The_Dude

Dude, I've wasted my whole day on this nonsense.....I was supposed to get caught up on numerous chores yet I decided this...regrettably. I'm not going fishing for your comments. But, I would like to congratulate you on not living at home with mom. Well done! No, that's just another example of your poor interpretation of what I said. The_Dude believes bad laws should go away. I'd start by removing laws that incriminate a person in a victimless crime and anything unconstitutional. But maybe you need big brother? I don't. I'm a man, and a capable self-sufficient one.

Apparently you've never read their work or you'd know that answer. They'd be enraged about numerous laws on the books and they'd obviously encourage civil disobedience.

Your sarcastic rebuttal is also wrong, Tom. I want liberty and a life free of needless government interference. You may not, but I do. I’ve heard you refer to yourself as a learned man...ever read any Thomas Jefferson? Paine? Adams, maybe? Tell me, how do you think they would react if they could see the nation they started arresting citizens on frivolous charges, imprisoning them, and confiscating their property....how would they react? They’d react like patriotic Americans, and not tired old men who’ve grown soft and accustomed to big brothers violating touch. But you do what you do, guy; and I’ll do what I do. This is at least the 2nd or 3rd time you've insinuated I rely on my mother. Is that the only milestone you've crossed in your life -- not living at home with mom?

Point one out. G’head.

Because what do you think the shift will be from Trump? Mild or drastic? That’s my point. What does that have to do with Sessions? If you can’t figure that out then you don’t deserve a place at the table with me. Tom, you’d need me stoned to win a debate.

No, but I sat out this election. I wouldn’t vote for Trump and I think Hillary should be in jail. I’m a conservative but don’t think I wouldn’t vote for a democrat to oust Trump. There are many like me. And I think he’ll lose the swing states. I think a lot of people didn’t vote because everybody was convinced Hillary would win. Hillary didn’t get the “Obama coalition” to turn out — after 4 years of crap like this I promise you they will. My fear is that after Trump this country will turn into France as a counteraction. That would be a ridiculous statement. That’s why I didn’t say that. But tell me if you notice a trend of the following; Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump. Do ya see it? Do ya? Guess which party will most likely assume the presidency? Every presidents election for the past 30 years is seemingly a reaction to the last and it’s been getting more extreme. Do you not see how Trump will lead to a “democratic socialist” next?

But, back to the real topic and not constitutional law.... Sessions states in his memo that his decision to repeal the Obama administrations guidance was due to "Congress's determination that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that marijuana activity is a serious crime." IF YOURE A CONSERVATIVE YOU OUGHT BE OUTRAGED! Not only is this foolish old man lying, he's hurting conservatism. There IS going to be a backlash over this. The Trump administration is taking stances that the electorate is going to counter so hard against that we'll wake up one day and we'll basically be France. Read the damn tea leaves. This is gonna be bad. This is gonna bring the libertarians to vote for democrats just to get the idiots out of office who support Trump. Trump is NOT a conservative. He's not even a good American. This is bad. This is why Session's is a real idiot. The clap back on this will be deafening.

From what I know of NK I can only suspect China. Damn commies. I can't really go down a rabbit hole with NK because there's not much out there on them.

They're getting it from the Chinese. There can be no doubt. There limited resources and their technological jumps -- its got China all over it. I friggin HATE China. Damn commies.

Have I ever designed a weapons system? Mate, why are you asking a question you know to be no? I'm sure the Chinese have the technology, and so I can't be sure that North Korea does not. That said, I'm ready for a friggin war already. Also, ICBM's, MERV stuff -- not my area. 7.62/5.56 -- that's my area.

congress does not have the authority to make things illegal to maintain as property without cause. BUT it can't apply to gardening now can it?

They've demonstrated enough to show they got a fighters chance of landing a blow. In addition, I'm very suspicious of their receiving help from the Chinese who are NOT our friends and do not desire to be our friends.

When it benefits them financially, yeah. Look at fracking for example -- that's awful but it generates money so it's tolerated.

KOKO, my god, man, I'm not moving the goal posts on ya. You said the federal government has a right to make it illegal due to their authority over trade. I looked at that point and said 'that's a pretty strong point because they do have that power, but does that power give them the right to tell me I can't grow it in my garden for my own use' and you say that's cheating. Flanking your opponent isn't cheating. I'm not changing my argument, I'm just coming at you from another avenue of approach.

So, I can nod my head to that. But here's my issue, I hear people use this to justify pollution. I hate pollution.

NK had nukes but they had not yet completed their ICBM program. It's pretty much there now. I think China gave them help. This is why MacArthur should have been allowed to handle this whole crisis 70 years ago.

1) I brought it up to mention that the ONLY time Congress has weighed in on it that it went away. I think many people do not know that Congress didn't make marijuana illegal. They didn't. They once did, and it got overturned. 2) Correct. But its up to the SCOTUS to hear it. They don't have to if they don't want to and so far they have not allowed a case concerning the injustice to millions to come forward.

Yes, I know. I never said that the SCOTUS did otherwise. I only stated the truth -- the law from the 30's was found to be unconstitutional. I'm arguing that the SCOTUS needs to quit being cowards and weigh in on this issue that is destroying the lives of many...needlessly. Also, Trump supporters, don't you see the clap back that's going to result over this? Further, if I were the governor of a legal state I would call up the Guard to defend my states entrepreneurs from any oppressive government agent that would confiscate their wealth, property, and imprison them by force.

Well, I'll say that I don't know enough to disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists and so I side with them.

OH MY GOD, CLEARLY! Why do you think that's a point? Why do you think that counters my point? If the SCOTUS declared the federal government unable to make marijuana illegal in the 1930's then it wouldn't be illegal today. Yes, I think that's all a point that we can grasp. Clearly. What I'm arguing is that the SCOTUS needs to intervene again. Because the federal government wasn't supposed to have the power to make things illegal all willy-nilly, and with no reason. That's what I'm arguing for, dumbass.

I think we're now in the 'Alex Smith and Mason Rudolph' world. I'd really get to know Mason Rudolph if you don't know who he is. He's got "process" written all over him.

I'm not -- my argument has been consistent. You made a stupid point about why the flower should be illegal and I countered. You say they've a right to make it illegal due to their power of trade. But what about gardening? It's a valid point and you can't answer because you're arguing for something that is absurd. This is not making for a productive work day for me....

I'm quite good at talking for myself. I believe UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws should be struck down. Do ya see how the narrative changes when I talk for myself as opposed to what you state my beliefs are? I'm willing to listen to experts on global warming and accept their peer reviewed findings -- yup. I've never been against tax cuts and never will be if the nation can afford them. I'm conservative which means I believe in things like avoiding debt. I hate debt. I will not support legislation that adds to the debt. Do ya see the difference? You say I hate tax cuts -- not true. I hate debt and dodgy Don's tax bill will increase the debt. As far as energy goes I believe fossil fuels are the past and because climate change is real we need to invest in new technology. Also, 'energy independence,' lol. You know oil is finite, right? Have we hit 'peak oil?' I don't know the report is classified. But I know we wont run out of wind or sunlight for a long time. You argued that the constitution gives the government the right to illegalize gardening. I disagree. Yes.

That's true. There's literally no science to back up its classification as a schedule 1 narcotic and our government is arresting millions of non violent people. HOW CAN THERE BE A CRIME WITH NO VICTIM? Yeah, I dunno. He lost me there too. No. You've no point. You're talking about trade, but what about gardening?

I can prove that climate change is natural and has always been a thing. Ancient Mesopotamian settlements prove this. North Africa proves this. But ya know what I do understand when it comes to science? Simple things like the greenhouse effect. We don't freeze at night when the sun goes down because of the greenhouse effect, right? Again, I'm not a science man. So, if that's true and greenhouse gasses act as an insulator, how then will we not increase the temperature of the earth when we add to the greenhouse gasses? Again, I'm not a science man. But it seems simple to me. What am I missing?