He does seem to evolve whenever it's politically expedient. But then he won't have anything to run for if he wins this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
|
He does seem to evolve whenever it's politically expedient. But then he won't have anything to run for if he wins this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
For a minute, I thought you were talking about Romney.
But, rather than evolve, pot legalization would logically BE a second term agenda..
I STILL haven't heard what you think would happen if my state, or even if all THREE states legalized pot. What would EITHER Romney or Obama do?? And, WHY do you NOT want to answer?
excon
I don't know what either would do, my precognitive powers are a little weak today. I don't answer for the same reason I've always given, this is your pet cause, not mine.
I hope obama doesn't get a second term he's a lier a cheat a communist a liberalist and just a plain jerk he says don't smoke he does pot he's a lier for crying out loud and don't see how all of these obama biden people don't understand it he doesn't deserve a secod term he's not worth it
Thank you for your opinion, do you think you might find the spellcheckerQuote:
Originally Posted by eman134
Hello again,
Our resident right wingers BELIEVE that pot smokers DON'T go to jail. Try as I might, I CANNOT convince them otherwise. I don't mean to call THEM out particularly.. In fact, they're VERY representative of our culture, both RIGHT and LEFT.
I invite them to see a new movie called The House I Live In. In fact, I'll PAY for tom and Steve and their wives to see it. Call it lobbying...
It opened in NY on the 5th, and is working its way west. Do I think it'll change minds?? I don't know.. Maybe the movie'll suck. I'm sure they'll report back..
excon
I never said pot smokers don't go to jail.
Hello again, Steve:
Again, the search features suck, so I'm not going to look back.. But, you DID say that YOU got busted and they let YOU go. I believe you THEN extrapolated YOUR experience onto the world...
But, it's MOOT. Will you see the movie? Tell you what. I'll go see the hated 2016 if YOU see this movie. I'll even throw in Atlas Shrugged.
excon
Can a PAC make a deal like that?? I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Count me out . I go to movie theaters to be entertained . If you can wait until the DVD is out I'll watch it ,but it won't likely change my mind. Oh the trailer showed them rolling joints ,but everyone who spoke was in the slammer for heavier more dangerous drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I'm going to see Trouble With the Curve tomorrow. Perhaps when it comes to Netflix.
Hello again,
I'm bummed. I voted AGAINST Prop 502 today. That's the law that would have, presumably, legalized marijuana.. But, it wouldn't have. It's a sneak attack..
What it WOULD do, is tax it to death so that the vibrant underground market would be guaranteed to continue - a scenario tom suggested might happen, and will surly happen under this law.
Then, in order protect public safety, they set a 5 nanogram limit of THC, per liter of blood, before a DUI would be issued.
First off, that's a totally non scientific made up number. Secondly, since remnants of THC remain in the blood LONG after the high is gone, any smoker can be cited whether he's stoned or not..
While it may legalize pot, it criminalizes pot smokers if they EVER take the wheel. That ain't something I'd vote for.
excon
And you still can't grow your own. That's what governments do, regulate and tax the hell out of everything. Now apply this lesson learned to another 4 years of Obama.
Hello again, Steve:
Obama is not my fav.. But, he's clearly the lesser of two evils... You KNOW what I think would happen with a Romney appointed 6th Supreme Court justice.
excon
The world would come to an end? Michael Moore and Sean Penn will finally move to Canada?
Trickle down economics on steroids, economic scams (bubbles), higher deficits, and a war or two (off the books of course).Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The repeal of everything except citizens united. More law and order, and bigger privatized prisons and schools. On the second day..
Economic scams? As opposed to Obama's corporate cronyism?
The right only hollers about the bad, never the good. Matter of fact you guys make the good look bad, and holler some more. When was the last republican who balanced a budget, or cut the deficit??
That's right NEVER, whether they had a republican congress or NOT. Even with a republican congress you guys screwed things up. But all you can come up with is forget he last republican, lets try the next one until we find a savior and hero. Like Reagan, the guy who ran from Lebanon after the 300 marines got killed.
Again, like Dodd-Frank? That was good wasn't it?Quote:
The right only hollers about the bad, never the good
A Year After Dodd-Frank, Too Big To Fail Remains Bigger Problem Than Ever
‘The Biggest Kiss’
Mitt Romney was right: Dodd-Frank is a gift to big banks
Dodd Frank doesn't make a bank smaller, just manages its failure so as NOT to tank the whole system. But of course you believe the right talking points about its supposed failures, while leaving out how the banks and republicans are obstructing the rules making process.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1294471.html
Should the Dodd-Frank Act Be Repealed? | Debate Club | US News Opinion
Good read to get more facts.
What is Dodd-Frank Act? - Definition from WhatIs.com
What Does the Implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act Mean for the Energy Sector? | Reed Smith - JDSupraQuote:
The act created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to address persistent issues affecting the financial industry and prevent another recession. Banks are required to have “funeral plans” for a swift and orderly shutdown if the company goes under. By keeping the banking system under a closer watch, the act seeks to eliminate the need for future taxpayer-funded bailouts.
The act also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), to protect consumers from large, unregulated banks. The CFPB consolidated the consumer protection responsibilities of a number of existing bureaus, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Credit Union Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. The CFPB works with regulators in large banks to stop business practices that hurt consumers, such as risky lending. In addition to regulatory control, the CFPB provides consumers with access to truthful information about mortgages and credit scores along with a twenty-four hour toll-free consumer hotline to report issues with financial services.
Takes longer when the republicans keep watering the rules down for their corporate buddies.Quote:
Key rules went into effect on or before October 12, 2012, with immediate and near-term consequences for OTC trading and your company's operations. These include the definition of what is regulated as a swap subject to mandatory clearing and what is exempt; definitions of who will be regulated as a swap dealer, major swap participant or end-user; and, recordkeeping, reporting and swap documentation requirements. More rules are slated to become effective in the first few months of 2013, while some remain pending as proposals – including margin and capital requirements, and the scope of the Dodd-Frank Act's extraterritorial reach – without a projected date for a final rule. Along the way, on the eve of effective dates for various final and “interim” final rules (most recently on October 12, 2012), the CFTC keeps rolling out “interpretive guidance” letters in response to requests for modifications and clarifications of rules, setting out examples, tests, and refined deadlines for compliance with the rules.
Um, my first link WAS Huffpo and last I checked they don't offer any right-wing talking points.
But on the first anniversary of the act's passage, the nation's largest banks boast larger holdings than ever. Their political clout is on the rise, say experts, and the government regulators who are supposed to be looking out for the next wave of reckless speculation are starved of cash. Meanwhile, stalwart banking industry allies in Congress are seeking to crimp the authority of the regulators on multiple fronts.
Its quite a battle, should we just quit?Quote:
Some experts say this reflects considerable efforts by banking industry allies to hamstring the regulators as they seek to follow through. Republicans in Congress are determined to either repeal the law, trim portions of it, or -- if all else fails -- starve regulators of much-needed cash, say observers.
Hello excon,
I'm all for legalising pot and everyone I know is for it to.
I mean if the drug that makes some people violent, dangerous drivers and impairs decision making (alchohol) Is legal why isn't the drug that keeps me concentrated and crave taco bell legal.
Were do you stand on this issue?
Hello Gamed:
Welcome to the discussion.Quote:
Were do you stand on this issue
I'm for legalization, fair regulation, and fair taxation... But, the Washington initiative would force me to buy THEIR schwag pot, at THEIR store, force me to pay THEIR high tax load, and they'd STILL put me in jail if I grew my own..
I don't want ANY of that.
Excon
I think everyone should be able to grow their own but anyone who sells it goes to jailQuote:
Originally Posted by Gamed
So are you for just the average joe mass growing his bud and selling that?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Or are you more for I grow my pot while my neighbor grows his.
I think the second alternative is the way to go, no local enterprise, just grow your own but no selling, no incentive to get others hooked, and licence the growers so if found with weed then it is clear, a grower can have a quantity and beyond that it's commercial and illegalQuote:
Originally Posted by Gamed
Yea but I think government will just grow and tax it themselves if we even get that far in the war.
Governments don't want to be part of enterprise, if you make it commercial then they will tax it, but we don't need another tobacco industry. Think of the licence as a small tax. You have to remember weed has some undesirable health aspects as do tobacco and alcohol, so keep it small. You could have Pharmas making all sorts of other drugs available but it has undesirable outcomes. Where there is a buck to be made crims will get involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamed
Hello again, clete:
That's not going to work... Not everybody has the facilities, the money or the know how to grow...Quote:
just grow your own but no selling,
Excon
Well hard luck ex you learn, back yard gardens and window boxes you know and of course there are attics, roof tops
Sell it at the liquor stores, sell it at the drug stores, and grocery stores. Just like Jack Daniels and Budweisers. What's the difference?
Why make it hard?
Hello again, clete:
It's a tropical plant. It won't grow like that.
excon
Really, then how does it grow in the neighbourhood, EX, don't tell me you don't cultivate it all over, we uncover vast plantations in country which isn't tropical and which may even be subject to snow, good heavens, I've even had to eradicate a few plants myself, curtesy of a wayward son. Perhaps your people aren't as enterprising as mine. It isn't called pot for nothing
Lol ,this government wants to be the enterprise . That's why they gave up Obamacare and the GM bailoutQuote:
governments don't want to be part of enterprise,
and it isn't called weed for nothing. Perhaps Ex wants to maximize THC ;which would mean specialized controlled environments .Quote:
it isn't called pot for nothing
Ex might want to run the neighbourhood hydroponic plant for all I know, but what I do know is the dollar signs light up as soon as someone mentions legalisation. What no one wants anywhere is a government enterprise growing and distributing any noxious substance, Taxing it, well that is a horse of a different colour, a pale horse I think
True ;although that doesn't stop governments from running numbers games . Oh but wait... lotteries (those noxious taxes on the poor) are for funding education... it's for the children.
Yes we used to have that falacy here, they used it to finance public hospitals, but State Treasuries being what they are, privatisation became the order of the day and they sold it off. Now we have a federal government legislating in the administration of slots, it isn't enough state governments reap enormous taxes from them, now our benevolent government (the little red fox) has had a hot flush and decided that the poor (read chronic gamblers) must be protected from themselves by deciding in advance how much they will looseQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
There are plenty of people who will grow good pot, pay taxes and create jobs. The Jack Daniels and cigarette industry is doing fine. Why would the pot industry do as well if not better?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:04 AM. |