Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
31
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« Last post by 21st Century Man on Today at 12:36:41 PM »
You mean this kinda shit, right?



Exactly. I guess news organizations simply don't have the resources to write their own take of the story or else they are lazy.  :D
32
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« Last post by Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost on Today at 12:34:11 PM »
That's because you're a sniveling bitch-ass faggot just looking for any way to frame the current administration in a negative light. The article basically concludes by saying, "Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher said in an e-mail, “We are committed to working the Trump administration and Defense Department on innovative approaches to affordably provide the capabilities America’s military needs.”  ::)

I wonder if Todd Blecher attended the meeting in DT's head with "the generals" and Boeing.
33
Radio and Podcasts / Re: Caravan to Midnight
« Last post by Dr. MD MD on Today at 12:30:17 PM »
In other news, Alan Colmes is still dead.

Is he taking over for Generalisamo Francisco Franco that way?  ???
34
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« Last post by 21st Century Man on Today at 12:29:16 PM »
For sure! Still, I can't help thinking that a child's happiness is priceless, especially on their birthday.  :D

Yeah Baby!  Mike Myers told me to say that. ;D
35
An update on STEORN from several weeks ago.

After 23 million euros in funding ...  a nice, big, fat Irish ostrich egg.

"It's not that our existing investors didn't show willingness to give more support, but their capability to give support just kept diminishing," McCarthy said.

Really?  No shit?  TANSTAAFL?



36
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« Last post by Dr. MD MD on Today at 12:24:38 PM »
I would like to have been a fly on the wall during that imaginary meeting with "the generals" and Boeing.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-22/air-force-stumped-by-trump-s-claim-of-1-billion-savings-on-jet

That's because you're a sniveling bitch-ass faggot just looking for any way to frame the current administration in a negative light. The article basically concludes by saying, "Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher said in an e-mail, “We are committed to working the Trump administration and Defense Department on innovative approaches to affordably provide the capabilities America’s military needs.”  ::)
37
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« Last post by Inglorious Bitch on Today at 12:22:24 PM »
I'm not a pot user but I think it is high time

38
Martel Sobieskey wrote that "Radical Islam" is being improperly named, even by conservatives.

His assertion, which I take note of, is that Radical Islam is actually the Islamic military. He further states that the so-called radicals are not a fringe element, but are fully supported by the worldwide Islamic community (Ummah). "Worldwide conquest is the primary religious duty of all Muslims."

He goes on to say that all of these attacks in Spain, England, France, Thailand, Bali, the Philippines, Holland, Sweden, and the USA have been preceded by the establishment of moderate mosque communities, which, in turn, became footholds from which the Islamic military could launch their terrorist attacks.

More on Martel's views at http://www.faithfreedom.org/author/martel-sobieskey/
Yep. We get sidetracked when we talk about "radical Islam" when the problem is Islam.
ps: like the author's moniker. Ha. Martel and Sobeiski. Two of the great defenders of Christendom and Western Civilization. Is his middle name Tepes?  ;)
39
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« Last post by StarrMountain® 2010 on Today at 12:22:12 PM »
CPAC 2017 - Watch President Donald Trump's full speech at CPAC 2017.  2.24.17.

40
Politics / Re: President Donald J. Trump
« Last post by 21st Century Man on Today at 12:20:07 PM »
It is already "criminalised" at the federal level. (Find your frikking zed key will you?)

I have mixed feelings on this. If we have laws on the books, they should be enforced. If they are not going to be enforced, they should be rescinded by Congress, not by some executive decision.

The states that have passed legalization have done so knowing full well that they are in conflict with federal laws. It has created a dilemma for the players in those states that have to do everything as a cash business because banks will not touch their money.

People that live in or travel to a state where it is legal are free to use pot, but if they are employed at a job which has mandatory drug testing, they risk their career. Anyone who currently has a security clearance or wishes to have one in the future puts their career at risk.

There needs to be a discussion about this, but it needs to be in Congress.

Until then, Trump is in a no win situation. If he enforces the law he is the bad guy. If he chooses no to encorce these laws, it weakens his narrative on the US being a nation under the rule of law. Our foreign entanglements pretty much require us to enforce our own anti-drug laws. If we strike them down, we have to undue several bilateral and multilateral agreements we have mandating that marijuana is illegal.

I am all for states rights. This is an example where the federal government is way too entrenched and due to the long history of anti-drug policy, will have a hard time unraveling the situation.

I'm not a pot user but I think it is high time to do away with the federal regulation on mary jane.    Let the states decide on this matter.  I think companies should still test their employees although a new method should be installed.  Marijuana stays in the system much longer than alcohol and a person could still have pot in his system even if he/she is completely sober. I think use should be discouraged and if a person is under the influence in the workplace, then he/she should be fired.

Anyway, very cogent analysis, GS and I agree with it completely.  And to join in on the prison-for-profit discussion,  I agree with everyone on the right and left that thinks this is very wrong.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10