Who's Chooming Who in Obama's America?

Nice drug-war column by Cato's Gene Healy in the D.C. Examiner. Excerpt:

In his high school yearbook photo, President Barack Obama sports a white leisure suit and a Travolta-esque collar whose wingspan could put a bystander's eye out. Hey, it was 1979.

Maybe that explains the rest of young Barry's yearbook page, with its "still life" featuring a pack of rolling papers and a shout-out to the "Choom gang." ("Chooming" is Hawaiian slang for smoking pot.)

Far be it from me to condemn our president for harmless (and amusing) youthful indiscretions. […]

Yet, in his new National Drug Control Strategy, Obama "firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit drug" and boasts of his administration's aggressive approach to pot eradication. Watch your back, Choom Gang.

Whole thing here. I wrote about Obama's drug hypocrisy earlier this month.

Comments

[wylie]

Obama "firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit drug" and boasts of his administration's aggressive approach to pot eradication.

Does that count as a campaign promise? If so, we got nothin to worry bout.

[WTF]

Excellent observation.

[John]

Back in the 80s people had this theory that the drug laws were doomed. It held that once baby boomers rather than World War II generation types got into positions of power, they would have to loosen the drug laws since unlike the World War II generation, they had done drugs when they were growing up in the 60s and 70s.

It was a good theory. And it made sense. The only problem was that it didn't take into account just how craven and hypocritical the baby boom generation actually is.

[heller]

It also didn't take into account that teenagers will always become their parents, no matter how rebellious they originally are.

[Slap the Enlightened!]

Remember that the next time Jesse Walker posts an article ballyhooing the eventual triumph of gay marriage because our current twentysomthings support it.

There may not be many benefits to getting old, but one of the few is learning to recognize when you're getting old wine in a new bottle.

[John]

Very true. There is something about people having kids. I am quite sure that a lot of the 20 somethings who think gay marriage is so groovy when their friends are doing it, won't think it is so groovy when their son or daughter does it. Not saying it is right. But that is just how it seems to work out.

[NAL]

Kids definitely change everything in your life. You can't stay late at work to excel anymore (without jeopardizing your marriage and being a rotten parent, that is), you can't just sit and read, and you can't do anything impromptu anymore. Everything has to be planned around sleeping schedules, daycare schedules, school schedules, little-league, soccer etc. It's almost a complete loss of freedom. ...What were we talking about again?

Oh, yeah, with so much time and effort invested in kids, it's no surprise that parents become a little less liberal with them and want to "guide" them a little too much.

[Tulpa]

While having kids has always been a significant investment of time and money, it was not always as demanding as it is today. Farmers and factory workers who put in six days a week, 12 hours a day at work still (obviously) raised kids (and in many cases kids that were less fucked up and smarter than kids today).

One problem was discussed a few days ago here -- kids are not as independent as they once were and need tending at later and later ages than they used to. Another problem is that parents have fewer children, so you don't have the option of having the older kids watch the younger ones for most of their childhoods.

The main problem, from a societal point of view -- and one I shudder to mention because I know it's going to get me flamed -- is the fact that few women accept the role of 24/7 child caretaker anymore. Obviously that expectation was horrible with respect to the individual rights of women, but it was extremely convenient for society.

[John]

You are right. If you think about what happened in the last 70 years, here is what we did. We raised taxes and increased the size of government. That made it very hard to raise a family on one income. So we financed that by bringing women into the workforce and making so most families had two incomes. Many families have one primary bread winner and one person who works primarily to pay the taxes of the primary bread winner. That is how it was for my family growing up.

When you think about it, big government in many ways was built on the backs of children. That was of course a good thing to the progressive theorists who wanted to replace the family with the state. I am not sure sure the children thought it was such a great idea though.

[Zeb]

I don't think that gay marriage is much of a paralell to drug legalization in the way you suggest. The best evidence is that we do, in fact, have gay marriage now. We do not have legalized drugs in any state.
The other thing to consider is that drugs actually are harmful in many cases. We all know that that is not a good reason for prohibition, but lazy parents will want government to protect their children from all the nasties out there. Being gay is quite mainstream and acceptable at this point and stopping gay marriage is not going to stop gayness in your children.

[Jesse Walker]

Remember that the next time Jesse Walker posts an article ballyhooing the eventual triumph of gay marriage because our current twentysomthings support it.

As I've said before, "People who were carefree about drugs in their own lives might revise their opinions if they find out their kids are smoking pot. But if you find out your kid is gay, that's likely to make you more tolerant, not less."

[J sub D]

It was a good theory. And it made sense. The only problem was that it didn't take into account just how craven and hypocritical some of the baby boom generation actually is.

FIFY.
The rest of us have gotten angry and cynical. We still toke when appropriate. Sunrise being one such occasion. 😉 We despise drug warriors, especially hypocrites like our last three presidents, for their craven pandering.

I knew The War on Sanity was wrong in 1973 and 37 more years of it have only buttressed my conviction.

[Enough About Palin]

You wait for the sun to come up???

[Cunctator]

Wake & Bake

[Tulpa]

It definitely didn't take into account that the Greatest Generation would still be dominating the electorate when those boomers came to power.

[DWCarkuff]

Not all of us.

[Dello]

I would pay extra for one of his old dope smoking gang members to get busted and write a tell-all.

[wylie]

Provided the guy wasnt disappeared to guantanamo.

[Otis Schmotis]

Hey, that's closed! Er, nevermind. That was a campaign promise. Of course it's still open.

[John]

In the real fever swamps people claim he had a gay lover in Chicago who was mysteriously whacked right before his Presidential campaign.

[BakedPenguin]

That was the flamboyant guy who said they had coke parties, right? The YouTube video was hilarious.

[heller]

Barry was only a young boy back then. We can't expect ideological consistency so far back. High school, presidential campaign promises, it's all ancient history you know?

[Enough About Palin]

"boy"

RACIST!

[heller]

"RACIST!"

boy!

[?]

That participant-sized tennis trophy is fuckin' street.

Remember that the next time Jesse Walker posts an article ballyhooing the eventual triumph of gay marriage because our current twentysomthings support it.

Legal gay marriage is an enlargement of the sphere of state authority. Those never fail. Relax.

[IceTrey]

It's SAME SEX marriage. Gays can already get legally married. It just has to be to someone of the opposite gender.

[John]

Listen. Obama has to live for the rest of his life wondering how much of a success he might have been if he just hadn't smoked all that pot back in high school.

Children that should serve as a warning to all of you.

[vanya]

So if Clinton, Bush and Obama hadn't done drugs then they would have all been good Presidents? Is that the message we're supposed to tell our kids?

[Tulpa]

If Bush hadn't done drugs, maybe he wouldn't have run the Rangers franchise into the ground and traded Sammy Sosa and Alex Rodriguez.

[PR]

You mean the 1st place Texas Rangers?Bush didn't run it into the ground. Tom Hicks did. Hicks is also the guy who acquired and traded A-rod.

[John]

And Sosa wasn't doing roids when he was in Texas. In Texas he was just a guy who didn't hit many homeruns and struck out a lot. Only later did he go on the juice and become Sammy Sosa.

[Jersey Patriot]

All the more reason to keep marijauna illegal. Apparently it's a gateway drug to the Presidency.

[Rich]

"WE GO PLAY HOOP?"

[Dagny T.]

That was my major objection as well. I'm unsure whether that is a Hawaii thing, a 70's thing, or just damn stupid.

[Geoff Nathan]

It's a Hawaii thing. It means 'Shall we play basketball?'. Hawaiian English is somewhat different from standard North American English, especially in informal contexts.
On the other hand, I lived there for many years and never heard 'choom'. The correct word is 'pakalolo'.

[heller]

Uh, isn't that just jive?

[Slut Bunwalla]

The best part is

L
A
T
E
R
S

[John]

Obama actually looked like kind of a fun guy when he was in high school. What happened? How did he turn into such a narcissistic asshole as an adult?

[marlok]

College

[PapayaSF]

I see nothing on the yearbook page that precludes him from being a narcissistic asshole back then.

By the way, why did it take until 18 months after the election for someone to find his yearbook page?

[John]

Good question. Almost as if the media didn't want it to come out.

[Enough About Palin]

Who gets an entire yearbook page?

[vanya]

Punahou is an expensive private school. I think everyone gets their own page. Parents want their moneys worth.

[heller]

I got one. Small school.

[vanya]

This picture has been floating around the intertubes since 2007, at least:

http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog/20.....-the-gang/

The simple, racist, explanation for no media coverage is that the headline "black man smoked marijuana!" is probably not going to shock many readers.

[PapayaSF]

And yet I get the feeling that if a blogger had posted an equivalent page from a Republican's candidate's yearbook, we'd have all seen it before the election....

[vanya]

But, to give the media some credit, Republicans smoking pot subvert reader expectations, everyone already "knows" black Democrats smoke pot. Liberals should be upset the media buried the whole "Obama loves golf" story - that was a tip off Obama was going to be a lot more centrist than leftists wanted.

[PapayaSF]

Mmmm, not sure that holds up. Everyone also "knows" that Republicans get caught in sex scandals, and that big-city Democrats get caught in corruption scandals. Yet again, the media coverage (or lack of it) tends to favor Democrats.

[kinnath]

Law School 😉

[Dan T.]

Well, a lot of you guys were probably pretty cool back in high school as well, before you turned into a bunch of selfish and bitter know-it-alls...

[Tulpa]

I was actually a bit of an ugly duckling. I spent more time with my face submerged in a toilet bowl than submerged in a vagina.

[PapayaSF]

So Dan, were you cool in high school before you turned into a bitter website troll, or were you always like this? Or are you still in high school?

[Choomer]

Give him some credit. The hands off approach when it comes to not raiding dispensaries is way ahead of GW's, and I'm optimistic that once CA's legalization initiative passes we'll see a similar hands off approach from the Fed govt.

Besides, when has a libertarian ever been worth a fuck when it comes to actually increasing the level of personal freedom? Isn't all of this "free the weed" talk just cover to distance the libertarian movement from its true nature - republican and conservative to the core? Go back to proclaiming the virtues of corporate greed and defending racist tards from the south - that's your core competency. Decriminalizing pot, like same sex marriage, is a "big govt." lefty thing.

[John]

Dude, if you are going to post on here and pretend to be a libertarian, at least try to get your facts right.

"The hands off approach when it comes to not raiding dispensaries is way ahead of GW's"

http://blogs.westword.com/late....._chris.php

The raids go merely on.

[Choomer]

I'm not a libertarian. As far as I'm concerned libertarian is just the new word for GOP. Thanks for citing this one raid - it looks like a local case of an overzealous DEA agent, someone who's apparently on record as saying he doesn't care what the DOJ position is.

As long as we keep electing liberal Democrats I'm confident that we'll be able to chip away at DEA funding, get rid of assclowns like the Denver DEA field office head who initiated this raid, and allow the movements in blue states like CA and CO to legalize weed to move inexorably forward.

What's your plan? Oh right, keep sucking the GOP's dick, because they have a soft place in their heart for clowns like Rand.

[John]

Yeah, lets vote Democrat so we can get socialism to go with empty promises to end the drug war. Sure man. The Democrats will stop beating you some day. And besides, they really do love you and you were kind of being lippy anyway.

[Choomer]

The politicians and party I support might not be perfect, but they're getting me closer to a better society (by my standards) than anything envisioned by the GOP and Rand Paul.

The socialism thing is pretty funny. I'm guessing you're an old angry man. Are you a birther too?

[BakedPenguin]

"One" raid? ONE? Choom boy, get your head out of your fucking asshole. It might be nice and warm up there, but it's dark as hell and I bet it smells.

And keep on voting for the War on Drugs, you stupid cuntsore. I wish all the innocent people in prison for possession of unfavored substances were made up exclusively of shit like you. Then I could just laugh about how it was just a collection of dicks getting what they deserve.

[Choomer]

Hey Baked - I've got a place in Altadena that's within walking distance to plenty of dispensaries. And who's to thank for my medical card and club card? Not the party of Rand Fucking Paul, that's for sure. It's all thanks to good, liberal Democrats. I also have a few friends who could benefit from legalized same sex marriage. Who do I thank for that? Again, not the party of Rand Paul.

But if I ever feel like giving a free pass to BP, or predatory lenders and other asswipes in the financial services industry, I know who to vote for.

[JW]

^This^ is why I don't bother talking politics to leftists. I'd make some allegory about pigs and singing, but I have too high an opinion of pigs.

[Rhayader]

You know, plenty of us despise the GOP at least as much as we despise the Democrats. I'll say it: I voted for Obama last go-round.

And I actually think you're right: he's been better with drug policy than any president since Carter. Of course, that's really not saying much. And I don't think it's out of bounds to call attention to some of the drug policy doublespeak and hypocrisy we're seeing from this administration. Unfortunately in this case, "better" is still far from good enough.

[Cunctator]

Gee, and I thought the Clubs & Cards were the result of a voter initiative, at least here in California. I don't remember any LIBDEM state politicians coming out in support at the time. I guess if something is working (sort of) then it's proper for the Govt. types to take credit.

[Apogee]

Clubs & Cards were, and are, the result of voter initiative.

Even with full LibDem control of the State, it took the motion of Lee's initiative to get some of Choomer's heroes off their ass, a full 14 years after the passage of initiative 215 in '96. The reason? They ran the state into the ground and now need more tax money - from anywhere.

[Paul]

But if I ever feel like giving a free pass to BP, or predatory lenders and other asswipes in the financial services industry, I know who to vote for.

Obama and Democrats, apparently.

[Apogee]

But if I ever feel like giving a free pass to BP, or predatory lenders and other asswipes in the financial services industry, I know who to vote for.

Yeah, the same people you've been voting for, because 'good little Democrats' like yourselves are too stupid to think outside the box.

Obama and the rest of the Dems will shit down your throat all day long, and you'll ignore it.

Your fear that somebody else who isn't so easy to demonize might show you as the sycophant follower that you are, and that scares the shit out of you. That's the real reason you're here.

[DWCarkuff]

Well, you're just not paying attention if you think libertarian is synonymous with GOP.

[WTF]

Republican and conservative to the core?

Are you really that stupid, or are you just not a very good troll?

And "big government lefty thing"?

I'm getting the impression you haven't the slightest clue what the fuck you're talking about. I sure don't.

[J sub D]

He must have missed the arguments about GWB being the worst post FDR president or if that honor goes to LBJ.

When team red fanboys think of libertarians they see a bunch of right wing racists that want to set the elderly adrift on icebergs.

When taem blue fanboys think of libertarians they see a bunch of hippie dope smokers who want to surrender to Islamofascists by respecting the bill of rights.

[Tonio]

Bravo!

[The Bill of Rights]

I am not a suicide pact.

[Choomer]

J sub D (and Tonio) - I think you have the color thing backwards; red = conservative, blue = liberal. Try switching those around, and your statement will make more sense.

I live in a pretty blue community. It's nice. The cops look the other way when someone smokes a lefthander (or they occupy themselves with more pressing issues), lots of same sex couples, good schools, good restaurants, and successful people. It's also a pretty generous community insofar as people support local charities and shelters. Our govt. is a reflection of that - we send good, liberal/progressive Democrats to the city council, mayor's office, and house of reps. This community voted overwhelmingly for Obama, and to look at the number of Obama bumper stickers around here I'm guessing people are still happy with their decision.

What the fuck does someone get by voting for a Libertarian/GOP/Conservative candidate? The sense of comfort that comes from knowing that "socialism" has been rolled back? From where I sit, it looks more like a movement based on resentment towards people who are considered "elite" or minorities who are encroaching on the "rights" of others. I think if you drop the sense of bitter entitlement and class animosity you'll be able to look at things a little more clearly, and realize that giving business a free hand and viewing the govt. as an enemy in every situation isn't the best approach to policy.

[ChrisO]

I'm guessing a bureaucrat of some kind. Clearly never tried to do business in his "pretty blue community."

[Choomer]

Yeah dumb fuck - because lord knows I'd be able to find a university supported tech research incubator, investment capital, and people with advanced degrees and programming experience in computing out in the hinterlands of rural bumblefuck - AKA libertarian/tea party country.

If I ever have the desire to run a god damned Applebees, shooting range, Wal-Mart, or bowling alley you know I'll be the first in line to move out to "libertarian country" or a community that elects good 'ol American god-fearin, apple pie eatin' ignoramuses. Until then, I think I'll stay where the money is. And who needs VC networking clubs when you have bible study groups? I hear the latter are great for gettin' yer business done - "I hear Jim Bob could use some siding on his house, cha-ching! God bless small business! Obama is a socialist, boooo!"

[Chinny Chin Chin]

I think if you drop the sense of bitter entitlement and class animosity you'll get a much more thoughtful response to your ideas.

[Paul]

Chinny Chin wins the thread.

I'd like to add:

If I ever have the desire to run a god damned Applebees, shooting range, Wal-Mart, or bowling alley you know I'll be the first in line to move out to "libertarian country"

Yeah, because everyone leaving the Blue State is running an Applebee's, WalMart or gun range.

In LA, the city is trying to stamp out Marijuana dispensaries. For a guy named "Choomer" you'd think this kind of Blue Community reaction would concern you.

[JW]

I think if you drop the sense of bitter entitlement and class animosity you'll get a much more thoughtful response to your ideas.

But then how would he be the undeservedly condescending, ignorant shitstain that he has tried so, so hard to be?

[Otis Schmotis]

Lived in two 'blue communities'- Cleveland and Detroit. Now I live in a nice 'red community'. It doesn't have a lot of people smoking 'lefthanders', but nor does it have 30%+ unemployment, union goonery, a daily homicide or three, or 10,000 homes being bulldozed so as to reduce the housing stock and otherwise hide the fact that people are fleeing in huge numbers.

[Nobody]

It's my guess that this liberal oasis is just some college town. Being surrounded by kids living on their parents dime and 30-somethings who never grew up might have something to do with Choomer's blurred point of view and belligerent dismissals.

[Apogee]

It's my guess that this liberal oasis is just some college town.

Nope. Unless you count JPL as a 'college'. The word choice of tech research incubator, investment capital, and people with advanced degrees and programming experience in computing makes me think that it's a JPL/NASA employee - which, if true, explains the bitter bureaucrat thesis. It must be difficult to have your hero cut your funding.

[Paul]

Flip the teams, Jsub, and I'm all with you.

[Zeb]

Are you really that fucking stupid?

Try looking back in the Archives to when Bush was president and see how Republican libertarians are. Or are you one of those idiots who thinks that libertarianism was invented by the tea party people?

[Rhayader]

Yeah seriously, Republicans actually trigger my gag reflex. There is nothing remotely libertarian-friendly about mainstream GOP groupthink, and vice-versa.

[heller]

Come on people, you can troll better than that.

[Darkeyes]

At the end of the article, Healy says,

But Obama may soon be presented with an unwelcome test of character. In November, Californians will likely approve a ballot initiative legalizing recreational pot use. Will Obama ignore the people's will and continue to prosecute marijuana users in our largest state?

He has five months to think about doing the right thing.

I have to ask: what polls is Healy reading? In this (almost) sure-to-be Republican year, I'd say this initiative is doomed to failure.

[Joe_D]

But it'll be sold as a boon to the economy... that might convince enough Repulbicans.

[kinnath]

California makes lots of cash off the pornography business. Money talks.

[Rhayader]

Is there any actual polling out on this yet? I've been wondering for a while about how realistic this initiative's chances are.

[John]

Some Republicans were less kind.
http://www.breitbart.com/artic....._article=1

"He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans," Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., told reporters. "He's pretty thin-skinned."

Maybe they can go find the choom gang wherever they are now and they can reunite and become a kitchen cabinet for Obama.

[WTF]

So the point of this article is that Obama is a world-class hypocritical asshole?

Color me surprised.

[Ray]

Bush's past drug use neccesitated never-ending whines of hypocrisy from the Left. I am shocked they aren't mentioning it about Obama....

[Joe_D]

But in Kenya, Choom means "Good Christian Charity". Pick your poison.

[Rhayader]

Nah, weed's not poisonous.

[Dan T.]

You would think a group of folks so dedicated to the Consitution would understand that the President's job is to enforce laws, not make them.

President Obama cannot make marijuana legal, only Congress could do that.

[Chinny Chin Chin]

makes all that election-season "hope" and "change" talk kinda silly, then, doesn't it?

I mean, what were Obama supporters thinking he would do?

[Paul]

Putting aside the obvious expectations surrounding his supporters' chants of "Hope...Change!", he does have control over tens, hundreds, nay maybe thousands of unelected, appointed bureaucrats who can make significant changes to our approach.

Afterall, we're no longer a nation of laws, we're a nation of unelected career bureaucrats, so actually in these here modern times, the president has a lot of power regarding how the country is run.

[Tulpa]

In that case his pronouncement that he would not conduct raids of clinics that comply with state laws is unconstitutional.

[Dan T's Civics Teacher]

"the President's job is to enforce laws"

I tried, people. I mean I really, really tried, but you know, with some kids, you're better of spending the time ass-raping a dead goat.

[Buttman]

Mmmm....smells delicious.

[P Brooks]

You would think a group of folks so dedicated to the Consitution would understand that the President's job is to enforce laws, not make them.

The stork brought us Obamacare, right?

[Geoff Nathan]

And of course DanT thinks there's a provision in the constitution forbidding the President from proposing to end some stupid law, like 'Don't ask, don't tell'. And calling congresscritters to encourage them to do it.

[Dan T.]

If by "stork" you mean "Congress", then yes.

[Paul]

Yet, in his new National Drug Control Strategy, Obama "firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit drug"

I'd say the obvious, but even I admit it's getting old.

[Dan T.]

BTW, before he was elected Obama said he was not interested in legalizing pot.

[Paul]

He also said he was going to vote against telecom immunity. So we kinda hoped that... you know, he might have been lying about drug policy, too.

[Dan T.]

My feeling is that Obama probably would like to legalize cannabis but understands that it's a poltical battle he cannot win, and plus he's busy trying to clean up the Bush regimes' various messes which is a sligtly higher priority, no pun intended.

[heller]

Yeah I do the same thing when I try to clean up messes. Spread them around, really grind them into the carpet until people are used to them, etc.

[Cunctator]

And there is no sense taking a pricipled stand if you know you can't win, right?

[Cunctator]

"principled"

[Dan T.]

Obama himself has said that he is a pragmatist.

There is a word for politicians who take "principled stands": unemployed

[Tulpa]

Then he should have been pragmatic when he was campaigning, and not promised that he would take principled stands.

There is a word for politicians who make promises they can't keep: liars.

[heller]

Well if his other promises are any indicator, we should be seeing pot legalization any day now.

[Alex]

"We're not at war with people in this country," the president's drug czar insists, so we should stop calling it a "war on drugs," which leads Americans to see it "as a war on them."

He doesn't know "drugs" from "droogs." Owes us appy-polly-loggies.

[heller]

Boffo.

[Ted S.]

Shouldn't it be "Who's Chooming Whom"? 😉

[Paul]

I'd like to make an observation about how when other politicians fail to come through on their grand visions and campaign promises, they lied or were beholden to "special interests".

When Obama does it, he's merely facing the political realities of Washington and is being "presidential".

Now, it's not that I fault Obama more than other politicians-- it's just the sting is going to be worse. Just like it is when a moralizing family-values Republican gets caught in a cheap hotel having gay monkey sex with a male prostitute while on Meth; the fall is much harder.

I do believe that there are "political realities" in Washington. But when you say you're going to enact real "Hope and Change" into Washington politics, you are implicitly saying that you're going to fight against those political realities; you're going to knock the political realities down.

Practically speaking, every politician- especially non-incumbents are running on a platform promising to do away with the political realities. When they get into office and can't enact their agenda, then shrug and say "When I got to Washington, I found there were political realities".

No, you didn't "find political realities", you knew the political realities were there. You spent a year on the campaign trail telling us about those political realities you were going to defeat.

[Paul]

Obama himself has said that he is a pragmatist.

There is a word for politicians who take "principled stands": unemployed

So can we finally admit that Obama isn't, never will, and had no intention of taking any "principled stands?"

[Pat]

Drug Czar Kerlikowske is a Liar

At the same time that President Obama's drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, was telling the Irish drug czar and officials: "We've talked about a 'war on drugs' for 40 years, since President Nixon. I ended the war..."

The Obama White House was actually announcing the escalation and militarization of the Mexican border: "President Obama will deploy 1,200 National Guard troops and request an extra $500 million to secure the Mexican border..."

SEE: Obama Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske is a Liar
http://drugwartreason.blogspot.....-liar.html

The first casualty of war is still the truth.

[R C Dean]

And who needs VC networking clubs when you have bible study groups?

Believe it or not, here in West Texas we have both.

And this isn't even Austin, which, although as state capital has more than its share of stupid liberals, does indeed have plenty of tea party/libertarians, as well as "a university supported tech research incubator, investment capital, and people with advanced degrees and programming experience in computing."

So fuck you, asshole.

[Paul]

But they own guns.

[DWCarkuff]

I honestly had no idea what a craven slime Obama would turn out to be. He even fooled me into thinking he had a modicum of decency and honesty and character, even if I disagreed with him fundamentally.