Republicans and marijuana

[hoosierdaddy]

Demonizing ones opponent is a typical leftist maneuver.
Bringing down bad vibes on anyone or anything that opposes the position.
This recent housing trouble we have had gets blamed on the administration that was in charge when it hit, and blame is laid at the feet of the Republicans and the tool used is regulation...however, if we look closely it was the regulation of the housing industry, in particular lending practices, that brought the market down to it's knees. Insistence that the banks provide loans to those who would not normally qualify under the banks independent rules and practices. Banks did not practice this sort of loan making in the past, and it wasn't their idea this time. It was the idea of congress, led by the left.
Barney Frank and others involved in the housing industry were warned repeatedly during the GW Bush years that the way that they were doing things was going to catch up to us and a collapse could emerge. But a deaf ear was turned to the words of the right wing, including Bush himself making the plead to change the way things were being done, and I think it was three times he made the plea in the Senate hall.

But the demonization of the last administration continues, and the calling for more regulation continues, from the left. If Farmer Joe, who only sees 10-15 minutes of news a day is led down the path of bullshit, he has nothing else to go on but bullshit.
If he is given the truth of a matter, he more than likely has the sense to make a proper decision for himself and his family. But the left seems to only want you to think, or have the perception, that they are out for the little working man.
Just like MJ, it is one of those things that people do...they associate pot smoking with the so-called freedom loving left. But from what I see, the left has nothing at all as far as a promise to legalize pot. Hell, with the way things are being done today, Obama could sign an executive order immediately and there wouldn't be much at all the Republicans could do about it. Nor, IMO, do they really want to do anything about that issue. There are far more issue that will cause our demise if not addressed and fixed.

 

[9Lives]

Demonizing ones opponent is a typical leftist maneuver.
Bringing down bad vibes on anyone or anything that opposes the position.
This recent housing trouble we have had gets blamed on the administration that was in charge when it hit, and blame is laid at the feet of the Republicans and the tool used is regulation...however, if we look closely it was the regulation of the housing industry, in particular lending practices, that brought the market down to it's knees. Insistence that the banks provide loans to those who would not normally qualify under the banks independent rules and practices. Banks did not practice this sort of loan making in the past, and it wasn't their idea this time. It was the idea of congress, led by the left.
Barney Frank and others involved in the housing industry were warned repeatedly during the GW Bush years that the way that they were doing things was going to catch up to us and a collapse could emerge. But a deaf ear was turned to the words of the right wing, including Bush himself making the plead to change the way things were being done, and I think it was three times he made the plea in the Senate hall.

But the demonization of the last administration continues, and the calling for more regulation continues, from the left. If Farmer Joe, who only sees 10-15 minutes of news a day is led down the path of bullshit, he has nothing else to go on but bullshit.
If he is given the truth of a matter, he more than likely has the sense to make a proper decision for himself and his family. But the left seems to only want you to think, or have the perception, that they are out for the little working man.
Just like MJ, it is one of those things that people do...they associate pot smoking with the so-called freedom loving left. But from what I see, the left has nothing at all as far as a promise to legalize pot. Hell, with the way things are being done today, Obama could sign an executive order immediately and there wouldn't be much at all the Republicans could do about it. Nor, IMO, do they really want to do anything about that issue. There are far more issue that will cause our demise if not addressed and fixed.

And the truth shall set you free.. :yay:

 

[jd4083]

hoosierdaddy

I have seen a lot of your posts in this thread and agree with much of what you have to say. The major thing I do take issue with is this idea:

Demonizing ones opponent is a typical leftist maneuver.

How can you not see that this tactic is employed in equal measure by both ends of the political spectrum and every third party in between?

 

[xfargox]

At the same time, why aren't the Ron Paul's of the party louder than those who espouse the moral authority brand of conservativism? This is where I parted ways with the party. I don't want associate myself with bible-thumping bigots and people who don't "believe" in evolution. At the same time, I am all for saving money, limiting government, and being fair and sensible about taxes (which I think should only be on money you spend--not on money you earn.)

Ron Paul isn't a conservative. Ron Paul is a libertarian (well, he's mostly a libertarian). I'm sure you know that, I'm just saying that's probably why there aren't as many obstreperous supporters. Libertarianism isn't one of the two major parties.

Think of it as this horribly oversimplified box diagram:

That's how my government professor laid it out at least. He's got a JD and spent a lot of time as a lawyer studying the government. I also just got up from a nap and am a bit high, so excuse any accuracies (also I don't want to ever be wrong, ever ).

But yeah, conservatives these days aren't actually small gov't. They're small government with money, but big government with social morals. That's where everyone gets the "old, rich, stuck up white guy" image of conservatives these days. It's just unfortunate that Repbulicans (conservatives) and Democrats (liberals) are the two main political parties, because I personally think true Libertarianism kicks the shit outta both of them, just like Thomas Jefferson did. Then again, if populism was one of the main ones, we'd be in for a world of hurt. "Big Brother" comes to mind.

Edit: If you wanna read up on Libertarianism to find out what it actually is (not just say "Ron Paul" all the time), you can read some Robert Kane, or Hayek. There are many others, but I'm pretty sure I started there. A lot of philosophers aren't necessarily Libertarian, but they have views that are congruent with it. Henry David Thoreau is also a good one.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Demonizing ones opponent is a typical leftist maneuver.
Bringing down bad vibes on anyone or anything that opposes the position.

Then I guess you're a leftist. How about your bad-vibe maneuvers? You've compared Democrats to Socialism and Communism and you've used the words Nazi and Fascist more than anybody discussing the subject. It spans entire conversations from health care reform to economic policy to climate change. You rarely, if ever discuss the topics, instead preferring raging, personal insults and endless cursing of IC members! You've declared that all the nut bags in this country are left and even attempted to say that Nazis were liberals. Sometimes I wonder if you're just lonely and it's the only way you know how to get attention.

This recent housing trouble we have had gets blamed on the administration that was in charge when it hit, and blame is laid at the feet of the Republicans and the tool used is regulation...however, if we look closely it was the regulation of the housing industry, in particular lending practices, that brought the market down to it's knees. Insistence that the banks provide loans to those who would not normally qualify under the banks independent rules and practices. Banks did not practice this sort of loan making in the past, and it wasn't their idea this time. It was the idea of congress, led by the left.
Barney Frank and others involved in the housing industry were warned repeatedly during the GW Bush years that the way that they were doing things was going to catch up to us and a collapse could emerge. But a deaf ear was turned to the words of the right wing, including Bush himself making the plead to change the way things were being done, and I think it was three times he made the plea in the Senate hall.

You need to do some more reading. W bought "the ownership society." Bush wanted more homeowners under his administration than any previous president. I know you like to blame it on BF but the hilarious aspect you forget is Frank wasn't in the majority until 2007. After that, he still had to work with a Republican administration and the rest of the Republicans in Congress.

I've seen you link Frank with Fannie and Freddy and your imagined class of minorities that individually tanked the world economy. Sorry, but the minority class of home buyers wasn't big enough to do that much damage. Without an entire industry of unscrupulous lenders, backed up by the street to sell it to the world, the ownership society would have been a blip on the financial radar. The abyss couldn't have been perpetuated by a lone congressman (not in control for 6 of the 8 years) of W's administration.

I'd be interested to see W's 3 pleas of collapse. Maybe you wouldn't mind pointing to a reference? If you'll do that for me, I'll show you where BF did the same thing before and during the events leading up to the housing bust.

Regulation has been used in the past. Read some history of economic policy from the 30s to the 70s. Democrats realize regulation is necessary because a strong middle class is the economic engine and wealth of this country. Regulation is a bitch sometimes but human beings have the propensity to turn up the heat until the whipping horse melts. Since such a small percentage of top income earners usually melt it for all of us, regulation is necessary. IMO regulation isn't evil but greed is, regulated or not.

Where did government find the means to bail out "too big to fail"? The middle-class, 98% of which makes less than $200,000 per year. But we still have homes, savings and pensions (those that haven't already been dissolved by greed.) Our middle-class wealth is enormous and the top will continue to bleed it for personal profit w/o necessary regulations. Every type of society can be pulled to (and pushed over) the economic brink with individual and institutional greed. BTW, our wealth disparity is worse than any time except 1929. Remember what happened in 1932?

But the demonization of the last administration continues, and the calling for more regulation continues, from the left.

Yep, and a new president who's only been in office for 13 months gets demonized from the right.

Non-conservatives had to endure the previous 8 years, even though SCOTUS made the unprecedented move of selection over election. Sorry but you'll have to endure at least one term and you'll be reading unflattering history of W for the rest of your life over the way his policies wrecked the middle class. How his tax cuts, two wars and a prescription drug benefit w/o negotiable price controls (weren't) funded and the costs were simply passed on to us and our descendants, after giving hundreds of billions back to the top 1.5% You cry about how much money O is spending but your don't care whether the lions share of it is to pay for W. You support CBO numbers when they reflect your interests but you reject their findings that W already spent 7 of every 10 dollars flooding the till today.

If Farmer Joe, who only sees 10-15 minutes of news a day is led down the path of bullshit, he has nothing else to go on but bullshit. If he is given the truth of a matter, he more than likely has the sense to make a proper decision for himself and his family. But the left seems to only want you to think, or have the perception, that they are out for the little working man.

If you're given total impunity, so is everybody else. Read some Upton Sinclair to discover what impunity leads to, total exploitation of the common man. Nobody is looking in the crystal ball, hoosier. We have history of greed repeated over and over.

Republicans are trying to continue W's tax cuts. How do you like your measly $hundreds compared to the hundreds of billions W gave away and Republican leaders wish to continue? If W hadn't given it all back, we might have some money to pay some of the bills he racked up. How does 5 trillion added to the national debt sound? You have W to thank for that. He's the first president to fight two, unfunded wars on the assumption that giving all the money back would somehow provide larger returns. And all of it is his legacy, spending what we didn't have and passing the mess to the next, unfortunate leader

Reagan gave back a wad of money during his first term. Then he had to raise taxes twice. Reagan was smart enough to know that his legacy as a two-time tax raiser wouldn't be as bad as a spendthrift who left a legacy of debt. So he did both. As testimony, no Republican dares mention Reagan tax increases because they prefer to remember him as a small government warrior. Funny thing is, he was the first president to triple the national debt and he spent double the combined spending of every president before him.

Just like MJ, it is one of those things that people do...they associate pot smoking with the so-called freedom loving left. But from what I see, the left has nothing at all as far as a promise to legalize pot. Hell, with the way things are being done today, Obama could sign an executive order immediately and there wouldn't be much at all the Republicans could do about it.

I don't think you want a comparison of W's vast, unprecedented, executive privilege. You're right about one thing though. Non-conservative voters don't have a lock on the mj demographic. Unfortunately, Republican legislators have a problem being seen as the moral police. Gays can't get married or serve openly in the military but their non-Christian children face the possibility of being forced to endure Christian worship at their public school. Cannabis is and will be another tool to divide the electorate.

Nor, IMO, do they really want to do anything about that issue. There are far more issue that will cause our demise if not addressed and fixed.

Sounds like you're saying Obama should rule by decree. Sorry, we have to work with the party that will use mj reform as a wedge issue to further divide the electorate. Obama isn't the answer to reform, you and your brothers working together are. Together we'll help take the direction alcohol prohibition took in the 30s. States began to allow alcohol and eventually the feds repealed it.

 

[xfargox]

Also, demonizing opponents is probably more rightist than leftist, although both come from extremists.

How many times have you recently heard that Obama is a socialist? What about the McCarthyism thing? Both not only come from the demonization of domestic opponents, but demonizing socialists and communists that most people don't even understand?

I think Jon Stewart alone could teach anyone that Republicans tend to demonize people more than Democrats do. Watch his segments about FOX news.

 

[ColBatGuano]

Ron Paul isn't a conservative. Ron Paul is a libertarian (well, he's mostly a libertarian). I'm sure you know that, I'm just saying that's probably why there aren't as many obstreperous supporters. Libertarianism isn't one of the two major parties.

That's all fine and dandy, but Ron Paul did run as a Republican for President (in 2008, I know he ran 20 years earlier as a Libertarian,) and is a Republican representative from Texas. He either is a Republican, or he isn't. Why does he feel he needs to split hairs about what he really wants? If he's a Republican in the traditional sense, where are the rest in that party who are tired of the neo-conservative rhetoric? Why do you have to buy into social conservativism or Christian dominion theology to be taken seriously in the party? If the party really is what a lot of the people here say it is, then why aren't they shouting foul at the people who have hijacked their civil libertarian, fiscally conservative, anti-federalist roots?

I know all about Libertarianism, but it has nothing to do with what I asked about before. I want to know why Republicans aren't telling the theocrats and those who would, for example, see pot growers as morally reprehensible, to take a hike? I hear a lot of people asking muslims why they aren't more vocally or visibly outraged at terrorism. In a way, I'm asking the same thing about Republicans.

I'm a classic centrist. All political parties tend to have good ideas, and do the right and wrong things at different times. I go with what I think is best. Sometimes it's the George Bush's, sometimes the Ron Paul's, sometimes the Barack Obama's, and sometimes the Joe Lieberman's. I used to register Republican, until the dominion fundamentalists usurped the party. I can't stand them, or their pious self-righteous horse shit.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

That's a great point, xfargox. If there's one thing I actually agree with the current president, we have to rise above partisan demonizing. We'll always have our beliefs but we have to work together to get things done. Putting the brakes on everything in the hopes that party dominance will change isn't good for the people.

 

[Tony Aroma]

It's not Republicans that are pro drug war. It's Republican POLITICIANS.

And I think that's a general rule. People of all parties are generally against the war on drugs. How many recent polls have shown this -- 80% nationally favor mmj. It's the representatives of those people that keep the war on drugs going. I think it's safe to say that more Republican politicians are against drug law reform than Democrat politicians, but a majority of our representatives in both parties are against it. Which is why it continues.

So, as I see it, the problem is not Democrats versus Republicans, it's the people versus their representatives. The people are already mostly convinced that prohibition is bad. The only remaining hurdle is to get the politicians in line with what the people want. Easier said than done.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Real conservatism pretty much ended in WWI. Conservatism simply means one hold beliefs that the constitution is rigid and made for our protection against corrupt government.

Progresses believe that the Constitution is a flawed document and can be changed whenever necessary. Both arguments hold some water.

Ever since WWI the powers of the federal government and specifically the Executive Branch have increased massively. Most scholars would agree that the Constitution barely exists in Washington anymore. Every year the federal government has continued to grow and grow and grow. Each year, even under Reagan, the so called great conservative, the Federal governments % of GDP increased. That's not conservative. Nor was his foreign policy.

"Just Say No" was a progressive ideology, the fact that it came out of a Republican administration moot. It's the whole premise that the federal government knows better than you do. The Feds are smarter than you and can makes decisions for everyone. That's being progressive. Conservatism is about the power remaining with the states. It's our decisions to make as dumb as we are.

The terms Republican and Democrat are utterly useless to me in terms of real political ideology because they are both progressive parties. One is for huge government, the other is in bed with big business and is loving the huge government thing too.

Big business and big government are one in the same and have been for quite a while. We gave all our power to the federal government which then turned around and sold it the the highest bidder.

They are one and the same, but sold to the American people as two sides to give us something to bicker about while they pull the rug from underneath us.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

children face the possibility of being forced to endure Christian worship at their public school

Forced to worship...you are so whacked out it isn't even a joke anymore.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

...All political parties tend to have good ideas, and do the right and wrong things at different times. I go with what I think is best. Sometimes it's the George Bush's, sometimes the Ron Paul's, sometimes the Barack Obama's, and sometimes the Joe Lieberman's.

I don't always agree with the Colonel but take a look at what was just said. I don't care what side of the political spectrum you find yourself on. If you can't accept this frame of thinking, ideology may play too large a roll in your societal livelihood.

 

[BabyHuey]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who-supports-marijuana-legalization.aspx

 

[hoosierdaddy]

That's a great point, xfargox. If there's one thing I actually agree with the current president, we have to rise above partisan demonizing. We'll always have our beliefs but we have to work together to get things done. Putting the brakes on everything in the hopes that party dominance will change isn't good for the people.

Your president says those things for points, yet has NO FUCKING INTENTION of stopping the demonizing of others. Just look at his press secretary and his demonizing antics of just last week.
No, Obama is a liar...stright up. No way it can be denied.
He also called for bipartisan work on his bills...yet he hadn't before, and has yet to include the Republicans in anything at all. A total shut-out. And he calls for biparisanship ONLY when his super majority in Congress was ruined by the good folks of MASS.
No, he is doing nothing but lying about wanting the demonization to stopand the bipartisan works to begin. An outright liar.

 

[ColBatGuano]

He also called for bipartisan work on his bills...yet he hadn't before, and has yet to include the Republicans in anything at all. A total shut-out. And he calls for biparisanship ONLY when his super majority in Congress was ruined by the good folks of MASS.
No, he is doing nothing but lying about wanting the demonization to stopand the bipartisan works to begin. An outright liar.

The same could be said for George Bush during his time in the majority. I'm not a Bush hater, or Obama lover, but there is great deal of hypocrisy in statements like this--from either major party. Your brand of this approach is a mirror image of what Democrats were saying about Bush.

 

[SpasticGramps]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who-supports-marijuana-legalization.aspx

Nice polll. I would submit that most of the conservatives polled, espouse modern or neo-conservative values, which are really not conservative at all.

Conservatism is about personal freedom. Today's conservatism is Christian Progressiveism IMO. God knows better instead of the government. Different packaging, same result.

 

[greenhead]

You've compared Democrats to Socialism and Communism

The MAJORITY of democrats hold a favorable view of socialism

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socialism-Viewed-Positively-Americans.aspx?CSTS=alertelfare

 

[grasspass]

Follow the MONEY! Religious influence has nothing to do with it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Forced to worship...you are so whacked out it isn't even a joke anymore.

Se what I mean, folks? Personal destruction over a comment of current events. You see, hoosier couldn't use the quote button to take my comment out of context. He had to manually type obfuscation.

Tennessee and Virginia are considering legislating "Christian" bible education in public school. I happen to call it worship. What I didn't say is:

Forced to worship

I said they will be forced to "endure." This is why our foundation is built on freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. Freedom "of" religion assumes individuals aren't free to worship their own deity. In the US, we're free to worship the religion of choice, even if it's just a tax dodge lol. Freedom from religion means the freedom to avoid institutionalized religion, exactly what we have in the US and exactly what TN and VA are considering changing.

I respect the opinion of the taxpayer when they object to taxes funding abortion. I object to my taxes going toward Christian education in public schools. And for this objection I am respected (in my dreams.)

As long as we have folks like hoosier whom consistently and negatively contextualize commentary, we'll have division instead of national unity. Nobody's asking hoosier to accept the fact that some of our citizens want to keep religion in the church.

I'm asking hoosier to stop obfuscating others' comments.

 

[ColBatGuano]

The MAJORITY of democrats hold a favorable view of socialism

The problem with any poll of this type is that many Americans cannot adequately define what "socialism" actually is. That is because it is a very broad term, encompassing many (often opposing) ideals. There are many socialist aspects of the country with which most Americans would agree: fire and police departments, a parks service, not letting old people starve to death, snow-removal, the maintaining of roads, bridges, dams, etc. Even regulation and reform of economic programs are socialist in nature.

It is easy to just say it's bad because of a party-line talking point. If it was actually understood, I bet more people would realize that calling Barack Obama a socialist is practically meaningless. George Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative was a program to improve an inherently socialist program: public education.

If you're going to throw around an appellation like "socialist," then at least know what you are really talking about.