I hope California throws her out on her worthless Republican ass. I wrote her when she voted for the war that I would vote for a Real Republican the next time I needed some worthless asshole to vote like one.
I hope California throws her out on her worthless Republican ass. I wrote her when she voted for the war that I would vote for a Real Republican the next time I needed some worthless asshole to vote like one.
Originally posted by: bamacre
:laugh:
Well, I guess my point wasn't meant for this topic anyway.
As for the OP, it's just no surprise that the disease of social conservatism hasn't just infected the GOP. But their constituents have allowed the infection to be ignored, and that just allows the Democrats to be sick, too.
Since this inaccurate version of history is widely held, it's worth correcting when it comes up.
A vote for the bill was not a vote for war, necesssarily.
I've written at length about this and will stick to the short version here repeating the point.
The bill was promised by Bush to be for getting inspectors into Iraq and he said it was not a vote for war, it was a bill he promised not to use that way. Lots of words about war as a 'last resort'', assuring those who did not want to vote for war. So, both those who did not want war but did support pressure on Saddam to let the inspectors back in that he'd kicked out under Clinton could vote for this; and those who did support could vote for it too as a 'first step'. You have to read their statements and speeches to see which they were.
Not everyone took Bush at his word, and they voted against it.
They turned out to be right, in that Bush broke his word and when the bill worked at getting the inspectors back in, Bush betrayed Congress and the American people.
He ordered war, the war he said would not happen unless WMD were proven, and he ordered the inspectors who were not finding WMD out of Iraq so the war could start.
So, the people who voted for the bill are not accurately decribed necessarily as voting 'for the war'.
Ns1, I live in San Francisco, and your post inspired me to send some feedback on Feinstein's page. LINK
"I have just learned about the legislation you proposed, S-258 -"Save Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2009". It is a bill will enhance penalties under federal law for some patients who make or use edible preparations of cannabis.
Cannabis should be treated the same as cigarettes and alchohol - legal, regulated, and taxed. I believe people should have the freedom to make their own decisions, even bad ones. Furthermore, at a time when CA severely hurting for revenue, the cost of enforcement simply outweighs the perceived benefit."
Not sure what else can be done, it's too bad she doesn't come up for reelection until 2012.
"I have just learned about the legislation you proposed, S-258 -"Save Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2009". It is a bill will enhance penalties under federal law for some patients who make or use edible preparations of cannabis.
Cannabis should be treated the same as cigarettes and alchohol - legal, regulated, and taxed. I believe people should have the freedom to make their own decisions, even bad ones. Furthermore, at a time when CA severely hurting for revenue, the cost of enforcement simply outweighs the perceived benefit."
Not sure what else can be done, it's too bad she doesn't come up for reelection until 2012.
This is nothing new. Feinstein has always been a middle of the road democrat, and has moved steadily to the right over the years. She is representing lots of moderate Republicans in California.
Cannabis in non-toxic and has never killed anyone. How about we have severe penalties for anyone furnishing the proven killers tobacco and alcohol to minors? It would be far more effective at protecting children than this misguided law.
Cannabis in non-toxic and has never killed anyone. How about we have severe penalties for anyone furnishing the proven killers tobacco and alcohol to minors? It would be far more effective at protecting children than this misguided law.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,030
- 2
- 61
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
:laugh:
Well, I guess my point wasn't meant for this topic anyway.
As for the OP, it's just no surprise that the disease of social conservatism hasn't just infected the GOP. But their constituents have allowed the infection to be ignored, and that just allows the Democrats to be sick, too.
Since this inaccurate version of history is widely held, it's worth correcting when it comes up.
A vote for the bill was not a vote for war, necesssarily.
I've written at length about this and will stick to the short version here repeating the point.
The bill was promised by Bush to be for getting inspectors into Iraq and he said it was not a vote for war, it was a bill he promised not to use that way. Lots of words about war as a 'last resort'', assuring those who did not want to vote for war. So, both those who did not want war but did support pressure on Saddam to let the inspectors back in that he'd kicked out under Clinton could vote for this; and those who did support could vote for it too as a 'first step'. You have to read their statements and speeches to see which they were.
Not everyone took Bush at his word, and they voted against it.
They turned out to be right, in that Bush broke his word and when the bill worked at getting the inspectors back in, Bush betrayed Congress and the American people.
He ordered war, the war he said would not happen unless WMD were proven, and he ordered the inspectors who were not finding WMD out of Iraq so the war could start.
So, the people who voted for the bill are not accurately decribed necessarily as voting 'for the war'.
Either way, Craig, it doesn't matter. Not one bit. Whether they voted for the war, or let Bush make the decision, it's the same damn thing.
I understand your argument, and I see your point. I just think it's totally irrelevant. They knew what they were doing, and they knew what was going to happen. Why? Because Bush was president, and more importantly, Cheney was VP. PNAC was in charge, and that was obvious. Letting them make the decision is irrelevant, simply because they knew what their decision would be. Sorry, they have blood on their hands, and it doesn't wash away so easily. That's why war is to be declared by Congress, not the President. And handing off their duty to the President doesn't make them innocent. No way, not at all.
It must be the only burning plant matter that is non-toxic :laugh:
Come on, there are legitimate arguments for MJ reform. Saying BS like that just makes you look like a NorCal hippy. Wait...
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
:laugh:
Well, I guess my point wasn't meant for this topic anyway.
As for the OP, it's just no surprise that the disease of social conservatism hasn't just infected the GOP. But their constituents have allowed the infection to be ignored, and that just allows the Democrats to be sick, too.
Since this inaccurate version of history is widely held, it's worth correcting when it comes up.
A vote for the bill was not a vote for war, necesssarily.
I've written at length about this and will stick to the short version here repeating the point.
The bill was promised by Bush to be for getting inspectors into Iraq and he said it was not a vote for war, it was a bill he promised not to use that way. Lots of words about war as a 'last resort'', assuring those who did not want to vote for war. So, both those who did not want war but did support pressure on Saddam to let the inspectors back in that he'd kicked out under Clinton could vote for this; and those who did support could vote for it too as a 'first step'. You have to read their statements and speeches to see which they were.
Not everyone took Bush at his word, and they voted against it.
They turned out to be right, in that Bush broke his word and when the bill worked at getting the inspectors back in, Bush betrayed Congress and the American people.
He ordered war, the war he said would not happen unless WMD were proven, and he ordered the inspectors who were not finding WMD out of Iraq so the war could start.
So, the people who voted for the bill are not accurately decribed necessarily as voting 'for the war'.
Either way, Craig, it doesn't matter. Not one bit. Whether they voted for the war, or let Bush make the decision, it's the same damn thing.
I understand your argument, and I see your point. I just think it's totally irrelevant. They knew what they were doing, and they knew what was going to happen. Why? Because Bush was president, and more importantly, Cheney was VP. PNAC was in charge, and that was obvious. Letting them make the decision is irrelevant, simply because they knew what their decision would be. Sorry, they have blood on their hands, and it doesn't wash away so easily. That's why war is to be declared by Congress, not the President. And handing off their duty to the President doesn't make them innocent. No way, not at all.
Right, it is the Democrats fault that we went to war because they should have known Bush and his Republican administration couldn't be trusted. That's some twisted ass logic there.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 27,298
- 36,438
- 136
If only you spent as much time reading posts instead of just making them...
And it's a real shame you construe marincounty's comments as somehow being disingenuous and stereotypical. His comments were spot on, and your clear contempt for the common sense in his poser does you no favors. But then, you already posted like you didn't even read the OP, so no biggee I guess...
If you need help finding information that shows THC in neurotoxic, I dont know what to tell you.
Ok, ill give you one.
http://www.druglibrary.org/crl...oxity_%20JNeurosci.pdf
The obvious argument is that so is alcohol, and that is legal. But no, you have to say something completely ignorant that makes Pro-MJ people look foolish.
Originally posted by: kage69
If only you spent as much time reading posts instead of just making them...
And it's a real shame you construe marincounty's comments as somehow being disingenuous and stereotypical. His comments were spot on, and your clear contempt for the common sense in his poser does you no favors. But then, you already posted like you didn't even read the OP, so no biggee I guess...
See my post above. THC is neurotoxic.
You are still full of shit.
The definition of toxic is normally: 1 : containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation <toxic waste> <a toxic radioactive gas> <an insecticide highly toxic to birds>
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toxic)
Marijuana does not kill or cause serious debilitation.
Furthermore, from you own link, "Although there is no direct evidence that marijuana is neurotoxic for human brain, some of the memory de?cits associated with its use may be caused by neuronal death in the hippocampus.
Sorry neurotoxic doesnt fit your definition of toxic.
"Marijuana consumption elicits diverse physiological and psychologicaleffects in humans, including memory loss. Here we report that D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the major psychoactive component of marijuana, is toxic for hippocampal neurons. Treatment of cultured neurons or hippocampal slices with THC caused shrinkage of neuronal cell bodies and nuclei as well as genomic DNA strand breaks, hallmarks of neuronal
apoptosis."
Seriously, if you dont know that MJ kills braincells, you are probably a fucking moron.
No, neurotoxic is not the same as toxic, unless you are a moron.
Seriously, show me the deaths associated with marijuana use, or did you just make that up?
Maybe you are just an idiot, or possibly all of your alcohol use has destroyed your brain?
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Other research has concluded Cannabidiol and (-)?9-tetrahydrocannabinol are neuroprotective antioxidants.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter