Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
According to Underbelly, the UN would impeach him!
Feds raid Oaksterdam University - cannabis persecution Obama's highest priority
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Actually the head of the DEA was replaced. Then that guy was replaced again by a Bush admin czar by the Obama administration. So yeah, they are responsible for this.
UnderBelly
Active Member
Congress could. You do understand that an EO can't undo a treaty, right?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
first of all, syncos is not nlxsk.
second, show me the patriot act bush signed into law and show me what provisions obama reauthorized. we'll take a look at the length of each one.
This without a doubt is the most intelligent post in this thread so far.
UnderBelly
Active Member
The Constitution itself places treaties as equal to itself.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?
Article 6.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
First of all, I never said he was.
Secondly we still have the patriot act.
Why do you choose to defend this guy knowing he could put a stop to these raids if he really wanted to ?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
more like a whiny little baby.
suppose obama steps out tomorrow and makes the announcement of desert douche's wet dreams. what next? is everyone going to be free to grow?
if you think that, you're desert dumb.
the states, counties and towns will still go on prosecuting the drug war.
if you want an end to the drug war, it will happen almost exclusively through voter initiatives.
is everyone here too fucking high to realize that stoners are easy political targets? is everyone here too high to remember how we have made most of our progress so far?
if desert dipshit had two brain cells to rub together, he'd realize his time behind the computer pecking at keys would be better utilized mobilizing action towards voter initiatives rather than mouth farting and being a cranky sorehead about some figurehead on the other side of the nation.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
show me the patriot act bush signed into law, then show me what few provisions obama reauthorized.
you really think the raids would stop if obama stepped out tomorrow and got himself labeled soft on crime, paving the way for mr. romney to carry out his agenda?
raids would continue, the badges would just be different. state AGs would get whoever they needed to fill the gap.
people are naive.
UnderBelly
Active Member
What seems like an easy and obvious thing to us one-issue activists, probably doesn't actually occur to anyone in his shoes. He might have puffed some decent Hawaiian schwag enough times to count on both hands back in the day, but to think the legalization issue even gets a passing thought for anybody as busy as he is, I just can't see it. You know all the people who were big stoners in high school, who now have school-age kids and high pressure jobs, and how they think about the whole "drug" thing today? The ones who you really don't mention that you're still smoking weed? I think that pretty much describes Obama's situation. It's too bad he doesn't have a close family member or something who is both seriously ill and genuinely helped by MMJ. That has made the difference for a lot of my older, deep conservative acquaintances. What seems to really change the equation for them is the realization that the MMJ users they know tend to be _at least_ in their late 50s.
Aren't you the one who always says everyone is OK if they adhere to the state laws. If Obama reined in the feds, wouldn't that would be a good thing ?
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
So the UN can impeach him? Thought it was the House of Representatives? If you break a UN resolution, the first thing that happens is you get a hearing, if you still refuse, the UN kicks you out. Considering the US is responsible for forming the UN after that League of Nations disaster, the UN is our bitch. Neither would happen, let alone impeachment. You think the House would impeach the Messiah over legalizing pot? Seriously?
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
His attorney general argued he could kill any American citizen he wanted at any time without any kind of due process (OK, he used a semantical argument there and suggested the executive making a unilateral decision was the same thing as due process and that due process and judicial process are not at all the same thing). That's far worse than anything Bush ever argued, and the shit his legal team was arguing for was offensive to anyone who prefers to live in a free society based on the rule of law.
If you vote for Obama, you are voting for this.
Even Romney hasn't argued as much although I'm sure he agrees (or Santorum).
Of course he is the one who says that, but when things are looking grim, he changes his story. Same old tactic.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
It's nearly identical. The playbooks are very much the same. Many of the players behind the scenes are too (big money, much of which never got in trouble for financing the Nazi's back in the day despite it being in some cases blatant treason, see: Bush family).
Divide and conquer. Trayvan Martin no doubt was something to be exploited and made divisive. Just like many other issues. Keep people fighting amongst each other while you seize control (been going on for a long time now).
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Killing American citizens without due process is illegal too. He hasn't been impeached yet. I don't think that has to be a serious consideration seeing as how the United States has regularly treated the treaties they have signed as secondary to any national interest and has indeed violated quite a few.
It's a cop out to say the best. Who's going to impeach him? The Congress that helped pass any measure that would effect it's legality? Him issuing orders not to focus on MJ is not the same thing as legalizing in the first place and Executive Orders have legal weight but are not the same thing as actual law. There would be no grounds for impeachment and it wouldn't take an executive order to shift the focus of federal drug enforcement agencies.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
right now, it's all about keeping romney out. he would be an outright disaster, he doesn't even bill himself as a compassionate conservative like shrub did.
one good way to make sure romney has a better chance at ordering around the feds is to appear soft on crime. a great way to appear soft on crime would be to make whatever wet dream announcement you guys are expecting him to make.
would it be good if obama came out and made that wet dream announcement tomorrow? sure, maybe until next november (or january, actually).
but there is a long game as well, and some people fail to see this. hell, some people can't even look far enough back (you don't have to even look far) to see how we've made most of our progress so far: voter initiatives.
as far as things being OK when compliant with state law, yes. hell, we're not even allowed dispensaries in oregon and they have only shut down the big ones, leaving the little ones to be. lol wut?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i am fully confident that oaksterdam was not letter of the law compliant.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that's not how i was playing the game, but i'll bite.
i'm losing no sleep over al-awlaki or anyone else of that nature.