Page 1 of 2

High and By

Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:28 pm
by Pudfark
Yup...this here is whut America is all about.
If Obama & Co don't have to follow the law?
Why do you?

If that's not true?
What's this to you?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12 ... latestnews

Could be my complete misunderstanding?
"The law according to Obama, is now, the rule of law"
I foresee a lot of rule changes, ya know the sorta changes that
obviate, circumvent and ignore the other two branches of our government.

Finally, a long overdue reduction in government.
It's a great excuse to down size the DOJ.
Longer vacations for the Congress and Senate.
SCOTUS totally unnecessary and on their way to "assisted living".

Who needs any new or changed amendments? Nobody.
Ya just pretend it ain't there.
A government so streamlined? You don't have to wait for a consensus.
This is the "magic wand" we've all been waiting for...
America the "Promised Land".

Re: High and By

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:46 pm
by Buzz
Sounds more like Obama is listening to what the people want. You consider pot worse than alcohol? How many people are killed on the highways from pot compared to alcohol? Do people get aggressive on pot like they do on pot.

You liked Romney. He wanted to turn everything over to the states. When Obama does it you get your panties twisted up.

Re: High and By

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:28 pm
by Pudfark
That's more than a dab confusing and inaccurate Buzz.
Go back a re-read what you wrote.

What I wrote? Is about "the one's" duty to follow the law.
Ya know, he did swear "some kind" of oath to do that.

Further, the "elected one" does not have the unilateral discretion to not follow the law,
or break it.

I don't mind ya takin' a shot at me...I just see it as odd? You didn't put any powder behind the ball. Reload and come back... ;)

Re: High and By

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:38 pm
by Buzz
What I wrote is fine, and exactly what I meant. Sometimes it's better to let the state handle the problem. Especially, when the state votes it in.

Now, how about answering my question? Do you think pot is more dangerous than alcohol? Maybe Obama doesn't think it is, and is willing to let the states handle the problem. The Feds have enough to do, and in case you missed it. The government needs to save money every way they can. Busting someone for smoking a joint is stupid.

Re: High and By

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:46 pm
by Buzz
Let me give you another example. Some states allow a felon to own a muzzleloader for hunting. (Colorado) It still a federal offence though. The feds don't go after you. This has been going on long before Obama has been in office. It's just a big deal. If a felon is going to continue to be a criminal. He's not going to use a muzzleloader to rob the 7-11.

Someone smoking a joint is no more a criminal than you taking a drink. Some things are not worth the money it takes to go after someone. Use the time to get the real criminals.

Politicians have done this forever, and it's nothing new.

Then again, you trying to make Obama look bad at the least little thing is nothing new either.

Straighten out your panties.

Re: High and By

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:05 pm
by Pudfark
Buzz wrote:Sounds more like Obama is listening to what the people want. You consider pot worse than alcohol? How many people are killed on the highways from pot compared to alcohol? Do people get aggressive on pot like they do on pot.

You liked Romney. He wanted to turn everything over to the states. When Obama does it you get your panties twisted up.
Buzz wrote:What I wrote is fine, and exactly what I meant. Sometimes it's better to let the state handle the problem. Especially, when the state votes it in.

Now, how about answering my question? Do you think pot is more dangerous than alcohol? Maybe Obama doesn't think it is, and is willing to let the states handle the problem. The Feds have enough to do, and in case you missed it. The government needs to save money every way they can. Busting someone for smoking a joint is stupid.
How many times did yer mule, kick you in the head?
Please to refer to me in kind to where I posted anything about pot vs alcohol?

Here's a dab of a reminder for ya? "What I wrote? Is about "the one's" duty to follow the law. Ya know, he did swear "some kind" of oath to do that.

Further, the "elected one" does not have the unilateral discretion to not follow the law,or break it.

I don't mind ya takin' a shot at me...I just see it as odd? You didn't put any powder behind the ball. Reload and come back..."


You still forgot the powder. Did you have ADD before the mule kicked ya?

Re: High and By

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:58 pm
by Buzz
I didn't take a shot at you, but I will now.

You're a dumbass.

Re: High and By

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:30 am
by Pudfark
The best you could "come" up with after "lopin" the mule.... :P
Total fail/flail. ;)

Re: High and By

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:21 pm
by Buzz
Yes, it's all I got for someone so narrow minded. You make no attempt to ever see anything but from your side.

Re: High and By

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:25 pm
by Pudfark
Here....I'll throw this out to ya underhanded...this time

"Please to refer to me in kind to where I posted anything about pot vs alcohol?"

Here's why yer dodging it....cuz ya got caught with yer shirt tail out....in the root cellar. Again.