It's obvious some just don't know that once a territory has become a State there is no breaking away from the Union.
It's a Constitutional impossibility.
Let the Feds do what they want.
There is way more of we than thee.
House GOP blocks vote protecting med states
- Thread starter toxic hippie
- Start date
It's obvious some just don't know that once a territory has become a State there is no breaking away from the Union.
It's a Constitutional impossibility.
Let the Feds do what they want.
There is way more of we than thee.
Crazy Chester
Well-known member
And then for some, it is equally obvious that, that which has been joined together may be broken apart.
At least it was obvious to the previously quoted Thomas Jefferson - that's how the "Union" came to be in the first place - the states broke apart from the British Empire.
It's good Jefferson didn't listen to those who thought it obvious it was impossible for the American states to break away from the British.
As for the constitution, California has one too.
It will be greatly changed in 2019.
It's just good sense for Californians - enough of paying 40% of the United States tax base while the feds disrespect California law and its citizens.
But what about everything that 40% has paid for over the years? Just give it up? What about social security? Health insurance? A military?
Just curios what your thoughts on that is Chester?
Just curios what your thoughts on that is Chester?
Someone needs to ask the AG...over and over?
M
moose eater
I don't think leaving the Union is a real option, despite a number of states having the authority implied or explicitly stated in their state constitutions &/or statehood pacts.
I think also, however, that in some ways, the prospect might be attractive; having taxes go toward healthcare, infrastructure, education, etc., instead of Raytheon missiles, $800 dollar toilet seats on troop transport aircraft, $600 DoD claw hammers, etc., etc..
And, in favor of such ideas, sometimes, like with a bad marriage, walking away from the investments is the better path.
But from long ago, before the Civil War even, the feds have seen the Union as their part-ownership in the resources and strategic placement of the many states. We are their cash contributors and piggy-bank of assets; their source of precious metals, oil, timber, and more.
So even if departing the Union were a real possibility, Uncle Schmuck isn't going to let that idea gain any altitude.
I think the better path is to either 1.) Convince Congress (and the voters) that it's in their best interests to get over themselves where the drug war is concerned, and use a different tactic,
or,
2.) engage in sneak lobotomies or brain transplants for the likes of Sessions and Trump.
I mean, if someone with a middle name like 'Beauregard' announced one day that someone had snuck into their home at night and performed an involuntary lobotomy, who'd believe them? ;^>)
I think also, however, that in some ways, the prospect might be attractive; having taxes go toward healthcare, infrastructure, education, etc., instead of Raytheon missiles, $800 dollar toilet seats on troop transport aircraft, $600 DoD claw hammers, etc., etc..
And, in favor of such ideas, sometimes, like with a bad marriage, walking away from the investments is the better path.
But from long ago, before the Civil War even, the feds have seen the Union as their part-ownership in the resources and strategic placement of the many states. We are their cash contributors and piggy-bank of assets; their source of precious metals, oil, timber, and more.
So even if departing the Union were a real possibility, Uncle Schmuck isn't going to let that idea gain any altitude.
I think the better path is to either 1.) Convince Congress (and the voters) that it's in their best interests to get over themselves where the drug war is concerned, and use a different tactic,
or,
2.) engage in sneak lobotomies or brain transplants for the likes of Sessions and Trump.
I mean, if someone with a middle name like 'Beauregard' announced one day that someone had snuck into their home at night and performed an involuntary lobotomy, who'd believe them? ;^>)
Crazy Chester
Well-known member
Clearly, it would be a huge change.
But, it's definitely doable. Since the feds would no longer have to pay out on social security benefits for the citizens of California, they would have to pay the cash value of the same to those Californians who participated in the social security system if they want out of it, or pay it to California for their benefit.
It wouldn't be that hard to just let Californians who want to keep paying into social security or keep receiving benefits to continue to do so. Every year whoever wants to continue in the social security system would just have to send the feds a check equivalent to what they pay in social security taxes now - or collect their check - as the case may be.
California already has a better health care system for its citizens than the feds give their citizens AND it doesn't penalize Californians for not participating in it - unlike Obama's tax grab to make the butt-hurt big insurance companies stop whining because they were jealous of all the bailouts Obama gave to his banking buddies (that he conned Americans into believing was actually inexpensive health care for everyone).
As for the military, I really don't think California needs much of a military. It just needs the militia it already has to take care of disturbances on the land and a somewhat bigger naval force to patrol up to 100 miles out to sea for self-defense purposes. I mean, who is going to invade California? Mexico? Maybe Oregon? Lol.
Also, California already hosts bases that contain a large percentage of the US military (I'm not sure - but it may be more than any other state). I don't see any reason that has to change if California became its own country. Even if the military left California, the US armed forces would be back like white on rice if California was truly threatened (due to the shared border), just like they would do if Mexico or Canada was invaded by hostiles.
I know that's an oversimplification, but I really think California has A LOT to gain from leaving the US government and, when Californian's think more of what can be gained, rather than lost, they will fairly easily rise to the challenge and fully address the concerns you've raised.
Last edited:
Ask a question....get an answer. Like you said, oversimplification but more than I've ever really thought about in regards to breaking up.
I just know that shits hard to do. Once heard a song about it! Wanna hear it? Hear it go.....
https://youtu.be/tbad22CKlB4
Hahaha
Seriously though... thanks for the reply Chester. Can't say ya swayed me yet brother but I think your third on the board. I mean I got my thoughts and then I got what I take in from everywhere else. MjPassion is top of the list. Moose snuck in into the second spot and BAM! Theres Chesters 2 cents in third spot! You could have been 2nd but.....ya left me hangin for too long bro. 3rd gonna have to do. Gonna try in get pops thought on this before too many more strangers fill the list!haha
I've always wondered like why the Dakotas got a divorce? Or the Carolinas? As usual....I don't doubt the lack marital bliss was financial?(raisin Arizona))lol Was it Hatfield n McCoy type stuff?
@moose- So far I'm thinking labotomy is the easiest to pull off. Again... oversimplification, but.....not as much!lol
I got some reading to do about it but I may have to just let everybody's ideas sit in a jar with mine for a while. Let my skull adjust! BECAUSE MY BRAIN!!!!!
I just know that shits hard to do. Once heard a song about it! Wanna hear it? Hear it go.....
https://youtu.be/tbad22CKlB4
Hahaha
Seriously though... thanks for the reply Chester. Can't say ya swayed me yet brother but I think your third on the board. I mean I got my thoughts and then I got what I take in from everywhere else. MjPassion is top of the list. Moose snuck in into the second spot and BAM! Theres Chesters 2 cents in third spot! You could have been 2nd but.....ya left me hangin for too long bro. 3rd gonna have to do. Gonna try in get pops thought on this before too many more strangers fill the list!haha
I've always wondered like why the Dakotas got a divorce? Or the Carolinas? As usual....I don't doubt the lack marital bliss was financial?(raisin Arizona))lol Was it Hatfield n McCoy type stuff?
@moose- So far I'm thinking labotomy is the easiest to pull off. Again... oversimplification, but.....not as much!lol
I got some reading to do about it but I may have to just let everybody's ideas sit in a jar with mine for a while. Let my skull adjust! BECAUSE MY BRAIN!!!!!
M
moose eater
Entertaining with a point, as usual, resin.
I learned about ten or fifteen years ago, reading family materials re. my early Indiana relatives, circa 1700s, that Michigan and Indiana had some skirmishes over state boundary lines.
Things we never learned in most public school U.S. history classes when we were being pumped full of things that would hopefully highlight that ever elusive national solidarity. ;^>)
Re. the surprise, clandestine, sneak-attack lobotomies. I think the end result might be awesome (probably lead to more fun listening to the sock-puppets during their public speaking engagements; fewer words, more sincerity), but then again, lacking in emotional experience, or -real- empathy, i.e. feeling others experiences, has been a short suit for them already, so maybe I need to re-think that whole strategy.
I learned about ten or fifteen years ago, reading family materials re. my early Indiana relatives, circa 1700s, that Michigan and Indiana had some skirmishes over state boundary lines.
Things we never learned in most public school U.S. history classes when we were being pumped full of things that would hopefully highlight that ever elusive national solidarity. ;^>)
Re. the surprise, clandestine, sneak-attack lobotomies. I think the end result might be awesome (probably lead to more fun listening to the sock-puppets during their public speaking engagements; fewer words, more sincerity), but then again, lacking in emotional experience, or -real- empathy, i.e. feeling others experiences, has been a short suit for them already, so maybe I need to re-think that whole strategy.
St. Phatty
Active member
Maybe we could slow down all this anti-cannabis legislation
by naming all our cats and dogs "Cannabis"
and declaring them "companion animals".
Then the Fascists in the Senate etc. will have to take their paperwork back to the North Pole, and re-write it to specify "This legislation does not apply to Cats and Dogs named Cannabis".
Given how slow they move ... this could buy us another year.
Or it could just be another example of stoned thinking
by naming all our cats and dogs "Cannabis"
and declaring them "companion animals".
Then the Fascists in the Senate etc. will have to take their paperwork back to the North Pole, and re-write it to specify "This legislation does not apply to Cats and Dogs named Cannabis".
Given how slow they move ... this could buy us another year.
Or it could just be another example of stoned thinking
brown_thumb
Active member
brown_thumb
Active member
brown_thumb
Active member
In 1979 they came through the valley I live in, the folks that didn't get busted panic pulled everything, all the cannabis was immature or gone. If they want it gone all they have to have is the money to make the raids...
Crazy Chester
Well-known member
LOL - One thing is for sure, you and Neil Sedaka are right - breaking up IS hard to do! No doubt about it. If I've ever discerned a true trait of human nature it is that we humans got a real problem with change - any kind of change. What is known is always preferred to what is yet to be known.
It's like the Stockholm Syndrome - no matter how bad the abuse - the hostage will prefer his/her captors over freedom because they are used to it and their captors keep them alive. The trauma of the captivity clouds the hostage's judgment until they cannot see the benefits offered by freedom from the abusive captivity due to their fear of death, so they choose bare survival.
The problem with resistance to change is that, from my observation of this world around me, every thing is ALWAYS changing, whether any of us like it or not.
The trend for hundreds of years has been that the change happening among political territories has been that they've come together and formed bigger and bigger groupings. As change is constant, that will eventually have to change and those bigger groupings will fall apart - it is inevitable. It doesn't matter whether we like it or not, or fear it or not - it's just gonna happen.
Personally, I like the smaller political groupings. The smaller they get, the more influential my voice (and the others within that smaller grouping) get. I prefer that to being part of a larger grouping (the US) being led by a bunch of dingbats like I have to suffer now.
So change is constant. The US broke from the British whether the loyalists liked it or not. No doubt the loyalists realized their fears about what might happen were unfounded after the Revolutionary War resolved in favor of the Americans (seemingly).
As to the Carolinas and the Dakotas, I've never heard of any "Hatfield/McCoy" action being the reason for them having both North and South flavors.
The war between the states, i.e., the Civil War, now that was some real "Hatfield/McCoy" type stuff.
Being a natural born Yankee, I nonetheless couldn't understand the whole "can't" break from the Union type stuff. Well, I guess if you are going to fight me and win, well, then, I guess I can't leave the Union. But, to say there's no "right" to break from a Union of states is just BS to me. There's no basis in law or reason for that.
I've always thought the South had the right to break off from the other states and that such a decision should have been respected by the other states.
Instead - just a whole lot of needless bloodshed ensued:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jREUrbGGrgM
There you go, moose eater - yet another great song by The Band!
Crazy Chester
Well-known member
Now you've sniffed out the strategy. The real threat of 40% of the economy breaking off from the Union is one of the very few possibilities that I can see to "persuade" Congress to do the right and sane thing concerning the drug war. The added benefit would be if succession actually prevailed - well, then California would be free of every other evil the US has perpetrated as well, not merely freedom from the drug war.
As for your number two, as you have pointed out - you can't have a lobotomy when there's no brain there to begin with - lol.
As far as sneaking some brains into the deep space vacuums that currently occupies their skulls - I say, nay - their dumb-ass bodies would just reject the transplant!
Update
Rohrabacher-Blumenauer medical marijuana protections extended by debt limit deal
“We have at least three months of certainty now, but the fight isn’t over.”
By Alicia Wallace, The Cannabist Staff
Existing federal protections for medical marijuana states are expected to continue through at least Dec. 8.
The $15.3 billion disaster aid package, debt limit increase and government spending extension approved by Congress on Friday includes the existing Rohrabacher-Blumenauer provision, which prevents the Justice Department from using funds to interfere with the 46 states that have legalized some form of medical marijuana.
The aid bill, which was sent to President Donald Trump, extends the omnibus legislation passed in May and will fund the government through Dec. 8.
The short-term spending fix is also a short-term victory for Rohrabacher-Blumenauer sponsors, which were dealt a blow by the House Rules Committee earlier this week. The legislative committee nixed the amendment from House consideration for the fiscal year 2018 funding bill.
“We have at least three months of certainty now, but the fight isn’t over,” officials for Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon, told The Cannabist on Friday.
That fight includes efforts to land the provision in the final spending bill, officials said, noting the language was included in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s approved version of the bill.
Rohrabacher-Blumenauer medical marijuana protections extended by debt limit deal
“We have at least three months of certainty now, but the fight isn’t over.”
By Alicia Wallace, The Cannabist Staff
Existing federal protections for medical marijuana states are expected to continue through at least Dec. 8.
The $15.3 billion disaster aid package, debt limit increase and government spending extension approved by Congress on Friday includes the existing Rohrabacher-Blumenauer provision, which prevents the Justice Department from using funds to interfere with the 46 states that have legalized some form of medical marijuana.
The aid bill, which was sent to President Donald Trump, extends the omnibus legislation passed in May and will fund the government through Dec. 8.
The short-term spending fix is also a short-term victory for Rohrabacher-Blumenauer sponsors, which were dealt a blow by the House Rules Committee earlier this week. The legislative committee nixed the amendment from House consideration for the fiscal year 2018 funding bill.
“We have at least three months of certainty now, but the fight isn’t over,” officials for Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon, told The Cannabist on Friday.
That fight includes efforts to land the provision in the final spending bill, officials said, noting the language was included in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s approved version of the bill.
Crazy Chester
Well-known member
Thanks for the update, vta. I can breathe a sigh of relief now - at least until December 8!
AgentPothead
Just this guy, ya know?
Thanks for keeping us in the loop vta!
