JDavis

Trying to ban something that is currently legal is a different ballpark than trying to legalize something that is currently banned. Both are governmental control

Who are "The People"? LOL, The People are whoever is represented by the government that bans this, or legalizes that. For example, The People in Colorado have legalized marijuana, but The People in Texas have not. If I say "we", it implies everyone, to include me, but that wouldn't be true would it? The People are those that have representation, whether it be ideological, legal, or constitutional. I haven't come up with a term for those that have no representation, but, give me time, I am sure I will think of something. who does not have representation?

I am betting those against pot being legal were upset over the large soda ban in NY

I fail to see the irony if a person thinks somthing should not be done in public spaces but is ok in private. As a married father of two I can easily think of at least one thing that falls into this category....good at home not so much in public

Like what? Ge 17:1 ¶ And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be you perfect. 1Pe 1:16 Because it is written, You will be holy; for I am holy. You can argue with scripture for the sake of arguing all you want Man. The word "perfect" in Gen 17:1 means "complete" not how the word is used today. I believe that the verse in 1 Pet is telling us that we are holy because we have been redeemed by Christ, who is holy. notice the verse does not say we will be holy because of our own actions.

Rather meaningless number without details on how it compares historically

could you please elaborate?

There are crazies everywhere

wouldnt it be ironic...16 days of a shutdown could not do the job but a bad job of programing might

Source? "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

I am rather torn on this issue...but in the end I dont see how we justify tobacco and alcohol being legal and pot not.

The Constitution is not the place for such things. I agree with the premise that Paul is putting forth, but this is not what the Constitution is for.

First, I didn't place blame, I stated a fact. Congress (which consist of the House of Representatives and the Senate) control the purse of the nation, not the President. but to answer your question, yes I blame congress which include both sides of it and both parties. The GOP is very hip on cutting spending when their is a Dem in the White House, yet they raised the debt limit 7 times under Bush (which is more than even Obama has done it, but he still has time to break that record). During the 8 years we had a Repub sitting in the White House the nations debt doubled. So, you can tell me that there is a party that wants to limit spending, but I have never seen any evidence to support their claim.

The truth of the matter is that Mr. Obama is paying the bills. But there are more bill than there is income. In the US the president does not decide how much money is spent and on what, that is the duty of congress. We need congress to reign in spending, but that has not happened in a very long time...and yet we reelect those members of congress at a 95% rate.

Would a shroud qualify as a craved image?

Which group was trying to stop the debt ceiling from being raised? Not raising the debt ceiling was never considered by either party during the shutdown. The shutdown was about many things, it was never about not extending the debt ceiling. as for this being a left or right issue, the "right" under Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times, a record that even Obama might not break. The debt under the last "right' president more than doubled, again something that even Obama has not managed to do, though he does still have time. The debt problem in our country is not result of one party.

Seems they got it right for a change

The President showed himself to act more like a bully than a leader. In what way? In refusing to give in to threats and ultimatums? This is one of a few times I have agreed with his actions....had he given in it would have opened the flood gates....what would be next, the Dems shutting down the government till the Repubs gave in on gun control or tax cuts? Perhaps he could call the President of Iran again and negotiate with him rather than the loyal opposition? Perhaps the TeaParty could take a lesson from the President of Iran...he did not tell Obama to agree to his terms or he would nuke the country. Threats and ultimatums are not the best way to get people to go negotiate

The President showed himself to act more like a bully than a leader. In what way? In refusing to give in to threats and ultimatums? This is one of a few times I have agreed with his actions....had he given in it would have opened the flood gates....what would be next, the Dems shutting down the government till the Repubs gave in on gun control or tax cuts?

Crop information.... Commodity prices are based off the data my office provides as well as planting decisions by the farmers themselves This is a critical time for both corn and soybean prices for the next year

what do we have to show for the shutting down of the government? According to Standard and Poor it cost the eeconomy$24 billion another economist said it would knock the GDP down by 20% for this quarter. the ACA is untouched the debt limit is raised Spending is at sequester levels Ted Cruz got lots of face time. Can anyone think of anything else?

You do know that second statesment is in reference to the people keeping the parks closed, not the Vets No, I did not know. There was nothing in what was written that clarified this point. I thank you for clarifying this now. You asked what I thought was motivating those who were keeping the parks closed...i answered with the words..."what is motivating them..."

I am a little confused by this, I thought the exchanges were only for those that choose them and/or didn't get their healthcare through their employer. Since the Federal Government like a great many employers offer its employees healthcare insurance, why would anyone working for the Fed Government be forced to the exchanges any more than one working for ATT or Boeing?

Would you please copy and paste some of the words that I have said that would fall into this category? I have been trying to soften my words and I would be very helpful to know which words were being taken in this manner. Thank you for your assistance in this matter OK. "[i find it] interesting that these vets care so much about the parks being closed and not about the 800,000 people out of work. Seems there are some misplaced priorities. [i think] what is motivating them is the same thing that is keeping government closed... making political points." This came across to me as a verbal tear-down, by attacking their integrity and making accusations against their motives. You do know that second statesment is in reference to the people keeping the parks closed, not the Vets

i have no problem with the Vets taking down the barricades. I think to focus their anger on just Obama misses the much bigger picture. Obama is just one small part in the machinery. The job of the police is a difficult one that is being second guessed by those who are not in the situation at the time. I have done crowd control agsint an angry mob and it is scary as all get up, I cannot fault the police, from what I have seen they did not go over the line. The bigger picture . . . to what do you refer - something like the GOP in the House, or something like the Illuminati or the Bildebergers or whomever? In any event, I believe people should be expressing their anger at Obama's free lunch with the media, deification by the radical left who own the Democratic party, getting away with Fast and Furious and Benghazi, shaking hands with Muslim terrorists (The Muslim Brotherhood), undermining our core values as a nation and of the Constitution, and the like. Perhaps allowing a Muslim rally on 9-11 and closing the WW 2 and Vietnam Memorials and the like are the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. As for the angry mob though, no one was acting in any way that appeared threatening. They were not rioting, they were not throwing things. They dumped barricades and shouted. That's it. No, I dont mean just the GOP in the house, I mean the whole borken system. Our two party/winner take all system is no longer viable in our country due to the take over of both parties by the special interest groups and the power elite. And again, I will not critize the police, I didnt see anything that was out of line and until you have stood in their shoes you cannot understand