Hillary For President

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

If people want to grow their own marijuana in their homes as so many already do, why continue to criminalize it? Since people can brew wine and beer at home, why not grow marijuana?

This is just the beginning of the conversation.
Disclaimer: I am not and never have been a pot smoker.

My understanding if marijuana laws is that they were implemented to protect big business, nothing else.

Not surprising. The hallmark of the United states is protection for big business at the expense of consumers.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by MrPots

My understanding if marijuana laws is that they were implemented to protect big business, nothing else.

Not surprising. The hallmark of the United states is protection for big business at the expense of consumers.

And yet those who have been screaming the loudest about gov collusion with big biz are backing a candidate who's owned by big biz.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

And yet those who have been screaming the loudest about gov collusion with big biz are backing a candidate who's owned by big biz.

Be that as it may, who do you suggest we back?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

And yet those who have been screaming the loudest about gov collusion with big biz are backing a candidate who's owned by big biz.

Whether Hillary is "owned by big biz" is a debatable point. What's inarguable is the fact that her opponent is big business.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Whether Hillary is "owned by big biz" is a debatable point. What's inarguable is the fact that her opponent is big business.

One is being propped up, the other stands on his own. Literally and figuratively.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

One is being propped up, the other stands on his own. Literally and figuratively.

Thanx to bankruptcies.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Whether Hillary is "owned by big biz" is a debatable point.

Not to me.

She is owned, period.

Originally Posted by Boreas

What's inarguable is the fact that her opponent is big business.

That makes him beholden to one big business, Trump, Inc.

Hillary on the other hand is beholden to a plethora of big businesses.


Do you know what a plethora is?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Not to me.

She is owned, period.

No shit. You have made yourself completely reason-proof.

That makes him beholden to one big business, Trump, Inc.

Like all capitalist empires, Trump's empire couldn't exist without the cooperation and indulgence of Wall Street and the government.

Hillary on the other hand is beholden to a plethora of big businesses.

Possibly but, as I said, it's something that can be argued from both sides.

Do you know what a plethora is?

What do you think, genius?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

One is being propped up, the other stands on his own. Literally and figuratively.

No, he doesn't. He's dependent on other capitalists to fund his enterprises.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Boreas

No, he doesn't. He's dependent on other capitalists to fund his enterprises.

Capitalists and Russian oligarchs, I'm guessing but who knows, he won't release his taxes.