Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I think both of your political parties are retarded, how am I partisan? I take a centrist approach, ie I'm a realist, Im not socialist or right wing like either of your crowds.
Feds raid Oaksterdam University - cannabis persecution Obama's highest priority
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol, you sure showed me with all those quotes of me slobbering on obama.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Romney is an even bigger joke than Obama, that doesn't make Obama any better tho.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
I must not have seen it.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Well, at least we have finished with the endless Trayvon Martin thread. Thanks, Obama! :-0
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Yeah... Hope and Change was just a bullshit slogan to be eaten up by the masses. If you look at his record, in many ways it has been Bush 2.0....
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
wanna play a game?
you name one way in which obama has been bush 2.0, and i'll name three ways in which he hasn't.
deal?
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Patriot Act.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
does not even qualify.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
What ever you say, boss.
Damn he got you on that one!!
how about this one?
"As of last Friday, President Obama has authorized the government to take just about whatever it needs in the name of national defense. It is an Executive Order appropriately called “National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP).” This allows members of Obama’s Cabinet to take resources such as livestock, water, fuel, farm equipment, vehicles, planes, boats, food and just about anything the government thinks it needs for “defense preparedness.” I am just skimming the surface here as there are many more details in the order. (Click here for the complete Executive Order — National Defense Resources Preparedness – NDRP.) Many are calling this a setup for peacetime martial law. After reading the Executive Order, I don’t see how anyone could disagree with this statement."
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Wow, it really is looking more and more like 1930's Germany...
UnderBelly
Active Member
Obama could, if he wanted to, send a private message explaining that this was a career-limiting move, "don't let it become a career-ending one", and they'd get the hint. He doesn't even kinda-sorta take an active pro-cannabis position.
UnderBelly
Active Member
As any grower knows, after the first few cycles, the marginal costs of cultivation are not even worth a thought. In places with legal cultivation, it's really hard to understand why it isn't nearly free. One of the biggest problem patient cultivators have is what to do with the surplus.Tell that to Capone...
They get you on the taxes
UnderBelly
Active Member
The President cannot issue an order that contravenes any part of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the keystone of marijuana prohibition in almost every country where it is prohibited. An EO decriminalizing cannabis would constitute a crime, and would be grounds for impeachment.
UnderBelly
Active Member
Not everywhere. It's not technically illegal in Uruguay, and Iran allows cannabis cultivation on a limited scale. Yeah I find that ironic. No country that is a signatory to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is allowed to legalize marijuana without running the risk of UN sanctions.
UnderBelly
Active Member
There shouldn't be enough money involved to *need* books. If you're making a profit from cannabis, you're doing it wrong. You're helping sustain prohibition by making yourself a target. Whatever they are doing, they made enough money doing it to afford some prime California real estate. My sympathies lie with the individual grower, who never took a dime from anyone.
UnderBelly
Active Member
The US attorneys are all looking for new jobs in January, regardless of who wins in November.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
No it wouldn't! The president is only bound by the laws in the Constitution. It's the Constitution which defines the President, not UN. The President has a duty to the American people from the powers designated by the Constitution. The Constitution defines the conditions of impeachment, not the UN. You catching a pattern here?
