- The Weed Blog https://www.theweedblog.com

US House Votes To Allow Banks To Accept Deposits From Marijuana Businesses

114
Share.

marijuana cash industry bankingIn a historic vote today the U.S. House passed a bipartisan amendment by Representatives Heck (D-WA), Perlmutter (D-CO), Lee (D-CA) and Rohrabacher (R-CA) preventing the Treasury Department from spending any funding to penalize financial institutions that provide services to marijuana businesses that are legal under state law. The amendment passed 231 to 192.

In May, the House passed an amendment prohibiting the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from undermining state medical marijuana laws and passed two amendments prohibiting the DEA from interfering with state hemp laws.

“Congress is yet again rejecting the failed war on marijuana,” said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “They have read the poll numbers and are doing both what is right and what is politically smart.”

A recent Pew Research Center survey found that nearly three-in-four Americans (72 percent) believe that efforts to enforce marijuana laws cost more than they are worth, including 78 percent of Independents, 71 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of Republicans. There is strong support for state medical marijuana programs, with 80 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of Independents, and 61 percent of Republicans supporting the sale and use of medical marijuana in their state. A majority of Americans support taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have laws that legalize and regulate marijuana for medicinal purposes.  Eleven states have laws on the books or about to be signed into law by their governors regulating CBD oils, a non-psychotropic component of medical marijuana which some parents are utilizing to treat their children’s seizures. Two states have legalized marijuana like alcohol – Colorado and Washington State. Alaska and Oregon voters will vote on legalizing marijuana in November.

The underlying spending bill that the Heck marijuana amendment was attached to also contains a an amendment, added in committee by Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), that would block Washington, D.C. from carrying out any law, rule or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce criminal penalties for marijuana.  That amendment was originally directed at blocking implementation of a recent law the District of Columbia passed replacing jail time for possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal use with a small fine.

D.C.’s marijuana decrim law, however, takes effect at midnight tonight, long before the Harris Amendment would take effect. It’s also likely that the Harris Amendment will not pass the Senate, where the appropriations process has ground to a halt. President Obama has also threatened to veto the underlying bill.

In a Statement of Administration Policy the White House declared:

“Similarly, the Administration strongly opposes the language in the bill preventing the District from using its own local funds to carry out locally- passed marijuana policies, which again undermines the principles of States’ rights and of District home rule. Furthermore, the language poses legal challenges to the Metropolitan Police Department’s enforcement of all marijuana laws currently in force in the District.”

Advocates warn that if the Harris amendment does make it into law this year it could block implementation of Initiative 71 by local officials, should D.C. voters pass it this November, and block efforts by local lawmakers to tax and regulate adult marijuana sales.  If passed by D.C. voters, Initiative 71 would allow adults over the age of 21 to possess up to two ounces of marijuana on their person at any time, and allow for the cultivation of up to six marijuana plants at home. District law prevents the ballot initiative from addressing the sale of marijuana. However, the D.C. Council is currently considering a bill that will tax and regulate marijuana within the District.

The District of Columbia has the highest per capita marijuana arrest rates in the U.S.  In 2010 African Americans in the District accounted for 91 percent of all marijuana arrests – even though African American and white residents use marijuana at roughly similar rates.

“That Congressman Harris would try to kill D.C.’s efforts to stop arresting people for marijuana possession is beyond disturbing,” said Dr. Malik Burnett, D.C. policy manager with the Drug Policy Alliance. “His amendment is an affront to the District’s right to home rule, while ensuring that thousands of District residents continue to be arrested and suffer the collateral consequences associated with a criminal record. Congress should be following D.C.’s example and end racist marijuana arrest policies, instead of defying the will of the people and reversing their decision.”

Source: Drug Policy Alliancemake a donation

Share.

About Author

We’re everything you need to know about marijuana – your #1 source of important marijuana-related information. From the plant and its benefits to its place in culture and society, TWB has you covered! News. Culture. Science. Cooking. Growing. Industry. Advocacy. You can find this and so much more.

114 Comments

  1. 94% of Democrats voted the way you want on a pot issue.

    20% of Republicans did.

    I said, vote for progressives.

    when I said “Vote for progressives,” which has a higher than 94% success rate on this issue, you went apoplectic–condescendingly ranting about how that was a terrible idea. Right. 94% odds vs. 20%. The 94% option is a terrible idea. Vs. the 20% idea.

    OK, then.

    Since you have long since dropped this subject, and the other about incumbent reelection rates, and instead gone on an epic rant of willful ignorance, it’s obvious you can’t argue the points.

    Now go back to your little game where you put your fingers in your ears and sing to yourself while you type with your elbows.

  2. Before I send an actual reply from home this evening, I’d just like to note how pleased I am that I was able to trick you into gish galloping, again, by simply leaving a reply small enough for you to handle. Must feel good getting back to “basics” huh, Scott?

    Keep dancing on the end of my string, Scott.

    The reply I give to this comment will dwarf the one I made during lunch. I dare you to work your cut-and-paste magic on it. Maybe you can type a little faster, this time? Spreading this out just makes it harder to remember your username.

    Although don’t get me wrong — I am having a good time. I just never remember you until I see the notification. And I *would* reply now, but it would be irresponsible to indulge myself when lunch was over 15 minutes, ago.

    But do not be concerned — I’ll get back to you after dinner, tonight. Wait with baited breath, my love. LOL

  3. Again, not reading it.

    Although I did notice the indignation pouring off of this one. The only question I’m pondering at the moment is how long will you continue typing and typing and typing *knowing* that I’m not reading these replies? Given how difficult it is for information to penetrate your world view, I’m betting this goes on for months, until Jay finally locks the thread.

    If you go back far enough, you can find an example or two of this occurring. You see Scott, you’re not the first troll I’ve stomped silly on these comment threads. You won’t be the last. Although you certainly are the first liberal I’ve met who gets his jollies in this way. For a while, I thought perhaps both sides of the fence were different, but I’m glad you’re here to remind me that liberals are just as convinced of the righteousness of their “side” as any conservative.

    The fact that you fight so hard for your “side” is evidence enough of that. The fact that you *still* believe that having a “side” is going to accomplish anything, however, isn’t funny at all. But ya, you keep thinking you’re doing the right thing. Clearly, there’s no teaching an old dog new tricks, in this case. You’re set in your ways (see how to use those words correctly, Scott? — “your” vs. “you’re”) and there’s no changing it.

    In 30 years, people like yourself will populate the DNC with the exact same indignation Republicans demonstrate, now. You’ll put a posthumous crown on Clinton’s head the same way the Republicans do so for Reagan (the FDR quote is proof of that — FDR gave executive order 9066, if I have to remind you).

    Frankly, it’s a little sad that I can predict with 100% accuracy *every* vote you’ll cast for the rest of your life, simply because I know which “side” you’re on. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so depressing. You see, you’re not just satisfied to be in your little categorical box on the shelf, you are driven to pull other people into the box with you, and lambast anyone who tries to tell you to throw the box away. You are, of course, free to stay in your box, Scott. I’m sure the conviction that you’re doing the right thing is more than enough to keep you lulled into following all the other sheople.

    It’s just sad, really — every soap-box liberal I’ve ever talked to has always shared this odd conviction that they’re the open-minded free thinkers, while conservatives are closed-minded, despite the fact that the liberal parrots back MSNBC drivel with the same volume and frequency as Fox News fans. Both of you convinced you’re on the “correct side” of the political fence — a fence that, again, was never supposed to exist.

    I’d like to take this moment to double-dog-dare you to cut and paste a single instance of me disagreeing with a single policy point. The reason? So that you can finally figure out that you’ve been stomping your feet and beating your chest trying to get me to follow you down any one of several dozen rabbit holes, simply because you were under the mistaken impression THAT was the conversation I was having with you — that I was trying to defend conservatives.

    That’s what I have meant every time I’ve said you’ve been having an argument “all by yourself” for the duration of this conversation. I made a point that sailed so far over your head, you convinced yourself I was saying something *else*, and have been behaving as if that were true.

    So please, locate even a single instance of me indulging one of the loose threads you’ve been all too happy to yank out, over the last week or so. The reason I never did so — again — was that wasn’t the conversation I started, so it won’t be the conversation I finish, either.

    This has all been one, huge lesson in following the MAIN IDEA instead of jumping to a conclusion and chasing after it. I’ve let you chase this false assumption of yours, all by yourself, hoping that you’d get lonely arguing with *nobody* and let a few thoughts congeal that weren’t first bullet-pointed by Rachel Maddow.

    I would hope that maybe someday you’d realize what a mistake you’ve made, but I’m aware such revelations require a person to employ a certain presence of mind that you’ve demonstrated you are incapable of employing. So really, all I’m doing is ensuring that, at the very least, the chain of positive reinforcement is broken — whatever sick satisfaction you got out of annoying Jetdoc won’t be repeated, here. In fact, the memory of your, ehem, “victory” over him will be a faint, distant memory that pails in comparison to the personal shame you’re *still* accumulating from this conversation. The fact that you haven’t realized it yet is astounding — you’ll be upset if you quit this conversation this week, but you’ll be livid when you quit next month.

    See, you were able to simply annoy Jetdoc into going away, after he allowed you to bait him into indulging your rabid liberalism by chasing you down one of those aforementioned rabbit holes, which, no doubt, you’ve conflated into some sort of “victory” for yourself. Objectively speaking, however, you’ve won nothing, and ironically, anyone who would witness this seven day tantrum of yours would agree that, between you and Jetdoc, *you* are the loser.

    After all, I still respect him. He won my respect by demonstrating an ability that you fundamentally lack — the ability to rewrite dogmatic belief. Your mistake, Scott, was refusing to even question your belief that political party distinctions are necessarily opposing sides of a coin, and that every exchange of ideas (an argument, to you) is supposed to end with one person’s coin being flipped. Again, for the umpteenth time, that’s not how it’s *supposed* to be, and never was.

    I’m so tempted to try a fourth time to make the original point, but I won’t. We’re way beyond saving you, Scott.

    Just to once again remind you if it’s not clear — I didn’t read your comment. I won’t read the next one. I won’t read the one you posted in the time I’ve been writing this comment. But let’s keep this going, Scott. I’m interested to see whether you stick around as long as the other trolls have. So far, you’re not even close to holding the crown. It’ll be another few weeks of this before you rival one of the trolls I bother to remember.

    We’ll see how many different ways I can make you feel rotten in the next reply, although that one may need to wait until I’m home. Although it’s not like you’re not taking days between replies, which just confuses me. You’re obviously not editing them for spelling, grammar, or content — you certainly aren’t trying to “craft” your speech for my benefit (at least you shouldn’t bee — again, not reading them). So why does it take you so long to produce these replies, Scott?

    Yes, I recognize the irony of asking a question that, even if you *DO* answer it, I won’t read the answer. And I find it hilarious! LOL

  4. “Nobody said you were “powerful” except you.”

    So you’re also incapable of detecting sarcasm? How do you manage living in one of the most right wing districts in the country if you can’t enjoy sarcasm? Watch some Colbert before his show is over.

    “You’ve been a terrible disappointment.”

    Dissapointing you is a success.

    “clearly more satisfied being despised than you are being correct.”

    Those are mutually exclusive? Most wingnuts despise me because I am correct.

    ” You’ve certainly only demonstrated one of those two ”

    Telling people who care about personal liberty that they’re better off voting for Democrats is correct.

    “You do realize that quoting a famous person (wildly out of context) is not a valid response, ever?”

    “Go F[…] yourself.”–Dick Cheney

    “the fallacy of appealing to authority”

    You just proved that you don’t know what the appeal to authority is. And I don’t even have to refer to my education as a Philosopher in order to know you got it wrong.

    See how that works? Free education day.

    “you’re not even doing it correctly”

    So, if I’m not doing the appeal to authority correctly, then I’m not committing the fallacy of the appeal to authority, which you just said I did. So which is it?

    ” I’m not even expanding these responses of yours to even look at the length”

    Of course you’re not. You’re a bullshitter. You don’t care about facts, only about making an impression of yourself. In this case, the impression of yourself that you’re making is that you’re a bullshitter.

    ” just so that I can show people”

    Look, Mom! I made this guy look foolish by replying to my bullshit!

    ” I’ll probably cut and paste all of it so that I can get a total word count ”

    Oh, thanks. Let me know. I get paid by the word.

    ” a book entitled “Counter-trolling: Squashing The Manic Wimps of Cyberspace””

    So, an autobiography?

    “I would, of course, give you full bibliographical credit.”

    What you should give me is a check for my share of the profits. But then you’re probably a bullshitter and a cheat.

    “”Look at how small this man’s life has become.”

    There’s nothing small about calling out bullshitters. If you want personal liberty, vote for Progressives. If you don’t, write in Charles Darwin. Or vote Republican. Either way, you’re not helping the people who will vote for your personal liberty.

    ” The total number of words is inversely proportional to his overall satisfaction with his real life. ”

    Ever read Infinite Jest? War and Peace? I guess not.

    “See how he’s been playing Ping-Pong for over a (time period) with a wall,”

    You’re the wall, you know.

    “having completely snapped.”

    You’re the one who’s avoided specifics, dropped the points, and resorted to personal attacks without the least bit of substance.

    ” I’m not reading your replies.”

    Well, you’re reading part of them. You just said so. Unless that was just bullshit too.

    That took me 4 minutes. I type very fast. How about you?

  5. “Do you not recall your delusion that I am secretly the moderator?”

    It’s right there. Anyone can see that you are bullshitting. All I did was ask if you were the moderator.

    But, please, continue…

    “assuming that you are so important that you would garner the moderator’s attention.”

    I was trying to get the moderators attention because my comment in reply to jetdoc had not been published. These simple facts seem to confuse you for some reason….

    “I bet you’re sitting there, right now, fantasizing about my real identity”

    You really think you’re that important to me? Honestly? Or is bullshit just what you do for fun? I guess things are kinda slow down there in dixie.

    “wishing there was some way you could shut me up. ”

    I like it when people like you keep talking.

    “Sadly, I’m not dumb enough to put my real name on the internet.”

    What are you afraid of? Some big bad liberal you agree with but won’t vote the same as becuase, well, who cares why, huh?

    I use my real name because I’m not ashamed of afraid of people like you. But if you’re threatening me, come on up and do it in person. You won’t be the first.

    “you can go ad hominem ”

    Heh. I’ve tried to keep this specific. You’re the one who dropped the subject for over-generalizations and bullshit that has nothing to do with the points at hand.

    “MADE YOU LOOK”

    What? Are you 14 years old?

    If you are old enough to vote, and you’re really where you say you are, you have some options at the voting booth in November when it comes to who you send to the US House as your Representative:

    Vote for Jodi Hice.

    Write in someone, maybe a gay Muslim.

    Vote for the Democrat, Ken Dious.

    Probably best to go for the write in. You wouldn’t want you to seem PARTISAN to yourself.

  6. Medical marijuana ,Bud,different strains we got here,patients suffering from Depression,Glaucoma,Anxiety and Tension,Headaches,Chronic Pain and Nausea,Mental and Physical Fatigue and for Calming Aromatherapy,we
    do have a wide range of weed,text or email…drugfloor@gmail.com

  7. Wow — deflate your ego, Scott. Nobody said you were “powerful” except you. I believe I stipulated quite clearly that you’re that big a jerk, not “powerful.”

    I gotta say it again, Scott. You’ve been a terrible disappointment. Most people realize they’re being led by the nose, by now. You’re clearly more satisfied being despised than you are being correct. You’ve certainly only demonstrated one of those two characteristics, after all.

    Ha. I just noticed the FDR quote. You do realize that quoting a famous person (wildly out of context) is not a valid response, ever? It’s just sad that you’re committing the fallacy of appealing to authority, but you’re not even doing it correctly.

    By the way, you do realize that I’m not even expanding these responses of yours to even look at the length, right? I might do so when you finally quit, just so that I can show people. I’ll probably cut and paste all of it so that I can get a total word count on your gish galloping. Maybe I’ll add it as an appendix to a book entitled “Counter-trolling: Squashing The Manic Wimps of Cyberspace”

    I would, of course, give you full bibliographical credit. Not to avoid plagiarism — I simply never want to be accused of producing your huge smelly piles of drivel, myself.

    The first time I talk about the book in regards to your gish gallops, I think I’ll say something along the lines of “Look at how small this man’s life has become. The total number of words is inversely proportional to his overall satisfaction with his real life. See how he’s been playing Ping-Pong for over a (time period) with a wall, and yet his pride has him convinced it’s tennis? Here he is (time period) later, having completely snapped.”

    And just to remind you, I’m not reading your replies. I’m just skimming to make sure you’re reading mine.

    Again, thanks for all the personal attention. I thought lunch would be boring, today.

  8. Of course you care about that, Scott! You’re, by far, the pettiest person I’ve ever had the misfortune of interacting with. Do you not recall your delusion that I am secretly the moderator? LOL That’s about as petty as you can get within the confines of a comment thread — assuming that you are so important that you would garner the moderator’s attention.

    I bet you’re sitting there, right now, fantasizing about my real identity — wishing there was some way you could shut me up. Sadly, I’m not dumb enough to put my real name on the internet.

    Odds are very good this thread is no longer under moderation, which means you can go ad hominem with something besides “chicken.” Let loose, Scott. If you were trying to hide how crazy mad you are, you’ve failed miserably.

    Oh, and as for your comments disappearing — MADE YOU LOOK. LOL

  9. Bankers should not have the job of being the police. They will just charge more interest to make up the costs and leaves them open to an unjust liability.

  10. ” I’m not going to let you have the last word.”

    You think I care about something so petty as your last word?

    “I will keep replying, forever”

    No. You will die someday.

    ” I don’t like you.”

    The feeling is mutual.

    “And there’s nothing more enjoyable on a slow Monday night than watching you dance on the end of my string”

    Your smug fantasies of control over me reveal a sad little man with little control. But disagreeing with Republicans when you live in Georgia, especially when you can’t bring yourself to vote for a Democrat, must be quite frustrating.

    “I bet you haven’t even noticed your comments disappearing.”

    What comments? Looks like they’re all here to me.

  11. “is ensure Jetdoc will never EVER vote for a liberal, progressive, or Democrat”

    Yeah, right. I’m so powerful that I alone am responsible for the future voting patterns of a wingnut who spewed out so much right wing garbage in his I’m-ignoring-you-but-not-really comment that he could work for Fox. Dude never voted for anyone but a Republican, and what I do or say will have absolutely no impact on that. But thanks for thinking I’m so powerful that I can control how people vote.

    “I know what you’re thinking”

    No you don’t.

    “but that’s not his failing. It’s yours”

    I’m thinking you’re freakishly fixated on my amazing powers!

    “He and I are on polar ends about a lot of different issues, and yet he doesn’t hate MY guts.”

    “I welcome their hatred”–FDR

    Give him time. But maybe he doesn’t hate you because instead of voting for the Democrat in the race, you write in Charles Darwin.

    “You, on the other hand, have made a permanent enemy of him,”

    Good. Anyone who can pile on the BS like he did about Bush’s debt being Obama’s is my enemy.

    “Although it’s obvious (to anyone who sees your posts) that was your intention from the start.”

    Not too bright, are you? My intention was to show that if you care about personal liberties, you should vote for progressives and not Republicans. His hating me is just a bonus.

    “You were never trying to convince him of anything.”

    I put up a fact. He called me a liar. But now that I know he’s a wingnut, I don’t care what he thinks. His party of warmongering bullshitters will become a regional rump party soon enough.

  12. Got some exclusive email me if your interested firecalibud@live .com serous buyers only.Dont waste my time.

  13. And not to spike the football too much, but you are aware that all you’ve done (other than amuse me) is ensure Jetdoc will never EVER vote for a liberal, progressive, or Democrat, just to spite you.

    I know what you’re thinking, but that’s not his failing. It’s yours.

    He and I are on polar ends about a lot of different issues, and yet he doesn’t hate MY guts. He even listens to what I have to tell him because I don’t condescend to him.

    You, on the other hand, have made a permanent enemy of him, I’m certain. Although it’s obvious (to anyone who sees your posts) that was your intention from the start. You were never trying to convince him of anything. The way you describe your behavior as if it were a legitimate way of having an argument/discussion is a *very* thin veil for your online penis measuring contests. No mistaking it for anything else.

    Well it’s not going to get any bigger, Scott, no matter how many times you do this, so maybe it’s time to zip up, for good.

    God forbid anyone you know finds this thread. Just skimming the comments, I’m embarrassed for you.

  14. *You’re — that’s a contraction of “you are.” “Your” is the possessive case of “you.”
    Just FYI, seeing as how I know how much you adore correct grammar.

    Oh, by the way, I’m not getting into the “specifics” because I never delved into any of your silly tangents, Scott. You see, I understand that nothing unnerves a person like yourself more than refusing to play the game by their rules, especially when I also refuse to stop playing, and there isn’t a thing you can do to stop me.

    So please, encore! Encore! LOL

  15. Sorry, Scott. Even though I’m so very proud of you for recognizing your gish galloping and finally stopping, I’m not going to let you have the last word.

    I will keep replying, forever — not because I disagree with you, but because I don’t like you. And there’s nothing more enjoyable on a slow Monday night than watching you dance on the end of my string, like this.

    I bet you haven’t even noticed your comments disappearing.

  16. Me: long, thought out, reasoned response directly to the specific statments.

    wowFAD: [fingers in ears] “LALALALALALA”

    pet·u·lant

    ˈpeCHələnt

    adjective

    (of a person or their manner) childishly sulky or bad-tempered.

  17. Look! You failed to gish gallop! I’ve won.

    And yet, a part of me is sad it’s over so soon.

    Just to give you a single, solitary dollop of satisfaction — no, I can’t recall voting for a Republican anytime in the last 22 years.

    It was fun. For me, at least.

  18. “Look, you posted something else I won’t read.”

    Because your a chicken who knows if he gets into the specifics of this argument, he’ll lose.

    “Thousands of words”

    Just as many from you.

    “I don’t know how much time wasted”

    And yet your PRIDE makes you keep coming back to talk when you won’t listen.

    ” to accomplish precisely nothing”

    I addressed this, and all your other BS in the comment you won’t read.

    “And yet, here you are, doing it again. It’s a little masturbatory, don’t you think? ”

    You’re the one who refuses to take your medicine by ignoring what I say and arguing (masturbating) instead with your favorite straw men.

    Hell, at least I read what you have to say.

    “I’m almost tempted to reply immediately so that you know I didn’t read it”

    No, I believe you didn’t read it. That’s how bullshitters roll.

    “give you every opportunity to further demonstrate how childish and petulant you can be.”

    You’re the one sticking your fingers in your ears going “LALALALALALALA…. I’m not listening!”

    “Fact is, I need not try any harder than this, because I can tell you’re getting more and more unhinged with every reply I give you (because I still refuse to read your comments).”

    You have such a high opinion of yourself that you think your sticking your fingers in your ears bothers me?

    “These little temper-tantrums of yours will not be read by anyone, least of all myself.”

    The temper tantrum is you sticking your fingers in your ears.

    ” this conversation is already thoroughly buried where nobody will read it”

    Oh, you never no. My blog gets hits on pages that are years old.

    “It’s really just you and me. ”

    Since you’re sticking your fingers in your ears, it’s really just me, HUH?

    “I’m not reading anything you’re posting”

    It shows. And you’re repeating yourself.

    “flagging it all for moderation before I reply”

    So you admit that you are giving the moderator work without actually reading it to see if that work is warranted. Nice.

    “One of two things will probably happen — you’ll give up, or you’ll be banned for reasons I’ll leave up to the moderator to determine. ”

    Well, there is another possibility. The comment could be posted.

    “What’s funny is that your “style” requires you to read every last word I’m writing, while I’m ignoring everything you say.”

    That’s because my “style” is based on specifics, and yours is just bullshit about the person who you admit you’re not reading.

    “You’re even going to cute and paste this very passage”

    In order to make sure I reply to precisely what you say, instead of just making stuff up about you.

    “And I have the unique satisfaction of knowing you’ll be combing through everything in this reply, my next reply, and every reply”

    If you don’t read what I write, then by definition what you are doing is NOT replying.

    Ah, here… More non specific bullshit… Until…

    “Your behavior tells me that you’re desperately seeking some sort of validation online that you’re not getting in real life.”

    Heh. You’re funny. Wild assumptions and generalizations about someone you don’t know, won’t read, and yet feel the need to insult in general terms… Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

  19. Look, you posted something else I won’t read.
    Thousands of words, and I don’t know how much time wasted, again, to accomplish precisely nothing. It’s hilarious! And yet, here you are, doing it again. It’s a little masturbatory, don’t you think?
    I’m almost tempted to reply immediately so that you know I didn’t read it, but I have a promise to keep, which is to continue to give you every opportunity to further demonstrate how childish and petulant you can be. Fact is, I need not try any harder than this, because I can tell you’re getting more and more unhinged with every reply I give you (because I still refuse to read your comments).
    These little temper-tantrums of yours will not be read by anyone, least of all myself. As you’ve noted elsewhere, this is a blog with at least four or five new entries, daily. Which means this conversation is already thoroughly buried where nobody will read it. It’s really just you and me.
    It’s an imbalanced relationship, however. I’m not reading anything you’re posting, I’m just flagging it all for moderation before I reply. One of two things will probably happen — you’ll give up, or you’ll be banned for reasons I’ll leave up to the moderator to determine. Needless to say, you won’t be missed, Scott.
    What’s funny is that your “style” requires you to read every last word I’m writing, while I’m ignoring everything you say. You’re even going to cute and paste this very passage, knowing I will not read it. And I have the unique satisfaction of knowing you’ll be combing through everything in this reply, my next reply, and every reply afterwards until you finally crack.
    It’s probably a good time to tell you what, specifically, the difference is between tenacity and stubbornness. The difference is that people admire and respect the former. Respect and admiration are things you haven’t acquired, here. I trust you can do the math?
    In fact, I had a neat discussion this afternoon with a coworker about the difference between arrogance and confidence. There’s no question which category you fall into in this case, either. I’m sure you have no doubts on that matter. This is just for your personal edification. Confidence is the dispassionate attitude one displays when they know, given the context, that they know what they are saying and/or doing. Arrogance, on the other hand, is the passionate belief that you know what you’re saying and/or doing regardless of the context. This is why a person who is confident in a familiar context will simply display uncertainty when confronted with an unfamiliar context, while an arrogant person will fall apart and become completely unhinged when it becomes apparent they don’t know what they’re saying and/or doing. The difference between arrogance and confidence is, indeed, a subtle distinction.
    You don’t strike me as a confidant person. Your behavior tells me that you’re desperately seeking some sort of validation online that you’re not getting in real life. Otherwise, I expect you wouldn’t still be *here* publishing rants no one will read (not even me).
    Again, I’d just like to point out how amusing it is to know that you WILL be reading every last word I’ve written, so far, as well as every word in every future reply. I don’t think my dissertation ever got this much personal attention from anybody. So thanks again for wasting your time for no other reason than my entertainment.
    Although I should start making dinner, so I’ll wrap this up and anxiously look forward to your next gish gallop, Scott. Not that I’m going to read it. ;-)

  20. “Didn’t even read it.

    You know why?”

    Because you’re a bullshitter who really wants to vote for Republicans for some reason you don’t want to explain?

    “The first axiom of this so-called “logical argument” you have is another spelling/typography/grammar error.”

    Um, you were the one who criticized my grammar first. Of course, you weren’t specific about what my grammatical mistakes were. You just said I made them with no evidence to support your claim.

    “How, exactly, does that play into making *any* sort of argument?”

    I don’t know. Ask yourself why you criticized my grammar.

    “Or were you objecting to the phrase “myself and others””

    I’m not Runionesque when it comes to contractions. Your sentence was “THAT’s why myself (and several other Weedblog regulars) are so amused.” Since you saw fit to criticize my supposed grammar mistakes, I thought it would only be fair if I pointed out that you should have said “that’s why I and others.” But you don’t like fairness, apparently.

    “it is completely unimportant.”

    And yet you thought it would be worth doing to me.

    “your browser is inserting random spaces”

    I use chrome. And I cut and paste EXACTLY what I find. That’s the whole point. But you’ve now continued a conversation you deem unimportant.

    “I noticed, once again, that you failed to cut and paste the precise portion of my reply in which I quote your own words and explain that a gish gallop need only be a long, tedious accumulation of contextually independent “arguments””

    How could you have noticed something you didn’t read? I posted the definition of Gish Gallop from Wikipedia. The basis for the whole phrase is that the guy was Bullshitting about evolution. Go to Urban Dictionary for an even better definition!

    “If you were legitimately trying to prove some point or make some sort of argument (with your gish galloping) you wouldn’t still be here, acting so petty.”

    Says the man who first criticized my grammar, then says it’s unimportant, then does it again.

    “Unless of course the point you’re trying to prove is that your intention is, was, and always has been getting under someone’s skin. In which case”

    No, my point is that if you have a problem with something specific, then state the specific thing you have a problem with. Instead, you have now told me you didn’t read my comment, then you complain about my comment you didn’t read, and you again refuse to offer specific policy or factual complaints.

    “You’ve convinced no one to agree with you, on anything”

    You assume that the reason behind any commenting is to convince someone of something. If you want to keep voting for Republicans with whom you disagree on almost everything for the sake of not being a partisan, by all means, go ahead. But I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I just want to berate you for your bullshit in public.

    The fact that you will not argue with any specificity, but instead result to general bullshit and idle insults tells me that you can’t really argue with me on the specifics because you know damn well that blind party line voting isn’t what causes high incumbent reelection rates. You know damn well that your supposed independence means that you must occasionally vote for Republicans for some reason you refuse to discuss, when voting for the Democrat would be a better fit.

    “You’ve had no one rush to your defense”

    I don’t need any help. You haven’t argued with my specifics at all. I asked. You refuse.

    “You’ve certainly made no friends, Scott”

    You can’t possibly know that. You have no idea who’s read this and agreed with me, or enjoyed my specifics vs your generalizations. You couldn’t possibly know how many people laughed when I answered your specific points and then you claimed I had not.

    “No one is going to remember what you’ve said here.”

    They don’t have to. It will be here for as long as this blog is.

    “You’ve accomplished, precisely, NOTHING.”

    I have accomplished a detailed argument about why people who say personal liberty is important should vote for progressives. I’ve also put forward many facts that people who agree might find helpful. In fact, I just spent about 10 minutes refuting the GOP talking points from the non Republican INSIDE the Republican party, as you can see below. Refuting bullshit is NOT NOTHING.

    “petulant attitude”

    This from the guy who refuses to talk specifics, admittedly won’t read what I’ve read, and continues to insult me while insinuating that insulting people is bad.

    “I’ve known college freshman with more maturity (and intellectual acuity) than you, Scott.”

    You don’t know me. So your claim is a joke. I have answered your specific points, and you come back with insults and generalizations. The fact that you continue to run away and hide (talk about petulance) into your rhetorical corner, full of exactly ZERO specific arguments tells me that you don’t really want to talk about incumbent reelection rates, or the differences between the founding fathers, or the fact that when it comes to personal freedoms, you shouldn’t vote for Republicans.

    You certainly don’t want to talk about why someone who agrees with me on so much policy would ever vote for those who propose doing the exact opposite.

    And I’ve met high school seniors who can put together more coherent arguments using specifics.

    “I’m perfectly willing to continue pointing out your multiple failings and shortcomings.”

    I’m sure you are. If only you would go after the specific points instead of committing the genetic fallacy and attacking me, the source. And it’s so funny that many of what you see as my failings and shortcomings, like my delicate sensibilities, are just bullshit you made up.

    “The important question is, can your delicate sensibilities continue to take the criticism?”

    Yeah, go read the comment you say you didn’t read. Then get back to me. My skin is thick. Let loose. Don’t hold back! Push the limits of the TOS. My sensitivities are not delicate.

    But do try to be specific about the arguments instead of just insulting me. Maybe if your insults were creative instead of the same old boring, over-generalized tripe you’ve regurgitated from your years of attacking people you don’t like while avoiding the specifics of the arguments in question….

  21. Didn’t even read it.

    You know why? The first axiom of this so-called “logical argument” you have is another spelling/typography/grammar error. How, exactly, does that play into making *any* sort of argument? BTW — there’s nothing wrong with shortening “that is” into “that’s.” They’re called contractions. Or were you objecting to the phrase “myself and others”? No, forget it — the point is, it is completely unimportant.

    Also, while we’re on the subject, you should be aware that I have no idea why your browser is inserting random spaces into the things you cut and paste from my comments. They’re not there in my browser when I write them, nor do they appear there when they’re displayed after I post them. I have a spell-check plugin, so “y ou” has a little red line underneath it. And again — I still don’t see how that obviously irrelevant detail could possibly play into *any* logical argument you claim to be making with these tedious gish gallops.

    Gish gallops, again, need not contain incorrect or misleading lies or half-truths. I noticed, once again, that you failed to cut and paste the precise portion of my reply in which I quote your own words and explain that a gish gallop need only be a long, tedious accumulation of contextually independent “arguments” (i.e., the random junk like very first line of your reply). Maybe my use of contractions bothers you, but I don’t see how that could *ever* be part of any logical argument — again.

    Honestly, Scott — If you were legitimately trying to prove some point or make some sort of argument (with your gish galloping) you wouldn’t still be here, acting so petty. Unless of course the point you’re trying to prove is that your intention is, was, and always has been getting under someone’s skin. In which case, I feel sorry for you. You’ve been kicking that dead horse for two days. If the point you were trying to demonstrate is that *this* sort of behavior is how you get your kicks, that your life really is *this* small — again, point demonstrated.

    You’ve been having an argument (more of a digital fit) all by yourself for at least three or four days, now. And just to remind you — you’re accomplishing NOTHING. You’ve convinced no one to agree with you, on anything. You’ve had no one rush to your defense or support your arguments. You’ve certainly made no friends, Scott. No one is going to remember what you’ve said here. You’ve accomplished, precisely, NOTHING.

    Do you not understand yet, Scott? You haven’t accomplished *anything* because of your petulant attitude. You will not accomplish anything because of your attitude. I’ve known college freshman with more maturity (and intellectual acuity) than you, Scott.

    So keep it coming, Scott. I’m perfectly willing to continue pointing out your multiple failings and shortcomings. The important question is, can your delicate sensibilities take the criticism?

  22. Ah, so you lied when you said you were going to ignore me.

    “This President and Progressives have voted us $7 TRILLION into debt in 6 years ”

    A zombie Republican lie. The debt that accrued under this president was all Bush’s. Do you have any idea how long we’re going to be paying for the Iraq war? Do you have any idea how much of a dent in revenues the Little Bush Depression caused? Do you have any idea how much revenue was lost and not generated by more economic activity because of the Bush Tax cuts?

    Reagan tripled the debt. Bush doubled it. And then Bush’s debt kept accruing, especially for the war and because of his recession.

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3849

    http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/06/cbpp_bush_tax_cuts_deficit_1cef5.jpg

    And, the deficit has been dropping under Obama.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/budget-deficit-shrinks-103092.html

    “nfrastructure ignoring? Surely you jest? They’ve allotted enough money for infrastructure.”

    Wrong again. The JOBS Act, and a few other bills for more infrastructure spending (which is WAY DOWN because Bush blew all that money on a war he lied us into) have not passed. The American Society of Civil Engineers says we need to spend about 300 billion a year to make up for the neglect. And the money they just passed was a paltry amount borrowed from pension smoothing that we’ll have to pay back later. The stimulus money you’re referring to that supposedly went to green companies is not what happened. The money that went to green company loan guarantees was the same as it was under other presidents, with a small boost in the stimulus, which was too small, and included a lot of tax cuts to lower income folks.

    The JOBS Act, though, is the big one I referred to. It would fund an infrastructure bank to take the politics out of what projects get chosen (in order to avoid bridges to nowhere), an idea that was bipartisan, and a favorite of Kay Baily Hutchinson.

    When Bush left, things were much worse than people thought. Ergo, the stimulus was too small. But it certainly did work, or we’d still be where Bush left us, with GDP at NEGATIVE 9% and 800,000 people a month losing their jobs.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/08/fiscal-policy#

    “Now they wanna raise the Gasoline tax in order to raise money for infrastructure, when already done that 3 times”

    And you wanted me to provide links to prove what I say… The gas tax hasn’t been raised in a very long time. That’s a big part of the problem. It wasn’t indexed to inflation, and higher mileage cars pay less of it.

    “Americans on Federal subsistence at rates NEVER before seen.”

    More GOP Bull. As a percentage of the population, the Great Depression (also caused by Republicans) was much worse. And when you crash the economy like Bush did, then the safety net kicks in, just as it should.

    “More than 40 Million Americans on SSDI in the past 5 years”

    If you cared about facts, you’d know what BS this is… The main reason SSDI has gone up? Ronald Reagan made it easier to get.

    http://www.nber.org/bah/fall06/w12436.html

    But drops in the labor force participation rate, and increases in SSDI, and even increases in other programs have a lot to do with the aging of the Baby Boom generation. These are all things we expected, and we could have used that $2 trillion Bush blew in Iraq to pay for them.

    “Welfare recipients as well as SNAP recipients numbers that have DOUBLED under Progressives”

    Evidence? Links? Or is this part of the 99% of BS you like to talk about? Again, The Little Bush Depression was larger than the previous 4 recessions combined. People sign up for food stamps and other programs when Wall Street crashes the economy, forecloses on their homes, and destroys their jobs.

    “More Americans have QUIT LOOKING for a job because they can’t find one than has ENTERED the workforce since 2009.”

    Wow. You really are a Republican. You get your talking points from what? Fox? Newsmax? Please, provide a source that shows more have quit looking for a job than have found one since 2009. Here’s a little stat for you… I like it because it let’s Bush off the hook for both HIS recession and the one he got from Clinton.

    Average monthly job growth per NON RECESSION month for Bush: 68,000

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/yes-bushs-economy-was-terrible/2012/05/01/gIQAsNNkuT_blog.html

    Under Obama, about double that.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/USPRIV.txt

    “Your Progressives have also presided over the destruction of the 40 hour workweek. Thanks to Obamacare people will be moved to a 28-30 hour workweek. For whatever reason he’s doing this it’s DONE!”

    More BS for which you provide no evidence. A drop in the hours worked would actually be a good thing for people who need a job. Germany instituted work sharing during the recession. Some people work less hours so some other people don’t have to work none. We’ve done some small pilot programs in states to do this (economist Dean Baker was involved). But not nearly enough to help the unemployment rate much.

    Any more BS talking points you want to throw at me from the party you’re on the inside of but are not a member of? Any other un-sourced statistics you want to spew without any kind of evidence to prove them? Any lies about ignoring me? Maybe you want to defend the Bush economic record? Or maybe you want to defend his lies that got us into a $2 trillion war we’ll be paying for for decades? And by “paying for” I don’t just mean money. Lives are still being lost. PTSD victims committing suicide at very high rates. Wonder what impact that has on the economy? Iraq is a freaking mess and your Boy Dick “Deficits Don’t Matter” Cheney is out there lying still, trying to make more money for his warmongering buddies.

Leave A Reply