Sessions — you idiot

[Paulus]

3 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

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

 

Honestly, I really don't think I am versed enough on the subject, though I still lean towards the free flow of information. No, I don't trust private companies or politicians to control that. I want to see it become a First Amendment issue, if the prophetic horror stories come true. In other words, I was happy with the status quo and don't fully understand the whole argument in order to make an assessment of the probability that the horror stories come true. 

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

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

It is a lot more fun to argue with alcoholics...

[The_Dude]

9 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?

 

 

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. 

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

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

 

Tom, you’d need me stoned to win a debate. 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, The_Dude said:

 

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. 

 

You can't even win an exchange of facts.  The ONLY substance to your argument here has bern "I want legal pot, and I want it NOW!"  You've been consistently wrong and stupid on every factual point otherwise.

[The_Dude]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

  You've been consistently wrong and stupid on every factual point otherwise.

 

Point one out. G’head. 

[Azalin]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

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

 

Slow Friday?

 

6 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Honestly, I really don't think I am versed enough on the subject, though I still lean towards the free flow of information. No, I don't trust private companies or politicians to control that. I want to see it become a First Amendment issue, if the prophetic horror stories come true. In other words, I was happy with the status quo and don't fully understand the whole argument in order to make an assessment of the probability that the horror stories come true. 

 

 

I certainly see it differently than you do, but I appreciate the honest reply.

 

3 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

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. 

 

 

Why on Earth would I want to join you at the kiddie table? There's too much "me against the world" hysteria over there.

[3rdnlng]

12 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Slow Friday?

 

 

I certainly see it differently than you do, but I appreciate the honest reply.

 

 

Why on Earth would I want to join you at the kiddie table? There's too much "me against the world" hysteria over there.

I personally don't want to be at the kiddie table with those little birds that are still fed by their mother.

[The_Dude]

24 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

"I want legal pot, and I want it NOW!"  

 

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. 

10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I personally don't want to be at the kiddie table with those little birds that are still fed by their mother.

 

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? 

[3rdnlng]

10 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

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. 

How do you think those men would feel about our laws being arbitrarily enforced or not?

[Koko78]

7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

How do you think those men would feel about our laws being arbitrarily enforced or not?

 

That was sort of one of their complaints...

[The_Dude]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

How do you think those men would feel about our laws being arbitrarily enforced or not?

 

 

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. 

 

[3rdnlng]

13 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

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? 

First of all please show me the times I've insinuated that you live with your mother.  2nd of all:

 

 

3 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

That was sort of one of their complaints...

Yes, I know. The Dude on the other hand likes that laws are arbitrarily enforced.

[The_Dude]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

First of all please show me the times I've insinuated that you live with your mother.  2nd of all:

 

 

 

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!

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

First of all please show me the times I've insinuated that you live with your mother.  2nd of all:

 

 

Yes, I know. The Dude on the other hand likes that laws are arbitrarily enforced.

 

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. 

Edited January 5, 2018 by The_Dude

[DC Tom]

30 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

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? 

 

How do you think they'd react to an executive that cherry picks which laws they want to follow? 
 

You consistently miss the point.  You keep insisting that bad laws should be ignored, and haven't yet made a coherent counter-argument to everyone else's observation that they shouldn't be ignored, they should be repealed.  What's even stupider, you keep making the argument for an authoritarian executive, while trying to support it with the beliefs of the men who created a fundamentally anti-authoritarian government for us.  

 

And yes, you are arguing for fascism.  There's a simple test for that: are you arguing that the Attorney General should not be bound by the law?  Yes, yes you are.  

1 hour ago, The_Dude said:

 

Point one out. G’head. 

 

Leary v. US determined that the criminalization of pot was unconstitutional.  

[The_Dude]

10 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

How do you think they'd react to an executive that cherry picks which laws they want to follow? 
 

You consistently miss the point.  You keep insisting that bad laws should be ignored, and haven't yet made a coherent counter-argument to everyone else's observation that they shouldn't be ignored, they should be repealed.  What's even stupider, you keep making the argument for an authoritarian executive, while trying to support it with the beliefs of the men who created a fundamentally anti-authoritarian government for us.  

 

And yes, you are arguing for fascism.  There's a simple test for that: are you arguing that the Attorney General should not be bound by the law?  Yes, yes you are.  

 

Leary v. US determined that the criminalization of pot was unconstitutional.  

 

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? 

18 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Leary v. US determined that the criminalization of pot was unconstitutional.  

 

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. 

[DC Tom]

31 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

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. 

 

God damn it, the editor deleted the long, coherent rebuttal I just wrote.  So let me summarize:

You're an idiot.

[The_Dude]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

God damn it, the editor deleted the long, coherent rebuttal I just wrote.  So let me summarize:

You're an idiot.

 

Honestly, this is exactly what I expected ?

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 hours 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. 

Congress does seem to feel that "marijuana is a dangerous drug, and that marijuana is a serious crime" as they alone have the authority to change the law, and they have not.

 

The Administration is forcing Congress to do it's job.  This is a good thing. 

[DC Tom]

45 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Honestly, this is exactly what I expected ?

 

It's too bad, because the original post was a point-by-point takedown of everything you've posted.

 

But then...this is why I limit my responses to "You're an idiot."  Don't care if the editor eats that.

[Tiberius]

59 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

God damn it, the editor deleted the long, coherent rebuttal I just wrote.  So let me summarize:

You're an idiot.

Oh great answer, moron. 

 

Tom obviously gets frustrated and cranky easily. 

[The_Dude]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Congress does seem to feel that "marijuana is a dangerous drug, and that marijuana is a serious crime" as they alone have the authority to change the law, and they have not.

 

The Administration is forcing Congress to do it's job.  This is a good thing. 

 

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.