Mirror Finish Polishing ~ 1-816-529-6089 ~ sales@mirrorfinishpolishing.com ~ mirrorfinishpolishing.com Partners Insurance ~ (636)734-1310 ~ brice@partnersinsuranceinc.com Never Done Garage - donewhenimdead.com Peerless Automotive Reconditioning - 1155 W. Dennis Ave, Olathe Ks, 66061 - 913-893-1201 Mark H. Epstein ~ ROE & EPSTEIN, LLP ~ (816) 421-9000 Wilkes Automotive ~ wilkesautomotive.com ~ 246 Marion St, Olathe, KS 66061 ~ 913-254-7171 Skandalous Inc ~ www.skandalousinc.com DIY Auto Repair Inc ~ www.diyautorepairkc.com ~ 11509 Strangline Rd, Olathe KS 66062 ~ 913-226-3806 Your advertisement here! The Law Offices of Jeremiah Johnson, LLC ~ 104 E. Poplar, Olathe, KS 66061 ~ (913)764-5010 ~ www.kcatty.com - www.johnsoncountydui.com ~ jeremiah@kcatty.com Santa Fe Body, Inc ~ 8717 Lenexa Drive, Overland Park, KS 66214 ~ (913) 894-6090 House of Boost LLC Nude? HouseofHID.com - The #1 source for HID R|M|D Photography 816.200.6694 or Ryan@RMD-Photography.com the art of tyleR ~ http://tyleR.bigcartel.com ~ TYLERcoey.com ~ MUTTtoy.com ~ MUTTtoy@gmail.com W-K Chevrolet Buick Pontiac Cadillac GMC ~ 3310 W. Broadway, Sedalia, MO 65301 ~ 800-382-5088 ~ Cell 660-553-8928 ~ dustin@wkchevy.com ~ www.wkchevy.com


Go Back   KCSR - THE Kansas City Forum > General Forums > Politics, Religion, Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-06-21, 02:01 PM   #1
Ricerking13
 
Ricerking13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 47,907
Post Thanks / Like
Default These people run our country... :-(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFgrB...ayer_embedded#!

Seriously... this lady is the head of the fucking DEA... can't give a straight answer because it would start down a path that proves she isn't needed (or at least needed in her current direction)... this kind of shit infuriates me.

Something went wrong. Please make sure you added the video correctly.

Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFgrB2Wmh5s&feature=player_embedded#!
__________________
2009 BMW 335i
Ricerking13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 03:08 PM   #2
87supraT
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,944
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 13
Thanks (Received): 17
Likes (Given): 27
Likes (Received): 71
Dislikes (Given): 0
Dislikes (Received): 1
Default

I kept waiting for an answer. I love how the guy kept asking the same question over and over to get a "real" response...
__________________
87supraT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 03:18 PM   #3
phreakdna
 
phreakdna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brookside
Posts: 3,707
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 47
Thanks (Received): 54
Likes (Given): 108
Likes (Received): 273
Dislikes (Given): 5
Dislikes (Received): 20
Default

unfortunately its not just whether or not she gives a straight answer... if she gave us straight answers you know that Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity would be screaming at the top of their lungs tonight that the Obama Administration "admitted" on the Congressional record that they were soft on drugs and wanted to get your kids and grandkids high. and that clearly the next step was to pass out Obama Joints for votes or some moronic thing or another. (and yes, Ed Schultz probably would've done something similar 4 years ago)

the guy was asking very simplistic questions regarding very complex issues in order to try and get a specific response... are almost all drugs more addictive than marijuana? seems like a simple question but its a truncated question... in your non-medical opinion, are almost all drugs more addictive than marijuana to a majority of people? and that's still a basic version of that question. he was asking for concrete answers to bad questions.

I'm 100% in support of legalization of marijuana but that guy wasn't asking questions, he was trying to lead her down a path to get her to say things he wanted. she simply refused to follow him down that rabbit hole and looked the worse for it but if you really look at the situation she didn't have much of a choice.
__________________
Hamilton on requiring Congressional supermajorities "...its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority." - Federalist No. 22
phreakdna is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 03:44 PM   #4
Ricerking13
 
Ricerking13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 47,907
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Another with her... I honestly feel so fucked... and I'm absolutely not into drugs.


Something went wrong. Please make sure you added the video correctly.

Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0ujs8mRkWM&feature=youtube
__________________
2009 BMW 335i

Last edited by Ricerking13; 2012-06-21 at 04:00 PM..
Ricerking13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 03:46 PM   #5
Ricerking13
 
Ricerking13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 47,907
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phreakdna View Post
unfortunately its not just whether or not she gives a straight answer... if she gave us straight answers you know that Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity would be screaming at the top of their lungs tonight that the Obama Administration "admitted" on the Congressional record that they were soft on drugs and wanted to get your kids and grandkids high. and that clearly the next step was to pass out Obama Joints for votes or some moronic thing or another. (and yes, Ed Schultz probably would've done something similar 4 years ago)

the guy was asking very simplistic questions regarding very complex issues in order to try and get a specific response... are almost all drugs more addictive than marijuana? seems like a simple question but its a truncated question... in your non-medical opinion, are almost all drugs more addictive than marijuana to a majority of people? and that's still a basic version of that question. he was asking for concrete answers to bad questions.

I'm 100% in support of legalization of marijuana but that guy wasn't asking questions, he was trying to lead her down a path to get her to say things he wanted. she simply refused to follow him down that rabbit hole and looked the worse for it but if you really look at the situation she didn't have much of a choice.
Another video posted... it's a path that needs to be gone down... and she is THE person in this country to head down that path... that's what infuriates me.
__________________
2009 BMW 335i
Ricerking13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 03:56 PM   #6
Username:*
More awesomer than you
 
Username:*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I have to return some video tapes
Posts: 43,589
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 44
Thanks (Received): 95
Likes (Given): 236
Likes (Received): 586
Dislikes (Given): 6
Dislikes (Received): 7
Default

You just posted the same video twice Jason.

I found the video to be pretty funny myself.
__________________
Username:* is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 04:01 PM   #7
Ricerking13
 
Ricerking13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 47,907
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Username:* View Post
You just posted the same video twice Jason.

I found the video to be pretty funny myself.
Thanks I'm a retard... fixed.

I'd like to laugh at it... but it's pretty scary.
__________________
2009 BMW 335i
Ricerking13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 04:02 PM   #8
Ricerking13
 
Ricerking13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 47,907
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phreakdna View Post
unfortunately its not just whether or not she gives a straight answer... if she gave us straight answers you know that Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity would be screaming at the top of their lungs tonight that the Obama Administration "admitted" on the Congressional record that they were soft on drugs and wanted to get your kids and grandkids high. and that clearly the next step was to pass out Obama Joints for votes or some moronic thing or another. (and yes, Ed Schultz probably would've done something similar 4 years ago)
And Phreak, you think government shouldn't discuss relevant topics for fear of what talk show hosts will say?
__________________
2009 BMW 335i
Ricerking13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 04:52 PM   #9
Ryan Stewart
Mr. Plow
 
Ryan Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 32,261
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricerking13 View Post
And Phreak, you think government shouldn't discuss relevant topics for fear of what talk show hosts will say?
No, he is just defending his side. If Olberman bags on Ron Paul its Pauls fault.
__________________
Old as shit


Ryan Stewart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 05:01 PM   #10
phreakdna
 
phreakdna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brookside
Posts: 3,707
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 47
Thanks (Received): 54
Likes (Given): 108
Likes (Received): 273
Dislikes (Given): 5
Dislikes (Received): 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricerking13 View Post
And Phreak, you think government shouldn't discuss relevant topics for fear of what talk show hosts will say?
not what I said at all.

I don't think that it "should" affect what they say/don't but I'm not naive enough to think that it doesn't. the DEA Admin isn't a powerful political appointee, if they say something controversial (and 'real talk' about drugs and their actual effects on people is sadly controversial) on the Hill on tape and it becomes a political item because Hannity screams about it and next thing you know Darrell Issa is subpeona-ing half the DEA and holding people in contempt because its an election year...

the 24hr news cycle combined with the vanity/stupidity of our Congress have teamed up to make straight talk on complex issues almost impossible.
__________________
Hamilton on requiring Congressional supermajorities "...its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority." - Federalist No. 22
phreakdna is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 05:04 PM   #11
phreakdna
 
phreakdna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brookside
Posts: 3,707
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 47
Thanks (Received): 54
Likes (Given): 108
Likes (Received): 273
Dislikes (Given): 5
Dislikes (Received): 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Stewart View Post
No, he is just defending his side. If Olberman bags on Ron Paul its Pauls fault.
lol you're quick to show your ass today...

I don't have a side in this one. I don't like the DEA's inability to discern harmful drugs from those that aren't. I actually agree with the inherent point the Congressmen were trying to make but I think its misguided to blame this woman for being aware of the game they were trying to play and the statements they were trying to lead her into giving and refusing to be a part of it...


edit* just to show how little there is a 'side' to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawStory.com
Leonhart was nominated to be the Deputy Administrator of the DEA by then-President Bush in 2003 and confirmed by the Senate in 2004. She became the acting Administrator of the DEA after the former Administrator, Karen P. Tandy, resigned in 2007. Obama officially nominated Leonhart to the position in 2010.
__________________
Hamilton on requiring Congressional supermajorities "...its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority." - Federalist No. 22

Last edited by phreakdna; 2012-06-21 at 05:43 PM..
phreakdna is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 05:06 PM   #12
e.
 
e.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Manhattan/Olathe
Posts: 10,105
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 15
Thanks (Received): 52
Likes (Given): 238
Likes (Received): 249
Dislikes (Given): 25
Dislikes (Received): 9
Default

She is so full of shit. And her last response was just complete bs.

*Seth Myer's voice* This chick really thinks the DEA would even consider using medical marijuana to help combat the issue of people abusing prescription drugs? Really? Really?!?!
__________________
2004 Black Obsidian G35
e. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 09:06 PM   #13
Ryan Stewart
Mr. Plow
 
Ryan Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 32,261
Post Thanks / Like
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phreakdna View Post
lol you're quick to show your ass today...
Says the guy whose first response to her painful to watch testimony is "its the fault of those right winger hosts!"
__________________
Old as shit


Ryan Stewart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 09:24 PM   #14
Oblique
 
Oblique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wherever I May Roam
Posts: 3,933
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 17
Thanks (Received): 71
Likes (Given): 35
Likes (Received): 358
Dislikes (Given): 5
Dislikes (Received): 16
Default

She pretty much did her best Mr Mackey impression over and over. Is it bad that I'm not the least bit surprised and have come to expect this kind of thing from our government?
__________________
"It's when murder is justice that martyrs are made"
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Likes lazydaizy liked this post

Last edited by Oblique; 2012-06-21 at 09:27 PM..
Oblique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 09:36 PM   #15
Corners
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 7,943
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 79
Thanks (Received): 116
Likes (Given): 317
Likes (Received): 617
Dislikes (Given): 20
Dislikes (Received): 15
Default

Wow. That was bad.

Phreak, I can't believe you're such a party line guy that you can't realize that, and had to try and come up with some big, long, indirect excuse.
__________________
"Go that way, really fast. If something gets in your way, turn." - Charles De Mar.

"And what? Vote for the democrat who's going to blast me in the ass? Or the republican who's going to blast my ass? Either way, politics is all one big ass blasting." - Ronald MacDonald.

2011 Toyota Corolla LE 2.0, Right Hand Drive.
2004 Citroen C2 1.4 VTR. - 73 hp monster.
2013 SWP WRX Limited 5-Door ordered 1/28/2013.
Corners is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-21, 09:53 PM   #16
Mike V
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sedalia
Posts: 7,471
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 33
Thanks (Received): 57
Likes (Given): 273
Likes (Received): 250
Dislikes (Given): 2
Dislikes (Received): 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblique View Post
She pretty much did her best Mr Mackey impression over and over. Is it bad that I'm not the least bit surprised and have come to expect this kind of thing from our government?
I actually laughed out loud the first time she said "drugs are bad."
Mike V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-22, 09:56 AM   #17
phreakdna
 
phreakdna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brookside
Posts: 3,707
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 47
Thanks (Received): 54
Likes (Given): 108
Likes (Received): 273
Dislikes (Given): 5
Dislikes (Received): 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corners View Post
Wow. That was bad.

Phreak, I can't believe you're such a party line guy that you can't realize that, and had to try and come up with some big, long, indirect excuse.
it was bad. my question is whether or not it was purposeful/reasonable based on how the questions were phrased and how they would be reacted to in the media.


this isn't a party issue. imo, the DEA is apolitical. the history of this administrator's rise suggests that it is.

I feel like I'm somehow not communicating my question/position well since few seem capable to understand that this isn't a political backing issue:
1. I disagree with the DEA's position on marijuana.
2. I thought the exchanges were pitiful by both the admin and the Congressional questioners
3. I think that entire exchange could very well be the result of our political circus. the pols wanting to score points and get a DEA official to answer a half-baked question... and the administrator for being either a. overly sensitive to how the answers could be pulled from context by people with agendas (aka "Shirley Sherrod" syndrome) or b. she's a moron.
__________________
Hamilton on requiring Congressional supermajorities "...its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority." - Federalist No. 22
phreakdna is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-22, 05:00 PM   #18
Ryan H.
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Frankfort, KY
Posts: 5,690
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 44
Thanks (Received): 24
Likes (Given): 48
Likes (Received): 122
Dislikes (Given): 35
Dislikes (Received): 8
Default

Oh good lord.

Guess Obama doesn't have his own party in line.
__________________
Ryan H. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-25, 08:03 PM   #19
Sparticus95
 
Sparticus95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LSMO
Posts: 6,665
Post Thanks / Like
Thanks (Given): 6
Thanks (Received): 29
Likes (Given): 32
Likes (Received): 135
Dislikes (Given): 1
Dislikes (Received): 2
Default

LOL I may be too late to the party. But lets get one thing straight.

The woman is the representative head of the "DEA". Therefore, she cannot provide her "personal" opinion, regardless of what it is. She must represent the joint opinion of the DEA, which, by its ideals, report through a chain to the President, and are therefore part of the enforcement branch of government. It is not there role nor their right to determine lots of things about legalization, drugs, etc., it is merely there role to support it.

As a spokesperson for this agency, rather than stumble about she should be answering questions that the DEA will hold to all laws which are in place in the US today, appointed by the people of the United States. Those laws are not subject to her, or the DEA's scrutiny nor can personal opinions be delivered while in uniform serving the position. She is merely offering the American public what the elected officials that were put in place by the public have agreed the country wants and desires.

The legality of the laws, and whether or not the us legislation has the right to pass these laws or the DEA to enforce them falls onto the judicial branch. Anything that the public deems unnecessary should be brought to their attention via the proper channels.

For effects of drugs on the human body, please refer to the AMA (American Medical Association) for extensive studies of various substances and their effects on the human body. For the effects on the populous, please refer to Sociological societies and other accredited organizations that are more specialized to provide answers to those questions."
__________________
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Likes Cj98 liked this post
Sparticus95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.13.37
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright (c) 1993-2012, KCSR.org