Wrath of Dagon

So Expedition Conquistador just handed me my ass. Anyone beat the ?

The reason Israel abstained is obvious, Russia can make a hell of a lot of trouble for them if it wants. Same reason Israel goes out of its way not to offend China. For other US allies it's an easy vote, not a hell of a lot Russia can do to them.

It's illegal right now, that's the point. You can try to change the law, but you can't ignore the law. But yes, I'm against legalization. Now they're promoting pot all over the place, and American kids are plenty dumb enough already.

CNN just reported that's what US intelligence thinks.

What drug dealer money are you referring to? I missed that one. Unless you're referring to the administration's decision to not enforce various laws that prohibit banks from dealing with any marijuana seller on legal marijuana stores in the states that have made marijuana legal. The federal government really doesn't constitutionally have the power to do that anyways (though they've certainly been doing it for awhile now). Yes, that one. May be they don't have the constitutional authority, but the Supreme Court says they do. And is Obama a states' rights guy now? When is he abolishing the FDA?

Looks like Puhitler is about to invade Ukraine and may be go further. I think we better send troops into the Baltic states.

Can I just ask, what has Obama actually used executive orders to do that's outside his mandate as president? I'm serious, because as far as I can tell, you've all gone nuts because he said that he will try to govern without congress because Congress won't get it's head out of it's collective ass. I never mentioned executive orders, you did. For one thing, he delayed or changed Obamacare something like 35 times without getting Congressional authorization. My favorite though is when he told banks to go ahead and take drug dealer money, even though that's totally illegal under Federal law.

Lots of Democrats really are communists, not all, but the far left wing. Also @Calax, executive orders are OK if they are orders to the government, but unlawful if they're used to change laws. That's the issue here, Obama is ruling by decree, not by law. Edit: Speaking of Republican candidates, here's an interesting article : http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/rand-paul-america-hates-liberterians-104858.html#.UzDxtcJOV9B I disagree though, Paul can win. The reason is the amazing human ability to hold 2 contradictory opinions at once.

First these laws are not Federal, second things like hanging for rustling have probably already been ruled unconstitutional. It's true laws can become obsolete if the prosecutors don't charge anybody for a long enough time, because then defendant can claim selective prosecution. But you still can't legally announce you'll simply ignore the law. And the laws Obama is ignoring are quite current and relevant, and he's simply overruling them for his own ideological and political reasons. And yes, a ruler who's not bound by law is a tyrant, that's pretty much the definition. Huh? How can they block a law? Appointments for the organizations that would carry out the laws. The Consumer Protection Bureau was set up in the aftermath of 2008's collapse but most of it's provisions were neutered or not implemented as congress systematically defunded it and refused to allow appointment of it's director, thus they aren't allowing the law to be enforced. Hell the entire schtick about Obamacare is a perfect example, IT IS LAW, and has been declared constitutional, and yet there have been constant fights by the congress and governors to ignore or circumvent the law in the same way Obama has decided to go around a congress that (almost literally) does nothing. Congress has that power though, the law said it wouldn't be in effect until Congress confirms someone, so they simply refused to confirm, which is their Constitutional power, and the Constitution trumps any other law. Same with funding, they are never under obligation to fund anything that hasn't already been funded, another Constitutional power. It's perfectly legitimate to fight a law by any legal means, but not if you're the one charged with enforcing it. The governors have not ignored Obamacare, they acted strictly legally with discretion given to them by the law and the courts, so either you're not well informed here or purposely misleading. Obama does not have the right to go around Congress, only Congress has the power to change or repeal laws.

HA! No. After all, we have laws on the books that technically an unmarried couple cannot check into a hotel as married for a 1 bed situation, and that you can be hanged for stealing cows, and that if you're found between double beds with a member of the opposite sex, you're liable to be tossed in prison. And you're telling me that if a president doesn't enforce these laws he's automatically a tyrant? First these laws are not Federal, second things like hanging for rustling have probably already been ruled unconstitutional. It's true laws can become obsolete if the prosecutors don't charge anybody for a long enough time, because then defendant can claim selective prosecution. But you still can't legally announce you'll simply ignore the law. And the laws Obama is ignoring are quite current and relevant, and he's simply overruling them for his own ideological and political reasons. And yes, a ruler who's not bound by law is a tyrant, that's pretty much the definition. Huh? How can they block a law? With that type of criteria, good luck finding any Presidents that don't meet your definition of a tyrant. Sure, let's just accept it. Why do we need to be a nation of laws anyway?

Looks like a Soviet store got a shipment of bananas : https://twitter.com/jamesbr34259200/status/443528526445019136/photo/1

Ban bossy : http://www.cafepress.com/cp/moredetails.aspx?showBleed=false&ProductNo=1270136409&colorNo=1&pr=F

Once a President blatantly refuses to follow or enforce the law, he's no longer a President, he's a dictator and a tyrant. Edit : Congress is trying to give themselves standing to sue when the President refuses to follow the law Congress passed and a President signed. Nothing sinister in that. Right now a President can get away with ignoring laws because in many cases no one has standing to sue, since you can't sue as a taxpayer or a citizen. Even if someone has standing, it takes years to work through the courts, meanwhile the damage is done. Thus in many cases the only remedy for a lawless President is impeachment, which is usually not practical.

Actually I'm only vaguely aware of that law, but my point is so is most everyone else, am I wrong?

Something tells me most of you don't have any idea what's actually in the Patriot Act.

I live in constant frustration over the state of my fellow citizens, not terror. That doesn't mean we should just ignore the very obvious threat and stick our heads in the sand.

I'd like to see how self-righteous you'll both be after the next terrorist attack.

Obama is the most lawless president I've ever seen. But you can't impeach a black president without tearing the country apart, and the Senate would never have enough votes to convict, even if Republicans take over.

We have troops in Mexico?

I think this is the most appropriate comment on Venezuela : http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm Even with the Soviet Union, North Korea and Cuba as examples, the fools never learn.

I'm curious, why do you think it was obvious?

Ever watch TV shows targeted at women? Enough said.

Speaking of hitler, there's this : http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372353/eurasianist-threat-robert-zubrin It may seem like a paranoid rant, but sure would explain a lot.

Yes. let's just split every country up along ethnic lines, I'm sure that won't cause any problems. Most of New Mexico is of Mexican descent, I guess we should either give it back to Mexico or make them independent. Btw, that was hitler's reasoning, any area that was predominantly (or more or less) German should be part of Germany.

You also need to remember that guns aren't really to protect against the military (which is unlikely to fight it's own citizens anyway, as has been pointed out), it's to protect against pro-government thugs (see Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Organizing for America in Obama's wet dreams). Also the amount of violence that would result from trying to repress a heavily armed population is enough to give even the most tyrannically minded pol some pause. Edit: Even in Ukraine, protesters were fighting riot police, not the military.