Funny, I could have sworn that congress passed numerous bills to fund the war with many Democrats voting to do so.

I also have a vague memory of congress passing in a bipartisan manner (and by this I mean more than 1 or 2 opposition yes votes) authorization to start the fight in the first place.

Please take your revisionism elsewhere Vampire.

Still see flaws though.

"4th amendment exceptions/violations would cease".

This is an argument for the "proper" application of the 4th amendment, not for marijuana legalization. This "abuse" of the 4th amendment wouldn't cease with drug legalization. No knock entries would continure where police fear harm to themselves because of an armed occupant or where they fear destruction of the evidence they came to collect. Oh, could you quote for me the part of the 4th amendment which says that officers with a valid warrant aren't allowed to enter without knocking? It doesn't seem to be in my copy.

"County, state, and Federal seizure laws would also be moot."

This is like saying we should make it legal because...

So should we let someone who only kills one person walk free since there are other people out there who have killed dozens?

If there is illegality and corruption in military contractor firms they should be prosecuted and defunded. If there is illegality and corruption in domestic organizations they should be prosecuted and defunded.

We shouldn't give one corrupt organization a free pass just because another organization is worse.

Your post is illogical.

A caution for the libertarians out there that want to make it all legal. I understand the principle, but think it is very unwise to embrace it given the current state of our society. It is assumed that people are entitled to health care, shelter, food and the like. Drugs control people and they stop providing for their own needs. The result is more people dependant on government.

If we were to let people suffer the consequences of giving themselves over to drugs, it might make sense to legalize them. Those who make that bad decision would live in squalor and die relatively quickly. They would a clear example and deterrent to those considering following in their path. Those who make wise decisions wouldn't have to subsidize...

I thought that careful examination of the government was the job of the press. Only one network seems to be doing its job and for that it is labeled partisan.

If criticism of the president equals partisanship, weren't all the networks partisan organisations during the Bush Presidency.

Media matters is a partisan outlet which accuses others of being partisan. They do not analyze issues objectively.

They say that the school czar didn't really ignore statutory rape because the individual wasn't actually under age. So what? The man was told that an underage person was having sex with and adult. He should have called for the prosecution of the adult or at the least an investigation into the issue.

Suppose a...

Your argument at 1:17 pm might have merit if ACORN had only a small number of random employees acting improperly. That is not the case. The corruption is not isolated it is systemic.

Even if the corruption is not official policy, the organization is responsible because it is not more effectively training and supervising its employees.

It frequently has engaged in election fraud. It appears to be standard practice to advice people to disobey the law. The examples of ACORN malfeasance are bountiful, and this despite the fact that very few new organizations have bothered to put time and resources into uncovering how deep the rot really is.

Jakk complains that the right resorts to petty name calling and silly puns like "Odumbo".

When finished he proceeds to do some name calling ("clowns", "court jesters", "stupid") and silly puns ("Faux News").

Absolutely Absurd. What a paragon of rational thought and logic.

There is something really wrong with current free speech and press jurisprudence when news like this must be edited and held back. The whole purpose of the first amendment is to ensure that the public can gather the information necessary to make informed decisions. How can we do that when evidence of corrupt organizations which are supported by taxes and which participate in election fraud must be held back.

It is simply appalling.

Maybe hypocracy wasn't quite the right word, though when his criticism of the other side is that they resort to childish name calling and silly puns, then does the very thing he has just criticized others for doing it sure comes close.

"all the Right has these days are childish, whining retorts and name-calling about how scared and how angry the lefties are and how they're winning."

This sounds like complaining to me. He didn't just asked if someone did this, he declared that this is "all the Right" does now. Right before doing the same thing.

I am the "they" of whom you speak, and wholeheartedly disgree with you about there being no arguments other than pettiness.

The complete disregard for the size of the deficit offers grounds for substantive debate. Obama's willingness to give thugs everything they want in the false hope that they will stop being thugs is grounds for substantive debate. His plans to crush the economy with cap and trade to fight a problem that doesn't exist is grounds for substantive debate. On issue after issue he is doing the wrong thing. His policies will lead to disaster if they are not stopped.

With all that there is that is worth criticism, family photos are a non-issue, or as I indicated in my last comment, the photos are probably...