 |
Possession with intent to distribute... that is the law...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And those people SHOULD get locked up.
Incidentally... if there were no users... there would be no dealers... if there were no dealers there would be no Cartels. Everyone in those groups share the blame... that applies to ALL drugs equally.
Hello again, smoothy:
Nahhh.. Possession PERIOD is the law.Quote:
Possession with intent to distribute... that is the law...
But, you missed the point, anyway.. You SAY Holder doesn't have the authority to use discretion in one breath, and then you say he SHOULD use discretion in the next.
Excon
Yes. There was a link attached to the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Possession with intent to distribute is a whole lot worse... because you are a dealer at that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The law is the law... its not for him to decide if any laws are going to be followed or not... in fact for him to even think he can means he is putting himself above every other branch of government... which by the way... constitutionally... are co-equal.
Hello again, smoothy:
I'm going to try this one more time.. You are INCORRECT on the law. It doesn't matter which crime is worse - distribution or possession. BOTH of them are against federal law.
But, you DON'T support federal law as it IS, any more than Holder does. According to YOU, he should go after pound dealers, and leave the smokers alone.
You apparently think he SHOULD use his discretion only IF he agrees with YOU. But, if he doesn't, he doesn't have the authority AT ALL...
You DO understand, that that makes no sense, don't you? Or, not. You'll probably MISS the point again, because it'll DESTROY your argument.
excon
I reckon the new gun control laws didn't go over too well in Colorado.
Giron was defiant, because after all "We will win in the end, because we are on the right side," she said.Quote:
Colorado Senate President John Morse, state Sen. Angela Giron ousted
An epic national debate over gun rights in Colorado on Tuesday saw two Democratic state senators ousted for their support for stricter laws, a "ready, aim, fired" message intended to stop other politicians for pushing for firearms restrictions. Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron will be replaced in office with Republican candidates who petitioned onto the recall ballot.
Party insiders always said Giron's race was the harder one. Although her district is heavily Democratic, Pueblo is a blue-collar union town. Morse's district included Manitou Springs and a portion of Colorado Springs — and more liberals.
Apparently some people disagree that taxing them to death and eroding their constitutional rights is the "right side."
"It's unclear when the city of Pueblo was last represented in the Senate by a Republican."
I guess that shows there is a glimmer of hope for Colorado after all.
Now if all those wrinkled old hippies and airheads would just clean up the ratty mobile homes and junk vehicles ruining the view of the mountains.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
I guess the blind people buying guns is next.
I'd rather have a blind guy with a gun near me... than someone high on drugs or drunk with one.
You discriminate against those with disabilities?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Debbie Downer says the reason the two gun control Democrats lost was voter suppression. That and the NRA, the Koch brothers and blah, blah, blah.
OK Deb, first of all Bloomberg and your other cohorts outspent everyone and still couldn't win, in a union town that can't remember when a Republican lat represented them.Quote:
”The recall elections in Colorado were defined by the vast array of obstacles that special interests threw in the way of voters for the purpose of reversing the will of the legislature and the people. This was voter suppression, pure and simple.
“Colorado voters are used to casting their ballots by mail, but because of lawsuits filed by opponents of common sense gun reform, voters were not mailed their ballots in this election. Those who intended to vote in person did not learn their polling locations until less than two weeks before Election Day. Tuesday’s low turnout was a result of efforts by the NRA, the Koch brothers and other right wing groups who know that when more people vote, Democrats win.
"But any electoral victory that hinges on impeding access to democracy is a hollow one, and ultimately, the NRA did not get what it wanted. The recall results will do nothing to change the Democratic control of the Colorado House, Senate and Governor’s office. And the commonsense gun laws that were passed by popular vote in Colorado will remain intact, including provisions like universal background checks and restrictions on the size of ammunition magazines. This will make residents safer from acts of violence.
“The Democratic Party has already bolstered its effort to expand voting rights through the National Voter Registration Project, an outgrowth of our belief that when more citizens are involved in the political process, the better it is for the country. I have faith that the outrageous events in Colorado will bring more activists to join our cause, because the American people understand that the right to vote is a fundamental feature of citizenship that must be protected against assault.”
Second of all, the reason voters weren't mailed ballots was because Democrats passed election reform that violated the state constitution.
But you go on blaming others for your own mistakes, Deb, it's something you Dems have down pat.Quote:
The Sept. 10 recall elections of two Democratic Colorado lawmakers were supposed to be the first test-run of a new election overhaul, passed this year by Democrats, that would have sent mail ballots to every voter.
Now, those elections won’t involve any mail ballots at all.
After a long day in court, District Judge Robert McGahey ruled in favor of Colorado Libertarians, who’d sued after being denied a spot on the recall ballot because they failed to meet a deadline, put in place by the new election law, to submit petitions within 10 days of the election date being set.
McGahey agreed with the plaintiffs that the state constitution — which has, for 101 years, allowed candidates up to within 15 days of an election to submit their petitions — takes precedence over the new and, ultimately, flawed law.
“I know what this decision means,” McGahey told the court as he issued the ruling around 7 p.m. Monday night, alluding to concerns from county clerks of escalating election costs and from Democrats who worried that the loss of mail ballots, which can’t be printed and mailed to voters in time if candidate signatures are validated so late, will lower voter turnout.
“I wish I didn’t have to make this decision, but I do,” McGahey said. “The constitution can’t be ignored.”
The argument from the plaintiffs was simple and, it turned out, on solid legal ground: that the constitution trumps conflicting state statutes.
The president can sign the treaty, but congress has to ratify it to be honor, but it doesn't over rule the constitution. So call, write email your congressman and senators and tell them you are against the small arm treaty, and if they don't vote your way, vote them out.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:32 AM. |