Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

And speaking of bureaucratic power grabs

The FCC’s voting itself to takeover of the ‘net? Posh. The EPA is aiming to take over everything by way of driving up the cost of everything. Washington Times:

The Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules, which take effect Jan. 2, will impose limits on carbon dioxide. The EPA’s primary targets are coal-plant operators, who will be forced to choose between retrofitting their facilities with expensive emissions-control equipment and cooling towers or shutting them down. Democratic Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV – whose West Virginia coal-country constituents have the most to lose from the tough emissions restrictions – announced Friday that he had failed in his 11th-hour attempt to force a Senate vote to suspend the regulations before they take effect. His measure would have delayed for two years the new emissions requirements for power plants, refineries and manufacturing factories under the Clean Air Act.

A study released Dec. 8 by the Brattle Group, an economic consultancy, found that the new EPA rules could force the retirement of older power plants that produce 50,000 to 67,000 megawatts of electricity, or roughly 20 percent of the nation’s coal-fired power plants. As many as 70 million homes could be subject to blackouts, according to American Solutions, an advocacy group for conventional energy. Equipping remaining plants to comply with the mandates would cost $100 billion to $180 billion, the Brattle report warned. Those expenses would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher electric bills.

Look no further than the White House to find the source of this assault on America’s energy supply. The Obama administration’s energy policy is driven by global-warming true believers. Their intent is to flip the economics of energy and raise the cost of carbon-dioxide-based power, making purported green energy appear more cost-efficient by comparison. A review of 2010 recalls a series of obstacles to a fully powered nation that Team Obama has tossed in the path of nuclear waste disposal, offshore oil and gas drilling and now coal-produced electricity. All the while, billions are funneled to politically favored industries in order to subsidize expensive alternatives such as solar panels that produce electricity at double the cost.

Increases in the cost of energy don’t only yield higher electric bills. They yield increases in the cost of food, clothing, and any items that are produced, transported, or stored using energy. That is, everything.

Obama’s front-line efforts to get a Soviet style industrially-regulated society died with the most recent elections. Cap-and-trade as a matter of Congressional legislative mandate is dead.

But as we knew he would, Obama is using his regulatory agencies — peopled by unelected bureaucrats, and run by through a labyrinthian set of rules and regulations — to effectively impose on us the mechanisms for our own economic destruction (all while seizing control over a heretofore unregulated communications conduit).

The societal “transformation” Obama promised is happening. He’s just moved on to less savory methods to make it so — with the idea that, in the end, it is nearly impossible for elected politicians to find the will to roll-back government once it becomes entrenched.

The TEA Party movement, if it is to align itself with an established political party, has to insist that the candidates it supports have the will and determination to take on the entrenched bureaucracies. Cut their funding. Abolish them altogether.

Otherwise, we risk having a veneer of a republican representative democracy — while we are truly governed by a Brazil-like bureaucratic state run by unelected, faceless drones following rules set out to control and constrain individuals and individualism.

251 Replies to “And speaking of bureaucratic power grabs”

  1. dicentra says:

    Is everybody ready for Jesus to come? Because nothing short of divine intervention is going to fix THIS.

    Well, that and a well-placed EMP.

  2. JHoward says:

    A certain clarity emerges just before the real fight. Let’s hope this is Obama’s Waterloo.

  3. The Monster says:

    “Under my plan, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket” -Barack H. Obama.

  4. dicentra says:

    OT: Look at the 7-day cumulatives for this week’s rain: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/swusa_observed.png

    Quips Watts: “That ‘Lake Mead will go dry due to global warming’ is forestalled at the moment.”

    SLC has been getting some nice rain, too, but nothing damaging. Southern Utah, however, is getting floods, and they were worried a dam would break.

    Lots of other pretty pictures at the article: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/21/wow-thats-a-lot-of-water-major-rainfall-in-socal/

  5. cranky-d says:

    We are totally and completely screwed.

    I have a new bill for the incoming Congress next year. Block this rule immediately to start with. Put it to a vote, and make the Democrats own it if they are in favor of leaving it in place.

    This will totally destroy our economy all in the name of bastardized “science.”

  6. Joe says:

    Since Obama and his pals want to play doctor on the country, perhaps they should read the Hippocratic Oath:

    I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:
    To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

    I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

    I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

    But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

    I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

    In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

    All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

    If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

  7. Spiny Norman says:

    The EPA and FCC bureaucrats believe they’re omnipotent and above the reach of the lumpenproletariat of Congress and the Courts. Let’s see just how much power they have with no fucking money…

    DEFUND, DEFUND, DEFUND.

    Next up: DISMANTLE.

  8. McGehee says:

    Proggs, assault — some assembly required.

    And yes, battery sold separately.

  9. cranky-d says:

    Some of what the EPA has done in the past was beneficial. There were a lot of pollutants being created whose creation was either avoidable or capable of being reduced, and the result was a net plus I think. However, I think they ran out of things to do. Classifying C02 as a pollutant has opened up a huge playground for them. One wonders how long it will take for them to require licensing to produce children, since they, after all, produce C02 as well.

    I think they have outlived their usefulness. Time to say goodnight, Gracie.

  10. cranky-d says:

    Of course, the EPA has caused the destruction of some industries as well. Like I said, some of what they have done is beneficial.

  11. Barrett Brown says:

    In terms of egregious federal nonsense, the EPA thing doesn’t strike me as any more horrid than what we’ve seen over the last couple of decades. The moves to “regulate” the net, meanwhile, ought to unite citizens across the spectrum in opposition, and quickly.

  12. Darleen says:

    di

    A lot of SoCal’s water comes from the Sierra snowpack. Mammoth mountain is having it’s best/deepest December snowfall on record right now! These last storms dumped 10-15 FEET of snow.

    Oh god, I’m SO ski-envy right now ….

  13. Jeff G. says:

    In terms of egregious federal nonsense, the EPA thing doesn’t strike me as any more horrid than what we’ve seen over the last couple of decades.

    It was wrong then, too.

    If you aren’t bothered by it, don’t fight it. I am, and I plan to.

  14. Barrett Brown says:

    Well, I’m kind of fighting all of it. I’ve got a pretty full plate.

  15. JD says:

    Such a warrior you are, Barrett.

  16. geoffb says:

    I’m with you Spiny. Give them the Dr. Jack treatment.

  17. Pablo says:

    In terms of egregious federal nonsense, the EPA thing doesn’t strike me as any more horrid than what we’ve seen over the last couple of decades.

    Right. What could go wrong with unelected bureaucrats declaring your very breath to be pollution in need of regulation?

  18. Barrett Brown says:

    Yeah, JD, I can see how one might look kind of silly proclaiming that he’s going to fight things.

    Slow ball.

  19. Crawford says:

    BB’s too busy taking on Charles Johnson to think about the EPA.

    Priorities, people!

  20. Barrett Brown says:

    Pablo, I’m not sure how you got “nothing can go wrong” from “doesn’t strike me as any more horrid than what we’ve seen over the past couple of decades” in reference to something I also termed “egregious federal nonsense.” Or, rather, I know exactly how you got it.

    Intentionalism-ism! Take that, Andrew Sullivan!

  21. Barrett Brown says:

    I’m actually working on scientific literacy and Africa health development at the moment, among other things. It sounds like you guys have the EPA covered, so I figured I could take the day off.

  22. Barrett Brown says:

    Sorry, that was for Crawford.

  23. Pablo says:

    Pablo, I’m not sure how you got “nothing can go wrong” from

    Well, that makes us even, Barrett, because I don’t know where you got that either.

  24. cranky-d says:

    So what is your point, then, BB? Do you have one, beyond, apparently, trying to set yourself up as arbiter of what is important and what isn’t? The EPA power-grab is dismissable as a “situation normal” kind of thing, while the FCC one is not?

    Should we not consider that they are both important issues, as I think most here would agree?

  25. It is right, good, and necessary to require the generation of coal-fired electricity to be as clean as it possibly can be. Using said requirements as a pretext to shut down the entire industry is wrongheaded and must be fought.

    Oh, I forgot. Hippies don’t use energy; they take the bus.

  26. Barrett Brown says:

    You’re right; you didn’t actually say that I said “nothing can go wrong.” You wrote:

    “Right. What could go wrong with unelected bureaucrats declaring your very breath to be pollution in need of regulation?”

    I didn’t realize that you were actually asking me a question about policy. I would simply note that the answer might be found in your very question! Unelected bureaucrats might have good intentions, Pablo, but often they end up doing more harm than good! If you’d like I can suggest some great books by Milton Friedman!

  27. BB: I’m actually working on scientific literacy and Africa health development at the moment,…

    Hope you’ll give George W. Bush his due for his $15B AIDS fighting package to Africa. I mean, Bono didn’t do it all by himself.

  28. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I prefer my coal-fired electricity to be as clean as it practically can be. Clean as it possibly can be doesn’t sound economically feasible.

  29. JHoward says:

    You ever get an answer from Lowry, Brown? No?

    That practiced hundred yard stare not do it then?

  30. Pablo says:

    I didn’t realize that you were actually asking me a question about policy.

    The question went to the relative horridness of regulating CO2. But don’t mind me, I’m sure Africa needs you more than I do.

  31. Barrett Brown says:

    No, Cranky. Jeff began with a quick reference to the attempts at regulating the internet, which happens to be an issue with which I am particularly concerned, so I merely made an observation. Meanwhile, this EPA thing strikes me as pretty much par for the course in terms of what the EPA has been up to since Nixon established the agency. It sounds like at least one commenter here – you, actually – approve of what the EPA does in many cases, whereas many others appear to see the EPA in harsher terms than I do relative to everything else the feds do. I’d be interested in hearing more from you about what EPA programs you think to be particularly positive, as environmental issues really aren’t something I follow closely.

  32. Barrett Brown says:

    Sanity Inspector, I do indeed give him credit for the various relatively good policy decisions that came out of the White House, and have the same policy towards all presidents. I think Africa is best served, though, by private entities operating without going through the various governments and applying the various newer techniques that exists in communications, for instance, as opposed to a lot of the throw-money-at-it solutions that many countries and large charities have attempted.

  33. Crawford says:

    I’m actually working on scientific literacy…

    Keep trying. Someday you’ll figure it out.

  34. JD says:

    Jesus. There is another Moronic Convergence today. Barrett the warrior for the Africans, and alex the booger-eater. Every fucking time BB shows his douchey face, it is like some performance art geared towards telling the world how great he is. BB is going to solve world hunger next.

  35. cranky-d says:

    I approve of what the EPA has done in the past in some cases. I’m not sure I would say that anything they’ve done recently is good, nor would I say I approve of most of what they have done in the past, because I don’t know the whole of it. For instance, requiring scrubbers that remove sulfur from emissions was overall a good thing, I think, because sulfur in the air would become acidic. There are other pollutants that are vastly reduced by technology that is not prohibitively expensive. I think smog regulations on automobiles overall turned out pretty well (though as a car guy the cars kind of sucked in the 70s before the automakers caught up to figuring out how to make it all work), and cars are better than ever.

    However, as noted by Ernst, there is a point at which the cost-effectiveness of removing pollutants becomes prohibitive. The EPA has been pushing for even stricter emissions standards for cars, and I have no idea how much it will cost, if indeed their standards are even realistic. I tend to think they are not.

    I do not have extensive knowledge of what else they have done. Like I said, the EPA has also caused the destruction of some industries (such as vacuum-tube manufacturing).

    My overall point was that the EPA has not been all bad. However, note that I also said it’s time to get rid of it.

  36. Darleen says:

    The EPA, IIRC, was first instituted to take care of egregious polluters – people/companies who dumped really hazardous waste willy-nilly on open land, into rivers/streams/lakes.

    (an aside, I still believe one of the best solutions would have been to have companies – say those that discharged waste into a river – have to have intake pipes for their own water use just downstream from the discharge pipes)

    But once things became clean, the EPA fell into the same syndrome as many other cause-based organizations, private or public. They then had to justify their existence by finding or inventing new problems to be solved.

    EVERY unelected agency in the Federal government should be sunsetted. There should be public hearings before any are authorized to continue.

  37. Silver Whistle says:

    Jesus. There is another Moronic Convergence today. Barrett the warrior for the Africans, and alex the booger-eater.

    8 out of 10 scientists say that eating boogers is bad for you.

  38. Darleen says:

    The EPA has been pushing for even stricter emissions standards for cars, and I have no idea how much it will cost

    The cost will be in human lives.

    I never felt so safe on the road then when I ferryed my girls to school in the 1972 Cadillac Coupe de Ville I inherited from my grandparents.

  39. Barrett Brown says:

    Cranky, that’s entirely reasonable and I understand you perfectly. Regarding the EPA being overzealous in terms of going after industrial pollutants beyond the point at which the returns are anything close to worth it, that sort of thing always reminds me of one of P.J. O’Rourke’s major themes from twenty years back, when he forever noted that such agencies are often going to largely attract people who have some ideological commitment to a practical concern and are thus likely to take steps that an entirely policy-driven person would wisely refrain from taking.

  40. cranky-d says:

    Darleen, emissions standards are not equivalent to fuel economy standards. Up to this point, there hasn’t been all that much linkage. Now, if you really cranked up emissions standards, that could change, I don’t know, but I would not be so quick as to say that cars must be smaller and lighter to meet emissions standards.

  41. JD says:

    I luv it when BB tries to act like he is not some leftist ideologue.

  42. Spiny Norman says:

    cranky,

    My overall point was that the EPA has not been all bad.

    Well, they certainly did not get off to a good start. The federal EPA’s first act of any significance was the banning of DDT, effectively condemning millions worldwide to preventable early death from malaria, even after their own studies debunked the wild claims of grievous environmental degradation. Everything since has been tainted by that.

    However, note that I also said it’s time to get rid of it.

    Yep. They have long outlived their usefulness and are now going to extremes to justify their existence. Besides, every state in the Union has their own environmental regulatory agency, so the federal EPA is completely redundant.

  43. cranky-d says:

    The banning of DDT was based on junk science, just like this C02 crap now. I certainly didn’t mean to come off as a defender of the EPA, I just noted that they have done some good.

  44. cranky-d says:

    BTW, could everything good the EPA did have been done by some temporary agency that investigated things from a feasibility standpoint, consulting engineers and the like to see what could be done cost-effectively, and then passing that on to a Congress that could have passed legislation easing those same standards into place? Yes, and we wouldn’t have left an agency in place with, as Darleen pointed out, nothing to do and therefore suffering the mission creep of finding something new to do.

  45. mojo says:

    Run the plant normally until you reach the government-set “carbon limit”.

    Then turn it off.

    Bet that’d get some attention, huh?

  46. Barrett Brown says:

    The DDT thing really is one of the most terrible policy implementations of any U.S. federal agency. That it hasn’t further damaged the credibility of the EPA now that the deadly results are indisputable is a black mark on a lot of the institutions, both formal and informal, that shape public opinion and (sometimes) translate that public opinion into policy. Of course, now that New Yorkers and others in the civilized world are now confronted with entirely non-deadly but irritating bed bugs, suddenly action is being taken to allow various strong pesticides.

  47. cranky-d says:

    I like your style, mojo.

  48. Bob Reed says:

    I’m just curious. Has anyone else heard any hew and cry coming out of the same quarters that spent nearly 8 years decrying “The Imperial Presidency of Chimperor BusHitlerBurton”, and his governance by executive order/fiat?

    ‘Cuz I’m not hearing it, and am wondering when the giant paper-mache head marchers will be showing up at Lafayette square…

  49. Bob Reed says:

    Defund the EPA. It’s an artifice from a different era that’s outlived it’s usefulness. Instead of fiat regulation by unelected bureaucrats let the congress actually legislate standards and limit practices. At least that way the people from which the right to govern actually arises can give or withold their consent.

  50. cranky-d says:

    I write software for devices that monitor transformers and motors. You know, stuff in power stations.

    This time when I end up unemployed, I’m going the bankruptcy route. That’s what the government wants us to do, apparently.

  51. dicentra says:

    I’m reminded of the way people started rejecting the authority of the Pope back in the day, first the Eastern Orthodox folks and then the Henry VIII and then all hell broke loose.

    It’s always tempting to say that I welcome the upheaval if it breaks the back of federal overreach, but then something/someone I care about gets harmed by the ensuing chaos, and it was all fun and games until then.

  52. Barrett Brown says:

    Certainly, Bob, quite a few people who opposed transgressions under Bush have been vocal in opposing those transgressions under Obama. Not the more partisan folks who only care about those things when an “opponent” does them, but Obama has taken criticism from the very beginning from non-Republicans of various sorts.

  53. happyfeet says:

    the moonie paper doesn’t tell you very much apparently this is called the tailoring rule what they are implementing … here is a fact sheet [PDF] … from the fact sheet you get a reminder that this is the rule bumblefuck is using to ass-rape the cement industry in America

    This includes the nation’s largest GHG emitters—power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.

    So this will also fuck over Texas in a big way. I think bumblefuck and his EPA whores have no idea what they’re getting into personally. Electricity is already very spensive in Texas.

    It also reminders you this:

    Emissions from small farms, restaurants, and all but the very largest commercial facilities will not be covered by these programs at this time.

    Emphasis theirs you just have to know how to read EPA whorespeak.

    In mid-July next year is when the EPA whores really get rolling.

    They start going after construction:

    PSD permitting requirements will cover for the first time new construction projects that emit GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tpy even if they do not exceed the permitting thresholds for any other pollutant.

    And then we see this:

    EPA estimates that about 550 sources will need to obtain title V permits for the first time due to their GHG emissions. The majority of these newly permitted sources will likely be solid waste landfills and industrial manufacturers. There will be approximately 900 additional PSD permitting actions each year triggered by increases in GHG emissions from new and modified emission sources.

    What’s most important to remember is that before these new EPA rules our little country was already a floundering international laughingstock of fail. The new rules are a BONUS.

  54. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    very beginning from non-Republicans of various sorts.

    Yes, usually for not being leftist enough. And of course the Cato Institute, Lew Rockwell and other assorted libertarian organizations. I think the point is that the members of your chosen profession are the hypocrites in Bob’s estimation.

  55. dicentra says:

    Via Insty, this explanation of how ethanol can wreak havoc on your motor.

    All of which makes me grateful to live in a desert, but not grateful to have the gubmint mandate E85 just because Iowa is the first state every presidential candidate has to suck up to.

  56. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    For me personally the breaking point was labeling carbon motherfucking dioxide a pollutant. That was upping the ante just a little, imo.

  57. Bob Reed says:

    The difference being Barrett that most criticism of Obama from erstwhile friendly preicincts center around him not going far enough in the imposition of their favored schemes; by any means necessary comes to mind.

    I have heard no criticism of his use of executive order and bureaucratic regulation like I did when the power to do so was vested in their political opponents.

    I’m reminded of Ric Locke’s frequent cautions about giving the government the ability to use it’s “goon squads” in the name of causes that one may support, lest they use it in ways that one deems unfit when the shoe is on the other foot-so to speak.

    Kind of like the Democrats in the Senate trying to abolish the longstanding parlaimentary artifice of the filibuster; one they used quite a bit when they were in the minority, but, now that it interfere’s with them ramming through their agenda has now become a hinderance.

    The usual hypocrisy of the “by any means necessary” contingent.

  58. happyfeet says:

    at the times article Linda Rivera exhales and shares this

    LindaRivera says:

    1 hour, 46 minutes ago

    The very least the administration should do to help financially struggling Americans is to plant massive amounts of non-gmo, organic fruit and nut trees in all of our towns and cities parks and wherever there is spare land. Should the administration not do something good to help Americans with all of those tax dollars?

    The future’s so bright we gotta wear headlamps.

  59. dicentra says:

    I want to go on record as being heavily IN FAVOR OF global warming, such as it is, and for CO2 increases in the atmosphere, even though atmospheric CO2 has never in the history of the planet driven global temps.

    Because emerging from an ice age is preferable to plunging into one, and because I’m a plant fancier, and CO2 makes them happy.

  60. happyfeet says:

    CO2 is awesome I love it

  61. Bob Reed says:

    It’s not lost on me that the Chinese will benefit from US coal plants being mandated to go offline. You see, virtually all of their power generation is coal fired, and they could use the deleterious effects on the price of coal that a glut would bring.

    Brother O! doing his Maoist buddies a solid!

    Van Jones probably reccomended the move.

    ‘Cuz, you know, Mao was a good man too.

  62. Bob Reed says:

    Meanwhile, GE gets scads of Uncle Sugar bucks for their “green energy” industries…

    Brother O!, takin’ care of his boy Immelt for the invaluable help in the 2008 connivance campaign.

  63. bastiches says:

    Remember when the Left didn’t like fascism?

    Good times.

  64. happyfeet says:

    coal in china is more than just for making energies it’s a feedstock driving all sort of industrial development and creating jobs jobs jobs whereas in failshit America coal is a dirty dirty pollutant we hates it fuck you Jay Rockefeller down goes your hillbilly state

  65. cranky-d says:

    If this goes on far enough, in the future we’ll be buying technology from China. Won’t that be fun!

  66. happyfeet says:

    we treat coal like a bieberfan gets treated in the comments on youtube

  67. Bob Reed says:

    Meanwhile, no new drilling permits offshore for years to come, well, at least 2-more executive fiat…

    And nuclear power? The real “green energy”? No shot…Well talk about new plant permits all day, but you’re not allowed to get rid of the spent fuel; and keeping it on-site is an environmental hazard.

  68. Barrett Brown says:

    Bob, there are a large number of pundits who have attacked him not for refraining from going too far left, but on civil liberties and other issues that I think the Republicans still support as well, and which are thus not necessarily “left.” But I find that I often don’t quite understand the GOP stance on civil liberties since, like the Democrats, they vary from issue to issue.

  69. Bob Reed says:

    If it is as you say, they’re not getting anywhere near the play that they did previously in the MSM; I certainly have heard little of it, and consider myself fairly well informed.

  70. JD says:

    We hate civil liberties, BB. And brown people. And Teh Gheys. Gawd, you are dummerer than we thought if You did not know that.

    Bob – I admire your patience.

  71. Crawford says:

    But I find that I often don’t quite understand the GOP stance on civil liberties since…

    You’re dumb as a post. We know that; it was established long ago.

  72. happyfeet says:

    boycott Home Depot

  73. JD says:

    I feel blessed just to have inhabited the same comment thread as the Great Barrette Brown. I bought a fedora Just so I could try to emulate him, because nothing screams man more than a pencil necked geek that threatens lawsuits and shows his ass all over the innertubes.

  74. McGehee says:

    Well, I’m kind of fighting all of it.

    We’re saved!

  75. Barrett Brown says:

    Well, I can’t take all the credit; Jeff is fighting the EPA for us. Why is it that no one is thanking him?

  76. Spiny Norman says:

    BB,

    But I find that I often don’t quite understand the GOP stance on civil liberties

    This might clarify a few things:

    Individuals have rights and civil liberties, groups do not.

    I’m quite aware that neither major Party is entirely consistent, but that illustrates the biggest difference between the two.

  77. Barrett Brown says:

    Spiny, does the Republican Party oppose the prosecution of those tens of millions of Americans who smoke marijuana? I haven’t seen their plank lately.

  78. Spiny Norman says:

    Try reading my comment again. See if you can find what you missed the first time.

  79. Barrett Brown says:

    Nope, still not working. Maybe your comment is broken?

  80. Makewi says:

    I think the Republican plank is simply “drugs are bad mkay”.

  81. Barrett Brown says:

    Oh, I get it now. You said that individuals have rights. You didn’t say that they had the right to pursue their lives as they wish without being arrested and incarcerated for consensual “crimes.” Sorry, I’m a little slow!

  82. happyfeet says:

    it’s not really Team R’s place to tell us whether drugs are bad or not next thing you know you have Meghan’s cowardly fuckstain of a daddy regulating vitamins

  83. Spiny Norman says:

    Sorry, I’m a little slow!

    Deliberately, apparently.

    I’ll try to help with your reading difficulties by making it boldface:

    neither major Party is entirely consistent

    You do know what that means, right?

  84. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I don’t know what Mr. Brown did to earn the hostility that’s been directed towards him, but it’s clear to me that it’s deserved.

  85. Makewi says:

    Bill Clinton didn’t legalize pot. Neither did Obama. I think the blame on this one can get spread around a little.

    How about crack, should we pushing to legalize crack?

  86. Barrett Brown says:

    Yes, I agree with you that neither major party is consistent. I didn’t say otherwise. You said that the GOP stance on civil liberties was that individuals have rights and also that this is somehow different from the Democrats. I pointed out that whatever the GOP may claim, it does not actually believe that individuals have as many rights as, say, I think they should have. I guess I could have pointed out that the Democrats also claim that individuals have rights, so I’m not sure I see the “biggest difference” that you see. What is the difference again?

  87. happyfeet says:

    we should push to take the power to make crack illegal away from the failshit government of the United States and especially away from cowardly simpering fuckstains like John McCain

  88. Barrett Brown says:

    Happyfeet has it correct and neatly phrased, as usual.

  89. Makewi says:

    Democrats believe in a sliding scale of rights, where yours are determined by which groups you can claim association to. The college admissions process expanded to include everything.

  90. Crawford says:

    I’d have no problem with decriminalizing drugs, if we first dismantled the welfare state. So long as I’m expected to foot the bill for other people fucking their lives up, no fucking way.

    Now, to me that’s a perfectly consistent position. If you’re willing to take responsibility for your own choices, I’ll gleefully support getting the state out of your way. But so long as you’re able to fuck up your life and then use the government to force me to work for your benefit, well, I get to use the government to make it that much harder for you to fuck up your life.

    And, sure, there are plenty of people who smoke pot and live productive lives. I don’t see why they’re not making the same argument I am, frankly.

  91. Makewi says:

    OK, hf, do we give that power to someone else or keep it for ourselves?

  92. Crawford says:

    Happyfeet has it correct and neatly phrased, as usual.

    You two should get a room together. Somewhere else.

  93. Makewi says:

    I’m just trying to find the borders in this brave new land.

  94. happyfeet says:

    there is no “power” there’s just the depravity of a sad and failshit government what is eager to use violence against its own citizens for to make them obey

  95. Makewi says:

    Is it within my rights to swing my arms if I accidentally break your crack pipe in the process? If I sell you crack that is really just wall board then who do you complain to? What if the junk I sell you kills you because it’s too pure? Is that my fault or yours? Is it ok if I give my minor child crack for his birthday, or maybe just because he raked the leaves? Should I be allowed to manufacture crack in my home? What if I have kids living there? What if it’s in a multi family dwelling? If it’s a single family home in a development should I be required to inform my neighbors of the dangers to their life and property?

    I have more questions, but this is a good start I think.

  96. cranky-d says:

    How about if we make the collecting of welfare dependent on not using drugs? We could do random drug-testing and bounce anyone who fails out of the program for at least a year. We could do that without any changes to the current system, and see what happens.

    Sure, it might not change anything, but it’s worth a shot. I don’t see any need to support drug users now, let alone if drug use were decriminalized. No one has a right to my money but me.

  97. Makewi says:

    There is always power because there is always and will always be weak and strong.

  98. happyfeet says:

    look… in sad failshit America, where the bumblefuck president of our oppressive little country is making war on jobs on every front, do we blame someone for selling drugs for to make some monies?

    Me I applaud them. They are the very best of America… eeking out a living in defiance of an oppressive government.

    OUTLAW!

    for reals

  99. Makewi says:

    For the record, I am for the greatest amount of liberty for the individual. I think this works best when pushed down to the community level, so that if they want to smoke pot and crack in San Fransisco and New York but not allow it in Mobile or Houston then you can choose which place best suits you.

  100. cranky-d says:

    I think happyfeet must be high right now. That is some seriously deranged shit. “They are the best of America… .” Sheesh.

  101. Makewi says:

    So you live in the neighborhoods with easy access to the rock then. So you can keep it real, presumably.

    You’re a brave little pikachu who stands up for what he believes in!

  102. happyfeet says:

    I go to the ghetto all the time that’s where I buy my produce

  103. Makewi says:

    For those keeping score the best of America are those who are here illegally and sell and or manufacture drugs.

  104. happyfeet says:

    unless you’re on the coast or the hills most neighborhoods in LA are pretty well ghetto-adjacent

  105. Barrett Brown says:

    You’re definitely on today, HF.

  106. Makewi says:

    How exactly is it the “ghetto” if it’s full of real American heroes?

  107. Crawford says:

    I go to the ghetto all the time that’s where I buy my produce

    Never heard it called that. Should the urbandictionary get an update or is that just your personal term for it?

  108. happyfeet says:

    yes Mr. Makewi for those keeping score the outlaws are far better than the losers what prop up their pathetic failshit little country by endlessly endlessly saying oh yeah well I dare you to knock it off again I dare you to knock it off again as their liberties evaporate and their failshit little country yokes them to an unpayable debt

    Americans are become a whorish and cowardly people. But our outlaws may yet save us. Someday.

  109. JD says:

    I think #89 about the sliding scale was spot on.and Barrette remains a douchenozzle.

  110. happyfeet says:

    hah thank you Barrett I hope you’re having a nice holiday season

    in the lane behind my house the snow isn’t exactly glistening per se but we’re gonna make the best of it

  111. JD says:

    Snow sucks. Tired of it already. Goddam globalwarming. I blame algore. And Barrette.

  112. happyfeet says:

    one of my dreams is to live where it snows snows snows with a puppy dog the smell of pine or some other tree-type scent and a huge four story little house and cornfields and a full domestic staff and a private jet and a helicopter and plenty of rum and sex and laughter

  113. JD says:

    We have snow. And cornfields. And rum. And laughter.

  114. happyfeet says:

    I’d say you’re ahead of the game

  115. Darleen says:

    You didn’t say that they had the right to pursue their lives as they wish without being arrested and incarcerated for consensual “crimes.”

    Oooo… can I answer this one, please?

    The majority of pot smokers are never arrested, nor do they have any impact on their family, friends or employers. They are discreet and responsible. They are the reason I (speaking personally) have no problem with legalizing mj and even voted for Prop 19 (even as I had reservations about much of the anti-employer language in it)

    However, the stoopid stoners who get arrested for: driving under the influence, nodding off in public places, shoplifting, etc, don’t get any sympathy from me. Especially if such stoners are living on welfare and food stamps.

    Get rid of welfare and then let’s talk about revamping drug laws, mmm? Otherwise I don’t want one dollar of my earnings enabling slugs.

  116. Darleen says:

    do we blame someone for selling drugs for to make some monies?

    Yep.

    Me I applaud them. They are the very best of America… eeking out a living in defiance of an oppressive government.

    Obviously someone totally divorced from the reality of gangbangers, abused/neglected children, trashed homes, and numerous dead bodies.

  117. happyfeet says:

    and how does America’s failshit and oppressive drug regime do anything for to help the children or to make homes more tidy exactly

  118. happyfeet says:

    the war on drugs is a huge seeping titty for unionized whore cops and prison guards and et cetera to suck suck suck on

    Unionized whores what I understand have awesome pensions.

  119. newrouter says:

    out smarting the bureaucrats

    With regard to the phosphates in dishwashing detergents, you can actually buy many of the same phosphates in granular form in the paint section of Lowe’s or Home Depot. The powdered phosphates look exactly like the old dishwashing powder. Anyhow, for about three months now we have been mixing these phosphates with the liquid dishwashing detergent from Costco and we have been very satisfied with the results. We run the dishwashwer the same as we did before and the dishes come out clean and spot free just like before.

    link

  120. happyfeet says:

    what’s the difference between a Los Angeles cop and a dirty dirty whore?

    I already told you it’s the pensions.

  121. happyfeet says:

    that’s cool about the phosphates but we’re supposed to be boycotting Home Depot

  122. Makewi says:

    Yeah, well, if you think the police and prison unions are bad just wait until crack workers local 267 is a reality.

    The good news is they’ll suck your dick for a dollar.

  123. Jeff G. says:

    What is the difference again?

    Are you seriously suggesting you can’t tell the difference between those looking to tax your soda, dictate your lightbulbs and toilets, and regulate your salt intake, from those who are cautious over the potential social fallout should we legalize certain drugs? The latter of whom — as we know from California’s vote — are those on the left who are just as opposed to legalization as the social conservative caricatures that trip your and happy’s snob reflex.

    Listen: when I spoke out in favor of marijuana decriminalization, a lot of people here disagreed with my take — but then a lot of people here also agreed with me. And all of us are conservative.

    Meanwhile, you wouldn’t find a single person here in favor of mandating particular light bulbs, or talking up the government’s right to control the paint color of a car. Do with that info what you will.

    But seriously, pretending to need the “differences” explained to you is insulting to those of us doing you the courtesy of responding.

  124. eleven says:

    I wouldn’t want to be a prison guard for anything. It’s a shitty job.

    What that has to do with the war on drugs I have no idea.

    Pot was decriminalized in Cali quit a while back so it basically is legal for casual users.

  125. sdferr says:

    Leg gone, bleeding out in the street, still, there’s time to wonder at the beauty of the tattoo he got on his wrist last week. Crack cracks that deficit trouble hard on its deficity head with fail.

    Prokofiev approves.

    bang on crack, bang on Prokofiev, bang on America.

  126. eleven says:

    Quite a while back that is…

  127. cranky-d says:

    sdferr has taken up poetry, it seems. I think it works.

  128. Barrett Brown says:

    Jeff, I certainly apologize for misusing the courtesy I’ve been shown here today.

    Merry Christmas, guys.

  129. Mike LaRoche says:

    In much of California (or even Texas, for that matter) I doubt there’s much difference these days between a prison guard and a public school teacher.

  130. Makewi says:

    I think the “with fail” bit is a bit of brilliance designed to speak to yoots of today.

  131. Mike LaRoche says:

    Me I applaud them. They are the very best of America… eeking out a living in defiance of an oppressive government.

    America needs to emulate drug dealers and illegal aliens to reclaim its former greatness. Yeah, that’s the ticket! My God, hf, you’ve gone full Hollywood leftard on us.

  132. Abe Froman says:

    we should push to take the power to make crack illegal away from the failshit government of the United States and especially away from cowardly simpering fuckstains like John McCain

    Something tells me that when crack was at its worst you were still fucking your cousins in Tumbleweed, Texas.

  133. Jeff G. says:

    Jeff, I certainly apologize for misusing the courtesy I’ve been shown here today.

    It happens. What I don’t get, though, is why you feel the need — rhetorically, I mean — to affect that particular stance. I mean, to me, it’s clear what the major differences are, and knowing you as I do, I’m certain you already recognize them, as well. So why pretend you need these things spelled out? We’re not playing rhetorical chess here. We’re trying to hold conversations.

    Anyway, Merry Christmas — pardon the expression — to you, too.

  134. Jeff G. says:

    And now I’m going to take a nap. I’m stuffed on macaroons.

    Blissfully.

  135. happyfeet says:

    I’m not snobby I even like snobs is how not snobby I am

  136. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Macaroon sounds suspiciously close to

    …oh hell. Nevermind.

  137. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Not snobby, just easily embarrassed sometimes by the lack of urbane sophistication on display around here, huh?

  138. happyfeet says:

    exactly

  139. Abe Froman says:

    Not snobby, just easily embarrassed sometimes by the lack of urbane sophistication on display around here, huh?

    That’s certainly the generous way of putting it.

  140. happyfeet says:

    ringaling hear them sing soon it will be Christmas day

  141. Makewi says:

    What do you think a crack addict asks Santa for?

  142. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – As usual, feets has an ulterior motive.

    – I doubt stoners, as a general rule, consume many cupcakes.

    – So the more stoners there are, the more cupcakes left for him.

  143. Abe Froman says:

    All a crackhead wants for Christmas is his two front teef.

  144. happyfeet says:

    probably more crack and maybe something tasty to nosh on

  145. cranky-d says:

    The maryjane uses are huge consumers of cupcakes. The other druggies, not so much.

  146. happyfeet says:

    maybe some 3-bean salad or some queso

  147. Big Bang Hunter says:

    “What do you think a crack addict asks Santa for?”

    – A really easy AMPM to knock over?

  148. happyfeet says:

    potheads are more of the little debbie tribe than the for reals cupcake tribe

    NTTAWWT

  149. cranky-d says:

    So potheads are not “of the cupcake body” then.

  150. happyfeet says:

    it depends Mr. cranky potheads are like stoned little snowflakes everyone of them is unique and special

  151. newrouter says:

    What do you think a crack addict asks Santa for?

    you mean baracky?

  152. Makewi says:

    I think Taco Bell is more likely than cupcakes

  153. Mike LaRoche says:

    What do you think a crack addict asks Santa for?

    A Hollywood snowstorm.

  154. dicentra says:

    Here’s some OT fun:

    HuffPo blogger Lee Stranahan posted a short article with a vid about the Pigford debacle on Big Government, and the wasps are swarming around his head on Twitter.

    Breitbart, of course, is having a jolly old time with it.

  155. Darleen says:

    obviously hf has never spent an afternoon with a crack baby — not a euphemism for his usual hookers but with a 3 month old that spends most of the time screaming, high-pitched yoodles, until it falls into an exhausted, fitful sleep.

  156. happyfeet says:

    I am pro-abortion, which certainly helps control the crack baby population far far more than our failshit drug laws do

  157. newrouter says:

    I am pro-abortion, which certainly helps control the crack baby population

    you’re a woody wilson kind of ‘feet

  158. Mike LaRoche says:

    I am pro-abortion, which certainly helps control the crack baby population far far more than our failshit drug laws do

    Kill the baby in order to save it.

  159. happyfeet says:

    meanwhile our once-great country is reduced to getting down on its knees and begging begging begging China to please please please not be so competitive

    c’mon China throw the United Failshit Steelworkers a bone we’ll suck your dick for a dollar

  160. Spiny Norman says:

    dicentra

    Here’s some OT fun:

    Oh gawd. Retarded Microcephalic web-footed cretin wasps.

    o_O

  161. Spiny Norman says:

    Funny, the strike-thru looked ok in the preview.

  162. Spiny Norman says:

    Hmmm…

  163. cranky-d says:

    I’ve had the preview fail me too because I think the preview understands more html than the comment processor. I hope that makes sense.

  164. Spiny Norman says:

    I think I understand now: “strike” needs to be spelled out, rather than just “s” and “/s”.

  165. Rupert says:

    Don’t worry feets – We will take the Chinese down with us; although, they are increasingly looking to the EU. They could take them down one country at a time.
    I still feel that the EPA’s rules, once constrained, will offer us a second chance at prosperity. If we will take it.

  166. serr8d says:

    I am pro-abortion

    And pro-eugenics, given your buzzing about the nishi tart.

  167. happyfeet says:

    no not pro-eugenics at all at all

    Mr. Rupert I don’t understand about the second chance – what do you mean “once constrained” exactly

  168. serr8d says:

    Abortion is a subtle tool of eugenicists. You see, they’ve had to be very, very careful to disguise their true beliefs. You could term abortion not only a subtle instrument advancing the goals of eugenics but as ‘nuanced eugenics’ and be hitting uncomfortably close to the mark.

  169. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Ah poor nishi. There’s just an empty space where her black empty little heart once was.

    – feet’s needs consoling, or a cupcake or something.

  170. Big Bang Hunter says:

    “once constrained”

    – Once we’er able to eliminate the Mofo’s.

  171. Mike LaRoche says:

    Nishi’s still drinking her sorrows away after lat months epic electoral fail.

    And the latest census news about Congressional seat reapportionments and demographic trends favoring Republicans can’t help.

    lulz ;)

  172. happyfeet says:

    we lost nishi I wonder where she is I remember when she waved goodbye saying please don’t cry she’d be back again some day

    so you never know when she’ll pop up

    but I hope wherever she is she is having a nice Christmas

  173. Mike LaRoche says:

    “last month’s”

    Damn Shiner Bock…

  174. cranky-d says:

    I think we could all use a cupcake every now and then.

  175. serr8d says:

    I am pro-abortion, which certainly helps control the crack baby population

    You could also call that statement ‘crpyto-eugenics‘…

    “That the Society should pursue eugenic ends by less obvious means, that is by a policy of crypto-eugenics, which was apparently proving successful in the US Eugenics Society.”

    In 1960, Blacker’s proposal was adopted by the Eugenics Society. A resolution which was accepted stated (in part):

    “The Society’s activities in crypto-eugenics should be pursued vigorously, and specifically that the Society should increase its monetary support of the FPA [Family Planning Association, the English branch of Planned Parenthood] and the IPPF [International Planned Parenthood Federation] and should make contact with the Society for the Study of Human Biology, which already has a strong and active membership, to find out if any relevant projects are contemplated with which the Eugenics Society could assist.”

    So, ‘feets, you’ve very plainly and eagerly jumped on the eugenics bandwagon, whether you realize (or admit) it or no.

  176. Mike LaRoche says:

    You need to save nishi by sweeping her off of her feet, ‘feets.

  177. Darleen says:

    so hf you gonna drag those crack whores to the abortion clinic and force ’em to have abortions? at any time during their terms?

    How Chinese of you.

  178. Big Bang Hunter says:

    “but I hope wherever she is she is having a nice Christmas”

    – No doubt tending her flock of hybrid sheep, while she watches over the bio-degradeble manger, and the little test tube baby Jesus-71b of 312.

  179. happyfeet says:

    that’s really dishonest Mr serr8d this, cryptoeugenics nonsense

    the point is that abortion prevents way more crack babies than our failshit little country’s bullshit drug laws

    and that’s the beginning and end of it there

    abortion is a choice for an individual to make not some piece of shit Tebow or the republican party or sarahfuckingpalin

  180. happyfeet says:

    no Darleen the crack whores are free to have abortions or not just I think it’s way way better if the option is available for so people are free to decide what they want to do

  181. Rupert says:

    Feets – I simply meant that once cold reality sets in, that all of our otherwise untapped resources could suddenly be available. The EPA is 70% luxury. Do you think for one moment that if malaria or yellow fever broke out in this country that every neighborhood would not be begging for a giant dose of DDT?

  182. serr8d says:

    Heh. Someone found high-speed REVERSE~!

    Careful with that clutch Eugene*ics*.

  183. happyfeet says:

    that’s a good point Mr. Rupert about how the low-hanging fruit is burgeoning and burgeoning

    That’s a very very nice way to look at it. Hopeful.

    here in honor of our friend nishi is one of the first songs she linkered for me it’s still on some of my playlists cause of it’s a happy li’l ditty I think

  184. Mike LaRoche says:

    have a holly, cumslut christmas…

  185. serr8d says:

    cryptoeugenics nonsense

    I prefer the ‘nuanced eugenicists’ construct. Gets it out of the ’60’s, you see.

    And allows for you to have less of a self-realized butt-hurt, if you do decide to dwell on it for long.

  186. Darleen says:

    Darleen the crack whores are free to have abortions or not just I think it’s way way better if the option is available for so people are free to decide what they want to do

    It already IS available, hf. Don’t you get it? Crack addicts dont give a shit and you hold up the people that enable them as “heroes”

    You know who is a hero? It’s this woman I knew years ago who fostered crack babies. I never saw a woman with more patience and love — and her family ran a boarding home for mentally challenged adults; mostly Down’s Syndrome males. Those were “her boys”.

    God shower that woman with grace and blessings.

    THAT is a hero.

    and you champion gangbangers/drug dealers? check your moral compass

  187. Darleen says:

    abortion prevents way more crack babies than our failshit little country’s bullshit drug laws

    prove it, griefer.

    FACT of life. Anything “legal” = there’s gonna be more of.

  188. serr8d says:

    check your moral compass

    Doesn’t exist in a Godless person I don’t think. Or if it does, it is easily and conveniently suppressed when it becomes inconvenient.

  189. happyfeet says:

    yeah good for her

  190. Mike LaRoche says:

    Doesn’t exist in a Godless person I don’t think. Or if it does, it is easily and conveniently suppressed when it becomes inconvenient.

    +1

  191. happyfeet says:

    her meaning the crack baby foster mom

  192. happyfeet says:

    speaking of moral compasses why should the failshit United States government be given the power to say whether crack should or should not be legal? The United States government is about as moral as your average syphilitic rapist.

    Illegal drugs pale into insignificance as a cause of poverty compared to our failshit federal government’s failshit policies on any number of fronts. And our state government too if you live in California.

  193. cranky-d says:

    I would not be quite so ready to state that those who don’t believe in G-d don’t have a moral compass. There are many here who are agnostic, and some are atheists. Are you ready to condemn them all? I’m not.

  194. Rupert says:

    Crack babies were found to be mostly normal. It was another “AIDS” effects everybody moment. What does it say about our culture that values one form of suffering over another?
    Feets – thanks. I like bands that do music for anime. I still thought there would be an abortion at the end. You are not as disgusting as seems.

  195. happyfeet says:

    I swear Mr. Rupert I’m not disgusting at all I am very very pro-freedom in a country what no longer honours freedom.

    It is a lonely path what I walk.

  196. JD says:

    You know what is not disgusting? Illinois beating Missouri. And Amanda Peet.

  197. happyfeet says:

    Anything “legal” = there’s gonna be more of.

    Freedom is legal and yet there’s less and less.

  198. JD says:

    What is disgusting is how Barcky hates our system of government,and tries to impose by regulation what he cannot get by the ballot box or legislative process. Fuck them.

  199. Rupert says:

    I’m mostly a pain in the neck. I was taught to question everything, and argue from the other person’s perspective. You do liven up things.

  200. Mike LaRoche says:

    I am very very pro-freedom in a country what no longer honours freedom.

    It is a lonely path what I walk.

    So in order to be pro-freedom, the GOP needs to become the party of amnesty, acid, and abortion.

    Fuck that.

  201. happyfeet says:

    plus also JD they’re one supreme court justice away from all the marbles

    Scalia is 74 and kinda fat and he’ll be pushing 80 by the time the next presidency is done

    this is why it’s important we don’t nominate a sure loser in 2012 what the majority of Americans think is stupid and annoying

    hah thank you Mr. Rupert I am glad you’re here you’re the first new person here since Ernst and steph and stephanie and probably several others

  202. happyfeet says:

    Mr. LaRoche Team R needs to be the party that trusts the individual to decide about abortions and acid and as far as amnesty goes I am not pro-amnesty I want a wall first a for reals one like how the Chinese have

  203. newrouter says:

    Freedom is legal and yet there’s less and less

    partial birth abortion recipients agree

  204. Darleen says:

    Crack babies were found to be mostly normal.

    When they get older and IF they have been raised “normal”

    It doesn’t mean that the first several months of getting rid of the effects of being an involuntary drug addict along with mom doesn’t happen.

    And, AFAIK, there hasn’t been any study of following crack babies into teens then adulthood to see how they fare.

  205. Darleen says:

    I was taught to question everything

    But do you value anything?

  206. Rupert says:

    Don’t get me wrong feets. I am very much against abortion and the over use of drugs. I just can’t see how the government can stop such things without making the problems worse.

  207. happyfeet says:

    I understand.

  208. Rupert says:

    Yes, Darleen – I do believe in absolute truth and the God who holds all things good. I just don’t believe that any human can even come close to such things. We have to try of course, but we all fall short, some much more than others.

  209. Rupert says:

    Darleen – I never meant to imply that crack babies had it easy. I only meant to state that all kinds of things cause suffering. It is wrong to single out one group as special.

  210. Big Bang Hunter says:

    “Freedom is legal “

    – O’bummbleass is trying to fix that.

    “It is wrong to single out one group as special.”

    – Wrong. Babies are special. They are the one “gtoup” that is completely at the mercy of the society and it’s members, and their unpredictable nature.

  211. Rupert says:

    Yes – all babies are special. – Not just the ones with trendy illnesses.

  212. Big D says:

    Life is both precious and fleeting. I grieve for one gone too soon. Some things simply don’t lend themselves to an easy political slogan. I don’t expect you to understand, feets. I also hope you never have to.

  213. happyfeet says:

    our drug policies are retarded and they do our little country no credit

  214. newrouter says:

    our drug policies are retarded

    compared to what “saudi” arabia? do tell!!!11!

  215. Big D says:

    That is a deep and well thoughtful argument, feets. I turn over my king, sir.

  216. serr8d says:

    A shame people seek release whilst on drugs, which are a poor substitute for a life lived to it’s fullest. So much waste when one’s wasted; if that waste was only concentrated on and worked against the person taking the drugs then there would be no basis for cruel society to outlaw ’em. But fact is, many people’s lives are afflicted by drug user’s never-private wastes. From the user’s immediate family to the family of the people slammed by a drugged driver, to a single user who is legion enabling the entire line of the drug’s suppliers (starting at your ghetto bag-man all the way up to the cartel who has many bag-men), to the cops and medical staff who have to clean up the messes left by users and producers, one cannot really say drug use is a personal and private choice best left to an individual. That’s drugged and selfish thinking, mostly.

  217. happyfeet says:

    saudi arabia has much less of a drug problem than failshit America and America is at war with drugs

  218. Abe Froman says:

    Was that in response to something or did the timer go off on your jabbering idiot output generator?

  219. Big D says:

    Here’s a couple of commas. ,, Toss them in where need be. Not that it matters.

  220. Abe Froman says:

    Oh. 219 was for 214. Who knew there’d be an instant flurry of activity after an hf comment?

  221. sdferr says:

    Amendment XVIII
    Section 1

    After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

    Section 2

    The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Brilliant!

  222. Danger says:

    “Well, I can’t take all the credit; Jeff is fighting the EPA for us. Why is it that no one is thanking him?”

    THANKS JEFF 8-)
    and keep firing!

  223. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Freedoms can be a trap. The freedom to choose, arbitrarily, whether your baby lives or dies, can be one such trap. There are others, but if the church guidance troubles you, the governmental edicts likewise, and societal moor’s are also not your cup of tea, you are left on your own to navigate such traps.

    – In which case, choose wisely. Many such choices will follow you, and what you do in life, for all your days. For some of those choices there is no reset button.

  224. Danger says:

    “bang on crack, bang on Prokofiev, bang on America.”

    BANG A GONG

  225. Ernst Schreiber says:

    – Freedoms can be a trap.

    That’s why I prefer liberty, myself.

  226. Darleen says:

    sdferr

    red herring

  227. sdferr says:

    bite me

  228. Rupert says:

    Drug laws are designed by committee. Some people want strict enforcement, and some people want decriminalization. So we get some people going to prison for twenty years for a joint, and some let off with probation with pounds of blow.
    There has to be a better way.

  229. Big D says:

    Wow! Bringing up prohibition in the drug debate. I did not see that coming.

    I could not care less about MJ. However, legalize heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, etc and you have a shit ton of addicts coming. As long as you’re fine with paying for them…because you know you will. What? You really think that any politician has the guts to deny “help” to those poor, downtrodden addicts that can’t possibly look out for themselves? Pull the other one.

  230. Abe Froman says:

    Do you really think there are a ton of people who are deterred from using drugs because they’re illegal, Big D?

  231. Rupert says:

    We already pay for people’s mistakes. The most common is that of having a child with no way to support the innocent youth. I don’t know how you can give the government the power to correct these mistakes. It does leave a person feeling frustrated and helpless, but the solution is coercion and gentle societal pressures. It is simple but so very hard.

  232. happyfeet says:

    hah good luck Mr. Rupert we were here now we’re here here here

    gentle societal pressures indeed

  233. happyfeet says:

    here is the missing link

  234. Big D says:

    Of course, Abe. Over the counter cocaine at the corner Walgreen’s and yeah, you’d see usage go up.

    Again, people are free to make their own choices as long as I’m not on the hook to support them.

  235. happyfeet says:

    well cocaine use wouldn’t go up near as much if Meghan’s cowardly piece of shit daddy hadn’t banned ephedra

  236. Rupert says:

    It’s strange that raising children has become such a “burden” to society. The EPA might very well label them as a burden on the Earth. It seemed like mothers and fathers raised them in my day, despite the fact that they only did their best and were not government certified. I’m still hopeful, but then I have no children.

  237. Big D says:

    Sure feet’s. Nothing cures a cold like meth.

    Sarcasm aside, regulation of ephedra did nothing but hammer the OTC cold medication manufacturers.

  238. happyfeet says:

    huh? google ephedra Mr. D what is large

  239. happyfeet says:

    In September 2006, Tim Naveau was arrested and charged with a Class-B misdemeanor for purchasing Claritin D.[2] Naveau takes one tablet of Claritin D each day to combat allergies, and his teenage son is also an allergy sufferer. Minors are not permitted to purchase pseudoephedrine under the law. Naveau had gone over the legal limit for pseudoephedrine when he purchased extra Claritin D to give to his son before he attended church camp.*

    this is how fucking cheaply America prizes freedom

    it’s pretty sickening

  240. Big D says:

    Active ingredient in most decongestants, feets.

  241. Big D says:

    Speaking of Nyquil, night all.

  242. happyfeet says:

    that’s usually the pseudoephedrine Mr. D ephedra is mostly a dietary supplement derived from a natural herb that the failshit Congress of our failshit little country doesn’t want their fat whore daughter Meghan to take

  243. Abe Froman says:

    Where is this mystical place where users can’t find drugs whenever they want them already, Big D? My friends have em’ delivered by courier – at home and the office. But that’s Manhattan. I’m sure you have to find Cletus outside the Piggly Wiggly in most towns for to get your Meth on. You should watch reruns of a show called Alaska State Troopers. It features lots of scenes in these remote Godforsaken Eskimo villages where every last person is a drug addict booze hound. The troopers have their hands full on a constant basis in spite of the fact that they confiscate every last thing which could be used to make either booze or drugs when people smuggle them into the town via the small airport. There’s no stopping a substance that there’s a market for.

  244. Mike LaRoche says:

    Rudolph the red-nosed methhead…

  245. happyfeet says:

    poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another

  246. […] waste. With his unscientific promotion of so-called “green jobs”, his use of the EPA to hamstring the coal industry, this backdoor gutting of America’s oil industry is the third leg on the […]

  247. Big D says:

    Abe,

    I didn’t say that there was any such place where drugs were unavailable, just that I don’t want to subsidize addicts. Hey, maybe I’m wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time and certainly won’t be the last.

  248. gailhap says:

    When you say “Brazil-like,” I think Terry Gilliam.

Comments are closed.