gdp's Comments

Big Journalism : Rep. Weiner Spokesperson Lies To 'New York Post'
Sun, 29 May 2011 17:04:49 +0000
A new photo has surfaced proving that the Twitter Pic was NOT Congressman Weiner. This, from a small Weiner supporter at a 2010 fundraiser as the Congressman lays out his entire package of ideas for the new Congress.

Big Government : JOURNOLIST 2.0: Soros Sites Hold Con Call To Map Strategy for Planned Parenthood Defense

Sat, 5 Feb 2011 05:19:38 +0000
Stupid has to have a limit; apparently progressives haven't found it yet.

Breitbart.com : Bill Clinton rides to Obama rescue

Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:56:32 +0000
Change?

Big Peace : I (We) Honor Back

Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:28:14 +0000
Semper Fi my brothers. Happy 235th! Oooh rah!

Big Government : QE2: The World Revolts Against Bernanke

Wed, 10 Nov 2010 01:43:13 +0000
Here's Captain Bernanke piloting the QE2 through some icy waters. Could there be some hidden dangers?

Big Journalism : Howard Kurtz: MSNBC Policy Is Related to Fox News or Something

Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:43:44 +0000
Here's MSNBC President Phil Griffin in his first public comments about the suspension, yesterday at a Hire Nancy Pelosi rally. Somehow, I'm not sure he's on the up and up...

Big Government : Why the Tea Party Is Here to Stay

Mon, 8 Nov 2010 14:08:54 +0000
The Tea Party is definitely here to stay. Our roots run much deeper than can be seen on the surface.

Big Government : Ronald McDonald Is a Murderer and Racist!…Or Something

Sat, 6 Nov 2010 00:18:20 +0000
Nancyland hates kids. And clowns, apparently.

Big Government : Union Fires Stage Hand for Wearing Bush Hat and Shirt

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:11:31 +0000
So now we know the other way to have a union member fired-
an act of Congress, or wear something that says Bush.

Big Government : Gays In The Military Is A Good Thing

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:12:40 +0000
Not even funny.

Big Government : Prop 19: Should Californians Legalize Marijuana?

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:11:44 +0000
I'm hurting... who... exactly? I challenge you to find five out of a hundred crack addicts that didn't first smoke pot. Pot is most certainly a gateway drug. Now before you go off on another "you're the bad guy for not wanting everyone to be able to spend their workday stoned" rant, try to read the words I'm about to type: Not everyone who smokes pot moves on to harder drugs. Not everyone who smokes pot does so in a manner that puts other people at risk. Are you comprehending this? I wrote it really slow so hopefully it sunk in... and hopefully the italics (those are the letters that lean to the right, like this) aren't too confusing. Amazing how angry potheads get when presented with actual facts. Now! Back to your pipe!

Big Government : Prop 19: Should Californians Legalize Marijuana?

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 01:37:11 +0000
I know- I indicated that. These were DEA numbers so they represented Federal only. I'm sure that local law enforcement effects more arrests for possession (by percentage of drug arrests) than the Feds, but the argument by Judge Gray and others is that our federal "war on drugs" is an abject failure that costs billions and results in nothing more than jails overcrowded with simple possession felonies. Also, while states surely arrest more for possession than the Feds, they aren't locking up teenagers caught with a joint at a party, and they aren't busting down your neighbor's doors because someone smelled pot as they walked by. Again, this is the propaganda put forth by advocates that simply can't be substantiated.

Big Government : Prop 19: Should Californians Legalize Marijuana?

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 01:07:55 +0000
Well, "my" example is actually DEA's example, and was linked from their website as I typed that comment- so I have to assume it is the latest available information. And yes, that is a federal statistic, but you wouldn't suggest that the federal data is diametrically opposed to the state data would you? I wasn't referencing that pdf for the overall figures but the percentages. Of all of the marijuana arrests during that period, only 3.3% were for simple possession. This flies in the face of what Judge Gray and others tell you about drug arrests and sentencing as a reason to legalize marijuana. I was simply pointing out that their figures are in fact, fabricated. What am I afraid of? Unfortunately, I have some very personal experience in dealing with marijuana addicts. It's quite sad to see bright young people throw a portion of their lives away to pot. Many move on to harder drugs, and many lives -both the user and those who care for him- are destroyed as an unintended consequence. And then there's the likelihood that legalization will result in more use, and won't result in greater control. The drug cartels will not pack up their tents if 19 passes. In fact, they'll just go a little deeper underground, complicating efforts for law enforcement -which certainly won't free them to go after other criminals. I could go into this in greater depth, though my guess is not many are interested in what I have to say -so I'll simply leave it at that.

Big Government : Prop 19: Should Californians Legalize Marijuana?

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:43:55 +0000
Interesting how the Yes group offered not one shred of evidence to support their claims other than "I said so" while the No side at least offered Federal regulation as a backdrop. "I guarantee you that the drug cartels don't want you to vote yes." Really? Why, because they'll be forced out of business? Are you that naive? And the aging hippie stoner makes an excellent witness doesn't he? Probably hasn't held a job since 1964 and hasn't been sober more than 20 minutes in that same time period. (Okay- that may be unfair, but clearly this guy is not able to offer much more than "come on, man" to the debate...) And Judge Gray is one of the least credible people advocating for Prop 19. This guy used to be a judge and yet he still spouts off this dishonest figures about money spent on law enforcement and the crowded prisons bull. Police aren't breaking down doors looking for marijuana unless an extensive investigation has led to massive quantities and huge sums of money. Large scale distributors are the target, not Joe-hasn't-had-a-job-since-1964. And, most convicts currently serving time in state and federal prisons for possession of marijuana have that charge as either a plea bargain or lesser included. ----I.e.: They hijacked a vehicle and when caught, were found with a pipe and a half-ounce of pot. Or they were busted for possession of cocaine or heroin with intent to distribute and were also found to possess two-ounces of pot; in Court they pleaded down to marijuana possession.---- Gray is lying to you with his figures. The DEA has actual statistics. Example here. It's one thing to have an opinion on this topic- it's entirely another thing, however, to base that opinion on false data and propaganda. Sort of like Obamacare...

Big Government : The Science of Medical Cannabis: A Conversation with Donald Abrams, M.D.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 23:27:02 +0000
Sure thing, Barack.

Big Government : The Science of Medical Cannabis: A Conversation with Donald Abrams, M.D.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 23:02:45 +0000
I wish you could be happy without drugs. Have you looked into any treatment programs?

Big Government : The Science of Medical Cannabis: A Conversation with Donald Abrams, M.D.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 23:00:59 +0000
Yes, I'm sure your right. I particularly like the "whatever" argument. Have a nice evening.

Big Government : The Science of Medical Cannabis: A Conversation with Donald Abrams, M.D.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:29:02 +0000

People's pot use neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.
Really? There's never been a car accident or work-related accident due to pot use? Can you back that up? Funny how this issue, more than most, brings out unreasonable anger in people who swear they're not addicted to anything. And, sure, that's what I'm saying -it's okay to drink and drive. Come on. Before you reply, look up the definition for "straw man".

Big Government : The Science of Medical Cannabis: A Conversation with Donald Abrams, M.D.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:21:28 +0000
Believe me, I'm for less government. I don't want government in my life any more than necessary. But I'm not an anarchist; government does play a role and one of it's roles is protecting it's citizens. Alcohol, like anything else, began as a de-facto legal substance simply because no law had been made rendering it otherwise. Once that happened, you had the uproar from prohibition. Once you give people a vice, trying to take it away is much easier said than done. This is the inevitable result of legalizing pot. Once it happens, any effort to repeal will be met with the same results as prohibition, even if it proves to be a hindrance to society. I don't think government made a conscious choice at some point and said "Okay, from this day forth, alcohol good, pot bad." So it's a bit of an unfair comparison. I understand your point, though I differ somewhat in how you got there. And I wouldn't say I'm ranting about the evils of weed. Frankly, there are many people who are strong enough and conscientious enough to not abuse it, as there are with alcohol. Although I would say that it's likely more people are able to only occasionally have a mixed drink containing liquor than there are those who only occasionally snort cocaine or shoot up heroin. I don't have statistics to back this up mind you, it's just a suspicion. But back to government for a moment- who will provide the government-free education on the potential dangers of drug use? And I wouldn't consider Police an element of the Nanny State, though they are certainly an element of the government. In other words, not all government is bad government, so rejecting it -assuming you're suggesting Government = Nanny State- doesn't mean rejecting every aspect of it. Certainly the average citizen can't insure that the food products you buy at the grocery store or your favorite restaurant are safe for consumption; that's the FDA's job. A reasonable use of tax money in my estimation. But when the FDA says that you can't buy Happy Meals because they contain toys, well, that's an over-reach. Look, I get where you're coming from. I've just seen how pot can become addictive and lead to more dangerous drug use; and all the parenting in the world can't necessarily prevent children from getting access. Legalizing pot won't change this for the better, but it could make it worse. There's a slim chance you can cross a crowded street on foot without getting run over, but eliminating crosswalks and "Don't walk" signs isn't going to make it easier, is it? I guess part of my position is: If there's not proof it'll make things better, why the social engineering experiment?

Big Government : The Science of Medical Cannabis: A Conversation with Donald Abrams, M.D.

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:30:10 +0000
Well, except for one thing: If you advocate for making pot legal, you've just taken away the "bad decision" part of your argument. What's bad about deciding to do something legal?