• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy [edited]

So... your answer is no, you cannot show that this is the case here.

Well since you already shown the case I really don't have to.

Your selective outrage is noted by yourself.
 
Last edited:
And I am -astounded- that someone would accept the idea that it is OK for the President to enforce the law based on what HE thinks should and should not be illegal.

That's what the executive branch does. That can range from going on a jihad against a crime, to selective prosecution of a crime, to doing nothing at all. Part of the executive branch's job is to determine which things are the highest priority. They are under no obligation to enforce any law they don't feel like enforcing.
 
Well since you already showed the case I really don't have to.
:roll:
Thanks for your pre-pubescent response.

If you think you have someting here, why dont you supply a quote?

Show me direct evidence that my argument is selective.
 
You're discussing two different things -- investigation of violations of federal laws dealing with the purchase of firearms, and the investigation of murders.

Chances are, the murder investigation is a state, not federal, investgation; if it were a federal investigation, the FBI, not the BATF, would be in the lead.


But all of that is beside the point -- I'm not at all sure how the 'it is legal under state law, so we will not prosecute it under federal law' argument holds any water whatseoever.

And I am -astounded- that someone would accept the idea that it is OK for the President to enforce the law based on what HE thinks should and should not be illegal.

so instead of answering the hypothecal you decide to just weasel out of it.. I see.

Lets simplify this, and make them both federal crimes so you don't split hairs.

Should a gun registration violation have the same priority as someone who is smuggling AK-47's into Montana across the Canadian border to sell to whomever has the money for them?

Your answer is it should be chronological? A prosecutor should dedicate resources to the registration violation instead of the gun smuggling because it happened first?


Ther is a finite budget, there is a finite amount of manpower, there is a finite amount of our tax dollars to be used prosecuting federal cases. There is NO OPTION other than to prioritize where resources get allocated.
 
Last edited:
so instead of answering the hypothecal you decide to just weasel out of it.. I see.
I answered your hypothetical directly, and with a perfectly sound response -- its not my fault you didnt ask a question narrow enough to generate an answer within a range that you wanted.

Lets simplify this, and make them both federal crimes so you don't split hairs.

Should a gun registration violation have the same priority as someone who is smuggling AK-47's into Montana across the Canadian border to sell to whomever has the money for them?
Again:
These are different things investigated by different resources.
Whatever priority one should or might have over the other does not affect the resources of one over the other.
:doh

Your answer is it should be chronological? A prosecutor should dedicate resources to the registration violation instead of the gun smuggling because it happened first?
Why would the --prosecution-- of these be anything --other-- than chonological? Everyone has the same right to a speedy trial.
 
Why would the --prosecution-- of these be anything --other-- than chonological? Everyone has the same right to a speedy trial.

So a gun registration case has a higher priority than a smuggling case.. ok.

the prosecutor should not decide that the registration case is low priority offense and take a plea bargain so that they may develop a sound case to take the gun smuggler to trial. All because the registration case happens to be chronologically superior.

When the gun smuggler gets his case before a jury the prosecution will be woefully unprepared and the smuggler gets off because the prosecutors office was busy with minor cases that had chronological superiority.

makes sense to me :doh
 
So a gun registration case has a higher priority than a smuggling case.. ok.
I'm sorry -- when did I specifically say that?
I said that you prosecute them as the cases come up, as everyone has the same right to a speedy trial.
Do you have an argument against that, or not?

The prosecutor should not decide that the registration case is low priority offense and take a plea bargain so that they may develop a sound case to take the gun smuggler to trial. All because the registration case happens to be chronologically superior.
Wow. Way to make stuff up that suits your argument.
But, when you're argument is weak, I guess you have little choice.

1: We're not discussing plea-bargians v prosecution, we're discussing NO prosecution v prosecution.
2: Evryoe has the same right to a speedy trial; the 'severity' of one crime over another does not affect this.

Now, if you want to argue that the prosecutor should plea out the registration case so he can spend more time with the smuggling case that's fine, but, as I said, We're not discussing plea-bargians v prosecution, we're discussing NO prosecution v prosecution.

Are you going to argue that the registration violation should NOT be prosecuted?

Makes sense to me :doh
Especially when you make things up to suit your position, and dont have an understanding of what's being discussed.
 
makes sense to me :doh

Dont sweat it, he has established his ignorance in regards to resource allocation as a function of time (aka opportunity cost) a few pages back. And because of this, he will continue to spew his "chrono" bs time and again.
 
Last edited:
Dont sweat it, he has established his ignorance in regards to resource allocation as a function of time (aka opportunity cost) a few pages back. And because of this, he will continue to spew his "chrono" bs time and again.
Says he who willfully misunderstands and deliberately mis-represents the posts he is responding to.
:roll:
 
If what you say is true, Goobieman, the solution is simple: impeach him. Anything else is hot air.

Seems to me that with all the lawyers in the administration, they would have covered their bases. I personally think it is ok for them to decide not to prosecute certain crimes because of resource constraints.
 
Last edited:
It's his discretion.

Whoa!! Just a minute. Do I hear Liberals supporting the use of signing statements? But, when Bush was in office, didn't the Liberals heartily condemn them?

Here is who I blame:

1) Bush supporters, for supporting everything Bush did, including his circumventing the law with signing statements.

AND

2) Obama supporters, for showing me that they are some of the biggest hypocrites on the planet.
 
If what you say is true, Goobieman, the solution is simple: impeach him. Anything else is hot air.
Yes -- because I have no right to openly disagree with the policies or the President and/or claim that he isnt doing his job.

Oh, if I had only known that when all the BDS droolers were out...
:roll:
 
Says he who willfully misunderstands and deliberately mis-represents the posts he is responding to.
:roll:


Where has Obama ever stated he believes cannabis should be legal, or did you not say he is making subjective calls in regards to the law?

Your opinion that the president should apply policy in regards to chronological order as opposed to priority/effectiveness is nothing short of retarded. And the fact that you shuffle around when being called on it, repeatedly, proves this point perfectly.

You cannot just state your opinion (which is not in line with reality), and expect people to take it as self evident. If the US legal system performed in the manner of which you prescribe, it would likely collapse.
 
You cannot just state your opinion (which is not in line with reality), and expect people to take it as self evident. If the US legal system performed in the manner of which you prescribe, it would likely collapse.
Says he who willfully misunderstands and deliberately mis-represents the posts he is responding to.
 
Says he who willfully misunderstands and deliberately mis-represents the posts he is responding to.

Like they always say, if you cannot beat 'em, shhhhhhhhuffle! Not only have you lost this debate, your credibility is sinking to new lows (which for you is worrisome).
 
Like they always say, if you cannot beat 'em, shhhhhhhhuffle! Not only have you lost this debate, your credibility is sinking to new lows (which for you is worrisome).
I'm sorry -- given that you are forced to blatantly lie to make your points, I see no need to give any considersation whatsoever to anything that you have to say.
 
I'm sorry -- given that you are forced to blatantly lie to make your points, I see no need to give any considersation whatsoever to anything that you have to say.

Where have i lied?


I smell another......... shuffle:lol:
 
Yes -- because I have no right to openly disagree with the policies or the President and/or claim that he isnt doing his job.

Oh, if I had only known that when all the BDS droolers were out...
:roll:

No, you can of course do what you want, including openly disagree. You can point it out until 2012 and hope that it helps unseat him. You can claim he isn't doing his job.

Personally speaking, I voted for Bush both times. I love what he did with foreign policy for the most part.

This is the very first thing Obama has done that I like. They need to go ahead and legalize it so there is no subjectivity.
 
Back
Top Bottom