MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
sweet corn sign
Friday, August 1, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 68.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

States Rights? Right.

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby Peanutbutter » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:22 am

ilikebeans wrote:Most liberals are not single-issue voters.


Fine and dandy.

I just find it funny that the liberals are getting mad at Republicans because they won't scold the President for busting druggies but those same liberals are still going to vote for Obama.

And by "funny" I mean "hypocritical."
Peanutbutter
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:54 am

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby wack wack » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:29 am

Peanutbutter wrote:
ilikebeans wrote:Most liberals are not single-issue voters.


Fine and dandy.

I just find it funny that the liberals are getting mad at Republicans because they won't scold the President for busting druggies but those same liberals are still going to vote for Obama.

And by "funny" I mean "hypocritical."


Four pages and you still don't get it. From post #1 the topic has been blatant Republican hypocrisy. Not about weed, not about the President, entirely about Republican hypocrisy regarding states' rights.

I don't know why you interpret calling absurd conservative behavior to light as anger, but it's not.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby Peanutbutter » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:33 am

wack wack wrote:Four pages and you still don't get it. From post #1 the topic has been blatant Republican hypocrisy. Not about weed, not about the President, entirely about Republican hypocrisy regarding states' rights.


Entirely about Republican hypocrisy but nothing about Liberal hypocrisy.

Oh yeah, I get "it" all right.

:roll:
Peanutbutter
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:54 am

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby wack wack » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:39 am

Peanutbutter wrote:
wack wack wrote:Four pages and you still don't get it. From post #1 the topic has been blatant Republican hypocrisy. Not about weed, not about the President, entirely about Republican hypocrisy regarding states' rights.


Entirely about Republican hypocrisy but nothing about Liberal hypocrisy.

Oh yeah, I get "it" all right.

:roll:


Perfect! Welcome aboard.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby jman111 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:40 am

Maybe PB should start a new thread about "Liberal hypocrisy" instead of trying to redirect this one. Some guy around here advocates for starting new threads when his don't go the desired direction.
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2930
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby Peanutbutter » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:49 am

Not only are liberals mad when Obama is criticized by Republicans but they are also mad when the rightwing doesn't criticize him, even though they admit that the issue isn't really that big of a deal anyways!

:roll:
Peanutbutter
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:54 am

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby Meade » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:51 am

wack wack, how about this: Federal government stays out of states' business of regulating weed AND federal government stays out of states' business of regulating health insurance. Deal?
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby wack wack » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:55 am

Meade wrote:wack wack, how about this: Federal government stays out of states' business of regulating weed AND federal government stays out of states' business of regulating health insurance. Deal?


That would be better than the current state of affairs.

However, a more reasonable solution would be to have Federal involvement in both issues, with a much more sensible weed policy based on fact, not lies or big business considerations.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:24 pm

Peanutbutter wrote: Perhaps tobacco and booze should be more regulated.

Does that mean you have changed your position on Wisconsin's ban on tobacco use in places of public accomodation and other indoor work places (as Walker has done)?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby Meade » Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:36 pm

wack wack wrote:However, a more reasonable solution would be to have Federal involvement in both issues, with a much more sensible weed policy based on fact, not lies or big business considerations.

But what about "states' rights"? Or was that just a ruse?
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby Peanutbutter » Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:38 pm

Henry's obsession with the smoking ban is never ending.

:roll:

I want to hear more about how it is Republicans fault that Obama is busting druggies and how the CDC is lying when they say weed is dangerous. Why do people keep trying to change the subject to tobacco and alcohol?
Peanutbutter
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:54 am

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:43 pm

Dangers are relative. Do you believe that marijuana is as dangerous as heroin? After all, both are classified as schedule 1 drugs.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby wack wack » Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:47 pm

Meade wrote:
wack wack wrote:However, a more reasonable solution would be to have Federal involvement in both issues, with a much more sensible weed policy based on fact, not lies or big business considerations.

But what about "states' rights"? Or was that just a ruse?


"States' rights" was a ruse when it was used as an excuse to fight against Obamacare.

I'm not arguing for states' rights. I'm questioning the selective nation of conservative "states' rights" arguments.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby Meade » Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:52 pm

wack wack wrote:I'm not arguing for states' rights. I'm questioning the selective nation of conservative "states' rights" arguments.

Huh? Are you high?
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: States Rights? Right.

Postby wack wack » Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:22 pm

Meade wrote:
wack wack wrote:I'm not arguing for states' rights. I'm questioning the selective nature of conservative "states' rights" arguments.

Huh? Are you high?


Fixed. Is that what confused you?
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar