Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Westword)   Michele Bachmann was not busted driving stoned. Repeat: Not stoned   (blogs.westword.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Michele Bachmann, Larimer County, prompt corner, kidney stones, Fort Collins Coloradoan, denials, Lucky Charms  
•       •       •

6229 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jan 2014 at 2:03 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-09 02:01:20 PM  
The article was a joke, much like her marriage.
 
2014-01-09 02:05:17 PM  
So she's that crazy naturally?
 
2014-01-09 02:08:53 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: The article was a joke, much like her marriage.

 
2014-01-09 02:11:40 PM  
So how long until she sues them or even better, goes on a Fox News show and hold this up as proof that the mainstream liberal media is victimizing her?
 
2014-01-09 02:13:50 PM  
Bachmann smoke pot, I don't think so.  Anyone who has been paying attention the last few years knows she is more of a bath salts person.
 
2014-01-09 02:13:55 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: The article was a joke, much like her marriage.


When you are being legally investigated, it's probably not a bad idea to react to any assertions made of potentially illegal content, regardless of their actual status as satire. Also, as your attorney, I advise you to take a hit out of the little brown bottle in my shaving kit.
 
2014-01-09 02:18:28 PM  

Somacandra: Bareefer Obonghit: The article was a joke, much like her marriage.

When you are being legally investigated, it's probably not a bad idea to react to any assertions made of potentially illegal content, regardless of their actual status as satire. Also, as your attorney, I advise you to take a hit out of the little brown bottle in my shaving kit.


Just a tiny taste?
 
2014-01-09 02:19:47 PM  
How the hell would anyone know?  If she WAS stoned, she might make sense.

If she was tripping balls, she would probably be able to write the encyclopedia.
 
2014-01-09 02:23:51 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: The article was a joke, much like her marriage

putting her on the house intelligence committee.
 
2014-01-09 02:24:08 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: How the hell would anyone know?  If she WAS stoned, she might make sense.

If she was tripping balls, she would probably be able to write the encyclopedia.


I wanna see Marcus on molly. It'd be like Rip Taylor without the restraint.

// 'bout the only time he'd be "on" molly, if you catch
// my meaning
 
2014-01-09 02:29:17 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Satan's Bunny Slippers: How the hell would anyone know?  If she WAS stoned, she might make sense.

If she was tripping balls, she would probably be able to write the encyclopedia.

I wanna see Marcus on molly. It'd be like Rip Taylor without the restraint.

// 'bout the only time he'd be "on" molly, if you catch
// my meaning


I......would probably pay with my own money to see that.......

/actually did MDMA waaaaay back in my college days
//I mean waaaay back, like 1982
///I got better
 
2014-01-09 02:30:17 PM  
How else is she going to put up with...

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-09 02:32:13 PM  

dr_blasto: Bareefer Obonghit: The article was a joke, much like her marriage Presidential campaign.

 
2014-01-09 02:33:48 PM  
I'm pretty sure she's high as a kite morning noon and night. Just not on pot.
 
2014-01-09 02:34:49 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: How the hell would anyone know?  If she WAS stoned, she might make sense.

If she was tripping balls, she would probably be able to write the encyclopedia.


Come to think of it, she probably should light up once in a while.  You never know, maybe if she learns to just relax, she wouldn't be as crazy.
 
2014-01-09 02:35:33 PM  

neversubmit: How else is she going to put up with...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 695x372]


The way Norwegians have done for generations: akevitt. Lots and lots of akevitt...
 
2014-01-09 02:37:48 PM  
Arkanaut:

Come to think of it, she probably should light up once in a while.  You never know, maybe if she learns to just relax, she wouldn't be as crazy.

It sure as hell wouldn't hurt anything.

/My first thought, too.
 
2014-01-09 02:39:09 PM  

Arkanaut: Satan's Bunny Slippers: How the hell would anyone know?  If she WAS stoned, she might make sense.

If she was tripping balls, she would probably be able to write the encyclopedia.

Come to think of it, she probably should light up once in a while.  You never know, maybe if she learns to just relax, she wouldn't be as crazy.


agreed.
 
2014-01-09 02:45:32 PM  
The rampant paranoia might fool you, but it's just regular old tin-hat paranoia, not paranoia of the purple sticky variety.
 
2014-01-09 02:48:06 PM  
Everybody knows she drinks Bacardi and gets a what what, you know she represents.
 
2014-01-09 02:49:21 PM  
But is she still a witch?
 
2014-01-09 02:51:01 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: The rampant paranoia might fool you, but it's just regular old tin-hat paranoia, not paranoia of the purple sticky variety.


I gotta try that old tin-hat strain it sounds mighty powerful.
 
2014-01-09 02:52:59 PM  

Somacandra: Bareefer Obonghit: The article was a joke, much like her marriage.

When you are being legally investigated, it's probably not a bad idea to react to any assertions made of potentially illegal content, regardless of their actual status as satire. Also, as your attorney, I advise you to take a hit out of the little brown bottle in my shaving kit.



img245.imageshack.us


You took too much, man, too much.
 
2014-01-09 02:53:54 PM  

neversubmit: How else is she going to put up with...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 695x372]


Wow. I'd somehow missed that. Barbarians? Wow.
 
2014-01-09 02:55:53 PM  
The weed would explain much of her ramblings. And the paranoia.
 
2014-01-09 02:59:32 PM  

bluenovaman: UncomfortableSilence: The rampant paranoia might fool you, but it's just regular old tin-hat paranoia, not paranoia of the purple sticky variety.

I gotta try that old tin-hat strain it sounds mighty powerful.


I tried it once, just stared at free republic all day.  That stuff will mess you up.
 
2014-01-09 03:03:11 PM  

whidbey: The weed would explain much of her ramblings. And the paranoia.


and the munchies
i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-09 03:10:41 PM  

BMFPitt: So she's that crazy naturally?


Yes.  That's why it's so hard for the police to tell the difference.
 
2014-01-09 03:17:24 PM  
Of course she wasn't stoned. She told us herself she's not a witch.
 
2014-01-09 03:28:02 PM  
So here's what I don't get...

These people are dumb in some ways, but this is just common sense here... Getting burned by The Onion or a similar site once? Yep, happens to us all. Twice? Less frequent, but it still happens to even the best of us. After awhile though, you think they'd catch on and do some work. It's really pretty easy.

1. Do a Google search. Chances are, if it's a satire piece, there will already be a headline stating as much. If not, click on a few stories and check where they got their info from, if they ALL point back to that single story, it's probably fake.
2. Use Snopes. I know, I know, they've busted FAR more Right Wing myths than Left Wing ones, so they're a bunch of Libby Libs, right? No, they actually use sources, and cite those sources, they will trace the origin of a hoax and plot that out. All in a single page of easy to read info that even someone with a sever Snopes allergy should be able to handle.
3. If all else fails, go to the web page's "About Us" page and look for a description that mentions satire or parody, or look at a few of the other stories.

These can be done in any order with equal success, really.
 
2014-01-09 03:38:24 PM  

Cheron: Bachmann smoke pot, I don't think so.  Anyone who has been paying attention the last few years knows she is more of a bath salts person.



s13.postimg.org
 
2014-01-09 03:42:08 PM  
Do they bust anyone for driving stoned unless they have the dope right there in the car? They need to test everyone for pot like they do for truck drivers several times a year, and also after any accident or moving violation. If it's in their system, license revoked for 5 years. You'll save countless lives.
 
2014-01-09 04:02:19 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Do they bust anyone for driving stoned unless they have the dope right there in the car? They need to test everyone for pot like they do for truck drivers several times a year, and also after any accident or moving violation. If it's in their system, license revoked for 5 years. You'll save countless lives.


USA: Guilty Until Proven Innocent. Love that sh*t!
 
2014-01-09 04:06:56 PM  

Somacandra: Bareefer Obonghit: The article was a joke, much like her marriage.

When you are being legally investigated, it's probably not a bad idea to react to any assertions made of potentially illegal content, regardless of their actual status as satire. Also, as your attorney, I advise you to take a hit out of the little brown bottle in my shaving kit.


I know what you're up to, you sneaky Samoan bastard!
 
2014-01-09 04:11:43 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Do they bust anyone for driving stoned unless they have the dope right there in the car? They need to test everyone for pot like they do for truck drivers several times a year, and also after any accident or moving violation. If it's in their system, license revoked for 5 years. You'll save countless lives.


Except that it stays in your system LONG after the effects wear off. There's a case in AZ right now where they are arguing that they should be able to charge someone with DUI, and the judge pointed out that traces can be in your system, yet not affect you for up to 30 days, which basically throws away the "I" part of a DUI. The AG seems to think they can bust your for DUI in Arizona even if there is no Influence or Impairment. In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.
 
2014-01-09 04:33:06 PM  
Has she made good on her promise to leave MN yet?

// Want her out of the state I grew up in.  Gives the rest of the state a bad name
// Afraid she'd come to the state I'm currently living in.
 
2014-01-09 04:35:13 PM  

Lord_Baull: But is she still a witch?


Stone the witch!

www.skewedrapport.com
 
2014-01-09 04:37:05 PM  

Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.


Hand them a bag of Doritos
 
2014-01-09 04:43:19 PM  

Mikey1969: Except that it stays in your system LONG after the effects wear off. There's a case in AZ right now where they are arguing that they should be able to charge someone with DUI, and the judge pointed out that traces can be in your system, yet not affect you for up to 30 days, which basically throws away the "I" part of a DUI. The AG seems to think they can bust your for DUI in Arizona even if there is no Influence or Impairment. In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.


Just wave some Doritos in front of them.
 
2014-01-09 04:45:15 PM  
They'll stone you when you're riding in your car.
 
2014-01-09 04:45:48 PM  
If we say if often enough, though, it becomes true. So have at it!
 
2014-01-09 04:49:52 PM  
But was she wearing a hat?

static4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-01-09 04:51:36 PM  

Cheron: Bachmann smoke pot, I don't think so.  Anyone who has been paying attention the last few years knows she is more of a bath salts person.


Bath salts are the synthetic reproductions of her ovulating fluid.
 
2014-01-09 04:52:21 PM  
Just five minutes of her on top of me..... rubbing my chest with those manly hands as she slowly moved up and down..... I'd be screaming "Tea Party YES! YES! OMG TEA PARTY YESSSSSS!"
 
2014-01-09 04:52:34 PM  

powhound: Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.

Hand them a bag of Doritos


Sharksfan: Mikey1969: Except that it stays in your system LONG after the effects wear off. There's a case in AZ right now where they are arguing that they should be able to charge someone with DUI, and the judge pointed out that traces can be in your system, yet not affect you for up to 30 days, which basically throws away the "I" part of a DUI. The AG seems to think they can bust your for DUI in Arizona even if there is no Influence or Impairment. In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.

Just wave some Doritos in front of them.


Wow.... That's funny, they're even sequential...
 
2014-01-09 05:01:07 PM  

Mikey1969: Wow.... That's funny, they're even sequential...


My phone rang before I could hit the Add Comment button or it would have been a darn-near simulpost.
 
2014-01-09 05:02:30 PM  

La Maudite: Of course she wasn't stoned. She told us herself she's not a witch.


That was a different Tea Party nutjob.
www.adweek.com
 
2014-01-09 05:13:18 PM  

fusillade762: La Maudite: Of course she wasn't stoned. She told us herself she's not a witch.

That was a different Tea Party nutjob.
[www.adweek.com image 425x240]


I just can't tell them apart. They all look the same to me.
 
2014-01-09 05:14:12 PM  

ongbok: So how long until she sues them or even better, goes on a Fox News show and hold this up as proof that the mainstream liberal media is victimizing her?


Newslo does not strike me as being "mainstream" at all.

Also, can we just ball gag her before she tries to pull a Kucinich in her last few months and tries to put in a resolution to impeach the president?
 
2014-01-09 05:22:04 PM  
Look, an article was written and we are just commenting on it.
We are just ASKING QUESTIONS.
We are not saying all of this is true but it's possible there is SOME truth to it.
It's just where there's some smoke, you know there may be some fire.
Later today we will bring on our expert to talk about Congresswomen under investigation and why she may seek out drugs.
We'd like to clarify when we speak of  a "Congresswomen under investigation and why she may seek out drugs" we were not referring to any particular Congresswoman under investigation.
In other news, could a Congresswoman being investigated for campaign funding issues use that money for drugs.

...ahhh Fox News would have had a field day with this if only she had a (D) after her name.
 
2014-01-09 05:38:46 PM  

La Maudite: fusillade762: La Maudite: Of course she wasn't stoned. She told us herself she's not a witch.

That was a different Tea Party nutjob.
[www.adweek.com image 425x240]

I just can't tell them apart. They all look the same to me.


The hotter chick is the not a witch, Michelle Bachmann has never denied being one.
 
2014-01-09 05:38:58 PM  

busy chillin': Everybody knows she drinks Bacardi and gets a what what, you know she represents.


I like the fact that if you're in danger and odd-sized you can count on her.

/two banana plants up to a thrill seeking shark...
 
2014-01-09 06:45:09 PM  
How could you tell?
 
2014-01-09 08:25:03 PM  
When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way
 
2014-01-09 11:26:23 PM  

Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: Do they bust anyone for driving stoned unless they have the dope right there in the car? They need to test everyone for pot like they do for truck drivers several times a year, and also after any accident or moving violation. If it's in their system, license revoked for 5 years. You'll save countless lives.

Except that it stays in your system LONG after the effects wear off. There's a case in AZ right now where they are arguing that they should be able to charge someone with DUI, and the judge pointed out that traces can be in your system, yet not affect you for up to 30 days, which basically throws away the "I" part of a DUI. The AG seems to think they can bust your for DUI in Arizona even if there is no Influence or Impairment. In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.


If THC is in your system, you are impaired. You might not feel high, but your reflexes and concentration are diminished and you are a danger. The thing is that you become assimilated to it so you don't recognize it.

Truck drivers are automatically tested after an accident and if thc is in their system, they are charged with being under the influence of marijuana and are blamed for the accident, even if they smoked a joint while on vacation weeks before the accident happened. They also get random tested and if it appears in their system, they are done. They should do the same for car drivers.
 
2014-01-09 11:45:49 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: Do they bust anyone for driving stoned unless they have the dope right there in the car? They need to test everyone for pot like they do for truck drivers several times a year, and also after any accident or moving violation. If it's in their system, license revoked for 5 years. You'll save countless lives.

Except that it stays in your system LONG after the effects wear off. There's a case in AZ right now where they are arguing that they should be able to charge someone with DUI, and the judge pointed out that traces can be in your system, yet not affect you for up to 30 days, which basically throws away the "I" part of a DUI. The AG seems to think they can bust your for DUI in Arizona even if there is no Influence or Impairment. In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.

If THC is in your system, you are impaired. You might not feel high, but your reflexes and concentration are diminished and you are a danger. The thing is that you become assimilated to it so you don't recognize it.

Truck drivers are automatically tested after an accident and if thc is in their system, they are charged with being under the influence of marijuana and are blamed for the accident, even if they smoked a joint while on vacation weeks before the accident happened. They also get random tested and if it appears in their system, they are done. They should do the same for car drivers.


Even a first timer is not affect 24 hours after smoking put, and someone saying otherwise is either totally ignorant or being wilfully obtuse.

Which is it?

They but people who get in accidents and have drugs in their system because it's illegal, because they have it in their work contract, and because they don't have a test for how impaired you are, they just have a present/not present test.

This doesn't mean that the person is actually impaired at that point, and it still means that busting someone who smoked pot 3 weeks before for a DUI is still bullshiat. For example, I can take one of my Lortabs for my back and you expect me not to drive for 4 days? At least we know who the high one around here is, I guess.

Look at it this way: they have tests that can deserving alcohol in your system for 3 months. You saying that we can't drive for three months after having a beer with dinner? Of course not, because they have a yardstick for measuring impairment. Not so for pot. By your logic, we can't drive for 3 months after a beer because at least SOME alcohol is detectable in the system.
 
2014-01-10 02:36:00 AM  

Mikey1969: totally ignorant or being wilfully obtuse


You're talking to one of the most consistently lame trolls Fark has. Your typing is wasted.
 
2014-01-10 05:14:44 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: Do they bust anyone for driving stoned unless they have the dope right there in the car? They need to test everyone for pot like they do for truck drivers several times a year, and also after any accident or moving violation. If it's in their system, license revoked for 5 years. You'll save countless lives.

Except that it stays in your system LONG after the effects wear off. There's a case in AZ right now where they are arguing that they should be able to charge someone with DUI, and the judge pointed out that traces can be in your system, yet not affect you for up to 30 days, which basically throws away the "I" part of a DUI. The AG seems to think they can bust your for DUI in Arizona even if there is no Influence or Impairment. In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.

If THC is in your system, you are impaired. You might not feel high, but your reflexes and concentration are diminished and you are a danger. The thing is that you become assimilated to it so you don't recognize it.

Truck drivers are automatically tested after an accident and if thc is in their system, they are charged with being under the influence of marijuana and are blamed for the accident, even if they smoked a joint while on vacation weeks before the accident happened. They also get random tested and if it appears in their system, they are done. They should do the same for car drivers.


If the stuff is so bad, why would a strong, confident Conservative Woman who liberals are terrified of smoke it?
 
2014-01-10 08:57:26 AM  
Well, stoned would explain some of her actions, but so does bat crap crazy

Just because:

i238.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-10 01:36:05 PM  

Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: Do they bust anyone for driving stoned unless they have the dope right there in the car? They need to test everyone for pot like they do for truck drivers several times a year, and also after any accident or moving violation. If it's in their system, license revoked for 5 years. You'll save countless lives.

Except that it stays in your system LONG after the effects wear off. There's a case in AZ right now where they are arguing that they should be able to charge someone with DUI, and the judge pointed out that traces can be in your system, yet not affect you for up to 30 days, which basically throws away the "I" part of a DUI. The AG seems to think they can bust your for DUI in Arizona even if there is no Influence or Impairment. In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.


You'd think it would be obvious from watching them drive. It's not thoughtcrime or anything.
 
2014-01-10 07:15:57 PM  

Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: Mikey1969: Noam Chimpsky: Do they bust anyone for driving stoned unless they have the dope right there in the car? They need to test everyone for pot like they do for truck drivers several times a year, and also after any accident or moving violation. If it's in their system, license revoked for 5 years. You'll save countless lives.

Except that it stays in your system LONG after the effects wear off. There's a case in AZ right now where they are arguing that they should be able to charge someone with DUI, and the judge pointed out that traces can be in your system, yet not affect you for up to 30 days, which basically throws away the "I" part of a DUI. The AG seems to think they can bust your for DUI in Arizona even if there is no Influence or Impairment. In other words, we need a new system. We need a was to definitively test to see if someone is actually impaired or not.

If THC is in your system, you are impaired. You might not feel high, but your reflexes and concentration are diminished and you are a danger. The thing is that you become assimilated to it so you don't recognize it.

Truck drivers are automatically tested after an accident and if thc is in their system, they are charged with being under the influence of marijuana and are blamed for the accident, even if they smoked a joint while on vacation weeks before the accident happened. They also get random tested and if it appears in their system, they are done. They should do the same for car drivers.

Even a first timer is not affect 24 hours after smoking put, and someone saying otherwise is either totally ignorant or being wilfully obtuse.

Which is it?

They but people who get in accidents and have drugs in their system because it's illegal, because they have it in their work contract, and because they don't have a test for how impaired you are, they just have a present/not present test.

This doesn't mean that the person is actually impaired at that point, and it still means that bust ...


Again, you are defining "under the influence" as "feeling high". If THC is in your system, you are under its influence, regardless of how "high" you might feel.

To accept your notion, your solution to deal with a testing dilemma is to let marijuana smokers drive without consequence. With truckers, the solution to dealing with the dilemma is to assume the driver just smoked the joint and was high as a kite.

There is a simple solution that doesn't allow dopers to kill people, don't let them drive automobiles.

If conservatives weren't dumb as rocks, they could create such a shiat storm and poison this  marijuana renaissance by making leftists vote to allow stoned driving, which is exactly what they'd do if conservatives in Colorado or Washington brought forth a bill like what I'm suggesting. You know, maybe the Democrats would have to go along with it so as not to be blamed for all the traffic deaths where the driver had pot in his system.
 
2014-01-10 08:32:36 PM  
OK, so no driving for 3 months after a beer. Got it.
 
2014-01-11 12:51:20 AM  

Mikey1969: OK, so no driving for 3 months after a beer. Got it.


Why? We were discussing whether someone should be allowed to drive while the intoxicant is in his system. Why is it so important to you that pot smokers be allowed to kill people with cars?
 
2014-01-11 01:10:18 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Mikey1969: OK, so no driving for 3 months after a beer. Got it.

Why? We were discussing whether someone should be allowed to drive while the intoxicant is in his system. Why is it so important to you that pot smokers be allowed to kill people with cars?


I only have myself to blame for responding to your dumb ass, I've been warned after all, but I'm going to answer one more time, just because it's a slow night....

If you think that people shouldn't be able to drive when they have any trace of pot in their system, then someone with half a brain would say that someone shouldn't be able to drive If there is any trace of alcohol in their system. As I said, this can be up to 3 months with some tests.

It is equally idiots to say that someone is still stoned 30 days after smoking pot as it is to say that someone is still drunk 3 months after going to the bar.

If you persist on your course, I don't give a Fark, I'm done, but if you do, you have to be the absolute stupidest person alive, next to the country attorneys in Maricopa County.

Have a nice life, and dont worry about writing.... We won't miss you.
 
Displayed 64 of 64 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report