Holder To California: "Fuck Prop 19, We're Going To Enforce Weed Laws And Do It Hard Now"
155 replies, posted
Do it hard now, he says?
:smug:
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;25473740][img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3926654/wikierpedio.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
That image is dumb, first of all you are describing a democracy plain and simple which isn't what America's form of government is.
Second, A democracy is a political form of government in which government power is derived from a MAJORITY of the people.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;25473819]We are most definitely a democratic republic as we the people vote for people to make the laws and stuff[/QUOTE]
Not quite right, we have a representative democracy wrapped up in a republic, we the people elect representatives with the hope that they express the views of the majority which elected them. The republic part comes into play when you try to pass laws which violate the constitution which is (theoretically) not possible.
[QUOTE=O'10er;25473905]I'll just quote you here:
What the people think they want is easily subject to manipulation. Politician's duty is to represent you, and that can sometimes mean acting in your best interests, regardless of whether you like it or not.[/QUOTE]
Choice of politics really. Everyone is subject to their own opinion, and whether or not the politician listens to the majority of the people depends on whether or not they get re-elected. They do, they have a better chance, they don't, and they don't. Simple.
[QUOTE=O'10er;25473905]I'll post your quote again:
Uhm, you do realize that ballot propositions are only really prominent in California, right? [/QUOTE]
...What, I hope you're joking. I wasn't talking about ballot propositions, I was talking about amendments, and state laws, and all that jazz like I said. Please don't add words to my mouth.
[QUOTE=O'10er;25473905]Politicians have to be accountable to the people, but if they are too accountable then the only way for them to survive is to pander to the ignorance of populists. What the majority want can be totally unreasonable and unfeasible. The majority of people are not well versed in politics, hence why we have elected representatives in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Are you calling the people stupid? If you are, then oh boy, you're about to cause a major shit storm. Along with that, the majority is what counts. If a politician doesn't do what the majority wants, their chance for re-election? Less than 0.
[QUOTE=O'10er;25473905]The Federal Government consists of the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. Three 'things'. You missed a very important person in the executive branch, the secretary of state. Furthermore, the executive consists of numerous agencies, departments and cabinets, not just those three people. The president has far more powers and responsibilities than that.[/QUOTE]
I said that the Federal Government consists of those three branches. And I don't care if I missed an important person, it was to get the general gist of it. Again, general gist of things. I'm not going to go into detail because it would take too long.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25473919]That image is dumb, first of all you are describing a democracy plain and simple which isn't what America's form of government is.
Second, A democracy is a political form of government in which government power is derived from a MAJORITY of the people.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it's derived from the people. Majority is when it comes to voting, then the majority counts.
[QUOTE=R3mix;25474112]
Are you calling the people stupid? If you are, then oh boy, you're about to cause a major shit storm. Along with that, the majority is what counts. If a politician doesn't do what the majority wants, their chance for re-election? Less than 0.
[/QUOTE]
Actually history has proven him correct, the majority can be wrong or convinced to be wrong, that is why we have a Republic with a constitution, to prevent the errors of the majority from making huge impacts.
It is just damage control, it still happens today I'm sure, the majority being wrong i mean and in fact I'm sure of it, but the constitution stops those people (the majority) from overriding our rights.
They knew the majority if left unchecked could cause major problems and mass carnage, hence, constitution.
Elected representatives not only get elected and often don't serve their majority, political parties are good at maintaining followers in the face of that. What would you do to the party? vote for some one else? No way! not those guys!
So essentially yes, the "people" are pretty stupid and can be lead to believe very stupid things, like to allow elected representatives enough power to murder a few million jews, things like that.
[QUOTE=R3mix;25473882]Look at the rest after that nub. I said I was citing what I knew that we are a Democratic-Republic based off my American History class. You already know what a Democracy is, and a Republic is elected officials. Look at the [b]entire[/b] post of wikipedia. Elected Representatives. Read moar.[/QUOTE]
If you learned the term 'democratic republic' in your American History class then you weren't learning American history or your teachers did not understand the concept of the democratic republic.
Since we're citing wikipedia [B]again[/B]
[quote=People's Republic(Redirected from Democratic republic)]
People's Republic (also Popular Republic, especially in other languages) is a title that has often been used by Marxist-Leninist governments to describe their state. The motivation for using this term lies in the claim that Marxist-Leninists govern in accordance with the interests of the vast majority of the people, and, as such, a Marxist-Leninist republic is a people's republic. Many of these countries also called themselves socialist states in their constitutions; Albania, for instance, used both terms, "socialist" and "people's," in its official name from 1976 to 1991.[/quote]
[editline]derp[/editline]
[quote=R3mix]Are you calling the people stupid? If you are, then oh boy, you're about to cause a major shit storm. Along with that, the majority is what counts. If a politician doesn't do what the majority wants, their chance for re-election? [/quote]
I'd trust politicians before I'd trust the people.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25473919]That image is dumb, first of all you are describing a democracy plain and simple which isn't what America's form of government is.[/quote]
That image is what R3mix posted.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25474401]Actually history has proven him correct, the majority can be wrong or convinced to be wrong, that is why we have a Republic with a constitution, to prevent the errors of the majority from making huge impacts.
It is just damage control, it still happens today I'm sure, the majority being wrong i mean and in fact I'm sure of it, but the constitution stops those people (the majority) from overriding our rights.
They knew the majority if left unchecked could cause major problems and mass carnage, hence, constitution.
Elected representatives not only get elected and often don't serve their majority, political parties are good at maintaining followers in the face of that. What would you do to the party? vote for some one else? No way! not those guys!
So essentially yes, the "people" are pretty stupid and can be lead to believe very stupid things, like to allow elected representatives enough power to murder a few million jews, things like that.[/QUOTE]
I was gonna reply with something similar to this, but ya beat me to it. One thing that I disagree with is that the people are 'stupid'. Most people simply don't have the time to educate themselves/get heavily involved in politics. Work, family, community and other related obligations keep them occupied, so most don't have a fine understanding of politics, thus can be manipulated easier than a well versed fellow. Hitler got into power not because the electorate wanted a few million jews murdered, but because he manipulated their anger and ignorance.
And by ignorance I mean being uninformed
[QUOTE=wabash;25468511]You being poor would mostly depend on if you were born into it. Are you saying only rich people should be able to afford luxuries?[/QUOTE]
No, I am saying poor people should not be buying them anyway because they are poor. You are not ENTITLED to anything. TV is a luxury, the internet is a luxury, cigarettes are luxury. If you are poor you should meet all your basic needs, which they are not doing or they would not be poor.
The whole "Born into it" thing is a stupid argument because being born poor does not automatically make you a idiot. You can still go to school and get a job, save money and better yourself.
Reckless spending on luxury instead of smart spending and saving is why poor people stay poor.
Do intelligent posts just fly over everybody's heads around here?
[QUOTE=s0beit;25474401]Actually history has proven him correct, the majority can be wrong or convinced to be wrong, that is why we have a Republic with a constitution, to prevent the errors of the majority from making huge impacts.
It is just damage control, it still happens today I'm sure, the majority being wrong i mean and in fact I'm sure of it, but the constitution stops those people (the majority) from overriding our rights.
They knew the majority if left unchecked could cause major problems and mass carnage, hence, constitution.
Elected representatives not only get elected and often don't serve their majority, political parties are good at maintaining followers in the face of that. What would you do to the party? vote for some one else? No way! not those guys!
So essentially yes, the "people" are pretty stupid and can be lead to believe very stupid things, like to allow elected representatives enough power to murder a few million jews, things like that.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter, in the United States of America, the majority rules. That's the way it works. The only way the constitution will override anything law wise is if the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional. Otherwise it's passed in legislation, and signed off by the President. We're discussing majority in voting, by the way to get you up to speed here...Also, what are you talking about? If an elected representative doesn't do what the majority wants, and signs off on something the majority are against, do you think his chances of re-election are at all possible? The answer is, HELL NO. That'd be his last term in office, and he's over. And what are you talking about? Elected representatives killing jews? What?
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;25474483]If you learned the term 'democratic republic' in your American History class then you weren't learning American history or your teachers did not understand the concept of the democratic republic.
Since we're citing wikipedia [B]again[/B]
[editline]derp[/editline]
I'd trust politicians before I'd trust the people.
That image is what R3mix posted.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html[/url]
Feel free to read up. a People's Republic /=/ Democratic Republic. I don't care what Wikipedia says otherwise.
And if you're trusting politicians before you trust people, then you're still trusting the people, because politicians who are elected, serve majority of the people.
[QUOTE=O'10er;25474630]I was gonna reply with something similar to this, but ya beat me to it. One thing that I disagree with is that the people are 'stupid'. Most people simply don't have the time to educate themselves/get heavily involved in politics. Work, family, community and other related obligations keep them occupied, so most don't have a fine understanding of politics, thus can be manipulated easier than a well versed fellow. Hitler got into power not because the electorate wanted a few million jews murdered, but because he manipulated their anger and ignorance.
And by ignorance I mean being uninformed[/QUOTE]
Meh, personally if you get a full education, and read the newspaper on a daily basis, you should be able to keep up to date with current events, and somewhat have knowledge of what the government is doing in my opinion. It's just if you really look at high school drop out rates, they're pretty bad, and that's not really helping the situation either.
[QUOTE=Bluesummers;25477034]No, I am saying poor people should not be buying them anyway because they are poor. You are not ENTITLED to anything. TV is a luxury, the internet is a luxury, cigarettes are luxury. If you are poor you should meet all your basic needs, which they are not doing or they would not be poor.
The whole "Born into it" thing is a stupid argument because being born poor does not automatically make you a idiot. You can still go to school and get a job, save money and better yourself.
Reckless spending on luxury instead of smart spending and saving is why poor people stay poor.[/QUOTE]
I love your black and white view of the world, and about being poor.
[QUOTE=R3mix;25478617]It doesn't matter, in the United States of America, the majority rules. That's the way it works. The only way the constitution will override anything law wise is if the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional. Otherwise it's passed in legislation, and signed off by the President. We're discussing majority in voting, by the way to get you up to speed here... [/quote]
The majority rules in voting?
Presidential election 2000:
Popular Vote:
George W. Bush: 47.9%
Al Gore: 48.4%
America's presidential election is not so simple as "The majority in voting"
[quote]Also, what are you talking about? If an elected representative doesn't do what the majority wants, and signs off on something the majority are against, do you think his chances of re-election are at all possible? The answer is, HELL NO. That'd be his last term in office, and he's over. And what are you talking about? Elected representatives killing jews? What? [/quote]
A politician HAS to make tough decisions that people might not like. The majority of people might not want or like a tax raise, but ultimately taxes are a needed evil.
[quote]Feel free to read up. a People's Republic /=/ Democratic Republic. I don't care what Wikipedia says otherwise. [/quote]
Then why did you quote wikipedia in your previous post on the definition of democracy?
[quote] And if you're trusting politicians before you trust people, then you're still trusting the people, because politicians who are elected, serve majority of the people. [/quote]
This is where you are extremely incorrect. Once elected, a representative's duty is to represent [b]everyone[/b] in his county/state/country. A representative does not solely serve the 'majority' who elected him in, he has to listen to everyone in his county. He is not an agent of the majority, but of his people. You are mistaking America for a Majoritarianist state
[QUOTE=O'10er;25480467]The majority rules in voting?
Presidential election 2000:
Popular Vote:
George W. Bush: 47.9%
Al Gore: 48.4%
America's presidential election is not so simple as "The majority in voting"[/quote]
If your source is Wikipedia, I think you forgot one important factor within that election. Florida's and Michigan's votes were not counted. Oh and, also the majority in electoral decided. :downs:
[QUOTE=O'10er;25480467]
A politician HAS to make tough decisions that people might not like. The majority of people might not want or like a tax raise, but ultimately taxes are a needed evil.[/quote]
Taxes are needed yes but, there are many other options that could easily raise and create revenue for the government, and both you and I know that. But, that's another debate to save for later. Plus, just to add a little tension to the debate here, you say the majority of the people might not want or like a tax raise but what happened with this guy? He sure didn't serve two terms.
[B]READ MY LIPS. NO NEW TAXES.[/b]
[img]http://overing89.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/bush_senior_large.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=O'10er;25480467]
Then why did you quote wikipedia in your previous post on the definition of democracy?[/quote]
Oh god. I cited Wikipedia as a source! Dear god, call the Inquisition! I must be executed! -_-' Does it really matter what my source is? A source, is a source.
[QUOTE=O'10er;25480467]
This is where you are extremely incorrect. Once elected, a representative's duty is to represent [b]everyone[/b] in his county/state/country. A representative does not solely serve the 'majority' who elected him in, he has to listen to everyone in his county. He is not an agent of the majority, but of his people. You are mistaking America for a Majoritarianist state[/QUOTE]
So you're saying that politicians don't do what the majority of the people want in-order to get re-elected? Sorry, what world are you living in again?
This is fucking rediculous if the majority of people want it legalized why isn't it? It's not even that bad ffs
dumb motherfuckers
Why is it still called a drug in the first place?
It's a fucking plant, grows out of soil like all the rest of our food.
Hell, I read an article a few months ago that found out that Jesus' anointing oil had HUGE amounts of THC in it.
[QUOTE=64fanatic;25456186]They can't actually do shit if it passes that makes no sense.[/QUOTE]
Federal agencies have the right to bust people for crimes that are illegal on a federal level. Marijuana will still be illegal in California, it's just that the state justice system is going to stop giving a fuck.
[QUOTE=HubmaN;25456836]I'd like to see those hurpaderpa "STATES REIGHTS!! SECEED!" people defend this.[/QUOTE]
The US is a Federation, not a Confederation. States have rights as long as the govt. wants them to have rights.
[QUOTE=Superstormj;25495760]Why is it still called a drug in the first place?
It's a fucking plant, grows out of soil like all the rest of our food.
Hell, I read an article a few months ago that found out that Jesus' anointing oil had HUGE amounts of THC in it.[/QUOTE]
I know yeah, like tobacco and shrooms they are just natural plants and fungi! like the rest of our food...
[QUOTE=s0beit;25473249]Well then vote for the right political party, lol, because you're clearly doing it wrong.
Seriously i implore you, ask ANY Democrat in a debate forum, (somethingawful is a fun place to do this) about states rights and a shitstorm will follow.
If that is what you believe in the Democrat party you are a very very small minority.[/QUOTE]
For fucks sake, Republicans thinking they're better than Democrats is like being the smartest retard at a special school.
[QUOTE=imarawrus;25507054]For fucks sake, Republicans thinking they're better than Democrats is like being the smartest retard at a special school.[/QUOTE]
I'm not a Republican and you are showing your overwhelming ignorance by [b]not being able to read[/b].
:golfclap:
So yeah, nice insult, if i were the part of the group you actually wanted to insult that would be a [i]sick burn[/i] it is interesting however that you have nothing of value to add to the conversation at all beyond retarded insults, you don't actually refute my claim and I'm pretty sure you have absolutely no idea what we're talking about so I'll just leave it at that.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25507157]I'm not a Republican and you are showing your overwhelming ignorance by [b]not being able to read[/b].
:golfclap:
So yeah, nice insult, if i were the part of the group you actually wanted to insult that would be a [i]sick burn[/i] it is interesting however that you have nothing of value to add to the conversation at all beyond retarded insults, you don't actually refute my claim and I'm pretty sure you have absolutely no idea what we're talking about so I'll just leave it at that.[/QUOTE]
The Federal Government should not be interfering with the administration and observation of States' rights. Eric Holder is essentially saying that because Federal law dictates that marijuania is a schedule I drug, akin to PCP as according to [url]http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html[/url], the majority of the State of California's voters opinions are null and invalid. So basically Holder is saying that regardless of what the outcome of the democratically decided Proposition 19 is going to be on a Federal level it will still be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Supremacy Clause or not, this would be a slap in the face of California's elected represenative body, therefor undermining it's authority. So, let's talk about adding something constructive to the conversation. When you say something like "Yer doing it wrong" when referring to voting with with an incline towards Democratic views and positions, one might assume that you are taking the opposite position of Republican. Forgive me for misinterpreting your previous comment.
[quote]Well then vote for the right political party, lol, because you're clearly doing it wrong.
Seriously i implore you, ask ANY Democrat in a debate forum, (somethingawful is a fun place to do this) about states rights and a shitstorm will follow.
If that is what you believe in the Democrat party you are a very very small minority.[/quote]
You cleverly avoid affiliating yourself directly in this statement. But given the two party state of our Republic as it is now, one could make the assumption that the way you make a point of stating the opinions of Democrats as wrong and fun to poke at would lead the [i]"ignorant"[/i] and [i]"uniformed"[/i] reader to believe you are Republican. Excuse me for using my powers of reasoning and deduction to come to what I felt was the likely conclusion that you were indeed a member of the GOP. [i] Hey look, I can be long winded and condescending too![/i]
[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;25454752]What the hell. This guy must be paid big time to keep the drug laws enforced[/QUOTE]
Yeah, by the cartels.
I'm smoking weed either way, fuck da poleece.
"Instead of policing something important, let's directly go against the will of the people to police something unimportant."
So many druggies in this thread.
[QUOTE=imarawrus;25509331]The Federal Government should not be interfering with the administration and observation of States' rights. Eric Holder is essentially saying that because Federal law dictates that marijuania is a schedule I drug, akin to PCP as according to [url]http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html[/url], the majority of the State of California's voters opinions are null and invalid. So basically Holder is saying that regardless of what the outcome of the democratically decided Proposition 19 is going to be on a Federal level it will still be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Supremacy Clause or not, this would be a slap in the face of California's elected represenative body, therefor undermining it's authority. So, let's talk about adding something constructive to the conversation. When you say something like "Yer doing it wrong" when referring to voting with with an incline towards Democratic views and positions, one might assume that you are taking the opposite position of Republican. Forgive me for misinterpreting your previous comment.
[/quote]
Right, you are absolutely correct. Supremacy clause in my eyes is very wrong, most Democrats don't agree on with me, or the person i was initially responding to (and i mean a WIDE, WIDE majority, especially the ones in office and on TV) and I'm glad that the Federal Government is trampling on their rights a little bit actually, it might open some people's eyes about the importance of nullification.
If you paid attention to my post a bit though you will realize i was poking fun at [b]both[/b] of them.
[QUOTE=imarawrus;25509331]
You cleverly avoid affiliating yourself directly in this statement. But given the two party state of our Republic as it is now, one could make the assumption that the way you make a point of stating the opinions of Democrats as wrong and fun to poke at would lead the [i]"ignorant"[/i] and [i]"uniformed"[/i] reader to believe you are Republican. Excuse me for using my powers of reasoning and deduction to come to what I felt was the likely conclusion that you were indeed a member of the GOP. [i] Hey look, I can be long winded and condescending too![/i][/QUOTE]
There is more than two parties in this country, however, you disregarded them in your reasoning and deduction. I didn't mean to be such an ass but I'm tired of people assuming I'm a Republican just because i disagree with them.
I often get called a Democrat by Republicans, too.
:irony:
[QUOTE=Superstormj;25495760]Why is it still called a drug in the first place?
It's a fucking plant, grows out of soil like all the rest of our food.
Hell, I read an article a few months ago that found out that Jesus' anointing oil had HUGE amounts of THC in it.[/QUOTE]
A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function. There is no single, precise definition, as there are different meanings in drug control law, government regulations, medicine, and colloquial usage. Dictionary. ...
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;25518307]So many druggies in this thread.[/QUOTE]
Oh no, how terrible people use drugs that do no damage to anyone but themselves! How fucking terrible.
Oh wait, it's not terrible, it's completely fucking irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;25457046]California would be so screwed if they seceded.
[editline]17th October 2010[/editline]
any state would actually, but California in particular[/QUOTE]
Well, considering the level of funds that'd normally leave the state and go straight to the federal government, and the fact all tax money collected could go directly to the state.... THEN considering weed being legal and being taxable, and all the jobs it would create...
I'd say they'd probably be better off than they are currently.
If it legalizes here in Georgia one day I will wake up every day and smoke a big fucking blunt all :smug: like.
That would cost a lot a money. Blunts are nice, but you need to use a lot of pot for them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.