Reply With Quote
right off that article (click on the link)
It would have applied to anyone convicted more than once of carrying 100 doses — or about two ounces — or marijuana across the border.
Can you get a 100 doses out of 2 oz of weed?
Also, mules are rarely, if ever, caught and convicted twice. The first arrest resulting in a failure to deliver a load of drugs, if they are fortunate enough to escape incarceration, they would be punished by those who employed them as a mule.
I dare say it would be less pleasant than lethal injection. Might involve their families, as well.
right off that article (click on the link)
It would have applied to anyone convicted more than once of carrying 100 doses — or about two ounces — or marijuana across the border.
Give it a try. You might like it.
First of all, you provided no link. And, I'm "doobie"ous you can roll 100 joints out of 2 oz of weed.
right off that article (click on the link)
It would have applied to anyone convicted more than once of carrying 100 doses — or about two ounces — or marijuana across the border.
And, my second point stands.
My third point is that the War on Drugs is stupid and that narcotics should be decriminalized.
we aretalking about buttons article, heprovided the link
Absolutely, and then some. As a lover of weed, I will venture to guess that two ounces is about 400 to 500 bong hits.
Shows what I know about drug use.
It appears cooler heads prevailed and his bill was killed.
In any case, I don't see the U.S. -- even under a Gingrich administration -- executing anyone for carrying 2 oz. of Marijuana; which is why is probably why it failed.
...but that doesnt absolve Gingrich of being completely detached from reality for even entertaining the thought of executing people for possession, no matter the quan y, much less sponsoring a piece of legislation stating as such.
Gingirch wins, landslide for Obama.
Last edited by DarkReign; 12-14-2011 at 09:39 PM.
I'm not making any prediction but, Gingrich's position on drug running in 1996 will not be a determining factor in the 2012 election.
I agree with that. It was a do-nothing, go nowhere piece of legislation most likely meant to grandstand during the decline of the War on Drugs charade.
Its obvious that the economy, jobs, banks, Wall Street, foreign policy and deficit spending will be the topics that shape the 2012 election.
Unfortunately for Mr Gingrich, Republicans will vote for their guy no matter what, Democrats will vote for their guy no matter what, its the independents that determine the winner.
If an independent is a moral voter or a social voter, that person most likely will not vote for Gingrich (or Obama on principal). Obama has proven to be pretty squeaky clean in his private life, Gingrich not so much. Its a sad reality that a vast majority of American voters vote with their heart, not their head. Doesnt bode well for Newt.
Moreover, Obama is a cool customer, rarely rattled or flustered. He doesnt crack.
Newt is a notorious hot-head who at some point on the campaign trail will lose his cool or say something extremely stupid (like executing citizens for possession). He cant put his ego aside long enough to ever recover should he do such a thing.
He will come across as the volatile, unpredictable ideologue that he is. That plays with the base of sycophants of either party, but not with a general electorate.
he's also a flip-flopper: he used to be for adultery (as evidenced by his past adulteries/divorces/leaving sick wives in the lurch) but now he's against it (as evidenced by his signing of the Oath to Fidelity).
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ntial_matchupsFormer House Speaker Newt Gingrich now trails President Obama by double digits, his second straight weekly decline since becoming the GOP frontrunner. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Obama earning 49% of the vote, while Gingrich receives 39% support.
We'll see. But, considering his debate performances so far, he's a lot more disciplined than others are describing him to be.
I agree to a point.
Obama hasn't proven anything about his private life. He's been pretty much left alone. A point gets raised and the media will damn near break its back mitigating any fall out for him. The mere mention of a Republican's failing and they're putting unknown people with unvetted allegations and allowing them to uncritically assassinate their character.
Rick Perry's father once belonged to a hunting club that had a rock that someone painted "N-Word" on and the media went into 24/7 sensational coverage. Obama spends 20 years in the pulpit of a church led by a racist and it's glossed over.
We know nothing of Obama's personal life except what he's chosen to reveal. Would that the Republicans be given the same consideration, Newt Gingrich would mop the floor with Obama's ass.
Last edited by Yonivore; 12-15-2011 at 02:48 PM. Reason: Because, apparently, you can't write "n i g g e r" in a post -- even when relevant.
it's the media's fault!
Maybe Newt's simply a flawed individual
I usually dont break apart posts and go "point for point" mainly because I think its an exercise in futility and that its really only used to bait and troll, but this paragraph struck me.
Thats a very, very broad generalization that can be applied to any and all candidates of every spectrum since the Reagan days. Think Clinton and Edwards for contemporary examples.
Agreed. But youre obviously treading on the much discussed double standard that does and probably always will exist as it pertains to racism among minorities and racism among the majority.Rick Perry's father once belonged to a hunting club that had a rock that someone painted "N-Word" on and the media went into 24/7 sensational coverage. Obama spends 20 years in the pulpit of a church led by a racist and it's glossed over.
Media has nothing to really do with that. Blame legislatures if anyone at all, theyre the ones crafting hate-crime and hate-speech infractions that clearly favor one over the other. That the American psyche has acknowledged and glommed onto it isnt really the media's fault, they just exploit the phenomena for ratings.
Just the same as Fox exploited the birth certificate for their ratings. Media is money and the more you play to your audience, the more there is to be had.
We know he is married with 2 children and an over-publicized dog who comes from an American mother and a Kenyan father.We know nothing of Obama's personal life except what he's chosen to reveal. Would that the Republicans be given the same consideration, Newt Gingrich would mop the floor with Obama's ass.
No allegations of adultery or promiscuity, except for some apparently ridiculous episode of coke and action in his college days that never took off because it was probably never true.
A Republican cannot be afforded the same perceived consideration simply because Republicans are, apparently, incapable of nominating anyone credible enough to win a general election. On the believability of being elected scale, I would go like this:
McCain: Good
Palin: Historical blunder that will never be eclipsed, this handed Obama the election
Bush Sr: Average (thank you Dukakis!)
Quayle: Nondescript man-child
Bush Jr: Good/Great (would have beaten any and all comers, really)
Cheney: n/a (brilliant this one)
Dole: Laughably bad
Kemp: Who?
Gingrich: Bad
VP: Trump? Why the not with that Republican field of candidates
The Republicans best chance to unseat Obama lies with Romney, but that is a pill the Repub base just cannot swallow or even fathom, for some reason. Hes moderate, well-spoken and a relevant politician unlike Mr. Lobb...I mean, Gingrich. I know its tough for staunch Republicans to get over what the imaginary man in the sky actually said to be written down and all, but this is the best chance, IMO.
I think Republicans and their supporters want a Rush Limbaugh-type in the White House, and in a dictatorship, you might even get your wish. But this isnt a dictatorship, its democracy-lite. Rush may be super-popular amongst like-minded partisans who actually enjoy being preached to and told what to think form the Red team, but that sort of individual doesnt play in a general election.
I dont agree with you that Gingrich would mop the floor with Obama. I think you have that exactly backwards. Obama would do and say small things to get his temper roaring and when the debates finally came, he'd drive the stake home on some issue and it would cause Newt to lose his cool and thus lose the election. Obama would be playing chess while the egotist was playing checkers.
Republicans, IMO, have an internal conflict of their own making. While Repub leadership embraced conservative media because the "liberal media" is too biased against them, they unwittingly gave their message away to the talking heads on a network whose only allegiance is to ratings and advertisers.
FoxNews is the single largest driver of a Republican nominees rise or fall, bar none, put your hand down, period. They prop up whatever flavor du jour says all the right things about abortion, immigration, taxes and social issues of all shapes, and parade that person around as the Next Big Thing.
All the while actual Republicans, like yourself if I do say so, cheer for the man/woman without ever actually seeing them compete with the spotlight directly on them. I think its because you want this person to lead without actually considering if the plebs would let him lead. Its easy to be the supporting actor to your party's version of Tom Hanks ( o, Mr. Gore), the guy will make anyone look good, but the moment you step from that star's shadow and into the light, the movie and script dont work quite as well. This field of nominees are all newbies to the national stage except Newt and Romney, with Romney being less popular amongst his own party than he is amongst the electorate! Think about that...that is how far off the Republican National Committee actually is when it comes to seating a President that isnt named Bush!
In summary, this is why I detest partisanship on the deepest level of hate I can fathom.
It isnt that I dont understand allegiance to ideals (I do) or allegiance to social issues (I do) or even allegiance to people (I do). Its that, in practice, as two movements compete with one another for the ultimate prize, it becomes a race to extremes as a means of easy separation from their compe ion.
McDonalds fries are far different than Burger Kings fries, that isnt a coincidence. Its a means to differentiate themselves from one another to foster compe ion.
The only problem with that mentality in compe ive politics as opposed to a compe ive marketplace is that extremism isolates pockets of the country from one another based on very obscured interpretations of falsely identified "important" issues.
Obama is not a good President, this isnt a secret. But the Other Party is so far removed from anything nearing normal to an average voter, that the party cannot even put a potential candidate on the ballot who could actually win because the conservative electorate has a laundry list of wants and needs in their candidate that do not jibe with non-conservatives on very fundamental levels.
Example: If Republicans had their way, gays would be in the closet forever in life, love and marriage. Abortion would be illegal and punishable by life in prison/death. War would start at the slightest provocation, even if that provocation came from some 3rd world hole with no means to act on it. Most likely, Christianity would become the USA's official state religion with all the tertiary details that entails.
Even omitting the "war" part above, you would have alienated 50%+ of your countrymen from standing equal in the eyes of government and its laws. You would have reduced the country to Red (Sunnis) vs Blue (Shiites). One side vs another where one is winning and the other is not.
For all of Democrats foibles, they are not attempting to install a pseudo-theocracy in this country and theyre also not in the business of alienating everyday people. They just cant balance their checkbooks vs their promises, convince business to ignore their tax policies or make a decision without first checking with their lobbyists futures report on campaign contributions (ahem...Obamacare).
Thats why Republicans win seats in Congress en masse where their message plays in small pockets. But Democrats win office with out-of-nowhere state Senator nobodies. Theyre vanilla enough to appeal to a wider base with the added benefit of not having a partisan electorate that has unrealistic demands about social policies that 50% of the population find completely unimportant.
This sham of an election falls at the feet of Republicans and no one else. Do the country a favor and split the party for God's sake so the brains can move forward and leave the abortionists, theologists and war-mongers at the corner of -Off and Die-Young where they belong. Your party would be better for it, the White House would be better for it and most importantly, the country would be FAR better for it.
Last edited by DarkReign; 12-15-2011 at 04:02 PM.
What does Obama have to prove about his private life?
code for he's a foreign-born muslim
That he has one?
See a pattern? Name a Republican that's enjoyed media kid gloves.
Fine.
How about Bill Ayers? He's not a minority. What about Rezko? What about the enigmatic father figure in Obama's biography, only identified by his first name because -- well, it turns out he's a communist and Obama describes him as a mentor. What about his education? Time at Columbia? Grades? Never published an article in the Harvard Law Review he managed? There are a buttload of peripheral issues the media never bothered to square. All things over which a Republican would receive an anal exam by the media.
If it was good for Fox's ratings to "exploit" why not the other networks? After all, Fox enjoys more viewers than just about all the other networks combined. you would think they would like to enjoy similar rating and, if "exploiting," a potential scandal would do that, they would.
Yet, they took a pass.
Not entirely true but, again, that only lasted a day or so and disappeared.
There's yet to be any concrete evidence of Cain's sexual misconduct or infidelity but, it persisted until his character was assassinated. Why didn't the media give him the same leeway they did John Edwards?
I still question whether or not Cain is guilty of anything.
I think any Democrat could be made to look just as extreme/foolish/stupid/etc... as you have described the Republicans above if the media saw fit to do so.
Actually, I wouldn't want Rush Limbaugh as President.
I would have to break down the post even further to answer all the points, in the preceding paragraphs with which I disagree.
But, to suggest Republicans are further away from the average voter than are Democrats is to ignore reality. This is a conservative country.
By the way, I don't much watch FoxNews and I disagree they are driving the conservative electorate.
Oh, and DR, remember Journolist?
The media is in the bag for Obama -- and Democrats.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
