Deranged Rhino Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Just now, Paulus said: 2009 was a great year for recovery, IMO. To me that is when the economy began to correct itself. Markets jumped, housing prices began to rebound, and more jobs began to appear. Bush was done in 2008, and during the transition the global economy was in a free-fall. 44 didn't inherit a good economy from his predecessor. Quite the opposite. He inherited a sinking ship. That's why that statement bumped me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: I wonder what is the most dangerous: Driving 150 mph down the street or smoking pot and driving 15 mph on the Freeway? Depends if you want to be the windshield or the bug. 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: It must have been the 8 summers of recovery that did it. We had a recession followed by malaise. The recovery started in 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 12 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Interesting that you keep changing wording when called out on your bull ****. 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 32 minutes ago, Paulus said: To pretend that the economy didn't do well under Obama is stupid. That said, Obama did inherit a rebounding economy from Bush. We all just tend to attribute the actions of the predecessor to the current politician. And, all current politicians take credit for the good, while blaming the bad on their predecessor. Did well compared to what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallie Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Whether pot, or not; what's wrong with reinstating enforcement of laws on the books? Just because the previous POTUS saw fit to pick and choose what to enforce and what to ignore, doesn't mean the ship can't come back on course. Don't like the current laws, ask your national legislators to change 'em. Oh, that's right, Congress is but a limp rag in the slop sink of Washington, DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 10 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Depends if you want to be the windshield or the bug. We had a recession followed by malaise. The recovery started in 2017. Actually in November of 2016. Just the promise of Trump's deregulation and business friendly policies jump started things. 1 minute ago, Keukasmallie said: Whether pot, or not; what's wrong with reinstating enforcement of laws on the books? Just because the previous POTUS saw fit to pick and choose what to enforce and what to ignore, doesn't mean the ship can't come back on course. Don't like the current laws, ask your national legislators to change 'em. Oh, that's right, Congress is but a limp rag in the slop sink of Washington, DC. Welcome back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 38 minutes ago, The_Dude said: I like you but that doesn't immune you from my pointing out you're wrong. Wrong as hell. Weed was sorta made illegal by congress in the 30's. THE LAW WAS FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND REPEALED. So, in the 70's they passed the controlled substance act which is what brings about the 'schedule' drug policy of today. Marijuana was put on as a schedule 1 narcotic after a commission on the drug recommended to the Nixon administration that the flower ought not be on the list. It was placed on the list anyway and the SCOTUS has yet to intervene meaning the SCOTUS has been consistently failing in its obligations. The 1937 Marijuana Tax Act and Leary v. US. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional not because the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate marijuana, but because the structure of the act violated due process (specifically, the right against self-incrimination - to be in compliance with the Tax Act, you had to declare possession of marijuana, which could incriminate you under state laws.) The Supreme Court in NO WAY ruled on the federal government's authority to declare marijuana illegal. It only ruled that the federal government couldn't force you to admit guilt. Which is why THEY CHANGED THE LAW, which is what everyone here is arguing for, dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 24 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Bush was done in 2008, and during the transition the global economy was in a free-fall. 44 didn't inherit a good economy from his predecessor. Quite the opposite. He inherited a sinking ship. That's why that statement bumped me. So, the instant a politician takes office he is automatically credited with things his predecessor did? No, even democrats argues that Obama was responsible for the "fiscal year" economy. Meaning, Obama deserved credit for the economy until October. I believe, the whole financial crisis of 2008 was deserved and needed. It was a natural consequence of capitalism. Further, I don't even really think Trump deserves credit for the economy, yet. Laws and regulations take a long time to really effect, and have the effects measured. Sinking ship? Hardly. I see it more akin to a ship righting its course. Something that may happen again, in the next few years. Either that, or the dollar will continue to be devalued at an insane rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, Keukasmallie said: Don't like the current laws, ask your national legislators to change 'em. Oh, that's right, Congress is but a limp rag in the slop sink of Washington, DC. And maybe if we ENFORCE the laws, Congress will grow a spine and address them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 14 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Did well compared to what? Compared to the economy that was taking place before he took power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: The 1937 Marijuana Tax Act and Leary v. US. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional not because the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate marijuana, but because the structure of the act violated due process (specifically, the right against self-incrimination - to be in compliance with the Tax Act, you had to declare possession of marijuana, which could incriminate you under state laws.) The Supreme Court in NO WAY ruled on the federal government's authority to declare marijuana illegal. It only ruled that the federal government couldn't force you to admit guilt. Which is why THEY CHANGED THE LAW, which is what everyone here is arguing for, dumbass. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 8 minutes ago, The_Dude said: 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. That's not what SCOTUS declared. They didn't say the federal government can't make marijuana illegal. They said the federal government can't write a law that requires people to demonstrate they're breaking ANOTHER law to prove their innocence under THAT law. The issue in question wasn't marijuana's legality. It was the legal requirement of a taxation law that required people to show possession of an illegal substance to avoid violating the taxation law. The Supreme Court not only didn't rule on marijuana's legality, they had to specifically accept its criminalization under federal law to decide the tax was unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: They didn't say the federal government can't make marijuana illegal. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Just now, The_Dude said: 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. 1) Why did you bring up the Marijuana Tax Act from the 30s, when it has no bearing on the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. The unconstutionality of the former has exactly jack **** to do with the constitutionality of the latter. 2) SCOTUS can only weigh in on cases that are filed with it. In other words...if you want them to hear it, sue. I guarantee they'll never hear it, as you have no grounds for suit, and there's no constitutional issue involved worth their time (because you're basically challenging Congress' right to pass laws, which is ridiculous). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 So the dude finally made it on the refugee boat from BBMB... Gator has some competition! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 minute ago, unbillievable said: So the dude finally made it on the refugee boat from BBMB... Gator has some competition! He's already better than Gator. He at least takes the time to proof read his posts and seems fluent in English. That always helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 35 minutes ago, Paulus said: So, the instant a politician takes office he is automatically credited with things his predecessor did? No, even democrats argues that Obama was responsible for the "fiscal year" economy. Meaning, Obama deserved credit for the economy until October. I believe, the whole financial crisis of 2008 was deserved and needed. It was a natural consequence of capitalism. Further, I don't even really think Trump deserves credit for the economy, yet. Laws and regulations take a long time to really effect, and have the effects measured. Sinking ship? Hardly. I see it more akin to a ship righting its course. Something that may happen again, in the next few years. Either that, or the dollar will continue to be devalued at an insane rate. It was a natural consequence of government messing with capitalism. Look up the CRA and the bs statements in Congress regarding the pending financial crisis. Hint---Barney Frank. Trump's election alone jump started the economy due to his known business friendly policies. Obama' policies mirrored Jimmy Carter's don't drill, put on another sweater approach. Trump's policies mirrored Reagan's optimism. That is why the economy is improving so rapidly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, DC Tom said: 1) Why did you bring up the Marijuana Tax Act from the 30s, when it has no bearing on the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. The unconstutionality of the former has exactly jack **** to do with the constitutionality of the latter. 2) SCOTUS can only weigh in on cases that are filed with it. In other words...if you want them to hear it, sue. I guarantee they'll never hear it, as you have no grounds for suit, and there's no constitutional issue involved worth their time (because you're basically challenging Congress' right to pass laws, which is ridiculous). 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: He's already better than Gator. He at least takes the time to proof read his posts and seems fluent in English. That always helps. He may be somewhat better than gator as it pertains to grammar and spelling but the obtuse level between the two is in my mind a dead heat. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: 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.... You really can't stop continuing to change wording to fit your changing narrative, can you? Never change buddy. Never change. I never once said WHY it should be illegal, never once advocated that it should be illegal, and you did not start this bull **** 'gardening' argument until after you were called out for being wrong. What I actually said - and pay attention here - is that the commerce clause of the US Constitution allows for Congress to make such a law. That's it. This comment was in response to your uninformed position that it's somehow unconstitutional. The standard for unconstitutionality, by the way, does not include whether or not you like a law. 12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: He may be somewhat better than gator as it pertains to grammar and spelling but the obtuse level between the two is in my mind a dead heat. He's really not gator. He was a BBMB regular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts