The_Dude

Um....you need a thesaurus.

I would feel better with those three too. But I don’t know if Beanes the guy to do that deal. We’re talking both 2018 firsts, both seconds, and next years first to make that climb up the board.

That would be a flawed argument, but that’s not my argument. It’s your fault that you think that’s my argument, not mine. That’s not what I’m doing, jackwagon. 1/3 of the country has a degree. They’re not special. But who’s going beat the tar out of me? We’re on a message board. You can’t touch me. And Tommy, a degree doesn’t make a man smart it just makes him educated. There’s a difference. My business partner is not educated but he’s one of the smartest men I’ve ever met and I’ve met the best and brightest. Oh I LOVE looking down on women — as they’re looking up at me. I freaking love that. That’s the best. But sometimes you gotta remind they’re down there to do a job and to quit making eye contact.

Me neither.

You also have no desire to represent the facts. Tiny, tiny, tiny.

This is EXACTLY why I’ve continually stated you don’t deserve a place at the table with me. Source that. Show where I came in and said, ‘listen boys, I have a 4-year degree so that knowledge equips me to dictate this law should be changed!’ find where I said that... but ya can’t because I NEVER said that. You just now lied by suggesting I said that which isn’t shocking because you’re **** at debating and stupid people always have to resort to insult and lies when they’re too stupid to win a debate based on their knowledge and wit. It’s basically Trump’s strategy. Now what hat you can find is a comment where I said ‘I believe in the accuracy of Wikipedia because I routinely used it for its information and citations while I was going to school.’ Thats a a far cry from the bull **** you’re suggesting. Youve got nothing. You have a tiny woman-sized brain. Tiny.

Who is it funny, and how does it put my ignorance on full display? You’re just saying that because you’re obsessed with me, you can’t win an argument with me, and so you’re just making things up? ’I read you stated something about yourself sir, and that insignificant fact makes you a joke because I don’t like you and I say so!’ oh, Tommy, ?that is fascism. You’ll probably start talking for the entire board soon — that’s typically how these things divolve. ‘Everybody here thinks your a dummy!’ Probably something like that. Or maybe you’ll go back to suggesting I’m a basement dweller in my moms house which actually wouldn’t be so bad because who wants a mortgage?

As a guy who majored in history I gotta say it’s accurate as hell. But the main reason I utilized while going to school was for it’s citations. Wikipedia is VERY well sourced. Im not entirely sure what you’re trying to say because you’re writing above your grade level. If you’re trying to tell me we practice “common law,” then my response is ‘yes, I know.’ See common law pays attention to precedents, intent, and interpretation. With me? So when a new precedent is set that can be used in legal arguments later. So since the Obama administration set new guidance on this law and it went unchallenged a new precedent was set. Tracking? So I did bring that up. Yup. I sure did. Now between you, me, and the fence post I must confess I prefer code law but that’s just because of my obsession with Rome.... And again, friend, Congress did not make marijuana illegal. They did one...it was overturned by the SCOTUS. In the early 70’s congress passed a bad law that allows the government to include the executive branch the authority to place drugs on their scheduling list. It was after that was passed that the Nixon administration added marijuana to the scheduling list. Still with me? So congress did NOT make cannabis illegal, the Nixon administration did. The SCOTUS has never decided to hear a case regarding the issue though obviously there have been requests.

Heres this for your custom, nerd!? Thats how I roll. Because I’m better than you.

“Cannabis could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act Ya see...there. And I don’t want to hear crap about Wikipedia being an unreliable source because I’ve consistently found it to be accurate. The EXECUTIVE BRANCH CAN CHANGE THIS LAW.

This is a message board not an academic journal. I don’t have to source crap. If you think I said something untrue (I didn’t) google it ya lazy oaf. Or ask me, I’ll elaborate further.

Well my undergrad is European history but I dabbled in American history here and there though nothing in the modern era so I’m not an expert but again I know more than you. Jimmy Carter is one of the greatest humans ever — but he’s also one of the worst presidents. But that wasn’t Carters “answer.” It wasn’t a sweater. It was to begin pioneering other forms of energy which is why he had solar panels installed on the White House. Its funny you bring up the iran hostage crisis. Reagan helped extend their stay, did you know? Yeah, they wanted it to look like the Iranians reacted to Reagan’s presidency with respect and fear but it was due to the Reagan administrations meddling. Kinda makes me not get too teary eyed when I think of him getting shot. When I think about how Reagan lied about his war record (cause he never was in a war) I smile when I think about his being shot. Reagan wasn’t a good president and I’d argue he was one of the worst because he failed to remove himself from office when he should have due to his deteriorating mental condition. I mean the man was suffering dementia and consulted with psychics, he infringed upon the privacy of others during the communist witch hunts, he ducked combat in WWII, and lied about liberating/seeing concentration camps when all he did was help make horrible movies while the men went away to fight. So yeah, GREAT man.

About time. They are not our friends. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/06/trump-backs-sen-pauls-plan-to-fund-infrastructure-projects-with-suspended-aid-to-pakistan.html

First, I’m not an economist. I’m a history guy. I’m pursuing an MBA as we speak but I don’t really understand macroeconomics. At least I’m FSR from an expert. Reagan was an abiration. Reagan increased a lot of public sector jobs with government contracts. So a lot of the job growth in the private sector was a result of government spending. That government spending led to an irresponsible amount of money being added to the debt. And it was kinda here that the trickle down economics theory died. The tax breaks did not result in higher wages for the proletariat.

Because in this case the POTUS CAN. He he can have the drug rescheduled and there’s been a clear precedent set on this law being ignored by executive decision. We we practice common law and NOT code law, homey. Your rigid idea of how things work isn’t how things work.

You again with the fascism...my goodness. And yeah, the President can do something about canibis by having it rescheduled. That’s something he can do. Pipe down now.

I won’t be upset if we lose because I never expected this. But to stick it to Marone would be divine.

This is a law that the POTUS could change though. It’ll be handled within 5 years I think it’s safe to say. History won’t look kindly upon those on the wrong side of the debate at the end.

I’m not sure independents and libertarians and a healthy amount of others in legal states will appreciate this. Yes, the law must be dealt with. But im a conservative. People have wrongfully linked Trump to conservatism which is quite wrong, imo. This is not a good look. The majority of voters support legalization. This will not be looked at kindly by the majority of the electorate. The midterms are approaching. Do you see? This isn’t outfoxing Congress — it’s putting republicans in Congress on even shakier ground. Thats why Sessions is an idiot. And Trump. Theyre gonna really derail the conservative movement.

Then maybe you ought be more cognizant of how it could come off. Sincerity can easily be easily be missed on the internet, and rudeness is far more prevalent. Wouldn’t you agree? Theres nothing to “stand down” over as I’ve not accused you of anything. Just pointing out that whether you meant it or not it could be taken as being impolite. Take it or leave it.

Maybe, but the polite thing to do is not call somebody on it.

C’mon...we all know what he meant.

Honestly, this is exactly what I expected ?

Tom, dude are you stoned? I’ce argued on numerous posts in this thread that the SCOTUS should deal with this. I’m not saying it should be ignored. You keep missing that point though I keep clairvointley stating it. The reason I called Sessions an idiot in the post title is because his decision is going to create more animosity towards conservatives and add to the troubles that the Trump administration is already creating in addition to making the caninis industry needlessly have their stocks plummet. On top of that I don’t think you know what fascism is. Ignoring a law isn’t necessarily fascism. Fascism is an authoritarian government bound by nationalism. It’s a complex thing. For example, was Franco Spain fascist? I say yes, others argue against it. And im arguing for liberty, not oppression. So your comment about my promoting fascism is senile. By thanks? Old man, this is the second time I’ve had to correct you on the record and it’s getting tiresome. I NEVER made that point. NEVER. I brought up that it was once made illegal by congress but the SCOTUS overturned it and that’s all I said. I never said under what grounds. If I have to explain things to you multiple times this is going to be very difficult.

Im gonna need more than “owls” to figure out your breadcrumb trail. I know nothing of the DPRK other than we should kill them all and quickly.