This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1JGL53
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/25/michele-leonhart-obama_n_4666606.html
Whether in the private sector corporate world or in government if a minion, even a manager, goes in public and says or highly implies, in any way, that The Boss is Wrong - then that person has basically Asked For It, and then usually Gets It.
If Obama does not fire this person, or at least demote her about five levels, then he is the weak and incompetent tool the republicans have been saying he is for five years now.
If I were Pres. I would bury this person so deep in the bowels of the flowchart that she would never see another fellow government employee on the job again except the midnight cleaning crew.
And if, conversely, I were DEA Chief right now, I would be keeping Such a low profile - and my Only utterances in Any public meeting would be statements like "I'll get back to you on that.", "We are in the midst of reviewing our procedures and policies at present.", and "No Comment", etc.
Whether in the private sector corporate world or in government if a minion, even a manager, goes in public and says or highly implies, in any way, that The Boss is Wrong - then that person has basically Asked For It, and then usually Gets It.
If Obama does not fire this person, or at least demote her about five levels, then he is the weak and incompetent tool the republicans have been saying he is for five years now.
If I were Pres. I would bury this person so deep in the bowels of the flowchart that she would never see another fellow government employee on the job again except the midnight cleaning crew.
And if, conversely, I were DEA Chief right now, I would be keeping Such a low profile - and my Only utterances in Any public meeting would be statements like "I'll get back to you on that.", "We are in the midst of reviewing our procedures and policies at present.", and "No Comment", etc.
2madpoet
Ok, I agree with legalizing marijuana. But in a democracy sometimes people- even bureaucrats- have the right to question government policies. Your reaction seems a little extreme, JGL. But then, your reaction to everything is all extreme, all the time.
3lriley
Marijuana IMO should be legalized. That doesn't mean people shouldn't have their opinions and air them. She just happens to be wrong--again that's my opinion. Truthfully I'm not even sure where the POTUS stands on legalization. He's allowing Washington and Colorado to go forward which is fine but has he really made his own thoughts on the question clear? If Obama needs to get tough with anybody it's not with his own. Much as I disliked Clinton--his tendency to spotlight (in a hunting sense) his opponents on the other side and shoot them between the eyes--might not have been altogether and always 'fair' (operative word) but it was effective and he was able to accomplish more during his presidency--not that what he accomplished was altogether good either.
As to what would happen in the private sector corporate world---my 91 year mom who can't stand our Governor--Mr. Cuomo--arguing that he can't even run a business. This is the usual propaganda line started by the republicans some years ago that somehow running a small business or being the head of a corporation more than qualifies people for higher office--something that I think is quite absurd. So the Koch brothers should run the country? She's waiting for Mr. Trump to come out of the weeds--like he's going to be the defender of the little guy. She also happens to be anti-fracking. It's an important issue to her. She assumes that Trump is going to repeal abortion laws--another important issue to her. Anyway so far if there is one thing that Cuomo hasn't done--it's let these gas drillers have their way--though if reelected I imagine with room to breathe he might just open the door. Trump (or any other republican) I have no doubts--as soon as elected the door will swing wide. He's all about the rich. Sorry to digress a bit.
As to what would happen in the private sector corporate world---my 91 year mom who can't stand our Governor--Mr. Cuomo--arguing that he can't even run a business. This is the usual propaganda line started by the republicans some years ago that somehow running a small business or being the head of a corporation more than qualifies people for higher office--something that I think is quite absurd. So the Koch brothers should run the country? She's waiting for Mr. Trump to come out of the weeds--like he's going to be the defender of the little guy. She also happens to be anti-fracking. It's an important issue to her. She assumes that Trump is going to repeal abortion laws--another important issue to her. Anyway so far if there is one thing that Cuomo hasn't done--it's let these gas drillers have their way--though if reelected I imagine with room to breathe he might just open the door. Trump (or any other republican) I have no doubts--as soon as elected the door will swing wide. He's all about the rich. Sorry to digress a bit.
4southernbooklady
Whenever someone in my country runs for the School Board on the "we need to run this like a business" platform, I vote against them.
5March-Hare
>3 lriley:.4 Indeed-- I'm not an expert on conservative theory or anything, but whenever I have an encounter with someone taking what I would identify as the "standard conservative line" I always find myself asking how someone could think the world works the way they seem to think it does.
They start with the assumption that there is this thing called "government" and this thing called "the market". Next they move briskly along to the assumption that everything to be filed under the "right way to do it" is contained in some vague notion of "market practice". Finally they make a statement about what the purported market practice dude would do in situation such and such. I say assumption because they rarely seem to provide adequate support for any of these moves.
They start with the assumption that there is this thing called "government" and this thing called "the market". Next they move briskly along to the assumption that everything to be filed under the "right way to do it" is contained in some vague notion of "market practice". Finally they make a statement about what the purported market practice dude would do in situation such and such. I say assumption because they rarely seem to provide adequate support for any of these moves.
6southernbooklady
The success of a business is measured in its profit. The success of a school system is measured in how many kids graduate and how educated they are when they do. The two aren't analogous.
7lriley
#6 Exactly. I have a niece who is a schoolteacher in Charlotte NC. Has been there a good ten years anyway. That school system is allowed to pick off whoever they feel like for whatever reason they can think of. At least that's what she tells me but it seems to be the way things are in a lot of places. Anyway there's no union--she's anti-union anyway and so she's pretty much all alone defending herself. She's been passing reviews the past few years but it's like Damocles sword always over her head and last I talked to her she was just talking about chucking her career at the end of the current year. Discouraged and disgusted.
The for profit prison systems especially prevalent in the south/southwest are pretty much all disasters waiting to happen compared to taxpayer paid for state prison systems. Not everything is a commodity to be sold.
The for profit prison systems especially prevalent in the south/southwest are pretty much all disasters waiting to happen compared to taxpayer paid for state prison systems. Not everything is a commodity to be sold.
8AsYouKnow_Bob
The head of the DEA is against drug legalization??
That's perhaps the type specimen for Upton Sinclair's observation that
That's perhaps the type specimen for Upton Sinclair's observation that
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
9dekesolomon
There's an old line about politics being "the art of the possible." What the "wise men" never mention is that criminals are always delighted to know for certain what is possible and what is not.
11JGL53
Where is this never-neverland you guys live in? Is it on the fucking moon?
It is my understanding Obama has fired 197 US Senior Military Commanders in 5 years, firing 13 generals in 2013 alone.
The head of the DEA is sort of small potatoes.
In the real world bosses fire employees who get in their faces.
But in never-neverland they don't.
OK.
It is my understanding Obama has fired 197 US Senior Military Commanders in 5 years, firing 13 generals in 2013 alone.
The head of the DEA is sort of small potatoes.
In the real world bosses fire employees who get in their faces.
But in never-neverland they don't.
OK.
12madpoet
Some bosses like to keep employees around who have minds of their own and will tell the boss when they think he/she is mistaken.
Other bosses surround themselves by 'yes-men'. Which kind of boss do you think is most effective? Which kind of boss do you think Obama is?
BTW, you must have worked for some really #%€hole bosses.
Other bosses surround themselves by 'yes-men'. Which kind of boss do you think is most effective? Which kind of boss do you think Obama is?
BTW, you must have worked for some really #%€hole bosses.
13lriley
#11--you're very predictable. As #12 puts it nicely--the world is full of sycophants. Better to surround himself with those types? To what end? Not everything has to be done for political reasons.
The DEA's mission since it's inception has always included marijuana--as the gateway drug to other drugs. Not surprising then if you move a DEA person to the head of the DEA they'll continue to act on that premise. It's in their DNA. He could change her for someone else maybe outside the DEA this time--and that would be fine but just as a means to silence somebody or create fear among other appointees is somewhat objectionable.
The DEA's mission since it's inception has always included marijuana--as the gateway drug to other drugs. Not surprising then if you move a DEA person to the head of the DEA they'll continue to act on that premise. It's in their DNA. He could change her for someone else maybe outside the DEA this time--and that would be fine but just as a means to silence somebody or create fear among other appointees is somewhat objectionable.
14faceinbook
>7 lriley:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal"
"The for profit prison systems especially prevalent in the south/southwest are pretty much all disasters waiting to happen compared to taxpayer paid for state prison systems"
Cause we REFUSE to behave....absolutely will NOT govern ourselves. This type of garbage happens in private schools, our health care system, private prisons and what ever other institution that may have a cash flow.
Jan Brewer, she with the uncontrollable finger, bought into private prisons and then passed the illegal immigration "hunt down" law in Arizona, stood to make herself a lot of $$$$ As much as American's hate government one would think they would learn to control themselves. NOT ! We don't need overseas enemies or wars....we ruin each other everyday in a million little ways."
>12 madpoet:
" Which kind of boss do you think Obama is?"
I think the Obama today is not the same Obama who took office. He was pretty nonpartisan in his original choices regarding those he surrounded himself with. When he woke up to the fact that there was absolutely nothing he could suggest, even if the origins of the suggestion were from someone on the other side of the political spectrum, would even be considered, when it dawned on him that the male, pale and stale group were beyond reasoning , were "seeing red" over the fact that they had to see Black, he slowly has changed his tune.
Sad really cause if anyone would know how to negotiate through differing cultural ideas, it would be someone like him. But no.......no compromise . Our Constitution was written by White men damn it and White men are not going down quietly. Those White men OWNED someone like that uppity Black man who is President. He has been disrespected more than any sitting President. Hmmmmm........sign of the times ? Simply put, the President can not work with some of our lawmakers....at all....he will have to do a work around if he wants to accomplish anything. Having people challenge your ideas is a whole different thing than having someone challenge you simply because of who you are.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal"
"The for profit prison systems especially prevalent in the south/southwest are pretty much all disasters waiting to happen compared to taxpayer paid for state prison systems"
Cause we REFUSE to behave....absolutely will NOT govern ourselves. This type of garbage happens in private schools, our health care system, private prisons and what ever other institution that may have a cash flow.
Jan Brewer, she with the uncontrollable finger, bought into private prisons and then passed the illegal immigration "hunt down" law in Arizona, stood to make herself a lot of $$$$ As much as American's hate government one would think they would learn to control themselves. NOT ! We don't need overseas enemies or wars....we ruin each other everyday in a million little ways."
>12 madpoet:
" Which kind of boss do you think Obama is?"
I think the Obama today is not the same Obama who took office. He was pretty nonpartisan in his original choices regarding those he surrounded himself with. When he woke up to the fact that there was absolutely nothing he could suggest, even if the origins of the suggestion were from someone on the other side of the political spectrum, would even be considered, when it dawned on him that the male, pale and stale group were beyond reasoning , were "seeing red" over the fact that they had to see Black, he slowly has changed his tune.
Sad really cause if anyone would know how to negotiate through differing cultural ideas, it would be someone like him. But no.......no compromise . Our Constitution was written by White men damn it and White men are not going down quietly. Those White men OWNED someone like that uppity Black man who is President. He has been disrespected more than any sitting President. Hmmmmm........sign of the times ? Simply put, the President can not work with some of our lawmakers....at all....he will have to do a work around if he wants to accomplish anything. Having people challenge your ideas is a whole different thing than having someone challenge you simply because of who you are.
15BruceCoulson
The DEA may have limited options concerning this issue.
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-czar-required/
Unles you're advocating that senior government officials break the law when upholding the law might inconvenience their superiors?
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-czar-required/
Unles you're advocating that senior government officials break the law when upholding the law might inconvenience their superiors?
16Bretzky1
Only an insecure boss would fire someone solely for what is being reported that Leonhart did, even one in the private sector. Now, if Obama had specifically told her not to question him publicly or had laid down the law to her as to what administration policy was going to be and she then disobeyed his orders, then you have a fireable offense because of insubordination. Or, if Leonhart had used derogatory or insulting language--which none of the accounts that I've read of this shows that she did--then you would also have cause for dismissal.
Is it really all that surprising, though, that the head of the DEA would be unhappy with the perceived shift in administration policy toward relaxation of the enforcement of the drug laws, even if only in regard to one specific drug? Leonhart isn't responsible to Obama alone, she's also responsible to the men and women under her supervision in the DEA. An alternative explanation for her actions is that they are a way of maintaining the morale of the DEA workforce at a time of uncertainty in the future mission of the organization. There are few things that can kill the effectiveness of an organization quicker than a prolonged state of uncertainty and upheaval in its mission, especially for organizations that aren't founded on the principle of making a profit. If the workers see the boss fighting for them, they'll be less likely to let the potential future erosion of their mission reduce their effectiveness in the present.
Is it really all that surprising, though, that the head of the DEA would be unhappy with the perceived shift in administration policy toward relaxation of the enforcement of the drug laws, even if only in regard to one specific drug? Leonhart isn't responsible to Obama alone, she's also responsible to the men and women under her supervision in the DEA. An alternative explanation for her actions is that they are a way of maintaining the morale of the DEA workforce at a time of uncertainty in the future mission of the organization. There are few things that can kill the effectiveness of an organization quicker than a prolonged state of uncertainty and upheaval in its mission, especially for organizations that aren't founded on the principle of making a profit. If the workers see the boss fighting for them, they'll be less likely to let the potential future erosion of their mission reduce their effectiveness in the present.
17dekesolomon
The real bitch with that DEA thing is that all the propaganda government spouts about marijuana is either WRONG or outright LIES. Anti-drug people are just like anti-abortion people and anti-gun people. Facts and logic mean nothing to them because they already know all the answers and the one, TRUE answer is now and forever: "NO!"
Their argument is proof against all scientific evidence. obummer could convene ALL of the world's greatest pharmacological experts -- tens of thousands of them -- and commission them to study the effects of reefer on the human body. If that giant commission came up with any conclusion OTHER THAN "marijuana is a deadly toxin which, if consumed regularly over time, will destroy the human genome" (or some conclusion equally dreadful) the anti-reefer people would reject it out of hand. Like the anti-gunners and the anti-abortionists, the anti-drug crowd has their own scientists who are paid to do "acceptable" science which always arrives at "acceptable" conclusions.
In the case of DEA employees, of course, "Reefer Madness" is now and forever indisputable because all of those people with five-and-six figure salaries would be unemployed if government ever snuffs out "Reefer Madness" as useful policy.
In the case of the DEA woman who spoke out against legalization, she can't be fired at this point in time because the obummer administration lacks the balls to lead the nation down the path to the legalization of marijuana and dreads the though of offending the feminist, "progressive" portion of his political base. IF obummer officially moved to legalize and IF the DEA woman still spoke against it in public, THEN obummer would fire Ms. Biggie-Yap without a qualm -- and any other federal employee who disagrees with administration policy and is dumb enough to say so in public.
The DEA woman is not stupid. She spoke as she did because a) she sees legalization as her own, personal pinkslip and b) she calculated (correctly) that she could get away with speaking as she did and c) she's like 70 percent of the rest of the nation inasmuch as she has no respect for the two vicious, sneaking, lying weenies (obummer and biden) who presently hold the two highest offices in the land.
One other thing needs mention here, and that's the number of people who've been sent up the river for five-to-life for possession and sales of what we all know to be a harmless substance. Many of those people have already been in prison for 30 years or more. If our Uncle Sam suddenly decides that marijuana is actually harmless and all of those people were sent up for no good reason and ought to be released, what do you suppose happens to the DEA narcs, the prosecutors and judges who put those people in prison 30 years ago?
What would YOU do if, after 30 years in prison (and now in possession of all that people learn in such places), you find yourself free as a bird with all your civil liberties restored? Would you be grateful to the government for your release? Or would you sit down and think about your ruined life, those 30 wasted years, the evil, lying, hypocrite peter-puffers who put you in that awful place and kept you there so long? And you will think: What could I now do to them by way of getting even?
Some here will say: "I'd be grateful for my release and so would anybody else who is any kind of decent person." I say: "Maybe you would and that's your choice and I hope you're very happy in the future." But there are two things for you all to remember here: One is that a great many ex-cons would hold your alleged 'gratitude' answer in contempt. The other is that Federal cops, judges and prosecutors don't enjoy Secret Service protection when they retire. . . .
Their argument is proof against all scientific evidence. obummer could convene ALL of the world's greatest pharmacological experts -- tens of thousands of them -- and commission them to study the effects of reefer on the human body. If that giant commission came up with any conclusion OTHER THAN "marijuana is a deadly toxin which, if consumed regularly over time, will destroy the human genome" (or some conclusion equally dreadful) the anti-reefer people would reject it out of hand. Like the anti-gunners and the anti-abortionists, the anti-drug crowd has their own scientists who are paid to do "acceptable" science which always arrives at "acceptable" conclusions.
In the case of DEA employees, of course, "Reefer Madness" is now and forever indisputable because all of those people with five-and-six figure salaries would be unemployed if government ever snuffs out "Reefer Madness" as useful policy.
In the case of the DEA woman who spoke out against legalization, she can't be fired at this point in time because the obummer administration lacks the balls to lead the nation down the path to the legalization of marijuana and dreads the though of offending the feminist, "progressive" portion of his political base. IF obummer officially moved to legalize and IF the DEA woman still spoke against it in public, THEN obummer would fire Ms. Biggie-Yap without a qualm -- and any other federal employee who disagrees with administration policy and is dumb enough to say so in public.
The DEA woman is not stupid. She spoke as she did because a) she sees legalization as her own, personal pinkslip and b) she calculated (correctly) that she could get away with speaking as she did and c) she's like 70 percent of the rest of the nation inasmuch as she has no respect for the two vicious, sneaking, lying weenies (obummer and biden) who presently hold the two highest offices in the land.
One other thing needs mention here, and that's the number of people who've been sent up the river for five-to-life for possession and sales of what we all know to be a harmless substance. Many of those people have already been in prison for 30 years or more. If our Uncle Sam suddenly decides that marijuana is actually harmless and all of those people were sent up for no good reason and ought to be released, what do you suppose happens to the DEA narcs, the prosecutors and judges who put those people in prison 30 years ago?
What would YOU do if, after 30 years in prison (and now in possession of all that people learn in such places), you find yourself free as a bird with all your civil liberties restored? Would you be grateful to the government for your release? Or would you sit down and think about your ruined life, those 30 wasted years, the evil, lying, hypocrite peter-puffers who put you in that awful place and kept you there so long? And you will think: What could I now do to them by way of getting even?
Some here will say: "I'd be grateful for my release and so would anybody else who is any kind of decent person." I say: "Maybe you would and that's your choice and I hope you're very happy in the future." But there are two things for you all to remember here: One is that a great many ex-cons would hold your alleged 'gratitude' answer in contempt. The other is that Federal cops, judges and prosecutors don't enjoy Secret Service protection when they retire. . . .
18jjwilson61
17> a) she sees legalization as her own, personal pinkslip
I've seen this or similar claim several times and it just doesn't make sense. If marijuana were legalized there would still be plenty of other illegal drugs and the DEA would not be disbanded. In fact I imagine that it wouldn't even be downsized as employees would just be shuffled to other departments.
I've seen this or similar claim several times and it just doesn't make sense. If marijuana were legalized there would still be plenty of other illegal drugs and the DEA would not be disbanded. In fact I imagine that it wouldn't even be downsized as employees would just be shuffled to other departments.
19JGL53
Well, I should be used by now to individuals on this forum reading into what I say ideas I abhor as much as they would say they do.
But I am not. It continues to sadden me.
E.g., I would never condone sycophancy in any situation. I can understand a personal commitment to idea A by someone whose boss is foursquare anti-A.
As the equivalent of a bureau chief for the last part of my (state) government career my direct boss was a deputy executive director who always carried out the big boss's directives regardless of her personal feelings.
I certainly had my opinions on how things should be done or what things should not be done. I expressed those opinions in frequent meetings with both deputy and executive director (a big part of my job was to advise her regarding my area of expertise, don't you know).
After weighing her options and listening to all her top level underlings the e.d. made her decisions and gave us directives - and, as they always seemed lawful orders, we the lower-level employees under her supervision carried them out.
I cannot imagine disputing her decisions in any kind of open forum open to the press. I can't even imagine bad-mouthing her to my fellow employees behind her back. Where would be the up-side to that?
So - do SOME of you here have sufficient native intelligence to understand what I am saying here?
If so, then thank Allah for that.
For the rest of you, please carry on. You amuse me.
But I am not. It continues to sadden me.
E.g., I would never condone sycophancy in any situation. I can understand a personal commitment to idea A by someone whose boss is foursquare anti-A.
As the equivalent of a bureau chief for the last part of my (state) government career my direct boss was a deputy executive director who always carried out the big boss's directives regardless of her personal feelings.
I certainly had my opinions on how things should be done or what things should not be done. I expressed those opinions in frequent meetings with both deputy and executive director (a big part of my job was to advise her regarding my area of expertise, don't you know).
After weighing her options and listening to all her top level underlings the e.d. made her decisions and gave us directives - and, as they always seemed lawful orders, we the lower-level employees under her supervision carried them out.
I cannot imagine disputing her decisions in any kind of open forum open to the press. I can't even imagine bad-mouthing her to my fellow employees behind her back. Where would be the up-side to that?
So - do SOME of you here have sufficient native intelligence to understand what I am saying here?
If so, then thank Allah for that.
For the rest of you, please carry on. You amuse me.
20nathanielcampbell
>19 JGL53:: "I cannot imagine disputing her decisions in any kind of open forum open to the press."
Did you even read the article you linked to in the OP? "DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart reportedly told a group of sheriffs at a closed-door conference in Washington that she was frustrated by the administration's recent openness toward state legalization. Although Leonhart's remarks were not made publicly..."
She did NOT make her remarks "in any kind of open forum open to the press."
Did you even read the article you linked to in the OP? "DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart reportedly told a group of sheriffs at a closed-door conference in Washington that she was frustrated by the administration's recent openness toward state legalization. Although Leonhart's remarks were not made publicly..."
She did NOT make her remarks "in any kind of open forum open to the press."
21JGL53
> 19
Again with the hair-splitting. We can always depend upon you, can't we, nat?
It was in the public - or a big enough chunk of the public to matter. It was not her discussing the issue with her spouse at home over dinner. THAT is the point.
She did not learn from the example of 47 per cent Mitt Romney - or Gen. Stanley McChrystal? She thought the sheriffs would never comment - off the record - on her indiscretions after they left the meeting?
Nat, you seem as naïve as she apparently is.
Maybe she has lost it and needs to move on to a less demanding job. Perhaps professional theologian. lol.
Again with the hair-splitting. We can always depend upon you, can't we, nat?
It was in the public - or a big enough chunk of the public to matter. It was not her discussing the issue with her spouse at home over dinner. THAT is the point.
She did not learn from the example of 47 per cent Mitt Romney - or Gen. Stanley McChrystal? She thought the sheriffs would never comment - off the record - on her indiscretions after they left the meeting?
Nat, you seem as naïve as she apparently is.
Maybe she has lost it and needs to move on to a less demanding job. Perhaps professional theologian. lol.
22dekesolomon
jjwilson61 -- "If marijuana were legalized there would still be plenty of other illegal drugs and the DEA would not be disbanded. I imagine it wouldn't even be downsized. . . .
Solomon sez: You are right on both counts. Once an excuse to raise taxes is sold to the public (the DEA, the Drug War, et al.) the supposed "problem" never gets solved but grows in perpetuity. The things necessitated by the newly-sold excuse (agencies, offices, staff, etc.) just keep right on flourishing, growing ever bigger and more expensive.
What will happen if marijuana is legalized is that the sentient public will all realize that the world has not ended (as anti-drug warriors said it would). That realization will impel Washington to legalize consumption of most all the drugs that are now illegal. The nation will end up with a "sane" drug policy such as those employed by nations like Switzerland and the Netherlands.
What will become of DEA is the same thing that happens to all other useless federal agencies. Washington fraudsters will hollow the structure out so it only needs about 5 percent of the revenue it once consumed. The other 95 percent will be siphoned off and either stolen by politicians and bureaucrats or spent to pay for perks and projects that the public doesn't even know about. But they will NEVER disband DEA because it serves as a means to keep taxes going up forever -- an endless revenue stream/budget item that keeps the filthy lucre flowing into Uncle Sam's secret projects, criminal politicians, corrupt bureaucrats, and you name it. AND it makes a dandy, political football: "Anybody doesn't want to fund DEA wants our Uncle Sam to die of moral rot."
Solomon sez: You are right on both counts. Once an excuse to raise taxes is sold to the public (the DEA, the Drug War, et al.) the supposed "problem" never gets solved but grows in perpetuity. The things necessitated by the newly-sold excuse (agencies, offices, staff, etc.) just keep right on flourishing, growing ever bigger and more expensive.
What will happen if marijuana is legalized is that the sentient public will all realize that the world has not ended (as anti-drug warriors said it would). That realization will impel Washington to legalize consumption of most all the drugs that are now illegal. The nation will end up with a "sane" drug policy such as those employed by nations like Switzerland and the Netherlands.
What will become of DEA is the same thing that happens to all other useless federal agencies. Washington fraudsters will hollow the structure out so it only needs about 5 percent of the revenue it once consumed. The other 95 percent will be siphoned off and either stolen by politicians and bureaucrats or spent to pay for perks and projects that the public doesn't even know about. But they will NEVER disband DEA because it serves as a means to keep taxes going up forever -- an endless revenue stream/budget item that keeps the filthy lucre flowing into Uncle Sam's secret projects, criminal politicians, corrupt bureaucrats, and you name it. AND it makes a dandy, political football: "Anybody doesn't want to fund DEA wants our Uncle Sam to die of moral rot."
23faceinbook
>22 dekesolomon:
"Anybody doesn't want to fund DEA wants our Uncle Sam to die of moral rot."
It's doing a good job of this with a fully funded DEA.
"Anybody doesn't want to fund DEA wants our Uncle Sam to die of moral rot."
It's doing a good job of this with a fully funded DEA.
24JGL53
I might guess here that I am the only one in this conversation who has actually worked on projects with the DEA.
And one of my professors at University who was also my boss in work study (involving marijuana) later became one of the first national drug Tsars.
So, I've actually stared the beast in the face up close and personal.
Most of the rest of you, I'm guessing, are just flies buzzing around, trying to image how the larger reality functions.
And one of my professors at University who was also my boss in work study (involving marijuana) later became one of the first national drug Tsars.
So, I've actually stared the beast in the face up close and personal.
Most of the rest of you, I'm guessing, are just flies buzzing around, trying to image how the larger reality functions.
25JGL53
For those who didn't check out the link in the OP, this excerpt:
(DEA Chief) Leonhart also appears to have been upset by a flag made of hemp that flew over the U.S. Capitol on July 4 at the behest of Polis (Colorado Rep. Jared Polis -D).
Bristol County, Mass., Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson told the Herald that "she said her lowest point in 33 years in the DEA was when she learned they’d flown a hemp flag over the Capitol on July 4. The sheriffs were all shocked. This is the first time in 28 years I’ve ever heard anyone in her position be this candid.”
The flag was made with industrial hemp, which is not a drug.
"This shows how shockingly out of touch Michele Leonhart is," Polis told HuffPost in an email Saturday. "You would think that one of her lowest points would have been when she completely embarrassed herself by failing to state the obvious scientific fact that marijuana is less harmful and addictive than heroin. Almost half a million Americans saw her make a fool of herself."
I agree. Anyone at this point who thinks (industrial non-abusive) hemp should continue to be banned is revealing themselves to be a Fool - i.e., an ideologue whose alum-up-the-arse opinions on this entire subject should be utterly discounted.
(DEA Chief) Leonhart also appears to have been upset by a flag made of hemp that flew over the U.S. Capitol on July 4 at the behest of Polis (Colorado Rep. Jared Polis -D).
Bristol County, Mass., Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson told the Herald that "she said her lowest point in 33 years in the DEA was when she learned they’d flown a hemp flag over the Capitol on July 4. The sheriffs were all shocked. This is the first time in 28 years I’ve ever heard anyone in her position be this candid.”
The flag was made with industrial hemp, which is not a drug.
"This shows how shockingly out of touch Michele Leonhart is," Polis told HuffPost in an email Saturday. "You would think that one of her lowest points would have been when she completely embarrassed herself by failing to state the obvious scientific fact that marijuana is less harmful and addictive than heroin. Almost half a million Americans saw her make a fool of herself."
I agree. Anyone at this point who thinks (industrial non-abusive) hemp should continue to be banned is revealing themselves to be a Fool - i.e., an ideologue whose alum-up-the-arse opinions on this entire subject should be utterly discounted.
26BruceCoulson
An investor in wood-pulp paper plants might well oppose greater legalization of hemp, for completely selfish but rational reasons. So, it's not a given that everyone who opposes a change to the current laws is a fool, capital F or not.
My personal opinion is that we've fought the War on Drugs for over a century, and we've lost. Time to acknowledge the fact, make what peace we can with the new order, and get on with things.
My personal opinion is that we've fought the War on Drugs for over a century, and we've lost. Time to acknowledge the fact, make what peace we can with the new order, and get on with things.
27JGL53
> 26
"An investor in wood-pulp paper plants might well oppose greater legalization of hemp, for completely selfish but rational reasons. So, it's not a given that everyone who opposes a change to the current laws is a fool, capital F or not."
The other option being she is on the take from the wood-pulp industry. OK.
"My personal opinion is that we've fought the War on Drugs for over a century, and we've lost. Time to acknowledge the fact, make what peace we can with the new order, and get on with things."
Yes.
"An investor in wood-pulp paper plants might well oppose greater legalization of hemp, for completely selfish but rational reasons. So, it's not a given that everyone who opposes a change to the current laws is a fool, capital F or not."
The other option being she is on the take from the wood-pulp industry. OK.
"My personal opinion is that we've fought the War on Drugs for over a century, and we've lost. Time to acknowledge the fact, make what peace we can with the new order, and get on with things."
Yes.
28nathanielcampbell
>21 JGL53:: "Again with the hair-splitting."
Yes, we wouldn't want things like accuracy to get in the way, now would we?
Yes, we wouldn't want things like accuracy to get in the way, now would we?
29JGL53
> 28
Yes, you are a stickler for accuracy.
Your pseudo-understandings and wrong-headed utterances never waver from hitting the bull's-eye of ersatz verisimilitude almost exactly in the center - every time.
You are the best at what you do. You are awarded the gold metal. Now don't go and get it bronzed.
Yes, you are a stickler for accuracy.
Your pseudo-understandings and wrong-headed utterances never waver from hitting the bull's-eye of ersatz verisimilitude almost exactly in the center - every time.
You are the best at what you do. You are awarded the gold metal. Now don't go and get it bronzed.
30dekesolomon
> 24 -- I might guess that you are the only one in this conversation who WOULD work for the DEA. I've done a great many things in my life but I never. . . .
31JGL53
> 30
Didn't say "for". Said "with".
We already have enough poor readers here at LT forum who refuse to stop putting words in my mouth. So - why not just pay attention and peruse the posts of others thoroughly before addressing straw men. That would be the solomonesque wise thing to do. lol.
In any case, my work with DEA agents were not on the subject of illegal drugs. It was regarding illegal activities concerning legal drugs (with abuse potential), all paid for with taxpayers money.
Thusly I think that I wore a white hat.
And I don't give a crap what you think.
Didn't say "for". Said "with".
We already have enough poor readers here at LT forum who refuse to stop putting words in my mouth. So - why not just pay attention and peruse the posts of others thoroughly before addressing straw men. That would be the solomonesque wise thing to do. lol.
In any case, my work with DEA agents were not on the subject of illegal drugs. It was regarding illegal activities concerning legal drugs (with abuse potential), all paid for with taxpayers money.
Thusly I think that I wore a white hat.
And I don't give a crap what you think.
32dekesolomon
> 23, faceinbook writes "It's America is doing a good job dying of rot with a fully funded DEA."
Solomon sez: Yer right this time, FIB. What you said is exactly my sarcastic point > 22.
Solomon sez: Yer right this time, FIB. What you said is exactly my sarcastic point > 22.
33dekesolomon
JGL53 writes: "> 30
Didn't say "for". Said "with".
In any case, my work with DEA agents were not on the subject of illegal drugs. It was regarding illegal activities concerning legal drugs (with abuse potential), all paid for with taxpayers money.
> Solomon sez: What's the difference? I'm sure the money you got from DEA was taxpayer's money. Thing is you didn't get it from taxpayers, did you?
> JGL53 writes: Thusly I think that I wore a white hat.
> Solomon sez: It stands to reason that you would think so. What's that line we heard here the other day? Something about it's difficult to convince a man he's wrong when he gets paid for being wrong?
Didn't say "for". Said "with".
In any case, my work with DEA agents were not on the subject of illegal drugs. It was regarding illegal activities concerning legal drugs (with abuse potential), all paid for with taxpayers money.
> Solomon sez: What's the difference? I'm sure the money you got from DEA was taxpayer's money. Thing is you didn't get it from taxpayers, did you?
> JGL53 writes: Thusly I think that I wore a white hat.
> Solomon sez: It stands to reason that you would think so. What's that line we heard here the other day? Something about it's difficult to convince a man he's wrong when he gets paid for being wrong?
34JGL53
> 33
Didn't get paid by the DEA. Worked for another agency.
If you are having trouble seeing straight call your oculist and set up an appointment. (If you are actually dyslexic then I apologize - that is a serious matter.)
We all here are aware that you are an anarchist and that you think all government is bad and all who work for the government are bad people because of that.
That is why no one here takes you seriously. Utopian ideologues are only taken seriously by other utopian ideologues.
Everyone else thinks you have a "problem". And I think they are correct.
Didn't get paid by the DEA. Worked for another agency.
If you are having trouble seeing straight call your oculist and set up an appointment. (If you are actually dyslexic then I apologize - that is a serious matter.)
We all here are aware that you are an anarchist and that you think all government is bad and all who work for the government are bad people because of that.
That is why no one here takes you seriously. Utopian ideologues are only taken seriously by other utopian ideologues.
Everyone else thinks you have a "problem". And I think they are correct.
35StormRaven
Only an insecure boss would fire someone solely for what is being reported that Leonhart did, even one in the private sector.
It is routine for political appointees to be removed from positions for doing the sorts of thing that Leonhart did.
It is routine for political appointees to be removed from positions for doing the sorts of thing that Leonhart did.
36dekesolomon
> 34 -- If what you think carried any weight, I MIGHT be upset, but I kindly f---ing doubt it. Regardless, you should have told this thread about your DEA connection before making comments on this thread.
Solomon sez: For Everybody Else, I am not an anarchist. I'm a libertarian socialist. I don't believe that government is a bad thing. I merely believe that our present government is hopelessly, irredeemably corrupt and needs to be thrown out by the most expeditious means.
I believe in the Constitution and in my Uncle Sam. My only gripe is that I believe our Uncle Sam has been kidnapped by ruthless corruptocrats and is in need of rescue.
Solomon sez: For Everybody Else, I am not an anarchist. I'm a libertarian socialist. I don't believe that government is a bad thing. I merely believe that our present government is hopelessly, irredeemably corrupt and needs to be thrown out by the most expeditious means.
I believe in the Constitution and in my Uncle Sam. My only gripe is that I believe our Uncle Sam has been kidnapped by ruthless corruptocrats and is in need of rescue.
37dekesolomon
> 36 -- StormRavin' is correct in this instance.
38lriley
What we have in the United States is an ever increasing Corporate run government. That is why this ongoing war against the social safety network. Corporations/Banks don't like it and at least since Reagan every presidential administration has been in their pocket and have advanced their agenda even if only marginally. The Obama administration has been complicit as well--just need to look at the trade agreements that they keep on pushing which almost always trade off American jobs for corporative or multinational profit. I imagine the next administration whether democrat or republican will continue to work for the same Corporative type goals. This is a major point of frustration with the Democratic party for me. As a parallel in Britain Tony Blair eventually replaces Thatcher/Major running as a new kind of Labour candidate. In his world you can hang with the liberal elites and talk about social reform and still continue on Thatcher's Ayn Rand-ish like Milton Friedman-ish economic policies. This IMO is exactly what Clinton did carrying on the legacy of Reagan/Bush 1's economic world view despite the damage it did to the working middle class and the working poor in the United States during his time in office--something that was masked by the growth of a new investor class which was more than less destroyed in the final months of Bush 2's years. They've--(including Clinton and Obama) done their part to create the wealth gap between the super-rich and most everyone else. All this they (whether democrat or republican) plan to continue and we can expect the super rich including those like the Koch brothers to continue to get even wealthier and to continue to have even more influence over electing those who will do their will at least until they stop breathing.
39JGL53
> 36
My "connection" with the DEA was rather tenuous at best, as I plainly explained.
Plus I have had nothing but bad things to say about the present DEA chief. How does that make me a government sycophant who defends the DEA?
You remind me of "Professor" Irwin Corey from the old Smothers Brothers show. When I see your user name for now on I will automatically think of his face. That is your face.
And you are a "libertarian socialist"? So you are like a equal mixture of Ayn Rand and Karl Marx?
Christ on a crutch. I'd rather sit down to dinner with Satan. At least at one time he was known as the "light-bringer". I can't identify what it is you are bringing here but it ain't light.
My "connection" with the DEA was rather tenuous at best, as I plainly explained.
Plus I have had nothing but bad things to say about the present DEA chief. How does that make me a government sycophant who defends the DEA?
You remind me of "Professor" Irwin Corey from the old Smothers Brothers show. When I see your user name for now on I will automatically think of his face. That is your face.
And you are a "libertarian socialist"? So you are like a equal mixture of Ayn Rand and Karl Marx?
Christ on a crutch. I'd rather sit down to dinner with Satan. At least at one time he was known as the "light-bringer". I can't identify what it is you are bringing here but it ain't light.
40lriley
#39
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
A far cry from anything Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman would approve of don't you think? You get hung up on your own definitions sometimes.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
A far cry from anything Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman would approve of don't you think? You get hung up on your own definitions sometimes.
41JGL53
> 40
The whole website is a pile of Utopian Bullshit.
Let's move on.
So - I have an idea where everyone will run around naked. This will greatly decrease class distinctions and contribute to world peace.
Will you help me sell it to the masses?
And don't worry about the size of your penis and/or vagina. All will be declared equal in the new naked utopia.
(The chances of us taking over one day? - about the same as the libertarian-socialists.)
lol.
The whole website is a pile of Utopian Bullshit.
Let's move on.
So - I have an idea where everyone will run around naked. This will greatly decrease class distinctions and contribute to world peace.
Will you help me sell it to the masses?
And don't worry about the size of your penis and/or vagina. All will be declared equal in the new naked utopia.
(The chances of us taking over one day? - about the same as the libertarian-socialists.)
lol.
43JGL53
> 42
Well, yes, finally I did misspeak. Of course I meant web page.
Though, on the other hand, ......
Well, yes, finally I did misspeak. Of course I meant web page.
Though, on the other hand, ......
44dekesolomon
> 39 and > 40
Iriley -- My thoughts on history are laid out quite well in Chapter 3, "Legally Piggily," in R. Buckminster Fuller's Critical Path. Fuller's idea was that we nationalize the oil, steel, rail industries and all public utilities. More stuff in a similar vein. It ain't necessary to read the whole book (it's big and often boring), but Chapter 3 will amuse and make a lot of sense to anyone who thinks as I do that the human race created government with every intention that it should look out for ALL of us instead of only the self-appointed elites.
JGL53 -- I had you blocked for months. Didn't read a word you posted. The other day I pulled the lid off your trash can and found you still inside spouting the same old gibberish. So you're blocked again. You still have nothing to say that I need or want to hear.
Iriley -- My thoughts on history are laid out quite well in Chapter 3, "Legally Piggily," in R. Buckminster Fuller's Critical Path. Fuller's idea was that we nationalize the oil, steel, rail industries and all public utilities. More stuff in a similar vein. It ain't necessary to read the whole book (it's big and often boring), but Chapter 3 will amuse and make a lot of sense to anyone who thinks as I do that the human race created government with every intention that it should look out for ALL of us instead of only the self-appointed elites.
JGL53 -- I had you blocked for months. Didn't read a word you posted. The other day I pulled the lid off your trash can and found you still inside spouting the same old gibberish. So you're blocked again. You still have nothing to say that I need or want to hear.
