Melodrama, Migration, & Marijuana In 'Murica

I have to admit I had never thought of this subject quite like this until I spoke to an artist that works with me in Burbank, California a day or so ago. He informed me that he did not believe in States' Rights. Of course, I ran screaming from that asylum years ago, but it never ceases to amaze me how hypocritical these artists are. I thought I had escaped but. . . then I read this:

Likewise, the sanctuary city show, a shamelessly sentimental exercise in virtue-signaling at the grand scale, larded with little bits of dishonesty, such as the tag “undocumented” for people here illegally, as though their status was the result of some clerical error. Gov. Brown declared war, more or less, on the federal government last week after a fracas in Oakland where mayor Libby Schaaf rode through town like Paul Revere crying that the ICE teams were coming to make arrests. That riled Attorney General Jeff Sessions enough to start filing lawsuits against this nonsense.

But the Department of Justice faces a big quandary. How are they going to make a big stink over enforcing US immigration laws while they ignore US drug laws vis-à-vis the twenty-nine states that have legalized marijuana use in one way or another? In a number of these states, marijuana production is now a major industry, with substantial political influence. AG Sessions has made noises about cracking down on the marijuana trade, but he hasn’t done a damn thing about it because he can’t. The state tax revenue alone is too large to be meddled with, never mind popular opinion.

www.zerohedge.com...

So, as has been brought up on ATS before, if I recall, that Californians believe that they do not have to follow Federal law... but certain residents do not believe in States' rights. I kid you all not, this dude, in between telling me that those of us in Utah have no right to determine what to do with our own land, told me in the same breath that... well, California, Uber Alles!



What says ATS about our hypocritical, schizophrenic governments, regardless of party or authority, State or Federal? How should this situation be resolved? Do we ignore one law but enforce another? Please discuss!

Are we a nation that follows laws, or one that ignores them?
Unjust laws are struck down all the time.

I understand people break laws every day, but that is no excuse for not fighting them if they are unjust, or even unpopular.

It means the citizenry is standing up for laws that are just..and those we know in our heart..are not.

God Bless The United States Of America.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
Are we a nation that follows laws, or one that ignores them?
Unjust laws are struck down all the time.

I understand people break laws every day, but that is no excuse for not fighting them if they are unjust, or even unpopular.

But this thread is not about just or unjust. It is about the rights of States vs the authority of the Feds, and how this will all play out. It is about hypocrisy, both in individuals and in government. It is about the position that California, in particular, is taking. And it is ultimately about the future of this country, and which direction it takes.

I think if California wants to defend illegal immigrants, then they should pass state legislation granting them amnesty. They don't have to listen to the Feds if they don't want too. That's what the 10th amendment is for, but at the very least, they need to go through state legislation.

I've changed my stance on immigration. If you stop the war on drugs, and crack down on violent criminals, immigration would not be such a bad thing.

originally posted by: MisterMcKill

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
Are we a nation that follows laws, or one that ignores them?
Unjust laws are struck down all the time.

I understand people break laws every day, but that is no excuse for not fighting them if they are unjust, or even unpopular.

But this thread is not about just or unjust. It is about the rights of States vs the authority of the Feds, and how this will all play out. It is about hypocrisy, both in individuals and in government. It is about the position that California, in particular, is taking. And it is ultimately about the future of this country, and which direction it takes.

It is not hypocrisy. it is democracy of which is then legislated through the republic voted into power. Thank god for it too, that you even have the luxury of being an observer of it and commenting on it freely without fear of repercussion by either entity you mention.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

I've changed my stance on immigration. If you stop the war on drugs, and crack down on violent criminals, immigration would not be such a bad thing.

Really? So you wouldn't have a problem giving up your job/business, home and your standard of living to someone here illegally? And......don't forget that after they take your job or lower your pay, you will still need to find a way to pay for their food, housing, medical, education....etc. This would be as you put it "not such a bad thing"?

Assuming that when you say immigration we're talking "illegal" immigration.

a reply to: mtnshredder

That is one hell of a bastardization of his post. With a few shovels full of words stuffed in his mouth for good measure.

Sounds like a liberal assumption,I see post's from people who read MSM and come up with conclusions,why don't they post the majority that are against these liberal acts,raising taxes on everything to appease the deadbeat's,I wish you idiots who have only seen California from a TV set,would look at your own states,if you didn't notice California pays the most federal taxes,it's under the highest level of government control,wish you hayseed haters would post something you know about

a reply to: mtnshredder

I live in Miami. There are tons of illegals here. Nothing wrong with my job or standard of living now. In fact it's better here than it was when I lived in North Carolina for 10 years.

a reply to: MisterMcKill

Either you are a defender of state sovereignty or you are not. The GOP has shown time and time again that they are complete hypocrites on the subject. Liberals can be, as well, but they aren't outspoken on the subject as a platform like conservatives are.

I think if it is about giving people more freedom, let the state do it. If it is about removing freedom, enforce federal law on behalf of the citizens. Pretty simple distinction.

- Sanctuary cities? More freedom.
- Legal marijuana? More freedom.
- Making same-sex marriage illegal? Less freedom.
- Forcing churches to perform ceremonies against their beliefs? Less freedom.
- State wants to get rid of seat belts? More freedom.
- State wants to ban all guns? Less freedom.
- Making abortion illegal? Less freedom.

It's pretty easy to make the distinction but people (on both sides) have to swallow some bitter pills in order to avoid being hypocritical about it. For example, I like seat belts and the lower insurance premiums I have as a result of them being required but I don't think a state should be handing out tickets for it if they vote it down.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: MisterMcKill

Either you are a defender of state sovereignty or you are not. The GOP has shown time and time again that they are complete hypocrites on the subject. Liberals can be, as well, but they aren't outspoken on the subject as a platform like conservatives are.

I think if it is about giving people more freedom, let the state do it. If it is about removing freedom, enforce federal law on behalf of the citizens. Pretty simple distinction.

- Sanctuary cities? More freedom.
- Legal marijuana? More freedom.
- Making same-sex marriage illegal? Less freedom.
- Forcing churches to perform ceremonies against their beliefs? Less freedom.
- State wants to get rid of seat belts? More freedom.
- State wants to ban all guns? Less freedom.
- Making abortion illegal? Less freedom.

It's pretty easy to make the distinction but people (on both sides) have to swallow some bitter pills in order to avoid being hypocritical about it. For example, I like seat belts and the lower insurance premiums I have as a result of them being required but I don't think a state should be handing out tickets for it if they vote it down.

Agreed. Except that the Feds will have trouble in court if they enforce federal law in one instance and not the other. I hate federal authority, but they cannot have it both ways. I hate Cali, so I left, but they want it both ways as well. Who wins when everybody wants everything both ways?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: mtnshredder

That is one hell of a bastardization of his post. With a few shovels full of words stuffed in his mouth for good measure.

Yeah well call it what you want, merely pointy out the fact that just because they're not drug cartel or criminals does not mean that they don't effect this country and it's citizen in a negative way. I lost my business, home and all the baggage that comes with it due to the lack of immigration laws being enforced in the sanctuary state and city I lived in. When I hear people say things like "immigrations not such a bad thing" it's almost always someone that hasn't been directly effected by it. And what do you know, that's apparently the case with Believerpriest. My reality of the situation is about as opposite of that as you can get.

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: MisterMcKill

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
Are we a nation that follows laws, or one that ignores them?
Unjust laws are struck down all the time.

I understand people break laws every day, but that is no excuse for not fighting them if they are unjust, or even unpopular.

But this thread is not about just or unjust. It is about the rights of States vs the authority of the Feds, and how this will all play out. It is about hypocrisy, both in individuals and in government. It is about the position that California, in particular, is taking. And it is ultimately about the future of this country, and which direction it takes.

It is not hypocrisy. it is democracy of which is then legislated through the republic voted into power. Thank god for it too, that you even have the luxury of being an observer of it and commenting on it freely without fear of repercussion by either entity you mention.

Which democracy? That of California, or that of the nation as a whole? They oppose one another. So who wins? No hypocrisy? Do you know what the word means?

a reply to: MisterMcKill


There are plenty of laws that I disagree with.

That being said, I would shamelessly enjoy seeing sanctuary cities for income tax evasion or gun ownership.

Our government does allow a process if a new law is to be introduced, or an old law rescinded.


Making up the rules as you go is the way of the tyrant.

a reply to: MisterMcKill


In the end, we are several "countries." We have balkanized ourselves so completely, most of us don't even live in the same area-code anymore.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: mtnshredder

That is one hell of a bastardization of his post. With a few shovels full of words stuffed in his mouth for good measure.

Yeah well call it what you want, merely pointy out the fact that just because they're not drug cartel or criminals does not mean that they don't effect this country and it's citizen in a negative way. I lost my business, home and all the baggage that comes with it due to the lack of immigration laws being enforced in the sanctuary state and city I lived in. When I hear people say things like "immigrations not such a bad thing" it's almost always someone that hasn't been directly effected by it. And what do you know, that's apparently the case with Believerpriest. My reality of the situation is about as opposite of that as you can get.

We read about this all the time on these boards, if your job is going to be affected by external sources it's up to you to stay on top of the situation and retrain and or expand your business in a way that you can weather the storm so to speak.

Really your situation is no different to the cab driver that ran out of work because of uber. Soon automation is going to replace all fast food workers, drivers, lawyers etc, the writing is on the wall either change now or become redundant.

As much as it may annoy you immigration whether legal or illegal is changing the world .

a reply to: mtnshredder

If you want freedom, then you have to take the good with the bad. You have the freedom to fail. That's what happened to me in NC. I failed, but not because of immigrants. I was pushed out by corporate bureaucrats. I chose not to play their game anymore, so I moved back home and adapted. That's what life is, adaptation. You should be grateful that adaptation in America doesn't involve fleeing starvation and poverty by illegally entering a nation full of people that hate you. Even the poorest man living on our streets live like a king in comparison to the average person in the poorest nations in Central and South America.

originally posted by: MisterMcKill

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: MisterMcKill

Either you are a defender of state sovereignty or you are not. The GOP has shown time and time again that they are complete hypocrites on the subject. Liberals can be, as well, but they aren't outspoken on the subject as a platform like conservatives are.

I think if it is about giving people more freedom, let the state do it. If it is about removing freedom, enforce federal law on behalf of the citizens. Pretty simple distinction.

- Sanctuary cities? More freedom.
- Legal marijuana? More freedom.
- Making same-sex marriage illegal? Less freedom.
- Forcing churches to perform ceremonies against their beliefs? Less freedom.
- State wants to get rid of seat belts? More freedom.
- State wants to ban all guns? Less freedom.
- Making abortion illegal? Less freedom.

It's pretty easy to make the distinction but people (on both sides) have to swallow some bitter pills in order to avoid being hypocritical about it. For example, I like seat belts and the lower insurance premiums I have as a result of them being required but I don't think a state should be handing out tickets for it if they vote it down.

Agreed. Except that the Feds will have trouble in court if they enforce federal law in one instance and not the other. I hate federal authority, but they cannot have it both ways. I hate Cali, so I left, but they want it both ways as well. Who wins when everybody wants everything both ways?

Easy distinction. Either it's covered by the 10th or it's not. Restricting freedom is not covered. Giving freedom is.

Not all that difficult if you have judges who are awake at the gavel.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: mtnshredder

That is one hell of a bastardization of his post. With a few shovels full of words stuffed in his mouth for good measure.

Yeah well call it what you want, merely pointy out the fact that just because they're not drug cartel or criminals does not mean that they don't effect this country and it's citizen in a negative way. I lost my business, home and all the baggage that comes with it due to the lack of immigration laws being enforced in the sanctuary state and city I lived in. When I hear people say things like "immigrations not such a bad thing" it's almost always someone that hasn't been directly effected by it. And what do you know, that's apparently the case with Believerpriest. My reality of the situation is about as opposite of that as you can get.

We read about this all the time on these boards, if your job is going to be affected by external sources it's up to you to stay on top of the situation and retrain and or expand your business in a way that you can weather the storm so to speak.

Really your situation is no different to the cab driver that ran out of work because of uber. Soon automation is going to replace all fast food workers, drivers, lawyers etc, the writing is on the wall either change now or become redundant.

As much as it may annoy you immigration whether legal or illegal is changing the world .

How about the people and agencies that "we the people" employ to enforce and uphold our laws, actually start doing their job. If they're not going to do the job they were hired to do then lets get rid of them. Why have a law if you're not going to enforce it?

Citizens of any country shouldn't have to compete for jobs with people illegally in their country. I understand that's a tall order and a impossibility in todays times, but the blatant disregard of our laws by the people hired to enforce them needs to stop. Countries that care less and less every day about their citizens and their best interest seems to be trending nowadays.