Sessions — you idiot

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

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.

 

 

He's really not gator. He was a BBMB regular.

No, I never thought he was gator, just somewhat gatorlike.

[The_Dude]

3 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

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.

 

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. 

[Koko78]

5 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

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. 

 

Your flanking argument is irrelevant (and yeah, you were moving the goal posts.) The Commerce Clause has been stretched to absurdity, and consistently upheld to regulate most things. In fact, it was even used by the Supreme Court back in the 60's to force a restaurant, which engaged in almost no interstate commerce, to serve black customers, reasoning that even a minimal amount of interstate commerce (they may have gotten eating utensils or napkins or some such from out of state) was enough to apply federal law.

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

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. 

 

They do have that authority, because Congress can legislate.

[The_Dude]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

They do have that authority, because Congress can legislate.

 

congress does not have the authority to make things illegal to maintain as property without cause. 

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Your flanking argument is irrelevant (and yeah, you were moving the goal posts.) The Commerce Clause has been stretched to absurdity, and consistently upheld to regulate most things. In fact, it was even used by the Supreme Court back in the 60's to force a restaurant, which engaged in almost no interstate commerce, to serve black customers, reasoning that even a minimal amount of interstate commerce (they may have gotten eating utensils or napkins or some such from out of state) was enough to apply federal law.

 

BUT it can't apply to gardening now can it?

[Andrew Son]

Sorry Grandpa Sessions, the toothpaste is not going back in the tube.

 

This is probably the final nail in the coffin for this irrelevant dinosaur.  

 

It's a shame though, that Canada is positioning themselves to be a worldwide leader, while our federal government is doing its best to stifle the fastest growing industry in the nation.

Edited January 5, 2018 by SWATeam

[Paulus]

53 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

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.

To some MINOR extent, I think your correct. However, I think you're giving too much credit to some sort of perceived optimism. Only morons and criminals make business decisions based on mere optimism. It is like the news or pro-Trump folks parading around DOW record highs. I mean, at some point an objective person will see the fact that Trump/Obama were set up for success or disaster, at least to some extent, by their predecessor(s). 

[The_Dude]

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. 

[GG]

44 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

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. 

Of all the stupid crap Trump has pulled over the past year, you think that people who voted for him are going to abandon him because of pot?

 

Yeah

[Paulus]

36 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

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. 

I always thought Sessions was just a person pretending to be an idiot...

 

Ohh well, Gavin Newsome for President. I think the Republicans might deserve that, if Trump allows this fool to run amok. And, believe me, Newsome is as close to the antichrist as I have ever seen in politics. When he rains down terror on CA, after he becomes governor, I will just try to enjoy it. Pretty much what you're supposed to do when you're getting raped, said like a bad joke from a politician's mouth... 

 

Then again, this could ultimately put pressure on the fed to just legalize the stuff or take back some control from the DEA. I mean, when cocaine is II and weed is I, you have a problem with the system.  

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Then again, this could ultimately put pressure on the fed to just legalize the stuff or take back some control from the DEA. I mean, when cocaine is II and weed is I, you have a problem with the system.  

 

Cocaine is a cash crop for the corrupt elements within the USIC, has been for decades. That's part of the explanation for this.

[Paulus]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Cocaine is a cash crop for the corrupt elements within the USIC, has been for decades. That's part of the explanation for this.

I think a lot of the mood altering anti-anxiety drugs are like schedule IV, which is insane on so many levels. 

 

This isn't even bringing in alcohol to the argument, which is combined with other intoxicants a lot. When combined with some of those lower scheduled drugs, I imagine the medical consequences are significantly worse than if weed were combined. 

[Azalin]

55 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

 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.

 

 

 

Yeah, we'll be so pissed that we'll all turn into socialists! That'll really show them, boy howdy!

 

[Paulus]

11 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

 

Yeah, we'll be so pissed that we'll all turn into socialists! That'll really show them, boy howdy!

 

Gavin Newsome... Mamber dat nem.

[The_Dude]

26 minutes ago, GG said:

Of all the stupid crap Trump has pulled over the past year, you think that people who voted for him are going to abandon him because of pot?

 

Yeah

 

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. 

16 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

 

Yeah, we'll be so pissed that we'll all turn into socialists! That'll really show them, boy howdy!

 

 

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? 

[Paulus]

34 minutes ago, GG said:

Of all the stupid crap Trump has pulled over the past year, you think that people who voted for him are going to abandon him because of pot?

 

Yeah

I will. And, campaign and vote for his opposition. I'm not the only poster on here that claims they will, and this is a teeny, tiny sample size. More freedom and less regulation. 

[GG]

1 minute ago, Paulus said:

I will. And, campaign and vote for his opposition. I'm not the only poster on here that claims they will, and this is a teeny, tiny sample size. More freedom and less regulation. 

 

Then you choices are to vote for A) a candidate who favors a far more intrusive form of government or B) a true libertarian.   Meaning that if that's your take, you didn't vote for Trump in the first place.

11 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

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. 

 

Trump is not a conservative?  Well, blow me down with that newsflash.

[Azalin]

6 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

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? 

 

 

So what you are saying then is that there is typically a partisan shift from one administration to the other? That's your insightful trend?

 

No %$#%, Sherlock.

 

How does that relate to Sessions enforcing federal law?

 

3 minutes ago, Paulus said:

I will. And, campaign and vote for his opposition. I'm not the only poster on here that claims they will, and this is a teeny, tiny sample size. More freedom and less regulation. 

 

Less regulation? Have you changed your mind about net neutrality, then?

 

[Paulus]

3 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Then you choices are to vote for A) a candidate who favors a far more intrusive form of government or B) a true libertarian.   Meaning that if that's your take, you didn't vote for Trump in the first place.

Or, I vote for who I think is best, and carries with him/her a sense of integrity. 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

So what you are saying then is that there is typically a partisan shift from one administration to the other? That's your insightful trend?

 

No %$#%, Sherlock.

 

How does that relate to Sessions enforcing federal law?

 

 

Less regulation? Have you changed your mind about net neutrality, then?

 

 

Yeah, I just realized we're arguing Constitutional law with stoners.  Why are we doing this to ourselves?