Smoke weed in Texas and you're going straight to jail.
That reminds me of my first or second year in college . . . in Texas, back in the late 60s. Texas law provided for up to LIFE IN PRISON for possession of A SINGLE SEED of marijuana. Any amount: LIFE (unless you were a middle-class white or better, I imagine . . . not that there was any racism or classism involved . . .).
I sometimes wonder if some poor soul from that time is STILL incarcerated in TX for a single joint or some stems and seeds that a cop found in his pocket or his car (or her purse or whatnot).
The Homecoming Day parade at my University included a 30-foot joint on wheels, and yes, pot use was common among a big percentage of the student body.
I'm not big on expecting drug prohibitions to do much to stop drug use. I also have read that the percentage of heroin addicts is pretty much the same regardless of its legal status; if you're NOT carrying a lot of pain, heroin use (i.e., being numb) isn't very attractive. If you ARE carrying a lot of pain, you'll do anything to take care of the problem.
But drug prohibitions are FABULOUS for quickly creating lawless and incredibly violent cartels -- and lots of government corruption, from the local level to the White House.
You got it. Ever watch The Untouchables with Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, and Robert De Niro?
It's so OBVIOUS in the film (as in life) that Prohibition was doing nothing but creating violence, corruption, and death, yet the enforcement of same was thought of by the not-very-smart Good Guys as something almost holy. THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING GOOD, but of course they were only participants in the festival of violence that -- what a surprise -- had been created BY Prohibition and which ENDED immediately when Prohibition was repealed.
You got it. Ever watch The Untouchables with Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, and Robert De Niro?
It's so OBVIOUS in the film (as in life) that Prohibition was doing nothing but creating violence, corruption, and death, yet the enforcement of same was thought of by the not-very-smart Good Guys as something almost holy. THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING GOOD, but of course they were only participants in the festival of violence that -- what a surprise -- had been created BY Prohibition and which ENDED immediately when Prohibition was repealed.
A stump speech that is overtly partisan is not a presidential duty: he is talking not as president but as an individual politician. According to the Hatch Act, using the seal would be prohibited, a clear violation.
On yesterday's (Wed.) Dan Bongino radio show, he said that he has heard that Resident Biden is prepared to unleash a flurry of EO's that will have to be fought in the courts. We can only imagine what is in them at this point, but I guess we'll find out after the election.
The Dems seem to be prepping for massive steals across the nation.
If I was a betting man, I would say that the EOs that Biden is preparing to issue will be designed to subdue any effort to investigate stolen elections.
I think he may be referring to the national outrage when yet another election is stolen. The media pumping the "red wave coming" narrative seems to be more of a way to increase the turmoil, with the media LOVES, which would result from blatantly fraudulent Democrat victories in many areas.
I think this is just an oversight. They have used the seal plenty of time for him. If he never had it, that would be one thing. But there are plenty of videos of him speaking with the seal on the podium.
There are far more interesting tidbits and crumbs than this.
That reminds me of my first or second year in college . . . in Texas, back in the late 60s. Texas law provided for up to LIFE IN PRISON for possession of A SINGLE SEED of marijuana. Any amount: LIFE (unless you were a middle-class white or better, I imagine . . . not that there was any racism or classism involved . . .).
I sometimes wonder if some poor soul from that time is STILL incarcerated in TX for a single joint or some stems and seeds that a cop found in his pocket or his car (or her purse or whatnot).
The Homecoming Day parade at my University included a 30-foot joint on wheels, and yes, pot use was common among a big percentage of the student body.
I'm not big on expecting drug prohibitions to do much to stop drug use. I also have read that the percentage of heroin addicts is pretty much the same regardless of its legal status; if you're NOT carrying a lot of pain, heroin use (i.e., being numb) isn't very attractive. If you ARE carrying a lot of pain, you'll do anything to take care of the problem.
But drug prohibitions are FABULOUS for quickly creating lawless and incredibly violent cartels -- and lots of government corruption, from the local level to the White House.
You got it. Ever watch The Untouchables with Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, and Robert De Niro?
It's so OBVIOUS in the film (as in life) that Prohibition was doing nothing but creating violence, corruption, and death, yet the enforcement of same was thought of by the not-very-smart Good Guys as something almost holy. THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING GOOD, but of course they were only participants in the festival of violence that -- what a surprise -- had been created BY Prohibition and which ENDED immediately when Prohibition was repealed.
Texas didn't look at prohibition and think ".... nah, this isn't a good idea?"
(I also replied with this to 369Q)
You got it. Ever watch The Untouchables with Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, and Robert De Niro?
It's so OBVIOUS in the film (as in life) that Prohibition was doing nothing but creating violence, corruption, and death, yet the enforcement of same was thought of by the not-very-smart Good Guys as something almost holy. THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING GOOD, but of course they were only participants in the festival of violence that -- what a surprise -- had been created BY Prohibition and which ENDED immediately when Prohibition was repealed.
A stump speech that is overtly partisan is not a presidential duty: he is talking not as president but as an individual politician. According to the Hatch Act, using the seal would be prohibited, a clear violation.
Thank you. A great piece of information.
On yesterday's (Wed.) Dan Bongino radio show, he said that he has heard that Resident Biden is prepared to unleash a flurry of EO's that will have to be fought in the courts. We can only imagine what is in them at this point, but I guess we'll find out after the election.
The Dems seem to be prepping for massive steals across the nation.
If I was a betting man, I would say that the EOs that Biden is preparing to issue will be designed to subdue any effort to investigate stolen elections.
Maybe.... as 45 used to say, "Let's see what happens."
All good guesses..
I think he may be referring to the national outrage when yet another election is stolen. The media pumping the "red wave coming" narrative seems to be more of a way to increase the turmoil, with the media LOVES, which would result from blatantly fraudulent Democrat victories in many areas.
Maybe this is the Symbolism will be their downfall? - "quotefag"
That has always referred to heraldry IMO. Something very, very interesting when you dig into it and isnt discussed very often.
Perhaps start a post on it. I'd be very interested in learning more and discussing it.
Except I've seen him use it before. It's not consistant.
right? lets ignore all the other times? why do some grab at literally anything? this is not helping.
At this point, Joe can't even impersonate himself.
I think this is just an oversight. They have used the seal plenty of time for him. If he never had it, that would be one thing. But there are plenty of videos of him speaking with the seal on the podium.
There are far more interesting tidbits and crumbs than this.
The normies will just drool wondering when their next booster is.
This only makes sense if he's never used the presidential seal. Otherwise you're looking for patterns in static.