alternet.org— At the same time public support for marijuana legalization reached record highs, Obama shifted from one time medicinal cannabis sympathizer to White House weed-whacker.
Feb 9, 2012View in Crawl 4
He has to keep his coalition happy. It is that simple. He is giving money to the people who will get him elected and that is the Law Enforcement community. This is an easy one because who will deny more money to fight the evil drug crisis. Since money is tight he is looking for anyway to make his coalition happy and this is it.
We need to get the money out of the government.
We need to stop gerrymandering (use computer programs that give a true sense of the districts).
We need real campaign reform (not the one the conservatives gave us).
We need to get rid of the electoral college..
Until we do these things, no candidate will work for us and will always work for the 1%.
We don't need a new government, we just need to fix what we have.
I just watched on Drugs Inc. last night how the IRS was f**king the dispensaries in California. Mendocino's Sherrifs department even issued permits to have at least 99 plants be legally grown if you are a caretaker.
One even said after all the fees and permits and taxes, it's not even worth it. What that means: The government has NO BUSINESS in telling you A NATURALLY GROWN PLANT is illegal.
I've had enough of this bulls**t America. Step up, or get out.
If only there was a candidate (there is, Ron Paul) who is on record as wanting to legalise all this stuff (there is, Ron Paul) who the establishment is genuinely scared of, because he'll promise change, and provide change (there is, Ron Paul)
This is one area where I disagree wholeheartedly. On other social issues Obama has taken a path of gradual transition and phased overhauls, but with medical marijuana his administration is obstructing progress rather than facilitating it. Perhaps he needs to be reminded that change doesn't come from Washington, it goes to Washington.
I usually find myself on the opposite side of alternet, consider this my awakening. how does it feel to have a constitutional FISCAL conservative(social liberal) liking the same things you like?
"Why is the Obama Administration Suddenly Fixated on Stomping out Medical Pot? "
1) Don't care about SOPA until people make a fuss
2) Sign in ACTA even though he doesn't have power to
3) Declare an even bigger war against a "wonder" drug with almost no down side.
Must..not..get..reelected...
btw, I'm not a "pot head" or anything. I don't do any drugs except for actual medical reasons, like anxiety and stuff, but it's not hard to understand that weed isn't bad.
Ron Paul won't be. He will end the drug war and restore our personal liberties. That's not silly at all...
Unfortunately, the establishment has been able to convince many people through mass media brainwashing that he's a not for real. So a 'real' candidate must apparently keep doing all the dumb ass things that got us this pile of s**t we are in... Unreal.
Ron Paul will have my vote no matter what. I don't care who actually gets elected, since they are all the same and just playing good-cop - bad-cop with us. I want to send a message this time, which is the only thing that can count anymore. No more f**king business as usual...
but he won't be a republican candidate. he won't be president. frankly, while decriminalizing pot is a no brainer...
paul calls for the shutdown of the american economy and withdrawal from the world stage. that is a no brainer too... no brainer as in completely goofy whose only potential is to make things worse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
So not trying to have a worldwide American Empire, which is the only historical model for America actually being destroyed (by bankruptcy) is a no brainer?
Sounds to me like you'd have to have no brain to support keeping our army all over the world until we are broke.
Shutdown the American economy? What by going back to the gold standard or eliminating the FED? Sounds fine to me, what exactly is your issue with it?
As far as not getting elected, he won't if people like yourself continue to allow yourselves to be corralled into voting for whoever the corporate media want you to.... Whoever they anoint. I won't be doing that anymore.. If I'm the only one I won't be doing that, but there are many of me...
this is the problem. you've been told its the paul way or the bush way. clinton prosecuted a major war in eastern europe,,, as well as in the country he was trying to govern. he clearly saved many lives.
when obama operated under his own methods and practices he helped eliminate gaddafi. he did it in a way that didn't further alienate us in the muslim world.
he found bin lauden and used the minimum force to deal with it.
there is clearly a difference between the way democrats and republicans deal with these issues.
the republicans are the ones that act questionably. theres granada, panama, nicaragua, iraq, afganistan... an attempt to take out gadaffi. the scary thing is that i am sure i've left something out.
so no i don't support the way pauls party deals with foreign affairs. i don't support keeping armies all over the world.
i think tying our money to a gold standard is silly. how do you know there is any gold in fort knox. the fed is broken because corporate america has abused it like they have abused every other aspect of america. what happens china or korea... or iran maybe someone in the u.s. figure out how to make gold out of the fabric of space. it is simply not that far away.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
on voting... nadar ran as a green candidate against gore and bush. he pulled votes from gore and bush became president with the help of friends. that got us iraq, afghanistan, and a mountain of debt. bush completely kill our credibility in the world. we got the patriot act...
Guess you are into no brainers, because you haven't really even read his policies because you are so off base it's laughable. He is a STATE RIGHT's proponent. Give the states the choice to legalize it if they want. The same way he feels about every subject, mainly because that is exactly what the Constitution was written for...
that sounds pretty much sounds like scrapping the federal government. i think the whole states thing is dumb. it will reduce the capability of the federal government. it increases about every bad thing.
when you tie that to draconian economic policies that reduce the size of the government...
Starman I will ask one thing of you. Show me 1 government program that was run on a national level, stayed below budget, and didn't have waste, graft or corruption involved. I'll give you a hint, Social Security, The Post Office, Cash for Junkers, Bail Out's don't qualify...
Now on a State level I can drop 4 hyperlinks off the top of my head that qualify for all of those things. If you really think that handing a everything to some out of touch wealthy guys and gals in Washington DC is the answer, then you are the reason we are in this mess. BTW you are right, States rights is all about reducing the power of the Federal Government, that is the point. And calling something dumb isn't an argument, it's just makes you sound... umm what's the word for it?
show me someone that expects government to operate perfectly and i'll show you a person with unrealistic expectations.
show me a set of books that are perfect and i'll show you books that have been cooked.
i'm not worried about states rights i'm worried about citizens rights. if we ditch the department of education then some kids will get a great education and more will be taught creationism as science.
states rights is about turning the united states into something more like europe... a bunch of countries that wish they could be the united states. "united" states has been our advantage. as a whole we can do anything. as a bunch countries "states" we are an obstacle to each other.
i am really tired of hearing people state they want to go by the constitution as if i as if disagreeing with them means that i don't want to scrap the constitution. i don't.
i want to see guns controlled as specified under the 2nd amendment. but there are some that don't believe in the constitution. right?
Yay you responded! I was afraid I ran you off. Ok line by line follow me here:
YOU are the one saying that the government is here to save us, then you say that it's ridiculous to say that the government can't operate. You just gave me that argument. And you even said perfect, which is funny I never said perfect, I am saying show me 1 portion of the government that doesn't have rampant corruption and performs under budget. You can't, cause it doesn't exist. So as you can see your argument is flawed.
I can show you plenty of books that are perfect. It's math and I hire well paid CPA's to make sure they are perfect. My company makes a profit and the share holders are free to look at the books anytime they want. If you really think that any profitable business is corrupt then you and I have a fundamental disagreement, just because your paranoid doesn't mean they are after you...
I can tell your not worried about states rights, you are asking to expand the Federal Government, the same government you just said is corrupt and not perfect in any sense. That's like asking Bernie Madoff to be your financial analyst from jail. It's doesn't work so make it bigger is not a logical answer. But if we move the corruption down to state level, then we can at least deal with the issues on a state by state level. We don't have to march on the DC to get our point across, we simply go to their office at the state capital and discuss it face to face.
On the education argument: We spend more than any other country but we have some of the lowest education levels out of all civilized countries, take a look:
If that is working then we have a real problem. Of course that link also shows you why your next statement that all of Europe is jealous of us is simply not true. I love the US but we don't do everything better than everyone in the world. To think so is called Hubris. And as it stands there are already a ton of people that believe creationism is science and they were (mis)educated just like you were in the public school system.
Finally the constitution wasn't designed to only be applied when it's convenient. It was written as a complete document that was designed to stand the test of time. We have a process of appeals called amendments, but as of late, the court system, congress and the POTUS seem to think that they don't need to abide by the rules. That upsets a large group of Americans that understand history and don't get dazzled by the latest buzzwords and orange alerts. You seem passionate and aware, take a second to read more about the constitution and you undoubtedly join us.
no. you are saying the federal government is our doom.
you claim is that it should be done away with because its not perfectly efficient.
you are arguing that we'd be better skipping economies of scale and support 50 little bureaucracies as more efficient than one larger one. in fact, its just 50 opportunities for more corruption and waste.
this is the same argument people who support private healthcare claiming that a big bureaucracy is a waste. this ignores the fact they are advocating 1000s of private bureaucracies all with a profit motive. all need to send a dividend check every quarter to someone that has nothing to do with providing healthcare or management will be replaced. claiming there is no corruption or waste is silly. its in fact there just more difficult to see.
at least waste in single payer system is being wasted on healthcare. private healthcare is incapable of providing healthcare because the government covers the demographic which needs the most service.
this scenario applies across the board.
i didn't say anything about government being corrupt. i said humans are not perfect and are not efficient and anyone claiming they can is not realistic. count on it. all things human are flawed and 50 bureaucracies have very little realistically... no chance to be more perfect than one.
It is really naive to think that RP will do anything but stir the pot and have everyone against him. He has no political clout. How the hell do you think he will get anything done? He can't do it himself.
What the president is doing is buying political clout. You saw what happened in the early part of his term. He was eaten alive by the special interest. He had to join them just to get anything done.
Our system is truly f**ked up and having some renegade come in and completely screw it up, won't work. It will most likely make things much worse.
But I disagree wholeheartedly. Our system is just getting worse and a shake-up is exactly what it needs. Its why we have a democracy. We don't have a democracy so that the people CAN'T correct things with a president that will restore our liberty from the entrenched power. We have a democracy so that the people can do just that with shedding blood.
Elections ARE revolutions, otherwise they mean nothing.
The entrenched powers don't want any real change, they want you to believe what you do, that the status quo is the only way things can be and you should be afraid to change that. I don't believe that for a second and its not what the framers intended.
If following the constitution and seeking liberty is such a crazy thing, then you can call me crazy...
icwyd -- Regarding your above comment - That's obviously a typo. I meant "without". Surely you must have understood that from the context of the sentence.... So I assume you have no retort...
OK, we had a revolution in 2008 that never really happened. Many people should have been put in prison from the previous administration that was running amok with all our freedoms but there was this wish for bipartisanship which only happened from one side.
Then the money came in a subverted the whole thing which resulted in the 2010 election results and the conservatives thought they had a mandate.
When the revolution happens again and the people are heard, the conservatives will lose and the real will of the people will be heard. Because the will of the people _IS_ the benefit of the people. Not the corporations, not the rich.
Look to the time after the depression and the voting that got us out of it. It was not for the rich was it? It was not for the corporations was it? It was not for less regulation? It was not for less government? You can't deny this. You can only try to spin it.
We will see. November will most likely put the conservatives in their place. It is already happening. You can see the writing on the wall and the conservatives will s**tting their collective selves!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
So what your saying is that Political Clout = Corruption. I guess I don't want my president to have political clout then, just popular clout because the people are behind him.
The thing that got us out of the last depression was WAR. plain and simple. It was a unfifying effort to stop absolute evil world domination. This time we don't have NAZI's to make us ration, we are over consumers to our souls now.
And if you pretend socialist policies will help us get out of our enormous debt to other countries you are sorely mistaken. If socialism saves, then why did USSR fail? (Yes they were communist, a perverted form of socialism, but look at China or North Korea and tell me that communism isn't the natural byproduct of socialism...)
Icwyd I am excited to rock this boat with you. I can see you are well read but a little mislead. Who are you voting for?
IN reply to your other comment. You obviously have no idea what socialism means if you think that we don't have a socialist system in the US. It's called... wait for it... SOCIAL Welfare, SOCIAL security, SOCIALIZED medicine... We try to ram social programs down the middle classes throat on the daily. If you don't think so then try not paying your social security tax, see how the IRS deals with that. Perhaps you are for food stamps, social welfare programs. Trying to claim that we are a capitalist society when the Federal Government is paying farmers to NOT grow things is playing a blind eye to reality. We are a Republic run as a socialist country, that is managed by the wealthy. If we had a free market, I could buy cigarettes in North Carolina for the same price as California, but since they are both regulated by their respective government and the federal gov I can't even cross state lines to sell them to my friends. If there isn't a strong socialist agenda in the US then we wouldn't be debating Social Medicine... Come bud I know your smarter than what you are spouting right now, so you get a free pass before I bust out facts on ya.
When you go by the constitution, one man one vote, then you will have social programs. That _IS_ what the people want because, guess what? We are social kind of people.
You really think that you could buy cigarettes for the same price in a state on the East coast as a state on the West coast? That makes me laugh.
You will never have this Utopia. There is no such thing as a pure capitalists system and there is a reason for that. It doesn't work. It will turn into the fiefdoms of Old England. The very thing that we were trying to escape when we came over here.
@icwyd You don't seem to read my arguments and only answer them half heartedly without addressing the issues I bring up. I hope you aren't a lawyer. But either way to clarify, you argued we aren't Socialist then say that is what the people want so that is what we have. You lost that argument. Next: The point of using cigarrettes was to make the point that each state can charge what they want for them, but the free market teaches us that people will gravitate towards the lower price for the same product no matter where it is. That is the essence of a free market system. Artificial pricing by the government creates an unblaanced system and destroys the very essence of a free market system. So you are making my point, we don't have a free market system...And since I don't smoke this isn't my utopia, it's the reality of a Federal government screwing with the markets. And I didn't escape anything, just like you didn't ride a boat over here with your great great grandpa so don't give me the "We fought our way over here for freedom speech." You were redoubtably born in a hospital just like everyone else. And fiefdom... seriously?
While i dont agree with ACTA, he did have the power to sign it; A executive agreement will not be acknowledge by the court as it has not been ratified. ACTA is a agreement that the executive branch will follow with the executive power; you cannot get arrested for breaking a ACTA agreement. (but it can still do some harm, lets not let facts ruin that even as a executive agreement, its horrible)
Hey Drug's are a big business, just ask Pfizer. They routinely send Lobbyists to smaller states who are debating this topic to put pressure on those who agree and money into the hands that don't. The DEA spends most of it's time busting state legal dispensaries because they are low hanging fruit. While street dealers sell meth and pain killers to anyone they please. America's youth is fed up and are about to take a stand as their grandparents fade away into history. The POTUS and political pundits better take note...
Doesn't the federal government have some sort of petition to get an item on a national ballot the same way state governments do? Can't we just start a huge online petition and get this issue on the 2012 or 2014 ballot or something? We have the power to end this whole issue ourselves.
Mass mailings, email, phone calls. Not every state is this way either. My guess was to keep Government at a minimum, keep them from doing things not in it's power, if so, it did not work.
Interestingly, Obama has no problem taking on just about every Catholic (and some others) church in the nation (I'm not myself religious, just saying) by mandating that they pay for condoms.
That seems like a real loser of an issue politically. But then he goes hardcore against medical pot from multiple fronts?
This guy makes no f**king sense at all, and I can't help but think he's more beholden to more people than any other crappy ass politician I can think of in recent history, and that is saying allot!
The only other possibility is he won't actually exercise his authority and try to control the executive branch, but then he has no problem jerking the EPA around like his fiat puppet.
Non-f**king-sensical.. If I was forced to choose between only him and Romney, I'd vote for him, as the lesser of two evils only because Romney is a blue-blooded plastic multi-tool. Luckily, there will almost certainly be a third party, and I will vote for that third party like I have a backbone.
It is political..... Obama admits to smoking cocaine and weed in his books..... personally i doubt he cares, professionally its about politics.... These old hard headed anti pot republicans are ruining our country
There are old testament prohibitions against marijuana, that proscribe its use for the rabble. That old testament justice, holds sway, and represents a more important voting
block than the masses.
The demographic that is driven by old testament sensibilities, combined with the profits made from keeping marijuana illegal, are a more persuasive demographic factor than the populist sentiment in favor of its legalization.
Then the Lord said to Moses, "Take the following fine spices: 500 shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of q'aneh-bosm, 500 shekels of cassia-- all according to the sanctuary shekel-- and a hind of olive oil. Make these into a sacred anointing oil, a fragrant blend, the work of a perfumer. It will be the sacred anointing oil.
Then use it to anoint the Tent of the Meeting, the art of the Testimony, the table and all its articles, the lampstand [sic] and its accessories, the alter of incense, the alter of burnt offering and all its utensils, and the basin with its stand. You shall consecrate them so that they will be most holy, and whatever touches them will be holy.
Anoint Aaron and his sons and consecrate them so they may serve me as priests. Say to the Israelites, "This is to be my sacred anointing oil for the generations to come. Do not pour it on men's bodies and do not make any oil with the same formula. It is sacred, and you are to consider it sacred. Whoever makes perfume like it and whoever puts it on anyone other than a priest must be cut off from his people." (Exodus 30: 22-23)
The old testament is a book based on the idea that the universe revolved around the world and the earth was flat.
I think that the old testament has lost any creditability....This is 100000% more about money then any religious ideology (though religion is a way to keep people inline, as usual)
The DEA is making a death gurgle.
Possible outcomes?
Revolution (armed stand-off like what happened in Oakland for occupy)
Super Pres (a ralph nader/vermin supreme hybrid takes office)
We all tuck tail and bury our heads (dont do this)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Just think what they might have accomplished if they put the same amount of effort in identifying and prosecuting the Wall Street crooks. It just shows what you can get for your dollar when buying politicians.
Because Obama is in trouble with his reelection in serious doubt. He needs to appeal to and appease various segments of the voting population. Moderates tend to dislike medical marijuana. Obama needs to appeal to more moderates. Guess what?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Agreed. But why? I consider myself an Independent, but realistically I'm probably more of a moderate Democrat. I don't understand why fellow moderates aren't viewing this issue pragmatically. Spending money to fight a drug that isn't even dangerous, (relative to most other legal and illegal drugs), makes NO SENSE. I thought moderates were supposed to be reasonable and not swayed by partisan scare tactics.
My guess is that too many moderates are old people, set in their ways and brainwashed by decades of propaganda. But here we have another example of how Obama is just another politician, promising one thing, but doing another.
While it is way to early to tell....i dont see a republican that can possibly beat obama; sure right now everyone wants someone to blame, but you get romney up there pushing policy's that got us in this mess...or you get santorum who just simply wants to make this a strict Christan nation(with all the stupid Christan ideology)...or you get newt who wants to drag judges in front of congress in a attempt to destroy the judicial branch. None of these stances are very popular.
I don't see how anyone could vote for the extreme right of the republicans right now, i dont think the American people want to go that hard right.
The tail is wagging the dog and i dont see a path the republicans have to make any progress in 2012
icwydFeb 9, 2012
He has to keep his coalition happy. It is that simple. He is giving money to the people who will get him elected and that is the Law Enforcement community. This is an easy one because who will deny more money to fight the evil drug crisis. Since money is tight he is looking for anyway to make his coalition happy and this is it.
We need to get the money out of the government.
We need to stop gerrymandering (use computer programs that give a true sense of the districts).
We need real campaign reform (not the one the conservatives gave us).
We need to get rid of the electoral college..
Until we do these things, no candidate will work for us and will always work for the 1%.
We don't need a new government, we just need to fix what we have.
scottkeefeFeb 9, 2012
If I could dig up your comment a thousand times, I would.
letherialFeb 9, 2012
I take the same stance, i dont care about ideology as it doesn't matter when it comes to this...our democracy is getting sold and it needs to stop.
bdbrFeb 9, 2012
There are probably big pharma donations at play, as well.
When anyone asks why ANY politician has a stance on anything, my first suggestion is to follow the money.
jpurdyFeb 9, 2012
Guess who benefited most from the drug presription plan passed during the W. Bush administration? With no funding.
Medicare participants certainly benefited, but where did the money go?
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
You and I sometimes disagree but your spot on on this one.
jeworldFeb 9, 2012
I just watched on Drugs Inc. last night how the IRS was f**king the dispensaries in California. Mendocino's Sherrifs department even issued permits to have at least 99 plants be legally grown if you are a caretaker.
One even said after all the fees and permits and taxes, it's not even worth it. What that means: The government has NO BUSINESS in telling you A NATURALLY GROWN PLANT is illegal.
I've had enough of this bulls**t America. Step up, or get out.
floorboardFeb 9, 2012
If only there was a candidate (there is, Ron Paul) who is on record as wanting to legalise all this stuff (there is, Ron Paul) who the establishment is genuinely scared of, because he'll promise change, and provide change (there is, Ron Paul)
TGRHvWGAFFeb 9, 2012
This is one area where I disagree wholeheartedly. On other social issues Obama has taken a path of gradual transition and phased overhauls, but with medical marijuana his administration is obstructing progress rather than facilitating it. Perhaps he needs to be reminded that change doesn't come from Washington, it goes to Washington.
anonadminFeb 9, 2012
Because the old joke is sooo true.
How can you tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving!
Closed AccountFeb 9, 2012
I usually find myself on the opposite side of alternet, consider this my awakening. how does it feel to have a constitutional FISCAL conservative(social liberal) liking the same things you like?
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
It makes me feel fuzzy inside.
benjie25Feb 9, 2012
"Why is the Obama Administration Suddenly Fixated on Stomping out Medical Pot? "
1) Don't care about SOPA until people make a fuss
2) Sign in ACTA even though he doesn't have power to
3) Declare an even bigger war against a "wonder" drug with almost no down side.
Must..not..get..reelected...
btw, I'm not a "pot head" or anything. I don't do any drugs except for actual medical reasons, like anxiety and stuff, but it's not hard to understand that weed isn't bad.
starmanjonesFeb 9, 2012
so you're thinking one of the republicans won't be more aggressive than obama? thats pretty silly.
scottkeefeFeb 9, 2012
Ron Paul won't be. He will end the drug war and restore our personal liberties. That's not silly at all...
Unfortunately, the establishment has been able to convince many people through mass media brainwashing that he's a not for real. So a 'real' candidate must apparently keep doing all the dumb ass things that got us this pile of s**t we are in... Unreal.
Ron Paul will have my vote no matter what. I don't care who actually gets elected, since they are all the same and just playing good-cop - bad-cop with us. I want to send a message this time, which is the only thing that can count anymore. No more f**king business as usual...
starmanjonesFeb 9, 2012
but he won't be a republican candidate. he won't be president. frankly, while decriminalizing pot is a no brainer...
paul calls for the shutdown of the american economy and withdrawal from the world stage. that is a no brainer too... no brainer as in completely goofy whose only potential is to make things worse.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scottkeefeFeb 9, 2012
So not trying to have a worldwide American Empire, which is the only historical model for America actually being destroyed (by bankruptcy) is a no brainer?
Sounds to me like you'd have to have no brain to support keeping our army all over the world until we are broke.
Shutdown the American economy? What by going back to the gold standard or eliminating the FED? Sounds fine to me, what exactly is your issue with it?
As far as not getting elected, he won't if people like yourself continue to allow yourselves to be corralled into voting for whoever the corporate media want you to.... Whoever they anoint. I won't be doing that anymore.. If I'm the only one I won't be doing that, but there are many of me...
starmanjonesFeb 9, 2012
this is the problem. you've been told its the paul way or the bush way. clinton prosecuted a major war in eastern europe,,, as well as in the country he was trying to govern. he clearly saved many lives.
when obama operated under his own methods and practices he helped eliminate gaddafi. he did it in a way that didn't further alienate us in the muslim world.
he found bin lauden and used the minimum force to deal with it.
there is clearly a difference between the way democrats and republicans deal with these issues.
the republicans are the ones that act questionably. theres granada, panama, nicaragua, iraq, afganistan... an attempt to take out gadaffi. the scary thing is that i am sure i've left something out.
so no i don't support the way pauls party deals with foreign affairs. i don't support keeping armies all over the world.
i think tying our money to a gold standard is silly. how do you know there is any gold in fort knox. the fed is broken because corporate america has abused it like they have abused every other aspect of america. what happens china or korea... or iran maybe someone in the u.s. figure out how to make gold out of the fabric of space. it is simply not that far away.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
starmanjonesFeb 9, 2012
on voting... nadar ran as a green candidate against gore and bush. he pulled votes from gore and bush became president with the help of friends. that got us iraq, afghanistan, and a mountain of debt. bush completely kill our credibility in the world. we got the patriot act...
those people that voted nadar are the ones you are talking about. not me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
Guess you are into no brainers, because you haven't really even read his policies because you are so off base it's laughable. He is a STATE RIGHT's proponent. Give the states the choice to legalize it if they want. The same way he feels about every subject, mainly because that is exactly what the Constitution was written for...
starmanjonesFeb 9, 2012
that sounds pretty much sounds like scrapping the federal government. i think the whole states thing is dumb. it will reduce the capability of the federal government. it increases about every bad thing.
when you tie that to draconian economic policies that reduce the size of the government...
well, who is out of touch with reality?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
Starman I will ask one thing of you. Show me 1 government program that was run on a national level, stayed below budget, and didn't have waste, graft or corruption involved. I'll give you a hint, Social Security, The Post Office, Cash for Junkers, Bail Out's don't qualify...
Now on a State level I can drop 4 hyperlinks off the top of my head that qualify for all of those things. If you really think that handing a everything to some out of touch wealthy guys and gals in Washington DC is the answer, then you are the reason we are in this mess. BTW you are right, States rights is all about reducing the power of the Federal Government, that is the point. And calling something dumb isn't an argument, it's just makes you sound... umm what's the word for it?
starmanjonesFeb 10, 2012
@sheopleherder
show me someone that expects government to operate perfectly and i'll show you a person with unrealistic expectations.
show me a set of books that are perfect and i'll show you books that have been cooked.
i'm not worried about states rights i'm worried about citizens rights. if we ditch the department of education then some kids will get a great education and more will be taught creationism as science.
states rights is about turning the united states into something more like europe... a bunch of countries that wish they could be the united states. "united" states has been our advantage. as a whole we can do anything. as a bunch countries "states" we are an obstacle to each other.
i am really tired of hearing people state they want to go by the constitution as if i as if disagreeing with them means that i don't want to scrap the constitution. i don't.
i want to see guns controlled as specified under the 2nd amendment. but there are some that don't believe in the constitution. right?
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
I can assume you aren't a natural English speaker, because I can't really make out what you are trying to say. Are you from the states?
sheopleherderFeb 10, 2012
Yay you responded! I was afraid I ran you off. Ok line by line follow me here:
YOU are the one saying that the government is here to save us, then you say that it's ridiculous to say that the government can't operate. You just gave me that argument. And you even said perfect, which is funny I never said perfect, I am saying show me 1 portion of the government that doesn't have rampant corruption and performs under budget. You can't, cause it doesn't exist. So as you can see your argument is flawed.
I can show you plenty of books that are perfect. It's math and I hire well paid CPA's to make sure they are perfect. My company makes a profit and the share holders are free to look at the books anytime they want. If you really think that any profitable business is corrupt then you and I have a fundamental disagreement, just because your paranoid doesn't mean they are after you...
I can tell your not worried about states rights, you are asking to expand the Federal Government, the same government you just said is corrupt and not perfect in any sense. That's like asking Bernie Madoff to be your financial analyst from jail. It's doesn't work so make it bigger is not a logical answer. But if we move the corruption down to state level, then we can at least deal with the issues on a state by state level. We don't have to march on the DC to get our point across, we simply go to their office at the state capital and discuss it face to face.
On the education argument: We spend more than any other country but we have some of the lowest education levels out of all civilized countries, take a look:
http://www.coolinfographics.com/storage/post-images/us-schools-vs-international3.jpg
If that is working then we have a real problem. Of course that link also shows you why your next statement that all of Europe is jealous of us is simply not true. I love the US but we don't do everything better than everyone in the world. To think so is called Hubris. And as it stands there are already a ton of people that believe creationism is science and they were (mis)educated just like you were in the public school system.
Finally the constitution wasn't designed to only be applied when it's convenient. It was written as a complete document that was designed to stand the test of time. We have a process of appeals called amendments, but as of late, the court system, congress and the POTUS seem to think that they don't need to abide by the rules. That upsets a large group of Americans that understand history and don't get dazzled by the latest buzzwords and orange alerts. You seem passionate and aware, take a second to read more about the constitution and you undoubtedly join us.
starmanjonesFeb 10, 2012
no. you are saying the federal government is our doom.
you claim is that it should be done away with because its not perfectly efficient.
you are arguing that we'd be better skipping economies of scale and support 50 little bureaucracies as more efficient than one larger one. in fact, its just 50 opportunities for more corruption and waste.
this is the same argument people who support private healthcare claiming that a big bureaucracy is a waste. this ignores the fact they are advocating 1000s of private bureaucracies all with a profit motive. all need to send a dividend check every quarter to someone that has nothing to do with providing healthcare or management will be replaced. claiming there is no corruption or waste is silly. its in fact there just more difficult to see.
at least waste in single payer system is being wasted on healthcare. private healthcare is incapable of providing healthcare because the government covers the demographic which needs the most service.
this scenario applies across the board.
i didn't say anything about government being corrupt. i said humans are not perfect and are not efficient and anyone claiming they can is not realistic. count on it. all things human are flawed and 50 bureaucracies have very little realistically... no chance to be more perfect than one.
icwydFeb 9, 2012
It is really naive to think that RP will do anything but stir the pot and have everyone against him. He has no political clout. How the hell do you think he will get anything done? He can't do it himself.
What the president is doing is buying political clout. You saw what happened in the early part of his term. He was eaten alive by the special interest. He had to join them just to get anything done.
Our system is truly f**ked up and having some renegade come in and completely screw it up, won't work. It will most likely make things much worse.
Destroying our government is not the answer, fixing it is!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scottkeefeFeb 9, 2012
I respect your opinion, sir.
But I disagree wholeheartedly. Our system is just getting worse and a shake-up is exactly what it needs. Its why we have a democracy. We don't have a democracy so that the people CAN'T correct things with a president that will restore our liberty from the entrenched power. We have a democracy so that the people can do just that with shedding blood.
Elections ARE revolutions, otherwise they mean nothing.
The entrenched powers don't want any real change, they want you to believe what you do, that the status quo is the only way things can be and you should be afraid to change that. I don't believe that for a second and its not what the framers intended.
If following the constitution and seeking liberty is such a crazy thing, then you can call me crazy...
icwydFeb 9, 2012
"We have a democracy so that the people can do just that with shedding blood."
I think you are confused.
scottkeefeFeb 9, 2012
icwyd -- Regarding your above comment - That's obviously a typo. I meant "without". Surely you must have understood that from the context of the sentence.... So I assume you have no retort...
icwydFeb 9, 2012
OK, we had a revolution in 2008 that never really happened. Many people should have been put in prison from the previous administration that was running amok with all our freedoms but there was this wish for bipartisanship which only happened from one side.
Then the money came in a subverted the whole thing which resulted in the 2010 election results and the conservatives thought they had a mandate.
When the revolution happens again and the people are heard, the conservatives will lose and the real will of the people will be heard. Because the will of the people _IS_ the benefit of the people. Not the corporations, not the rich.
Look to the time after the depression and the voting that got us out of it. It was not for the rich was it? It was not for the corporations was it? It was not for less regulation? It was not for less government? You can't deny this. You can only try to spin it.
We will see. November will most likely put the conservatives in their place. It is already happening. You can see the writing on the wall and the conservatives will s**tting their collective selves!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
So what your saying is that Political Clout = Corruption. I guess I don't want my president to have political clout then, just popular clout because the people are behind him.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
The thing that got us out of the last depression was WAR. plain and simple. It was a unfifying effort to stop absolute evil world domination. This time we don't have NAZI's to make us ration, we are over consumers to our souls now.
And if you pretend socialist policies will help us get out of our enormous debt to other countries you are sorely mistaken. If socialism saves, then why did USSR fail? (Yes they were communist, a perverted form of socialism, but look at China or North Korea and tell me that communism isn't the natural byproduct of socialism...)
Icwyd I am excited to rock this boat with you. I can see you are well read but a little mislead. Who are you voting for?
icwydFeb 9, 2012
What got us into this one? WAR!
Socialism is not what we have or what we will have if the people are heard. We are and have never been close to it.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
IN reply to your other comment. You obviously have no idea what socialism means if you think that we don't have a socialist system in the US. It's called... wait for it... SOCIAL Welfare, SOCIAL security, SOCIALIZED medicine... We try to ram social programs down the middle classes throat on the daily. If you don't think so then try not paying your social security tax, see how the IRS deals with that. Perhaps you are for food stamps, social welfare programs. Trying to claim that we are a capitalist society when the Federal Government is paying farmers to NOT grow things is playing a blind eye to reality. We are a Republic run as a socialist country, that is managed by the wealthy. If we had a free market, I could buy cigarettes in North Carolina for the same price as California, but since they are both regulated by their respective government and the federal gov I can't even cross state lines to sell them to my friends. If there isn't a strong socialist agenda in the US then we wouldn't be debating Social Medicine... Come bud I know your smarter than what you are spouting right now, so you get a free pass before I bust out facts on ya.
FrankLuskaFeb 9, 2012
Hear, Hear!
icwydFeb 9, 2012
When you go by the constitution, one man one vote, then you will have social programs. That _IS_ what the people want because, guess what? We are social kind of people.
You really think that you could buy cigarettes for the same price in a state on the East coast as a state on the West coast? That makes me laugh.
You will never have this Utopia. There is no such thing as a pure capitalists system and there is a reason for that. It doesn't work. It will turn into the fiefdoms of Old England. The very thing that we were trying to escape when we came over here.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
@icwyd You don't seem to read my arguments and only answer them half heartedly without addressing the issues I bring up. I hope you aren't a lawyer. But either way to clarify, you argued we aren't Socialist then say that is what the people want so that is what we have. You lost that argument. Next: The point of using cigarrettes was to make the point that each state can charge what they want for them, but the free market teaches us that people will gravitate towards the lower price for the same product no matter where it is. That is the essence of a free market system. Artificial pricing by the government creates an unblaanced system and destroys the very essence of a free market system. So you are making my point, we don't have a free market system...And since I don't smoke this isn't my utopia, it's the reality of a Federal government screwing with the markets. And I didn't escape anything, just like you didn't ride a boat over here with your great great grandpa so don't give me the "We fought our way over here for freedom speech." You were redoubtably born in a hospital just like everyone else. And fiefdom... seriously?
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
2 words, Ron Paul.
letherialFeb 9, 2012
While i dont agree with ACTA, he did have the power to sign it; A executive agreement will not be acknowledge by the court as it has not been ratified. ACTA is a agreement that the executive branch will follow with the executive power; you cannot get arrested for breaking a ACTA agreement. (but it can still do some harm, lets not let facts ruin that even as a executive agreement, its horrible)
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
Hey Drug's are a big business, just ask Pfizer. They routinely send Lobbyists to smaller states who are debating this topic to put pressure on those who agree and money into the hands that don't. The DEA spends most of it's time busting state legal dispensaries because they are low hanging fruit. While street dealers sell meth and pain killers to anyone they please. America's youth is fed up and are about to take a stand as their grandparents fade away into history. The POTUS and political pundits better take note...
exspasticcomicsFeb 9, 2012
If you listen to Obama talk- He tries to sound like a progressive... If you actually sit down & watch what he's actually doing... well...
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
ben7337Feb 9, 2012
Doesn't the federal government have some sort of petition to get an item on a national ballot the same way state governments do? Can't we just start a huge online petition and get this issue on the 2012 or 2014 ballot or something? We have the power to end this whole issue ourselves.
FrankLuskaFeb 9, 2012
Mass mailings, email, phone calls. Not every state is this way either. My guess was to keep Government at a minimum, keep them from doing things not in it's power, if so, it did not work.
scottkeefeFeb 9, 2012
Interestingly, Obama has no problem taking on just about every Catholic (and some others) church in the nation (I'm not myself religious, just saying) by mandating that they pay for condoms.
That seems like a real loser of an issue politically. But then he goes hardcore against medical pot from multiple fronts?
This guy makes no f**king sense at all, and I can't help but think he's more beholden to more people than any other crappy ass politician I can think of in recent history, and that is saying allot!
The only other possibility is he won't actually exercise his authority and try to control the executive branch, but then he has no problem jerking the EPA around like his fiat puppet.
Non-f**king-sensical.. If I was forced to choose between only him and Romney, I'd vote for him, as the lesser of two evils only because Romney is a blue-blooded plastic multi-tool. Luckily, there will almost certainly be a third party, and I will vote for that third party like I have a backbone.
auditortuxFeb 9, 2012
Take a look at the calendar and how we're getting closer and closer to November...
letherialFeb 9, 2012
If you think that this stance will change by party's then you truly do not have a clue.
sheopleherderFeb 9, 2012
Yep I have already written Ron Paul in on my home ballot. Woot!
FrankLuskaFeb 9, 2012
Good on Ya.
barackalypseFeb 9, 2012
Because Obama, like his predecessor, is no friend to liberty.
larse1wrFeb 9, 2012
It is political..... Obama admits to smoking cocaine and weed in his books..... personally i doubt he cares, professionally its about politics.... These old hard headed anti pot republicans are ruining our country
ridgerunner5Feb 9, 2012
The Obama Administration is Democrat, in case you weren't sure...
sapana543Feb 10, 2012
Why? Because he sucks, flip flops, is dumb, feels he needs to protect people from themselves.
whatever happened to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"
Throw the clown out.
PanjeeFeb 9, 2012
Because they can!
norman619Feb 9, 2012
They think it will win them votes. why else?
niceguyvanFeb 9, 2012
Cause its being abused by potheads?
How many times have you heard jokes on tv about stoners referring to their fake glaucoma?
lemonrindFeb 9, 2012
Correct. The solution to this is to legalize cannabis for everyone.
alxnavaFeb 11, 2012
Obama is a Conservative-Moderate who leans Right, that's why he's anti-Marijuana. He will not receive my (Progressive) vote.
paultripFeb 10, 2012
They have a deal with the cartels, Mexico is loosing too much money. This is a waste of my money and I am ashamed of Obama!
gkiltzFeb 10, 2012
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Any questions????
phildemFeb 9, 2012
There are old testament prohibitions against marijuana, that proscribe its use for the rabble. That old testament justice, holds sway, and represents a more important voting
block than the masses.
The demographic that is driven by old testament sensibilities, combined with the profits made from keeping marijuana illegal, are a more persuasive demographic factor than the populist sentiment in favor of its legalization.
floorboardFeb 9, 2012
Chapter and verse, please.
phildemFeb 9, 2012
Then the Lord said to Moses, "Take the following fine spices: 500 shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of q'aneh-bosm, 500 shekels of cassia-- all according to the sanctuary shekel-- and a hind of olive oil. Make these into a sacred anointing oil, a fragrant blend, the work of a perfumer. It will be the sacred anointing oil.
Then use it to anoint the Tent of the Meeting, the art of the Testimony, the table and all its articles, the lampstand [sic] and its accessories, the alter of incense, the alter of burnt offering and all its utensils, and the basin with its stand. You shall consecrate them so that they will be most holy, and whatever touches them will be holy.
Anoint Aaron and his sons and consecrate them so they may serve me as priests. Say to the Israelites, "This is to be my sacred anointing oil for the generations to come. Do not pour it on men's bodies and do not make any oil with the same formula. It is sacred, and you are to consider it sacred. Whoever makes perfume like it and whoever puts it on anyone other than a priest must be cut off from his people." (Exodus 30: 22-23)
lemonrindFeb 9, 2012
Thanks a lot for the gold, and frankincense, but don't worry too much about the myrrh next time, all right? Thank you.
letherialFeb 9, 2012
The old testament is a book based on the idea that the universe revolved around the world and the earth was flat.
I think that the old testament has lost any creditability....This is 100000% more about money then any religious ideology (though religion is a way to keep people inline, as usual)
sonicomegaFeb 9, 2012
The DEA is making a death gurgle.
Possible outcomes?
Revolution (armed stand-off like what happened in Oakland for occupy)
Super Pres (a ralph nader/vermin supreme hybrid takes office)
We all tuck tail and bury our heads (dont do this)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inetroadkillFeb 9, 2012
Just think what they might have accomplished if they put the same amount of effort in identifying and prosecuting the Wall Street crooks. It just shows what you can get for your dollar when buying politicians.
davidnivenFeb 9, 2012
Because Obama is in trouble with his reelection in serious doubt. He needs to appeal to and appease various segments of the voting population. Moderates tend to dislike medical marijuana. Obama needs to appeal to more moderates. Guess what?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mjm6783Feb 9, 2012
Agreed. But why? I consider myself an Independent, but realistically I'm probably more of a moderate Democrat. I don't understand why fellow moderates aren't viewing this issue pragmatically. Spending money to fight a drug that isn't even dangerous, (relative to most other legal and illegal drugs), makes NO SENSE. I thought moderates were supposed to be reasonable and not swayed by partisan scare tactics.
My guess is that too many moderates are old people, set in their ways and brainwashed by decades of propaganda. But here we have another example of how Obama is just another politician, promising one thing, but doing another.
letherialFeb 9, 2012
While it is way to early to tell....i dont see a republican that can possibly beat obama; sure right now everyone wants someone to blame, but you get romney up there pushing policy's that got us in this mess...or you get santorum who just simply wants to make this a strict Christan nation(with all the stupid Christan ideology)...or you get newt who wants to drag judges in front of congress in a attempt to destroy the judicial branch. None of these stances are very popular.
I don't see how anyone could vote for the extreme right of the republicans right now, i dont think the American people want to go that hard right.
The tail is wagging the dog and i dont see a path the republicans have to make any progress in 2012