Butch Otter Still Opposes Legalizing CBD Oil; Uses Hyperbole to Explain Why

Otter had a chance to sign a CBD oil bill for Idaho in April 2015, but he vetoed it. He is still the only governor in the country to veto such a bill.


In November, my first feature story for Reason profiled a young man from Idaho who suffers from intractable seizures and asked why Butch Otter, the state's governor, did not help him when he had the chance.

That young man is Josh Phillips, and he has been suffering from uncontrollable seizures since he was 10 years old. He's tried dozens of different drugs, but none have helped him. Out of other options, Josh and his family believe a marijuana-derived substance called Cannabidiol oil, or CBD oil, might offer some relief. It's worked for some people suffering from similar ailments in states where CBD is legal, including 17 states that don't have medical marijuana laws but have passed narrower CBD oil bills.

Otter had a chance to sign a CBD oil bill for Idaho in April 2015, but he vetoed it. He is still the only governor in the country to veto such a bill.

It's possible that the state legislature will give Otter another chance to sign a CBD oil bill this year, but the governor on Friday reiterated his opposition. During a press conference in Boise, Otter told reporters that there had been no change in his view on the subject.

The real change is between Otter's view today and the view he held for most of his political career. As my story noted, Otter had been a proponent of marijuana legalization for decades—from way back when he first broke into politics in the 1970s, through his successful run for governor in 2006.

There's a few different reasons why Otter seems to have changed his mind—lobbyists for law enforcement groups and pharmaceutical companies seem to have played a significant role, Reason's investigation found—but the most important consequence of his decision is that people in Idaho suffering from intractable seizures are left with fewer choices when it comes to treatment.

Otter had, after vetoing the CBD oil bill, issued an executive order creating a clinical trial for a drug called Epidiolex, which is produced by a British pharmaceutical company trying to gain FDA approval to sell the drug in the United States. The drug is basically a synthetic version of CBD, but Otter's team preferred the clinical trial because it was more standardized and controlled than CBD oil.

On Friday, Otter said the clinical trial is showing that there is "sufficient relief in many cases."

That's good news for the children who got into the Epidiolex trials—the program was capped at 25 kids (the Otter administration later lifted the cap to 38 children)—but does nothing to help anyone who unable to get into the trial or anyone who was over 18, like Josh Phillips, who will turn 20 next month.

It also doesn't help Katie Donahue, an Idaho resident who says she literally has prayed for death because she can't find a way to treat her seizures.

"I am deeply saddened at the freedom Butch Otter continues to deny extremely ill Idahoans," Donahue said in a statement provided to Reason on Friday. "I am devastated for the children who will continue forced suffering from diseases as well as stigma. I am sickened to think of families from other states having success with cannabinoid therapy not being able to experience the beauty of Idaho because freedom has been replaced with fascism."

While we're picking apart Otter's comments, there's one more thing he said Friday that deserves some scrutiny, because it speaks to his administration's overall approach to medical marijuana.

Without being asked, Otter launched into an explanation of why he opposes medical marijuana (around the 1:30 mark of the audio file above). Like his spokesman did in responding to questions from Reason two months ago, Otter referenced a conversation with a governor of another state (without giving a name) who supposedly told Otter that medical marijuana was "a disaster."

"Almost anybody who goes into the doctor with a hangnail in some of those states can get a medical marijuana card," Otter claimed.

That's obvious hyperbole, but trying to argue with Otter over those details misses the more important point.

In March 2015, Otter wasn't asked to legalize medical marijuana (though if he had been, given his history of support for marijuana, it would still have been a surprise for him not to sign the bill). He wasn't asked to change state policy so anyone with a hangnail could get marijuana. He wasn't even asked to legalize medical marijuana for people suffering from intractable seizures.

No. He was given a bill that would have, in narrow terms, legalized one specific marijuana derivative that lacks the ability to get anyone high (because CBD oil contains no THC, the psychoactive component of marijuana) and would have allowed one specific group of people—residents of Idaho with intractable seizures—to access that product by getting permission from their doctors.

That's hardly the same as letting "anybody who goes to the doctor with a hangnail" get high. It's not even in the same universe, as a matter of policy. Pretending otherwise is nothing more than an attempt at obscuring the details of the CBD oil bill.

That's exactly what law enforcement lobbyists in Idaho tried to do in 2015, using similarly hyperbolic language to describe what legislation would mean. "It basically opens the door, carte blanche, to make it almost unenforceable for us to be able to stop marijuana or illegal drugs in our communities," said Shane Turman, president of the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association, at a hearing of the state Senate State Affairs Committee concerning the CBD oil bill in March 2015.

Otter shouldn't fall for that nonsense, and he certainly shouldn't be repeating it on-the-record.

State governments from coast to coast have implemented much broader medical marijuana policies than the one proposed in Idaho. It's amazing that someone who once told Reason "If a person, of his own free will, wants to use marijuana, I question whether the government has any propriety in telling him he can't," now believes the government should insert itself into the heath care decisions of people who are suffering so greatly.

NEXT: Correction: Cancer Death Rates Fall Further: Incidence Declines for Men and Remains Steady for Women

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s not so surprising. Karma’s a bitch, as a wise man once explained.

    1. If there is such a thing as karma, what innocent babies and puppies did I torture and destroy in a previous life to deserve THIS???…..yor-of-ne/

      1. Could she really be any worse than that tool DeBlasio? Also, I’m not sure what you would expect in the big asshole I mean apple.

        1. Yeah, I mean in NYC even the Republicans are basically progressive Democrats. And the actual Democrats…ay yi yi.

          In that climate, Hillary would qualify as a responsible moderate. While her corruption might stand out even in NYC, even her corruption would put a bit of a brake on her actually carrying out her wackier promises, as indicated by her assurances to the Wall Street people.

          1. To be honest, Grandma Caligula would be a slight improvement over our current mayor.

            1. She may have been able to get away with pretending to be a tony, Westchester-style New Yorker, but no way can she pass as a “real” New Yorker.

              1. If she came out to my little slice of the Big Apple, she would likely get pelted with stones and batteries by my neighbors. The Rockaway Peninsula was a solid block of red amongst all the city’s blue in the recent election. Anecdotally, I saw a great deal of Trump signs, a few GayJay signs, and 1 Stein bumper sticker, but not a single Grandma Caligula sign or sticker from Riis Park to Five Towns.

                1. There’s some red in my corner of SW Brooklyn too. I blame Staten Island.

                  1. Mott Haven also went completely red this time. Where were all you people during the last mayoral race? 20mph on Shorefront PARKWAY in the middle of winter when there will only be a few cars per day is bloody madness.

                    1. There’s a Shorefront Parkway in Mott Haven? Or somewhere else? What’s the nature of your complaint, a contemplated speed limit?

                    2. No, I’m in The Rockaways. The shit-heel mayor has reduced speed limits all over the city. He 1st promised to only reduce to 25mph, all the roads that had no posted speeds. Now, he has removed all of out 40mph signs on both Shorefront Pkwy. and Cross Bay Blvd. and replaced them with 20mph signs and speed cameras.

                    3. 20 MPH (“SLOW ZONE” by the new signage elsewhere) on those 2 roads is harassment. Those are thru routes built for higher speeds. Must be punishing the neighborhood for something?maybe that presidential vote!

                    4. Where were all you people during the last mayoral race?

                      I’m guessing they were vastly outnumbered by all those districts that went 98% Dem.

              2. “She may have been able to get away with pretending to be a tony, Westchester-style New Yorker, but no way can she pass as a “real” New Yorker.”

                Well there are certain sections of the DNC, Rhywun, that I wouldn’t advise you to take too lightly.

                — Rick in Casablanca

              3. Not enough crotch-grabbing and “yeah, I got yer mayor right here”?

                1. I lived in Manhattan and worked at Ft Wadsworth for four years before moving in 2009. When I visited NYC during the height of the campaign Trump signs were frequent in SI. Oddly in Manhattan there were lots of Bernie paraphernalia remaining and rare signs for HRC. The numbers of votes Trump received in Manhattan would not fill Yankee Stadium but I suspect the majority of HRC voters were not enthusiastic. The only campaign theme that might be successful for her to be mayor is “Make Hillary Trumps Mayor” and go for resentment against the “flyover people”.

                  1. The only campaign theme that might be successful for her to be mayor is “Make Hillary Trumps Mayor” and go for resentment against the “flyover people”

                    Deblasio’s been playing that angle hard since the election. She’s not gonna win by trying to out-derange him. She would run to his right and probably win, unless the Republicans somehow managed to find a placeholder that catches fire.

                    1. You make a good point but HRC running on the right for any domestic policy would not be believable, even to a NY’er. What are your thoughts about a hyper-woman focused campaign? Basically focus your themes on how any vote against HRC is misogynist on its face and this is how to stick it the man, especially “that man”. Try and take 70+% of the female vote in all five boroughs and overwhelm on that demographic.

                      But HRC still has to overcome that at her very best she comes off like your ex-mother-in-law mid divorce.

                    2. Deblasio didn’t get elected because he’s a flaming leftist. He got elected because of the optics of his kid’s afro. Remember, the previous 18 years were under nominal Republicans – yeah, not flyover-style Republicans but well to the right of Deblasio. The city as a whole just isn’t as far leftist as that turd would have you believe and I think we’ll get another reminder of that next election.

                    3. *correction: 20 years

                    4. I take it you’re in Bay Ridge area?

                      I spent 10 years in NYC, mostly Brooklyn (Clinton Hill, Carroll Gardens, Bay Ridge). I’m on the beach in Alabama now and couldn’t be happier. Sure I see some of the same bullshit. During spring break they like to stop drunk kids who are walking to the condos instead of driving and hit them with Public Intox, and of course Uber and Lyft are banned here on the island (protectionism). But overall I like it better than NYC. I couldn’t handle the blatant public theft anymore.

                    5. blatant public theft

                      Yes, Bay Ridge. I’m a city boy but yeah even I can see myself getting fed up with that at some point. Assholes like Deblasio think those of us who are productive members of society have bottomless pockets but the evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

                    6. The beach in Alabama? You mean the Dominion of British West Fla.?

          2. I dont’t see how Her ego could accept such an obvious glass ceiling.

            I would love to see her have to go hat in hand to Trump for money the same way Christie did with Obama though.

            Mrs. Clinton you as a woman can’t be President but here is your participation trophy, you can be Mayor.

      2. She needs to stay in power to stay relevant. And to keep the money going. But does she really want to do so where Preet has jurisdiction?

  2. “Almost anybody who goes into the doctor with a hangnail in some of those states can get a medical marijuana card,” Otter claimed.

    That’s obvious hyperbole…

    Why is that obvious hyperbole, Eric?

    1. I bet it’s true. There’ll always be enough doctors who think (justifiedly) marijuana’s harmless that anybody will be able to get such an OK from one.

    2. Most med pot states specify what it can be prescribed for. Hang nails ain’t on the list. Hence, hyperbole.

      1. I live in a med pot state. I got a card when 100% healthy. Know many in my peer group who did the same.

        If you think these med pot laws aren’t being abused, you’re naive.

        1. Healthy people receive vaccinations, do they not?
          Think of a medical cannabis recommendation as a vaccination against being raped in jail, then court.

      2. … and, GOOD LORD, RC, you think laws work as written????

        You’ve been around here long enough to be more cynical than that.

  3. A larger issue for me would be asking the governor about the principle whereby he substitutes his opinion for the opinions of the majority of the state legislators and (presumably) the majority of the state’s voters. Is there some threshold on the level of your belief and the strength of your convictions required? If the lege has enough votes to override his veto, is he going to resign his office rather than execute a law he finds so morally repugnant that he would single-handedly deny the will of the majority? And if not, why not?

    1. I try to avoid appealing to the will of the majority. I don’t care what the majority want. The real question is does he intend to substitute his opinion about my life for my own opinion. There is only one vote about your life that should count for anything and that is yours. Appeals to the will of the majority are a big part of the reason we are where we are. We need to stop framing anything that way.

      1. I trust you aren’t suggesting that’s the answer Otter would give. That’s the answer anybody with any deference to the Constitution and the libertarianish ideas underpinning it would give – there are only a limited number of limited powers granted to government to impose its will on the individual and everything else is off limits. The “will of the majority” describes a democracy, and there’s a very good reason we’re not a democracy – what I choose to do with myself and my property is nobody else’s business. I am a sovereign human being and my sovereignty is innate, not granted by government. (That’s what the bit in the Declaration of Independence about being endowed by my creator with certain inalienable rights means.)

        I would suggest, however, that whatever answer he did give would tend to lead in that direction, which (I hope) would lead to the question of why, if he feels qualified to substitute his opinion for the opinion of the majority, is that prerogative not a general principle, why are people who feel inclined to smoke marijuana not entitled to substitute their opinion for the opinion of the majority? It’s not a rhetorical question, it’s a leading question.

        1. I understand your point and if I were debating and trying to lead someone in that direction it makes sense but as a once off argument I think we should be appealing to the rights of the individual not the will of the majority. The reasons progressive embraced majority rule as a moral good is because it gave them the moral authority to force their will on other people in a way that was impossible based on individual rights. In that framework anything you can convince the masses to agree to is moral and just. That is needless to say extremely dangerous.

          1. The “will of the majority” describes a democracy, and there’s a very good reason we’re not a democracy

            In theory we have the Bill of Rights severely limiting the power of government and setting large swathes of behavior beyond the reach of thugs with badges.

            In practice we have people like Clinton saying everything in the Bill of Rights is subject to rules, regulations, and exceptions, as in “if we can muster a bare majority or find a pen and phone we can do whatever the fuck we want” — and if she had gotten a few more votes in three states she would have done exactly that massive power grab.

            And the guy who did win feels likewise little constraint other than what he needs to do to get reelected.

            So, a de facto democracy teetering on the verge of dictatorship.
            And the guy who did win

    2. “If the lege has enough votes to override his veto, is he going to resign his office rather than execute a law he finds so morally repugnant that he would single-handedly deny the will of the majority?”

      Ha ha, resigning rather than enforcing an immoral law, how often do public officials do *that*?

      No, they simply shrug and proclaim that they’re “forced” to carry out the law. Meaning they see themselves (or want the public to see them) as forced to hold onto office as long as possible, regardless of moral considerations.

      1. I suspect you’re right, but it wasn’t really a rhetorical question – I really would like to know if there’s a principle involved and, if so, what is that principle? If 51% or 59% say the law should be this, you’re fine with rejecting that opinion but if 66.7% say the law should be this, you feel obliged to accept it? What if it’s only 66.6%? (Assuming it takes a 2/3 majority to override.) What’s the magic number and why is it magical?

        1. It’s magical because it is in the document(s), allegedly constraining their deprivations, that they pay lip service to.

  4. “…now believes the government should insert itself into the heath care decisions of people…”

    Prof alert. These fucking lefties just love their government jackbooted thugs.

    1. “These fucking lefties just love their government jackbooted thugs”

      Yes they do but so do socons. You don’t become less of a jack booted thug just because you have competition.

      1. Are we calling the governor of Idaho a socon?

        I don’t know if he is, but can anyone give me the Cliff’s Notes version of why he is or isn’t?

        1. I can’t say I know a ton about him but he is anti-gay marriage and anti-marijuana. These are litmus test issues for socons that pretty much nobody else cares about. That and the fact that he is the governor of Idaho makes me pretty comfortable saying this is a socon.

          1. If the War on Dope were a defining issue for SoCons, we’d have to say that William F. Buckley, Jr. stopped being a SoCon once he came out for legalizing MJ.

            So it’s necessary either to revise your definition of a SoCon, or to announce your profound sociological discovery that William F. Buckley wasn’t one.

            1. Well I didn’t consider Buckley a socon in the mold of socons circa 2017. There is of course a limit to the extent that any incoherent political philosophy that consists of a grab bag of policies rooted in no particular ethical framework can be pigeonholed but I feel fairly comfortable that anti-weed is a touchstone of the overwhelming majority of socons and can therefore fairly be characterized as a socon position. I also think Pope Francis is clearly a political progressive despite his opposition to abortion which is a standard proggie litmus test.

          2. Butch is pro Obama care (we have a state exchange) against selling off the state run liquor stores, not pushing for a sell off of state lands or taking control of the federal lands in our state. I’d describe him as a blue dog democrat or a Reagan democrat.

        2. Are we calling the governor of Idaho a socon?

          I don’t know if he is, but can anyone give me the Cliff’s Notes version of why he is or isn’t?

          I don’t think he personally, as a private citizen, is a full-on socon — rather, he’s someone who has non-illiberal beliefs that ran up against the reality of a state full of Mormons who are socons because their religious leadership told them to be that, and they yanked on Otter’s leash real hard.

          1. You have to be a Mormon to make it in southern Idaho aka northern Utah politics, even the dems from hat part of the state play lip service to that cult.

      2. Didn’t the original Prog movement have a significant SoCon component?

        I put the term SoCon in the same category as Liberal (in the modern sense). They use a description to mask that they are actually the opposite of that description.

        1. Why yes yes it did. I consider socons and progressives to be effectively the same thing. Both want to use government to perfect society they just differ on the details.

          1. Both want to use government to perfect society they just differ on the details.

            That describes more than just progs and socons – that describes most people other than libertarians and anarchists (of whatever flavor). As long as you’re of the opinion that it’s the government’s job to steer society in one direction or another, you’re arguing for slavery and I really don’t care how much you argue that it’s the good kind of slavery. If everybody decides they’d be happier being fat and stupid and lazy it ain’t the government’s job to tell them they can’t be fat and stupid and lazy.

            1. Sure the vast majority of the population wants meddling here or there but these 2 groups build their entire philosophy around intrusive intervention. It is a matter of degree and these 2 groups go to 11.

            2. Sorry. I really had no choice.

              1. It seems to me that your reaction was most appropriate, GG.

        2. I’d use the term “socon” to describe people who support certain *ends* – like the right to life, protection of the family, etc. – whether or not they support statist or freedom-oriented *means* toward these ends.

          So I suppose that someone who wants to publicly flog all fornicators would be classified as a socon, but so would someone who simply wants to protect the family by removing subsidies and preferences for anti-family practices.

          1. Unfortunately socons as a political group do not operate in a libertarian framework so flogging fornicators, and banning porn is in bounds for almost 100% of them. If you mean a “libertarian socon” I do know a few but that is not generally who we are talking about. In a political context if you identify as a socon you are not a libertarian. If you were you would identify as a libertarian who cares about family issues more than ass sex and weed.

            1. Let’s see, I identify as a socon. And it doesn’t require a lot of creativity to do so, like with some dude who identifies himself as a woman.

              And if you look at the policy battles real-world socons engage in, you’ll find a lot of opposition to government policies which promote anti-life and anti-family agendas.

              1. Now, I don’t want to call myself a libertarian, because

                (a) like “liberal,” the term has been hijacked by people with a lot of bad ideas, and

                (b) I would allow some exceptions to the sacred NAP.

                HOWEVER, I happen to be against most of the NAP violations promoted by progs and “compassionate conservatives” – thus I think I’ve earned the title of “fellow traveller.”

                1. The most obvious exception to the NAP is taxes – taxpayers haven’t committed aggression, yet fair taxes, for the support of the government’s basic functions, ought in my view to be imposed even against they who object to paying.

                  1. “fair taxes” is an oxymoron. Substitute the non-weasel word — theft, not taxes — and you get “fair theft”, which is obviously wrong.

                    Basically, you feel that badges and uniforms magically transform things that you would never do personally because they’re hideously immoral, into something that’s OK because you’ve delegated and diffused the immorality to people you don’t yet view as performing unacceptable violations of the NAP.

                  2. OK, but do you believe the USIndividual income tax should be imposed on those who a) have read the law and history of the tax and understand it is not what the IRS and political class says it is? Because 16th amendment? Do you believe said amendment overturned the taxing clauses of said constitution and established a new, unapportioned direct tax on “everything that comes in”? Even though the Supremes said it did not?
                    Maybe the libertarian/conservative establishment has to speak out more and stop babbling about fair taxes and flat taxes and look at, as Trump might say, “What the hell is going on”!

                    1. A 16th Amendment thread – no thanks, and I say this as someone who likes abortion threads.

                2. Now, I don’t want to call myself a libertarian, because

                  …Eddie advocates jailing people who violate his religious taboos. That’s not only not-libertarianism, it’s evil.

                  1. Would you mind giving some examples?

                    1. Divorced people who remarry.

                    2. IIRC, I’ve said that I accept the practical arguments *against* jailing people for adultery.

                      As for the government recognizing adulterous “marriages” – it doesn’t recognize a guy’s “marriage” to his Real Doll, but that doesn’t mean it puts him in prison just for that.

                    3. (my statement that the government doesn’t recognize human/Real Doll marriages is accurate as of Jan. 7, 2017 – who knows what will happen tomorrow)

                    4. I’ve said that I accept the practical arguments *against* jailing people for adultery.

                      You’re argument was, “Well, people just wouldn’t accept it.” Not that it wasn’t what you want to do. So, “practical.” You still support it.

                      Religion is fine if you like that kind of thing, but I think that in many people’s cases, yours among them, it corrodes their morality.

                    5. You’re moving the goalposts, I’m afraid.

                      You claimed, “Eddie advocates jailing people who violate his religious taboos” – I asked for an example, and I showed your example was mistaken.

                      So you shift ground to saying that, well, my *reason* for opposing the jailing of adulterers are the wrong reasons – then you give a fairly creative interpretation of my reasons, and then conclude that I *do* support jailing divorced-and-remarried persons, because “opposing for politically incorrect reasons” is the same as “supporting.”

                      And as for “people just wouldn’t accept it,” that is not a correct summary of my practical objections – the implication is that if “people” (unspecified) accepted it I’d be for it. Where do you get that idea?

                      The costs of enforcement wouldn’t be worth it. They wouldn’t be worth it even if some vaguely defined “people” thought the costs were worth it.

                      Repeatedly telling me, contrary to the evidence, what I *really* believe is not a constructive way to have a discussion.

                      It’s rhetorically clever because it tries to put me on the defensive:

                      “you believe such and such!”

                      “No I don’t!”

                      “Yes you do!”

                      But with the greatest respect, it’s retarded.

              2. What do you identify as poltiically a socon or a libertarian? You can’t identify as a libertarian and get invited to socon cocktail parties because as soon as you suggest people should be allowed to smoke weed or view porn without a government boot on their neck you are a persona non grata. I know socially conservative libertarians but social conservatism as a political philosophy is not compatible with libertarianism.

                1. I know socially conservative libertarians but social conservatism as a political philosophy is not compatible with libertarianism.

                  This pretty much describes where I’m at. In essence, politics is an exercise in the delegation of authority, and the religious documents (the Bible) that the socons use to take a stance on an issue also reject their preferred means of enforcement. IOW, the Bible didn’t and doesn’t give them the authority to enforce the moral law outside of the Church.

                  1. That’s expressing things at quite a level of generality.

                    Christians and secularists generally endorse the idea that some parts of the Bible are matters of specifically Christian revelation and other parts are truths which apply to everyone.

                    Catholics speak in terms of revelation and natural law.

                    Secularists speak in terms of “oh, we know *that* independently, without any Bible.”

                    But it takes a certain daring to deny that there are parts of the Bible which articulate truths which bind people outside the Church.

                    How does one interpret the Biblical passages against murder and theft, in favor of justice and helping one’s neighbor, etc?

                    Most secularists would say, “I don’t need to read some ancient documents from some random desert tribe to know that you shouldn’t exploit other people.”

                    Of course, Nietzsche was brave (or retarded) enough to say that every part of Christianity is an unnatural system to keep the superior kind of men* from treating their inferiors as they deserve.

                    But whether you’re against rape and theft because it offends an all-powerful God who sent His son to redeem us, or whether you’re against it through some intuitive sense that it’s bad, I don’t see how the religious reason is worse than the secular reason.

                    *Ayn Rand would add “or women.”

                    1. Many secularists assume that the parts of the Bible they agree with are true, and that just because it’s in the Bible doesn’t make it false. Eg, justice to immigrants, no bribery, doing as one would be done by – “yeah, we already knew that, quit waving your Bible.”

                      But when it comes to the parts of the Bible they disagree with, some of these same secuarists are willing to argue that the presence of such things in the Bible *automatically* makes them optional.

                      So the idea of adultery being wrong is a mere religious opinion based on the Bible, and there’s no reason outside the Bible to say adultery is wrong.

                      But what about Proverbs 11:1, against falsely weighing things – I suppose it should be legal for merchants to falsely weigh their products, because the Bible is against it?

                    2. But it takes a certain daring to deny that there are parts of the Bible which articulate truths which bind people outside the Church.

                      It’s not about the object, but about the actor doing the binding. A very smart Catholic friend of mine challenged my view of rights, and my view has evolved due to his challenge. A right isn’t something wholly internal… it’s a mapping of authority between two entities. What is the purpose of a right for a hermit isolated from civilization? It serves no purpose, except in the theoretical. Rights only make practical sense when there is a question of authority between people.

                      I, as a believer, do not have the authority to judge unbelievers for their sins (1 Cor 5:9-13). I am entrusted with specific authority and methods of handling believers who sin (shunning, taking conflicts to the church, etc.), but I am not entrusted with the authority to stop an unbeliever from sinning (or even a believer). God is the one with the authority to do so.

                    3. Are you defining sin to include, say robbery, which is certainly denounced by the Bible?

                      If you’re taking the ultra-pacifist or Mennonite interpretation that Church members must have nothing to do with enforcing *any* rule against outsiders, OK, tell me all about it.

                      But if you actually believe that there are principles expressed on the Bible which are binding and enforceable against non-Christians, then get off your high horse.

                      As I said, most people (at least modern americans) think some parts of the Bible are enforceable against non church members, and some aren’t.

                      If you’re one of these, then your talk about how, unlike me, you wouldn’t have the secular state punish “sin,” is nonsense.

                    4. If you’re one of these, then your talk about how, unlike me, you wouldn’t have the secular state punish “sin,” is nonsense.

                      No, I’m not saying that at all. My view is that secular government is a “catchall” for issues that occur at the breakdown of the family (the base governing unit) or the church (the community governing unit). Thus, issues that can be and are adequately handled within a family or within the church are outside the scope of the secular government. Included in that are vices. Not included are acts of violence against strangers.

                    5. “issues that can be and are adequately handled within a family or within the church are outside the scope of the secular government”

                      That’s certainly fair enough.

                      There will be people who try to take this in a bad direction (“don’t arrest him for wife-beating, the families can handle it and get her the needed surgery to replace her eye!”), but yes, an excellent principle.

                    6. /not sarc, simply that the principle requires some intelligent interpretation

                2. Ron Paul is a SoCon as are quite a few of the Lew Rockwell crowd. The Constitution Party is a SoCon party yet they ran candidates who were more libertarian than the LP’s nominees in 2008 and 2016.

          2. “Protect” should be in sneer quotes.

  5. Radley Balko ?@radleybalko Jan 5

    Another infuriating thing about Trump: I’m now enjoying MSNBC. I’m thinking things like, “Man, Maddow was exceptionally good tonight.”

    1. Radley Balko – SuperCuck!

      1. He voted for John Kerry and Bob Barr, ffs.

    2. Shut the fuck up Balko.

      *I don’t think I have ever had anyone go from my ‘cool’ list to my ‘shut the fuck up you shithead’ list so fast as Radley.

      1. Another celebrity whose fame went to his head. If he’d stick to the nut punches, he’d still be great.

        1. After all those impact injuries, maybe he had to have his balls removed.

      2. Once you go HuffPo.

    3. That says a hell of a lot more about Balko than it does Trump. Or Maddow.

  6. “Butch Otter still oppo….wait, what? Who? What the hell kind of name is that?

    If only young Josh Phillips lived near a state where cannabis products were legal.

    1. Or had the freedom to cross state lines or even move.

  7. “Argue with a weld hating, gary the nazi cake forcing libertarian purist for long enough, and his desire for state outlawing of abortion eventually comes out. All the purity, all the NAP, all the hand wringing of principles…out the window when it is time for the abortion debate. Can we just start with it…and save us the time proving your non-central fallacy is a false and you don’t really care about liberty?” – Jason Smith, co-chair of the Nevada LP.

    1. I’m trying to find a link which has this quote – maybe the full quote will help me figure out what the guy is saying.

      1. It’s from his DerpBook page.

        1. Thank you…

          so the guy’s remark stands alone, without any context to make it less stupid.

          Yes, let’s not even bother to argue the position that allowing the government to define living human beings as unpersons without constitutional rights, is the pro-liberty view. In fact, let’s just take it for granted that if you want the government to treat all living human beings as persons with constitutional rights, you’re an enemy of freedom.

            1. Oh, libertarians arguing on the Internet. I have enough of that on H&R without wading into Facebook, but thank you anyway.

          1. Sorry, that was another of his argument threads. The abortion stuff is here.

            1. Again, I come to H&R, not Facebook, for my dose of libertarian argument.

              1. And you are right to do so. H&R is, for me, the best place on the interwebz solely because of the commentariat. I learn so much here, even from those with whom I disagree. Is there ANY other space with such a breadth of knowledge and experience paired with the freedom to engage in unfettered discussion?

                1. WTF?!!!!

                  You are making us enact labor so you can learn?

                  Fuck off slaver!

    2. You know that there are very strong pro-life NAP consistent arguments.

      1. The morality of abortion will never be resolved by arguments of any sort. One side sees abortion as murder, the other side sees anti-abortion laws as slavery. There is no compromise.

        The legality of it is a different matter. I come down on the side of not having unenforceable laws; that any law which cannot be at least investigated in 90% of the violations is no law at all. Abortion falls clearly in that camp.

        Abortion laws also fail the definition test. Arguing that conception starts life is medically wrong; that leads to the conclusion that masturbation should also be illegal for wasting all those sperm. There’s no allowance for natural abortions which may not even be known to the mother, and if you can’t tell the difference between natural death and abortion, then it’s an unenforceable law.

        1. Arguing that conception starts life is medically wrong

          I believe you mean “conception starts personhood,” because even a zygote maintains homeostasis, metabolizes, grows, reacts to stimuli, and can even (accidentally) asexually reproduce in the case of indentical twins.

          1. Yeah. HM you got it there. And scarecrow, I definitely agree that on a libertarian theory basis, the argument will never be settled as long as both sides disagree on the personhood of the unborn/fetus.

            I’m not sure I can agree with the argument about feasibility of enforcement, making a law a law (in any context).

            In the end however, I can understand how someone who stands opposite the issue of abortion can be called and call themselves libertarians. It’s frustrating when the other side then uses, what is clearly a complicated issue , to say I have no commitment to liberty. Abortion was the one issue I gave GJ a pass on (in the sense that I didn’t see his stance on abortion discrediting his libertarian qualifications) because it’s one of those issues that just isn’t settled in libertarianism right now.

            1. What I meant about enforcement is that I think one of the primary reasons for declaring a law null and void is that too few of its violations are investigated. Take speeding, for instance — one out of a thousand? Hundred thousand? I don’t mean murder, even if half are never solved or even prosecuted, because those are generally at least investigated to some extent.

              That’s where abortion fails. Spontaneous miscarriages are far too common — are you going to investigate every one for signs of abortion? Even late term miscarriages are not investigated. If not, then enforcement has become selective, otherwise known as thr Rule fo Men as opposed to the Rule of Law, and it is fertile breeding grounds for corruption.

              1. I don’t mean murder, even if half are never solved or even prosecuted, because those are generally at least investigated to some extent.

                What about murder in old-folks homes?

              2. That makes more sense than what I thought you were saying.

          2. Difference is, a zygote (and for that matter, a blastocyst) have no organized neural activity. No more human than a body that has had its brain destroyed.

            1. “no more a human being”

              Typing fail.

        2. I’ll say this much about masturbation – it doesn’t end the life of a human being.

          “an unenforceable law”

          I doubt that. The pro-aborts know it would be enforceable in some cases, otherwise they would simply shrug and say, “pass all the laws you want, it won’t affect our activities!”

          With laws against abortion, we wouldn’t have the government giving money to abortionists (“but remember, put the money in a separate, non-abortion account!”).

          With laws against abortion, *some* abortionists would end up in prison.

          With laws against abortion, the respectability of the practice would decline.

          1. I’ll say this much about masturbation – it doesn’t end the life of a human being.


            1. I guess I opened myself up for a David Carradine joke, didn’t I?

            2. Well sure, if you’re a Kung Fu master.

          2. No. Are you going to investigate every spontaneous miscarriage? If not, its selective enforcement, and all such laws should be null and void. Selective enforcement is a gateway to corruption.

            1. Every law capable of selective enforcement must be repealed?

              Which laws would survive under that principle?

        3. “The morality of abortion will never be resolved by arguments of any sort.”

          That is correct. I don’t approve of abortion but I guess my hatred of giving the government more power and money outweighs my concern for other people’s offspring.

        4. Arguing that conception starts life is medically wrong; that leads to the conclusion that masturbation should also be illegal for wasting all those sperm.

          New law: Only women can masturbate.

          I dunno, seems like there’s quite a lot of room to argue that masturbation has nothing to do with abortion even when all involved agree that personhood begins at conception, since sperm on a wank sock has little chance of fertilizing anything. Humans are funny old sticks who see justifications of their bias everywhere, though, so, yeah, assuming that everyone involved is ready to be logical about things is probably optimistic.

          One side sees abortion as murder, the other side sees anti-abortion laws as slavery. There is no compromise.

          They’re both right. That appears to be the inherent conflict. There isn’t a Galtian alternative through which no one human is asked to live for another. “Living for another” is how the incubation period of our reproduction cycle works.

          Until science short-circuits the argument by presenting different options – birth control chips fully efficacious on either gender, gestation pods – we’ll not be able to cut the Gordian knot through mere philosophy, I suspect.

          1. Although I respect you and am often intellectually improved by your comments, HoD, I am going to post something that may elicit a negative response: An explanation of Galtian Overlords.

            I am taking a chance that you will experience the type of sad humor which I did upon reading it.

            1. “Our Galtian Overlords”. LOL.

              As an economic theory, John Galt’s “Nor ask another man to live for mine” needs to be examined through current economic indicators. It’d be like Keynesians spending in bad times without saving in boom times to pay for it, haha. It’s what occurred to me as an expression of the NAP though.

              Was Ayn Rand ever an essayist? I find more use in her raw philosophy, disentangled from the framework of escapist literature. She had great ideas, but she was a really shitty storyteller.

              1. I am glad you found humor in it.

                Was Ayn Rand ever an essayist?
                Does this count?

                I find more use in her raw philosophy, disentangled from the framework of escapist literature.

                I think that there are occasions where a story is required to put one’s philosophy into context for contemporary understanding. This has been my personal experience. Forgive my brevity here, HoD:

                I described “x”.

                Response was “That makes no sense. The reality is….”

                I rephrased “x” in the context of what the individual had been experiencing (which was the original topic).

                Response was “Oh, it’s different when you put it that way. Now you make sense.”

                Of course, the principle I was trying to describe had not changed to fit the individual’s situation, yet when I described how the principle directly applied to the individual’s situation it became understandable/acceptable.

                Having typed all of that (in poor form), I will add that Ayn Rand is one of the authors whose books I read through looking for the philosophy whilst enduring the stories.

      2. Oh good, an abortion thread. Too bad I’ve work to do, or I’d make popcorn.

        1. I try to stay out of these, and I think I’ve ended my two cents.

        2. If you were truly entrepreneurial, you’d make and market a brand of special thread-watching popcorn.

          I’d do it myself, were it not for financing issues – the guys who gave me money for my last genius idea are still whining about repayment. I keep telling them it’s only a matter of time before the public falls in love with my app that logs onto the internet while you’re asleep and calls people stupid.

          1. Meh, the DNC Replicated your app by paying low value humans to do this already.

    3. I get that professional libertarians don’t really do things like “long term strategy” or “actually know how to run a campaign”, but maybe, just maybe, you could collectively put abortion lower on the “super important policies” list?

      I mean, just saying, a society where we’ve massively cut regulations, lowered taxes, don’t run a deficit, reduced the welfare state, actively consider intervention in foreign conflicts without a defined, justifiable objective as the worst thing to do, reined in police abuse, dismantled the surveillance state and everyone still argues the abortion issue is preferable to what we’ve got.

      1. ^^^This. While GJ was atrocious on some well defined libertarian issues, this guy is comparing pro-life libertarians to be on the same level, when abortion is clearly an undecided issue in libertarianism.

  8. Politicians and bureaucrats who oppose people with chronic illnesses getting something they think will help should be publicly flogged. I am sick to the teeth of the barbarity of keeping people in pain in the name of The War On Drugs.

    1. What should happen is those people should be banned from purchasing any medication for life. Even aspirin. If they are in pain, they should just suffer and it should be nationally televised.

      1. It’s really simple, Hyperion. See, aspirin occurs in nature and you can get it from plants. That’s why it’s different than opioids, marijuana, or cocaine.

    2. And if your caught, they help you buy throwing you in a cage and giving you a criminal record shutting down any future success in life. That’s compassion.

  9. What do you expect from a guy with a name like Butch Otter? His parents must have hated him, no wonder he hates everyone.

    1. I honestly thought there was a supposed to be a muscular-lesbian aquatic mammal involved somewhere

      1. Next google porn search

    2. It is the greatest politician name EVER.

      1. As usual you are wrong, because Young Boozer and Dick Mountjoy are superior names of politicians.

        1. The fact that there’s three generations of Young Boozers makes me so damn happy.

  10. While the “hangnail” part of it is an obvious exaggeration, he ain’t quite wrong, neither. When Colorado tried medical marijuana, it was possible for anybody to find a doctor who would prescribe it. I think that was one of the causes of it finally being made legal for recreational use. Medical MJ is absolutely a foot in the door strategy for eventual legalization, which, BTW, is a good thing.

    1. Yeah, I think that was pretty much true. You don’t have to have much of a reason. Unlike pain medication where you could crawl into the office withing in pain and you’re not getting anything for it because the Feds are attain you might enjoy not being in pain. Fuck the government and fuck politicians who put the wants of LEAs over the needs of their constituents.

  11. Second most Mormon state – Idaho’s probably gonna be one of the last holdouts for any sort of legalization of weed or extracts thereof, compassion be damned.

    1. If your magic underwear doesn’t stop the pain than God must want you to suffer. Our hands are tied. If you don’t like it, talk to God. We certainty can’t let you use a plant created by God to alleviate any pain. He put those plants there to tempt your Faith not to actually use. I mean that’s obvious right? Tithing should be all the enjoyment you need. No one needs more than one kind of fun.

    2. It’s a quick hop over to Washington.

      Last state to legalize will be IL.

      1. They do love fueling the murders with prohibition.

      2. Last state to legalize will be Utah, with runners up either Idaho or Oklahoma. Might even take a SCOTUS decision to make them legalize it, ala Lawrence v Texas or Loving v Virginia.

        IL should be midpack in legalization, IMHO.

        Parts of ID are close to WA state and a dispensary, but the SE corner of the state is about equidistant from CO and WA.

        1. Or OR, and soon NV. It’s gonna be harder and harder to keep illegal weed out of Idaho.

  12. This pattern has occurred repeatedly. Ed Koch changed from a famous proponent of legaliz’n in Congress to an opponent as mayor of NYC. Other advocates have chickened out or changed course once they got in position to do something about it. Was the “pro” position posturing, is the “anti” position posturing, or is it just a matter of people changing from pro to con as they age?

    1. It’s about getting elected, and deciding which sets of campaign promises to ditch to hold onto power.

      1. If the original position helped them get power, why didn’t it help them hold onto it?

        1. Because lots of people vote for you to get in and liked your idea.

          However, most of the no voters are concentrated in institutions that you absolutely need support from in order to run the city.

          Same way everyone votes against stadiums, but at the end of the day the pols cave and give them shit tons of money.

  13. Way OT, but FUN!

    Time is running out to pass this along to your unhinged leftoid friends. Say you saw it on a lawyer’s website. Use link to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 at Wikipedia, and of anybody says they can’t find the clause, just tell them Trumpsters have been deleting important info from Wikipedia.
    Since Joe Biden was obviously hacked by the Russians, it is time for the Senate to implement a never before invoked article of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    If the President and Vice President in an Electoral College vote have different numbers of votes (Trump had 304, Pence had 305), the Senate Minority Leader (Chuck Schumer of New York) can invoke the Disenfranchised Minority Clause and reapportion up to 20% of the EC vote into line with the Popular Vote.
    Make sure to call the Senate Switchboard. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senator Chuck Schumer’s office on your request and tell him to invoke the DMC!

    1. That sounds cruel.

      Hmm…you know what other Austrian was cruel?

    2. I still feel like it would be better to trick them into believing he was actually born in Russian-controlled East Germany and faked his birth certificate. Because it works with the whole Russophobia thing, and also has the irony and hypocrisy angles going for it.

  14. Sorry, but Butch Otter sounds like some kind of FTM transgender porn star.

    1. Second next google porn search

  15. What we need is a libertarian America Corps who will go into these last pockets of prohibition and teach these poor folks how to use the Dark Web .

    1. Or a car.

    1. Patriots

    2. I expected Rolf singing “You are sixteen going on seventeen”

  16. Keurig Beer Brewer…..index.html

    1. That seems like an odd market to try to tap. Most people who brew at home are doing so because they don’t want the pisswater like Bud and Corona.

  17. Proggy strategy to retake the political mo; call the people who beat you at the polls low-IQ mouth-breathers:

    1. Note to low IQ self; paste the link before tabbing ‘submit’)

  18. What I find funny is the mj oil is not really any different than any other type of vegetable oil, other than its magical because it’s the herb! Seizures have been treated in some people with butter. It’s all about the foot in the door. I think Otter understands the motivations of the snake oil believers better than they do.

    1. I don’t understand. you want to ban vegetable oil too? but its so *handy*

      1. And magical!

  19. In which Dallas discovers that math doesn’t listen to your excuses.

    “The reality of it is that it was a Bernie Madoff type scheme,” says Lee Kleinman, a city council member and former pension board trustee.

    The bitterest pill: A proposal to take back all of the interest police and firefighters earned on Deferred Option Retirement accounts, or DROP. That would amount to an additional billion dollars saved.

    The city is calling it an “equity adjustment.” Retirees call it an illegal “claw back.”

    “We used the rules they gave us now all of the sudden they’re going to go back on the rules and say hey you don’t get any of that,” said Charles Hale, a retired police officer. “That’s not fair.”

    “It’s acting like it was an underhanded Ponzi scheme that we pulled,” said Joe Dunn, a retired police officer. “It’s not fair.”

    “There’s just not enough money to go around,” [councilman Lee Kleinman] says. “The kind of money they’re looking for would require tax increases” over 100 percent.

    1. I wonder if the city council members and pension board trustees got theirs?

      DROP is taking what money an employee would have put into retirement and investing it. The employee then gets the money deducted from their paycheck plus whatever it earned in the market. I am guessing what happened here is that the city council, rather than invest the money, stole it with the plan of paying it back from the city coffers. Now the coffers are empty.

      Sounds to me like someone needs to get out the ropes and pitchforks.

    2. the rules they gave us

      That’s cute.

    1. I saw that the other day, simply beautiful.

    2. Fake News, thy name is CNN.

      1. This is how they justify wanting to go to war? They are insane.

        1. Those Super Mutants are dangerous don’t you know!

  20. Santiago brought his gun with him through checked baggage.

    Santiago was flying from Anchorage on a Delta flight and had checked only one piece of luggage, which contained the gun.

    The fucking fuck. I suppose this could be a worse testament to the incompetence of our security theater if the guy turns out to have a high-level security clearance too.

    1. Post 9-11 I found it to be easier to travel with a gun. You get to check your bag with priority and when you went to pick it up you didn’t have to fight everyone else at baggage but had a special pick up and got to avoid the wait. Now that’s going to get ruined.

    2. Depends on if he properly checked the gun and declared it, or if he just stuffed it in his suitcase and the TSA missed it.

      1. I think I was more astonished that the military discharge and FBI investigation/mental health evaluation wasn’t enough to keep him from taking a gun onto a plane, period. The journalism’s about what you’d expect – discharge could have been anything from a Section 8 to a less-than-honorable. Ought to have quoted that bit to make it more clear.

        The writing does leave the impression that he might have just hidden it in his socks, though.

        1. He also had a CCW permit which I found interesting.

        2. He also said he heard voices in his head calling him to join you-know-who.

          1. Franz Liebkind?

            (“Soon, I shall be with mein F?hrer… and Himmler. I’m coming to join you boys!”)

          2. Voldemort?

  21. So who else could get away with sueing an AG over being charged?…..e-forward/

    1. I bet a few Backpage executives would love a piece of that action.

  22. These wild card games are interesting, peanuts.

    Houston is a 3 point favorite over an overrated Raider team but Houston can’t score points.

    The Lions have Stafford and 8 points against a floundering Seadog team. But they’re at home. Pitt is a ten point fave. And Eli.

    What to do.

    1. Well, I’d put it all on paying my bet if I were you, but then again, I wouldn’t have made the bet in the first place.

    2. Bet on the Colts never firing Pagano or Grigson, no matter what. Ever.

    1. I feel like this is old-testament God playing a sick joke on everyone. Half of the country is praying for all of these shooters to be white southern Baptists and the other half is praying for them all to be named Muhammad. This is God’s way of saying “lol, you’re all wrong. He’s not Muslim but talked about ISIS and isn’t a relevant race. Maybe don’t use tragedies for political points.”

      1. If Southern Baptists had balls they would recruit an army and go fight ISIS.

        1. If you had a purpose to live you would say things that made sense.

    2. I don’t know wtf it is with news media.

      they keep mentioning the fucking star-wars T-shirt. Like its *relevant*

      Santiago-Ruiz reportedly appeared alone in the Terminal 2 baggage claim area wearing a Star Wars shirt.

      The suspect is believed to be from New Jersey, lived in Alaska for some time and had a concealed carry permit for his gun, American media reported.

      Why not say, “he reportedly appeared alone in the Terminal 2 baggage claim area wearing size 10 Converse All-Stars, and Fruit of the Loom jockey shorts which FBI say may have been purchased at WalMart.”

      i think there’s a case for saying, ‘he was a native of X, and had recently resided in Y… and other identifying details which might lead to some ‘history’ that would be relevant. But what he was *()@#&@*$ wearing? WHY NO MENTION OF HIS HAIRSTYLE.

      I understand that news media love ‘humanizing’ details, but i think if that’s all they’ve got? they might as well fucking skip it. It makes me wonder if its because all these media are owned by Viacom, and they hate Disney… or what the fuck, there’s just no purpose for it, why keep mentioning it?

      1. My extraordinarily cynical guess – “Star Wars t-shirt” conjures images of semi-nerdy white dudes. Regardless of the real identity of the guy, if you just tune in and hear “Star Wars t-shirt,” you’re going to paint a mental picture and remember the visual imagery therein.

        1. IOW, Muslims don’t wear Star Wars gear.

          1. Thats exactly what he said.

      2. Rich Evans. Knew we couldn’t trust him.

  23. Rand Paul:

    “on’t repeal Obamacare until you have a replacement ready to sign”…..-obamacare

  24. Christians the most persecuted group in world for second year: Study

    The upcoming report from Italian-based Center for Studies on New Religions, determined that 90,000 Christians were killed for their beliefs worldwide last year and nearly a third were at the hands of Islamic extremists like ISIS. Others were killed by state and non-state persecution, including in places like North Korea.

    Pakistan: Muslims kidnap Christian and Hindu underage girls, force them to convert to Islam and marry Muslims

    According to a recent report, 1,000 Christian and Hindu girls in Pakistan, most underage, are taken from their families each year, converted to Islam, and married.

    1. taken from their families each year, converted to Islam, and married

      They do have a bit of history with this sort of thing.

    2. Neither here nor there…

      …but if you track the more recent history Christianity in the ‘developing world’ – particularly Africa, South Asia, etc – they have a history of being particularly aggressive about proselytizing in countries that are openly hostile to christianity.

      I’m just saying, if you send a busload of Korean Christian missionaries to Afghanistan? maybe you should expect trouble.

      there are dynamics elsewhere – such as African countries like Nigeria – where Christian/Muslim conflict is as much rooted in ethnic / political / economic / regional differences between competing populations as it is a “religious” dispute.

      I’d want to see the data on the populations of the ‘persecuted’, and where they are, and how they’re defining deaths-by-persecution, etc. before accepting any headline claims pumped by Fox. Particularly when the org that published the report looks like they haven’t updated their website since 1997, or translated the links from Italian to English. I’d guess that they probably omit “intra-sectarian” violence (e.g. muslim majority on muslim-minority) in order to win their grief-prize.

  25. Columbia University Students Support Female Genital Mutilation- especially if Planned Parenthood funds it


    Is this tarran? Isn’t he a Masshole?

    1. Robert Ivarson does sound suspiciously Turkish.

    2. Yes, everybody who disagrees with you is a Nazi. How clever/insightful.

      It’s probably just poor reporting, but it doesn’t seem like he actually did anything wrong. He threw banana peels on a guy’s driveway, so they raid his house? WTF?

  27. re-run from last night

    Spot the Not: Robby Soave

    1. To be sure, that’s an oversimplification of what BLM is doing.

    2. Surely, there’s no place less likely to become the site of an impromptu Trump rally than a college campus.

    3. To be sure, there are good reasons for students to be dismayed by Trump’s victory.

    4. To be sure, there are a lot of specifics about Trump’s personal character and policy agenda that make his win troubling in its own right.

    5. It’s not the most diverse line up, to be sure, but it’s the one that best reflects history the way it actually happened.

    6. To be sure, there are extremist groups among social conservatives as well.

    1. To be sure, they all sound real to me.

      1. I Can’t Believe It’s Not Robby Soave!

        Available in the derp aisle.

    2. I’ll guess 2, because don’t call me Shirley.

  28. another re-run

    Spot the Not: quotes from Clinton supporters

    1. Mrs. Clinton has done her homework on pretty much any subject you’d care to name.

    2. She was the secretary President Obama needed and wanted: someone who knew leaders around the world, who brought star power as well as expertise to the table.

    3. Hillary Clinton, with her long experience, especially as Secretary of State, has a firm grasp of the issues and will be prepared to lead our country on day one.

    4. Clinton has been a Senator and a Secretary of State, not to mention playing an active role as First Lady in her husband’s administration. She’s been breaking glass ceilings her whole life and there’s no one better for breaking this one.

    5. ? I really wish she hadn’t given those six-figure talks to Goldman Sachs. But I genuinely believe she’ll make the best president.

    6. ? I really don’t want to see her abused again. I’m tired of seeing her confronted by entitled men weighing in on her personal honesty and likability, treating the most admired woman in the world like a woman who’s applying to be his secretary.

      1. I definitely wrote one of them myself, but I had trouble remembering which one it was.

    1. 5, because it contains an acknowledgement that she did something wrong, rather than blaming all her problems on Russian rednecks.

      1. “Please to be holding my vodka and watching this.”

        1. OK, Eddie, that made me laugh.

    1. You’re probably fishing for a pun using the word “stiff,” but I’m above that sort of thing.

      1. Nah, you’re rotten to the corpse.

        1. They’re letting him down for the last time…oops, wrong joke.

    2. Well the bar has been set for Bill Clinton’s funeral!

    3. Would, would, would, would, would, would, would, would, would, would, would, would……….

  29. Not that it excuses the governor, but you could always take a day trip to Washington or Oregon from Idaho and find if CBD actually turns out to be Lorenzo’s oil.

  30. Somebody paid him off and has him by the balls. Or, somebody has dirt on him. Or, perhaps, he is just a massive douche canoe.

    I actually kind of hope it’s one of the first two. Number three is too goddam depressing.

  31. Time for new blood. A long time ago he was known to make occasional controversial libertarian flavored statements. He has evidently had become addicted to the juice like most others of his type. Political power is more addictive than heroin and or meth and has never been less regulated, in spite of the much greater danger it poses to public health. I tell all the kids thinking about getting into this to find a more sensible and relatively harmless diversion. Almost anything else – alcohol,tobacco,all the other better drugs,firearms,explosives,internet porn, huffing mercury vapors.

  32. Just dab some CBD crstals and enjoy it, no need to worry about anything right.

  33. Our Cannabis Oil is Pure and potent.Never watered down or diluted,just
    100% pure cannabis oil extracted from top quality marijuana grown by
    us and other professional cultivators in California,laboratory
    tested,then offered for sale here.Our cannabis oil is packaged in 1
    gram and 3.5 gram disposable syringes for easy dispensing.If you
    aren’t sure how to get the cannabis oil out of the syringe,For orders
    and more information,Kindly contact us on our email:

  34. Pretty bad CBD oil has to get passed to use. As well as thc. I’m a cancer patient who after trying it while on chemo i felt so much better. PS that was CBD oil too. Every ? patient knows that one part thc and one part CBD not only stop’s cancer but shrinks it.

  35. I recommend CBD Edibles as the best option for consuming cannanidiol as they are now available in delicious treats and unlimited options! Get CBD Edibles here

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.