having or not having things in common with a candidate doesn't really mean anything regarding their positions or abilities
Yeah, but it's not exactly promising for your campaign when the majority of Americans say that they really can't empathize with you.
"how much do you have in common" is a very different question from "how much can you empathize with"
Okay, who do you think you're more likely to empathize with; the man born into a family of moderate means, who lived a fairly average life, and managed to work his way into the presidency without any major social or political advantages? Or the guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who grew up in a three story governor's mansion, started a company that participated in some ethically dubious business practices, and now makes a couple million dollars every year?
[IMG][/img]
0
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
The only problem is that once your opponent starts airing ads that "imply" that you're a pothead, that basically tanks any chance you ever had of winning.
The only problem is that once your opponent starts airing ads that "imply" that you're a pothead, that basically tanks any chance you ever had of winning.
Yes, because saying "My opponent smoked marijuana as a teenager," is entirely the same thing as saying "My opponent believes grown adults have a legal right to get stoned."
[IMG][/img]
0
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
edited September 2012
Your "once your opponent starts airing ads that "imply" that you're a pothead" is patently absurd.
EDIT: Because conservatives attempted just that in 1992
I am wondering if we will see any movement on the drug legalization/decriminilization fronts in Obama's next term. "lol metzger is a stoner" and all that, but it's a real issue and deserves to be addressed, especially if you consider that according to some polls over 50% of Americans are supportive of the legalization of marijuana. That makes it seem like it's not nearly the kind of political suicide that it used to be to even suggest it.
The only problem is that once your opponent starts airing ads that "imply" that you're a pothead, that basically tanks any chance you ever had of winning.
Marijuana legislation's probably not going to see any sort of forward motion until people stop treating mild recreational drugs like hard narcotics, and even once that happens, it's going to be a gradual, slow process for any legislation.
This might not occur until after the annexation of Northern Mexico.
I wouldn't be surprised at the US becoming content to relying on drones in the war on terror in the Middle East, and having some politicians deciding that the cartels pose the next greatest threat to national security.
0
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
Joe "Darling" Biden
i try to post political cartoons only on special occasions when they are so bad
lawl~~
0
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
I am wondering if we will see any movement on the drug legalization/decriminilization fronts in Obama's next term. "lol metzger is a stoner" and all that, but it's a real issue and deserves to be addressed, especially if you consider that according to some polls over 50% of Americans are supportive of the legalization of marijuana. That makes it seem like it's not nearly the kind of political suicide that it used to be to even suggest it.
The only problem is that once your opponent starts airing ads that "imply" that you're a pothead, that basically tanks any chance you ever had of winning.
Marijuana legislation's probably not going to see any sort of forward motion until people stop treating mild recreational drugs like hard narcotics, and even once that happens, it's going to be a gradual, slow process for any legislation.
This might not occur until after the annexation of Northern Mexico.
I wouldn't be surprised at the US becoming content to relying on drones in the war on terror in the Middle East, and having some politicians deciding that the cartels pose the next greatest threat to national security.
Well the Colorado legalization act is ahead by ten points in the polls right now so I guess we'll see
+1
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Drug decriminalization is the sort of thing that would, in theory, be more popular if we had term limits. It's more or less political suicide, but when you've been elected for the last time, you have a lot more freedom to actually advocate policies you believe in.
The problem would be you'd need enough people who were facing being ousted to go for it, and between house members looking for promotion and how staggered term limits would be in the senate, I don't think it'd ever get enough traction.
I am wondering if we will see any movement on the drug legalization/decriminilization fronts in Obama's next term. "lol metzger is a stoner" and all that, but it's a real issue and deserves to be addressed, especially if you consider that according to some polls over 50% of Americans are supportive of the legalization of marijuana. That makes it seem like it's not nearly the kind of political suicide that it used to be to even suggest it.
The only problem is that once your opponent starts airing ads that "imply" that you're a pothead, that basically tanks any chance you ever had of winning.
Marijuana legislation's probably not going to see any sort of forward motion until people stop treating mild recreational drugs like hard narcotics, and even once that happens, it's going to be a gradual, slow process for any legislation.
This might not occur until after the annexation of Northern Mexico.
I wouldn't be surprised at the US becoming content to relying on drones in the war on terror in the Middle East, and having some politicians deciding that the cartels pose the next greatest threat to national security.
Well the Colorado legalization act is ahead by ten points in the polls right now so I guess we'll see
HOLY SHIT FOR REAL I AM PACKING MY GODDAMN BAGS RIGHT NOW WHO WANTS TO START AN ORGANIC GOAT FARM COMMUNE WITH ME? Seriously though can you link me to an article or something because I live in Cheyenne and if it passes I will be living in Fort Collins.
It notes that a similar act in California polled similarly well about two months ahead of time and barely lost, so there's still a good chance it loses
I am wondering if we will see any movement on the drug legalization/decriminilization fronts in Obama's next term. "lol metzger is a stoner" and all that, but it's a real issue and deserves to be addressed, especially if you consider that according to some polls over 50% of Americans are supportive of the legalization of marijuana. That makes it seem like it's not nearly the kind of political suicide that it used to be to even suggest it.
The only problem is that once your opponent starts airing ads that "imply" that you're a pothead, that basically tanks any chance you ever had of winning.
Marijuana legislation's probably not going to see any sort of forward motion until people stop treating mild recreational drugs like hard narcotics, and even once that happens, it's going to be a gradual, slow process for any legislation.
This might not occur until after the annexation of Northern Mexico.
I wouldn't be surprised at the US becoming content to relying on drones in the war on terror in the Middle East, and having some politicians deciding that the cartels pose the next greatest threat to national security.
Well the Colorado legalization act is ahead by ten points in the polls right now so I guess we'll see
I'm kinda curious as to whether or not the Federal government could smack this down as a matter of states overstepping their bounds.
Hey, legal people, is this a thing that could happen, or am I off base?
I think I missed the chick-fil-a discussion by a bit, but here's my two cents:
I'll believe it when I see it.
-There wasn't even a press release. The news story seems to be "this guy says that some other guy says that there's an internal memo that we don't hate gays anymore" and from that people are singing from the rafters that CFA is awesome again.
-CFA is still run by one or more bigots & I suspect their definition of what constitutes a hate group varies significantly from reality.
Before I go "buy some nugs to reward them" as I've seen a few people here and a ton of people on facebook say, I'm gonna wait a couple years and see what the splc or glaad has to say about it after seeing their actual actions & donation records for a while.
+5
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I am wondering if we will see any movement on the drug legalization/decriminilization fronts in Obama's next term. "lol metzger is a stoner" and all that, but it's a real issue and deserves to be addressed, especially if you consider that according to some polls over 50% of Americans are supportive of the legalization of marijuana. That makes it seem like it's not nearly the kind of political suicide that it used to be to even suggest it.
The only problem is that once your opponent starts airing ads that "imply" that you're a pothead, that basically tanks any chance you ever had of winning.
Marijuana legislation's probably not going to see any sort of forward motion until people stop treating mild recreational drugs like hard narcotics, and even once that happens, it's going to be a gradual, slow process for any legislation.
This might not occur until after the annexation of Northern Mexico.
I wouldn't be surprised at the US becoming content to relying on drones in the war on terror in the Middle East, and having some politicians deciding that the cartels pose the next greatest threat to national security.
Well the Colorado legalization act is ahead by ten points in the polls right now so I guess we'll see
I'm kinda curious as to whether or not the Federal government could smack this down as a matter of states overstepping their bounds.
Hey, legal people, is this a thing that could happen, or am I off base?
What the fuck is up with the white outlines in these political cartoons? And why can no one who produces them actually draw for shit?
they can draw
everything besides the people in that picture is drawn well
the white outlines are there, I would bet, to distinguish the figures against the fairly busy background. his figures are extremely thin, they would disappear into those background lines.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I am wondering if we will see any movement on the drug legalization/decriminilization fronts in Obama's next term. "lol metzger is a stoner" and all that, but it's a real issue and deserves to be addressed, especially if you consider that according to some polls over 50% of Americans are supportive of the legalization of marijuana. That makes it seem like it's not nearly the kind of political suicide that it used to be to even suggest it.
The only problem is that once your opponent starts airing ads that "imply" that you're a pothead, that basically tanks any chance you ever had of winning.
Marijuana legislation's probably not going to see any sort of forward motion until people stop treating mild recreational drugs like hard narcotics, and even once that happens, it's going to be a gradual, slow process for any legislation.
This might not occur until after the annexation of Northern Mexico.
I wouldn't be surprised at the US becoming content to relying on drones in the war on terror in the Middle East, and having some politicians deciding that the cartels pose the next greatest threat to national security.
Well the Colorado legalization act is ahead by ten points in the polls right now so I guess we'll see
I'm kinda curious as to whether or not the Federal government could smack this down as a matter of states overstepping their bounds.
Hey, legal people, is this a thing that could happen, or am I off base?
I am wondering if we will see any movement on the drug legalization/decriminilization fronts in Obama's next term. "lol metzger is a stoner" and all that, but it's a real issue and deserves to be addressed, especially if you consider that according to some polls over 50% of Americans are supportive of the legalization of marijuana. That makes it seem like it's not nearly the kind of political suicide that it used to be to even suggest it.
The only problem is that once your opponent starts airing ads that "imply" that you're a pothead, that basically tanks any chance you ever had of winning.
Marijuana legislation's probably not going to see any sort of forward motion until people stop treating mild recreational drugs like hard narcotics, and even once that happens, it's going to be a gradual, slow process for any legislation.
This might not occur until after the annexation of Northern Mexico.
I wouldn't be surprised at the US becoming content to relying on drones in the war on terror in the Middle East, and having some politicians deciding that the cartels pose the next greatest threat to national security.
Well the Colorado legalization act is ahead by ten points in the polls right now so I guess we'll see
I'm kinda curious as to whether or not the Federal government could smack this down as a matter of states overstepping their bounds.
Hey, legal people, is this a thing that could happen, or am I off base?
What Butters said, but the given the recent history of MMJ/Fed interaction I doubt they would even try to go through the courts. The Fed gov't has a really hard time taking powers away from the states given that its powers are pretty specifically enumerated, so what they do with things like marijuana is ignore the state laws and enforce their own. That's why you've seen a lot of DEA and DoJ raids of MMJ dispensaries in Cali and CO without any action against the state laws themselves. With general legalization though the distribution becomes less centralized and it becomes harder for the federal government to intercede. IMO to the point where they wouldn't/shouldn't bother.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Not quite right, but close.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited September 2012
In order to control the states, the federal government first and foremost does it through money.
They say "Hey you fucks, here's a hundred million dollars. You want this shit? Then you are gonna have to pass some laws and do some shit for us." Usually states comply. Why did the drinking age get raised to 21 instead of 18? Because the federal government tied passing those laws to receiving funding for interstate development.
So what has California said with this regard to marijuana?
Fuck you.
They are simply refusing to enforce the federal laws. They are not obligated to follow the code, the law specifically deals with the penalties for noncompliance. You get less money. California did the math and figured "Hey, we spend more money and services dealing with the fallout of this bullshit than we are getting." So they took their ball and went home.
This won't go to federal court, because drug control is not one of the enumerated powers of congress. They don't have any direct, constitutional authority to say "Hey, we are the dominant ones here fuckass." The law has the penalty for noncompliance in it.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Barack "Stalin Stud" Obama
I think if Colorado legalizes successfully you'll see a loooot more states doing it, especially states where medicinal marijuana is a thing, like Oregon and Washington and California. Also because "Oh we can't allow these yokels in a flyover state embarrass us cosmopolitan, worldly coast-dwellers like this huff grumble"
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Barack "Stalin Stud" Obama
I have said this before and it is just as true now as it was then; Rednecks. Love. Drugs. Especially pot because they can just grow it out back and the law knows better'n ta come outchere, boy *spit* same goes for moonshining or cooking meth
I am wondering if we will see any movement on the drug legalization/decriminilization fronts in Obama's next term. "lol metzger is a stoner" and all that, but it's a real issue and deserves to be addressed, especially if you consider that according to some polls over 50% of Americans are supportive of the legalization of marijuana. That makes it seem like it's not nearly the kind of political suicide that it used to be to even suggest it.
The only problem is that once your opponent starts airing ads that "imply" that you're a pothead, that basically tanks any chance you ever had of winning.
Marijuana legislation's probably not going to see any sort of forward motion until people stop treating mild recreational drugs like hard narcotics, and even once that happens, it's going to be a gradual, slow process for any legislation.
This might not occur until after the annexation of Northern Mexico.
I wouldn't be surprised at the US becoming content to relying on drones in the war on terror in the Middle East, and having some politicians deciding that the cartels pose the next greatest threat to national security.
Well the Colorado legalization act is ahead by ten points in the polls right now so I guess we'll see
I'm kinda curious as to whether or not the Federal government could smack this down as a matter of states overstepping their bounds.
Hey, legal people, is this a thing that could happen, or am I off base?
In order to control the states, the federal government first and foremost does it through money.
They say "Hey you fucks, here's a hundred million dollars. You want this shit? Then you are gonna have to pass some laws and do some shit for us." Usually states comply. Why did the drinking age get raised to 21 instead of 18? Because the federal government tied passing those laws to receiving funding for interstate development.
So what has California said with this regard to marijuana?
Fuck you.
They are simply refusing to enforce the federal laws. They are not obligated to follow the code, the law specifically deals with the penalties for noncompliance. You get less money. California did the math and figured "Hey, we spend more money and services dealing with the fallout of this bullshit than we are getting." So they took their ball and went home.
This won't go to federal court, because drug control is not one of the enumerated powers of congress. They don't have any direct, constitutional authority to say "Hey, we are the dominant ones here fuckass." The law has the penalty for noncompliance in it.
Posts
Okay, who do you think you're more likely to empathize with; the man born into a family of moderate means, who lived a fairly average life, and managed to work his way into the presidency without any major social or political advantages? Or the guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who grew up in a three story governor's mansion, started a company that participated in some ethically dubious business practices, and now makes a couple million dollars every year?
Yes, because saying "My opponent smoked marijuana as a teenager," is entirely the same thing as saying "My opponent believes grown adults have a legal right to get stoned."
EDIT: Because conservatives attempted just that in 1992
This might not occur until after the annexation of Northern Mexico.
I wouldn't be surprised at the US becoming content to relying on drones in the war on terror in the Middle East, and having some politicians deciding that the cartels pose the next greatest threat to national security.
lawl~~
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
I feel like we just went over this.
It's criticizing that Obama's a celebrity. Ironic coming from the party who elected Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwartzneggar.
That'd only be on the table after they get over their hard on for Iran.
And who had Clint Eastwood yell at an empty chair for an hour at the RNC.
That, too.
Well the Colorado legalization act is ahead by ten points in the polls right now so I guess we'll see
More criticizing him for cozy-ing up to celebrities and ducking meeting with Netanyahu for Letterman.
A Letterman caricature that looks a bit like Richard Nixon apparently.
The problem would be you'd need enough people who were facing being ousted to go for it, and between house members looking for promotion and how staggered term limits would be in the senate, I don't think it'd ever get enough traction.
HOLY SHIT FOR REAL I AM PACKING MY GODDAMN BAGS RIGHT NOW WHO WANTS TO START AN ORGANIC GOAT FARM COMMUNE WITH ME? Seriously though can you link me to an article or something because I live in Cheyenne and if it passes I will be living in Fort Collins.
It notes that a similar act in California polled similarly well about two months ahead of time and barely lost, so there's still a good chance it loses
But it's encouraging
I'm kinda curious as to whether or not the Federal government could smack this down as a matter of states overstepping their bounds.
Hey, legal people, is this a thing that could happen, or am I off base?
(@Ubik)
EDIT: That's assuming this passes.
I'll believe it when I see it.
-There wasn't even a press release. The news story seems to be "this guy says that some other guy says that there's an internal memo that we don't hate gays anymore" and from that people are singing from the rafters that CFA is awesome again.
-CFA is still run by one or more bigots & I suspect their definition of what constitutes a hate group varies significantly from reality.
Before I go "buy some nugs to reward them" as I've seen a few people here and a ton of people on facebook say, I'm gonna wait a couple years and see what the splc or glaad has to say about it after seeing their actual actions & donation records for a while.
Pretty sure that has to be done by a federal judge either on their own or through the Fed suing said state.
they can draw
everything besides the people in that picture is drawn well
the white outlines are there, I would bet, to distinguish the figures against the fairly busy background. his figures are extremely thin, they would disappear into those background lines.
You know, I know the exact reason for this. It was a point of contention in our Con law discussions.
But since Ubik is your go to guy on the law I guess I'll let him field it.
What Butters said, but the given the recent history of MMJ/Fed interaction I doubt they would even try to go through the courts. The Fed gov't has a really hard time taking powers away from the states given that its powers are pretty specifically enumerated, so what they do with things like marijuana is ignore the state laws and enforce their own. That's why you've seen a lot of DEA and DoJ raids of MMJ dispensaries in Cali and CO without any action against the state laws themselves. With general legalization though the distribution becomes less centralized and it becomes harder for the federal government to intercede. IMO to the point where they wouldn't/shouldn't bother.
edit @Munkus Beaver PLEEEEEEEEASE tell us, please please please
Give us the goods man
They say "Hey you fucks, here's a hundred million dollars. You want this shit? Then you are gonna have to pass some laws and do some shit for us." Usually states comply. Why did the drinking age get raised to 21 instead of 18? Because the federal government tied passing those laws to receiving funding for interstate development.
So what has California said with this regard to marijuana?
Fuck you.
They are simply refusing to enforce the federal laws. They are not obligated to follow the code, the law specifically deals with the penalties for noncompliance. You get less money. California did the math and figured "Hey, we spend more money and services dealing with the fallout of this bullshit than we are getting." So they took their ball and went home.
This won't go to federal court, because drug control is not one of the enumerated powers of congress. They don't have any direct, constitutional authority to say "Hey, we are the dominant ones here fuckass." The law has the penalty for noncompliance in it.
My nips are hard
it'll happen eventually
@Munkus Beaver I didn't know if this was a thing you studied, and I didn't want to bother you if it wasn't!
But if you would kindly instruct me in the ways of the law, Mr. Gekko, I would be humbled.
EDIT: It looks like the instruction has already occurred, and I am better for it.
Thanks, Munkus.
(Also, I'm sorry for any offense I may have given.)
YES YES THIS IS WHAT I WANT
Well Netanyahu is an awful piece of shit so I can't blame him for that one.
investors.com
gee willikers
wonder why they hosted/produced it
Eh I'm not so sure. On an intellectual level, they know a proper diplomatic response and policy by the US makes it harder for them to rally support.
What about the dormant commerce clause?