Hurray for President Obama!
The White House affirms that he will end the Bush/Clinton policy of raiding medical marijuana providers who are operating within the parameters of state law. A victory for patients, for the Tenth Amendment, and for responsible use of federal law enforcement resources, as Mike Krause and I argued in 2001.
Or worse, implement one that doesn't exist (e.g. the abortion gag rule).
Ok, so it's not exactly analogous as you have to accept government money for the rule to apply. It's more like policy.
I'd try to make a better comparison with Jackson and Worcester v. Georgia decision for the Cherokees but that comparison falls short for other reasons.
Oh well. I defeat myself.
As a libertarian I applaud Obama's decision. But presidents have too much power. Then again, so does congress. It's too bad about the Gonzalez v. Raich decision.
Only when convenient.
As long as he doesn't fire a prosecutor that doesn't agree with his agenda, apparently so.
Well, let's be honest--that applies to 90% of each political party.
Yes, Obama has done what NO Republican President has done. He has respected federalism - at least in this narrow context.
Show me an example where Republican President George W. Bush showed as much respect for federalist principles? Or have we already forgotten about Schiavo?
You haters can't even give the man propers.
That's how deep your hate runs.
Pathetic.
That's how deep your hate runs.
Pathetic.
Someone got up on the wrong side of the unicorn this morning!
Anyway, one cheer for Obama on this. If you actually, you know, read the article, you'll see that raids have continued during the Odministration. Obama could have issued an executive order to stop the raids immediately, but apparently he was too busy signing executive orders ensuring that my tax dollars are used to kill foreign fetuses. And the raids will continue until O gets his own man to head up the DEA, which could be... whenever. So he loses a cheer on that.
Of course, this is all fair-weather federalism. So he loses another cheer there.
Okay, I'm out of cheers, but he loses another one for stopping raids without signaling that he'll make any effort to change federal law. Great - pot clubs are going to be safe from federal raids in a little while. But they're still operating in violation of federal law, which means they're still going to be operating in a dark-gray market, if not a real black market.
I don't see reason for applauding him here.
Now I am hoping he will get around to ordering his Homeland Security to reform their imbecilic airport practices.
Sorry, not current on slang.
Is that a new kind of drug?
O was a pot and coke head. So, not a surprising decision.
Deep enough now?
Then why didn't W do it?
Sorry. Withdrawn.
It's become fashionable for O-pponents to ironically say some variation "Change We Can Believe In" whenever Obama walks back a campaign promise or continues a Bush policy. Usually it's because there's no change.
Here, granted, there is some change, or the beginnings of what might turn into change if Obama follows through. Ending raids would be a change. But it's not "Change We Can Believe In." It's cynical and feckless.
Obama isn't going to send the federales to raid pot clubs. But he still has the authority and resources to do it. Pot clubs not safe from raids but for the grace of The One. The minute he decides he wants to raid a club, for whatever reason - suspected income tax problem, donated to Republicans, asked him a tough question - he can send the DEA in on the pretext of, hey, you're violating federal law.
It's change. It's even change for the better. But just barely, and it doesn't come with any guarantees. And since so many of Obama's promises come with expiration dates, I'm not doing cartwheels over this just yet.
Sick people smoking the weed appears to be what the voters want.
Posner seems to think that such a thing is not a precedent at all:
But maybe he was only talking about laws against torture. And/or laws broken by Republicans.
===================
bob:
If 'pot head' means someone who used pot a lot, then you should show your evidence. But if it means someone who used pot moderately or occasionally, you're correct. And likewise for coke.
By the way, by that standard (the one you seem to be applying) Palin is also an admitted pot head. I just thought you might like to know.
He has a long to-do list. Anyhow, here's what I propose... a friendly game of skill that will benefit charity. Nothing crazy; just something to keep us each honest.
It's not an illegal bet, since it is a game of skill. We are not going by random chance. Each of us must use or skill and judgment and insight to reach a conclusion. That's the essence of skill. I use my skills to determine that Obama is sincere. You will use you skills to determine that he is insecure.
Anyhow, I declare that Obama will order the DEA to stop these raids within one year from today.
If I am wrong (and I'm not going to be wormy here about what must happen), then I will donate $100 to the Pacific Legal Foundation. If you lose, you'll donate $100 to my charity of choice. It won't be any anti-freedom leftist organization. It will probably Operation Smile or the Union Rescue Mission in Los Angeles..... just a general charity.
Interested?
Timothy Sandefur wins the thread. The more I think about this, the less I like it.
I'll make that same wager with you. I don't know your real name (I do know Tim), but we can exchange personal information to keep us each honest. I'll keep your identity confidential unless you welch on the bet. You may contact me at the e-mail address noted above if you're interested.
Part of the absurdity is that the last three Presidents have apparently all had at least some minimal amount of drug use in their (hopefully) younger years. McCain likely didn't, but Palin did, so even if the last election had gone the other way, the result wouldn't have changed much.
It is time to end the War on Drugs, and instead regulate and tax the drugs instead. If for no other reasons, we are facing the international consequences of this war more and more, in Columbia, Mexico, Afghanistan, etc. and along our borders. Let's tax the drugs like we do alcohol, and maybe the government won't have to borrow as much.
As a non-lawyer, I have a more basic question: is it a bet at all? Each party is simply agreeing to conditionally gift a third-party, a charity. No money exchanges hands between those making the agreement. Seems to me more like a contract than a bet. Could some knowledgeable soul clarify?
An excerpt from that list:
Nowhere in there could he tell an aide to write up an executive order stopping raids on pot clubs? He couldn't tell his secretary to get the acting head of the DEA on the line, then say "no more raids on pot clubs" and hang up?
Right. He's way too busy for that.
Anyway, I'm not taking your bet because I think Obama probably will order the raids to stop within a year. My point is that even if he does, it's the bare minimum. The pot clubs will still be illegal, and will not be able to operate fully openly, like any other business.
I'm always mystified by libertarians who are gleeful at the prospect of taxing legal marijuana. (Not saying that Bruce Hayden is gleeful, but in any legalization discussion, you're virtually guaranteed to hear someone say "legalize it, regulate it, and tax the hell out of it.")
Why is it so important that marijuana be taxed at a level higher than any other consumer product? To support regulation and inspection? Well, we have a completely unregulated marijuana market now, and there's no persuasive case that it's "unsafe" in the traditional consumer products understanding. Is government regulation going to make marijuana safer? If so, how?
Do we need the tax revenue to offset the public health harms of marijuana? What harms? To hear legalizers tell it, marijuana is the second healthiest activity in the world, next to regular aerobic exercise.
Is marijuana use something we want to discourage? Odd that a libertarian would want the government picking favored and disfavored recreational activities. Commenters here were up in arms a few weeks back at the prospect of increasing taxes on liquor. What happened to those people?
Is the idea that it's a great potential source of revenue? Why the hell do libertarians want to enrich the government? Since when do libertarians consider it an improvement when a dollar is removed from the private sector - even the black market - and given to Uncle Sam?
Reefer madness, indeed.
Dear Curt:
If, by that, you mean that Presidents have always set enforcement priorities, so that enforcement of some laws got top priority and others didn't get any resources or investigation, then I agree with your point.
Pres. Obama, however, seems to be doing something else. He's decided not to enforce a law which is unpopular with certain people, although the SCOTUS has upheld its constitutionality. I see that as something qualitatively different.
Imagine if Eisenhower had decided "Well, I know what the Supremes said in Brown, but ole' Orv Faubus is a good guy and I'd like to ensure I carry Arkansas in the next election, so, tell the Soldiers that they're no longer needed at that High School. We'll let the State Police enforce the law down there. I'll cite the 10th Amendment as my reason." Would you be quite so supportative of that type of decision?
There's a lot of laws I'm not thrilled with (e.g., speed limits). However, Congress enacts laws and the Executive (allegedly) executes them. If I don't like a law, I bug my congressional representatives to get it changed (or, more typically, I grumble about it on blogs). And, as much as I think that the DEA should be assigned to more important duties than ensuring that folks buying "medical" MJ are really seeking bona fide medical care (like investigating the US Olympic Swim Team), it's up to Congress to decide what the law is, and change it, rather than for the President to decide whether he will or will not enforce laws that Congress has enacted. That's the pesky part of being a nation governed by laws and not by men. Those laws apply to everyone, and not just Tricky Dicky Nixon types.
On the up side, when unpopular or unwise laws are enforce, they get repealed.
On the down side, every dictator in history started out as someone's hero, and assumed greater powers to decide which laws should be enforced, and which shouldn't, and usually there was a progression of leaders assuming greater powers (i.e., Sulla preceded Ceasar, who preceded Augustus, etc.).
As I said "interesting precedent."
Yet you're still full of piss and vinegar because it might take him a year to do something no "federalist" or "conservative" President would do - ever?
The hater is stronger than I can imagine!
No clue.
My comment was partially in fun - keeping with the game of skill theme. Also, to prove a point: Isn't it amazing.... People value their opinions so little that they won't stake $100 on them!
Congress did not ban marijuana use. It passed an act that permits the president to do so as part of his drug enforcement authority. (I agree with the poster who suggested you read the wikipedia page on the Controlled Substances Act).
Piss, yes; vinegar, no.
I'll be marginally pleased if and when it pans out. It's a move in the right direction, but just barely. I think Obama will probably call off the dogs in one form or another, eventually. But if it would take no more effort for Obama to stop these raids than it would for him to read a book to schoolchildren. He could even do it on his Blackberry in the limo. The fact that he's in no hurry dampens my applause quite a bit.
I wouldn't consider either Bush a real conservative, and certainly not a Federalist. GWB was, as Mark Steyn put it, Tony Blair with a ranch. So I'm not really sure what your point is. Non-Federalists act non-Federalisty? Okay. On the other hand, Bush did appoint justices who are far more respectful of Federalism than anyone Clinton appointed or Obama will appoint.
Isn't it amazing.... People value their opinions so little that they won't stake $100 on them!
If you're so confident in your opinion, there's no need for you to wager. Just unilaterally announce that you'll donate $100 to a right-leaning charity if Obama doesn't follow through. If you actually value your opinion, you'll do it, because you'll be sure that you'll never have to pay.
I will gladly bet you $100 that Obama won't ask Congress to pass a bill legalizing recreational use of marijuana within the next year, though.
Anybody who writes "haters" and "props" without irony is unworthy of a serious response.
Threetwoone tepid cheer for The One in this instance. I do not remotely favor ending "the war" against drugs - whether conceived within large "L" Libertarian interests, economic or other purportedly pragmatic interests or yet other interests - but it undeniably needs to be better conceived at times, both strategically and tactically.As part of that crusade, Obama counts on the support of libertarians such as inhabit this blog. However, to support such action one should think of the externalities associated with the effective legalization of the product and the history of its use in various societies. It the difference between libertarianism at all costs and libertarianism tempered by the effects of certain policy costs. When the time comes that one can purchase government controlled cannabis as easily as a pack of cigarettes, our society will begin to realize the costs, which include dire impact on personal physical and mental health, impact on others not using the drug (think increased highway deaths, for one) and new generations adding marijuana use to their rite of passage.
Cannabis and alcohol have coexisted for millennia. There is a reason that cannabis, at least in successful societies, has been relegated to the shadows. It is time proven to be a much larger detriment than alcohol. Space does not permit a thorough examination of the above. However, as a veteran of the drug wars, I speak from considerable experience and study. I see this initiative as one more move to turn the United States into Europe. We bailed their asses out twice last century and are now their main protectorate against Islamic terrorism. When we are them, who will bail us out?
I wasn't testing my confidence. I was testing yours. And your failure was epic.
My confidence in what, exactly? If you read my posts on this topic, you would see that at no point did I express the opinion that Obama wouldn't order DEA raids on pot clubs to stop. I said that he's taking his sweet time, that it's a half-assed measure, and that it's clearly not as important to him as eating expensive steak, reading books to children, or aborting poor brown people.
So what we have here is epic reading comprehension fail.
I will now test your confidence. If you are so sure that Obama will order all DEA raids on pot clubs to stop within a year, then you will pledge $100 to Sarah Palin's PAC if he does not. If you don't do it, it means you're not confident in your opinion.
If I win you send $100 to Castro!
If you win...
Step 3 is profit! (For Castro)
Thank God.
This seems to be an increasingly popular sentiment among conservatives of late . . . the same conservatives who have spent a great amount of energy and effort defending Bush over the past eight years.
United States v. Spann, 515 F.2d 579, 583-84 (10th Cir. 1975):
(ftn. omitted).
Monson v. DEA, 522 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1200 (D. N.D. 2007):
Obviously I should rely on wikipedia and not statutes or jurisprudence.
And is this a step toward national health care, or a step toward needing more national health care? Doesn't matter - the cost just went up regardless.
opher, perhaps you can elaborate? if obama orders the dea to stop expending resources raiding medical marijuana clubs that ushers in socialism...how?
Therefore, I don't feel much better after today's announcement. If Obama disbands the DEA entirely, then I'll feel better.
I'm a conservative. I defend my wife all the time. Doesn't make her a conservative.
Try, absolute bare minimum, since the 1992 election and G.H.W.B.'s broken "no new taxes" promise. Elections are essentially binary choices, not ideal choices made along some continuum wherein only an ideal candidate is chosen.
Reality ≠ Ideality
If that's true, then Obama does indeed have the discretion to stop raids on medical marijuana where it's legal under state law. I'd go further, and say if the DEA violates that policy, Obama should pardon the victims of the raids.
Floridian, I don't consider GWB much of a conservative, either, but that doesn't stop me from defending him when he's being criticized for actions I approve of, or at least like better than the alternatives proposed by the critics.
In the drug context, were selective enforcement outlawed, and were it become a crime to allow a well-connected child or a prominent citizen to skate for a controlled substance offenss -- wealthy citizens prosecuted, the children of elected officials imprisoned, police officers and judges fired over possession of marijuana cigarettes -- the drug laws likely would capsize quickly.
A substantial blow for freedom and just administration of law that would be.
I wish you had been around to bring that up when Posner said this:
=============
ffbn:
FWIW, the "media" did in fact "dare" to do some investigation into this matter:
Michael Phelps: First he's an Olympic Champion. Then he's a dangerous pothead. Call the police!
1. "Dreams from My Father." He admits to quite a bit, tempered only by lack of money, not desire.
2. Picture montage of O in panama hat smoking and obviously very high.
Now, he apparently does not do it anymore which is why I said "was" rather than "is".
All this means that not enforcing drug laws is not exactly a surprise, considering his background.
Hard hitting investigatory reporting. His grandmother wasn't available to praise him?
One downside to the likely lack of a hell is that it would be interesting to observe the eventual treatment of elected officials and judges who smoked marijuana themselves, and/or extricate their children from legal problems associated with drugs, yet shamelessly pander with anti-drug positions that hurt those without the connections or luck to dodge the rap.
The longing for a hell, by the high-minded. Fortunately, at least presumably so, your "secularist" bona fides are intact. Otherwise, suspicions, and more, would be fully warranted.
Really? I hope you'll define "quite a bit," and cite the language to justify your claim.
Here. Let me give you a hand. The book is searchable at Amazon. Search for "pothead" and you'll find the page where he discusses drug use. Show us the part where "he admits to quite a bit."
Perhaps the passage you're thinking of is this:
That passage is also quoted in the article I already cited.
Let's review what you said:
When I challenged you for proof, you cite his book. But in his book he didn't say he was a pothead. He said he had "been headed" in that direction. Why are you pretending that Obama said something he didn't say?
You should notify the DEA that you've developed a methodology for measuring how high someone is by looking at them in a photograph. We haven't seen a breakthrough like this since Frist diagnosed Schiavo via video.
The reporter interviewed more than three dozen people and questioned them about Obama's history of drug use. What did you expect the reporter to do? Get Obama to pee in a cup? Check to see if there were any lost seeds hidden in the shag rug of his rec room?
And how much "hard hitting investigatory reporting" did you see in connection with Palin's admission that she used pot? Did you see any at all? That darn liberal media.
================
kirkland:
Another nice example of the kind of hypocrisy you're talking about: when the spiritual leader of the GOP moralizes about drugs and then admits he's a drug addict.
We saw the media provide brief, token reports only when an arsonist burned down a church in Wasilla, AK, a church that had people in it and an arsonist who additionally spread accelerants around the exits of the church prior to initiating the fire.
If the same thing had occurred to a church Barack Obama had attended we'd still be hearing about those pernicious, malevolent, evil "right-wingers" who attempted to murder innocent church goers simply because they had some presumed association with Obama. Such would be the case because - as we all know - those pernicious, malevolent, evil interests would serve to typify "right-wingers" in general, and the Andrea Mitchells, the Katie Courics, the Olbermans, the Rick Sanchezes of the world would not be capable of resisting such intimations, intoning with "worried" brows, further suggestive of their "civic concern".
Gosh, that's classic. You expect us to be concerned about a hypothetical situation where (according to you), that group "would not be capable of resisting such intimations." Meanwhile, back here on Earth, we discover that the ones who are not "capable of resisting such intimations" are the folks at your favorite blog:
What a nice example of paralipsis. And how gallant of them to point out that they don't know for sure. And in much the same way, I don't know for sure that you torture puppies and rape nuns. But it sure "would be easy to jump to the conclusion" that you do.
Anyway, feel free to continue to demonstrate that the hypothetical behavior of Mitchell et al is of greater interest to you than the actual behavior of Power Line.
The church was damaged but it wasn't "burned down." As usual, you're having trouble getting your facts straight.
That's "damaged," as in $1,000,000 damage. And that's "damaged," as in entire rooms gutted, demolished, burned out. So no, I don't expect you to be concerned in the least about a hypothetical - no matter how realistic - given the fact you and others merely sneer when it comes to the real thing, when it comes to a real arsonist, involving real people, in a real building.
Wow. That number sure looks big when you write out all the zeros that way. Maybe you should have done it this way: $1,000,000.00. And how careless I've been every time I failed to state the cost of the war in terms like these: $594,602,307,230.That's much more impressive than this: '$595 billion.'
And where did I say the church wasn't "damaged?" I didn't. But "damaged" is not the same thing as "burned down." Why did you say it was "burned down?" It wasn't. Is it because you're determined to remind us that only a fool would accept your statements at face value? There's no need to do that, because that's already been proven beyond any doubt.
Here's something that's more realistic than your hypothetical: reality. So "I don't expect you to be concerned in the least about" reality, because instead you're focusing your attention on your hypothetical. The reality is that your pals at Power Line did exactly what you claim Mitchell et al might hypothetically do. But even though you are concerned about the latter, so far you have shown this much concern for the former: none.
In other words, bad behavior that exists only in your imagination is of greater concern to you than bad behavior that's actually occurred out here on planet Earth.
If you can show where I or anyone else "sneer" about that arson, you should do so. I didn't "sneer." I merely pointed out your falsified description of the event.
And one more thing about your description. You said the church "had people in it." And then you mentioned the idea of someone who might want to "murder innocent church goers." I hope you did not intend to imply that the fire was set with a large number of "church goers" inside. It wasn't. There were five people in the building. It's possible or likely that the arsonist thought no one was in there.
And by the way, the idea that the arson is connected to Palin is "in the realm of pure speculation." You are implying that there's something political about this event, even though that's "pure speculation." But like you, Palin herself doesn't mind encouraging that speculation.
Meanwhile, I have noticed you say nothing whatsover about another church arson, where a newly constructed church building was indeed "burned to the ground," hours after Obama's election. "Firefighters suffered injuries as they worked to extinguish the blaze."
And the political connection here is not speculative. One of the arsonists gave a statement to the FBI that they "were angry about the election of Barack Obama, and wanted to burn the church."
Their arrests were announced here. And their facebook photos are priceless.
The damage to the building "was estimated at $2.5 million." Or perhaps I should say $2,500,000.
By the way, this act of racial violence has been mentioned at National Review, Weekly Standard, Power Line, and VC this number of times: zero. Meanwhile, you said this:
Let us know if you can show that "the media" provided more than "brief, token reports" about this black church that was burned to the ground by admitted racists. In particular, let us know if "the Andrea Mitchells, the Katie Courics, the Olbermans, the Rick Sanchezes of the world" have been doing what you claimed they would in this type of situation. That is, what Power Line actually did.
Anyway, church arson is not particularly rare. There was a wave of them a while back:
Look, Iraq! Look, Sarah Palin!
Since xx didn't respond, but you somewhat did, maybe you can show me where -- under the statute and its jurisprudence -- the President has "discretion" to conclude that MJ is not a "controlled substance" which it is "unlawful" to possess, distribute, etc. The holding in Monson v. DEA, 522 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1200 (D. N.D. 2007), that I quoted, is the accepted intrepretation that the fact that state law does not criminalize MJ's possession, transfer, etc., is irrelevant for the purposes of applying the federal law. Accordingly, by what constitutional authority does Pres. Obama have the power to order the DEA to not enforce a criminal prohibition enacted by Congress?
Meanwhile, the Springfield arson is admittedly a racist, political act, but I can't find a single example of a righty blogger/commentator (you or anyone else) even mentioning it, let alone condemning it. I also can't find a single example of Mitchell et al reacting to it in the way that you claimed they would react to it, in your supposedly "realistic" hypothetical. Mitchell et al were apparently "capable of resisting such intimations," and Power Line was not.
In other words, your "realistic" hypothetical is approximately the opposite of reality, in virtually every important way. But of course this is exactly what we would expect from you, given your history. Keep up the good work! We're counting on you to continue providing your inadvertent public service.
===============
bob:
I love how you pretend that Obama said something he didn't say and then refuse to take responsibility when your deception is exposed.
Look! I know how to spot a drug addict by looking at him in a photo!
===============
wfjag:
I guess the same "constitutional authority" that Posner was thinking of when he said this:
So "one million dollars" is deemed a great deal different from "$1,000,000"? You even manage to spend some time on that supposedly worrisome mischief.
Regardless, no exaggerations were forwarded in the least. For example, I entirely omitted the worst reports I read on the topic, such as a report that indicated authorities are aware that, prior to the fire being ignited, electrical wires associated with the sprinkler system, with fire alarms and with telephones were cut - suggesting murder and not merely arson was a motive. And there were five adult women together with a teenager in the building when the fire was ignited. I omitted other information as well, in part because I couldn't confirm it, in other part because exaggeration was not my purpose, your arrogation and sneer notwithstanding.
If I had wanted to exaggerate anything to the maximum, I would have used that additional information.
Also, "damaged" is also not the same as gutted from within, and large portions of the building were in fact gutted, burned out.
Finally, the other act of arson is of course pathetic and repulsive. By contrast however, since that building was still under construction and only 75% complete, it was also apparent no one was in the building when the fire was set.
I also noticed the following at the end of the link:
"The case is being investigated by the FBI; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Massachusetts State Police; Hampden County District Attorney's Office and the Springfield Police Department."
By contrast, I could find no information indicating the Wasilla church arson was being investigated by the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - despite the report of the cut electrical wires, the five or six people in the building and the additional supposition that, therefore, murder itself may in fact have been a motive. Perhaps the FBI and BATFE are involved, but I could not find confirming information.
Really? That's interesting. You offer no citation, but I believe the stories you are telling trace back to this, what is supposedly an "interview" with "WBC Elder Tom Ryan."
Do you notice anything odd about this "interview?" Have you ever seen an "interview" that contains no quotes whatsoever? And here's something odd about "WBC Elder Tom Ryan:" his name appears on the church web site this many times: zero.
And here's something odd about the claim that the arsonists cut
"electrical wires associated with the sprinkler system:" most sprinkler systems have no "electrical wires." Also note this:
I think if there had been an attempt to disable the sprinkler system (either successfully or unsuccessfully), that would have been mentioned.
There's also something odd about the suggestion that the fire alarm was disabled. According to this report, "everyone got out safely after a fire alarm alerted them to trouble."
So do you have a reliable source for these claims? I mean a source that doesn't trace back to Kevin Collins and "WBC Elder Tom Ryan."
By the way, I don't think it matters much. Either way, it was a nasty crime. But I just find it interesting to notice the nature of the information you're willing to promote.
Gosh, that's funny. So you somehow did "confirm" these various claims about cut wires? Please tell us how.
The official ATF press release is here. And a blogger here (and some others elsewhere) claim the FBI is involved, but I can't confirm that.
Anyway, you're completely ducking the broader issue, which is about the reaction of Power Line, and the non-reaction (to the Springfield fire) of Mitchell et al. Which directly contradicts your supposedly "realistic" hypothetical.
No additional discourse on the subject of $1,000,000 vs. one million dollars?
I didn't "duck" a thing. Which, for one, is why you continue with trumpeted inferences, attempts at traducements, evasions of your own, arrogations and your trademark sneering contempt.
To your spittle: Boo.
To your facile contempt: Boo.
To your sneers: Boo.
To your moronic arrogations: Boo.
And yes, I have seen condensations of interviws - which is what you've cited - absent quotes. In fact, such summaries or condensations are common.
Boo.
Then I missed the part where you condemned Power Line for making exactly the kind of "intimations" that you claimed Mitchell et al would make. And I also missed the part where you demonstrated that Mitchell et al made those kind of "intimations" in response to the Springfield fire. Because you claimed they would. So did they or didn't they?
And let us know when you're ready to explain how you 'confirmed' that highly dubious report about cut wires. Which supposedly came from a "church elder" whose name appears nowhere on the church's own web site.
Naturally. And that's why you're not going to present a single example to support your claim.
By the way, Collins didn't say he was presenting a 'summary' or 'condensation.' He said he was presenting an "exclusive interview." And then he proceeded to give us this many quotes from the person he supposedly interviewed: zero. But I guess in your world, that's what passes for journalism. Since you also live in your world where "boo" passes for argument.
Boo.
Or he can just send word that anyone subject to political hiring will be fired if anyone under him misidentifies as cannabis what is obviously to Obama's knowledge not cannabis.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.