I will concede democrats are also responsible for continued prohibition, my governor being one (potential) example.
Incoherent liberal drivel.That's exactly the argument.
That's YOUR stupid babbling, nothing more. Nobody brings that spin to the debate except you. Absolute mentality, the thing you're famous for.
Sorry, this isn't a love/hate poll. When you find enough Democratic lawmakers that oppose reform like all the Republican lawmakers posted in this thread, you'll have an argument. Until then you're just whining.
When Republicans seek public office and proceed to obstruct mj reform, your comment above is about as moot as it gets.
Then you and your friends will be wise to educate yourselves about your respective representatives. Check their stance on mj reform or you may regret who you vote for. Pay particular attention to Republicans. They're particularly the ones making the news and thwarting reform.
If you prefer to stick your head in the stand and assume your "mold" jazz, don't be surprised if the rep you vote for throws a kink in your reform hopes.
And you're full of it. The op never psychoanalyzed Republicans, they brought current events to back up their statements. Unlike your "I am sure is just a kid" worthy assumptions. You are the poster-boy of "unfounded prejudice", hypocrisy and projection.
Go back and read again. Republican lawmakers are thwarting reform. Then go stick your head back in the sand.
Now that's a bunch of crap, the whole thing. Republican lawmakers are thwarting reform and you're defending it, plain and simple. You can deny or you can defend but you can't do both, unless you're just striving for consistency, lol.
Forget what I said about avoiding prohibitionist lawmakers, even if you seek reform. You're obviously willing to allow Republicans the benefit of the doubt on that subject.
Kathleen Sebelius warned the insurance industry Monday not to look for loopholes in health care legislation and informed it that she will be writing regulations to ensure that the industry covers children with preexisting conditions, which some insurers insist is not a requirement of the law.
"The American people debated and discussed health insurance reform for more than a year. Congress and the President have acted. Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system," writes Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary. The letter was sent to top insurance lobbyist Karen Ignagni on Monday and provided to HuffPost by a third party.
President Obama made the ban on denying children with preexisting conditions a central part of his argument in the closing weeks of the reform fight, saying that kids would be protected almost immediately after the bill passed. (The rule would activate in six months.)
But insurers argued that what the law really said was that if they choose to cover children, they must cover expenses arising from preexisting conditions. But they claim that doesn't mean they have to offer insurance at all to that child. Without a public insurance plan for children to opt in to, their only choice is the private market.
Sebelius's letter is an attempt to persuade the private industry to follow the spirit of the law. When Congress returns after the two-week recess, progressive Democrats will again be looking at ways to add a public option to the law. By threatening to refuse to insure sick children, insurers only make the case that much more persuasive.
If medical marijuana were to pass on a national level, would insurance companies be required to provide it?
I hardly find any sort of reason to blame their actions simply on the "republican fight against MJ".
So, this is directed at 90% of the population that is republican, or for politicians? If the former, then we don't really need kids like you fighting the fight for us.F**K him and 90% of the republicans with him.
Self serving bastards is all most of them are IMO
There you go using others materials and calling them your own, Chuck.
lol...typical
If you ever do mature intellectually, you will realize that making statements like that are really from the mind of a simpleton with a very narrow view of things. You will also recognize that living your life with your fucked up perceptions as your gauge was a big problem.Thing is... college kids that want to make a positive difference in the world go on to become democrat politicians, college kids that want to be professional politicians go on to become republican politicians.
I think some of the problems come from people with a superior attitude who like to assume things.Pawlenty stated other reasons for why he vetoed the bill, specifically opposition by state law enforcement. I am not defending his actions, but I don't know that you can pin them on what you perceive as his reasoning.
So, do you feel that any candidate on the ballot that has voted for MJ legislation will not be a viable candidate in the presidential election?
So, this is directed at 90% of the population that is republican, or for politicians? If the former, then we don't really need kids like you fighting the fight for us.
I think we are seeing what the true problem may have been for so many decades now...
It is all becoming more clear the more we see you folks post up and enlighten us.