PPP poll: Palin leads GOP field — among Republicans who say they’ve smoked pot

posted at 4:49 pm on August 13, 2010 by Allahpundit

Who was it, remind me, who was ahead of the curve on this? Who was it who called on her to gently appeal to the legalization crowd weeks before she ended up dropping that mini-bombshell on Napolitano’s show about marijuana laws being overenforced?

C’mon. I have, like, three good ideas a year. Give a man some props.

Among Republicans who say they’ve smoked Marijuana:

Palin 25
Gingrich 22
Huckabee 17
Romney 17
Paul 8

Among Republicans who say they have not smoked Marijuana:

Huckabee 24
Romney 23
Gingrich 21
Palin 21
Paul 3

The sample size was only, er, 83 people, but even so, I’m intrigued to see her so far ahead of Ron Paul, whom you might think would have this particular market cornered. Either her brand as a western libertarian-ish type is stronger than we realized or pot-smoking is so mainstream even among Republicans that there’s no “fringe effect” when polling this particular demographic. When you sample a group of conservatives who’ve smoked weed, you end up with … a group of conservatives, not the pilots of the next “rEVOLution” blimp or whatever. Exit question: Which formerly lefty issue will a majority of the right embrace first, marijuana legalization or gay marriage?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

PS oh I forgot if we survive two more years of “Cousin Eddie” the lyin Pinnochio and his kin, Joe “the Sheriff” Bite-Me and Bozo “Fibbs” the clown, a cantaloupe could win the presidency in 2012 as is evidenced by the fact that Newt the Gingrich is slip slidin around thinkin he is still relevant, still has a clue, and that the public forgot or never knew or won’t care that he left office in the midst of a corruption scandal.

dhunter on August 14, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Sarah is just tearing Obowma a new one on Twitter over the Ground Zero Mosque….

Finally a Republican with cojones!

Norwegian on August 14, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Sarah is just tearing Obowma a new one on Twitter over the Ground Zero Mosque….

Finally a Republican with cojones!

Norwegian on August 14, 2010 at 7:36 PM

im sure Allah will have a post up on this exchange ASAP.

unseen on August 14, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive “cross-cultural engagement” and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven’t they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite?

Mr. President, why aren’t you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson’s generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero? Why haven’t they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as “hallowed ground”? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask.

- Sarah Palin

unseen on August 14, 2010 at 10:10 PM

What is the radius from ground zero in terms of city blocks in which you don’t have Freedom of Religion if you’re a Muslim? Because we first need to figure that out before we can talk about whether this particular Islamic center is OK.

Proud Rino on August 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM

What is the radius from ground zero in terms of city blocks in which you don’t have Freedom of Religion if you’re a Muslim? Because we first need to figure that out before we can talk about whether this particular Islamic center is OK.

Proud Rino on August 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM

About the same as the German Army shrine has from Auschwitz.

sharrukin on August 14, 2010 at 10:20 PM

About the same as the German Army shrine has from Auschwitz.

sharrukin on August 14, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Uhh…Auschwitz isn’t in the United States. And “Army shrines”(?) aren’t really a freedom of religion issue anyway. So, your post was the stupidest thing I’ve read all day. Congratulations, champ.

Proud Rino on August 14, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Proud Rino on August 14, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Ask a stupid (and pointless) question you will get a stupid answer!

You actually think your idiotic gotcha question deserved the slightest bit of thought?

sharrukin on August 14, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Are you seriously arguing that Hotair doesn’t have an anti-Palin slant?

sharrukin on August 14, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Are you seriously arguing that anything HotAir posts about her is negative?

MadisonConservative on August 14, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Ummm, at least a few things. Thought you were a little bit more astute.

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 14, 2010 at 11:04 PM

Among Republicans who say they’ve smoked Marijuana:

Palin 25
Gingrich 22
Huckabee 17
Romney 17
Paul 8

Among Republicans who say they have not smoked Marijuana:

Huckabee 24
Romney 23
Gingrich 21
Palin 21
Paul 3

No doubt about it, more republicans need to smoke pot.

Seriously, if you think this will change my mind, then pass the bong!

Kini on August 15, 2010 at 12:04 AM

Here’s what is stupid about this blog post. First of all, it’s absolutely clear to me that Sarah is NOT some wackadoodle right-winger. She’s just pretty much a conservative type, who knows and embraces how to get along with opposition.

Second, the whole drug story? What is the blog-owner suggesting? Anyone who isn’t rabid about pot-smokers isn’t conservative?

You seriously must be bent to suggest this. That immediately suggsts a lack of real clarity on this issue to me.

Third, the tactics of this blog are exactly the same as Huffington Post.

How to bash Palin is the theme.

How does this “theme” work with what’s obviously happening in the GOP?

And isn’t this tactic absolutely a sign that this blog doesn’t represent conservativsm today?

I think it does.

I am already looking for a different blog.

This one simply no longer seems relevant. They post conservative stories, but then bash Palin daily.

It’s gotten ridiculous.

Anyway, I figure the conservatives have no really good blogs, or this one would be dead by now.

AnninCA on August 14, 2010 at 1:02 PM

I don’t often agree with AnninCA, and I’m not saying I agree with all of the above, but I think she’s got a point.

Even if it is mainly a perception, and not necessarily what the bloggers intended, it seems like we have too many stories that are aimed at basically trolling the readership of the blog. Poking them, if you will, to provoke a reaction.

Too much of that, and readership may well begin abandoning the blog.

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 15, 2010 at 2:17 AM

What is the radius from ground zero in terms of city blocks in which you don’t have Freedom of Religion if you’re a Muslim? Because we first need to figure that out before we can talk about whether this particular Islamic center is OK.

Proud Rino on August 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM

about the same radius as the no fly zone for japan around pearl harbor

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 6:30 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 15, 2010 at 2:17 AM

400+ comments. AP’s mission is accomplished.

B Man on August 15, 2010 at 6:35 AM

hot air needs to hire a weekend blogger

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 7:13 AM

What is the radius from ground zero in terms of city blocks in which you don’t have Freedom of Religion if you’re a Muslim? Because we first need to figure that out before we can talk about whether this particular Islamic center is OK.

Proud Rino on August 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM

You have an astoundingly difficult time understanding even the basic tenets of this great nation.

“Freedom of religion” mostly refers to an individual freedom. As in, no one can tell a Muslim they cannot go to Ground Zero and pray, and no one can tell a kindergartner that they can’t pray at their lunch table at her or her public school.

But, just as a public school teacher cannot initiate and lead a prayer in a public school, a church should not be built on shared, federal land. Now, maybe–to placate idiots like you who just like to poke and provoke–we need to designate Ground Zero as federal property, a “religion neutral” zone where ANYone can pray according to their own conscience, but no one religion is promoted or condoned above another.

This is elementary stuff, “RINO”. But libs often lack in fundamentals.

Grace_is_sufficient on August 15, 2010 at 7:36 AM

about the same radius as the no fly zone for japan around pearl harbor

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 6:30 AM

Is Japan not allowed to fly into Hawaii? Because I’m pretty sure they are, and if they are, that pretty much destroys your whole argument.

“Freedom of religion” mostly refers to an individual freedom. As in, no one can tell a Muslim they cannot go to Ground Zero and pray, and no one can tell a kindergartner that they can’t pray at their lunch table at her or her public school.

Interesting, where are you getting that particular interpretation? Is it actually from a reputable source, or did you just pull it out of thin air. Because I’m pretty sure it’s the latter.

But, just as a public school teacher cannot initiate and lead a prayer in a public school, a church should not be built on shared, federal land.

That land is not owned by the federal government. It’s owned by a Muslim dude. Who wants to build a Islamic religious center.

Now, maybe–to placate idiots like you who just like to poke and provoke–we need to designate Ground Zero as federal property, a “religion neutral” zone where ANYone can pray according to their own conscience, but no one religion is promoted or condoned above another.

Yes, if you want to make Ground Zero a federal landmark, fine. But that means they can still build this Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero, so that doesn’t solve your problem, nor does it answer my question: What is the radius from Ground Zero, in terms of city blocks, in which freedom of religion does not exist? Four city blocks? Ten?

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 8:06 AM

Ask a stupid (and pointless) question you will get a stupid answer!

You actually think your idiotic gotcha question deserved the slightest bit of thought?

sharrukin on August 14, 2010 at 10:28 PM

I love how your defense of yourself was that your response was stupid and you put no thought into it. That’s just sad.

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 8:14 AM

Is Japan not allowed to fly into Hawaii? Because I’m pretty sure they are, and if they are, that pretty much destroys your whole argument.
Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 8:06 AM

the last Japan Zero fighter that flew over pearl harbor was on Dec 7th, 1941.

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 8:16 AM

Palin’s point – and I guess this was Allahpundit’s point too – was not that they’re not allowed to build it, but that they shouldn’t. And my response to that is that we generally don’t have normative discussions about how people should and should not exercise their rights, but now, all of a sudden, we have to debate whether or not Muslims should be exercising their rights?

Anyone could have bought that building, and anyone could have built whatever they wanted on that land. A Muslim owns it, and he wants to build a Mosque. Whether or not it’s a bad idea is irrelevant to any legal aspect of the mosque being built.

What’s really going on here is that conservatives see, correctly, a chance to score some political points. So they hit us with the phony outrage to stir up the rubes and try to increase turnout and money for the midterms. Those campaign coffers aren’t going to fill themselves, rubes.

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 8:21 AM

the last Japan Zero fighter that flew over pearl harbor was on Dec 7th, 1941.

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 8:16 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

You said,

about the same radius as the no fly zone for japan around pearl harbor

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 6:30 AM

And Japan is allowed to fly into Hawaii, and I believe their jets are allowed to fly as close to Pearl Harbor as jets from any other country are. So again, your argument is destroyed.

But even if that weren’t true, there is no First Amendment right to fly planes from other countries over US soil. There is a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. So your argument, even if it works, is still irrelevant. So you’re actually failing on a couple levels here.

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 8:26 AM

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 8:21 AM

Con Ed owns the land.

ladyingray on August 15, 2010 at 9:13 AM

That land is not owned by the federal government. It’s owned by a Muslim dude. Who wants to build a Islamic religious center.

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 8:06 AM

Just pulling crap out of your butt, are you? The building is owned by several people, none of which are the “peaceful one’s” wanting to build this gigantic middle finger to America.

Squiggy on August 15, 2010 at 9:37 AM

I’ve always thought it was a huge mistake that the GOP takes the non-results oriented view on the pot issue. They have this visceral urge to “ban” this relatively harmless substance resulting in their marginalization in this matter. I have to say that even as a VERY conservative person, I’ve always felt that the criminalization of pot is one of the silliest, most non-sensical dogmas our mentally disabled government could every come up with.

Wine_N_Dine on August 15, 2010 at 9:51 AM

ladyingray on August 15, 2010 at 9:13 AM

Soho Properties, headed by Sharif el Gamal, owns half the property, and then they hold the lease for the other half until something like 2071, and while Con Ed owns that, but they also can exercise a purchase option at FMV. So, Soho Properties is going to own the land if they’re going to build the Islamic Center, which is obviously what I meant, LiG. Did you not pick up on that?

In any case, it’s certainly not owned by the federal government, which was the point I was making. I glossed over the details since the person I was responding to previously did not understand that the federal government did not own the property.

Understood?

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM

There is a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. So your argument, even if it works, is still irrelevant. So you’re actually failing on a couple levels here. Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 8:26 AM

And like every other right, it is not absolute.

The 1st Amendment, however, limits the federal govt from interfering (I know about incorporation, the 14th amendment, etc). This was the founders’ intent, since there were nine state churches in 1787, and most if not all participants in the constitutional convention had to have sworn fidelity to the Holy Trinity just to be delegates.

The amendment process cvould be used to ban things like anchor babies, and things like allowing a murderous theistic bandit code that requires its members to kill Christians and Jews to function like a religion.

Akzed on August 15, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Back to the topic at hand; why did the prohibition of alcohol require a constitutional amendment, but not the prohibition of marijuana?

Akzed on August 15, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Washington, D.C. – The National Park Service, the Families of Flight 93, and Svonavec, Inc. have reached an agreement to facilitate the preservation of the crash site of Flight 93 and timely development of the privately-owned 274-acre tract that is the center of the planned Flight 93 National Memorial.

The agreement sets forth a process that gives the National Park Service (NPS) immediate access to the crash site of Flight 93, enabling NPS to conduct activities necessary to planning and construction of the memorial. The Families of Flight 93 have had access to the site where Flight 93’s forty passengers and crewmembers died on September 11, 2001.

so a empty field in the middle of nowhere gets the national park service seal of approval for a national memorial but ground zero is not important enough for the government to buy the land and declare it a national memorial. got it.

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Back to the topic at hand; why did the prohibition of alcohol require a constitutional amendment, but not the prohibition of marijuana?

Akzed on August 15, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Because of FDR the socialist. during FDR’s new deal the consitution was shredded and the SCOTUS was blackmailed to open up the unlimited power of the federal government through the commerce clause. with the SCOTUS decision to allow federal control over any and all commerce that might cross state lines the federal government had the power to outlaw pot and other drugs, products like guns etc it did not want without a need for a consitutional amendment.

the process of destroying the consitution started with the income tax amendment when the federal government was basically blocked from imposing its will on the states and had to do some backroom shady deals to get the amendment to pass. From then on the destruction of the limits imposed on the fEd gov was job number one for liberals/progressive and it was finished in FDR’s regime with the takeover by blackmail of the SCOTUS

I’m all for doing away with the

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM

And like every other right, it is not absolute.

Yes, of course. You’re not allowed to violate other laws in the name of religious freedom. Can’t do drugs for religious purposes, can’t kill people, can’t kidnap people, etc.

The amendment process cvould be used to ban things like anchor babies, and things like allowing a murderous theistic bandit code that requires its members to kill Christians and Jews to function like a religion.

Akzed on August 15, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Yes, it could. You could get rid of the freedom of religion part of the Constitution along with the 14th Amendment right to citizenship for people born in the United States. And good luck with that, but until you succeed, you will not be able to prevent Muslims for practicing their religion any differently than you could prevent Christians from practicing theirs.

“Framers’ intent” holds very little water for me. Nothing in the Constitution says, “By enacting this pasage, we intend it to mean _____.” Nothing says, “Read the Federalist Papers in order to determine our intent in writing this Constitution.” The words in the document are the only ones we can use, and unfortunately for people who hate Islam, they’re pretty unambiguous when it comes to the freedom of religion.

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM

so a empty field in the middle of nowhere gets the national park service seal of approval for a national memorial but ground zero is not important enough for the government to buy the land and declare it a national memorial. got it.

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 11:20 AM

1. That “empty field in the middle of nowhere” is where 40 innocent people lost their lives overtaking murderous terrorists and saved possibly thousands of lives in the process, and you ought to be a little more respectful of it.

2. This isn’t at Ground Zero. It’s two blocks from Ground Zero. I will ask my question again: How many blocks away from Ground Zero do Muslims have to go before they get freedom of religion again?

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Back to the topic at hand; why did the prohibition of alcohol require a constitutional amendment, but not the prohibition of marijuana?

Akzed on August 15, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Please disregard unseen’s answer, he’s a moron and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

The answer is this: In 1919, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause probably wouldn’t have allowed the federal government to ban alcohol. It’s hard to know what the Court would have done then, but it’s unlikely that it would have passed muster as a federal law.

Even still, it wasn’t clear that they were allowed to ban marijuana until Gonzalez v. Raich in 2005. That’s certainly one of the broadest interpretations of the Commerce Clause (if not the broadest), and I suspect that it will be overturned sooner rather than later.

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM

2. This isn’t at Ground Zero. It’s two blocks from Ground Zero. I will ask my question again: How many blocks away from Ground Zero do Muslims have to go before they get freedom of religion again?

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM

It should be mentioned that part of one of the hijacked planes went through the building in question. That makes it very much a part of Ground Zero.

1) the area around ground zero was where more than 3,000 “innocent people lost their lives” by murderous muslim “terrorists and you ought to be a little more respectful of it.” instead of trying to use the site to futher you own politcal agenda.

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 11:39 AM

It should be mentioned that part of one of the hijacked planes went through the building in question. That makes it very much a part of Ground Zero.

Did it? How far did bits of the plane go? Is that the radius in which Muslims don’t get freedom of religion? We need to figure that out, that’s the question that no one seems to be able to answer.

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Did it? How far did bits of the plane go? Is that the radius in which Muslims don’t get freedom of religion? We need to figure that out, that’s the question that no one seems to be able to answer.

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

I doubt you be as supportive of a Christian church, or synogue being built in a location Muslims objected too. You’d fall all over yourself protecting Muslims from being “offended”.

It’s odd how leftists always side with against Americans and their own country. This issue has nothing to do with religious freedom. Very few Muslims, if any, live in the location the mosque will be built. In fact, many will have to pass other mosques to reach this one.

Proud Rino = Surrender Monkey

darwin on August 15, 2010 at 11:54 AM

I doubt you be as supportive of a Christian church, or synogue being built in a location Muslims objected too. You’d fall all over yourself protecting Muslims from being “offended”.

You’d be wrong.

It’s odd how leftists always side with against Americans and their own country.

darwin on August 15, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Funny, I always thought that standing up for the freedom of religion was standing up for America. You have an interesting view of what you think the United States is.

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Please disregard unseen’s answer, he’s a moron and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

The answer is this: In 1919, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause probably wouldn’t have allowed the federal government to ban alcohol. It’s hard to know what the Court would have done then, but it’s unlikely that it would have passed muster as a federal law.

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM

ROFL. you sir are an idiot. the beginning of the drug war was started by the progressive rino Teddy rosevelt. With his passage of the Harrison dNarcotic act that regulated and taxed the production, importation, and distribution of opiates in the USA. The supreme court ruled in 1919 in United States v. Doremus that the harrison act was consitutional because it did not exceed’s Congress taxing powers. the harrison act was a tax bill because Congress had to use its taxing powers to regulte drugs since it did not have the authority to regulte the drug itself. they did it by taxation. In 1919-1920 with the progressives in full control of the government the 18th amendment to outlaw booze was passed. It took 13 years and the 21st amendment to make it legal again but government continued to regulate it thru taxation again because of the commerce clause did not give it the power to do so. During Prohibition and with the help of a willing press the anti-drug movement was born in the late 20′s and early 30′s. the treasury department formed the Bureau of Narcotics in 1930. when Prohibition was ended the Tresury department continued to get local laws passed to outlaw pot until 1935 when the The Marijuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937 which again used like the harrison act the taxing power of the fed gov to destroy the hemp industry.

they did this because FDR’s blackmail wasn’t codified untilLabor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937).

The Marijuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937 stood until 1969 when parts of the law were considered unconsitutional based on the 5th amendment in Leary v. United States. after this the congress in 1970 signed by Nixon used the expanded commerce clause powersa granted to it thanks to FDR’s blackmail of the SCOTUS to pass the Controlled Substances Act which is the underlying basis for the prsent day drug laws.

the

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Did it? How far did bits of the plane go? Is that the radius in which Muslims don’t get freedom of religion? We need to figure that out, that’s the question that no one seems to be able to answer.

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM

If Muslims want freedom of religion around sites they blew up and around sites where they killed more than 3,000 people maybe they should have a reformation movement and outlaw killing infidels. then the new peaceful relgion can pray for attonement of its past sins and bloodletting and possibly be granted redemption by given premission to pray at sites where their religion caused so much grief.

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM

If Muslims want freedom of religion around sites they blew up and around sites where they killed more than 3,000 people maybe they should have a reformation movement and outlaw killing infidels. then the new peaceful relgion can pray for attonement of its past sins and bloodletting and possibly be granted redemption by given premission to pray at sites where their religion caused so much grief.

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM

So then Muslims don’t get freedom of religion anywhere, according to you, unless they reform and create a religion that you like better.

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 12:42 PM

So then Muslims don’t get freedom of religion anywhere, according to you, unless they reform and create a religion that you like better.

Proud Rino on August 15, 2010 at 12:42 PM

I don’t know… do you think satan worshipers that practice human sacrifices should have religious freedom? and if not what is the difference between killing human sacrifices and killing infidels in the name of allah? Maybe we should give the Aztecs the religious freedom to once again rip out the hearts of their slaves/captured warriors and burn those hearts as an offereing to their god.

It has nothing to do with a relgion I like better. It has to do with the morals of society. If you and a majority of society are ok with us getting rid of our laws on murder/rape/equal protections of the sexes/protection of gays/hate laws/child sex/slavary etc then I suppose the muslim relgion’s acceptance of infidel killings, honor killings, forced marrages, sex with minors, stoning and hanging of gays, women not having legal rights, slavary, and laws on infidelity, etc are ok.

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Obama will feel like smoking some pot today for the Gallup Daily tracking poll today shows his job approval/disapproval at 42/49. 42 represents an all-time low for Obama.

technopeasant on August 15, 2010 at 2:06 PM

42 represents an all-time low for Obama.

technopeasant on August 15, 2010 at 2:06 PM

he just needs a family vacation to get his mojo back. the other 9 vacations were test runs.

unseen on August 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Even if it is mainly a perception, and not necessarily what the bloggers intended, it seems like we have too many stories that are aimed at basically trolling the readership of the blog. Poking them, if you will, to provoke a reaction.

Too much of that, and readership may well begin abandoning the blog.

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 15, 2010 at 2:17 AM

The only thing wrong with Ann’s argument is that she is a concern troll. Many of the ObamaCare stories, IMHO, were to pull her in because she was FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION>

ladyingray on August 15, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Wow Palin Power for sure!
Not checked in since last night and evidently nothing of interest went on on the Sunday gab fests.

Pinnochio didn’t retract his support of the most prolific American killers of all times right to build a shrine to their murderous ways at ground zero, or retract his retraction, or retract his retract of his retraction?

Did Newt or Huck or Romney or Pawlenty weigh in at all or are they just glad handin the Party Aparatchucks and tryin to vote present so as to pull a Pinnochio and not actually be on record on anything of substance!

Guess I didn’t miss much by workin outside all day and not watchin the news.

SARAH STILL RULES!

dhunter on August 15, 2010 at 8:24 PM

42 represents an all-time low for Obama.

technopeasant on August 15, 2010 at 2:06 PM

And I think after his comments on the Mosque, the slide into the 30s is complete by the end of August. His presidency is one big boulder now, rolling downhill faster and faster…

Grace_is_sufficient on August 15, 2010 at 9:16 PM

This will not go well for Obama when it finally comes out that Imam Rauf has ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

AshleyTKing on August 16, 2010 at 12:24 AM

Back to the topic at hand; why did the prohibition of alcohol require a constitutional amendment, but not the prohibition of marijuana?

Akzed on August 15, 2010 at 11:10 AM

I guess it’s because alcohol was widely used and an acceptable form of liquid refreshment but marijuana was virtually unknown to most people.

LODGE4 on August 16, 2010 at 8:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5