Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/04/08 22:10:34
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It's not a state's rights issue. The state of Colorado can pass whatever state drug laws it wants, their decriminalization of marijuana at the state level was never challenged it's always been within their right as a state to pass that law. The question posed to Lynch deals with the issue of the federal govt telling the DEA not to enforce federal anti marijuana charges in Colorado, while the DEA simultaneously continues to enforce anti marijuana drug laws in other states.
That wasn't the question. Cruz specifically asked Loretta Lynch what she would do to bring States into compliance with federal law. That's not a DEA enforcement question, that's a "What will this prospective Attorney General do to make States change their laws." question, with a side of "I've established myself as a conservative, and want up that notion for my Presidential run."
The very idea that he would ask such a thing tromps all over the idea that he is for general State's rights, though I'm sure he would totally support the right of State's to ban or restrict gay marriage.
States can't nullify federal laws, we already had that issue decided back in the 19th century.
True, but as you have already noted State agencies are not Federal agencies. State agencies follow their own laws, and don't necessarily need to follow Federal ones.
You're conflating two separate issues: Ted Cruz pandering and posturing to help his presidential campaign and the DoJ deliberately ignoring people who violate federal drug laws in Colorado for spurious reasons.
No, I'm not. I am very clearly focusing on Cruz and what he said. You are the one who is introducing enforcement of Federal drug law to the conversation.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/04/08 22:13:08
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Graham: Trump or Ryan as nominee will destroy the GOP
...
"Let me say this, my Republican friends: If you parachute somebody in just on electability -- Paul Ryan's a wonderful guy, doesn't want to be put in this position. I'm trying to get us the most viable nominee for 2016 that could win without destroying the party," Graham said. "I think Trump destroys the party. And if you parachute somebody in, and try to ignore millions of votes, you're going to destroy this party. So we're right back to Ted."
Asked how Republicans who dislike Cruz could support the Texas senator's campaign, Graham said, "If I can do it, anybody can do it."
...
jmurph wrote: That and the feds aren't going after users or street levels dealers anyway. Heck, here in Texas, a kilo or two won't even make it onto the feds radar- AUSAs won't bother with it. They are after major narco traffickers, labs, etc.
The DEA is still actively pursuing and prosecuting marijuana trafficking. Again, why is importing and selling marijuana a problem in some states but perfectly fine in others? The DoJ isn't using the increasing number of states legalizing marijuana as a reason to reduce enforcement of federal drug laws, they're enforcing them just as vigorously in all the other states. On paper, on the federal level, marijuana is just as illegal in Colorado or Alaska as it is in New York or anywhere else in the US. If other states want to prosecute marijuana crimes that's the states' decision but the Feds don't have to get involved unless they choose to do so. They're choosing not to do so in Colorado but they are choosing to do so in other states. That's a hypocritical waste of resources and the continuation of a failed policy that even a cursory examination of history would have shown legislators was doomed to fail anyway. I'd prefer for the federal govt to learn from its mistakes and take action to govern smarter and better instead of just making stuff up as they go along and not even bothering to try to provide the public they serve with consistent reasoned legal justifications for their decisions and actions.
And Prohibition had lots of issues- largely because it was far from all embracing and poorly enforced after entire legal networks were already in place in a country with a heritage of using alcohol. But it still "worked"- alcohol consumption decreased dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.
Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.
Violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after. Still does.
One of the major things that killed Prohibition was the loss of tax revenues on alcohol. Before Prohibition, many states relied heavily on excise taxes in liquor sales to fund their budgets. In New York, almost 75% of the state's revenue was derived from liquor taxes. With Prohibition in effect, that revenue was immediately lost. At the national level, Prohibition cost the federal government a total of $11 billion in lost tax revenue, while costing over $300 million to enforce. The most lasting consequence was that many states and the federal government would come to rely on income tax revenue to fund their budgets going forward.
So don't misconstrue the "lessons of Prohibition". Government action can definitely affect behavior. But it can also have unintended consequences and hidden costs. Fortunately, in a democratic system, voters get to decide these issues, either directly on issue votes or indirectly in the candidates they select.
In my experience, criminals love weed, to the degree that they will smoke it even while on bond, probation, etc. that they do not with alcohol. It is one of those things where not all people who smoke mj are engaged in other, more serious crimes, but almost all of those who are engaged in other more serious crimes smoke weed. Which is awesome, because when they are dumb enough to drive with it (which they usually are because god forbid you just smoke at your house where nobody cares) and get pulled over, the officer smells it, searches the car and finds the meth, illegal weaponry, stolen property or whatever. All anecdotal, I know, but I have not really seen many repeat criminals who don't have weed priors. Again, not saying weed makes people do it; just that people who do it seem to smoke weed.
I am also of the opinion that people who get fired up about all the people in jail for drugs have very little knowledge of what actually goes on in the CJS or what drug abuse really looks like.
-James
2016/04/08 22:58:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jmurph wrote: I am also of the opinion that people who get fired up about all the people in jail for drugs have very little knowledge of what actually goes on in the CJS or what drug abuse really looks like.
Well, having worked with drug addicts in the past I would like to call BS on this.
A group of wealthy donors is preparing to draft retired Marine Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis to run for president and taken down Donald Trump, according to reports.
Nearly a dozen donors are willing to throw their resources behind the former head of U.S. Central Command. The group has delivered six memos to Mattis outlining how he could win the race in the hope that it will encourage him to run, the Daily Beast reported.
The game plan would be for Mattis to win enough states to keep Trump and Hillary Clinton from getting the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. The House would then pick the president, and supporters believe lawmakers would support a former general widely seen as an American hero.
A "Gen. James Mattis for President 2016" unofficial Facebook page has more than 4,000 likes.
Mattis served in the Marine Corps for 42 years, including as the head of American forces in the Middle East from 2010 to 2013, when he retired. He now serves as a Davies Family Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
The former four-star is best known for his blunt speaking style and colorful quotes such as "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."
"He's a man of character and integrity. He's given his life to his country. How do you ask someone like that to leap headfirst into this toxic mud-puddle of a race? It's damn hard. But Trump is a fascist lunatic and Hillary has one foot in a jail cell. That means the lunatic can win. I'd be first in line to plead with the general to come save America," John Noonan, a former national security adviser to Jeb Bush who is working on the campaign to draft Mattis, told the Daily Beast.
Noonan tweeted on Friday that he's received a "blast of emails/calls" in response to the Daily Beast story with people asking him to "sign me up" for the effort.
He also tweeted how the storied war general would come down on some of Trump's policy proposals.
"Q posted to me just now: Would Mattis build a wall?" Noonan wrote on Twitter.
"Trick question. Mattis is the wall."
It's not the first time supporters of the "warrior monk," another of Mattis' nicknames, have wanted him to run. A former Marine launched a write-in campaign for Mattis in 2012, though it didn't gather much support and didn't have the financial backing of the current attempt.
Despite all the support, Mattis has said he's not up for the job and doesn't "have a broad enough perspective" to be commander in chief.
"[It's] time for younger people, especially veterans, to run for office," Mattis told Marine Corps Times.
Mattis received one write-in vote in a Military Times 2016 poll released last month.
Is this serious? My troll alarm is going off, but I just can't trust that anymore with this election cycle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/08 23:08:32
2016/04/08 23:17:46
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
In my experience, criminals love weed, to the degree that they will smoke it even while on bond, probation, etc. that they do not with alcohol. It is one of those things where not all people who smoke mj are engaged in other, more serious crimes, but almost all of those who are engaged in other more serious crimes smoke weed. Which is awesome, because when they are dumb enough to drive with it (which they usually are because god forbid you just smoke at your house where nobody cares) and get pulled over, the officer smells it, searches the car and finds the meth, illegal weaponry, stolen property or whatever. All anecdotal, I know, but I have not really seen many repeat criminals who don't have weed priors. Again, not saying weed makes people do it; just that people who do it seem to smoke weed.
I am also of the opinion that people who get fired up about all the people in jail for drugs have very little knowledge of what actually goes on in the CJS or what drug abuse really looks like.
You know what else they do? Drink water and eat food. Don't you think the fact someone has a prior for a harmless plant is a problem with the laws, and not the person? It's very well documented that incarcerating people for minor things leads to bigger problems, from the current recidivism rates in the US to the rise of ISIS.
What drug abuse really looks like? For cannabis? Come on man. It's one of the least harmful psychoactive substances known to man. You show me someone whose only issue is cannabis abuse and I'll give you a dollar, because they don't exist. I know people that are wastes of life that smoke a lot, but they were wastes without it too.
2016/04/09 00:29:17
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Prestor Jon wrote: question posed to Lynch deals with the issue of the federal govt telling the DEA not to enforce federal anti marijuana charges in Colorado, while the DEA simultaneously continues to enforce anti marijuana drug laws in other states. What is the reasoning behind, and legal justification of, that specific instance of selective endorsement? States can't nullify federal laws, we already had that issue decided back in the 19th century. The administration doesn't have any legal grounds to say that since Colorado legalized pot that the federal anti pot laws are null and void there now. That would be illegal. If Lynch is okay with a de facto reversal on the nullification issue on any law the DoJ sees fit to ignore that is something worthy of questioning her on during her congressional hearing.
The federal govt has been selectively enforcing federal laws in some states and not in others for centuries? What is the legal justification for the DEA busting somebody for marijuana trafficking in say Tennessee while ignoring the same behavior in Colorado? What other federal laws can you currently break with impunity in some states but be prosecuted for in others?
Quid Pro Quo... Generally speaking the Federal level law enforcement agencies want to be on good, professional terms with State and Local agencies. In a state like Colorado, the sherriffs and State PD have basically told the Feds "Do not Feth with us on this issue."
No local PD support on a federal level bust is no bueno for all involved. As such, they would rather elect to not enforce DEA stuff in the state of Colorado, or at least, not enforce marijuana (until such a time as marijuana has violated the law), and have support for financial crimes involving the FBI or things that may involve BATFE, etc.
If the fed goes against Colorado on Mary Jane, they will find other laws more difficult to enforce, or get local support on.
As for times when "The Feds" have violated their own laws... One specific instance was when U.S. Grant was elected. He purposefully wrote policy toward native americans that disregarded their 1st Amendment rights. Specifically the right to freedom of religion.
I'd like to know more about General Mattis' politics. I can't really find much. I don't know where he stands on virtually any issue. I'd be concerned that he joined the military less than a year after his 18th birthday and has spent literally a lifetime working for the government - when the only tool you know about is a hammer, I think a lot of problems start to look like nails.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/04/09 03:17:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: I'd like to know more about General Mattis' politics. I can't really find much. I don't know where he stands on virtually any issue. I'd be concerned that he joined the military less than a year after his 18th birthday and has spent literally a lifetime working for the government - when the only tool you know about is a hammer, I think a lot of problems start to look like nails.
Gen. James Mattis, known to his troops as “Mad Dog Mattis,” is retiring after 41 years of military service.
The Marine Corps Times is calling Mattis the “most revered Marine in a generation.”
Mattis has been commander of the United States Central Command since 2010 and led the 1st Marine Division into Iraq in 2003.
According to reports, President Barack Obama decided to force the Marine Corps legend out early because he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way, and forced them to answer tough questions regarding Iran.
Mattis was an inspirational leader of men and his powerful words will go down in history.
Here are some of the best words that the “Mad Dog” has had to offer:
1. “I don’t lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word.”
2. “The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some donkey-caves in the world that just need to be shot.”
(Business Insider)
3. “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you feth with me, I’ll kill you all.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
4. “Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
5. “Marines don’t know how to spell the word defeat.”
(Business Insider)
6. “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
7. “The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
8. “You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon.”
(Mattis’ Letter To 1st Marine Division)
9. “There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim.”
(Business Insider)
10. “No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”
(Defense News)
11. “There is nothing better than getting shot at and missed. It’s really great.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
12. “You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
13. “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”
(CNN)
14. “I’m going to plead with you, do not cross us. Because if you do, the survivors will write about what we do here for 10,000 years.”
(San Diego Union Tribune)
15. “Demonstrate to the world there is ‘No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy’ than a U.S. Marine.”
(Mattis’ Letter To 1st Marine Division)
16. “Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit”
(Mattis’ Letter To 1st Marine Division)
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/09 03:17:59
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Its not the 1950's, America isn't voting for a realistically unknown general.
Without Trump, all that "tough talk" would probably do great with the right, but its too little too late.
Why are so many Republicans trying so desperately to distance themselves from Trump? Embrace it. Enjoy the fruits of what you have sown. This is what your party has become and what your party wants. Might as well enjoy it, its not going to get better when Hillary wins.
2016/04/09 03:33:56
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
DutchWinsAll wrote: Its not the 1950's, America isn't voting for a realistically unknown general.
Without Trump, all that "tough talk" would probably do great with the right, but its too little too late.
Why are so many Republicans trying so desperately to distance themselves from Trump? Embrace it. Enjoy the fruits of what you have sown. This is what your party has become and what your party wants. Might as well enjoy it, its not going to get better when Hillary wins.
No.
#NeverTrump.
And Colin fething Powell is another who'd be massively popular. But, his Queen said "no" so, he gotta respect that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/09 03:34:24
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/09 03:42:15
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
DutchWinsAll wrote: Its not the 1950's, America isn't voting for a realistically unknown general.
Without Trump, all that "tough talk" would probably do great with the right, but its too little too late.
Why are so many Republicans trying so desperately to distance themselves from Trump? Embrace it. Enjoy the fruits of what you have sown. This is what your party has become and what your party wants. Might as well enjoy it, its not going to get better when Hillary wins.
No.
#NeverTrump.
And Colin fething Powell is another who'd be massively popular. But, his Queen said "no" so, he gotta respect that.
But why just "No"?
Do you think after the inevitable Hillary win Trumpers and their ilk will quiet down and fall in line? They're more likely to get louder and more prominent. So why not just embrace it, say "feth it" and enjoy the ride? This is, after all, what the Republican Party wants.
Because the other option is a lot of soul-searching and honest reflection, something little to nobody is good at, especially in politics.
Slightly OT.I finally met my first Trump supporter in real life yesterday actually. It wasn't who I would have expected. Mid-20's Black guy that was the night manager at the hotel I was staying at. Regular dude, pretty cool about things, just "supports somebody that will stop Muslim terrorism". The fact we were both smoking cigarettes I tried to point out is waaaaaay more dangerous. Didn't get through at all.
2016/04/09 03:45:54
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: And Colin fething Powell is another who'd be massively popular. But, his Queen said "no" so, he gotta respect that.
I can see the campaign posters now:
As always, the guy who produced 65% of this threads content (railing about Hillary's involvement in the deaths of 4 people in Benghazi) has absolutely no problem giving a free pass to the guy who fronted bogus intel that led to the deaths of over 4,400 American troops.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/09 03:46:40
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/04/09 03:47:03
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
DutchWinsAll wrote: Its not the 1950's, America isn't voting for a realistically unknown general.
Without Trump, all that "tough talk" would probably do great with the right, but its too little too late.
Why are so many Republicans trying so desperately to distance themselves from Trump? Embrace it. Enjoy the fruits of what you have sown. This is what your party has become and what your party wants. Might as well enjoy it, its not going to get better when Hillary wins.
No.
#NeverTrump.
And Colin fething Powell is another who'd be massively popular. But, his Queen said "no" so, he gotta respect that.
But why just "No"?
Because I believe he'd be worst than Obama.
That should mean something come from me.
Do you think after the inevitable Hillary win Trumpers and their ilk will quiet down and fall in line? They're more likely to get louder and more prominent. So why not just embrace it, say "feth it" and enjoy the ride? This is, after all, what the Republican Party wants.
Because the other option is a lot of soul-searching and honest reflection, something little to nobody is good at, especially in politics.
Like a Tea Party Part Deux movement? Maybe.... but, why wait?
Let's go to contested convention and see what transpire. If it's Cruz... well... he'll have his work cut out for him.
Or, maybe Rubio/Walker/Chuck Norris will get it the nomination.
Slightly OT.I finally met my first Trump supporter in real life yesterday actually. It wasn't who I would have expected. Mid-20's Black guy that was the night manager at the hotel I as staying at. Regular dude, pretty cool about things, just "supports somebody that will stop Muslim terrorism". The fact we were both smoking cigarettes I tried to point out is waaaaaay more dangerous. Didn't get through at all.
whembly wrote: And Colin fething Powell is another who'd be massively popular. But, his Queen said "no" so, he gotta respect that.
I can see the campaign posters now:
As always, the guy who produced 65% of this threads content (railing about Hillary's involvement in the deaths of 4 people in Benghazi) has absolutely no problem giving a free pass to the guy who fronted bogus intel that led to the deaths of over 4,400 American troops.
You okay?
People are known to be afflicted by a debilitating disease called the "Bush Derangement Syndrome".
Just making sure you're okay buddy.
Anyhow... you do make an interesting parallel between Powell and Clinton.
The difference here is that you seem to buy into the idea that it was Powell and some "man behind the curtain" who intentially knew and pushed that flawed intel.
Whereas the mother fething Secretary Clinton fething knew, that the attacks in Benghazi wasn't a reaction from an anti-islamic youtube video.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/09 03:55:07
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/09 04:20:33
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: And Colin fething Powell is another who'd be massively popular. But, his Queen said "no" so, he gotta respect that.
I can see the campaign posters now:
As always, the guy who produced 65% of this threads content (railing about Hillary's involvement in the deaths of 4 people in Benghazi) has absolutely no problem giving a free pass to the guy who fronted bogus intel that led to the deaths of over 4,400 American troops.
You okay?
People are known to be afflicted by a debilitating disease called the "Bush Derangement Syndrome".
Just making sure you're okay buddy.
Anyhow... you do make an interesting parallel between Powell and Clinton.
The difference here is that you seem to buy into the idea that it was Powell and some "man behind the curtain" who intentially knew and pushed that flawed intel.
Whereas the mother fething Secretary Clinton fething knew, that the attacks in Benghazi wasn't a reaction from an anti-islamic youtube video.
"Bush Derangement Syndrome" refers to dumb views like Bush cause the recession of 2007/8. It's not a derangement to conflate his administration with the Iraq War, because, you know, they invaded Iraq.
It's documented that from the beginning of the administration there were a lot of Iraq hawks pushing for a reason to invade. And if that invasion was based on "flawed" intel, it's still orders of magnitude worse than making up a reason for an attack on a consulate in an active war zone. Like many orders of magnitude worse.
I mean without that "flawed" intel and the Iraq War there is arguably Arab Spring and no Benghazi attack.
One fethup cost 4 American lives and including the multiple investigations, what, 50-100 million max? And I'm being generous here.
The other fethup cost 2 trillion, 4 thousand+ American deaths, 100 thousand+ Iraqi deaths (conservatively), not to mention the tens of thousands of maimed Americans and Iraqis and ISIS.
2016/04/09 07:05:37
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The difference here is that you seem to buy into the idea that it was Powell and some "man behind the curtain" who intentially knew and pushed that flawed intel.
Whereas the mother fething Secretary Clinton fething knew, that the attacks in Benghazi wasn't a reaction from an anti-islamic youtube video.
Colin Powell was also Secretary of State when he pushed that argument at the the UN, and he later admitted to knowing it was bad; you're just trying to deflect because you're a Republican who hates Clinton.
so my understanding is that the position he was in is 2nd in line -- after the VP -- to the presidency right ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2016/04/09 14:34:55
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The difference here is that you seem to buy into the idea that it was Powell and some "man behind the curtain" who intentially knew and pushed that flawed intel.
Whereas the mother fething Secretary Clinton fething knew, that the attacks in Benghazi wasn't a reaction from an anti-islamic youtube video.
Colin Powell was also Secretary of State when he pushed that argument at the the UN, and he later admitted to knowing it was bad; you're just trying to deflect because you're a Republican who hates Clinton.
No... he admitted that it was flawed. Not that he knew that it was flawed at the time of his famous UN speech that Ouze was alluding too... you're just trying to deflect because you're a Democrat who hates Republicans.
No, I am saying a Pipe Dream is something you absolutely want and dream about and that this is not actually something you want. Come on, you are the super informed voter guy! You would never vote for a man when you do not even know his political stances.
What you are displaying is Blind Hope.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/09 15:15:33
2016/04/09 15:18:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
No, I am saying a Pipe Dream is something you absolutely want and dream about and that this is not actually something you want. Come on, you are the super informed voter guy! You would never vote for a man when you do not even know his political stances.
What you are displaying is Blind Hope.
In the face of a Clinton or Trump Presidency?
You damn right I'm engaging on some Blind Hope™... feth Trump and Clinton.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/09 20:45:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Apparently the Boston Globe is publishing a lampoon of American with Trump as President. I may be mistaken but I don't remember newspapers doing this in my lifetime. I mean, normal newspapers, not satirical ones like The Onion or college newspapers which have always been off the rails. Whatever. Time to kick back because it's dinner and a show.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/09 20:48:48
2016/04/09 21:02:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
While there has always been biases in reporting, this campaign has taken it to an unprecedented level.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
2016/04/10 01:00:43
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
No... he admitted that it was flawed. Not that he knew that it was flawed at the time of his famous UN speech that Ouze was alluding too... you're just trying to deflect because you're a Democrat who hates Republicans.
Actually Powell's chief of staff is on record saying Powell had doubts about the quality of the intelligence during private meetings held at the time of the speech. At any rate that isn't deflection as the issue of Powell's speech was raised as a matter of direct comparison to Clinton. Moreover, I'm not a Democrat and I don't hate Republicans. I would also never stoop to the argumentative level of "Bush Derangement Syndrome", that's a line that should be left to partisan shills. and only ever get pulled out when there is clear intention to deflect from another issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/10 01:00:57
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/04/10 01:41:39
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Although Powell had doubts...he was still relying upon the info/story provided to him by the POTUS and others in that circle who desired to push forward with a war.
In my opinion, he was doing his job as the "mouthpiece" for the administration.
I don't blame him for the false info on WMD's.
And I ould vote for him in a heartbeat.
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
2016/04/10 14:00:21
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
