Chef Jim Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Not sure how hard Pot is to quit... I will tell you quitting cigarettes sucked and was the toughest thing I ever had to do. I still like the smell of them occasionally, but I don't have another quit in me... not worth it to do again. Of the three cigarettes is the hardest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 CHECK IT You have a spelling error in this thread's title-you left out an "O" and a "M". LMAO CHECK IT I knew this joke would go over everyone's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Pot's already "criminalized." Now go find in this thread were I gave a personal opinion on whether it should remain illegal or not and then report back. See you never. And why exactly is that? Hint: It has nothing to do with people using it as a drug. You already asked that. Not answering. Because youre either really dumb or trying to bait me into flipping out with a full-blown flame war, so you can issue me one of your "mod warnings" again. Go fish somewhere else, Ahab. Actually, he's trying to get you to engage your brain for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Sorry to go knuckle dragger on you guys, but Simon is wrong. I think both Pot and alcohol should be made illegal. Both cause to much damage to individuals and families. One is more violent, but both are degrading to the human experience. Yeah, we should go back to Prohibition. That worked really well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Sorry to go knuckle dragger on you guys, but Simon is wrong. I think both Pot and alcohol should be made illegal. Both cause to much damage to individuals and families. One is more violent, but both are degrading to the human experience. A champagne wedding toast degrades the human experience?....or a big Zinfandel paired with a porterhouse?......or a beer with buddies after work?...... Granted there are people and personalities that should never drink.....but that sounds pretty categorical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Granted there are people and personalities that should never drink You're referring to the Irish right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 You're referring to the Irish right? Not exactly. All Irish should drink and then quit. There's a need to belong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 A champagne wedding toast degrades the human experience? It's a gateway occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 It's a gateway occasion. To Argentinean trysts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Not exactly. All Irish should drink and then quit. There's a need to belong. "We drink and we fight and we drink and we die. We drink and we die and continue to drink." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 "We drink and we fight and we drink and we die. We drink and we die and continue to drink." We drink and we sing and we drink and we sing, hey! We drink and we drive and we puke and we drink, hey! We drink and we fight and we bleed and we cry, hey! We puke and we smoke and we drink and we die, hey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Anyone can get pot...If he put his mind to it, even BF could figure it out. But it would take him an hour to figure out how to smoke it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Better justification? How about this? Or this? Unless of course you're one of those typical self-professed conservatives who blather on about individual liberties but only really support personal freedoms for people who are exactly like you. Two way street my dear friend. How would you feel about marijuana bars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 How would you feel about marijuana bars? Would they have to adhere to the no smoking in bars ban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Would they have to adhere to the no smoking in bars ban? If it's medicinal mary-j, it would have to be allowed under the American's With Disabilities Act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 I don't know if any of you guys caught what Greenspan said yesterday but.... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35491.html Greenspan also took pointed shots at Congress, saying that there was "remarkable" pressure on the Fed to enhance lending. He said there was "a lot of amnesia" emerging from Capitol Hill among lawmakers calling for stricter regulation. There was "fairly broad consensus" that increased home ownership was a positive trend. In other words, he blames the libs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 I don't know if any of you guys caught what Greenspan said yesterday but.... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35491.html In other words, he blames the libs. No he didn't. He blamed the same Congresisonal committee that between 2001 & 2006 was screaming at him to keep lending up and ignore what was happening at Fan Fred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 No he didn't. He blamed the same Congresisonal committee that between 2001 & 2006 was screaming at him to keep lending up and ignore what was happening at Fan Fred. Sure he did. It was mainly liberal lawmakers that pushed for housing availability to lower income earners. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Sure he did. It was mainly liberal lawmakers that pushed for housing availability to lower income earners. Right? Both parties have been doing that for most of our lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Both parties have been doing that for most of our lifetime. Yes, but I did say mainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Yes, but I did say mainly. If you say "mainly" is open to interpretation, I'm going to reach through the intertubes and slap you silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 If you say "mainly" is open to interpretation, I'm going to reach through the intertubes and slap you silly. Ok, then let me use the word mostly, and I don't mean Conner's definition of most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Sure he did. It was mainly liberal lawmakers that pushed for housing availability to lower income earners. Right? Doesn't excuse the inaction by Reps who controlled both chambers. It's anice excuse to blame Frank for his stonewalling & evreyone else who fell for Fan Fred lobbying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 So if pot is legal we'll have to come up with laws to restrict driving under the influence of pot. New laws, new testing procedures, etc. What's all that gonna cost and what would we forecast for the death toll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Doesn't excuse the inaction by Reps who controlled both chambers. It's anice excuse to blame Frank for his stonewalling & evreyone else who fell for Fan Fred lobbying. This goes way before Frank. CRA was created under Carter and then made worse under Clinton in 99. Frank was just another piece of the disastrous puzzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 So if pot is legal we'll have to come up with laws to restrict driving under the influence of pot. New laws, new testing procedures, etc. What's all that gonna cost and what would we forecast for the death toll? Isn't driving under the influence of pot already illegal? I'm pretty sure it is in NY, at least, covered under Driving Under the Influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic_soulja Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Something tells me the government wants to get in the reefer business. Hell, it might even lower the price. The government never lowers prices... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 The government never lowers prices... But didn't I read someplace that government was going to lower the cost of health care, or was that health insurance. No, no, it was definately health care....I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 So if pot is legal we'll have to come up with laws to restrict driving under the influence of pot. New laws, new testing procedures, etc. What's all that gonna cost and what would we forecast for the death toll? Few things. The guess is that the added cost of new pot compliance is expected to be less than the current cost of enforcing an unenforceable law. Also, studies show that pot smokers are generally safer drivers, even under the influence because they're afraid to go over 15 MPH. Again, a far less debilitating drug than alcohol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 This goes way before Frank. CRA was created under Carter and then made worse under Clinton in 99. Frank was just another piece of the disastrous puzzle. Let's dispel another myth - CRA was another brick in the wall, but wasn't the entire wall. The wall was the Fan Fred structure that fed the vicious cycle of bad loan origination to bad loan structurings to bad structured sales to bad loan origination to bad loan structurings to bad structured sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Let's dispel another myth - CRA was another brick in the wall, but wasn't the entire wall. The wall was the Fan Fred structure that fed the vicious cycle of bad loan origination to bad loan structurings to bad structured sales to bad loan origination to bad loan structurings to bad structured sales. Who said it was the "entire wall"? edit: Hell, if I wanted to get even more technical about it, then yes, this dates all the way back to FDR. My point was, that GreenSpan in my view was primarily calling out liberal policy makers for pressing the GSE's into lowering credit requirements for lower income earners. No one can rationally dispute this, the CRA was a vehicle used by policy makers to ensure their objective of providing housing ownership to too many people that weren't fiscally qualified for home ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Few things. The guess is that the added cost of new pot compliance is expected to be less than the current cost of enforcing an unenforceable law. Also, studies show that pot smokers are generally safer drivers, even under the influence because they're afraid to go over 15 MPH. Again, a far less debilitating drug than alcohol. Yes, but the global warming implications of them driving around in circles in their Volkswagen Vans offset the safety issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 8, 2010 Share Posted April 8, 2010 Who said it was the "entire wall"? edit: Hell, if I wanted to get even more technical about it, then yes, this dates all the way back to FDR. My point was, that GreenSpan in my view was primarily calling out liberal policy makers for pressing the GSE's into lowering credit requirements for lower income earners. No one can rationally dispute this, the CRA was a vehicle used by policy makers to ensure their objective of providing housing ownership to too many people that weren't fiscally qualified for home ownership. No one is disputing the CRA's impact on that segment of lending. But if it was only related to CRA, we wouldn't be in this mess. A lot of the housing mess was aided by speculators in Florida, and builders in AZ, CA & NV that had nothing to do with CRA. That's what I'm talking about. Absolutely the liberal wing deserves to be slammed for propping up a house of cards, but the other side shouldn't get off scot free because they didn't press the issue enough. I'm sure that if you go through Fin committee's hearings from 2002 - 2006, it wouldn't just be the liberals who liked the easy flow of cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...pOEEI&pos=5 Maintaining the balance between profitability as a private company and service to a public mission became impossible amid competition in the mortgage market, said Daniel Mudd, Fannie Mae’s chief executive officer from 2005 until the U.S. takeover, in his prepared testimony. Fannie Mae began increasing its investment in specialized mortgages including subprime loans in 2006, after its market share of residential mortgages fell to less than 24 percent from a high of more than 40 percent. “It became clear that the movement toward nontraditional products was not a fad, but a growing and permanent change in the mortgage marketplace,” Mudd said. “There was no one momentous decision to enter this market. Rather, this was a long-term, continuous and measured move.” At the same time, Fannie Mae faced more aggressive homeownership goals set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, he said. “By 2006, Fannie Mae was engaged in a continual struggle to balance all of the requirements of the public mission, along with all of the duties owed to the shareholders,” Mudd said, even as it operated “a business model chained to a market that was in free fall.” Lockhart, who oversaw Fannie Mae from 2006 to 2009 as head of OFHEO and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said he lacked political or legal authority to control the massive entity, which Congress created in 1938 to foster homeownership. The public mission “allowed the companies to be so politically strong that for many years they resisted the very legislation that might have saved them,” Lockhart said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts