Kewl.I am not upset, my friend.
Its the Internet.
Republicans and marijuana
- Thread starter sandawg
- Start date
- Status
ColBatGuano
Member
Oh, please!
It is also far from the truth to perceive the right as being for your rights as a responsible human. I do believe it was the former Republican president who signed the USA PATRIOT act into law. I'm not going to try and say that the Democrats didn't go along with it, only that you can't have a one-sided argument about lessening of personal freedoms without pointing fingers at both parties. New Yorkers, the people most directly affected by the 9/11/01 attacks, overwhelmingly disagreed with much of the response to that event--including the USA PATRIOT act.
The fact is, that act, more than any in recent memory, served to remove many freedoms we once held. I don't know exactly what Obama has done to remove any of our freedoms, but feel free to point out what you think you are losing to his administration. The recent rejection of cell phone location privacy matters is a function of the PATRIOT act, which is a set of laws which he took an oath to defend. He does not make laws. The legislative branch makes laws.
For which neither the police, nor the Congress found any evidence. But then, people are guilty until proven innocent in this country. Look at all the people in jail for pot. When Republican Larry Craig led the attempt to have Frank expelled from Congress, it was abjectly hypocritical, as Craig had been arrested in an airport restroom for attempting to solicit gay sex.
Neither of which should matter, because prostitution should be a legal enterprise. It seems a clear-cut case of a civil liberty being legislated from morality rather than rationality.
It is also funny that anyone would blame Barney Frank for the housing crisis when he repeatedly warned the Republican-led congress about the problem. It was the Republican-led Gramm–Leach–Bliley act in the late 90's, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall act and allowed commercial and investment banks to operate as a single enterprise, which ultimately led to the housing and financial crises. All Barney Frank opposed was moving the regulatory oversight of Fannie and Freddie Mac from congress to the Treasury Department. Frank saw this as an attempt to remove regulations. He wanted congress to impose stronger regulations on the industry, not fewer or softer ones. Frank, along with Republican Mike Oxley, attempted to introduce regulatory reform, but the bill was opposed by most Republicans, and President Bush.
How is abandonment of their own values not a true disgrace? I mean, I agree with you, but how is that not a disgrace?
Silly and unfounded. You will find this in many aspects of debate or opposition. It exists in every statement claiming Barack Obama to be a socialist. It exists in every attempt to paint Sarah Palin as dumb. (She's not dumb, so much as uninformed and ineffective. She is also a hypocrite, who rallies against the same ear-mark spending she wantonly accepted at every offer during her term as Alaska's governor. That is one of many contradictions in her rhetoric. She is the reason I did not vote for John McCain.)
I mean, come on, to suggest that you aren't making comments of an inflammatory nature against primarily one side of the political spectrum yourself is intellectually dishonest.
CBG, you'll get an idea when you've made a point with hoosierdaddy. He'll respond with something like:
"I shit bigger than you, junior."
I'd quote this for posterity but apparently his worthless contributions are being moderated.
The repeated negative reps aren't far behind that.
"I shit bigger than you, junior."
I'd quote this for posterity but apparently his worthless contributions are being moderated.
The repeated negative reps aren't far behind that.
Last edited:
superjoint
Active member
republicans are fucking stupid...if you still believe in imaginary men in the sky then i have no time to hear what the fuck you think about weed.its 2010 for fuck sake read a book..and not one that will rot your brain with its fumes
ColBatGuano
Member
I don't believe in giving negative reps in non-cannabis horticulture-related discussion threads, but it is clear that he gets just as many of his ideas from the media as some of the other people here in this thread. It is just media which props up any given person's ideals and beliefs. Mostly, that sort of information can only project half-truths, or are only partly correct. It isn't that they are necessarily wrong, just underinformed, and emotional.
Emotion causes irrational thinking. It is part of the reason why "outrage" is en vogue right now. Everyone seems to be outraged, but I'm not sure that is what we need. It comes from all spectrums of political thinking. It doesn't make hoosierdaddy or anyone else a bad person. They just can't see the forest through the trees. I used to be a lot like that.
I gave you an academic understanding of conservatism, not my perception. By the books. You have the twisted philosophy of what conservatives are if you think Sarah Palin is a conservative.
No they didn't loathe religion, not all of them anyway, but they understood it had 0 place in governance of a people. If you want to practice you religion, I'm all for that, but it has no place in our governance and to say that it doesn't right now is naive.
You need to bring an academic understanding to this conversation. The questions you posed show that you don't quite understand Conservatism pre-WWI, but rather the pop-culture definition of Progressive Republicans.
Last edited:
This is icing on the cake to me. The left at least stands up for what they believe. Conservatism died long time ago due to apathy. That's is much more of a disgrace than standing up for what you believe in.
Yeah, I give enough positive rep in weed topics to rarely have the return ammo at the ready, lol. Oh well, it's just green dots. I agree about the media propping everything up. I'm not the end all of contextual understanding but I attempt to go farther than contemporary media and attempt to understand historical context, if it applies. That's one of the reasons I posted the Ferris piece. It points to historical context of "liberal", associated with liberty as compared to party/ideology today. I too consider myself uninformed as every day brings new knowledge and hopefully perspective. I'm also human and emotions are sometimes difficult to stifle when someone deliberately ignores context, historical perspective etc. You have more faith in media today as I'm a little more pessimistic. Half truths are often used to lead the consumer in the opposite direction they might otherwise choose (like their best economic interests.) When this is the case, I believe there's no such thing as half pregnant.
Whether this thread will devolve into another chest thumping match doesn't matter. It's already shown folks that don't think the same way politically can still discuss their views in a civilized manner. Thanks for the facts and the perspective.
Very true about the word "liberal" DB. Academically, that was the word to describe the right (ie Classical Liberalism) Many decades ago it was hijacked and turned to describe the left (social liberalism) which eventually equates to less personal freedom.
I find in politics there is always the classical academic understanding of a word/philosophy and then the popular pop-culture definition that has replaced that definition.
It's classic propaganda if you ask me and sinister at that. Twisting words to control the perception of populations is indoctrination.
I find in politics there is always the classical academic understanding of a word/philosophy and then the popular pop-culture definition that has replaced that definition.
It's classic propaganda if you ask me and sinister at that. Twisting words to control the perception of populations is indoctrination.
As a voter I understand the left enough, in my opinion to suggest left leaning voters haven't compromised their beliefs. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders are taking a dangerous path. I'm not saying big money doesn't deserve the representation individuals require but we already have a party that represents big money.
I think it's fine for the Democratic party to represent labor unions and lawyers. Both are tightly connected to the individual. Without labor organization, living standards wane. Without trial lawyers, the little guy gets screwed more frequently in legal recourse. However, jumping on the big money wagon is not progressive IMO. It's just using a corrupt money machine to get elected. And when progress is actually legislated, it's often watered down by big money interests.
There's too thin a line between compromise and compromised. IMO Obama is world-class compromise, politically. Way too much compromise for my liberal leanings, lol. But accepting PHRMA's assistance in heath care reform leads to the impression Obama compromised his principles when reality (with a little history) shows PHRMA was as significant a road block to '90s reform as the health insurance industry. Obama can't fight both, so he negotiated with PHRMA.
As evidence, we already have a post here that suggests Obama is a big money fat cat, no different from the right because PHRMA and the industry pumped money into reform.
As a Democrat, I consider the PHRMA deal compromise. But, (assuming we get reform) we still have a large player unregulated and we can't even negotiate prices for part D. This is the kind of governing that confuses voters and makes them feel like there's no difference in party policy. There's a world of difference. But if the left continues to operate like the pro business party, perception can and will trump reality.
Yeah, kind of like that idiot woman currently serving Obama calling terrorists for "man-caused disasters". That's straight out of 1984 and only ignorant fools would fall for that.
When liberals advocate stiff government control and regulation on a plethora of issues, they no longer are liberal and are in fact Totalitarian.
The Democratic party is Totalitarian. As well as the Republican party.
Our country was founded as a Democratic Republic. To pick one or the other is to accept the shackles fascism.
Votes can be bought, and a Republic is hard to maintain.
Maintain vigilance.
The Democratic party is Totalitarian. As well as the Republican party.
Our country was founded as a Democratic Republic. To pick one or the other is to accept the shackles fascism.
Votes can be bought, and a Republic is hard to maintain.
Maintain vigilance.
Yeah, kind of like that idiot woman currently serving Obama calling terrorists for "man-caused disasters". That's straight out of 1984 and only ignorant fools would fall for that.
Eh, kind of. I was speaking more towards actually distorting fundamental political philosophical beliefs such that the real meaning in completely lost.
Once the definition of a word is lost then that belief will no longer manifest itself in society because no one knows what it really was.
Yeah, kind of like that idiot woman currently serving Obama calling terrorists for "man-caused disasters". That's straight out of 1984 and only ignorant fools would fall for that.
Now here's a dumbed down perspective. You either don't know the proper name of the official you reject or you prefer pejorative over information.
And your 1984 reference is equally narrow. One can easily make the argument that any industry that prizes profit over ecology is an environmental terrorist. That's what a terrorist does, exploit issues for gain of some type. Even if the official didn't make the verbal distinction, (which I suspect they did, lol) then it's up to the narrow mind to remove the context and wave the manufactured point like a victory flag.
This is the bugaboo with big centralized federal government. People are (in general) corrupt IMO, power corrupts them more, and having a large federal apparatus gives them something big to sell. That something big is our freedom.
We we give our freedoms to the Federal Government they will always turn it around and sell it to the highest bidder. It's natural for them to do so. It's human nature to be corrupt IMO. We all fight our own inner corruption sometimes. We have given these people free license over our lives.
They have so much power and so much money now that they are power sick and determined to expand it to feed their addiction to the demise of our personal freedoms.
We need the left as much as the right, but I submit that we have had nothing but progressively left leaning policies since WWI from both sides. The government has continued to grow and grow in size. The last 9 years it has absolutely exploded.
I know exactly who the dumb broad is, her name is Janet Napolitano.
Democrats are way soft on terrorism, and they're not fooling anybody. Democrats are a threat to national security, and that is what I believe.
ColBatGuano
Member
When liberals advocate stiff government control and regulation on a plethora of issues, they no longer are liberal and are in fact Totalitarian.
The Democratic party is Totalitarian. As well as the Republican party.
Our country was founded as a Democratic Republic. To pick one or the other is to accept the shackles fascism.
Votes can be bought, and a Republic is hard to maintain.
Maintain vigilance.
Lack of regulation and control in the banking and housing industries was directly responsible for the financial depression the nation is currently trying to correct. Deregulation is an unattainable utopian concept. It doesn't work in the real world because it depends on a human condition and nature which does not exist. It also concentrates power. It is a social Darwinist's wet dream.
I'm not entirely sure you understand what fascism is. Fascism no longer exists anywhere. The word is a widely misused and misunderstood epithet.
As far as buying votes, it was clearly the conservative, Republican-appointed majority opinion members of the Supreme Court which recently decided that businesses should have no restrictions on campaign financing and donations. According to them, corporations buying votes and influencing elections is perfectly okay. This is the most shocking and dangerous decision the court has made in this century. Barack Obama has been vocally critical of it.
The fact that the American public did not march on the Supreme Court, and threaten to have those justices tarred and feathered, is a tribute to the apathy which exists in those who would rather scream and shout, than to stand and fight. So much for maintaining vigilance.
Of course he is. He lied out of his ass when he was campaigning and promised/pledged to take public financing, before he broke his promise which removed the cap on how much money he could raise.
He's a flat out liar, and a proven hypocrite when it comes to campaign financing.
ColBatGuano
Member
I know exactly who the dumb broad is, her name is Janet Napolitano.
Democrats are way soft on terrorism, and they're not fooling anybody. Democrats are a threat to national security, and that is what I believe.
So Ronald Reagan's response to the bombing of the French and American military barracks in Beirut in 1983 by ceasing the mission and pulling out the Marines was being hard on terrorism? How about his decision to arm and train the Afghan and Pakistani mujahadeen? Or the providing of chemical and conventional weapons to Iraq? You are just spouting talking points without any understanding of history or reality. He did, however, invade the tiny island nation of Grenada when militants there overturned the recently empowered revolutionary government there.
It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove. If you really knew the history, you would know that it is not true that Democrats are soft on terrorism.
ColBatGuano
Member
That is only partly true. Obama only accepted public financing when John McCain did not agree to also refuse it. McCain, by the way, also flip-flopped on his original pledge not to accept public financing. Obama, unlike McCain, did stick to his decision during the primaries (as did Hillary Clinton.)
There never was any cap on how much he could raise.
- Status
