Well, ifn you believe anybody, Up2, I think it was Michael Corleone who said: "If history has taught us anything it is that you can kill anybody."
I might 'magin theres a few right wingers out there that would like to get him and others in their cross-hairs.
up2: My answers to your questions are:
1. A lot
2. Probably not, but all it would take is the kidnapping or murder of a former president or spouse for most of the civilized world to say we should have done everything possible to protect our former Chief Executive and his family.
It's a new world, where technology and the willingness to defy the odds without regard for one's own personal safety makes the wild drama we see in the "action" movies a real possibility. We never REALLY expected the tactics or audacity of the 9/11 terrorists before we were hit. While some might call these new protective measures an "overreaction," it looks to me that our security folks are trying to make sure we don't have a repeat "big-hit" event involving any of our former Presidents.
I thought he was going to disband the secret service since he plans on taking all our guns away. If no one is armed why does he need the SS?
Please tell me you do know no one is going to take all your guns. I see people who seriously believe that, so I'm not sure if yall believe this or not.
Thirty or forty years ago I would have been in agreement with you up2.
In the present day with the mean spirited people of this day and age, I'd have to say that they will probably need lifetime protection.
Will it be expensive, yes and very.
Our elected officials are all very willing and eager to lavish great amounts of pomp on themselves and their staffs are often bloated unnecessarily.
This is most obvious with the Executive branch of the Federal Government.
However our members of both houses of Congress are just about as burdensome to their taxpaying subjects.
Subjects being the little people like you and me as well as the rest of us who participate on this medium.
'I might 'magin theres a few right wingers out there who would like to get him and others in their cross hairs'
Were not most presidential asassination attemps in the last 60 years by left wingers?
I will look that up HuDhat. But it is the right wing that hates this President more than any President has ever been hated. Even Ted Nugent has said he would kill him live on TV. Not to mention the White Supremacist who are scary and I wouldn't trust them, don't know what political party they are or if they have one but still. He gets death threats all the time. The CIA stays very busy with people making threats against him unlike ever before. So I wouldn't blame him if he wanted protection. No other President has ever been hated, questioned, and threatened as this one. I'm glad he and his family are going to have protection.
Not a problem, take your time. If there really is hate for this president the left wing will get around to it soon enough.
Those were presidental assassination attempts HuD. I question if anyone who has been out of office for ten years needs this level of protection.
Understood; However, it's difficult to have a discussion if someone begins by advancing a false premise.
"No other President has ever been hated, questioned, and threatened as this one. I'm glad he and his family are going to have protection."
Froggy: You must be a very young person. I remember when Richard Nixon was in office. He was every bit as hated, questioned, and threatened as President Obama. And you should google "left wing hate threats toward George W. Bush" sometime.
"Were not most presidential asassination attemps in the last 60 years by left wingers?"
Here are a couple of links which discuss American political assassinations and attempts:
and according to these people:
"Of the successful and attempted assassinations of U.S. presidents where there was a political motivation and no blatant mental illness, the political motivation behind the act was left-leaning 100% of the time."
My research into this issue indicated that both "wings" - left and right - are filled with hate and make all kinds of threats. But it appears that it's mostly (if not all of) the LEFT wing that has been willing to carry out their threats. But I'm not sure you can believe 100% the categorization of these assassins and wannabe's. Some have documented affiliations. Others might just have been nuts who wanted to make a name for themselves and hooked on to whatever "cause" seemed most likely to help them do it. In their hearts, they might not have been true left-wingers - just a sick person.
Yea, my friend Sebe. James Earl Ray was a card carrying ACLU member if I ever saw one(sarcasm intended.). Course the person he kilt was not President. The same for Sirhan Sirhan who offed Bobby Kennedy a Liberal that was on his way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. John Hinkley as I recall weren't no long haired hippie type when he shot Reagan(Just plain crazy for Jody Foster so he don't count as a lefty.) Course the case may or maynot be made for John Wilkes Booth being a lefty. Every thing I have read points to a deranged actor "gettin even" for the Northern War of Agression agin the South. Didn't have the ACLU back then I guess or he would a been packin' his card, I am sure. My, my, another controversy to now deal with. I do believe I be comin down with the vapors. Needs myself a drink of lemonade I reckon.
Then you got Lee Harvey Oswald. Trained by the KGB in the tactical stuff and also trained by the US Marine Corps on how to shoot a bolt action rifle and get three rounds off in 3.5 seconds. However, Harvey put his bullets in JFK's head and neck. JFK, as you know, identified himself as a Liberal. Now He was a President. So, it's a coin toss regarding Harvey.
I will however, bet you that there are today more armed assault carrying weapon RIGHT wing militias then those on the left.
Therefore, I will meet your asasination bet including your perhaps misquoted 100% curve ball stat and your assault rifle with its extended magazine, with my nine shot clock pistol.
Seems fair to me.
Hud, never seen you have a problem having a conversation. Just because you don't agree with what I said.... that's gonna stop you??? ok.
No sebekm, not young but not as old as you I guess. You remember Nixon being hated, I'm sure he was. But If we are going by what we remember, I know what I see everyday day concerning this President. "If there really is hate for this President"?????? come on.
Bush may have death threats, but President Obama holds the title for the most of any President. It averages 30 a day. And you may since you are older,but I have never seen or heard of any President being question like he has been. His birthplace, his religion, his hating America And some really delusional wacked outthings people believe about him.. Now you may know of someone who was questioned more I don't know. But this one has unjustly been called a non-citizen, a Muslim,
The Anti-Christ.. you all know what people think and say about him. He is hated very badly by a lot of people. I live here in the south and so do yall. Almost everyone I know pure hates him. Maybe he isn't the most, Although I still think he is but if not he has got to be close. Anyway.
BHO is our first Black President. We may have stopped segregation but we have not stopped racism. There's many a white boy or two, frequentin' gun shows, and purchasing all sorts of weapons, whom ascribe to hate ideology towards Jews and people of color.
They are self-marginalized bubbas and bubbets who are threatened by babies getting foodstamps, medically abandoned humans, deranged thoughts about the guv-mint takin away ALL their guns, Seniors getting Social Security, Medicare, Medicade.
My Prediction: IF, the Tea Party becomes the voice of the Republican Party then this country will find itself on an express elevator to Hell.
And in a round about way, it will prove the Mayan Clock was only off by a few seconds.
Obama may hold the statistical record (but I'd like to see the STATS before conceding that point), but it's in age where a "threat" is considered any anti-comment posted on twitter, face book, or anywhere in the electronic media. We've expanded our definition as our means have expanded. The hate seems the same to me. The difference in the Bush years was that the hate was amplified by a lefty media who basically AGREED with the negativity. And Nixon was the anti-Christ for 30 years. NOBODY who takes to the airways EVER says anything good about Nixon. If he were President in an age with twitter, facebook, etc., I have no doubt that he would break all records for "death threats."
As to the sources I used, I didn't write 'em, and I couldn't find many "lefty" sites which countered or attributed "right-wing" connections to any of the Presidential assassins or wannabees. In my experience, when this occurs it means that the lefties don't have the facts on their side and have no argument. That's when the name-calling and obfuscation usually starts.
NOTE: I only commented on the quotes in my post. I wasn't making a statement about ANYTHING - other than answering the questions or trying to clarify the issues raised. I took exception to the "no other president has been questioned, hated" issue and whether the assassins were supposedly "left-leaning" or "right-leaning." Nothing more.
....and by my own unofficial "Hate-O-Meter," I give the award for "Most Hated" in the last 30 years to George W. Bush. Here's the basis for my "scientific" conclusion:
*By every tally I've seen, there have been and there continues to be more registered Democrats than Republicans in this country.
*President Obama's supporters on the left are numerically greater than his opponents on the right - as demonstrated by the last two elections.
*I have NEVER heard anyone on the left say anthing good about George W. Bush. The terms I see and hear most associated with their feelings about Bush have included: "hate," "loathe," "detest," "abhorr," "despise," and a hackneyed string of curse words I can't repeat here because they violate the site TOS. Except for the curse words, the other words and sentiments were and continue to be on display in the mainstream media online and on television.
*By extrapolation - since the lefties against Bush must numerically out-number the righties against Obama - I proclaim the the winner of the defacto title of "MOST HATED" in the last 30 years to be DUBYA.
*Further, no president in recent times has had the following terms so closely associated with him (certainly NOT President Obama): stupid, ignorant, slow-witted, idiot, military slacker, clumsy, fool, clown, fumble-tongue, dipsy, and dunderhead. And those are supposed to be Dubya's GOOD points...
Mr. Sebekm, when you referance 'name calling and obfuscation' do you mean something as inane as'self marginalized bubbas and bubbetes who are threatened by babies getting food stamps'
Hudat: Oh, now I see things more clearly boy vomit. Tea Party folks such as yourself are FOR: foodstamps and nourishment for babies, health care for the poor and pre-natal care for mothers, giving up your assault rifles, taking care of your grandma and grandad with shelter, food, and health treatment. That's about it ain't it Tea Bag? You've come over to our side, have you? Oh yea: providin food and shelter to the homeless. You now be one of us mimic mouth?
It ain't Sebe I am after, he does his work, it just takes me longer to look it up. No Mr. Right Wing it is cretins such as yourself and TOT that can not or will not get it right.(no pun intended.) Your policies are simplistic and fail to conjugate the complexities facing us i.e. guns, foodstamps, mental illness, medicare, medicaid, care for the elderly, and oh yea, lest I forget; shelter and food for the homeless. You cloak yourselves in an Evangelical garment, while ignoring that Jesus encouraged us to feed the hungry and be kind to the poor.
Now, go and clean the tobacco juice dribbling down your chin. Get some religion while your at it and read the New Testament. My bad. That would be doing two things at once. Know you cannot handle that...
......oooooops.....I forgot to include "thief," "liar," and "murderer," in my list of decriptives by the left re: Bush.
*"Thief" because - as we all know - hr STOLE the 2000 election.
*"Liar" because of Iraq WMD, and as a consequence -
*"Murderer" because (once again as we all know): "BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED."
So I give him close to 100% on the meter. But then he had eight years to accumulate all that hate. President Obama's only had four, so in my book he's still got a ways to go to build up maximum hate. We'll have to reevaluate in 2016.
..and now for the rest of the story:
The winner of the title of "Most Hated U.S. President Of All Times" is probably one most of us alive today wouldn't think of: Abraham Lincoln. Between 1860 and 1865, most accounts relate that he was almost universally hated throughout the South; mostly hated throughout the North; and described by both the left AND the right with all of those adjectives I've used in my two posts above to illustrate invective against George W. Bush.
The South hated Lincoln because he DIRECTLY and OPENLY threatened their lives as they knew it. He was directly responsible for killing their sons, brothers, fathers, uncles, and grandfathers, and he was directly responsible for the destruction of their economy, their personal property, and their "rights."
The North hated Lincoln because they saw him dragging them into a needless war in which their sons, brothers, fathers, uncles, and grandfathers were slaughtered in numbers not seen before or since in ratio to battles fought and the technologies of the day. Racism also existed then - both in the North and in the South - and many citizens of both hated Lincoln for freeing the slaves and loosing the "racial problem" on their "societies."
By the end of the war, most people were just glad it was over, but make no mistake - just as in the case of JFK - the assassination of Lincoln dramatically tempered the hate directed toward him, and the "canonization" of Lincoln (ala Kennedy) in the aftermath has gone a long way toward bolstering his standing among American Presidents to where - as we all know - Lincoln may be one of the most (if not THE most) beloved U.S. Presidents of all times. Every historical consensus I see lists Lincoln as probably the BEST U.S. President of all times.
For the past 50 yeers or so, I've seen the present day described as "an age where hyperbole abounds." Everything has been the "best ever," the "worst ever," the "greatest," the "dumbest," and so on. With the explosion of technology, we are now able to "reach out and touch" just about anybody we want who shares a smart phone. (And who doesn't nowadays? Even I got one a few months back.) With our "freedom of speech," we think that we have a license to say anything to anybody at any time without regard to its sensibility or what message we are REALLY transmitting. ANONYMOUS posting lets us make all kinds of "threats" and "hate speech" without attribution but which is still left ringing in cyberspace.
One of my main points is that hate is amplified by today's mediaa, so that comparisons as to who is the "most hated" President ever are impossible. But all I know is that hate has been around for a LONG time, and I see us feeding it all the time. We need to realize that we're all on the same team and that our success or failure is tied to the success or failure of our political leaders, regardless of their political or racial background.
"Mr. Sebekm, when you referance 'name calling and obfuscation' do you mean something as inane as'self marginalized bubbas and bubbetes who are threatened by babies getting food stamps'
I believe name-calling never solves anything, and only inflames negative emotions. Obfuscation is a tactic by those who have no argument to make it appear they have one. My evolution on this board and in cyberspace over the past three years has taught me that the former should be avoided, and the latter should be identified and exposed whenever possible - if you want to have open, honest debate where the opinions of all are respected.
I think you can say somebody has a "dumb idea" without calling them stupid. I think you can say someone's thinking on a social aspect of our culture is crazy without calling that person "a nut" (right or left-wing). I think that one is far less likely to persuade someone about the correctness of their argument if they insult their ancestry, their educational level, their intelligence, their beliefs, or their political leanings.
I as you know, Sebe, am not as noble as you are. Sometimes you just gotta fight fire with fire,(think Dresden fire bombing) and or humor(think Bill Mahr) rgarding TOT blaming LIBERALS for the Newtown massacre!!! His sheer HATRED screams for retaliation and conconfrontation. I plan on giving it to him. He will forever be on my list at every opportunity afforded me.
I, also, try to cover you,Up2, SF3, sometimes Funk, froggy and a few others backs. Funk, like you, does his research tho I may sometime question his sources. However, he is not a slash and burn type of guy such as I.
I have found counsel in Funk, you, Up2, IKY, gacpl, tiger5 and others that I unfortunatly cannot name at the moment.
Succinctly put...I don't mind dust-ups from time to time.
It may or maynot be because of the psychotropic drugs and alcohol I now consume or maybe it was the the psychedelics in the 60's. It could maybe could have been when my mama locked me in the closet for two days for killing one of my sister's cats. (it was an accident, an accident I tell you!)
I think most of us here, cept for TOT, has heard of spontaneous combustion. Many instances of it have occured thru out history.
"Succinctly put...I don't mind dust-ups from time to time.":
I don't either. We just shouldn't let it get out of hand.
....but back on the main topic of this blog: costs borne by the taxpayers for the "maintenance and upkeep" of former U.S. Presidents. Now comes The Daily Caller which - as the result of a FOIA request - has discovered the following:
*Like other former presidents, (William Jefferson) Clinton — the still-popular Democrat who was recently named “Father of the Year” by The National Father’s Day Council — used the nearly $1 million dollars allocated to him from the government to cover post-presidency expenses like personnel, travel, rent and postage. (RELATED: John Edwards won “Father of the Year” award from same group in 2007.)
Clinton also used the funds to wire at least 10 televisions in his offices to a premium suite of content from DirecTV, according to a February 2011 statement. That year, taxpayers spent $184.26 a month for Clinton’s DVR service, 145 “Office Choice” channels and 32 high-definition “Entertainment Unlimited” channels.
That entertainment package, according to DirecTV’s website, includes premium channels like Cinemax, HBO and Showtime. Cinemax, for example, plays hit movies like “Aliens” and “50 First Dates,” according to a recent listing.
Late at night, the premium channel earns its “Skinemax” nickname with a turn toward adult programming, offering shows titles like “Busty Coeds Vs. Lusty Cheerleaders,” “Sex Games Cancun 01: Last Temptation of Hank” and “Hotel Erotica Feature 05: Bedroom Fantasies 2.”
(As an aside - why am I not surprised that Wild Bill needs 10 TVs in his office with paid-for programming which includes soft-core porn?)
*"That (same) year, according to the documents, taxpayers provided $517,000 for former President Jimmy Carter, $835,000 for George H.W. Bush and $1.3 million for George W. Bush in government funding. About $14,000 was also given to the still-living widows of former presidents.
Those figures do not include the cost of Secret Service protection, which all former presidents and their spouses are now guaranteed to have for the rest of their lives, thanks to legislation signed into law last week by President Barack Obama. (RELATED: Obama restores lifetime federal protection for ex-presidents.)"
*"Carter also billed taxpayers for satellite television to be pumped into his Atlanta, Georgia offices. The former peanut farmer used a much more scaled-back service plan (than Clinton) from Dish Network Corp. that provided at least two televisions with $646.57 worth of programming in 2011 — no Cinemax in that package."
MY BOTTOM LINE: I agree with the enhanced secret service protection. But I'm not sure I ought to be paying for Bill Clinton's skin flicks on Cinemax.
I think they forget they are public SERVANTS and not ROYALITY to be served by the public. (That's all politicians, past and present.)
Once you have been treated like royalty that would seem a hard drug to recover from. Usually when govt. overspends the objection to cutting is that this is just a drop in the bucket and you won't acheive any real savings. This actually is just a drop in that bucket. Nobody wants to see a former president needlessly exposed to danger.
I question whether BHO will be relevant 10 years from now. Yes in the sense he was the first black president and what ever leagacy he leaves. But will he be relavant enough for assasination? I am betting we will have bigger fish to fry then, the first female president, the first non christian president, the first gay president...and the list goes on. I personally think it is over kill.
"But will he be relavant enough for assasination?"
Yes - I think so. I agree with HuDhat1 that nobody wants to see a former president needlessly exposed to danger. I think even if Richard Nixon had been killed the country would have rallied around our "fallen hero" (!) and said "how can we let this happen?"
BHO, if nothing else, will be remembered not only for being our first black president, he will be remembered for getting us back on the right fiscal tract and hopefully the extermination of the Tea Party blockade.
"...he will be remembered for getting us back on the right fiscal tract..."
IMHO - in order to do that he'll have to change his ways....A LOT. And he'll have to get control of his crew in the Senate. Otherwise, we'll be looking at 20 trillion in debt on an upslide in 2016...
That is not what I heard him say. We were $200 billion away over 10 years for an agreement and the Tea Partiers crucified Boehner for bringing it to a vote. So they pulled it from the floor.
Good discussion. Got to go watch the news and cook some spaghetti. I'll be back.
You can't spend more than you make. I would like to see some of the liberals make a real effort at cutting some programs, even though it would make the voters angry. I would also like to see the Conservatives honestly consider raising taxes, even though it will make thier voters angry. Until there is some sort of honest compromise it will just be the some old line with nothing getting done.
up2, Your post just above says exactly what we need to do.
Unfortunately your last statement is incorrect.
Something will get done.
The United States credit rating will be downgraded again I'm afraid.
We must reduce the deficit by any and all means at our disposal.
Everybody has to give something up. The DOD and their contractors must be funded and sufficient cost of living raises must be factored in. We MUST maintain our Nukes and that isn't a freebie.
At the same time we must feed hungry babies and provide for the destitute and elderly.
My suggestion to all this: LEGALIZE POT AND TAX THE HECK OUT OF IT. Use the profits to paydown the debt and educate users to the dangers of cannabis. We did it with tobacco and alcohol. Why not Pot. It would take the billions if not trillions out of the hands of the narco-terrorists and use the massive amount of money generated to do the things I suggested.
Course, if you want to push this envelope further...legalize ALL drugs, tax them to high heaven, educate and treat the abusers. Prohibition did not work and the War, if there really ever was one, on Drugs has long been LOST.
To believe otherwise is delusional.
No seriously, if you know I would be interested. So far the only danger is that it would be one more product to tax the heck out of.
And...it would take the money out of the hands of the narco-terrorists.
Actually, Hudat, massive consumption of chocolate Chip Cookies and Milk contributes to obesity which can lead to TYPE II Diabetes.
Our stupidity in allowing narco terrorists to infiltrate a large part of the economy is not in itself one of the dangers of cannibus. At this point a narco terrorist and our blood sucking govt. are running about even.
Our Government has engaged in a forty year war on drugs and drugs are easier to come by today than they were forty years ago.
Cannibus is the least harmful of all mood adjusters.
Allowing the narco-terrorists to CONTROL production and sale of cannibis is a very real danger associated with mary jane.
We, the US, need to grow it as we do corn and wheat and cotton. Sell it, and massively tax it.
Again, i get the danger of or guilt by association to crime but the product itself is not the cause. What do you personally think the danger of the substance is. A sientific explanation is not needed. I am interested in your thoughts.
Well, I really do not think cannabis as such is dangerous at all. It is already proven to have legitimate medical use in Cancer patients undergoing Chemotherapy, as well as people suffering from glaucoma. Also, I think there is a study going on in Sweden testing cannibis and its effects on anorexics.
Those things along with prompting laughing and an overall sense of well-being are all positives. I am sure there are some medical maladies that I have left out that cannabis has a positive effect on. Feel free to expand if need be.
JimmyMack NORML member since '68.
I mentioned "dangerous" before to assuage tee-totalers and any resistance they might put up...like calling cannibis a 'gate way drug' or saying it was like that crazy film back in the 40's that led users to lives of crime and psychosis? I cannot remember its name now....(not sure if that means anything or not...remembering and all) :)
Okay - I'll be the "devil's advocate." According to the National Health Service, the dangers (i.e., "risks") of cannibis use are:
"•Even hardcore smokers can become anxious, panicky, suspicious or paranoid.
•Cannabis affects your co-ordination, which is one of the reasons why drug driving, like drink driving, is illegal.
•Some people think cannabis is harmless because it’s a plant, but it isn’t harmless. Cannabis, like tobacco, has lots of chemical 'nasties', which, with long-term or heavy use, can cause lung disease and possibly cancer. The risk is greater because cannabis is often mixed with tobacco and smoked without a filter. It can also make asthma worse, and cause wheezing in people without asthma.
•Cannabis itself can affect many different systems in the body, including the heart. It increases the heart rate and can affect blood pressure.
•If you have a history of mental health problems, taking cannabis is not a good idea. It can cause paranoia in the short term, but in those with a pre-existing psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia, it can contribute to relapse.
•If you use cannabis and have a family background of mental illness, such as schizophrenia, you may be at increased risk of developing a psychotic illness.
•It is reported that frequent use of cannabis can cut a man's sperm count and reduce sperm motility. It can suppress ovulation in women and so may affect fertility.
•If you’re pregnant, smoking cannabis frequently may increase the risk of the baby being born smaller than expected.
•Regular, heavy use of cannabis makes it difficult to learn and concentrate. Some people begin to feel tired all the time and can't seem to get motivated.
•Some users buy strong herbal cannabis (also known as skunk) to get ‘a bigger high’. Unpleasant reactions can be more powerful when you use strong cannabis, and it is possible that using strong cannabis repeatedly could increase the risk of harmful effects such as dependence or developing mental health problems."
Now - I wonder how many of these symptoms occcur from alcohol and/or tobacco use. You can get STDs from hookers - that's while they call these things "vices." But I do see the merit of legalizing and taxing them ALL. We might actually see a decrease in the so-called vices by doing that. Rationale: People being taxed often vote against them with their pocketbooks.
But they'd probably just find other "vices."
Dam Sebe, you ARE fast. While all that you have said may be in fact true...it still does not stop people from using it(cannibis). People drive drunk, people speed, people steal, people kill...and a lot of other things that there are laws against but they get broken all the time.
Why not take this 'negative' regarding cannibis and turn it into a profit? People gonna sin and do bad things. Let's charge 'em for it via a tax like we do on cigarettes, gasoline, etc.
BTW Sebe... a lot of them facts above occured during my cannibis free first marriage. I am not sure if that proves anything or not.
I don't know - the "facts" are from the NHS. But that was my point, too. Just legalize them ALL. You may find that loss of the the "forbidden fruit" aspect will allow people to focus on the actual effects. Stats from 2005 on "drug use and crime indicators" for the U.S. and the Netherlands seem to indicate that legalization of some of the "vices" discussed above results in lower "long term (substance)use" and "crime," but I'm not sure about the validity of the comparisons:
JimmyMack---thanks for your response. I beleive the movie you referenced was 'Reefer Madness'. I suppose it's the art of compromise but it's troubling to cede ground just to assuage those who are convinced something is dangerous. We end up begging to be taxed for something that is rightfully ours. And you said it....sebe is pretty dang quick.
Here ya' go....
Yep, that's it UP2. Reefer Madness.
You are welcome Hudat.
Death and Taxes. The two certainties of Life.
And Sebe, you are right. Over indulgence or impaired judgement while performing certain activities can result in very bad things happening.
I would not want a surgeon who just got thru smoking a joint taking out my gall bladder or say performing a colonoscopy.
So yes. Cannibis is an intoxicant. We just need to control it, educate the populace, and tax the heck out of it.
"Death and Taxes. The two certainties of Life."
Yep - I guess if I have to choose between the two, I'll take taxes. (Would that make Patrick Henry 'shamed?)
up2, I'm sorry that this blog sort of got hijacked.
I posted another blog on the subject of marijuana. Because pot is something which needs to be discussed.
However back to the original message of this blog string we should have made a more thorough debate on the cost of lifetime protection of the Obama family.
I encourage you to post another blog on this subject.