Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Tue May 13, 2014, 06:50 PM
Number of posts: 5,575

Journal Archives

US code still applies.

States have limited what their police and prosecutors should pursue and MJ is no longer in the top ten.

Federal LE and AJ are not inclined to pursue casual users which the States, historically, have done within their jurisdictions. Even then, first offenders seldom face serious consequences for simple possession and personal use of MJ. Some are more strident in the application of local laws when they see fit.

Immigration status is an other area where States have opted out of interdiction, arresting and reporting, based solely on residency status. Some states will no longer house immigration violators, if they are not facing criminal charges other than residency. So, it cuts both ways.

Recently, limitations on asset seizure were revised which some jurisdictions have not complied with either. The DOJ so far has said it will review compliance and issue guidance, before, it decides if it will seek other remedies.

The leverage remains with the Federal DOJ, who can arrest and shut down any MJ facility and their users as they do not require state authorization to do so. The same way they can enter a State Chartered bank and seize its accounts, records and assets.

It is in the interests of the DOJ to accept plea deals in criminal cases to expedited convictions. It is in the same line of compliance that allows States to modify how they treat MJ users. Limited decriminalization follows the same pattern of thinking.

Better yet.

Stop the talks.

Let Iraq fall to ISIS. That will take Syria down too.

Probably destabilize Lebanon and collapse that government.

Jordan would be next.

That ought to change the minds of Jewish voters.

It is a Israeli problem.

And a Saudi problem.

Mean while, The Kurds who want a homeland, and the Shia Militia lead by Iranian's, are fighting ISIS whom the Saudi's funded, as Hezbollah fights on the side of the Syrians against groups comprised of ISIS allies. Both the Kurds and Iranian lead Militias and by proxy Hezbollah are receiving US air support.

As a Nation we are responsible for what happens to Iraq. We bought that piece of real estate with blood and treasure. Were before there was no Al Qaida in Iraq when Saddam was in power, there are tens of thousands. These radicals are a threat to the west and the east.

But, the country helping to defend Iraq is not to be trusted. Does anyone find it a bit suspect that Iran is one country where we do not have troops stationed inside its borders? We have had and will continue to have troops in most of Europe, Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and are in and out of Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the Gulf States.

We are tied to Iraq and Af-Pak-astan despite assurances we would not be. Next up Africa from the Med to the Cape of Good Hope.

Let me put this simply. We do not have the resources to continue to do this.

American civilian political policy needs a critical rethink on where we deploy our military and what we can achieve diplomatically to assure this Nation's security and success into the future.

The current spate over the 47 does not help. What we can not achieve militarily, needs to be done diplomatically. People need to put the interest of this Nation first. That would include both political parties who entered into the Iraq War and the Af-Pak War to wise up post haste.

Does anyone think Putin would have put Russian troops into Ukraine unless the US and its Allies weren't exhausted from ten years of fighting in the sand box? They know what happen to themselves in Af-Pak.
They counted what was sent to fight and track causality lists, morale, and funding.

As does China.

Expanding the military budget is not an option. Unless we intend to raise taxes to highs not seen since 1955 and lower living standards to the 1970's stagflation years. Thank you, but, no thank you!

If it's in our interests to find agreement with Iran and focus on the threat posed by ISIS and to secure Iraq then that's what needs to happen.

The US will not abandon Israeli. We can't give up access to the oil either. And we sure as hell do not have a choice about killing off ISIS.

Some well travelled never expose themselves for good reason.

Your experiences tell of being able to defend yourself based on instructions not acquired from western universities. I will presume you are not an aggressor, unless provoked. In which case your experience and training will determine what action you will take. History is relevant to the perception of a threat.

The State of Israel is the outcome of their history. Therefore what happened in the last century is as relevant to them as your history is to you. Why would the same standard not apply to Iran?

Sadat was assassinated to make way for Mubarak. Rabin was assassinated to end the peace process.

You don't like Mr. Carter. Perhaps Mr. Bush would like to give it a go?

You start by talking, not by demanding assurances. Dialogue. Maybe a nice cup of tea.

Both can stop looking for excuses and begin talking to one another.

Secular? The Jewish State? As secular as a Kosher deli perhaps?

Shia theocracy for sure. No question.

I'd prefer bringing Iran into the circle of developing Nations with western influence as a help.

Have a good evening.

Uneducated radicals do not run Iran.

Looking at Iran's history would require questioning who was responsible for the over throw of its elected government in 1953.

Fool me once, shame on you.

The Iran Iraq war

Fool me twice, shame on me.

The Iraq war.

Nobody is fooling anybody.

Sadat, not Mubarak, came to agreement with Begin.

Perhaps Mr. Carter could negotiate a peace treaty between Iran and Israel.

That would require the Israeli side and the Iranian side to put their differences aside for the sake of peace.

There are Israelis I know who wouldn't have a problem with them talking. Like wise Iranians.

Neither of which have much faith in their respective government to do so.

Surprisingly, both sides say it's the religious who have too much influence over the government.

Facts are facts.

The fact AIPAC contributes to politicians is a well known fact.

People are free to draw their own conclusions as to why.

Personally, I think they do it because it benefits them in some way.

There is nothing unsavory about taking care of one's self interests.

Provided they do not impinge upon what is legal.

Politics tends to defer, what ethics describes as right or wrong, to its own calculated judgements.

Go to Page: 1