Blaze pink

[*michaelsean*]

(05-25-2016, 05:33 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Okay, I guess I just don't understand.


How is your use of "anything" in the first sentence different than your use of "anything" in the second sentence?  This isn't an attempt at a "gotcha," I just don't understand the distinction you are making.

I think it's "looked at" as opposed to actually done.  

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 05:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think it's "looked at" as opposed to actually done.  

Yep. For instance the example provided of marijuana. Sorta weigh the pros and cons of anything and everything. Some can be dismissed much quicker than others.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-25-2016, 07:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep. For instance the example provided of marijuana. Sorta weigh the pros and cons of anything and everything. Some can be dismissed much quicker than others.

If something is dismissed then you have narrowed "anything" to anything minus 1.

As to the marijuana example and federal law this is the DOJ guidance . . .

https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf

Basically, if the marijuana isn't being sold to minors, sold by criminals or profiting criminals, used to cover other drug trafficking, increasing gun violence, exported to other states, grown on federal lands, increasing DUIs then the federal govt is supposed to stay out of States business.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 09:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If something is dismissed then you have narrowed "anything" to anything minus 1.

As to the marijuana example and federal law this is the DOJ guidance . . .

https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf

Basically, if the marijuana isn't being sold to minors, sold by criminals or profiting criminals, used to cover other drug trafficking, increasing gun violence, exported to other states, grown on federal lands, increasing DUIs then the federal govt is supposed to stay out of States business.

Two things:

You might want to research the Controlled Substance Act and and then look at Article VI of the Constitution.


If you consider something and quickly dismiss it, you have still considered it. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-25-2016, 10:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Two things:

You might want to research the Controlled Substance Act and and then look at Article VI of the Constitution.

Why don't you just give me the Cliff Notes version bearing in mind Colorado had almost $1 billion in tax revenue from marijuana sales for 2015 with the Controlled Substance Act and Article VI of the Constitution in effect.  Is the federal government seeking to overturn the marijuana laws of Colorado?

Quote:If you consider something and quickly dismiss it, you have still considered it. 

Look, this is what you originally wrote . . .

(05-24-2016, 08:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anything that brings revenue to the sate should be a State Representative's job.

If something has been considered and quickly dismissed, it wont bring in a single, red cent in revenue.  In order to bring in revenue, you need to be actively engaged in whatever is generating the revenue.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 11:33 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why don't you just give me the Cliff Notes version bearing in mind Colorado had almost $1 billion in tax revenue from marijuana sales for 2015 with the Controlled Substance Act and Article VI of the Constitution in effect.  Is the federal government seeking to overturn the marijuana laws of Colorado?



Look, this is what you originally wrote . . .



If something has been considered and quickly dismissed, it wont bring in a single, red cent in revenue.  In order to bring in revenue, you need to be actively engaged in whatever is generating the revenue.

We'll allow folks to "review" the history of the exchange and decide who doesn't get it. 

Keep trying not to come up with a "gotcha". 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-25-2016, 11:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We'll allow folks to "review" the history of the exchange and decide who doesn't get it. 

Keep trying not to come up with a "gotcha". 

But, I'm not trying to come up with a "gotcha."  Unless you think I'm trying to come up with a "gotcha" by claiming I'm not trying to come up with a "gotcha" which is the real "gotcha."  Jeesh!

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 11:33 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Look, this is what you originally wrote . . .

(05-26-2016, 12:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: But, I'm not trying to come up with a "gotcha."  

HHhhhmmm,,,

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-26-2016, 12:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: HHhhhmmm,,,

So you think I'm trying to come up with a "gotcha" by explaining my answer to your comment?

Look, in order to bring in revenue . . . you have to do something.  You have to do something . . . to bring in revenue.  

You don't bring in revenue by considering something and then not doing it.  Because if you aren't doing something . . . you're not bringing in revenue.

So if anything that brings in revenue is a State Representative's job then he better be doing something because they're not going to bring in any revenue by considering it . . . and then not doing anything.

If you think that's a "gotcha," **** it, I don't care, think what you want.  It's a good god damn thing you deployed a pre-emptive "gotcha-to-gotcha" "gotcha" to shoot my "gotcha" out of the air.

[Rotobeast]

(05-25-2016, 03:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't even know who or what Harley Quinn is.  

Then I say..... Well played, Dear Sir !

[GMDino]

(05-26-2016, 12:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: But, I'm not trying to come up with a "gotcha."  Unless you think I'm trying to come up with a "gotcha" by claiming I'm not trying to come up with a "gotcha" which is the real "gotcha."  Jeesh!

I used to call bfine "Larry" because of the three Stooges...but based on his recent "discussions" he shall now be known as "Daniel".  As in Daniel Webster, keeper of the definitions and all-knowing keeper of what words "really" mean.

[Aquapod770]

Sexist? No not even close. The guy isn't trying to attract new female hunters, to me it sounded like he's saying to allow female hunters (or whoever wants to) to wear blaze pink hunting gear.

Also LOL at the feminists who wore the green camo shirts for their protests. That's how you get shot you dingleberries.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-26-2016, 01:07 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Then I say..... Well played, Dear Sir !

I was honestly picturing a collectible doll series like My Little Pony.

[BigPapaKain]

(05-26-2016, 03:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I was honestly picturing collectible dolls like My Little Pony.

Now what the hell is wrong with MLP?

[jfkbengals]

(05-25-2016, 10:44 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Wait wait wait - pink is for women?

Excuse me gentlemen - I have to go trim my shirt drawer down.

We all see men wearing pink shirts and we all know that it is not a big deal.

But I find it hilarious that when you comment that the shirt is pink, the man wearing it inevitable states that it is not pink, it is "salmon".

[Benton]

I still don't see the point. Is this really something a base of hunters has been asking for?

[SunsetBengal]

(05-26-2016, 11:57 PM)Benton Wrote: I still don't see the point. Is this really something a base of hunters has been asking for?

Well, it seems to be accepted in Wisconsin, and Minnesota is appearing to be prime.

http://http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/27/blaze-pink-for-minnesota-hunters-now/

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-26-2016, 11:57 PM)Benton Wrote: I still don't see the point. Is this really something a base of hunters has been asking for?

I think you would need to see the marketing and sales data from the manufacturers to find out if the pink apparel and equipment is actually drawing new hunters into the sport.  Or is this just a political fad; monkey see, monkey do.

I see girls and women wearing this kind of stuff in Georgia, but it is for fashion or the farm.  Not hunting.