Chuck McConnell: Constitution

Advertisement

The president of the United States delivered the constitutionally required State of the Union address last week, and in a mere 70 minutes, he clearly demonstrated his strategy to consolidate federal government power in the executive branch.

At first, I thought the Constitu­tion must have changed materially since the last time I read it, but it had not. I downloaded the latest copy and re-read it three times, and it was the same as a few years ago. Our Constitution still specifically enumerates three separate and ostensible equal branches of government, each with their own powers: Congress, the Supreme Court and the executive branch. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution still reserves to the states powers not delegated to the Untied States by the Constitution.

For the first time in history, the president in his address to the nation and the world berated the Supreme Court for a recent ruling. It was as if he forgot the Court is a co-equal branch and not obedient to him. His attack even elicited a clear albeit rare reaction from one of the justices. The president then told the world he would circumvent their decision.

When the Senate failed to form the Commission on Debt the president had called for, he angrily threatened to go around them and enact his wishes through a presidential “executive order.” In other words, Congress is not relevant and Obama will do what he wants with or without them.

And finally, the president reiterated his demand that Congress enact a comprehensive health care reform act. I could not find anywhere in the Constitution the power of the federal government to demand the American people purchase health insurance, or anything else for that matter. The 10th Amendment clearly leaves any such legislation to the states. Tennessee and Massachusetts have enacted health care legislation without Constitutional challenge, thereby codifying their right.

George Washington in his farewell address in 1796 warned that consolidation of power in one branch of government would lead to “a real despotism.” We are seeing today what President Washington, more than 200 years ago, feared might happen.

The president has said in the past that the Constitution is a fluid document; his State of the Union address clearly demonstrates his belief. But the Constitution only is fluid through the process of amendment and absolutely not by mandate or edict from the executive branch. America’s Constitution has been a solid foundation in establishing our nation as the strongest and freest in history. In 2010 elections, we must ensure presidential power is not allowed to increase by removing those members of Congress who substantiate executive power. We must elect true representatives of the people’s wishes who will challenge this clear attack on our Constitution.

Chuck McConnell

Steamboat Springs

Comments

blue_spruce 4 years, 9 months ago

man, this paper sure gets a lot of right-wing extremists that write opinion pieces! where do they all come from?!?

....”go Palin - 2012”!! ...

0

MrTaiChi 4 years, 9 months ago

blue_stateofmind

How do you define "right-wing EXTREMIST?"

The man's opinion seems conservative to me. Is that how you measure these things? If it doesn't fall within the penumbra of your beliefs, it is extreme? If so, that betrays the breadth of your intellect.

Even George Will says that extremists are characterized by obsession with one issue that trumps every other consideration. I didn't read that in this man's remarks, rather a discontent with the direction of the President's policies and a cry to return of narrow construction of the Constitution, hardly seditious.

You might have noted that the courts have upheld other federal mandates since encactment of the Constitution, like the duty to file income tax returns and, for most of us, the duty to pay into Social Security.

There have been others on these pages who have nothing to trade in the marketplace of ideas, right and left wing. Some obviously just don't have the horsepower. Pity. Less forgivable are those with the ability to form complex thoughts and to articulate them, but indulge lazy name calling.

0

sledneck 4 years, 9 months ago

They come from a segment of society that recognizes the value of strict adherance to the Constitution and the danger of a strong central government "flexing" that doccument constantly.They recognize that the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights is a limit for government. It is a "NO TRESPASSING" sign where the government meets the peoples "property line". The Constitution is not directed at just "We the People" but is a "Thou Shalt Not" line that government is forbidden to cross. They see government illegally trespassing farther and farther across that line each year, month, week and it is upsetting.

They don't want government bailouts. They don't want to bail anyone else out. They don't want to own GM and they don't want China to own their kids.

They are trying to gently warn of eventual consequences to governments' perpetually screwing with people who wish to be left the hell alone.

0

Alan Geye 4 years, 9 months ago

I believe McConnell's comments are absolutely spot on. I fear that comments like "blue spruces" may be representative of how poorly our education system is at fully explaining the strengths of our truly unique Constitution. It's not coincidental that our country represents a rather unique set of opportunities when compared to substantially all other countries in this world.

It is important that an educated electorate fully understand these issues. In a nutshell, the Constitution outlines a relationship whereby the rights of individuals are most important, not the "state." The Constitution specifies certain LIMITED powers, specifically enuciated, to the federal government; all other powers are retained to states. We have been successful as a nation in large part because of said limitations on government.

As McConnell outlines, Americans do have the ability to change or amend those powers granted to the federal government though an amendment process that is correctly rigorous. Changing the fundamental nature of our contract between ourselves and our federal government should be rigorous and public support should be pervasive; it should not be at the political whim of any president or Congress. These are not "right-wing" extreme view; they are inherent to our strength as a nation.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 9 months ago

For the record, I understand completely the separation of powers that exists within the constitutional branches of our Gov't. My question is this:

Where does the constitution lay out that the branches cannot disagree with one another? Call on the other branches for legislation or action, or express displeasure at what has been done?

You may or may not agree with the Presidents State of the Union address, but in Mr. McConnell's words:

We must elect true representatives of the people’s wishes who will challenge this clear attack on our Constitution.

I seriously doubt that the Presidents speech constitues an "Attack on our Constitution" and further believe that our union can stand a little discord and disagreement among the branches of Government.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

"Where does the constitution lay out that the branches cannot disagree with one another? Call on the other branches for legislation or action, or express displeasure at what has been done?"

It doesn't, and that's not what McConnell has argued. He did characterize the President's whining at the SOTU as unprecedented, and he's correct.

I think the President is coming across as increasingly whiny, thin-skinned, and churlish. First, there was his juvenile capaign against Fox (can you imagine the caterwauling if W had bellyached about his media critics the way his successor does?) . Now, he's chiding Dems for acknowledging his liberal critics at MSNBC. And of course, losing the Kennedy seat was the result of anti-Bush animus.

I believe he's making a genuine attempt to spin events in his favor, and I don't begrudge him a bit. But he's being sufficiently inept that he runs the risk of being percieved as a crybaby.

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

Well if we have a POTUS who believes that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed and he is condemning the Supreme courts decisions on the biggest stage then what are we to believe this POTUS is capable of doing to further his progressive agenda while in the highest office in the land? We should expect the President will respect the laws under the Constitution and his actions show otherwise. The theft of GM from the Bondholders for one, and the attempt at implementation of mandates on the Citizens of this Country to have to buy something that the President decides is good is another. In his own words. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY...

0

trump_suit 4 years, 9 months ago

See, I completely agree about the POTUS following the laws. That is why the Bush administration upsets me so with their bypassing of FISA courts and their forays into illegall wiretapping and email surveillance.

Why is it that the conservative right is so up in arms about what they perceive as consitutuional violations by Obama but the same people support the violations of our Civil Liberties by the Bush admin. You cannot have it both ways.

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

Yes I can because I believe it can be argued both ways about whether or not Bush broke the FISA laws and that dog is not a part of my fight as I personally believe the POTUS should use as many tools as is necessary to protect the Homeland, which he did. Along comes your POTUS and we get things like, "I don't have all the details but the police acted stupidly" when asked about his Professor friend in Mass and then, " Let's not jump to conclusions" with regard to the Ft. Hood massacre and whether it was a jihadist attack when it was known that Hasan had ties to an enemy Imam who has declared Jihad against the US. We are treating terrorists as if they are common criminals and reading them Miranda rights and affording them protections under OUR Constitution. Are you on board with that? Obama made threats to Iran if they did not act by last September and stop their march towards a nuclear weapon, what did his threats amount to? Iran is now ramping up production of bomb grade materials. But I digress and I should just stick to the amount of Mao/Marx loving Czars and advisers in his cabinet and whether that complies with the part of the Constitution that states“.. to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic…”

I wonder.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 9 months ago

A few links for all. this is quite the esoteric search topic so read deeply. Upon further research it appears that almost every president since George Washington has criticized the supreme court in one fashion or another. Abraham Lincoln used the Presidential inaugural address and Ronald Reagan loudly expressed his discontent about Roe V Wade. This is NOT new stuff. Do a little digging and you will see.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/bush-disagrees-with-supreme-court-ruling-on-guantanamo_10059627.html

http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2010/01/criticizing-the-supreme-court.html

http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m1d28-Video-Conservatives-come-to-defense-of-Supreme-Court-over-Obamas-State-of-the-Union-criticism

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

“We’ll abide by the court’s decision … That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it,” Bush said speaking at a a news conference in Rome with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

That is a big difference than a President insulting the Supremes using the biggest bully pulpit on International TV and then in the same breath saying he will do an end around that decision. Don't you think? Sorry if you don't see the difference between a tongue lashing in person and what Bush said above or Reagan disagreeing with Roe v Wade but I can. How deep are you willing to dig for this POTUS?

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

“It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented,” Bush said. “And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about US national security.”

Bush said his administration will study the ruling.

“We’ll do this with this in mind - to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, ‘We’re doing everything we can to protect you.’” The decision marked the third time the Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush administration’s policy for holding and trying detainees in the war on terrorism, and scored a victory for civil rights advocates who charge the White House was denying detainees basic rights under the law.

This shows a President who has an extremely valid point and properly stated it as a Statesmen should, with integrity and professionalism, not like a whiny threatening baby.

0

MrTaiChi 4 years, 9 months ago

How many others want to like the President for his wit, his easy self-confidence, his sense of humor?

Then there's the disquiting uncomfortability when he jumped to conclusions on the professor Gates farce, failed to react with common sense following the Fort Hood attack, and jumped to conclusions opposing the constitutional Honduran government that ousted, according to their law, the Hugo Chavez clone, ultimately and without other choice, recognizing the will of those people in an election to choose a government that wasn't socialist. OK I get it about the underwear bomber having to be tried in a federal District Court. Why in anyone's wildest belief system should terrorists who were at war with this counrty from foreign lands, no more than pirates in the eyes of the law, be brought here and afforded our constitutional rights? Does anyone know if the German saboteurs who were landed on our soil by a submarine in WWII were given a military or civilian trial before they were hanged?

I don't know if the temporizing over A-stan reached the right conclusion; maybe he had no good options. The mounting weight of these gaffs does give evidence to those who see this man as out of his depth and fear that he won't be ready to be President until after his experience gained from mistakes has hurt the nation.

0

ybul 4 years, 9 months ago

Trump, Unfortunately there were those complaining about Bush's decisions, who are still complaining about Obama's decisions. Or more to the point the federal governments actions to protect/help us whomever has been in charge (grain subsidies, unfunded mandates - educational or other, trying to nationalize all water rights, etc.).

People thought many of us were left wingers when complaining about policy decisions while under Bush and now we are right wing fringe people when complaining about Policies that are suggested under Obama. Most people are in the middle and SICK AND TIRED OF THE BS coming from DC. The policies coming from DC do not seem to be helping and for the most part I believe they are hurting this country.

The change Obama wants is going to ensure that this country breaks up and either there are several independent countries with some heading towards the MX government or we head the way of Germany heading into the days of Hitler. Many comparisons are there if you do not agree google the Reichstag fire and do a little digging on the economy of Germany when money was used as firewood as it was cheaper (with 12+ trillion in real debt, social security promises and other items the unfunded liabilities are around 50-100 trillion. Go ponder a trillion and how much that is, it truly is hard to imagine having one trillion in real debt let alone 12 plus all of the potential IOU's).

Everyone is on the same page excluding the wedge issues that the government likes to use to misdirect us so they can further drive this country towards the abyss that returns us to a feudal system.

0

kathy foos 4 years, 9 months ago

Could the job of president be divided up into departments that have only qualified,highly educated experts,that would be able to run for that department head with all of the power of that department in his control.It could be administered or run by someone ,but that person should be an organizer ,set up man ,for the other experts to deal with the problem.If idiot people dont leave the treasury alone,and we dont get some one in charge of our countrys finances that knows what the heck they are doing we are just doomed anyway.Like putting me as president in charge of the countrys money,wouldnt be a good idea because Im pretty stupid in that field,but if I had that job,it would turn into my job,like it or not and not many are capable of actually doing it right.Maybe in Washingtons day it was do-able but its a huge thing now and I guess god could do every department job well but we are only humans and cannot be experts in every field.Breaking the presidents job up could save our country,Its an outdated system that is just screaming for reform.Dinosaurs died out too.If we can listen to all the presidential election garbage for 3 years ahead of time on the one job(presidents)we can also elect several more while we are at it.How about the offices of the presidents of America?

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

Deja Vu all over again. Anybody remember the Carter years when these types of ideas were mentioned? Unfortunately sun your concerns are not being met because we have a POTUS who insists that taxing, spending, bailing out and spreading the wealth is the answer. It is not. We don't need extra Presidents we just need one that is not an Ideologue Socialist bent on "fundamentally changing this Country".

0

ybul 4 years, 9 months ago

You see Sun, the founding fathers realized the failures that were possible in a system which concentrated power in the hands of a few. Just like a distributed energy system would be less likely to fail, as energy production was closer to consumption, a system which relies on the people to manage themselves would be far better than a top down system that dictates policies from above. A 500,000 square foot building that is one story is far more stable than a 500,000 square foot building that is 10, 100 or 1,000 stories tall. A government that is founded at the local level, which knows the local environment, the resources and potential pitfalls is far better than decisions being made 3000 miles away from where its impacts are made.

If you look at a few very successful companies, they push the decision making process down to the lowest levels possible. Right now our leaders keep pushing towards pushing decision making higher up the ladder on to the UN now. Which magnifies a mistake being made. You are very wise in that you understand that you would not do a good job in trying to manage the countries finances. Though many of those people in charge have much larger egos and think they know what is right. Right now we are paying a price for greenspan's decision to keep rates low for too long. Though there were probably many factors that have led us down the primrose path.

Working with individuals to make them personally responsible is the only way to get this country back on course. Wether we are talking about making people partners in their own health care, their financial decisions they make or the decision to pour oil on their property (as at some point that oil is going to seep back into our water supply).

The system has gone awry and needs put back on a course of personal responsibility.

Our schools are teaching our kids that if you turn in your work late you will get docked. Great good lesson, however, they fail to teach them that even if you do make a mistake you can work hard to make up for that mistake.

What do we want in our society a system where everyone is equal, like in 1984 or one of those books where if you had a talent you had to wear an impediment to make you equal to those with less talent or do we want a system which embraces everyone as having talent enough to succeed in some manner, allowing everyone to use their talents to make the world a better place. If everyone is given every basic need, then what is the point of actually trying to work hard in life?

0

freerider 4 years, 9 months ago

Hey Chuck , have you noticed that somebody changed the Bill of Rights ??? It now starts with " WE THE CORPORATION " and not just American corporations but multi-national corporations as well ...the last time I was in Washington D.C. the only thing missing from the White House fence were all the corporate LOGO'S

0

Chuck McConnell 4 years, 9 months ago

freerider,

I am sure it is not good form for me to blog on my own editorial but, since you asked........

Have you noticed that corporations employ hundreds of millions of Americans while unions "represent" only about 7 percent of workers? (Socratian method, answering a question with a question -- see we tea baggers know something afterall.) The Supreme Court decision was a free speech issue.

And a question for you: why should minority opinions such as unions, that multi-millionair high carbon footprint hero of the left Roger Moore and Mr. "end of the world at the hands of global warming big jet flying" mulit-millionair Al Gore be able to spew their disingenuous stuff at us through widely distributed movies while corporations are silenced?

Do you believe the left is the only voice to be heard? If so, thats OK, just admit it and conservatives will know a lot more about what we are up against. No civilization thrives while allowing free speech for one and not for all.

Oh, yeah, and how about the president's "mis-statement" about foreign influence. I would think a constitutional professor would know better.

0

Chuck McConnell 4 years, 9 months ago

And if you had looked very closely, you would have seen the Union Lable on that White House fence. (eg, lifting the 40% tax from union members on Cadillac health plans leaving the majority of us not in unions to pay the bill.)

0

realfeel 4 years, 9 months ago

Where were you guys 4 years ago??? Your so full of it.

0

Kevin Nerney 4 years, 9 months ago

As long as everyone is asking questions, here's one that may be rhetorical in nature but here goes, Why did Katie Couric interview The Pres. during the Super Bowl pregame show and what relevance did it have on the festivities?

0

ybul 4 years, 9 months ago

Maybe real you did not notice some of us who spoke out 4 years ago as it blended in with the noise you were hearing from the left.

Most agree that corporations have too much influence even on the right.

0

Jeff_Kibler 4 years, 9 months ago

Kevin:

"In 2004, CBS' Jim Nantz interviewed President George W. Bush during the pregame for Super Bowl XXXVIII."

"This is the second straight year Obama has been interviewed during the Super Bowl pregame."

http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/cbs-to-interview-obama-during-super.html

Make of it what you will, however, IMHO, Katie and CBS are desperate for an audience.

0

Jeff_Kibler 4 years, 9 months ago

"The politics of procrastination is bipartisan and rests on shared assumptions..."

This is a worthwhile read by Robert Samuelson :

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/08/the_candor_gap_100193.html

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

For a half an hour? And Obama didn't get a ratings bump either so a waste of time by the News Corpsewoman Couric. Sorry, had to get the dig in kind of like a nuculer moment don't you know.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

"I'm the commander--see, I don't need to explain--I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." --George W. Bush

I'll be honest. I miss the comedy.

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

You mean to tell me you aren't laughing at Obama when he refers to Marine Corpmen as corpsemen or when Obama says he has visited 57 states? Neither am I, it scares the heck out of me that people voted for such a faker. And don't get me started on the next in line, Gaffemaster Joe Biden.

0

Chuck McConnell 4 years, 9 months ago

Well said seeuski.

And also, why the constant attack on Bush. He did a lot of things wrong -- but in case you guys didn't notice, he is not the president now.

The obama budget is 5.9% of GDP as far as the eye can see. Let's look ahead insted of behind, yo.

0

Routt_County_Guy 4 years, 9 months ago

Hey seeufalldown, I noticed you didn't say anything about the Tea Bag Party that that dingbat Sarah Palin was at center circle, is that the kind of intelligence that you admire? Gimme a break! She, like all Republicans, seem to have plenty of criticism and talks about "change" and "better ideas", but as usual, offered no solutions or ideas of her own. It also amazes me that you people are so critical of President Obama and his ideas - at least he's got some! You forget who got us into this mess in the first place - the previous administration. Obama has been office for just 1 year, and I don't know what you people expect - it took us over 8 years to get into this mess, Obama can't just snap his fingers and make all the problems go away in a year! Especially with the Republicans voting "NO" to everything!

0

Troutguy 4 years, 9 months ago

You're right, mc. Bush did a lot of things wrong. And a lot of those wrongs helped get this country into the mess we're in now. Sure, he's not president now, but he has to share some blame, don't you think?

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

Take your heads out of your .......s and get real. The voters in this great Country are waking up and your love for the no nothing oh so innocent Obama and the Democrat waste machine is falling on more and more deaf ears. Good luck with it though.

0

the_Lizard 4 years, 9 months ago

"Routt,,,,Guy"

...and for the other chronically uninformed liberals. Sigh.

"She, like all Republicans, seem to have plenty of criticism and talks about "change" and "better ideas", but as usual, offered no solutions or ideas of her own."

No, there are many ideas presented by Republicans. I do know that all the left wing information sites you folks rely on tell you Republicans are the party of "no" and have "no ideas". but the fact is there are many ideas which have been presented. It just requires the ability to look outside the usual news sources you rely on. As an example: Meet Paul Ryan congresman, http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 9 months ago

Wish I could believe you Seeuski. I'm sure things will even out in the upcoming elections, which is a good thing in my opinion. Clean house in congress-get some folks in there that want to get something done. As far as the next presidential election, I think your party has some to do some serious searching for a good candidate. For your own sake, let's just hope it's not Palin.

This is funny-watch it.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/colbert-sarah-palin-f-king-retard

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

Get your jollies while you can people, we felt the same way about Obama 2 years before the election. We shall see.

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

If you listen to Obama pronounce "Navy men and women" as he speaks of a corpse you can tell he is either on drugs or drunk with his slurred speech.

0

Glenn Little II 4 years, 9 months ago

Wow this discussion is so heated!!, so maybe someone has been drinking too much.. I have seen plenty of people who survive off alcohol in this town why not the president. At least he doesn't drink and drive like the locals in the Yampa valley, but there still are functioning alcoholic's who are great leaders. To the BAR !!

Maybe if my father wasn't killed head-on by a 19 year old drunk driver while he was riding his brand new Harley Davidson 5 days before I was born, then maybe I would not be scared to walk down the street or ride my bike in Steamboat since I know you are out there.. If alcohol or drugs is your main concern when Obama slurs his speech maybe you should step back and look at what is going on around you. Then you would realize how deep the problem is especially if our own president is the one to suffer. This president is the best thing to happen to our country since George Bush. So maybe there is something you can do to help figure out how to fix what got so messed up when 911 went down and Bush screwed our country up.

So don't be scared of Obama he is just drunk ya know?

0

Glenn Little II 4 years, 9 months ago

Mistakes are permanent even if you use a pencil to erase it..

0

Glenn Little II 4 years, 9 months ago

I hope it's Palin..and I hope she is sponsored by McDonalds then Obama has no chance, everyone loves Ronald McDonald just as much as the Superbowl right? But wait how come it was only three hours long and what happened to all the commercials, does Obama get more air time then there is total commercials? Maybe the Superbowl could be the halftime show next year and we can watch Obama and just commercials please..

0

Glenn Little II 4 years, 9 months ago

And then I read this article.. Police identify man hit by car in Steamboat Springs Off-and-on resident Rick Hagberg remains in critical condition

This is so sad look people! Maybe alcohol is the problem

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

Put down the bottle and step away from the keyboard.

0

Glenn Little II 4 years, 9 months ago

Who are you talking too seeuski..Make some sense please

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

It's official: It Is Now Racist To Criticize Obama For Any Reason At All http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/02/10/obama

"...as his poll numbers come back down to earth, and an emboldened conservative movement sharpens its attacks, the label that seems to be sticking to Obama as much as any lately is that of “professor.”

...

[Harvard Professor Charles J.] Ogletree, founding and executive director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, says he sees the “professor” label as a thinly veiled attack on Obama’s race. Calling Obama “the professor” walks dangerously close to labeling him “uppity,” a term with racial overtones that has surfaced in the political arena before, Ogletree said."

Obama was, in fact, a professor at the U of Chicago. But don't dare mention it, you racist, you! Condeleeza rice is a Stanford PhD. I wonder if it's racist to call her "Doctor."

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 9 months ago

I'm not so sure Seeuski.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2010/tea_party_candidate_now_comes_in_last_on_three_way_generic_ballot

It appears to me your ClusterFox noise machine is getting you all riled up, when maybe it's not the case. Your right, we'll see. Might be time for your favorite candidate, Sarah Palin, to slip off to Ak., to never be heard from again.

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 9 months ago

What is wrong with these Republicans.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/07/castle-stimulus-hypocrisy/

It might pain you noise makers to read the facts from such a left wing source, but why do these Republicans, who claim the stimulus is such a failure, and voted against it, in turn try to take credit for it when it brings positive results. Some are even asking for more money. Hmmmm, very strange. Please notice the related articles at the bottom. Very disturbing, and several stories you won't here on Fixed News.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

Obama Doesn’t ‘Begrudge’ Bonuses for Blankfein, Dimon http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aKGZkktzkAlA

"Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.

“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”

Lefties are not amused: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/clueless/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman

"Oh. My. God.

First of all, to my knowledge, irresponsible behavior by baseball players hasn’t brought the world economy to the brink of collapse and cost millions of innocent Americans their jobs and/or houses.

And more specifically, not only has the financial industry has been bailed out with taxpayer commitments; it continues to rely on a taxpayer backstop for its stability...

Obama thinks his key to electoral success is to trumpet “the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies.”

We’re doomed."

jimmmmmm is right: this is funny.

Hope! Change!

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

The moron in the White House should have figured it out by now. It ain't pronounced corpse-man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxORB4...

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

seeuski:

Presumably (correct me if I’m wrong), you disagree with those who took W to task for the liberties he took with the English language. If that’s the case, is your focus Obama’s lingual faux pas a hypocrytical tit-for-tat? If not, why not?

0

Jeff_Kibler 4 years, 9 months ago

TaosJohn could be a troll, but Krugman (above) comment #7 was:

"This is more than jumping the shark. It took me a long time to move from hope to disappointment to fuggedaboutit to ignoring him, but now I'm furious. I will do anything in my power to defeat this man, and I've been a Democrat for over 40 years."

0

Chuck McConnell 4 years, 9 months ago

Troutguy

Yes, President Bush did make a lot of mistakes and those have contributed to where we are right now. Even Glen Beck critized some of Bush's actions and inactions. My fears about the US are concentrated on the economy, however, and obama's budget forecasts a 5.9% deficit vs. the GDP and that dwarfs the Bush missteps. Congress' economic assumptions in the health care legislation are so over the top that the deficit forecasts are very likely too low.

Jeff

That was an excellent article. How uninformed can the Greek people be that even with their country bankrupt and just hoping for a bailout from the Germans their unions are still crying "give me more and soak the 'rich'"? If the rich countries in the EU let them go down, those union boys and girls will see more pain than they can imagine.

For the information of the lefties, the US is also bankrupt and if we do not control federal spending we will be just another Greece. And if you think things cannot get worse, just let the US equity markets fall and stay down for some time. If that happens, all of those rich pension plans the state and local governments bought votes with will be insolvent. Will that drive US citizens to the streets? Hummmmmm.

0

Glenn Little II 4 years, 9 months ago

It allready has Chuck take your head out of your anus and look around.. Of course things will get worse. So don't be so worried about the numbers becuase your money means nothing. Only the strongest will survive. Not the richest! Do you have all of the survival gear to live outside yet? I do and I'm am prepared to do it.. It's called the boyscout motto "Prepare for the worst and hope for the best!" We are not in Europe so let's not try to compare 50 different states to Greece. Maybe you should think about what you are going to do when you go to the streets? Who are you anyway some tourist/gaper up here just to waste there time at there second home they stay at one week out of the year.. There are plenty of places to live but too many rich idiots that are spending money they don't have. You are just like them, everybody wants something for nothing!

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 9 months ago

Well Chucky,

It's time to find a leader the country will listen to. Someone with ideas, and the qualities that make people want to go out and vote. If your party would present someone other than Sarah Palin, and someone with concrete ideas, then you might be on your way. The Road Map, well you cry babies went over the top about Medicare cuts in the Health Reform bill, but this Road Map that Republicans are all excited about, because finally a well thought out plan is presented, cuts Medicare and Social Security. WTF!

"If hypocracy was a virus, we'd all be dead."

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

sep, As my personal forum cop I am surprised you can't see the difference between a Texas drawl and an idiot who does not know the difference from a dead body and and a member of the Armed Forces of which he presides over as the Commander in Chief. But that's just me I guess. I do believe I have spent thousands of key strokes explaining a multitude of other problems I have with our POTUS. But maybe I shall take your advice and ignore the lefts goofy antics in the attacks at Sarah Palin and the written ques she had on her palm, especially when I have made little or no mention about Obama's extreme difficulties in speaking without his dueling teleprompters. So in summary my friend, I find it a little more than just a speech impediment but more along the lines of ignorance with regards to Obama's mispronunciation of the Corpsmen and Women of the US Military which he did on more than one occasion. Thank you again for your concern.

0

Chuck McConnell 4 years, 9 months ago

Skifreelivelove,

WOW, we are not Europe, we are 50 states? You are right and one of those states is California with a budget shortfall larger than the PIIGS countries combined. Add in NY and Mi. and you are talking some real money. And no, I'm not a tourist/gaper, I'm a year around resident. I've got an idea for you, go out and get your first job and see what the rest of us have experienced....paying taxes, meeting payrolls, etc. Work is much more rewarding than the dole. You resorted to foul language and no sign of intelligent debate ... typical leftist strategy. Why not at least comment on the horrible budget excesses your guy o is proffering .. not to mention his SOUS power grab? And, oh yeah, you deprocate the rich ... what about that job, bro. Maybe you too could be rich some day.

jmmmmmmm

You cohorted me with those presenting only Sarah Palin as conservative spokesperson and you have no basis for that. There are a number of intelligent, reasonable conservatives who will likely rise to the top of the Republican ticket. Why do you profile me? My hope is that we and the other party present practical candidates with real life experience and success and not simply a fairly well spoken, community orginizer "rock star".

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 9 months ago

The problem is Chuck, Sarah has been thrown into the media machine, and is the most recognizable Republican. You may not want to admit it, but she has become the voice for the conservative rebublican movement, and it's shocking. I wasn't suggesting that she is the Republican's only potential candidate, I was suggesting that it would be good for your party to silence her-seriously. I, like a lot of people, have voted Republican in the past, and have no problems doing so in the future. What people like me are looking for is someone to break out of the pack, to formulate and present/communicate good ideas. Also, like many people in this country, could care less about Republican/Democrat labels, and vote for who would lead best, and actually get something done. The current political environment is ridiculous-let's obstruct and trash every decision made by the current President (only in public-to ensure re-election), regardless of what might be good for the country. You've got Republicans in congress trashing the Stimulus Bill, then taking credit for positive results. You've got guys like Jon 'Mr. Spray Tan' Boehner whining about the lack of transparency, then when offered the opportunity to debate health care with the camera's rolling, suddenly doesn't want transparency anymore. You've got policy that was originated by Republicans, but as soon as Obama endorsed it, they've flipped positions. Admit it, it's all about obstruction right now.

All I'm saying is, I, like many people, welcome a candidate with good ideas, can communicate those ideas, and has the balls to get something done. I'll vote for that person, regardless of the party affiliation. Just get the knucklehead out of the way.

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

jimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Are you for the principles that the new populist movement is for? 1. Limited Government 2. Strong National Defense 3. Low taxes 4. Free market Capitalism 5. Individual rights and responsibilities

If not, and you are a progressive who is after social justice and things like Government run Health care and bailouts of Automakers and redistribution of wealth then I would say your best chance at a Republican that somewhat resembles your criteria was John McCain. Your determination that Sarah Palin for example is a bad candidate is meaningless at this point. The election of Scott Brown in the bluest State and the seat he took that was Ted Kennedy's should give you some pause. Don't underestimate the Woman, she won against the machine in AK and defeated the power of Big Oil with a transparent process that brought great things to Alaskans. Take a look at what is happening in Greece and Europe and decide if that is the model of what we should be or follow because that is where we are headed. And as far as Obama extending an olive branch and Boehner not wanting transparency, time will soon show that it was a ploy and that Obama and Pelosi are planning to use the nuclear option to pass the Senate version of the Bill. I will be back about that in the coming weeks or days as it hits the media. If Obama was serious and listened to the 61% of Americans who say to scrap the existing Bills and start over then the Repubs would jump on board for the things that will work, Tort reform;Portability;HSA's;Interstate competition etc. But not the Socialist model.

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

Who didn't know that jimmmmmmmmmmmmm, one mans knucklehead is anothers best hope for the preservation of this great Country under the Constitution as was designed by the Founders. I can see the future and it looks as if Tina Fey will have another gig in a year or so.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

seeuski:

Yep. It's just you. So many legitimate and substantive issues to challenge the President on, and you latch on to the stunningly trivial. It was petty and childish when 43 was the target, and is no less so with 44 in the cross-hairs. We're supposed to be better than that. You and your ilk make it very difficult to stake that claim.

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

Pretty petty there sep, love you and your ilk right back bro. I will follow your opinions much more closely from here on out as you must be the maven.

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

windle, Do we still have 57 States? Or as Biden is now claiming, the Obama Administration is responsible for the great changes that are now happening in Iraq. And as of now Sarah Palin is not a candidate for 2012 unlike when Obama announced his candidacy nearly the day after he became a junior Senator from Illinois.

0

Routt_County_Guy 4 years, 9 months ago

Hey Seeyoufalldown, at least half of your dozen posts keep referring to President Obama's 1 or 2 misstatements. I don't know if you've been smoking dope or just drunk that you can't remember what you wrote in your previous comments, because I believe you've mentioned those same mistakes about 6 times now. For crying out loud, there's a whole book written about all the stupid statements that Bush made, otherwise known as Bushisms. Also we are starting to feel sorry for you, it seems like your whole life revolves around sending a multitude of comments to the Steamboat Pilot...... One more closing thought regarding the GOP's "new hope", Sarah Palin, maybe you've heard this one before......you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig!

0

sledneck 4 years, 9 months ago

They are right See. I will be president before Palin. She will guarantee a democrat victory. Her speech at the Tea Party the other day did not impress me one little bit.

0

jimmmmmm 4 years, 9 months ago

Seeuski,

Sounds like your interviewing me for your club, The Yampa Valley Freedom Fighters. Yes, those are all desirable principals (1-5), but if you haven't noticed, Obama walked into quite a mess, and the country might have to 'suck it up' for a while, and accept larger gov't, higher taxes, etc. Look, you believe in a strong national defense-great, so do most people. It's okay to send our boys off to fight and die for WMD's, and Al Queda in Iraq, but as soon as someone asks you to step up and pay your share, well that's socialist, Maoist, Marxist, Chavez style government. I have a different outlook on those types of things. If your willing to send my boys off to fight and die for our freedoms, then I'm willing to raise your taxes to help pay for it. Hey, I'll be paying them too; I look at it as our duty to the country. Not only do our soldiers have a duty, but all the citizens as well. Let's be honest-your above basic principals of your 'populist' movement would be just fine if the current economic situation wasn't dictating politics. But the reality is, I don't care who get elected to office, these things need to be paid for.

I liked McCain-until he brought on Palin. He blew it with that pick, admit it. I actually wanted McCain to get the nod back in 2000. Palin is dumbing down your party, and the American people are realizing that. She's not impressing many people anymore Seeuski.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021004708.html

0

Jeff_Kibler 4 years, 9 months ago

Sorry, above link doesn't work from steamboatpilot.com.

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

We shall see how it all shakes out over the next year or so and rather than arguing with the entrenched left I am moving on from this push and pull as it is doing no one here much good. Why would anyone try to argue with jimmmmmmmmmmmm as he obviously is right in his anti war rant and all the ills of this world surely start and end with one man, GW Bush. Heck, 9/11 was an inside job designed by Bush right? And no terrorism occurred while Clinton was President, or did it? 93 WTC ring a bell, or OK city, or the Cole, or Kohbar Towers. I would say that Bush inherited a recession and then shortly thereafter the attacks on 9/11 but he never spent one word blaming the previous administration as Obama does everyday. But you people go and enjoy the koolaid and hold on to those progressive ideals as your numbers continue to dwindle. America is waking up and seeking more Conservative leaders that they can believe in, not the smooth talking Ideologues and Progressives that want to "fundamentally change" America to a Socialist state that offers the idea of some unnatural and unattainable happyland where everyone has everything provided by Big Brother. Without the Tea Party movement and the Conservative election victories to date so far, and the ones to follow, this Country would surely fall into the abyss of full Economic failure. I am against that and will vote for those people that will truly act with the Constitution as their guide and not for some crazies who condemn that document as flawed. It does not require a Harvard or Ivy League Elitist to make common sense Conservative decisions and govern the people with the intent of properly adhering to the laws of the land. And that is why Sarah Palin appeals to me and to the dismay of the left and many of my fellow forum posters here she has a huge following in this Country. I wish you all well in the coming elections and go USA in 2010 games. Goodnight.

0

seeuski 4 years, 9 months ago

And one last thing to jimmmmmmmmmmmmmm, The chance that you would have voted for McCain with some other VP candidate as his running mate is probably the most disingenuous claim that you have made to date. Love it.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

The President: I Don't Need A Warrant To Spy On You Via Your Cell Phone; You Have No 4th Amendment Protection Against Being Shadowed By Big Brother http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html

The administration argues "that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts."

Golly, that sounds like a policy that could only have emerged from the bowels of the vile Sith Lord Darth Rove and his meat puppet Chimpy McBushHitler.

I confess to being interested in our resident civil libertarian, trump_suit's, take on it. Also, Jewel v. NSA http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf , wherein the President asserts, among many other things, that the Feds can never be held accountable for violations of federal privacy statutes.

0

kathy foos 4 years, 9 months ago

Im wondering if Sarah Palin was put into position that she was,simply because of her sex,she has no intelligence it seems.The tea party is stupid to try her out.What a bimbo and severe disapointment that the tea party could make such a mistake also,Maybe people think that someday she would be capable, in some form ,of battling Hillary,not.I dont even like Hillary,but she is way smarter than Sarah Palin,I would have to vote for Hillary over ding bat Sarah.We do have women in this country that have a brain,where are you out there?Ann Coulter?She is mean,but that would be an asset, if there is some intelligence involved.Sarah if you can hear me,please go back to Alaska now.Geraldine Ferraro went away when the time came,you never deserved to run for vice president and just go home.Its just annoying with the troubles in this country,that she is our fresh new face .

0

trump_suit 4 years, 9 months ago

trump has the same viewpoint on illegal wiretapping regardless of who does it. This is a violation of our individual right to privacy.

What about it Tea Party? Add this to your platform and denounce what the Bush administration did here as well and I might just jump in with both feet. This issue of personal privacy rights and Gov't intrusion into our electronic communications is scary. Where do we draw the line?

0

trump_suit 4 years, 9 months ago

PS. You too Chuck,,, Where is that line between our consitutional right to privacy and the need to protect our country from our enemies that want to use these rights against us? By allowing freedom of communication, we also open ourselves up to the dangers of not knowing what might be in the planning stages.

Where is that line ChuckMc. Where would you draw it?

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

Interesting, though, how 44 seems to be spared the rhetorical broadsides you constantly lob at 43 for the same infractions.

0

JLM 4 years, 9 months ago

Funny thing about "wire tapping" is that there are no "wires" involved. Works like this.

NSA --- which possesses the largest supercomputer farm in the world --- develops a set of words --- the "model" --- which have the highest probability of being used by folks who are involved in some kind of skullduggery.

NSA then cross references these words with originating and terminating area codes or countries of origin and times of day and languages and other discreet criteria (e.g. the number of calls made by a phone number in a 24-hour period).

This matrix --- selected, targeted words, area codes, countries of origin, times of day, languages and other criteria --- is overlaid over phone conversations which occur in the ether. Cell phone calls are, at the end of the day, just radio signals. That's why the issue of "expectation of privacy" is relevant. You will lose every argument if you expect radio transmissions to be private.

When they get a hit or two, they then use a follow up regimen to peer deeper and begin to develop a network of phone numbers called, phone numbers those callers called and cross reference that with known trouble spots physically and phone numbers.

All of this is done automatically and no human is involved. Then they go back automatically and look at the database of all relevant calls --- yes, they store all phone calls for years and years and years --- applying and re-applying more and more complex algorithms which continue to concentrate and increase the probability that something is amiss. Still no humans involved yet.

Only when they reach a threshold of certainty that is very, very high does a human get involved and the first thing they do is to reapply the entire matrix, model and algorithm to check, double check and re-check the conclusions --- again done by computers/software and nobody has even yet listened to the content of any calls.

Once this is done, that is the first time that any human actually has the possibility of listening to the actual word content of a phone call.

This is why many do not see this as any great intrusion into the privacy expectations of an American citizen. Damn few calls ever get beyond computer scrutiny. BTW, it is worth noting that the NSA listens to all phone calls in the world even beyond our shores, in particular beyond our shores.

The actual triggering hit rate on the model is reportedly measured in hundred millionths of a percent. That is just the hit rate. So, there is really no wholesale intrusion into your privacy --- perceived, legal or otherwise --- in this program.

Now, if you are calling Osama Bin Laden to wish him a happy birthday, you may have a problem.

0

ybul 4 years, 9 months ago

Sarah Palin probably represents nothing whatsoever with the original tea party movement. Her appearance in the movement is probably an attempt of the PTB to regain control or discredit a movement that is/was gaining momentum.

It crosses party lines and is against the philosophies that wire/radio wave tapping fans espouse in addition to the philosophies of the universal health care rubbish/socialist agenda.

It is a movement about restoring personal liberties and injecting some sanity into our current world.

0

JLM 4 years, 9 months ago

Once upon a time, folks joined a political party and became involved in the development of that party's "platform". The platform was a statement of that party's core beliefs and provided enlightenment as to how it intended to govern. This governing philosophy and governing principles were the end result of the process. And, then, hell everybody just forgot about them.

Today folks are vexed and irked and just plain pissed off.

The Tea Party phenomonen is just that --- a new approach toward politics.

The Tea Party folks have developed their own governing philosophy and governing principles and are not particularly keen about joining a formal party.

The Tea Party folks have put the "idea" before the party. In the past, the party was joined and then the ideas were developed.

This is exactly the approach that our Founding Fathers took when they coalesced around fundamental principles, rights and beliefs --- freedom, personal liberty, pursuit of happiness >>> resulting in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights amongst other significant documents.

Ideas trump meaningless party affiliations. This is the lesson of the Founding Fathers that is being re-learned. The political system is going to rehab. Just like Tiger @ sexual misbehavior rehab, the political system is undergoing a return to basic values.

Politicians ignore the power of the ideas of the Tea Partiers at their own electoral peril.

Most important thing is that the intellectual power of these ideas is exactly what created this country. Great ideas. Ideas always trump labels.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

Even labels like 'stoner' or 'pothead'? Because a good number of the founding forefathers grew cannabis. And now you get to go on your BS rant about how they just used it for industrial purposes. Go ahead, do it.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

And does 'freedom, personal liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' not apply to those that choose to involve cannabis in their pursuit to freely enjoy their personal liberties?

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

I'm confused, were the men that founded this country hypocrites? Did they freely enjoy cannabis while intending for the rest of us to be deprived of the very same right(s)? Is that really what you and the DEA would have us thinking Americans believe? Something smells of manure here...

0

ybul 4 years, 9 months ago

MMJ, At what point did cannabis become illegal? Answer that and your question will be answered. Then just see those that pushed for the legislation and their ties to industry.

I believe the tea party is about freedom to make ones decisions no matter the impact they have on you, the consequences they have for you, as long as they have no negative impact on others and their property. Somethings were so abused that morality needed, drinking and driving as the probability of your actions killing are to great. Smoking in a restaurant, as others have no choice as to wether they smoke also, so you are taking something from someone else without recourse.

I highly suggest reading "the Law" by Batist. It should be required reading in college.

0

JLM 4 years, 9 months ago

@ mmj ---

Everything in the real world does not revolve around your smoking pot. Get over yourself and your pot-centric ego. Surely you have some intellectual curiousity about something in the world other than smoking pot and getting high.

You are certainly entitled to the "pursuit of happiness" --- not actually catching happiness, mind you, but just the pursuit --- in any way that YOU desire to pursue it.

However, that does not imply that you are entitled to violate the law or to be immune to punishment under the law in the course of your pursuit. We are after a society of laws not men.

Rant on, mmj.

0

JLM 4 years, 9 months ago

@ mmj ---

Come on, mmj. Get real.

The Founding Fathers were not a bunch of pot heads as you try to imply (lie?). I am sure that if the FF were, in fact, enjoying pot, as you fantasize, they would be saving some for you. Of course, they lived a bit earlier than you, so the logistics would have been a bit messy.

"Did they freely enjoy cannabis while intending for the rest of us to be deprived of the very same right(s)?"

Simple, direct, truthful answer --- NO.

BTW, in addition to not being able to hold the jocks of the Founding Fathers, smoking pot is not a RIGHT except in your twisted single note view of the world.

Pot is not at the center of the universe for normal folks. Get a life.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

ybul- I'd love to re-hash what I know about the history of the cannabis prohibition. However, maybe your questions can be answered by some of my other posts on here. Feel free to browse through my comment history for some bedtime reading.

JLM- Maybe you need to get over the FACT that the citizenry of THIS state voted to give me the RIGHT to access marijuana as medicine. Honestly, it's not that the vote finally allowed me to live the glorious life of potheaded-ness that I'd always dreamed of. All that Amendment 20 did was allow me to live legally. I have just as much of a right to tell you how to live your life, as you do mine. I have NEVER hurt a soul in the pursuit of my own personal happiness with cannabis and it would be WAY beyond my normal nature to act in such a manner. And that's not to mention the enormous pacifying effect that my medication has. I'd love to hear your explanation of how a non-violent person, suddenly, becomes violent when introduced to a substance that is widely known as something that pacifies the violent. Just like I told your buddy aich, methinks you're still just all butt-hurt about it finally being available to those that choose cannabis over all the other junk out there. Pot not might be at the center of your universe but maybe it allows others to have a life of their own.

0

JLM 4 years, 9 months ago

@ mmj ---

DEA Agent Enrique Camarena Salazar, his wife and three children paid a huge price to allow you to engage in what was illegal behavior.

Pot is not a harmless pursuit.

While you did not personally wield the chain saw which chopped Kiki Camarena to pieces, your money in that illegal system took his life, made his wife a widow and made his children fatherless.

Pot is flavored with blood.

Deal with it.

Criminal activity creates greater criminal behavior. Small crimes aggregate into larger crimes. People get hurt, good people get killed. There is no such thing as an innocent crime.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

Excuse me sir. My money is in the legal system. Don't you even dare try to put someones blood on my hands! Shame on you! You would be floored to know how much of the cannabis in this country DOESN'T come from Mexico. What in the hell do you think is the driving force behind the black market for marijuana? Do you think all of the stoners are to blame? Or is it the ones that perpetuate the illegality of the substance, and therefore push it into the black markets, into the shadows? I want you to tell me what violent crime could possibly be committed by someone that's growing and smoking their own cannabis? How does that hurt anyone? Why doesn't everyone have the right to avoid the black market all together and find their own, self-sufficient means of propagating their own supply of marijuana, in the privacy of their own homes? Tell me who gets hurt there.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

***You trying to push some of the blame for those deaths on me, ..... was what was meant.

0

kathy foos 4 years, 9 months ago

ybul,can you please explain to me what the PTB is?

0

JLM 4 years, 9 months ago

@ mmj ---

The market for illegal marijuana like any economic market is driven by demand. If demand dries up or is otherwise tempered, supply will naturally follow the same course.

Kiki Camarena was butchered in the 1970s and mmj was "legalized" the next century. The money spent on illegal marijuana --- by you and others --- wielded those chainsaws that chopped him to pieces through the expenditure of their money in buying illegal marijuana.

Deal with it.

We are a Nation of laws not men. Marijuana is currently illegal. To rant against the wisdom of that policy is not justification for breaking the law regardless of how satisfying that exercise may be.

If you don't like it, then change the law but until the law changes abide by it or risk the consequences.

BTW, why should I abide by the speed laws when there is no traffic on the highway? I am not endangering anybody. I can drive safely at 10-15 miles per hour above the speed limit. I am not hurting anybody, am I?

Belay the nonsense and obey the law.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

ybul- If I had a clue what 'PTB' meant, I'd love to help ya.

JLM- Well, I suppose it's a good damn thing that I didn't buy any marijuana last century. I'm not that old and 99.99% of my activities with cannabis have taken place after 2000. And I don't see what the hell your problem is. I'm abiding WELL within the bounds of Colorado state law and my activities hurt NO ONE(not even through extrapolating 6 degrees of separation). I do not associate myself with morons that do stupid things. In every aspect of life, every pocket of society and every social group there are idiots. I'm sure that some of the people you know are idiots, just like everyone else knows a few idiots. And do you honestly think that a black market would still exist if it were legalized? I mean, that's kinda the whole premise behind a market being dubbed 'black'. If it failed to be illegal, who in the hell would utilize the black market? Wouldn't people peacefully pursue means of obtaining this herb if it were perfectly legal for them to do so? Or do you think that people would just start shooting, raping and robbing each other for the hell of it? Tell me, am I supposed to be ranting in FAVOR of a drug policy that was borne out of nothing but racist lies? I think not. Tell me, what's so great about our current federal drug policy? Do you think it's honestly a good investment? What has it achieved, really?

Belay the BS and face reality!

0

sledneck 4 years, 9 months ago

If the law wants respect the law must be respectable. I celebrate people who ignore stupid laws passed or supported by little would-be Napoleons.

If the law assumes it can steer free men withersoever it will then "the law is an ass... an idiot"! Men should be, indeed we ARE free to drink, smoke, grow, eat, etc any damn thing we want. Those who presume to rule us by majority, volume, shame or other means are misguided. Those who allow themselves to be ruled by fools are fools themselves.

Mindless following of rules makes rulers more powerful. Thoughtful selection and disregard of stupid rules weakens them and those who would rule otherwise free men.

Now everyone go out and break some stupid rules today... and let them see you do it!

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

sledneck-

Not that you're out to impress anyone, but I'm impressed. You sound like a patriot, and not the type that thinks simply putting a flag up gets the job done. It's attitudes like yours that give this country a fighting chance.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I agree with sledneck's rant with one caveat: mj laws may or may not be stupid. I'll leave the wailing over that to our resident zealots, JLM & mmjPatient22.

But as long as the laws are on the books, and authorities choose to enforce them, there's nothing to whine about if you get caught. Ya plays the game, ya takes yer chances. If you think becoming a martyr will advance the cause, take sledneck's advice, "and let them see you do it!" If martyrdom ain't your glass of whiskey, and you'd prefer not to get busted for use/possession/sale of a controlled substance - don't use/posses/sell a controlled substance. Disagree with the legal restrictions? Get involved & work to change/remove the relevant statutes. Until then, all this caterwauling = sound & fury signifying nothing.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

ybul- So you're asking me to explain what/who the current authority is on...?

Sep- On an obscure tangent, has anyone ever told you how much of a resemblance you bear to Ceasar Milan, the Dog Whisperer? Seriously, you look like kin, at the least. Oh, and 'caterwauling',...good word. Ya don't hear that one all too often.

Back on topic, to which laws are you referring? Are we talking state or federal? Because I live in Colorado, where the law(more importantly, our state constitution) says it's just fine for me to use/possess cannabis. I qualify and I decided to enjoy the right that the voters of my home state chose to give me. I don't even grow my own plants yet(stress on the yet). That being said, I would thoroughly enjoy being given the opportunity to become some sort of poster child for the fight against ridiculous federal drug policy. The feds got nothing on me because I'm not doing anything. The only thing that they'd accomplish by coming after some lowly mmjPatient like me, would be embarrassing the hell out of themselves. As far as me being involved, what in the hell do you think I'm doing on here? Not that I'm out to be an annoyance but who else on here is as 'vocal' about cannabis advocacy as yours truly? Yeah, there are plenty of supporters on this site but I've logged some serious numbers of comments on these comment boards. If I've been boring everyone, I'd gladly do my soap-boxing somewhere else. I find most of this to be highly entertaining and the intellectual challenge that SOME of you present is fun as well. I hope I'm not the only one that's enjoying most of these comment boards and I don't think that I am. There is nothing as valuable in this country as a good variety of opinions and viewpoints. But like I said, if the readers on this site gather majority support for me shutting the hell up, I just might consider obliging.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

mmjPatient22:

Re: your obscure tangent - yep, I have been told that. Also, that I resemble Tim the Tool Man's sidekick from that sitcom. I'd rather look like Brad Pitt or a male model, but you can't win 'em all.

As far as what laws I'm referring to, presumably the same ones U.S. Attorney David Gaouette enforced when he busted Chris Bartkowicz in Highlands Ranch yesterday http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/02/marijuana_grower_chris_bartkow_1.php . Federal law trumps local statutes and state constitutions every day of the week - and twice on Sunday. And even though the Obama administration has stated publicly that it's not interested in enforcing Federal law in this regard, that sentiment doesn't obligate state & local officials - never mind ITS OWN D.E.A. - to comply.

The culture & society may be trending towards the utopian tokesville you're arguing for, but it's not there yet. I don't begrudge you your indulgence. But if you get busted for it, I'll have no sympathy for you, either.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

Like I said, I really don't have to worry about the DEA. They're not interested in people like me. I don't do anything. I'm not some drug trafficker or dope peddler. I'm just a medical marijuana patient. There's no need for them to bust me and no one else could even remotely care. One the other side of the same coin, no one cares about your, or anyone else's, sympathy or approval. It's not about getting sympathy or approval. Mostly, the hopeful future residents of tokesville just want to be left the hell alone and be able to peacefully do whatever they want without fear of being tossed in jail. It's just that simple. No one is calling for cannabis to handed out to your children at recess. No one is saying that people shouldn't be punished for acting in a harmful manner(whether under the influence of anything or not). We just want to be left alone. Change the laws.

0

ybul 4 years, 9 months ago

Not asking you to explain anything. Kind of got the impression you thought the founding fathers thought pot should be illegal. Though you comments about them smoking it probably make that not true. Just was suggesting that pot is illegal because paper mills did not want trees to have to compete with hemp. Which they can't for paper production.

Sep, Federal law should not trump state law except as designated by the constitution. Smoking pot has no relevance as far as the constitution is concerned. There really is no grounds for the feds to be regulating it. ND or Montana is suing the feds for the ability to grow industrial hemp as they do commercially in Canada, so why not in the states?

The feds need to get out of just about everything they have their hands in. If you want to get the country back on track and most do. Take the deciding power back from the federal level and return it to the states. That way corporations have no ability to control everything. Throw lawsuit after lawsuit at the feds questioning the constitutionality of all they do and stop the insanity coming from DC. If the lobbiests need to operate in every state they will not be able to push their agenda as they do today. Moving decisions on the the UN as they are trying to go will make it that much harder for the individual to have any say.

Bring the deciding power back to the local level! MMJ stop your ranting about something that is not going to accomplish a darn thing on this board. File a constitutional lawsuit at the DEA's ability to regulate THC.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

mmjPatient22:

I'm pleased the D.E.A. is "not interested in people like [you]." Law enforcement, at the federal, state, and local levels, are equally uninterested in people like me. Your concern for Mr. Bartkowicz's conflict with applicable drug statutes is identical to my concern for any that you might be confronted with: non-existent.

You say that you "would thoroughly enjoy being given the opportunity to become some sort of poster child for the fight against ridiculous federal drug policy."

Fine - put your money your mouth is. Here's a suggestion: set up a lawn chair at the Spring Creek trail head, across from the high school. Roll a couple joints and blaze away; all in service to the medical exemption that entitles you to use . I'll make sure SBPD is apprised, and we can see for ourselves which statutes - local, state, or federal - our resident gendarmes choose or enforce or ignore. If they ignore them all, you've proven your point. If any of them are enforced, there's your opportunity to become the "poster child" you aspire to be. Sounds like a win-win, to me.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

Maybe I didn't communicate clearly enough. I'm not out to go act illegally, at least within regards to Colorado state law. I'm not some ignorant, disrespectful punk that acts a fool to stir the pot(no pun intended). I'm not out to pick a fight either. All that I was implying was that I would cherish the opportunity to face unjustifiable perse/prose-cution, in spite of acting well within the bounds of state law. If you think I'm going to go park a lawn chair near ANY school and proceed to medicate, you obviously don't have the slightest clue as to what kind of character I possess. Just because my medication is illegal at the federal level doesn't mean that I'm some degenerate, law-breaking criminal that's a waste of societal resources. Get real man.

And please don't call SBPD for any real emergencies. You might get a little more of what you're looking for by contacting the SSPD.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

On a more serious note, here's some cancer treatment that could use a little more publicity and research. I, for one, would be honored to donate of my time, among other things...

http://current.com/items/92164468_semen-therapy-swallowing-semen-is-good-for-your-health.htm

0

blue_spruce 4 years, 9 months ago

okay, mmj guy, obviously you either own or are affiliated with one of the dispensaries in town. good for you. now stop hijacking every post on the pilot with you advertising!

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

blue- I am not the owner, employee, or advertising agent for any dispensary in town. I am a medical marijuana patient and, hence, I use one of the dispensaries in town. The only thing I'm advertising is how ludicrous the federal drug laws are in this country. And since we're ALL entitled to the first amendment right to freedom of speech, I'll tell ya what; I won't tell you what to do, you don't tell me what to do. I would hardly call it hijacking anyway. Maybe most of you have a difficult time arguing with me, but I am in no way hijacking these comment boards. Most of you anti-pot types are completely ignorant of the rich history that cannabis has on this planet. Cannabis is one of the most benevolent, ancient, natural medicines known to man and its use has been well documented for thousands of years.

And FYI, my 11:02 pm post was mostly just a joke. Lighten up a bit. Did you even click the link or are you just blindly belligerent towards professed tokers?

0

kathy foos 4 years, 9 months ago

thanks ybul,the powers that be, its really discouraging that a majority of Americans want less influence to political campaigns from corperations,and some how there is that bill ready to pass to give even more rights to them as long as they are American owned.Thats just bad and out of control.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

mmjPatient22 writes:

"...you obviously don't have the slightest clue as to what kind of character I possess. "

Lucky for me. If your contributions here are any indication, your character is likely to be kind of a bore. I ignore the mj threads because I find them tedious. You're constantly banging your single-issue drum - look at me toke! look at me toke! - and snarling at those with the temerity to disagree (I note that your post calling someone here an S.O.B. was deleted). You claim you yearn to a "poster child" in opposition to mj laws; you slobber all over sledneck's post urging you to "let them see you do it!" and then get your knickers in a twist when it's suggested you commit a misdemeanor in service to your little crusade. That I connected the dots you lined up isn't my problem. It's yours.

By the way - aren't there, like, 2 or 3 active mj threads here already? Is it really necessary to hijack an unrelated discussion so you can prosecute your little jihad?

You think mj laws are odious, and that everyone should be able to get baked. We GET it, dude. Really.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

Dr. K chimes in with one of his best efforts yet: http://article.nationalreview.com/425416/ungovernable-nonsense/charles-krauthammer?page=1

"In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was simply too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president’s own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.

Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared.

The tyranny of entitlements? Reagan collaborated with Tip O’Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century.

A corrupted system of taxation? Reagan worked with liberal Democrat Bill Bradley to craft a legislative miracle: tax reform that eliminated dozens of loopholes and slashed rates across the board — and fueled two decades of economic growth.

Later, a highly skilled Democratic president, Bill Clinton, successfully tackled another supposedly intractable problem: the culture of intergenerational dependency. He collaborated with another House speaker, Newt Gingrich, to produce the single most successful social reform of our time, the abolition of welfare as an entitlement.

It turned out that the country’s problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn’t. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills, and an ideological compass in tune with the public’s, the country was indeed governable."

It gets better from there.

0

sledneck 4 years, 9 months ago

Sep, Your point is well made that leadership makes the difference. Some have it. Some don't. We agree.

However, to say that the intractable problem of intergenerational dependance has been tackled is a stretch. Yes Clinton, to his credit addressed the issue as best he could but Americans are currently more dependant on government than at any time I can remember... and it saddens me deeply.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

Dr. K didn't say it was solved. He said it was tackled, and he's right. The reality is that nothing would ever have been attempted, had not the Gingrich insurgency (read: PARTISANSHIP) dragged the Clinton administration kicking & screaming into an initiative it would otherwise never have touched with a 10 light-year pole.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

Dog Whisperer- Pardon me for making a relevant point. The FACT that many of the founding forefathers grew(and most likely altered their mental states with) cannabis is somewhat relevant to a discussion about a foundational document that they created and dedicated their lives(and our country) to. Or am I not allowed to partake in a conversation without mentioning or referring to cannabis in any way, shape or form?

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

mmjPatient22:

You've had a busy day. Take a breath, call your mommy, and have a good cry.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

Forgive me - that should have been: ROLL A JOINT, call your mommy, and have a good cry.

Or a good laugh. Isn't toking out supposed to make you happy & laid back? Happy happy, joy joy! Nothin' but love for you, mmjPatient22!

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

Sep- So it's, "oh, another stupid pothead that has nothing valuable to offer to society. Let's mock and deride him to see if we can get a rise out of him,"....? Maybe try something original? Maybe try actually having a conversation instead of ignorantly dismissing someone based on a personal choice they make? Or maybe you're just better than me? Maybe you're just too good to talk to someone that uses cannabis?

And PS...I had a very busy day at work and I've medicated plenty already. But hey, why don't you just dismiss me as worthless and dimwitted? Maybe you should consult with aich about some great stoner bashing lingo? Then you could get gold like, "you're a 9 year-old girl," and, "why don't you go get some fresh air?"

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

And man, you must have just been sitting there waiting for me to post something. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? After all, I'm just some stoner.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

mmjPatient22:

Everything you post boils down to: "I SMOKE POT! And THE MAN doesn't want me to! Oh woe is me, WHAT A VICTIM I am! Anyone who disagrees with any aspect of my pot-based worldview is a doody head (or a 'Dog Whisperer', in what you presumably believe to be an Ultra-Sophisticated-Erudite-Adult validation of grade-school name-calling. I'm hurt. Really.). And as far as "just been sitting there waiting for me to post something", I note that you waited a whopping 4 minutes to breathlessly post a riposte to my last missive, LOFrickinL! Hypocrite much, mmjPatient22?

You've clearly not bothered to read (assuming your reading comprehension skills are superior to that of a kindergartner) my own take on YOUR issue: I don't give a rip that you toke. I think you should be able to, without looking over your shoulder for Big Bro. I don't give a rip if you and Michael Jackson's chimpanzee are wallowing in a swimming pool full of cocaine. If it doesn't affect me or injure the society at large, go ahead and mainline heroin, or vanilla extract, or Ovaltine, or whatever makes your putter flutter. If The Man has erected obstacles to your pursuit of Ovaltine-induced happiness, then avail yourself of the constitutionally-provided remedies and make some changes (here’s a hint: anonymously labeling an anonymous foil a ‘Dog Whisperer’ probably won’t get you there, LOL). People do it all the time. In fact, we’re doing it now. I use “WE” deliberately: I spent 6 hours on Wednesday attending a mmj seminar; acquainting myself with the relevant statues & penalties re: the production & sale of medical marijuana. Which has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.

I could try to explain that to you, but I suspect you lack the horsepower to wrap your remaining brain cells around the concept.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

Johah Goldberg weighs in: http://article.nationalreview.com/425445/pick-an-excuse-any-excuse/jonah-goldberg?page=1

Jonah Goldberg

February 19, 2010 12:00 A.M. Pick an Excuse, Any Excuse

"Remember that great scene from the Oscar-robbed classic The Blues Brothers? Jake and Elwood (John Belushi and Dan Akroyd) are finally cornered by Jake’s former fiancée (Carrie Fisher). Jake left her at the altar with 300 guests and the best Romanian caterers in the state waiting.

“You betrayed me!” she exclaims.“No I didn’t. Honest,” Jake explains. “I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn’t have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN’T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!”

This is pretty much how Democrats sound these days. None of their problems are their fault. "

He makes some particularly valid points re: the media's condescending derision of anyone opposed to the Dems, and how we're all 2 stooopid to comprehend the Gift That Is Obama.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

Sep-

First and foremost, epic movie. Good quote.

Secondly, and not to travel down the weary road of semantics(or seblantics for those that know) but it was actually 14 minutes after your comment that I posted mine. And it just so happened to be a coincidence that I got on 14 minutes after your post. Don't flatter yourself, IF you can help it. However, seeing as to how you seem to be trying to use overly obfuscating grammar and vernacular(most likely in an effort to scare your perceived stupid little stoner into silence), I suspect that refraining from flattering yourself is quite the feat for you. Maybe a start would be to see yourself as less of a foil?

Next, you must be another stereotypical, ultra-sensitive musician type because the whole 'Dog Whisperer' thing wasn't intended as a dart aimed at your ego. It was almost a term of endearment but if you want to take offense to it, be my guest. If you'll notice, I'm not usually the one coming up with really cool cut-downs like 'ding-dong' and '9 year-old girl'. Name calling is mostly for little kids and those that find themselves in an agitated state of emotion. Personally and completely irrelevantly, I think the Dog Whisperer is a pretty smart guy. He seems to know his way around people, as well as dogs.

Fourthly and purely out of curiosity, what in the WORLD were you doing at a 6 hour seminar on the legal 'exacts' of the whole marijuana thing? My imagination is reeling but something tells me that the truth is much more entertaining. Logical suppositions would lead most to question your possible involvement with law enforcement of some color.

And lastly, cocaine is idiotic. That stuff can kill you.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

One of the first online forums I frequented (which, like this one, suffered from a lack of moderators) attracted its share of trolls. We eventually came up with our own method of addressing the interlopers: GAZE.

It doesn’t mean anything. It merely acknowledges a troll on board without wasting any time & energy engaging its blather.

Just an idle recollection.

@ mmjPatient22: GAZE.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

Glen Beck’s CPAC speech: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/219858 I’ve not seen his tv show, but if this is any indication, his popularity is understandable. He’s quite a showman, and pretty funny. Lotta one liners, many of which he lobs at the Repubs – ‘it’s not good enough to not suck as hard as the other guy’, which is amusing only because it’s true. Spends about half the speech ripping the GOP.

I wonder if his written notes on the podium are more or less objectionable than Palin’s cards or Obama’s teleprompter?

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

Sep-

Well, since you've got a problem with me exercising my 1st amendment rights on THIS comment board, why don't you buck up and finish the conversation with me on one of the cannabis comment boards? It's not that I think you're scared or anything. I just want to finish the conversation if you're up for it. Take the opportunity to be more than just a big ___ talker and see your points through to the end, whether right or wrong.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

Golly, did the captain turn on the no-commenting sign or something?

0

Chuck McConnell 4 years, 9 months ago

Come to order! Will the meeting please come to order? You, over in the corner smoking that yellowy coloured cig., put that down and come to order.

This is about the constitution and obviation of the move toward executive branch power grabs. 1) MJ is a state issue (see amendment 10).
2)To answer trump_suit, the US gov. should monitor calls between terrorists residing in the US and mid-east contacts -- not the citizenry. 3) Sarah gets a lot of attention because a lot of people like her and a lot do not. Press loves this tension. Why don't you Sarah haters take a turn on ol' Joe Biden. He is the biggest target for verbal eviseration I have ever seen. Go ahead, make fun of him. Even o looks down his nose at that clown.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

MC chuck-

Didn't I extend the insistence of taking the conversation to another comment board? I'm trying to maintain order. Since none of you seem to recognize any place that I might have in the conversation, I'll leave all you constitutionalists alone...for now. However, I gladly welcome everyone's input on the comment boards that I frequent.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

chuckmc:

One quibble re: your 2nd point: Anyone residing in the US and talking to terrorists abroad should be subject of govt surveillance - even if they're citizens, IMO.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 9 months ago

...that is, of coarse, if I'm allowed to post that I agree with you?

0

trump_suit 4 years, 9 months ago

Thanks Chuckmc. For the record I agree.

Did the Bush administration get it right or wrong by bypassing the FISA courts and engaging in surveilance activities without warrants?

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

mmjPatient22:

You’re going to have to wrap whatever brain cells you retain around the reality that my refusal to join your Rainy Day Women #12 and 35 singalong does not constitute an abridgment of your 1st Amendment rights. You remain gloriously free to post whatever you choose.

If CMC offers a remedial civics class, you should consider auditing it.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 9 months ago

Via National Review, a roundup of current polling on Obamacare - support/opposed: http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmJhOGViZmYwYjM3N2VhY2E5YzNlNTU4YTBiNjRhYTM=

Rasmussen: 41/56 Newsweek: 40/49 Public Policy Polling: 39/50 Pew: 38/50 Quinnipiac: 35/54 Ipsos/McClatchy: 37/51 NBC/WSJ: 31/46 CNN: 38/58 NPR: 39/55

Americans seem pretty clear. We want this boondoggle like we want a case of the clap. As the NR staff puts it: "Through the reconciliation talk, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Reid are sending a very important message to the American people: Shut up."

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

(chirp....chirp....chirp) ...said the cricket.

It seems like motivation for your topic has waned, even if slightly.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

Ok, here's one to mark up for the 'on topic' side of things. How about the 4th amendment? We're talking about the Constitution still right? What if you were the victim of a drug smuggling scheme? What if you had to watch your family members(some would call them pets) bear the ultimate price?

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/03/lawsuit_goes_forward_over_deaths_of_two_dogs_in_po.php

If this doesn't infuriate you, maybe you're one of 'them'?

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

How about a poll? Maybe that could liven things up a bit? According to this, roughly 95% of you should agree.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.