Legalization will inevitably lead to Big Tobacco taking over Big Pot, the big government types will see it as a new revenue stream.. They have the money and the clout to do what Big Alcohol did.....corner the market. You can bet along with legalization "of use" growing your own will become VERY illegal. Having a still can land you in jail unless you meet all the regulations and have prior approval of paperwork to operate a distilled spirits plant.

If one buys weed from someone else ya don't know what the hell the grower sprayed on it to keep the pests like spider mites, thrips, aphids, white flies and caterpillars off the plants, all of which will eat the pot as it grows. One also doesn't know what the hell the grower sprayed on it to keep the diseases like botrytis, powdery mildew, leaf septori and rust off it either. The goal for the grower is the biggest yield possible. Who know what sort of chemical compounds are created when pesticides/fungicides are burned.

You can believe whatever you choose for yourself. However......the comment "true Christianity is limited to those" is making a bold, incorrect, unnecessary commentary on what others believe.

So you think yours is more correct, because you preach tolerance toward gays? Others believe this is a sin. Yet others stand that truly believing in the gospel is what makes one a true Christian and everything else means little. And so on.

My dimwit comment wasn't personal. Comments by individuals claiming that they know what "true" Christianity is, based on their emotional reaction to gays or anything else, is what is dimwitted.

Another dimwit comment claiming his or her "brand" of Christianity is supposedly the true Christianity. That's the crapola.

Wrong. Christians who are labeling other Christians as bigots are at best misguided, and at worst.....hypocrites and even bigots themselves.

Oh......another sarcastic vote for the Cankle Monster herself. With the way things are going, I think Barry Hussein will have already driven the last nail in America's coffin long before she would step to the podium.

How so? Are you suggesting their actions had the motive of wanting to invite a lawsuit so they could raise money by donations?

Don't answer. You always come up with some phoney baloney fairy tales.

I don't think the little bakery asked, nor wanted, to be sued. But you believe whatever you want.

No, but that has nothing to do with the invoking of racial stereotypes that prompted my remark.

I don't think much of it either, but people legitimize this sort of unnecessary and tasteless display when they insert their own bigotry into the discussion.

It's amazing, isn't it? He's a raging sociopath - he'll lie about anything and everything till the day his his forked-tongue eats dirt.

I may not be a Chris Christie fan, but I'll give him credit for telling Obama to stop lying to the American people. Enough is enough.

77% of Americans are right - the best way to deal with Iran is to keep the bans and sanctions in place.

The deal is worthless given the enormous holes in the inspection regime, and it is immoral because:

1) It will provide the Iranian government with more resources to double-down on the oppression of its citizens at home and the export of conflict and terrorism abroad

2) It destroys any incentive on the part of the Sunni Arab states to eliminate Caliph Ibrahim's Islamic State death cult

3) It will lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East

There are better avenues of dealing with Iran than repeating Chamberlain's folly in Munich.

Let's be honest. Any deal that gives the thugs in Tehran more money to oppress its citizens at home and export war and terrorism abroad is an immoral deal.

Meanwhile, Obama tells his bleating and babbling followers that this is a step towards "a more hopeful world". It's the new version of "peace in our time" and people are going to get killed for it just the same.

And yet, 77% of Americans want the existing sanctions preserved or strengthened.

Which brings us back to the BS that Obama was shoveling about options. It was either his full-on capitulation to his Supreme Leader in Tehran or war.

What he disingenuously failed to mention was the other option that 77% of Americans support.

So, why would Obama defy the will of the American people to serve the interests of their self-sworn enemies in Tehran?

That is the admiration and respect that he's earned from the scumbags he is appeasing. Some people never learn, even when History has a teachable moment staring them right in the face.

Since Obama decided to go it alone and ram his full capitulation to Tehran down the American people's throats, let's see what the peasants he is ignoring think about the regime whose interests he is putting before their own:

Just 51 percent of those interviewed said the U.S. should have diplomatic relations with Iran while 45 percent said it shouldn’t. At the same time, 77 percent of those interviewed said the harsh U.S. and international economic sanctions against Iran should be preserved at current levels or even increased.

Only 12 percent of those interviewed thought sanctions should be decreased and seven percent said they should be eliminated altogether.

The public’s wariness and distrust of dating back to the 1979 Iranian revolution and U.S. hostage crisis matches the reception the nuclear agreement has received on Capitol Hill where most Republicans and some Democrats say they fear Obama has conceded too much to a country that has fomented terrorist activities throughout the Middle East and has repeatedly vowed to destroy Israel.

Fifty-six percent of Americans consider Iran to be an enemy, according to the poll conducted last Thursday through Monday, while an additional 31 percent consider Iran to be unfriendly but not an enemy. More than 70 percent of Republicans, half of all independents and 45 percent of Democrats described Iran as the enemy.

...........Read More..........


There's that and a Monmouth University poll that finds a majority of Americans don't trust Tehran at all, and why should they?

We're talking about a regime that has American blood on its hands, supports terrorist groups and has a long history of stonewalling and deceiving the international community and the IAEA about the dimensions of its nuclear program.

Of course, the American people's distrust in both understandable and expected, which brings us back to the question why the megalomaniac in the White House decided to go around the American people and their representatives in Washington and subject his immoral deal to the treaty process.

It's obvious that he knew that his deal would get shot down, but he went ahead with it anyway. As has been the case with ObamaCare: Screw the American people. What they want doesn't matter.

One can't help but notice the resemblance between Obama and the autocrats he is appeasing in Iran. They both possess and display an arrogant contempt and disregard for the people in their respective countries.

That's what you get when you empower ideologues. Now that the damage is done, are we going to learn our lesson?

As we speak, 1 million American Muslims are arming themselves and preparing for their Holy war. This guy was a radical and no more representative of Islam than the WBC is of Christianity.

This shooting was a tragedy, but it's no reason to hate Muslims. I also wish Muslims a happy Ramadan.

I want to know your answer to the question asked try again

So which is it, you want lower oil prices and more oil usage or higher oil prices and less oil usage? We could have lower oil prices without giving Iran the clear path to a nuclear weapon, why do you support the latter?

"We have a deal. It's a deal worse than even we imagined possible. It's a deal that gives the Iranian regime $140b in return for ... effectively nothing: no dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program, no anytime/anywhere inspections, no curbs on Iran's ballistic missile program, no maintenance of the arms embargo, no halt to Iran's sponsorship of terror."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/very-good-deal-iran_990662.html

Can you explain what we got out of it? Have they promised to stop funding terrorism? Have they withdrawn their cries to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? Have they promised to stop chanting death to America?

As has been repeated, no deal is better than a bad deal and this is a bad deal.

Two parties got what they wanted, Iran is richer and can continue down it's path to a nuclear weapon and Obama can claim his legacy and then hand it off to someone else.




So which is it, you want lower oil prices and more oil usage or higher oil prices and less oil usage? We could have lower oil prices without giving Iran the clear path to a nuclear weapon, why do you support the latter?