Considering the joke that the legal system of the US has evolved into, I have a hard time making an informed decision whether this is the right or the wrong thing to do.

Or you're "too big to fail". Too bad his drug cartel didn't fund weapons deals with terror groups that "we" like, then he'd probably be celebrated as a true American hero instead.

If you follow that logic to its end, I guess a couple of gun manufacturers should now be sweating into their boots.

I think it's because of the freedoms that still exist.

He didn't use the money he made selling drugs to fund weapons deals to destabilize a few countries, and I think if you don't do that dealing drugs is illegal. Or something like that.

Next time if you want to rip off people, swindle them out of their money, flaunt your condescendence towards the law and be a scourge of society, run a bank. Not only is it far more efficient than some petty drug dealing, it's also safer. The worst that can happen if things go wrong is that you get bailed out.

I did. I told him about it and he asked me to stop talking, he has a sensitive stomach.

I stopped caring a while ago. Why should I? Most idiots don't care that they're being lied to. Those that do already noticed the same I did: It doesn't matter that you notice it. It's not like you can do anything about it.

Right now, I'm just sitting here, waiting for our economy to collapse in the vain hope that something better might emerge. I just don't really think there will be anything better. Different maybe, but better, hardly. Human won't change. And whether this or that asshole rules us, and this or that asshole lies to us, where's the difference? In the end it's like voting, you may only choose the person, group or entity that is given the right to fill their pockets at your expense. The option that you'd get someone who doesn't do it simply does not exist.

So apologies if I just sit here, relax and watch the world burn. Fighting windmills is more a pastime of the younger generations.

Yes it can. [Gonzales v. Raich]

The issue was not in dispute in that case:

Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power

In my opinion, by the way, Wickard v. Filburn, the New Deal era decision that says making something for yourself (i.e. growing wheat to feed your own chickens, or growing marijuana to use yourself) affects interstate commerce (because you otherwise might have bought it instead, affecting the price) and can thus be regulated, is a travesty that is long overdue for the Supremes to revisit and reverse, as they sometimes do when a previous court broke something substantial.

But even if you agree that feeding your own wheat to your own chickens is a suitable subject for federal regulation under the commerce clause, don't you think it's a stretch to say that affecting the price of a banned substance by NOT buying it on the illegal market is a legitimate reason for the Federal Government to ban your growing and consuming your own plants? Either way you don't buy in interstate commerce, so how can the difference in your behavior affect it? (Or was it Congress' intent for you to buy illegal drugs?)

Sometimes more than half the Supreme Court justices follow some argument to a point beyond sanity.

The Commerce Clause?

Nope. (The powers it DOES confer were already alluded to in my posting.)

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

"Regulating" = making regular, setting standards, etc. It does NOT include banning whole classes of trade entirely.

If they want to PROMOTE drug and gun sales, that's fine. B-)

Selling drugs and weapons are serious crimes and should be justly punished. Propz to GNAA

Let's devil's advocate a bit...

The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons. (infringe ~ "even meddle with the fringes of") That includes gun trafficing, because stopping gun sales makes it harder to exercise the right.

The Tenth Amendment explicitly, and the Ninth Amendment implicitly, ban the Federal Government from use of any power not explicitly specified in the Constitution as amended. I don't see anything in there that explicitly gives the Federal Government to ban any drugs or traffic in them, or in any way regulate such traffic (beyond forbidding false advertising claims, setting standards for labeling, and the like). (Do YOU find any such power in there? If so, please point it out to us.)

So it could be argued that, by the Federal Government's own basic laws, these were NOT crimes and the "Dread Pirate" was a freedom fighter.

(I won't even get into the issue of the Anarchist claims that ANY government is necessarily illegitimate, coercively imposing its will on people who did not pre-approve this and are not attempting, themselves, to coerce others. The people who promulgated the Constitution were doing their best to get governments off people's backs.)

... and the authorities will question you.

The store doesn't need these people. Why not just fix the policies to ban them without affecting regular coupon users?

Because the coupons are legitimate offers of a reduced price on a limited number of purchases of an item. An "extreme couponer" just happens to be accepting a larger number of them than a more typical shopper.

To reject a person who uses "too many" of them (while not rejecting ALL coupon use by ALL customers) may constitute consumer fraud on the store's part and get them into serious hot water.

The problem about propaganda, especially in this day and age, is that everyone does it. I wouldn't be too surprised if the same shit goes down on our side of the fence. Just 'cause our media are "free" doesn't mean that they have to tell the truth. It only means their lies may be different from the government's.

Seriously, I'd pay for a halfway decent, balanced NEWS system that gives me news instead of propaganda of this or that flavor. How long 'til the definition of "impartial" is to watch both sides of the propaganda in the vain hope to maybe find the truth in the blend?

Journalism is dead. What matters is sensationalism and entertainment.

Propaganda is just marketing for a brand called a nation.