so is you're basic grammar

GET IT?

Guilty on the boring charge.

I'd reserve the "dum" part more for someone that is making a bizarre comparison between a conflict between federal and state laws regarding marijuana and a unanimous agreement about the legality of some moron grazing his cattle on land that doesn't belong to him, but hey, that's just me. Though in your defense, I just wasted my time writing this out to someone that has already admitted they're trolling.

Cool story bro!

Have a good evening politards. Not only am I drunk, I have to go to work in the morning so I'm out. Thanx for the Lolz!

There's a whole Politics Unchained forum for people who want to troll; there's even a thread on this same topic! It maybe would have been funny if you didn't write in such an infuriating manner.

Drunkern trolling is the nuts. Honkey Donk 4 Mod!

I mean, the posting like he's 10 is only a small thing. It's a little irritating, but whatever.

The part about Colorado is just weird though. Colorado legalized marijuana and the feds are...not really doing anything significant about it as far as I know? Meanwhile some crazy people are giving off the vibe that they're willing to start killing people because...they're stealing from land that isn't theirs? And literally everyone but said crazy people agree?

The triumphant preening is one thing, but I literally have no idea what he's trying to argue/thinks he's proven.

Oh, and Shame Trolly!!!! imo

It's never been a criminal case, but the matter was decided in court over 15 years ago and multiple times since then. So in a sense, he was "tried" and "convicted" long ago and has been thumbing his nose at the gov't ever since.

In fact, even in 1998 part of the ruling said "[t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundy’s livestock".

I think it's important to get the basic timeline of what happened right. The wikipedia page is a reasonable place to start and also links to a lot of the court rulings. They didn't send in a swat team and snipers to surround Bundy's house. They sent in hired rangers and cowboys to round up a bunch of cattle scattered over 1200 square miles of desert. Meanwhile Bundy is talking his "range war" stuff and inviting patriots and militia from across the west to come on over. Of course the gov't is going to respond to this with paramilitary force.

The rule of law is in a precarious place when Bundy says "We definitely don't recognize [the BLM director's] jurisdiction or authority, his arresting power or policing power in any way," and "We're about ready to take the country over with force!"

Bottom line, he had his day(s) in court, and lost every step of the way.

Right but then the counter is "The government is overstepping it's power" or "They should just leave him alone, he's producing something and not hurting anyone", which is sort of true except for the fact that he's just ignoring his financial responsibilities to society for letting him use land ("but wait he owns the land because...his family was there"). Wonder if conservatives would be so fast to defend any tax cheat, though my best guess is yes (bonus points if he's rich and white!).

We'll probably see this "why didn't the Feds crack down on hippie pot smokers?" argument rolled out on the Sunday morning shows. In fact, all right wing arguments might start as drunken trolls nowadays.

Geitner, tho.

Send in the cow robots:

What is amazing and rather common knowledge is that the feds are still targeting marijuana in places like Colorado, just not (in principle) the marijuana regulated by the state.

Yeah, I shouldn't post while drinking because it tends to not make sense either. I'm not sure if he realizes that. In Colorado's case the feds still enforce some laws in cases that aren't covered by state law. Whether they should be doing that is a reasonable question but doesn't have much bearing on a situation where it's some yahoo against both the feds and the state unless I'm misunderstanding the case somehow.

I don't remember pot smokers in Colorado taking up arms en masse against the government.

Does lifting a joint to your mouth count as taking up arms?

[QUOTE=zikzak;42950937]

First off let me say I think the rancher is dead wrong so don't think this post is defending him.

I'm not doubting your graph because I don't live in a militia hot bed area but from my personal experiences I have noticed the exact opposite, by that I mean progovernment people. In the days of Bush, Clinton and HW no one liked the government. It was pretty uniform among racial, religious, gender and income levels whether you voted repub or dem. Unless you were a politician or government employee it was pretty much an us against them mentality. From businessmen tired of taxes and regulation, bartenders mad about having to claim their $2 tips, smokers geting crushed by taxes, poor people saw government as oppressors not helpers, people who had relatives in jail for nonviolent, victimless crimes to the guy who got a $20 parking ticket for forgetting to feed the meter. The attitude in general was "F the government."

Today it's totally different. There are so many people(mostly people who vote dem) that don't just like but love government. The bigger the better. Many people genuinely get upset when they hear someone complaining about taxes, locking up millions of people and government waste. That was never the case with dems during the Clinton years. What is the reason for this change in attitude?

Yep nothing but facts there. No one really questions that there's been a complete and total 180 in attitude toward govt. in the last 5 years. No chance that could have anything to do with your perceptions based on the type of media you consume. No sir!

I personally went from ****ting on the American flag daily to galavanting around town in my "I govt!" shirt all day long. Come join us. The govt will take care of you. You never need to know fear or pain again. Everyone is regulated to be equal and no one has to do anything all day long except follow nanny state rules. It's paradise. Stop fighting and surrender yourself to the glory of govt.

I think the reason for the difference is that you just made all that stuff up.

If you read my post I didn't claim it to be fact, I said "in my personal experience" people are way more progovernment than years ago. Also I consider you insinuating that I like Fox news a personal attack, I'm under 75.

You know a lot of democrats that love locking up millions of people? They get upset when others complain about it?

Obviously there are lots of people on both sides who want millions of people locked up or that wouldn't be the case today. The point is there are alot of people today who defend the actions of govt almost unconditionally and that was never the case in the Bush/Clinton/HW.

Which of the two major parties do you think more strongly favors locking up millions of people?

Your perception of people does not match remotely anything I see in real life.

Within this very forum, you can see people who vigorously support the idea of govt. healthcare while simultaneously being critical of govt. overstepping in other areas.

Most of the people who support govt. healthcare also agree that the govt. military is grossly too large.

Most people on this forum think the govt. locks up too many people.

There's a lot of people who are pro-health care and oppose the US govt's foreign policy, violation of civil liberties, surveilance, etc.

For you to post something like this:
one would have to assume you consume a lot of shrooms and only consume particularly nutty RW media.