That's the logical conclusion when customers of marijuana retailers in Washington state are 'potheads'.....right?
So says an on-scene reporter during Martha MacCallums "America's Newsroom" on Fox, complete with a snarky comment about how since there wasn't a rush of customers at the time of opening, they must have all been 'sleeping in'.
There's your 'fair and balanced' reporting...
The Republicans need the police state and the war on drugs to suppress minority and underclass voting.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Jersey's claim re "minorities" is racist in his part, and baseless. The same with the underclass. As for the rest, the left, liberals, and Democrats are strongly in favor of the "drug war". Obama has been waging it more relentlessly than Bush.
ReplyDeletedmarks, you are an immoral person.
DeleteJMJ
Lashing out with meaningless insults every time I bring to the discussion well known, well documented facts from high-value sources is not productive, Jersey.
DeleteHere is just one example:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mpp.org/media/press-releases/obama-administration.html
"Obama Administration Increases Drug War Spending
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Earlier today, the Obama administration released its annual National Drug Control Strategy, detailing the methods and budgets planned to combat drug use for fiscal year 2013. The report stresses that more resources need to be spent on addiction treatment and prevention, and that an enforcement-centric “war on drugs” is unworkable. The report shows, however, that budget allocations for traditional law enforcement methods could increase by hundreds of millions of dollars, including domestic military operations. Government data from previous years have shown no connection between drug-arrest rates and drug-use rates."
I don't think that Jersey got anything correct in his statement beyond spelling and grammar.
dmarks, you sleazy idiot, are you saying that because Obama, the President of the United States, is doing his job under the law, therefore the drug war is a good thing? Are you retarded?
ReplyDeleteJMJ
"dmarks, you sleazy idiot..."
ReplyDeleteNo, I am pointing out the fact that contradict your "Republicans" claim. Starting with how the Democrats have cranked up the drug war since Bush left office.
" Are you retarded?"
We know you love to bash the mentally disabled, just as you defend to the death calling gay people "fa**ots"
Being politically correct is one thing. Vicious hate speech is another. And you engage in the latter. You are more bigoted than most conservative bigots I run across.
And once we dismiss your distracting bigotry, we get back to the logical and cognitive dissonance in your argument. When the Republicans engage in the drug war, you smear than with a tired racial conspiracy theory. When the Democrats ramp up this war, you say they are only doing their job.
I myself have come to be opposed to the drug war. However, unlike you, I look at facts, not silly partisan bias.
dmarks, you said, "Jersey's claim re "minorities" is racist in his part, and baseless." Go go screw, hypocritical dummy.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Jersey....going to have to side with dmarks on this one. You wrote: "The Republicans need the police state and the war on drugs to suppress minority and underclass voting."
ReplyDeleteYet the very same paradigm occurs under Democratic leadership, without abatement.
"Go go screw"
DeleteThe Democrats cave into conservative demands, the Republicans propagate it. I'm sorry you can't see that.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
In this, it is liberal/left demands leading the charge... with Obama being a harsher "drug warrior" than GWB wasn
DeleteI don't think Obama is harsher. Besides, it's not really an important point. The real damage from the drug war comes mostly at the state and local levels.
DeleteJMJ
And CI, what a dumb argument. How can you fall for that? Since when do you think something is a good idea because some democrats endorse it? Really?
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Are you dizzy yet from talking in circles? The current Administration hasn't abated the misnomered "war on drugs" an iota. How is this the fault of the Republicans?
ReplyDeleteMy positions on policy aren't guided by a political party.
The President doesn't make the laws, CI. What are not getting here?
DeleteJMJ
Of course POTUS doesn't make the laws...but he does direct DoJ policy...such a federal raids on state-legal medical marijuana exchanges.
DeleteCI, get real. The Left does not want the war on drugs, is not for the war on drugs, would love to see it end. We do not have the political power to make that happen, regardless of who's in office. I'm sure, if he could, Obama would be rid of it too, but he can't. Why? BECAUSE THE RIGHT DEMANDS IT.
DeleteJMJ
Yep...that's exactly what I would say if I wanted to ignore this Administrations directives to the DOJ, on drug policy.
DeleteJersey's angry, fact free claim: "I'm sure, if he could, Obama would be rid of it too, but he can't. Why? BECAUSE THE RIGHT DEMANDS IT."
DeleteThe truth? Obama has CHOSEN to accelerate the drug war. He has gone out of his way to, of his own volition.
The idea that he is forced to is ludicrous. This is the same Obama who arrogantly ignores the separation of powers when he wants: when it comes to using bribes to ram through his attempt to take away people's health care, to "executive orders" to make an end run around unpopular policies being blocked ... to refusing to enforce immigration laws
If Obama would be "rid of it", he would break the law to push his agenda as he has done on some many other things. Instead, he has used his executive discretion to ramp it up.
CI said: "Yep...that's exactly what I would say if I wanted to ignore this Administrations directives to the DOJ, on drug policy."
yeah... Jersey makes perfect sense, as long as you ignore what the Left (and its leader) is doing and saying on this
CI: He just sputtered "go go screw" at me. He is really off his game lately...as with his support for firearm confiscation in the other recent item.
ReplyDeleteYes, from evidence, the war on drugs is a strong liberal policy too.
dmarks, you are the sleaziest moral vacuum on the blogosphere.
DeleteJMJ
What, Jersey, you going to call me a retarded fa**ot and tell me to go go screw?
DeleteJersey is angry at whatever allows him to drone on. It's a waste of time to entertain his fantasy.
ReplyDelete"To argue with a fool is to become enraged."
You shouldn't be so obsessed with other people, Darkwater (you can get a filter for that, ya' know).
DeleteJMJ
Whether or not Jersey thinks Obama is harsher, by objective measurements he definitely is.
ReplyDeleteAs for me being "sleazy", it's not the first time he has swam in the sewer like that when caught in dubious fabrications.
dmarks, for whatever reason, very often, you make some of the sleaziest, most spurious, specious arguments I've ever read. Idiotic nonsense like "Obama is tough on crime, therefore the Police State is supported by the Left." It's so sleazy, so stupid, so childish. My God man, make grown-up arguments!
DeleteJMJ
Jersey: At least you used the word "Reason". Which was entirely lacking in your statement. You didn't think it through.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing "idiotic" and everything logical in saying that the left-wing President, strongly supported by the Left has sharply accelerated the drug war. Therefore in this aspect, the Police State is most certainly supported by the Left.
There are other ways the police state is supported by the Left. The hard Left favors cops coming and stealing people's guns.
You should check out Libertarians: they are honestly a lot more against police state abuses than others.
Time to can it with the "sleazy" type insults. It's clear to all reading this that you start to sputter like this when you lose the argument, and badly.
Typing from my phone....so I'm not going to wax eloquently. But while it can be argued that some of the police state excesses are at the State level and below........the lions share or the surveillance state is at the national level.
DeleteCI said: "Of course POTUS doesn't make the laws"
ReplyDeleteWell, he does. In the form of executive orders. Which are an end-run around Constitutional process and powers. He does this in a dictatorial fashion to cover up for the fact that his poorly thought out, and unpopular policies won't fly otherwise.
That's not true by any stretch of the imagination, CI. Where do you come up with such a loony assertion? The vast majority of the police state is state and local. In your entire life, you are likely to never once come in contact with federal law enforce. You most certainly, at some point, come in contact with your state and local police. I know you believe all this psychotic anti-federal gov't nonsense, but please don't confuse utterly different scopes.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Have you struggled long with reading comprehension? I tempered dmarks comment of the police state, and added the statement of the surveillance state - separate [for my comment at least] from the police state. The surveillance state is almost exclusively at the national level; directed by the administration and the federal agencies.
DeleteBut to your assertion...I work in the intelligence community, and I can categorically state that you re blissfully unaware of the close collaboration in this current era...between federal agencies and state/local law enforcement. Look into the scope of the regional fusion centers. Don't pretend to tell me who I'm going to come into contact with, as you know nothing about me.
Finally, your attempt to paint me as an anti-government kook, says everything about the exasperation of your argument...as my postings here show nothing of the sort. I simply believe in a federal government limited by the Constitution....as opposed to one where they turn rights unto privileges, in order to regulate and tax beyond it's enumerated powers.
CI: "Finally, your attempt to paint me as an anti-government kook"
DeleteThis often happens to people who question authority.
That isn't true of the "surveillance state" either. And your particulars are not relevant, as what I said is true of the vast majority of the populace. It doesn't make any level of this a good thing, either. But when it comes to the police state, the majority of it is state and local, and the majority of interactions with it are state and local. That the federal government is capable of more interference in our lives, yet does not engage in it, proves they are more accountable than the state and local entities.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
As I said...blissful ignorance. I'm left to wonder what tune you'd be singing if the electronic surveillance and joint national/local intelligence operations were underway, at the current rate.....under a GOP Administration.....
DeleteYeah...except Jersey's angriness is anything but blissful.
DeleteNow let's see what fits of temper he gets into when I point out Clinton's program to increase local police by 100,000... a massive increase at the local/state level, spearheaded by a leader on the Left...all federally paid/controlled.
"That isn't true of the "surveillance state" either"
DeleteAnd yes, this is very true from objective evidence. That the Left has expanded this, of its own accord.
To answer your question CI, he'd be going ballistic, just like Keith Olbermann did on a nightly basis when Bush 2 was President (remember all of those moronic special comments hit pieces of his? - "YOU SIR........!!!").
DeleteFOX is a waste of time. Its subversive at best. If you want to project a conservative viewpoint, then do that and let the retard stations keep bleeting the libtard mantra. How many times does one need to hit them selves in the head with a hammer before they realize you can't please everyone and trying to will only alienate your intended audience.
ReplyDeleteI have no use for Fox at all.
PS - legalize all drugs and eliminate a lot of crime and expense and misdirection from Real crime.
I can see some of that. After all, Fox spends so much time trying to distance themselves from being 'mainstream media'. The subversiveness really comes out when they poetry their "both sides" as if there're the only sides to an issue.
DeleteI've often said that he corporate media are accomplices to the most damaging aspect to our national system....the two party duopoly.
sadder than legalization is the fact that so many Americans want to get high. I don't get it once you're an adult.
ReplyDeleteI've got to comment Anonymously..nothing else is working.
Z of GeeeeZ :-(
A question of equal weight would be.....why do so many adults want to get drunk.
DeleteCI: Yes... Recreational brain damage, no matter which substance is being abused, makes no sense to me.
DeleteMs. MacCallum must be taking a page out of the Bill O'Reilly playbook. I can't even begin to tell you how many "fair and balanced" anti-pot pieces that that imbecile has done over the years.
ReplyDeleteMore facts: As with the Left at the very top of leadership in this country increasing the "police state" (see Clinton's proposal to significantly increase the number of local police by adding many more who would be paid and controlled Federally, the state and local "police state" is pushed by state and local left-wing leaders as well.
ReplyDeleteConsider NYC's left-wing mayor Bill De Blasio also.
And if Obama wants to get rid of the drug war (as Jersey asserts here), then why did the guy make more busts on medical marijuana facilities in his first 4 years than Bush did in his entire 8?......Simply because the "right demanded it"?
ReplyDelete