Ted Cruz attacks Obama for not arresting cannabis users in Colorado

grokit

grokit

well-worn member
He can't really not believe in evolution, imo that's all political opportunism.
And climate change is reality, he went to harvard for chrissakes!
I bet the fucker smokes pot in secret, and surfs gay porn when he's high.
:evil:
 
063_XOBX

063_XOBX

Ganjapreneur
If your book is <$6.00 on Amazon , you probably shouldn't be trying to call out the president.
ht_ted_cruz_coloring_book_2_sr_131216_16x9_608.jpg


Just sayin'
 
tranceporter

tranceporter

The Cloud Conductor
I may disagree with many people who lean to the far-right, but there is none that I dislike more than Ted Cruz. I have no respect for this clown or anyone who remotely shares his views especially after the shutdown debacle in October. Holding the country hostage because you didn't get what you wanted is childish and unproductive. Fuck him and his supporters.
 
tranceporter

tranceporter

The Cloud Conductor
Received this in a PM today from a very nice member here on FC. He is referring to my post in the EVO thread in which I called out a stupid remark by a clearly stupid person. Thought you guys might enjoy this:

My post: Good Job on Faux News! The four minutes I spent watching that video is the longest I've ever paid attention to any program on that awful syndicate. You definitely handled the interview well even when that blonde ignoramus tried to chastise recreational use.

His message to me:

It would probably be best if you kept your low-information/high-affect snark to yourself. There are plenty of Conservatives here who fully support ending prohibition on marijuana. And your clownish comments (completely unrelated to the topic of the thread) didn't help. Why don't you save your buffoonish, yet oh-so-fashionable, comments for posting on MesSNBC's website, with the other pajama-clad freeloaders."


:lmao:
 
tranceporter

tranceporter

The Cloud Conductor
Vicki said:
Pajama clad freeloaders. Really. What a judgmental ass. Definitely being brainwashed by too much Faux/Fake News to be sure. :disgust:
Click to expand...

It's funny how I didn't mention anything about conservatives or prohibition in my post but he ASSumed I was making a generalization that all conservatives are against marijuana. Then he goes on to call people who share my views "pajama clad freeloaders".

Typical brainwashed RWNJ.
 
lwien

lwien

Well-Known Member
Hey Piff, that's what happens when one has a major inferiority complex. They go on the attack when they feel that someone may be saying something that they don't agree with. That is, after all, the essence of Fox News.

But hey, if it wasn't for Fox, John Stewart's show would be a lot less entertaining.
 
aesthyrian

aesthyrian

Blaaaaah
lwien said:
But hey, if it wasn't for Fox, John Stewart's show would be a lot less entertaining.
Click to expand...

Oh, there is PLENTY of nutty right wing radio out there, plus Glen Beck has his Blaze internet channel thing.

Hell, there is enough fodder for Stewart on the likes of CNN and MSNBC. Don't even get started on "meet the press" ...:bang:

"News" is simply a joke in itself these days. :\
 
arf777

arf777

No longer dogless
herbmeister said:
Yep. IMHO, states rights and individual liberty is a bigger issue than weed.
Click to expand...
Uh, the 'states rights' folks lost THE CIVIL WAR. That's what happened. And until recently, I felt it to be good riddance to bad rubbish, as the saying goes. If we can just get rid of the Roberts' court, I'll feel that way again.

I'm more interested in what happened to the whole idea of delineated and limited power in the Federal government. Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the right to regulate why goes in our bodies. Shit, they had to amend it to prohibit alcohol. Where is the amendment that allowed mj (and other drug) prohibition? That shit is just unconstitutional.
 
max

max

Out to lunch
Then he goes on to call people who share my views "pajama clad freeloaders".
Click to expand...
:hmm: WTF is this pajama crap? I had to research that and all I came up with was a 'Pajama Boy' ad. I guess those of us who rarely watch commercials are just out of touch.

Are pajama fans (I don't wear 'em myself, nor do I freeload) going to be given the same treatment as the term 'liberal' (something good turned into a dirty name)? Will Republican owned dept. stores stop carrying PJ's?
 
max,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit
M

mrboote

...
I don't think it it's a reference to anything. More of an insinuation that the lack of proper jobs/responsibilities affords a liberal the contemptible "luxury" of remaining in their sleeping attire all day every day.
 
mrboote,
lwien

lwien

Well-Known Member
mrboote said:
I don't think it it's a reference to anything. More of an insinuation that the lack of proper jobs/responsibilities affords a liberal the contemptible "luxury" of remaining in their sleeping attire all day every day.
Click to expand...

I think you should have put the quotes around "contemptible" rather than "luxury". :cool:
 
lwien,
grokit

grokit

well-worn member
Last edited:
grokit,
C No Ego

C No Ego

Well-Known Member
arf777 said:
Uh, the 'states rights' folks lost THE CIVIL WAR. That's what happened. And until recently, I felt it to be good riddance to bad rubbish, as the saying goes. If we can just get rid of the Roberts' court, I'll feel that way again.

I'm more interested in what happened to the whole idea of delineated and limited power in the Federal government. Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the right to regulate why goes in our bodies. Shit, they had to amend it to prohibit alcohol. Where is the amendment that allowed mj (and other drug) prohibition? That shit is just unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

America uses the UN drug treaty to enforce drug law in America. without it they cannot enforce any drug nothing on the people because nowhere in our constitutional rights is any """ drug""" not allowed. hell when they were contemplating and wrote the constitution they were inhaling hemp cigarettes ( the ones grown out back and not in the fields) and drinking cocaine in their soda pop.
 
C No Ego,
herbmeister

herbmeister

\m/
arf777 said:
Uh, the 'states rights' folks lost THE CIVIL WAR. That's what happened. And until recently, I felt it to be good riddance to bad rubbish, as the saying goes. If we can just get rid of the Roberts' court, I'll feel that way again.

I'm more interested in what happened to the whole idea of delineated and limited power in the Federal government. Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the right to regulate why goes in our bodies. Shit, they had to amend it to prohibit alcohol. Where is the amendment that allowed mj (and other drug) prohibition? That shit is just unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

States rights didn't die with the civil war, and it should be everyone's friend including yours. AKA the 10th Amendment in the US Bill of Rights:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Most of the laws imposed upon us by the Federal government are unconstitutional, and that includes making our favorite plant illegal. These sorts things should be handled by the states, not the feds. Right? Right.

Power to the PEOPLE.
 
herbmeister,
arf777

arf777

No longer dogless
C No Ego said:
America uses the UN drug treaty to enforce drug law in America. without it they cannot enforce any drug nothing on the people because nowhere in our constitutional rights is any """ drug""" not allowed. hell when they wrote the constitution they were inhaling hemp cigarettes ( the ones grown out back and not in the fields) and drinking cocaine in their soda pop.
Click to expand...

Actually, even a self-executing treaty is required, under SCOTUS precedent, to pass Constitutional muster. Hell, there is a case about that very issue pending right now, in this instance in reference to criminal prosecution under the Chemical Weapons treaty.

herbmeister said:
States rights didn't die with the civil war, and it should be everyone's friend including yours. AKA the 10th Amendment in the US Bill of Rights:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Most of the laws imposed upon us by the Federal government are unconstitutional, and that includes the making of our favorite plant being illegal. These sorts things should be handled by the states, not the feds. Right? Right.
Click to expand...

Please read the Reconstruction Supreme Court decisions, as well as the Square Deal and New Deal ones. The 10th Amendment still holds, but has been curtailed dramatically by applications of the Commerce, Supremacy, and Due Process clauses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
arf777,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit
grokit

grokit

well-worn member
At least the CO court system is making some sense...

Colorado Appeals Court Rules Recreational Marijuana Law Can Be Used to Challenge Some Court Convictions



People who have been convicted of minor marijuana crimes may be in luck. The Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled that some marijuana cases can be overturned for people whose crimes would have been considered legal under Amendment 64 the legislation that legalized recreational marijuana use, and possession in the state.

The court ruled that Amendment 64 could be applied retroactively to minor marijuana offenses if people were already appealing their convictions when the legislation went into effect.

The ruling comes as a result of a 2010 case in which a woman from Colorado was convicted of possessing small amounts of marijuana and concentrates, both of which have since been legalized under Amendment 64. Her lawyers argued that her charges should be thrown out due to the change in the legal landscape in Colorado.

According to marijuana advocates, the ruling could impact the cases of dozens of individuals who were working to overturn convictions for possessing under an ounce of marijuana or for growing six or fewer marijuana plants in their homes.

While the ruling will help some, it cannot be used as a basis for people to expunge decades-old convictions that remain on their records.

Click to view the entire ruling.
 
grokit,
  • Like
Reactions: Jared
063_XOBX

063_XOBX

Ganjapreneur
grokit said:
The court ruled that Amendment 64 could be applied retroactively to minor marijuana offenses if people were already appealing their convictions when the legislation went into effect.
Click to expand...
So drastically skewed towards those with the resources for decent legal counsel...nice...
 
Jared

Jared

Cannabis Enthusiast
grokit said:
That's entirely wrong in regards to controlled substances:

"Cannabis could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch.

The Controlled Substances Act also provides for a rulemaking process by which the United States Attorney General can reschedule cannabis administratively."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act

^ it's in the Process part.
Click to expand...
Yep he has the power to change the law, but he hasn't, and that's where the problem lies. He's literally just doing whatever he wants to. Agree with this? Alright let it slide. Don't agree with this? Don't let it slide. He isn't changing laws he's changing his mind.
 
Jared,
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom