supreme Court almost entirely funded by the Mormons out of Utah?

How's that whole keep out of our politics thing supposed to work anyways?
 
2012-11-20 07:52:26 PM

muck4doo: Weaver95: naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.

came here to mention this.

Are you Pro-U.N. now?


no, i'm merely in favor of watching the anti-UN conspiracy theorists go nuts as they're forced to agree with the United Nations.
 
2012-11-20 07:53:11 PM
Wonder how well the anti-drug types would do without caffeine, aspirin, and beer.
 
2012-11-20 07:53:20 PM

X-boxershorts: phunkey_monkey: The people of California spoke when we passed Prop. 8.

Wasn't that motion to overturn the CA Supreme Court almost entirely funded by the Mormons out of Utah?

How's that whole keep out of our politics thing supposed to work anyways?


The raiding teams came from the mormon backed Obama administration.
 
2012-11-20 07:54:08 PM
So the UN is anti-democracy now?
 
2012-11-20 07:54:38 PM

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".
 
2012-11-20 07:54:57 PM

muck4doo: X-boxershorts: phunkey_monkey: The people of California spoke when we passed Prop. 8.

Wasn't that motion to overturn the CA Supreme Court almost entirely funded by the Mormons out of Utah?

How's that whole keep out of our politics thing supposed to work anyways?

The raiding teams came from the mormon backed Obama administration.


I thought Obama was part of the seekrit mooslin gay marriage commie conspiracy
 
2012-11-20 07:55:00 PM
The temerity of this chap to issue demands to AG Holder is amusing.
 
2012-11-20 07:55:15 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Pot is evil. E-V-I-L. It just made me eat all of the deviled eggs I had made last night. All. The. Deviled. Eggs.

EVL


I bet your farts were evil that night.
 
2012-11-20 07:55:36 PM
I bet Portugal got a very sternly worded letter.

/Not Anti-UN, but I think they're mistaken on this point
 
2012-11-20 07:55:52 PM
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.
 
2012-11-20 07:56:11 PM

Weaver95: muck4doo: Weaver95: naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.

came here to mention this.

Are you Pro-U.N. now?

no, i'm merely in favor of watching the anti-UN conspiracy theorists go nuts as they're forced to agree with the United Nations.


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.

/Have you labeled as the big government loving Libertarian. Just wanted to know if i could add U.N. loving to that as well.
 
2012-11-20 07:56:31 PM
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-11-20 07:56:34 PM

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.

 
2012-11-20 07:56:35 PM

phunkey_monkey: DeathCipris: How bout....Democracy works and the majority has spoken with a ballot initiative.
If this is rolled back, even though I do not live in either Colorado or Washington state, I am done with the US. This country is a lost cause when the paths PUT INTO PLACE TO EFFECT SYSTEM CHANGE are closed. Does anyone else see how serious of a problem this is?

The people of California spoke when we passed Prop. 8.

/Waits for the hypocrisy fly out of stink holes.


Just another waste of taxpayer money trying to enforce useless laws at a federal level. However, the decision was never reversed in CA. Just the Fed decided it wanted to enforce its version of the law in a state where the majority voted to make it legal for medical usage.
 
2012-11-20 07:56:51 PM
Yeah, we'll get right on that
 
2012-11-20 07:57:05 PM

muck4doo: The raiding teams came from the mormon backed Obama administration.


Bwahahaha! Best laugh I've had all day, thanks man.
 
2012-11-20 07:57:06 PM

Weaver95: muck4doo: Weaver95: naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.

came here to mention this.

Are you Pro-U.N. now?

no, i'm merely in favor of watching the anti-UN conspiracy theorists go nuts as they're forced to agree with the United Nations.


It presents itself as a perfect storm of irony. Anti-UN versus anti-pot.

But in any case, like I said above, this is just another drug warrior fighting to keep his job and his budget. Asking him if pot should be kept illegal is like asking a junkie if he'd like free heroin.
 
2012-11-20 07:57:20 PM
Does the phrase Will of the People mean anything to you, Mr. Yans?

Also, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
 
2012-11-20 07:58:17 PM
"The head of the U.N. drug watchdog agency is urging U.S. federal officials to challenge ballot measures in Colorado and Washington that decriminalized possession"

Not the same as "the UN".

Reading is fundamental!
 
2012-11-20 07:58:26 PM

muck4doo: Weaver95: muck4doo: Weaver95: naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.

came here to mention this.

Are you Pro-U.N. now?

no, i'm merely in favor of watching the anti-UN conspiracy theorists go nuts as they're forced to agree with the United Nations.

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.

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


So..you're a labeltarian then?
 
2012-11-20 07:58:46 PM

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!
 
2012-11-20 07:59:05 PM

phunkey_monkey: The people of California spoke when we passed Prop. 8.

/Waits for the hypocrisy fly out of stink holes.


Oh please, Prop 8 was unconstitutional BS.
There are some things you don't get to take a vote on, and civil rights is one of them.
The legality or illegality of various drugs is not a constitutional issue.
 
2012-11-20 07:59:17 PM
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....
 
2012-11-20 08:00:46 PM

X-boxershorts: muck4doo: Weaver95: muck4doo: Weaver95: naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.

came here to mention this.

Are you Pro-U.N. now?

no, i'm merely in favor of watching the anti-UN conspiracy theorists go nuts as they're forced to agree with the United Nations.

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.

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

So..you're a labeltarian then?


Methodist
 
2012-11-20 08:01:33 PM
I believe it was the presidents of Mexico, Costa Rica and Guatemala who'd asked the UN to admonish
the USA for the legalization of MJ in two states. The concern stems from the fear legal farms in the US
would cut the profit margins of their black market enterprises.
 
2012-11-20 08:01:34 PM

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.
 
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.
 
2012-11-20 08:35:32 PM

Weaver95: naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.

came here to mention this.


They'll see the light the moment an incorporated entity sees profits.
 
2012-11-20 08:36:10 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:36:16 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:37:03 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:38:24 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:38:50 PM

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
 
2012-11-20 08:39:19 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: 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.


It almost sounds like its paying for itself.

Does the U.S. still have an outstanding balance?
 
2012-11-20 08:39:56 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.


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.
 
2012-11-20 08:41:34 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:43:18 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:43:32 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:47:26 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:49:13 PM

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?
 
2012-11-20 08:50:54 PM

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
 
2012-11-20 08:51:05 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:52:19 PM
Sorry the will of the people is more important then the UN.
 
2012-11-20 08:52:31 PM

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.


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

Please Congress, rescind the AUMF legislation.

Civics courses, how do they work?
 
2012-11-20 08:52:34 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:53:08 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:54:45 PM

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.

 
2012-11-20 08:54:57 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'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.
 
2012-11-20 08:56:21 PM
So the UN is anti-democracy? Good to know.
 
2012-11-20 08:56:54 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:57:19 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 08:59:32 PM

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.


roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-20 08:59:33 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 09:02:33 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 09:02:48 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 09:02:52 PM
cloudfront.mediamatters.org
 
2012-11-20 09:03:12 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 09:03:26 PM
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.
 
2012-11-20 09:05:25 PM

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!!!
 
2012-11-20 09:05:34 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 09:06:21 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 09:06:36 PM

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]?
dl.dropbox.com
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.
 
2012-11-20 09:07:59 PM

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
 
2012-11-20 09:08:27 PM

vodka: Wonder how well the anti-drug types would do without caffeine, aspirin, and beer.


And insulin!
 
2012-11-20 09:09:41 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 09:10:03 PM

APE992: vodka: Wonder how well the anti-drug types would do without caffeine, aspirin, and beer.

And insulin!


You know haw many diabetics are hooked on that stuff?
 
2012-11-20 09:12:00 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 09:15:16 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 09:16:23 PM
Almost 200 comments, and nobody posted this?

3.bp.blogspot.com

/Fark, I am dissappoint
 
2012-11-20 09:17:42 PM

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


Case in point
 
2012-11-20 09:19:23 PM

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.
 
2012-11-20 09:21:24 PM

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

Case in point


Glad we agree now comrade. Keep shilling for the party.
 
2012-11-20 09:26:33 PM
Do you think there is anyone on earth who's more of a square than Raymond Yans?
 
2012-11-20 09:26:38 PM

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,
 
2012-11-20 09:26:48 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!.


So I should listen to some fark-headed zealot in flyover country? No thanks, states should decide.
 
2012-11-20 09:29:30 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.


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.
 
2012-11-20 09:30:35 PM
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.
 
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.
 
2012-11-21 12:11:16 AM

gibbon1: 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.


That threat was used to push the drinking age from 18 to 21 decades ago. I'm sure it's still something they could try.
 
2012-11-21 12:25:16 AM

gibbon1: 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.


It will be quite interesting to see how this plays out. I'm suspecting that, like gay marriage and medical marijuana, this will spread across more states. The "will of the people" seems to be (from what I can tell, at least) quite largely for it across numerous demographics, but there is a seriously entrenched "establishment" that doesn't want to see change.

If they start withholding highway funds to get their way this thing will be nipped in the bud, so to speak, quite quickly from a legislative standpoint. However the state rights whargarble will get turned up to 11, and there will be a lot of disappointment, disenfranchisement, and lingering contempt and animosity towards the DC fatcats telling you what you can and cannot do in your own home.

Quite frankly I'm surprised that Prohibition 2 has lasted so long compared to the first. I suppose alcohol is much more ingrained (you can spell this engrained or ingrained, that's awesome, thanks spellcheck!) in our culture and society, and the detrimental effects were felt much more immediately and in a more blatant manner. But the principle isn't any different.

/If brevity is the soul of wit, I'm a farktard
//Potato slashies!
 
2012-11-21 12:30:38 AM

Eddie Ate Dynamite:

Quite frankly I'm surprised that Prohibition 2 ... the detrimental effects were felt much more immediately and in a more blatant manner. But the principle isn't any different.

I'll disagree. The detrimental effects WERE immediately felt by rural cannabis farmers, and the minorities the prohibition targeted in the first place. The difference being that the (at the time) all white, all male establishment didn't feel it quickly as in alcohol prohibition. It's easy to ignore things that don't effect your demographics (same reason missing white girl gets national headlines while minorities go missing without news organizations seeming to care)

 
2012-11-21 12:31:41 AM
I fail at HTML tonight
 
2012-11-21 12:32:16 AM
FTFA: The INCB has no enforcement ability.

So, then, this is the Strongly Worded Letter Gang that Can't Shoot Straight UN, as opposed to the Black Helicopter New World Order Illuminati Trilateral Commission UN.
 
2012-11-21 12:41:25 AM

SquiggsIN: I'll disagree. The detrimental effects WERE immediately felt by rural cannabis farmers, and the minorities the prohibition targeted in the first place. The difference being that the (at the time) all white, all male establishment didn't feel it quickly as in alcohol prohibition. It's easy to ignore things that don't effect your demographics (same reason missing white girl gets national headlines while minorities go missing without news organizations seeming to care)


Valid point, sir! So would you lay any of the blame on it being a more difficult web to unweave regarding the Interstate Commerce Clause as opposed to a comparatively simple and straight-forward constitutional amendment?
 
2012-11-21 12:58:44 AM

SquiggsIN: That threat was used to push the drinking age from 18 to 21 decades ago. I'm sure it's still something they could try.


Only difference is raising the drinking age from 18-21 doesn't cost the state much. Where the state might find recriminating pot possession costs them money they don't want to spend. We'll see what happens, California, Nevada , and New Mexico are likely next in line.
 
2012-11-21 01:01:17 AM

gibbon1: SquiggsIN: That threat was used to push the drinking age from 18 to 21 decades ago. I'm sure it's still something they could try.

Only difference is raising the drinking age from 18-21 doesn't cost the state much. Where the state might find recriminating pot possession costs them money they don't want to spend. We'll see what happens, California, Nevada , and New Mexico are likely next in line.


They will see the way, one way or another.
 
2012-11-21 01:44:24 AM

gibbon1: SquiggsIN: That threat was used to push the drinking age from 18 to 21 decades ago. I'm sure it's still something they could try.

Only difference is raising the drinking age from 18-21 doesn't cost the state much. Where the state might find recriminating pot possession costs them money they don't want to spend. We'll see what happens, California, Nevada , and New Mexico are likely next in line.


wasn't following the conversation.. next in line for what?
 
2012-11-21 02:03:09 AM

firefly212: naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.

I used to work for the UN (UNCTAD). On this particular issue, they can blow me. Neither they, nor holder, can make us waste more money on this failed drug policy. We're not going to throw people in jail and continue wasting billions of dollars pretending that smoking a joint warrants more government action than stealing billions of dollars.

Nobody from BP or Halliburton went to jail, but we're supposed to send some burnout, MS patient (me), or grandmom with cancer to jail... how the fark does that make sense to anyone?


My friend's Dad has MS. He smoked pot in the 80s to help cope. At FIVE YEARS OLD my friend's brother told his MS suffering Dad that he would turn his Dad in if he didn't stop.

In person, as an adult, my friend's brother was an awesome guy... who also ended up working for a Republican think tank.

/sigh
//met the Dad too... he couldn't hold silverware bc of the MS at that point but God Forbid he have a joint
 
2012-11-21 02:05:07 AM

X-boxershorts: firefly212: 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.

We didn't love them when they refused to go in because it was too dangerous.

Also, I'm not right-wing, I support socialized medicine, legalizing pot, taxing cap-gains at the same tax rate as salary income, abolishing the death penalty, and plenty of other left wing causes. Being against pointless oppression and for fairer outcomes and second chances doesn't make me a crazy right winger, it makes me proud to be a liberal. rational 

A little more accurate, because these positions are rational conservative positions.


"Reality has a well-known Liberal bias"

/Colbert +the only sticker on my Dad's car
 
2012-11-21 02:16:22 AM
As a Colorado resident that doesn't give a poop what the UN thinks about me about to smoke a fattie, I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2012-11-21 02:39:24 AM
Meanwhile, unknown to the UN:

europa.eu
 
2012-11-21 02:43:09 AM
Society, if there is one, of the future is so going to mock this period of Prohibition.
May top the charts right there with the Flat Earth thingie.
 
2012-11-21 02:47:24 AM

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


I'm as big an anti-UN person as you would ever hope to find and I hope Holder flips the letter over writes "Go F yourselves" on it before sending it back.
 
2012-11-21 02:58:41 AM

X-boxershorts: firefly212: 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.

We didn't love them when they refused to go in because it was too dangerous.

Also, I'm not right-wing, I support socialized medicine, legalizing pot, taxing cap-gains at the same tax rate as salary income, abolishing the death penalty, and plenty of other left wing causes. Being against pointless oppression and for fairer outcomes and second chances doesn't make me a crazy right winger, it makes me proud to be a liberal. rational 

A little more accurate, because these positions are rational conservative positions.


Too bad there aren't any rational conservatives in the GOP these days.
 
2012-11-21 04:16:54 AM
In the case of the Feds raiding anybody in CO or WA, it won't happen. They can't take the risk of somebody getting hurt or god forbid killed in a raid, the blow back would tear the entire DEA to pieces.
 
2012-11-21 04:32:40 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: In the case of the Feds raiding anybody in CO or WA, it won't happen. They can't take the risk of somebody getting hurt or god forbid killed in a raid, the blow back would tear the entire DEA to pieces.


Uhhhhh, what? You are aware that the Feds have been raiding medical marijuana dispensaries in California for over a decade, right? I highly doubt the Feds are interested in raiding users but they will raid any place selling marijuana in the US, no matter if it is legal in the state or not.
 
2012-11-21 05:02:55 AM

muck4doo: 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.


^ ^ ^ ^

Thank you for bringing this up here. Well said.

I know a number of self styled "libertarians" who smoke weed, or who advocate legalization of weed, who will turn around and tell me that it is perfectly all right to let heroin or crack addicts die in the streets, because it's all about free choice, man.
 
2012-11-21 05:15:58 AM

fusillade762: .

vicioushobbit: fark UN drug opinions.

Sincerely, Portugal.

See also: Cambodia, Cyprus, The Czech Republic, Ecuador, Peru, Spain, Switzerland and probably some others I'm missing.

I'm not a UN hater, but in this case they can go fark themselves.


Possession of reefer is *decriminalized* in most of these places, and possession of *small amounts* of the stuff is legal or effectively legal in some of them, but it is still illegal to import or sell large amounts of it just about everywhere. Get caught trying to carry a key of weed into the Netherlands or Portugal and you will learn the difference between decriminalization and legalization in no time.
 
2012-11-21 05:26:13 AM

MooseUpNorth: 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.


A la prochaine fois.
 
2012-11-21 05:29:30 AM
On patrol in case any them UN critters show up in these here parts.
t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-21 05:56:35 AM

muck4doo: 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.


I'm actually quite optimistic about it. We are at around 20 states that have medical marijuana, decriminalized personal use, and/or outright legalized marijuana. I think if it goes past 25 then there is no turning back. I liken it to the gay marriage issue, another traditionally liberal/libertarian cause being advanced through the states.

I know you are conservative/Republican so I really hope your party actually embraces the libertarian views that will get bipartisan support, they need to. I'm personally liberal (with libertarian views on some issues like guns and the nanny state and such) but even the Republicans I know in my generation are liberal on these kind of issues.
 
2012-11-21 06:01:15 AM

way south: 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.


Well not only did we goad the rest of the world into the drug war (in some sense, nations have had drug laws before us, just not on our scale), but we are the highest drug using nation in the world. The US drives the same drugs it attempts to stop. Perfect set up for widespread corruption.
 
2012-11-21 06:27:02 AM

Nothing To See Here: EABODUN


i got the first 3 strings of this tuning, but the rest is just garbage
i don't get it
 
2012-11-21 06:31:42 AM

gibbon1: 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.


Colorado passed it as an amendment; it will be hard for them to cave to the feds if they pull the same shiat out they used for the drinking age. I also think the SCOTUS decision regarding the PPACA knocked some of the feds teeth out in this regard.

In the end, if the DEA re-scheduled cannabis to Schedule I or II, we'd still be in compliance with treaty obligations and this would no longer be an issue. Fundamentally, the DEA hasn't the manpower to deal with individual users and the CO six-plant personal use rule means that even if they don't get to the retail pot stores part, there's little to no way that federal authorities are going to be able to anything to the individuals.

You'll likely still get fired from just about any job for pissing hot, though, so there's that.
 
2012-11-21 09:26:21 AM
Normally I would welcome input from the U.N.. In this instance however, as a resident of Washington State, and citizen of the United States of America, I would respectfully ask the U.N. to kindly STFU, and STFD.

This is a sovereign matter, and no business of the U.N..

Furthermore, one finds themselves forced to ask: Is this because Europe is about to lose a metric butt-ton of pot-tourism dollars?
 
2012-11-21 10:10:04 AM

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.


I find your lack of awareness disturbing:

OOH: The UN's fairly ineffective in its primary mission (peace on earth); so much so that South Park made fun of 'Hans Brix'. Also, Rwanda.

OTOH: The UN provides a framework for totalitarianism, which though not yet realized, shows signs of growth with each attempt to control normal human activities like marijuana use.
 
2012-11-21 11:10:01 AM

chuckufarlie: take it to court


It's been done. The people lost.
 
2012-11-21 12:26:53 PM
The pressure is mounting. Since America already seems to mandate worldwide policy, it'll be interesting to see if they're able to backtrack on this one and say "whoops, our bad!" Doesn't seem likely, but then I really don't know how I see Obama enforcing federal law on the people on such a large scale. It would be unprecedented for most of us in our lifetime. But I don't know where he'd get the resources, unless he tapped into whatever the UN has on hand to help deal with it. That would be all kinds of farked up if he went that route. Would he? Could he? I don't like to think about it. Then again, who in their right mind would support such a move? Nobody here wants to see soldiers coming in from another country to enforce our own laws. We likely wouldn't embrace that, so perhaps the federal government IS up shiat creek. I think the American people will win on this issue just as we're winning with medical marijuana.
 
2012-11-21 02:54:19 PM

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


I hate the UN's bullshiat. I also think they should stay the FARK out of internal social issues. F them all and F you for good measure.
 
2012-11-21 06:59:00 PM

dr_blasto: You'll likely still get fired from just about any job for pissing hot, though, so there's that.


Assuming the Feds don't step in here and it spreads how much do you want to bet that you will be fireable (or not hireable) for smoking weed. True for tobacco, would probably be true for weed.
 
2012-11-21 08:25:43 PM
I'd be like: Dude, mellow out... take a hit, and watch this.
 
2012-11-21 09:21:06 PM
Someone needs to go to change.org and make a petition to tell the UN to go f*ck themselves.

I can understand reason for the UN but this is not one of those reasons. Hell, they can't even do their job right anyway.
 
Displayed 284 of 284 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report