US voters want troops out of Europe

Ron Paul's stance on Europe-based military deployments may be reflective of US voters according to a GOP polling firm:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 31% of Likely U.S. Voters think the United States should not remove all its troops from Western Europe. However, 47% favor withdrawing those troops and letting the Europeans defend themselves. Twenty-one percent (21%) are undecided.
Greece enjoys the presence of several US military bases.

Rasmussen also tells voters that Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in Florida polling.

hipneck sent two videos: one with Lawrence Lessig discussing his view on ending the influence of unethical money in Congress and one on Joel Salatin discussing unethical industrial agriculture.

Farm subsidies are driving insane record prices for ag land and the best ag land goes for housing developments. WTF?

ip poll voters missed Newt's ascent. Yer slippin' dudes. Who wins South Carolina?

2 (20%)

0 (0%)

3 (30%)

0 (0%)

2 (20%)

3 (30%)

Okay: about the poll, Should Hillary be veep candidate in 2012? "Yer fuckin' nuts, kurtz," doesn't answer the question leaving a unanimous chorus for her addition to the ticket:

1 (6%)

Hell yes
1 (6%)

Yer fuckin' nuts, kurtz
13 (86%)

If Canada legalizes cannabis: then what?

From the Guardian:
Two studies, for which scientists struggled to find funding because of public suspicion and political sensitivity around psychedelic drugs, have shed light on how magic mushrooms affect the brain. The studies showed that psilocybin worked on the same areas of the brain as the SSRI antidepressants such as Prozac, as well as talking therapies and meditation as carried out by skilled practitioners. But the advantage over pills, the team believes, is that the positive effect could be long-lasting.
Statehood for Mexico.


Anonymous said...


Duffer said...

unhh . . . Obama/Holder's DEA, ATF, FBI, Homeland Security, and Park Rangers invade and shut down all Canadian dispensaries; and then lock up (indefinitely detain) anyone within 1000' of schools for the rest of their natural lives.

Pot smokers are terrorists, you know.

From the cheap seats - how's that (elephant open convention) looking now?

Jeb Busch, Jeb Busch, Jeb Busch . . . . .

Surf's up . . . sun should be out by afternoon.

larry kurtz said...

A US District Court judge from Montana who is often thought of as legislating from the bench by conservatives has ruled that the feds can ignore state cannabis law.

Anonymous said...

Where is this coming from?

larry kurtz said...

There is no mechanism in place to ensure that states are immune from lawsuits stemming from incidents that can be linked to state cannabis law.

Duffer said...

dat should fall under the general-indemnity clause of da constitushon, don'cha think?

I can't conjure a law, or system of laws in place that indemnifies individual States from liability in the case of liquor sales, or anything else like that.

Wot's the deal Larry . . . you think something as simple as that would be at the root of all this drama . . . anyway?

It's much more. Number one would be the hysterical (fear and loathing) component of our culture (numerous societal groups) that are afraid of everything . . . next might be the prosecutorial branch of the legal profession - those with politically ambitious agendas (tough on crime); and certainly not least would be the entrenched law-enforcement bureaucracy and currently-privatizing prison industry complex.

And I don't get the Montana judge reference - you're saying that he doesn't recognize the Constitutional basis for State law in this matter?

Duffer said...

okay . . . just read the story of Judge Malloy's decision in Montana.

That's (his) opinion, and it should be appealed in Montana - as it is being appealed in other States at present. I see a class-action suit forming. This is where it will settle.

I see it as a 10th ammendment based issue. Any (progressive) Constitutional scholars out there? What say you?

larry kurtz said...

You've answered your own questions, Duff; and we've had this discussion: people sue tobacco companies, distillers, and brewers all the time for incidents where there isn't enough insurance to satisfy a tort claim.

Whether the Montana case is appealed while Steve Bullock is Attorney General is yet to be known.

That would be a great story, too.

larry kurtz said...

Recall the tobacco company lawsuits, Duff.

Somebody needs to write credible law that will build revenue marked for the inevitable medical claims and will stand up to scrutiny by the feds.

It's that simple.

Duffer said...

. . . but this "technicality" you continue to dredge-up is not the immediate legal obstacle Mister Kurtz.

Legal eagles aren't currently arguing about potential "liabilities" and how they should be mitigated - it's immediately about a States Right foundation in the Constitution. That's Judge Malloys take on it too - from a Federalist perspective.

It'll take some time, but it will arrive at some point on Judge Roberts' desk. Montana will likely be a party - bet South Dakota won't. Fear and loathing dominates in South Duck.

larry kurtz said...

It's the Supremacy Clause, Duff.