Jesus, that Fox bit is shady.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Parks & Wildlife statement: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/docs/Me...Open.62010.pdf
Printable View
Jesus, that Fox bit is shady.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Parks & Wildlife statement: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/docs/Me...Open.62010.pdf
Obama should give the entire state of AZ to Mexico.
I'm sure the Navajo would love that.
That is not the sheriff of the "local county" in question. Paul Babeau is the sheriff of Pinal County, which is sandwiched between Pima and Maricopa County. The Buenos Aires NWR lies within Pima and Santa Cruz County. It is telling that both Pima and Santa Cruz County sheriffs oppose SB 1070 and do not appear on the Fox News program.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
I live in Southern Arizona and no, the area is not descending into lawlessness.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is OK
Well that's good. I was hoping someone on the boards lived near the region and could confirm or deny the allegations (again, Fox News, but the all news has been pretty shitty lately).
I love Biden. I really do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO13_tJ6x44
Elena Kagan. Discuss.
I don't like a lot of her policies on terror. She is anti-freedom of speech when the issues are related to "potential terror threats". Garre wasn't much different, I guess. All in all pretty run of the mill.
Kevin James in drag, say word.
Prop 19. Discuss.
(state government vs federal government)
I am 100% in favor of California's right to try to pass that. Fuck the Feds. Interstates and military and then fuck off and leave the rest to the states.
So, what about Kagan?
She can't die fast enough once a Republican President can replace her, assuming she is confirmed.
I'm not surprised they are now doing this weed bullshit in California since the people living in the state are fucking idiots.
And fuck you, Yoshi. It's people like you who want to fill the supreme court bench with politically affiliated members instead of autonomous members who only read the constitution for what it's supposed to be. As it was fucking meant to be.
It makes no difference what I want. Reality is that the Supreme Court can be cut down the middle. Given that, I want more on the right.
I'm all for strict construction and checks and balances, but we blew that model up already, so now we have to deal with the mess we made.
What is all this 1 ounce crap?
Let them own and grow the fuck out of it. Kill the fucking market.
That will hurt the drug trade more than anything. make the shit fucking worthless
Marijuana is already cheaper than alcohol and tobacco. Just how many hectares do you plan to grow and how far exactly are you expecting to send the price to?
EDITS: Despite that, it has the largest demand. Therefore, the most blood is spilled on the border for it. Legalizing it here in the states will likely reduce that and is one of the arguments for Texas to grow it.
The truth is legalizing it will likely send the price up. Because of this, there will be a bootleg period for a couple decades, much like what followed the end of prohibition.
My only real fear is when it eventually gets commercialized and turns into Coca-cola meets Phillip Morris.
MOAR EDITS: Marijuana also kind of sucks now that is no longer the drug choice of jazz players and rancheros (the real reason it was outlawed, starting in El Paso) and instead the poster child of the frat generation, which commercializing will only make more annoying.
Kagan doesn't give a shit about the constitution, either. Her policies are much more Marxist than Libertarian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
I don't think it would normalize, market-wise, over more than 10 years - 15 years (a generation of kids coming up). You'd probably also see abuse of it drop because the taboo nature of it would go away almost immediately and people would be more comfortable making good decisions growing up with it around. This is true of any drug, although I do understand why heroine is restricted due to its addictiveness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Pot would have probably been made legal a long time ago if not for that one annoying guy in high school who smoked it. The one that giggled in class because he was high. And always had the high story about how high he got over the weekend.
Where every story ended with "maaaannnnn, I have nevveerrr beeen SO HIiIiIgh"
Drug laws are there for the same reason people don't want gay marriage. Culture control. They don't want that shit to become part of the overt American identity (even though it already is). They want to be legally justified in their bigotry.
Marijuana and gay marriage are not any part of the American identity. They're like soccer. A handful of people care and a lot of others pretend to when it seems convenient. Try stepping into the real world for a few minutes a week.
McDonald's, unfortunately, is on the real list.
Yoshi, you are truly amazing. Exactly how far do you have your head up your own ass?
Negro voting rights weren't a part of the identity or majority opinion either.
Legalizing marijuana makes a lot more sense than letting women or 18 year olds vote.
We've had this this discussion before, but again, I am all for bringing back the property clause.
As someone living in what's probably the marijuana capital of North America, I find the change in attitude over the years interesting. People used to make such a big deal over a substance that isn't even a hard drug. Now you smell it around all the time and no one gives a shit. I haven't really noticed any difference since the semi-decriminalization of it, though. It doesn't seem to have spawned new users from what I can tell although I imagine full legalization would.
Weed fucking sucks. I never got the hype.
Yep. Agreed. And no common law property bullshit for wives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Wouldn't a property clause make buying property prohibitively expensive? Because... you know, people would need it to vote.
I don't know. Did it in the past?
The other option is to require a passing grade on a American History, Government and Economics Test in order to receive your voter's registration card every ten years.
However this will likely lead to endless debate about the test being rigged to partisan favor.
and it isn't already?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr-K
Holy shit that would be a mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
What kind of history test? Fill in the blank with names and dates? A real one, with essay questions that ask you to demonstrate a basic understanding of the cause and affect of past events?
Are you aware that old IQ test were thrown out for being racist for having those kinds of questions? They claimed they put minorities at a disadvantage because they didn't know as much about "white" culture.
And whose history? Fundy christian history where everyone came to the US to love Jesus and all the founding fathers were orthodox god fearing baptist? Indian history where we are all a bunch of assholes who raped and destroyed their land? Yanky history where the south is nothing but minority hating sister fuckers? Southern History where the north is nothing but hypocritical ogres? Mexican history, where the white man tricked all their Mexican ancestors out of their land?
Really, whose? Because no one can fucking agree on anything that happened before World War 1.
Shut up
No, you shut up.
DinosaursQuote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
we need the rep system back
Dumbass.
Where did it go?
No one tell him.
oh, they made it a little shape in the other corner.
Fuck this new layout. It is full of trickery and deceit.
As opposed to a little shape in the other corner on the old system? Trickery and deceit? To the blind perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Back to topic!
I'm all for charging for the right to vote. Straight up 1000 dollar fee. But that only buys the right to vote one time. 5000 increments you can increase your vote! That'll fix shit right up and put the rich even more in charge where they belong because that's why they're rich in the first place right?
I've always said there needs to be a test before you vote to see if you know and understand the various candidates and their stance on issues.
Way too many uneducated dipshit voters just go and vote for whoever they're told to vote for.
Yes. There should be a test. All math problems.
Maybe a bonus round where you have to calculate the dielectric constant of something.
Oh, Oh, maybe one about calculating the force load at 43 meters in on 138 meter long bridge.
Shit, put some fucking thermo on that bitch too.
I don't give a shit about the USA in any proud sense.
Fuck the constitution, what's the right thing to do?
Kill yourself.
Suck an Eagle's cock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
you not knowing what I'm talking about says more about you than me.
No. You're just being a dumbass.
Tests for voting is stupid. People know what they want when they vote, even if it's something stupid.
I really don't know how you read anything from that. She presented a judge from Israel as a guest speaker once? She hired a transnationalist? The writer starts talking about Hillary Clinton having seances, there's much to be taken seriously here.
Yeah, damn them for passing a perfectly legal law to protect themselves since Obama lied about handling the problem at a federal level.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Give CA, MN, and all of New England to the highest bidder of Canada and Mexico.
Yeah, they want free money. If you don't have skin in the game, you shouldn't give any input.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finch
China gets California, Japan gets Utah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
From your hardline stance, i can generalize and assume you vote for a closer relationship between government and Christianity and that you're completely okay with lack of regulation on mountain top removal mining. And who went nuts with TARP? We're all voting for idiots and crooks, Yoshi.Quote:
Yeah, they want free money. If you don't have skin in the game, you shouldn't give any input.
I agree with your last sentence. There is no such thing as a career politician that has any business running anything ever.
18's can vote because that is when they can be drafted for war. The logic that you should be able to decide how your country works when you are old enough to be forced to die for it seems logical enough for me.
They can be trusted with a gun, a campaign, but they can't be trusted with a bottle. <3 America.
No none of that, actually. But the core issue is that she does not in any way respect the constitution or the bill of rights, and has gone out of her way to make it known that she doesn't at all intend to uphold it or its merits where possible. I don't know about you but someone who doesn't respect the fundamentals of my (the royal my) country has no business setting agenda. She could be anal fisting men in threesomes and praying to her pagan Gods all she wants as far as I'm concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finch
You're a fool. New England has some of the countries greatest fishing! You're on your own with California.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Considering we haven't needed a draft in decades, I think it's time to revisit that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Good point! But i don't think we really need to worry about 18 year olds actually voting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
With complete respect, where are you getting this? It could be because i listen to NPLIBERAL all day, but i'm not hearing anything besides she's being obnoxiously vague about every question, just like she's expected to be. The best thing to come out of this hearing is the whole where were you on the day of the Christmas Day Bombing thing. I don't really like her for being a hypocrite, but what do i expect? Why would anyone in such an important position be expected to tell the truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
I would be in favor of getting rid of the draft and moving the voting age to 21.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I don't take offense to people with opposing views asking for defined foundations beneath my accusations/disapproval.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finch
Her thesis. I have uploaded it and linked it here for you since she and her lawyers are rushing to have it stricken from the media as quickly as possible. I suggest you print it out if you plan on reading it, but it is full of socialist ideals (it is about socialism, after all). This, coupled with her political maneuverings, make me believe they are her true ideals. It could simply be she was writing to please her professors in University. Appealing to the socialist tendencies of liberal state universities is probably a great way to get an A. But I don't know... she could have chosen anything and chose to fight for socialism.Quote:
It could be because i listen to NPLIBERAL all day, but i'm not hearing anything besides she's being obnoxiously vague about every question, just like she's expected to be. The best thing to come out of this hearing is the whole where were you on the day of the Christmas Day Bombing thing. I don't really like her for being a hypocrite, but what do i expect? Why would anyone in such an important position be expected to tell the truth?
P.S. I didn't read the entirety of it. I printed it out at work and thumbed my way since Doc Holiday brought it up earlier in the month. I plan on finishing it this Sunday. I love politics these days because of the trying times we live in.
Can we repeal the 17th amendment?
Considering those are the states (along with most of the other blue ones) are the ones that pay more to the federal government than they get back, with the difference going to shitholes in the South, good luck with that. The red states are dependent on our wealth and prosperity to keep their house intact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The states with the most gun ownership pay the least tax. COINCIDENCE?
That's one way to spin it. Another would be to look at the least debt-ridden states, which are all traditionally red except for MN, and then most debt-ridden, which are all blue except Montana and Alaska.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Or maybe those are two sides of the same coin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It doesn't matter if it's red or blue. The shit's crooked from either side.
Why did congress not extend social benefits? Keeping it extended adds so little to the debt it hardly makes a difference. Not even a quarter of a percentage point.
Bill Clinton made a statement in the Financial Times that Obama needs a terrorist attack to help his approval ratings. Not sure if he was just joking around, but that's a pretty scary ass thing to say. Hoping to benefit from a massive attack to save a political race? One Republican media outlet even said that there will be a terrorist threat in October to try and rouse the Democratic party and further galvanize the Tea Party movement. They make mention of Obama fucking up the oil spill, which is just completely wrong. His response was tempered and accommodating resolution not sensationalizing disaster.
Guess we'll see what happens. I'm guessing nothing. Hoping nothing. Disaster does seem to creep up just before election through happenstance, though. (I'm looking at you BP)
I wish he would just tell people to fuck off.
everyone gets upset about everything
Seriously. Who cares what Clinton said. Stop being such a pussy
Why not? It worked great for Republicans from 2001-2004. Bush was well on his way to being a nobody one-termer until 9/11/01. But once the GOP was able to tie voting Democratic to funding terrorist camps in Pakistan, they cleaned up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Either way it's horse shit.
Because he's still influential in the world. If you don't want to talk politics in the politics thread feel free to try out the YouTube tags one. I hear it's all the rage.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
That's American politics, bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Never let a good disaster go to waste.
You sound like some crazy asshole calling into Michael Savage.
Bill Clinton is not going to cause/fund/create a terrorist attack, you retard.
I didn't say he was (I have no idea who Michael Savage is). I said it was an odd thing to say that Obama needs a terror attack to boost his ratings. Because, you know, there are other ways of doing that. You're making a massive sweeping jump in logic beyond what I said. I even noted how ridiculous that Republican journalist was being in my first post. Learn 2 Read.
here, lets make this simple:
No it's not. Kill yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
A terrorist attack would help the Republicans, not the incumbent regardless of party. The Democrats are the mommy party and the GOP is the daddy party. When the country is attacked, you want daddy in charge.
It's hard to imagine an external event that would help the Democrats. I thought the oil spill might help Obama, as people trust the Democrats on the environment. There might have even been a little bump, but this thing has gone on so long that the energy/environmental angle is overwhelmed by the Obama incompetency issue.
The Democrats were helped in 1998 when the GOP Congress impeached Clinton. But the GOP doesn't control anything right now, so it's hard for them to shoot themselves in the foot.
When the economic crisis hit in September 2008, it seemed a virtual certainty to me that Obama would be elected, but then the Democrats would get absolutely crushed in 2010. And with 2010 being a census year, the redistricting in 2011 will be done by GOP legislatures and governors, making a Democratic comeback very tough for the next ten years. And if unemployment remains stubbornly high - especially if we have a double dip recession -- Obama will be in big trouble in 2012. I haven't seen anything so far that would change my mind.
In the current political atmosphere where people have their benefits taken away because it's "too expensive", trillions given to banking corporations with no oversight and a massive corporation just getting a slap on the wrist for polluting an entire region of the Gulf of Mexico with toxic ooze I do find a comment like that from a man with some power in this world scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstBlood
I will scrutinize shit like that. You can go fuck your anus with a Dremel.
Except the American people have historically always rallied behind a President after an attack of that nature. The did it with Bush and Guilliani after 9/11. Even though the 9/11 clean-up was botched by Guilliani completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoleTroll
Because Republicans pushed for so much deregulation that lead to this catastrophe I'm not sure how anybody can benefit. It's not like Obama can swim down and stick his massive black cock in the gusher to seal it. No scientists on Earth know how to stop the amount of force coming out of that well. Not only that, but the well is dangerously close to stratas leading to an underwater volcano.Quote:
It's hard to imagine an external event that would help the Democrats. I thought the oil spill might help Obama, as people trust the Democrats on the environment. There might have even been a little bump, but this thing has gone on so long that the energy/environmental angle is overwhelmed by the Obama incompetency issue.
Some economists are saying there will be a double dip, but it's impossible to know. Getting money in consumer hands to buy essentials is a good way to continue to stimulate the economy but it may just prolong the inevitable.Quote:
When the economic crisis hit in September 2008, it seemed a virtual certainty to me that Obama would be elected, but then the Democrats would get absolutely crushed in 2010. And with 2010 being a census year, the redistricting in 2011 will be done by GOP legislatures and governors, making a Democratic comeback very tough for the next ten years. And if unemployment remains stubbornly high - especially if we have a double dip recession -- Obama will be in big trouble in 2012. I haven't seen anything so far that would change my mind.
Bill Clinton has no power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
There is no inevitable. The economy is a manmade creation, whatever happens there happens because of man. And man will not be adding more stimulus even if it will make up for the current lack of demand in the private sector.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
It is inevitable man will fuck it up.
Well that one went right over your head. Nice try Diff
So, 85 days later, BP figured out how to stop the leak.
Pull the barbed zucchini out of your butt hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Arent they still worried that the PSI levels are too low and there may be a secondary leak unaccounted for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
The economy is large enough in scope that we can talk with terms like "inevitability" with a fair degree of accuracy. Obviously nothing is truely inevitable, but there are so many people making so many decisions, it is difficult to do anything but small bumps one way or another with conscious actions by governments, especially in long term situations..
I didn't want to get in to it because it's a stupid argument over semantics. Diff was just trying to run game.
It's really not. What you said was that getting stimulus into the hands of customers may just "prolong the inevitable" - push back whatever bad event you were talking about, which I assume was a "double dip recession." Well no, the point is to increase demand so the double dip recession does not happen. In other words, the inevitable would be avoided, not prolonged.
p.s. lick my balls
Financial forecasting - like all forecasting - is just nerds playing at being wizards.
So this Wikileaks thing that just hit today, is this like the sequel to the Pentagon Papers?
LOL. I think he's more competent than our President.Quote:
Originally Posted by squall_vb
You get murdered than go to jail. LOL best line in the whole thing.
Don't be bitter, baby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I qualified it with a may just because I don't have a crystal ball. I certainly hope things get better. Since the government isn't extending that coverage it's a "what-if" scenario anyway. Like what if you weren't such a huge touchy cunt? We may never know.
I like how the news media is going: SHOULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?! The answer is, yes, if it confirms some kind of damning aggression (on either side). And CNN should be doing it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
They're too busy attending a party for Jim Clyburn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
So Bill H.R. 5741... I thought the US already had a law that said they could force you to join the army/civilian order in times of war or emergency?
I'm not sure what the original language is but it more sounds like it's making an amendment so that the Selective Service requirements can be fulfilled by civilian duty in the name of homeland security as opposed to only by war conscription.
It also does edit out that pesky language which is specific to the male sex from the Military Selective Service Act.
homeland security is for assholes
we're either at war or we are not.
Stop with all the marketing hyperbole fun words.