March 25, 2014

Colorado lawyers can give legal advice to marijuana businesses says the Colorado Supreme Court...

... interpreting the state’s ethics rules.

But the court refrained from answering the question whether lawyers could use marijuana without facing discipline under the rules.

Obviously, marijuana — including possession of any amount — is still a crime under federal law, so the legal advice Colorado lawyers give has got to include the advice about federal law. Selling marijuana is a felony, carrying very high penalties, so it amazes me to see businesses openly stocked with massive amounts of marijuana.

Here's a photo I took last week in Boulder:



That's sign for a medical marijuana shop. It was interesting to see that many existing medical marijuana outlets are avoiding expanding into the now-permitted recreational business. Meade talked to some shopkeepers, and it seems that the clientele and shopkeepers at the medical places like the existing ambiance and don't want to mix with the recreational crowd. They like the medical vibe.

120 comments:

The Crack Emcee said...

"They like the medical vibe."

So do quacks.

surfed said...

There's no reason why Colorado has to be like Wisconsin has to be like Florida has to be like Utah has to be like New York. States Rights and bugger the Feds.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

They like the medical vibe.

I thought a medical vibe was something they used to use to cure hysteria.

MadisonMan said...

Oh, I'm not an addict like those hipster doofi. I'm prescribed this by a doctor!

cubanbob said...

I suspect that the medical vibe keeps the feds sort of quite. Being openly recreational will probably push the feds in to making arrests.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

States Rights and bugger the Feds.

I don't believe in states rights. I believe in individual rights, including their constitutional right to a federal system with a strictly limited federal government and a state government that is more responsive to the will of the people of the state.

Hagar said...

We have a system wherein the separate bureaucracy managers decide which laws they will choose to enforce, and if so, when and how.

jimbino said...

There is not chance that the Feds will enforce the federal marijuana prohibition in Colorado. We Coloradans would just invite Putin in to annex us to Russia.

Bruce Hayden said...

Good to know, since I still have a Colorado license. Though, I would be committing malpractice if I opened my mouth on this subject.

Things have changed a bit. Maybe. Knew a guy who maybe 25 years ago was suspended for several years from the practice of law for buying pot for his wife. Making it worse for him though, he was an elected DA.

And, I know a guy who got himself disbarred after being caught with distribution weight. Making it worse for him was his stint in Canyon City (the state penitentiary). Harvard trained, maybe the best criminal defense attorney I have ever seen in action. But, in Summit County, that meant primarily drug cases, which, inevitably, made him a long time target of the county LEOs (on one famous occasion, they raided his birthday party, but he had run into town, and ended up successfully defending all his friends who were arrested there).

Ultimately, I don't think mere possession and use is going to be treated that much differently than use of alcohol, at least by the Colorado Supreme Court. Other states may vary. Having a glass of wine in your house is fine, but smashing another car when driving because you have drunk too much, or smoked too much pot, will be cause for concern. You will likely be allowed to show engaging in treatment as a mitigation factor, but being a repeat offender may cause you to lose your law license.

Now, Utah is going to be the interesting one. I know of an occasion where the Utah bar rejected an application as lacking character when the applicant had had a single driving while impaired (.08 BAC), which had been dropped sua sponte by the prosecutor after reviewing the police conduct. That one, dismissed, incident was apparently sufficient to brand the applicant an alcoholic, and unfit to practice law in UT (that rejection was appealed, and ultimately overcome).

Ralph Hyatt said...

It seems to be pretty risky for all involved. The word must have came down from on high to not prosecute these people. What happens if "the word" changes for whatever reason?

The government could come in using RICO and the next thing you know the guy who is renting space in a building he owns to a dispensary is going to jail and losing his property for being in a conspiracy to sell drugs.

Ralph Hyatt said...

As a non-lawyer, I am also curious about the civil forfeiture aspects of this situation.

What's to stop a local law enforcement organization, say a county sheriff, from stopping cars, finding pot in them, and seizing the cars and any cash or valuables in them under federal civil forfeiture law?

MadisonMan said...

What happens if "the word" changes for whatever reason?

Why would that happen now with two Democratic Senators and a Democratic Governor?

Michael said...

Ralph Hyatt:

I agree that property concerns are at play in this tug of war of laws. Getting a loan on a building that dispenses recreational marijuana is going to be difficult/impossible in the institutional market. See also title insurance.

The Crack Emcee said...

MadisonMan said...
Oh, I'm not an addict like those hipster doofi. I'm prescribed this by a doctor!

A pot "addict", MadMan?

Whooooo!

Ralph Hyatt said...

@MadisonMan

"The word" from the feds. The DEA exists in Colorado. There are federal DAs and federal courts there. I'm sure there is an FBI field office or two. Yet none of these entities are currently interested in wide spread and open selling of a schedule 1 drug.

This can only be happening with the tacit approval of the feds.

What happens when a new administration comes in that doesn't approve?

Even if you stop selling, you have still broken federal law. The feds can still come after you.

mrs. e said...

"Oh, I'm not an addict like those hipster doofi. I'm prescribed this by a doctor!"

See, also: OxyContin, Xanax, Valium, Ativan, Klonopin, Adderall and Ritalin.

surfed said...

"Doctor, please, some more of these
Outside the door, she toked four more
What a drag it is getting old."

With apologies to the Glimmer Twins

Austin said...

I never understood how the Article VI implications are so routinely overlooked by the Cannabis enthusiasts. Until it is removed from schedule I as a controlled substance, the state laws are utterly meaningless against federal criminal prosecution.

MadisonMan said...

This can only be happening with the tacit approval of the feds.

I just think things would be different if the Governor and both Senators were Republicans.

Why would the Feds get the population all up in arms about this if the target of the population's wrath would be all government including those precious, precious Democratic Senators? Including one who is up for re-election!

It's one thing to have to run against the Democratic Party's ACA as a sitting Democratic Senator; it's another thing to have to *also* run against the Democratic Executive Branch's Drug policy.

Levi Starks said...

The federal government's choice to not enforce drug laws which are designed to insure the health and wellbeing of its citizens, While at the same time forcing healthy citizens to subsidize sick citizens through insurance mandates doesn't make logical sense to me.
I'm perfectly fine with allowing free people to choose harmful behaviors, But I'm not ok with the the government telling me I have to support them.

Ralph Hyatt said...

@MadisonMan

"Why would the Feds get the population all up in arms about this if the target of the population's wrath would be all government including those precious, precious Democratic Senators? Including one who is up for re-election!"

That's this election cycle. What happens when a Republican becomes president? Entirely conceivable in 2016.

But in any case, you are still betting your freedom and property that the government will not be capricious.

Not a bet I would care to make.

Bruce Hayden said...

The medical side is a bit bogus. Yes, I know that it does help with chronic pain. But, long term pot users do not seem to have much problem getting prescriptions. It appears that one of the effects of long term pot usage is an over-sensitivity to every day things, such as smells and chemicals in the atmosphere. But, also, every day aches and pains seemingly are accentuated into chronic pain. So, they go into a pot doctor, tell them that they always have pains here and there, and get their pot prescriptions.

Know it happens up here in the mountains, and suspect that it is just as common in the PRB (People's Republic of Boulder), where you can still smell pot wafting down the street in places, and where people could find almost any drug imaginable on the street on the Hill (by CU) back when I was in college in the very early 1970s. A lot of people in my generation moved away from pot when they started their careers and families. I suspect many fewer in Boulder followed this. The city is terminally hip, and pot is just part of that.

MadisonMan said...

@Ralph, I understand what you're saying and agree for a long-term view.

I do wonder, though: The Feds would still have to empanel a jury to try and to convict. The longer they wait to crack down, the longer the culture of acceptance will enter into Colorado, and the harder it'll be to prosecute successfully.

Ralph Hyatt said...

@MadisonMan


"I do wonder, though: The Feds would still have to empanel a jury to try and to convict. The longer they wait to crack down, the longer the culture of acceptance will enter into Colorado, and the harder it'll be to prosecute successfully."

Agreed.

And I would argue that even if you think marijuana should be illegal, you should still refuse to convict someone under those circumstances. There has to be some check on government lawlessness.

Michael said...

Property owners who are leasing to marijuana businesses should have a look at their mortgage documents. I am pretty sure that these kinds of tenants will trigger a technical default and even in the case of exculpatory loans trigger the bad boy clauses. It might be fun to track down the lenders on some of these buildings and put them on notice of what a tenant is selling on the premises.

jimbino said...

Bruce Hayden re: "smashing another car when driving because you have drunk too much, or smoked too much pot, will be cause for concern."

You may be a fine lawyer and may even be conspiring with the gummint to enforce its superstitions on us all, but you are no scientist.

There is almost no evidence that I have seen establishing alcohol consumption as a proximate cause of accidents labeled "alcohol-related." To do so would require a scientific study or a court battle that placed the results of scientific evaluation in evidence.

Lawyers and the gummint are generally incompetent to do such a thing, so they rely on punishing drinkers based on breath or blood percentage of alcohol. They might as well base the definition of the crime on the percentage of water in the blood, since there is no road accident that isn't "water-related."

Moving on to percentage of THC will be just as stupid and unjust. Think about it: if you are stone-cold sober and collide with a car that has an inebriated person sleeping in the back seat, that will be called by prosecutors, police and idiot lawyers "an alcohol-related" accident, and so it will go down in the statistics of booze as a cause of accidents.

Such dumb laws and attitudes are enough to drive us scientists to drink. I can't respect any lawyer who doesn't spend his time fighting such legal stupidity.

Hagar said...

If the law enforcement agencies are free to choose which laws to enforce in which localities with regard to marijuana, I do not see why they would not also be free to pick and choose with regard to other subjects, some of which may not be so agreeable to you.

Thorley Winston said...

It seems to be pretty risky for all involved. The word must have came down from on high to not prosecute these people. What happens if "the word" changes for whatever reason?

It bears repeating, marijuana isn’t “legal” in Colorado or anywhere else in the United States. What’s essentially happened is that law enforcement has decided to look the other way and there is always the possibility that they will decide to start looking again in the future.

Thorley Winston said...

If the law enforcement agencies are free to choose which laws to enforce in which localities with regard to marijuana, I do not see why they would not also be free to pick and choose with regard to other subjects, some of which may not be so agreeable to you.

Agreed at some point there’s a difference between exercising discretion in how you decide to allocate finite law enforcement resources and simply saying “I don’t agree with this law so I’m not going to enforce it.”

The Cracker Emcee said...


"I do wonder, though: The Feds would still have to empanel a jury to try and to convict. The longer they wait to crack down, the longer the culture of acceptance will enter into Colorado, and the harder it'll be to prosecute successfully."

Conceivably, the prosecution/trial can bankrupt you and destroy your reputation, just as thoroughly as the verdict can. Why would you risk it?

The Crack Emcee said...

Levi Starks,

You just posited marijuana use as:

Something to "insure the health and wellbeing of its citizens"

AND as "harmful behaviors".

Since you are trying to make " logical sense" of the governments actions, would you care to try and square those two positions, yourself?

Scott said...

The incongruity between state and federal law supports the argument that the Seventeenth Amendment should be repealed. If senators were appointed by state governors, then the states whose citizens want marijuana legalization would have more committed advocates at the federal level. With direct election, there is a greater disconnect.

The Crack Emcee said...

Levi Starks,

"Forcing healthy citizens to subsidize sick citizens through insurance mandates doesn't make logical sense to me."

It would if you thought of yourself as a patriot, with a responsibility to your fellow countrymen, as opposed to the opposing (and bizarrely hypocritical) notion of a disinterested individual, who unnecessarily allows his fellow citizens to die, because he's merely uncomfortable with his role in society when it involves more than flag-waving and empty jingoism about this being a great nation.



Steve Uhr said...

There is a "crime-fraud" exception to the attorney-client privilege. So while the attorney can knowingly further the client's unlawful endeavor under the new rule, he or she can't claim a testimonial privilege if the feds ever decide to enforce fed law. There could be a lot of lawyers forced to testify against their clients.

Steve Uhr said...

And the lawyers could be charged with conspiracy to violate fed drug laws. Most law firms (like the banks) will probably say no thanks to this work.

jr565 said...

"They like the medical vibe."
So why you wanna give that funny vibe?

(Fishbone reference)



jr565 said...

Marijuana has gone through none of the hurdles that other drugs have to go to before being prescribed by doctors. So, then how are people credibly saying there is medicinal value?
And if there is medicinal value wouldn't legitimate doctors prescribe marinol and not give someone a dimebag?

MadisonMan said...

It would if you thought of yourself as a patriot, with a responsibility to your fellow countrymen

I do think of myself this way, and do help my fellow countrymen in a variety of ways.

Why does the government have to force its view of patriotism down my throat?

(Let's put aside the argument, for now, that someone wanting free contraception isn't sick).

mccullough said...

I admire the entrepreneurial spirit of the pot shops. Given the amount of local, state, and federal regulation, the only thing for a small business owner to do is know and comply with the laws that are enforced against small businesses. Those are usually the FICA withholding laws.

It's also well past time that citizens started ignoring stupid laws that are not enforced or enforced sporadically.

When the law doesn't apply to our elected officials, then don't follow it. Our current president and his predecessor were avid drug users. The one before that lied under oath without any qualms. The next president made a shitload of money on insider trading, as most politicians do. So these laws aren't important. The law itself isn't important when the president rewrites it on a daily basis.

Hopefully the actions of these folks in Colorado and the gun owners in Connecticut who refuse to register their "assault weapons" are the beginning of a trend. It is obvious that millions of people will not buy health insurance or pay the tax got not buying it.

There are too many fucking laws and regulations and our elected officials are more lawless than the average citizen. The citizenry is reacting accordingly.

jr565 said...

Way back when Cigs were marketed as being medicinal. And we all know how that turned out.

mccullough said...

Crack,

The logic of your view of patriotism is that people should maximize their income to pay the most in taxes to the government. So any able-bodied person who isn't out making as much as they can is unpatriotic.

It's the obligation of individuals to help each other out. The government just gets in the way most of the time.

jr565 said...

mrs e wrote:
See, also: OxyContin, Xanax, Valium, Ativan, Klonopin, Adderall and Ritalin.

I've taken ativan,and dont think it has quite the punch as some of those other drugs, particularly Oxy.

Ralph Hyatt said...

"And the lawyers could be charged with conspiracy to violate fed drug laws. Most law firms (like the banks) will probably say no thanks to this work."

It seems to me that just about anyone who provides goods or a service to one of the dispensaries could conceivably be considered part of a conspiracy by the feds.

You can't claim you didn't know they were selling illegal drugs when they are doing so openly.

Some guy is going by and reading the water meter. Another is reading the electric meter.

The meter readers see the sign, tell their bosses. Are the water and electric utilities part of the conspiracy>?

What about the phone company?

Is the dispensary in the yellow pages? Hell, the phone company is helping to peddle the drugs!

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
It would if you thought of yourself as a patriot, with a responsibility to your fellow countrymen, as opposed to the opposing (and bizarrely hypocritical) notion of a disinterested individual, who unnecessarily allows his fellow citizens to die, because he's merely uncomfortable with his role in society when it involves more than flag-waving and empty jingoism about this being a great nation.

While I agree that we can't just let people die who come to hospitals, and recognize that we therfore need to assume the costs it doesn't mean that universal health care is the way to go.

Bruce Hayden said...

Bruce Hayden re: "smashing another car when driving because you have drunk too much, or smoked too much pot, will be cause for concern."

Huh? Are you suggesting that a driver with a .20 BAC has a higher probability of being in an accident than someone without?

In any case, you may not believe that drunk drivers are a hazard, but that is the law of the land, and the Colorado Supreme Court is not going to believe you in this matter, over the state and federal legislatures.

BTW - the reason that I used the drunk driver scenario here is that something has to trigger bar discipline, which is what we are talking about, and multiple DUIs are likely to do so, esp. if they involve accidents with injuries. The other way that I have seen alcohol enter bar discipline is if the attorney did something else wrong, and is blaming alcoholism. One example is repeated neglect of legal matters - often this involves taking retainers, and then not showing up in court to defend a client, or maybe failing to make required pleadings. Attorneys have been able to stave off disbarment by admitting alcoholism, and then showing that they are in treatment. Most likely, they will also have to work under supervision for awhile.

As I indicated, Colorado seems fairly reasonable about alcohol (in terms of bar discipline), and so expect that they will ultimately be fairly reasonable about pot. Neighboring Utah to the west though, as I pointed out, is a different situation.

Finally, I claim no special skill as an attorney, but do claim some familiarity with bar discipline, having routinely read bar discipline decisions over the last 25 years in Colorado and several other states. They are often humorous reading, since you often find attorneys making artful arguments, after being caught red handed doing something unethical, or worse. And, given that the decisions would most likely not get published if the attorney were not being subjected to discipline, these artful and interesting defenses are just as artfully shot full of holes by the bar discipline authorities (e.g. the Colorado Supreme Court). Somewhat similar in appeal to those crime reports from the Kalispell/Whitefish/Flathead area that Ann sometimes links to.

Bruce Hayden said...

"And the lawyers could be charged with conspiracy to violate fed drug laws. Most law firms (like the banks) will probably say no thanks to this work."

Banks are probably the bigger worry right now. Attorneys have some sort of protection, given that some of them routinely advise criminals already. But bankers? And, with bankers, credit card companies too. Apparently, there is a big cash problem with pot dispensaries right now - they can't use credit cards (because of potential liability of the banks and card companies), and so have to deal with large amounts of cash, which the armored car companies aren't apparently willing to pick up. So, you have people making a lot of trips to the bank to deposit large amounts of cash, and some with a criminal bent are taking notice. Holding up a pot dispensary for their cash is still unlikely, but robbing the couriers carrying all that cash is not.

Hagar said...

Agreed at some point there’s a difference between exercising discretion in how you decide to allocate finite law enforcement resources and simply saying “I don’t agree with this law so I’m not going to enforce it.

Nor is it very far to the next step: "I think this ought to be the law, so I am going to consider it to be the law and enforce it."

And this is not just speculation, McGee, this is a lot how the EPA and your local zoning boards already operate.

garage mahal said...

Why does the government have to force its view of patriotism down my throat?

Stop whining about normal governing! Sorry, couldn't resist.

Sigivald said...

The hilarious thing about "the medical vibe" is that at least here in Oregon - and I hear likewise in CA - everyone knows damn well that "medical" often, probably more often than not, means "recreational".

There are entire businesses of "doctors" willing to sign off on a OMMP card with a walk-in consult and an untestable claim of, oh, migraines or back pain.

It irks me simply because it's a cheap tactic; make pot completely legal, don't pretend it's "all about saving cancer patients and really sick people!" when everyone knows damn well it's predominantly about getting high for fun.

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
It would if you thought of yourself as a patriot, with a responsibility to your fellow countrymen, as opposed to the opposing (and bizarrely hypocritical) notion of a disinterested individual, who unnecessarily allows his fellow citizens to die, because he's merely uncomfortable with his role in society when it involves more than flag-waving and empty jingoism about this being a great nation.

Further, libs seem to have a tendency to assume that requirements become rights and therefore suggest that if society doesn't solve the issue then it doesnt care.
Take something like housing. Housing, like food seems to be a core requirement for living. But what is the solution? Give everyone a house? Otherwise you don't care as a society? What does that do to the market for houses? Why would you buy one if you could get one for free? How much would it cost to simply give people houses, how big do those houses have to be? how much must society spend on each house. and since any cost comes out of the taxpayers wallet, how much are you willing to make others pay for your solution to an endemic problem?
Just because people recognize a problem doesn't mean that their solution to the problem isn't completely stupid?

jr565 said...

Sigivald wrote:
It irks me simply because it's a cheap tactic; make pot completely legal, don't pretend it's "all about saving cancer patients and really sick people!" when everyone knows damn well it's predominantly about getting high for fun.

We all know this. colleges send buses over with college students who joke about their cataracts while smoking.
We all know those doctors are no real doctors. And it does seem like the side pushing this is really engaged in outright lies. Just be upfront about it and argue for the position ont he merits and not on some fake reason that we all know is bull crap.

Mike said...

This was a concern after the law passed. That Federal law indicates MJ is illegal and State law the opposite, lawyers and bankers were put in a precarious position. I'm glad to see responsible entities trying to work it out.

A complimentary act would be for Congress to take MJ off the schedule for classified drugs if the state in question has passed a law like CO, CA or WA. Don't know if that's the way to do it, but extra-legal acts as contemplated in this article only contribute to the "lawless" trend of executives suspending enforcement or ignoring statutes as political whims. That type of situation is too easily exploited when the executive "changes his mind" and begins enforcing the law. Better that we change the law than ignore it "for now."

Larry Nelson said...

When will we ever see a politician campaigning on repealing old blue laws, instead of passing yet more new ones to save the ever endangered children?
Is any human capable of knowing all of the statutes we have to obey?
And where is the list of laws that aren't important to obey?
"Nation of Laws" indeed.
I don't condone the use of pot, but the only thing I wanted out of the Choom gang in the White House was to press for the repeal of those federal laws and let the states decide for themselves.

The Crack Emcee said...

MadisonMan,

"I do think of myself this way, and do help my fellow countrymen in a variety of ways.

Why does the government have to force its view of patriotism down my throat?"

Because charity has never been enough - don't conservatives start from the premise "men are not angels"? - that's why we have government programs, etc..

I mean, everyone here knows I've got one foot in the streets - you see them stepping up? No. Why? Oh, we don't agree on everything. That's their reason - and the reason for them to heckle my predicament - all while dissing the size of government I have to rely on.

What are the poor supposed to do if these folks were, both, the exclusive safety net and - because of their attitudes and the votes they make - the cause of my predicament?

The Crack Emcee said...

mccullough said...

It's the obligation of individuals to help each other out. The government just gets in the way most of the time.

Ah, that's why we got the New Deal during the depression - because individuals were doing so much.

Let's not lie to ourselves, shall we?

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

"While I agree that we can't just let people die who come to hospitals, and recognize that we therfore need to assume the costs it doesn't mean that universal health care is the way to go."

So nothing is better than something.

Brilliant, as always, jr.

MadisonMan said...

Because charity has never been enough - don't conservatives start from the premise "men are not angels"? - that's why we have government programs, etc..

I'm okay with this (even though the phrase give them an inch they'll take a mile often pops into my head), as long as you don't call it a Patriotic Duty.

The difficulty is that because the Government gets involved, you lose, completely, any efficiency you had.

The Crack Emcee said...

Sigivald,

I agree with you about the general politics of pot, but you said you're in Oregon - how do you feel about Portland being voted the most racist city in America?

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
"While I agree that we can't just let people die who come to hospitals, and recognize that we therfore need to assume the costs it doesn't mean that universal health care is the way to go."

So nothing is better than something.


Again, just because you recognize that there is a problem doesn't mean that your solution to the problem is a good idea.

"We need to do something. This is something. Lets do this" is not a really good solution. That's like arguing that we want change. Change is good. So any proposed change is a good thing. Just because I want change doesn't mean that I want YOUR idea of change.

The Crack Emcee said...

MadisonMan,

"I'm okay with this,...as long as you don't call it a Patriotic Duty.

The difficulty is that because the Government gets involved, you lose, completely, any efficiency you had."

Well, maybe if you thought of it as a patriotic duty, you'd lend a hand to make everything work better - so the government could be trimmed - instead of merely a critic with no actual skin in the game.

The choice is yours,...

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
Ah, that's why we got the New Deal during the depression - because individuals were doing so much.

Let's not lie to ourselves, shall we?

So what more must govt do. Free day care for everyone? Free houses for everyone. Sounds great How do you propose to pay for it?
It's like the call for guaranteed jobs by some on the left. Yes, people need jobs, but how are you proposing that govt keep that gurantee?

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

"Again, just because you recognize that there is a problem doesn't mean that your solution to the problem is a good idea."

I hear you, but (as usual) you're not dealing in reality:

Conservatives are hostile to the government programs their positions make necessary - so the Dems went for what they could get when they could get it. That's what the conservatives forced the Left to do and they did it - so now you can complain about what conservative positions have made conservatives have to accept.

It never ends,...


jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
Well, maybe if you thought of it as a patriotic duty, you'd lend a hand to make everything work better - so the government could be trimmed - instead of merely a critic with no actual skin in the game.

Govt will never be trimmed so long as govt thinks it's its responsiblity to solve all endemic problems through govt. How can you cut funding for those programs since people need those programs and have a fundamental right to them?

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
Conservatives are hostile to the government programs their positions make necessary - so the Dems went for what they could get when they could get it. That's what the conservatives forced the Left to do and they did it - so now you can complain about what conservative positions have made conservatives have to accept.

Libs are just FORCED to spend more than we could ever possiby pay back. Blame republicans!
Give us a few examples of these policies.

jr565 said...

Take unemploymnet benefits. Unemployment benefits are supposed to be temporary. You are not supposed to be on the dole forever. And Obama and the democrats already made the historic choice to extend unemployment benefits for up to two years, which is longer than it's ever been extended.
When the benefits run out, the dems argue that repubs are heartless to not extend benefits.
Repubs would argue that unemploymemt is not a right, and you should instead grow jobs so that at the end of the day more people don't need to go on unemployment.
But is it too much to ask that if we do extend unemployment for an even longer period of time that we cut spending elsewhere? I think that's reasonable. but the dems don't. They want to have endless cake and also be able to eat it endlessly.
And suppose we did extend unemployment benefits for another year. When that year was up, what would the argument be? that we need to extend unemployment benefits? And you're heartless if you don't? Then why did the dems limit unemployment benefits to a year? What do they think is going to happen after a year ends?

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

"So what more must govt do."

Reparations is always my starting point - correct the nation's books. The government caused the problem, by having slavery in the Constitution, so it should be one source of the solution. (And, no, the 13th Amendment didn't do anything about the injustice but stop it - it wasn't a corrective for black families who lost out which is what is needed.)

Also, I would force whites to understand white supremacy, privilege, and a full accounting of American history - which has been hidden from them. Basically this country needs a Germany/Jews awakening when it comes to it's treatment of blacks and other minorities. It, and whites, have to learn how to take their boots off our necks.

Once they got it, black and other minority unemployment would go down - because whites would stop putting us in untenable situations like I'm in - and this country would start to work. Blacks would stop being thrown in jail and prisons for bullshit - with white approval, etc..

Denying whites are at the center of our problems is only going to cause more problems,….

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

"Govt will never be trimmed so long as govt thinks it's its responsiblity to solve all endemic problems through govt."

That's dogma - you can't do what you don't.

jr565 said...

Same thing with making the minimum wage be 10 dollars? Why not 20? Why not 50? WHy not a million a year? If someone can't live on 10 dollars an hour must we keep raising the minimum wage until they can live on it?
We're heartless if we don't. But it may not be realistic to do so.
Same thing with free health care. Deblasio wants that to be a gauranteed right and he wants to raise taxes on the rich to pay for it. First off, how much does he have to raise taxes to fund the program? And what of our other priorities? Like housing? Like health care. Unless money is infinite at a certain point libs will need to actually prioritize and say we can only do so much.
And I know that govt has never made someone middle class. If you are living on govt largesse you are barely squeaking by. maybe we need to make govt largesse be based on the living wage concept. And so, you should get cradle to grave benefits even if you don't require anyone to actulaly work for those benefits. Why then not simply set up printing presses and print out the money that everyone needs so no one ever has to work again?

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

"Libs are just FORCED to spend more than we could ever possiby pay back. Blame republicans!
Give us a few examples of these policies."

Any that help blacks, after the country enslaved us and kept us poor, so you can complain about it all.

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

"Repubs would argue that unemploymemt is not a right, and you should instead grow jobs so that at the end of the day more people don't need to go on unemployment."

But whites don't hire blacks. What's the point?

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
That's dogma - you can't do what you don't.

How do you what people do? And maybe some people can't do more because they are taxed so much that, after that and expenses they have nothing left.
What do you want us to do about homelessness? Put up homeless people in our house?

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:

But whites don't hire blacks. What's the point?

That's not true. But if it is in some cases, you suggested that the reason is that many blacks don't want to associate with their oppressor, not that whites don't want to give them jobs.

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565 said...
Same thing with making the minimum wage be 10 dollars? Why not 20? Why not 50? WHy not a million a year? If someone can't live on 10 dollars an hour must we keep raising the minimum wage until they can live on it?
We're heartless if we don't. But it may not be realistic to do so."


Only because you've allowed a system where the rich have all the money and the poor fight for scraps. I forget who said it (JP Morgan?) but the phrase was something like:

"I pay any group in America to attack another one."

Or

"I can pay half of America to attack the other."

What he couldn't buy was anybody to stop him from making us fight,...

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

"What do you want us to do about homelessness? Put up homeless people in our house?"

Fight for justice and quit being an oppressor.

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

"That's not true. But if it is in some cases, you suggested that the reason is that many blacks don't want to associate with their oppressor, not that whites don't want to give them jobs."

Please - giving somebody a job, and then driving them crazy once they accept (with white supremacy and privilege) is nothing anybody's going to be grateful for or want to be around.

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
Any that help blacks, after the country enslaved us and kept us poor, so you can complain about it all.

We have a budget. We can only spend so much. And if you look at our budget, the lionshare of our spending is already on those entitlemetns. And we spend so much we are trillions in debt.
How has it helped the black community? CA for example spends more on anti poverty program than any state and yet more people are living below poverty levels there than anywhere.
Not to say that we should spend nothing Only it's a lie to suggest that up to now we haven't spent to address those issues. My point is, at the end of the day you can only spend what you have, and need to base spending on a budget. And that govt will not solve a lot of these problems. Having a job will. So then, if govt makes getting jobs harder by growing govt its counter productive.
People are not going to be middle class living on govt handouts.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The Crack Emcee said...

I mean, everyone here knows I've got one foot in the streets - you see them stepping up? No. Why? Oh, we don't agree on everything

Crack-

You have shown yourself to be a racist, a liar, and an asshole. Even if I knew that you were telling the truth about your situation, I can find plenty of people more deserving of my help.

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

"We have a budget."

No, jr, look at white conservative hostility to helping Americans - that's where the problem lies. Nothing happens in a vacuum. ObamaCare is hampered by what?

Software glitches - and massive conservative hostility.

Exactly what blacks have faced for centuries.

Take white hostility out of American history and our failures make no sense,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Ignorance is Bliss,

"You have shown yourself to be a racist, a liar, and an asshole."

So, no matter how many times I, Ann, Meade, Freeman, etc., tell you I've been using a tactic - of reflecting your own racism back at you (Why doesn't Ann kick Crack off?) - you're going to ignore all of us and still INSIST that I'm the racist and the problem.

jr, this is why we have problems, ok? When whites are this determined to twist the truth, only to blame blacks for THEIR problems, nothing can get done.

"Even if I knew that you were telling the truth about your situation, I can find plenty of people more deserving of my help."

Because you've told yourself a lie about me, and are going to act on that lie, rather than the human being facing the streets.

That's how colorblind racism "works", jr - get it?

Now, imagine this was at work. Is there ANY chance the appropriately-named "Ignorance is Bliss" would be a good manager over blacks facing racial hostility?

Absolutely none. He would ONLY be a source of further problems.

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
No, jr, look at white conservative hostility to helping Americans - that's where the problem lies. Nothing happens in a vacuum. ObamaCare is hampered by what?

The majority of people help themselves by getting jobs. They pay taxes, and the only way they can pay those taxes is by finding jobs.
Govt does not fund itself. And so, since I have to work for a living why shouldn't others? I should work to fund govt so that someone else doesn't have to?
The system requires that as many people as possible are in fact working and not on the dole. And yet when I suggest that white people are offering black people jobs you say that blacks don't want those because it will drive them crazy. What, then do you want?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The Crack Emcee said...

Software glitches - and massive conservative hostility.

Exactly what blacks have faced for centuries.


Well, if you've been facing software glitches for centuries that would certainly explain the problems...

jr565 said...

Crack, When Ignorance is Bliss says he can find people more deserving of help it doesn't mean that it's not other black people. He's saying he'd rather help people who don't have your attitude.

jr565 said...

"Now, imagine this was at work. Is there ANY chance the appropriately-named "Ignorance is Bliss" would be a good manager over blacks facing racial hostility? "
Facing racial hostility from whom? From the guy who offered them a job?
If you go into a job and immediately assume that your boss is a white oppressor you can probably not expect to stick around long. How is he with other blacks who are just going to work and getting a pay check? Maybe then the racial hostility is perceived by the person assuming there is racial hostility.
I certainly wouldn't say that no boss could or would be racist. But by the same token, merely because your boss is white doesn't mean you will face racial hostility.

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

"The majority of people help themselves by getting jobs."

Yes, jr, but if you can't get a job - or can only get a job that singles you out - then what?

Many blacks are forced to say "fuck it"

You have no idea how psychologically draining white racism is,...

eric said...

"Now, imagine this was at work. Is there ANY chance the appropriately-named "Ignorance is Bliss" would be a good manager over blacks facing racial hostility?

Absolutely none. He would ONLY be a source of further problems."

Wait, I'm confused. Is this racism, or is this reflecting racism?

If we can't tell when you're reflecting racism and when you're actually being a racist, is that the readers fault or the writers fault?

The Crack Emcee said...

Ignorance is Bliss said...
The Crack Emcee said...

Software glitches - and massive conservative hostility.

Exactly what blacks have faced for centuries.

Well, if you've been facing software glitches for centuries that would certainly explain the problems…


jr, are you watching? Now he changes what he knows the meaning of my statement was, in a lame effort to ridicule me as supposedly stupid.

He ignored my entire post stating he's been told what I'm up to, by me and others - including the blog's owners - and he still barrels ahead with the Crack's-a-racist line.

Truth, jr. This is what we're dealing with when we grapple with racists. Ignorance is Bliss is ignorant to the truth:

He is a white American attacking a black American for no reason other than my efforts to stop him.

How it's different than in the past is only because it's online,...

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The Crack Emcee said...

So, no matter how many times I, Ann, Meade, Freeman, etc., tell you I've been using a tactic - of reflecting your own racism back at you (Why doesn't Ann kick Crack off?) - you're going to ignore all of us and still INSIST that I'm the racist and the problem.

I've heard one of them state it once. ( And now you saying it makes two. ) So it is certainly possible that you are a liar and an asshole who is just pretending to be a racist.

jr, this is why we have problems, ok? When whites are this determined to twist the truth, only to blame blacks for THEIR problems, nothing can get done.

So you pretend to be a racist, and when I believe you, you use it as an example of me twisting the truth. Wow. ( And what problems of mine am I blaming on blacks? )


Because you've told yourself a lie about me, and are going to act on that lie, rather than the human being facing the streets.

You told me the lie. And you've lied about me. And generally acted like an asshole. So find someone else to ask for charity. I hear the Mormons are pretty generous.

That's how colorblind racism "works", jr - get it?

No, I don't. Could you explain one more time how your being a lying asshole who acts like a racist actually makes me a racist?

Now, imagine this was at work. Is there ANY chance the appropriately-named "Ignorance is Bliss" would be a good manager over blacks facing racial hostility? Absolutely none. He would ONLY be a source of further problems.

I think there is a pretty good chance, as long as the blacks were not choosing to be lying assholes who pretend to be racists.

The guy in the cube next to me happens to be black. I've never had an issue with him, nor, as far as I can tell, him with me. That might be because he's not a lying asshole who pretends to be a racist.

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565 said...
Crack, When Ignorance is Bliss says he can find people more deserving of help it doesn't mean that it's not other black people. He's saying he'd rather help people who don't have your attitude.

Wouldn't that attitude be the same of the 97% of blacks who don't vote with him?

And I know that 3% - I am that 3% - and still I got burned. BIG TIME. Over and over again. Remember, jr, I used to be the most colorblind person on this blog, famous for stomping off because others wouldn't stop discussing race.

Now they hate me for joining the discussion and voicing the "wrong views".

It seems like hating me, no matter which position I take, is really the goal.

Again - how is that different from the past?

The Crack Emcee said...

eric

"when you're actually being a racist"

You're kinda slow, huh?

jr565 said...

Crack Emcee wrote:
"jr, are you watching? Now he changes what he knows the meaning of my statement was, in a lame effort to ridicule me as supposedly stupid."

Technically you did the same to me when you went after me for saying centuries had passed since slavery. When I hope you know that I know when slavery ended. Just as I know you aren't being literal when you say software glitches have lasted for centuries. You meant blacks have been dealing with such problems for centuries not literally software problems.It was a slip of the tongue.

However, in regards to your other statement you write: "He is a white American attacking a black American for no reason other than my efforts to stop him."
What are you trying to stop him from doing? Since you are in opposition to him, I"d imagine he'd similarly be in opposition to you. And so, if he disagrees with your assertion he will necessarily be in opposition to it.

jr565 said...

Crack wrote:

Now they hate me for joining the discussion and voicing the "wrong views".

It seems like hating me, no matter which position I take, is really the goal.

If you're espousing a view I disagree with it's the wrong view, in my opinion. If, prior to being burned you were voicing the right opinion (again, in my opinion) I wasn't fighting you over it.
If Garage voices the same opinion I would similarly argue against him on it. Not because of race, but simply because I don't agree with it.

The Crack Emcee said...

Ignorance is Bliss,

"I've heard one of them state it once. ( And now you saying it makes two. ) So it is certainly possible that you are a liar and an asshole who is just pretending to be a racist."

O.K., so know that we're clear on the racism thing, "asshole" I can cop to - a matter of opinion the blog owners and Freeman Hunt, etc. don't share - but O.K..

How am I a "liar" again?


Ignorance is Bliss said...

The Crack Emcee said...

jr, are you watching? Now he changes what he knows the meaning of my statement was, in a lame effort to ridicule me as supposedly stupid.

I was amused by the way it sounded when I read it, so I attempted a humorous reply. I was not trying to imply that you are stupid, and if it came across that way than I apologize.

He ignored my entire post stating he's been told what I'm up to, by me and others - including the blog's owners - and he still barrels ahead with the Crack's-a-racist line.

I didn't ignore it, I was still in the process of typing my reply. And I certainly didn't ignore it and then barrel ahead about racism, since at the time you made the comment that I am replying to, I had not made another comment about your racism.

Truth, jr. This is what we're dealing with when we grapple with racists. Ignorance is Bliss is ignorant to the truth:

He is a white American attacking a black American for no reason other than my efforts to stop him.


I am responding to someone who insulted me and lied about me repeatedly. As I have done with other people on this blog, independent of their skin color.

How it's different than in the past is only because it's online,...

There is real racism out there, and there has been far worse racism in the past. For you to group my comments into that is a disgusting lie, and you own an apology to the victims of actual racism for treating the subject with such disrespect.

The Crack Emcee said...

jr565,

"Technically you did the same to me when you went after me for saying centuries had passed since slavery."

"Technically"? "Technically"? You said "hundreds of years".

"When I hope you know that I know when slavery ended."

Hope away. I only can see what you write. "Hundreds".

"Just as I know you aren't being literal when you say software glitches have lasted for centuries."

Is that what I said, jr? Really? You're going to play stupid, too? My meaning wasn't observable, unlike "hundreds" - plural - was?

"You meant blacks have been dealing with such problems for centuries not literally software problems. It was a slip of the tongue."

It wasn't a slip if anything. Either you're playing dumb or really are.

However, in regards to your other statement you write: "He is a white American attacking a black American for no reason other than my efforts to stop him."
What are you trying to stop him from doing?

Fucking with me for being alive.

"Since you are in opposition to him, I"d imagine he'd similarly be in opposition to you."

Welcome to the history of racism in America.

"And so, if he disagrees with your assertion he will necessarily be in opposition to it."

You have just written a justification for joining the KKK, jr.

Congratulations,...

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The Crack Emcee said...

O.K., so know that we're clear on the racism thing, "asshole" I can cop to - a matter of opinion the blog owners and Freeman Hunt, etc. don't share - but O.K..

I wouldn't say we are clear on the racism thing. I'm willing to consider that you are not, for this discussion. I generally trust Freeman's judgement, but that doesn't mean I assume she is always right.

How am I a "liar" again?

Well, you've said you are a racist. If you're not, then you're a liar. You may have had your reasons, but it is still lying.

Also, in this very thread, you said, about me,

He is a white American attacking a black American for no reason other than my efforts to stop him.

I assume you do not actually believe that. So that is another lie.

I don't see any need to track down more, but there have been others.

The Crack Emcee said...

Ignorance is Bliss,

"There is real racism out there, and there has been far worse racism in the past. For you to group my comments into that is a disgusting lie, and you own an apology to the victims of actual racism for treating the subject with such disrespect."

Please don't tell me how to be black. We are now in the age of colorblind racism. Where whites have learned to circumvent the obvious and do as they please in the social sense.

Attack a black person? Of course you can, you don't see race! History doesn't figure into it either. Bring up the context your actions are taking place in is "playing the race card" - which trivializes the trials white racism forces me and mine to face.

And you want to patronize me with a statement on what it means to be victimized by you?

Puh-leaze.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Please don't tell me how to be black.

I'm not. I'm pointing out one particular area where you are trivializing something serious just to try to score points in an argument you are losing.

And you want to patronize me with a statement on what it means to be victimized by you?

I have no interest in patronizing you, especially with a statement about something that never has and never will happen, me victimizing you.

The Crack Emcee said...

Ignorance is Bliss,

"I wouldn't say we are clear on the racism thing. I'm willing to consider that you are not, for this discussion. I generally trust Freeman's judgement, but that doesn't mean I assume she is always right."

Weird. And the blog owner's apparent willingness to let me do my thing? What is that? Evidence of my credibility or am I their "pet" as conservatives here have said? Figure it out, Ig.

How am I a "liar" again?

"Well, you've said you are a racist."

When? Where?

"If you're not, then you're a liar."

Evidence.

"You may have had your reasons, but it is still lying."

Wow - this is some wild "reasoning". A great example of why blacks have so many problems out there. I mean, pretzel logic, right down the line.

"Also, in this very thread, you said, about me,

He is a white American attacking a black American for no reason other than my efforts to stop him.

I assume you do not actually believe that. So that is another lie."

Evidence it's not true - are you white? Am I black? Is this America? Are you not attacking me? Is this not our history? Aren't you justifying it any way you can - rather than just stopping yourself, as a white guy? Do you see THAT as being an important evolutionary leap in our county's ability to move forward? If not, why not?

"I don't see any need to track down more, but there have been others."

You're confused,...

gadfly said...

I am not sure that Meade got a 100% honest answer from the medical pot proprietors. The other problem that "crops" up is the state tax on pot for fun - a whopping 25% plus 2.9% sales tax plus various local tax added which will add an additional 8+% in Denver.

Medicinal weed requires a script from a doctor plus a personal state registration certificate (no proof of residency or age needed) and it is not subject to the 25% tax - so documentation is simpler. Also, pot sold for RX purposes must be from a separate dispensary - so you can sell only one type per shop.

As for recreational pot sales in Boulder, only a half dozen shops have opened so far (most in March but tiny Nederland already has one) and it is possible that there is a steep "operating fee" attached to these shops. Aurora, for example charges $17,500 annually for a license.

Unknown said...

Meh, no one's going to mess with CO's drug policies because it's still on the very edge of the red/blue divide. Obama won't touch them, and neither would a Republican President. Nobody would mess with Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida either.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Evidence it's not true - are you white? Am I black? Is this America? Are you not attacking me? Is this not our history? Aren't you justifying it any way you can - rather than just stopping yourself, as a white guy? Do you see THAT as being an important evolutionary leap in our county's ability to move forward? If not, why not?

Yes, I am white. I trust you that you are black. This is America. We are having a heated discussion, so me attacking you is not an unfair characterization. We certainly have some history of heated discussion, attacking each other, if you want to phrase it that way. I'm not justifying it any way that I can. I am justifying it in the way that it is justified, as a specific response to your individual statements. Why should I stop responding to your lies, assholery, and racist statements just because I'm white? So no, I don't think it would be a leap in our country's ability to move forward. Why not? because, as our host likes to say, the answer to bad speech is more speech.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Crack-

Now, a quick question for you. You said:

He is a white American attacking a black American for no reason other than my efforts to stop him.

and clarified for someone else that what you were trying to stop was

Fucking with me for being alive.

Do you honestly believe that I'm fucking with you for being alive, and that I'm attacking you for no other reason than because you are trying to stop me? I'm going to trust your answer on this, and use it to settle, for myself, if you are a racist, so please don't answer one way, as a tactic in some larger performance, if that is not how you truly feel.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

he Crack Emcee said...

And the blog owner's apparent willingness to let me do my thing? What is that? Evidence of my credibility or am I their "pet" as conservatives here have said? Figure it out, Ig.

Evidence of neither. She lets a lot of stuff happen here. I never assume that she approves or supports any of it, unless she says she does.

jr565 said...

"Technically"? "Technically"? You said "hundreds of years".
And you said centuries when it came to software glitches. Centuries are hundreds of years. Do you really think we has software hundreds of years ago.ill forgive your slip of the tongue if your forgive mine.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

gadfly said...

I am not sure that Meade got a 100% honest answer from the medical pot proprietors. The other problem that "crops" up is the state tax on pot for fun - a whopping 25% plus 2.9% sales tax plus various local tax added which will add an additional 8+% in Denver.

So can the feds go after the state of Colorado on RICO charges?

Smilin' Jack said...

...after the country enslaved us and kept us poor...

OK Crack, you've convinced me that I need to do my part to make this right. So just send me a check for your net worth and I'll send you a check for the net worth of the average African. Of course, I'll have to make a few deductions for the education, medical care, etc. you've gotten here that you wouldn't have gotten there...tell you what, just send me a check for $10,000 and we'll call it even. Can't get any fairer than that.

Uhh...on second thought, better make it a money order.

The Crack Emcee said...

Ignorance is Bliss,

"Do you honestly believe that I'm fucking with you for being alive, and that I'm attacking you for no other reason than because you are trying to stop me? I'm going to trust your answer on this, and use it to settle, for myself, if you are a racist, so please don't answer one way, as a tactic in some larger performance, if that is not how you truly feel."

Yes. You said yourself - you were aware from Freeman Hunt what was going down and you still chose to attack and mischaracterize me - how is that not attacking me for being alive? How did that happen? I imagine like this:

Oh, look - Freeman Hunt says Crack's on a civil rights crusade - I'm going to go call him a racist asshole and a liar!

Or maybe you can paint another scenario,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Smilin' Jack,

"OK Crack, you've convinced me that I need to do my part to make this right."

When I just said I'm facing homelessness, do you really think that's funny?

Man, some of you guys are sociopaths,..

furious_a said...

Medicinal weed requires a script from a doctor...

Is there *any* state in the country where MD's write prescriptions for "loose-leaf" marijuana? The California medical marijuana initiative specified "doctor's note", not "prescription".

PowderSpringsCityCouncilWatch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HoodlumDoodlum said...

The Crack Emcee:

Would you mind going back to your proposal from a bit earlier: "Also, I would force whites to understand white supremacy, privilege, and a full accounting of American history - which has been hidden from them."

How specifically would you/can one force whites [a racial group] to understand [that/anything]?

harrogate said...

"Take something like housing. Housing, like food seems to be a core requirement for living. But what is the solution? Give everyone a house? Otherwise you don't care as a society? What does that do to the market for houses? Why would you buy one if you could get one for free?"

A problem with the slippery slope argument. Single Payer insurance (which of course is a far, far cry from the reforms put in place during the Obama administration) doesn't mean everyone get free health care. It *does* mean bye bye private insurance companies. Hardly a tragic hypothetical, that.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Harrogate: Notwithstanding the fact that some nations with single payer healthcare also have private health insurance (for the wealthy) what is it about health insurace companies that you feel would make it ok for the US gov to put them out of business--in what way are they uniquely bad? Is the ability to share risk between contractually-bound private parties bad in itself? Are there other legal industries you would be happy to see destroyed?

harrogate said...

Personally, I do not favor single payer because it would (for all intents and purposes) remove private insurance industry. I favor it because single payer covers all citizens. That such coverage poses an existential threat to private insurance companies is in no way a reason to critique the coverage.

The Crack Emcee said...

HoodlumDoodlum,

"How specifically would you/can one force whites [a racial group] to understand [that/anything]?"

Like I said, I've been here for roughly 5 years.

The attempt started with turning the tables - referring to whites as "whites" as they casually do blacks. Immediately, everyone saw it was racist - but started calling ME a racist - for reflecting them.

That started these uncomfortable dialogues no one seems to enjoy but me, because the lazy playing the victim/low I.Q./criminal arguments don't work - I'm a black Republican who worked my way to financial health by strictly following conservative principles. I'm not a victim. Or stupid. Or a criminal, or a liar, or a racist. I've hung out, and drank beers, with guys who say "nigger" with no apologies.

And there's the rub. Just like there's no escaping the ignorant killer NewAge nonsense on the Left, there's no way to avoid the equally-ignorant virulent racism on the Right. That's the price for admittance.

I've heard Tea Partiers mouth the pieties of a colorblind nation only to make monkey noises for Al Sharpton or Jesse jackson or Trayvon Martin's parents or anybody else they see fit. Really? It sickens me.

So - not because of my predicament but in spite of it - I've taken up making this a new conversation, with history, and slavery, and white supremacy as it's center. How will that change things? ALone it won't, but events have a way of catching up with me. Today Wikipedia's Boss Called "Holistic Healers" Crazy Liars. That never would've happened when I started my NewAge crusade.

Like MLK, I know the race issue will turn out the same way,...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The Crack Emcee: Thanks for the response. All of that, though, sounds like actions individual might take to try and persuade/convince their fellow citizens. The context of your original response was more about what the government or collective (as opposed to individuals) should do. In particular I wondered about the verb "force" in that context.

cubanbob said...

"Personally, I do not favor single payer because it would (for all intents and purposes) remove private insurance industry. I favor it because single payer covers all citizens. That such coverage poses an existential threat to private insurance companies is in no way a reason to critique the coverage."

Single payer is lefty mental masturbation. It's never going to happen in this country. For one thing you can't force providers to accept it. There is no legal framework for it and unless a this country winds up with a communist congress, president and a sufficent number of state legislatures and governors to go along with it and change the constitution it's just not going to happen. There is no beyond that.

As for expanding the entitlement state lets wait for November. I suspect that the more probable outcome will be freezing what's already in place and from there we shall see.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Harrogate: fair enough, but don't underestimate the benefit of having risk-sharing options, a robust private insurance sector, deep capital pools, etc, even for those who don't directly use them. It's not the employment that would be lost in that industry that's the problem.

More generally I think the relative value of having risk-sharing done by a (national) government vs. a (semi) private sector is underanalyzed (!) and the costs likely underappreciated.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The Crack Emcee said...

Yes. You said yourself - you were aware from Freeman Hunt what was going down and you still chose to attack and mischaracterize me - how is that not attacking me for being alive? How did that happen? I imagine like this:

Oh, look - Freeman Hunt says Crack's on a civil rights crusade - I'm going to go call him a racist asshole and a liar!

Or maybe you can paint another scenario,...


Not just another, but the actual scenario:

I observed you acting like a racist, and claiming that your racism was justified. I observed you lying about my comments. I observed you acting like an asshole. At a later point, I read a comment from Freeman saying that you were doing this as a tactic to prove a point. I did not see her make an argument supporting this, and had no reason to assume that her statement was anything more than her opinion.

I don't believe I have mischaracterized you or what you have said, and my attacks were in response to specific statements from you that I believed were incorrect.

So yes, based on your statements in this blog, and the reasoning it reveals, I think racist, asshole, and liar is a pretty fair assessment.

The Crack Emcee said...

Ignorance is Bliss,

"Based on your statements in this blog, and the reasoning it reveals, I think racist, asshole, and liar is a pretty fair assessment."

You've seen what you want to see from the get-go - I see no reason to stop you now.

Do your worst, white man, it seems to be all you're "good" for,...