Not really relevant is it? Did the 220 Ds vote to block the bill? No. The committee chairs don't seem to have brought it to a vote in the two committees in was sent to, so 2 Ds blocked it. That makes the article misleading. Stretching the truth is wrong, whichever side does it.Interesting. Who selected the committee members who blocked it?
That's cute. You think a couple-few dumocraps blocked something independently without being told how to think by "the party"?Not really relevant is it? Did the 220 Ds vote to block the bill? No. The committee chairs don't seem to have brought it to a vote in the two committees in was sent to, so 2 Ds blocked it. That makes the article misleading. Stretching the truth is wrong, whichever side does it.
And you think that 220 democrats got together and voted to see if it would get out of committee? Whether it was Pelosi or the committee chairs, the article is still misleading.That's cute. You think a couple-few dumocraps blocked something independently without being told how to think by "the party"?
The 220 don't have to get together because they are all being told how to think/vote.And you think that 220 democrats got together and voted to see if it would get out of committee? Whether it was Pelosi or the committee chairs, the article is still misleading.
Agreed it's misleading that it wasn't put up for a vote. Also telling that a party doesn't care enough to pressure their committee members to do the right thing. If the party leadership wanted it to happen, it would.Not really relevant is it? Did the 220 Ds vote to block the bill? No. The committee chairs don't seem to have brought it to a vote in the two committees in was sent to, so 2 Ds blocked it. That makes the article misleading. Stretching the truth is wrong, whichever side does it.
I wonder what their issue is with the bill. I skimmed over it. There is a lot about testing different versions of fentanyl, which I am not clear as to why we need a bill for. Then there is making it a schedule 1 drug permanently, which I am surprised it isn't already.Agreed it's misleading that it wasn't put up for a vote. Also telling that a party doesn't care enough to pressure their committee members to do the right thing. If the party leadership wanted it to happen, it would.
Like Joe Machin and other "centrists". No, they all vote for pelosi, Schumer and the like. They just want to be contrarian to get bribes to their district
Who?Y'all want government to leave your drugs alone.....sometimes? Power to the people unless it's fentanyl?
Now I understand. Fentanyl is a schedule 2 drug currently. Moving it to schedule 1 would mean it could not be used by Drs.I wonder what their issue is with the bill. I skimmed over it. There is a lot about testing different versions of fentanyl, which I am not clear as to why we need a bill for. Then there is making it a schedule 1 drug permanently, which I am surprised it isn't already.
I wonder if he has reached out to the Ds to see what their issue is, or if this is another pure political stunt.
Now I understand. Fentanyl is a schedule 2 drug currently. Moving it to schedule 1 would mean it could not be used by Drs.
The finalists get to pick the title they preferIs king and queen still happening? I figured someone was offended by that or do they offer a them crown also?
Yes it does.I know a cancer patient using Fentanyl patches because the morphine based drugs were not getting the job done. Cancer sucks. That is all.
.
I released the limits for you. LOLThe gubmint seems to be pretty f***** up
It is not unusual, the feds said abortion was legal while many states had laws on the books making it illegal.Marijuana is a federal schedule 1 drug at the same time it is legal in some states. That seems pretty difficult to justify.
There was a federal law that legalized abortion?It is not unusual, the feds said abortion was legal while many states had laws on the books making it illegal.
Nope, just a ruling that said abortion was legal, but you knew that…There was a federal law that legalized abortion?
I think that is the libertarian view, except they want is sold in stores next to Nyquil and let the "free market" decide if it is safeY'all want government to leave your drugs alone.....sometimes? Power to the people unless it's fentanyl?