What's new

Republicans and marijuana

Status
Not open for further replies.
X

xfargox

Member
ColBatGuano said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wait, what??

If he isn't a republican or a democrat he won't get elected, period. That's why he's a republican candidate. Republicans tend to get the small gov't vote from the midwestern state towns that hate organizations like the EPA.

It's no minor difference whether he's a libertarian or a republican/conservative. It's a MAJOR difference.

This is exactly why I dislike the "two party" system we have here. People think all republicans are the same, and all democrats are the same.

I want to clear something up: I didn't vote Paul '08, and I probably won't. That said, he is not the same as the majority of republicans AT ALL. If you think he is, you clearly didn't spend a minute of time even looking at his stances.

Edit: And also, that graph is what I was referring to earlier when I was saying that I didn't care about whether or not conservatives smoked; I only care about how they do at the poll booths.
 
DiscoBiscuit

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
greenhead said:
The MAJORITY of democrats hold a favorable view of socialism

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

:dunno:

:smokey:
Click to expand...

Yep. if you recognize the US as a mixture of capitalism and socialism, the majority of Americans hold a favorable view of socialism. Don't believe me? Try to get ONE to give back their social distribution.

If you recognize socialism as a European-only phenomenon and a perilous fall toward communism, your reference and your domestic interpretation is bogus.
 
itisme

itisme

Active member
Veteran
PRINCETON, NJ -- More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism," while 58% have a negative image. ]


Surveys can easily me manipulated!
 
X

xfargox

Member
Socialism isn't a bad thing. I don't like it because I don't think it's realistic, but it's certainly not a bad idea. Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world, and they pay up to 65%+ taxes I think on their income alone. Their celebrities don't really make that much more money either, but everyone's happy.

In theory, I think it's one of the soundest philosophies. However, it requires a communal mindset that I just don't think all people have.
 
G

greenhead

Active member
Veteran
ColBatGuano said:
If you're going to throw around an appellation like "socialist," then at least know what you are really talking about.
Click to expand...

I'm not throwing around any term.

It was a Gallup poll and Americans were asked if they had a favorable or negative view of socialism.

The majority of Democrats answered "Yes, I have a favorable view", based on how they view socialism and what they believe it to be. That is hardly surprising to me, as I find the majority of Democrats to be extremely ignorant. I don't belong to any party, but I am definitely not a Democrat. If there's anybody who doesn't know what they are talking about, it is the ignorant Democrats who voted on that poll.

:smokey:
 
SpasticGramps

SpasticGramps

Don't Drone Me, Bro!
ICMag Donor
Veteran
ColBatGuano said:
The problem with any poll of this type is that many Americans cannot adequately define what "socialism" actually is.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head IMO. Most Americans do not really understand political philosophy.

They understand banners, logos, and catch phrases from the party they follow. The real definition of many of the terms has become so diluted or even fundamentally changed that they hold no real value to what the true beliefs are. We are polling people on something they don't really grasp.

How can you define yourself politically if you don't even know what the options are? When the definitions of words are changed, then the reality of those words change and the real (ie Academic) definition is lost until discovered again.
 
G

greenhead

Active member
Veteran
xfargox said:
Sweden is one of the happiest countries in the world, and they pay up to 65%+ taxes I think on their income alone.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with Sweden, having been there quite a few times. Believe me, it is not all that it is hyped up to be. I wouldn't want to live there.

:smokey:
 
ColBatGuano

ColBatGuano

Member
xfargox said:
Wait, what??

If he isn't a republican or a democrat he won't get elected, period. That's why he's a republican candidate. Republicans tend to get the small gov't vote from the midwestern state towns that hate organizations like the EPA.

It's no minor difference whether he's a libertarian or a republican/conservative. It's a MAJOR difference.

This is exactly why I dislike the "two party" system we have here. People think all republicans are the same, and all democrats are the same.

I want to clear something up: I didn't vote Paul '08, and I probably won't. That said, he is not the same as the majority of republicans AT ALL. If you think he is, you clearly didn't spend a minute of time even looking at his stances . . .
Click to expand...

That was my point, but you missed it again! You also seem to have inferred that I'm not inclined to side with his positions, or that I don't know what they are, or that I don't know what Libertarianism is--I just don't know why he has to do it under the guise of being a Republican. If there are really that many Libertarians masquerading as Republicans--why don't they speak-up? Why do the Christian progressives continue to run that party into the ground?

You do know there are separate and opposing Libertarian ideologies as well? They aren't all the same just because they call themselves Libertarian. That was another point I was making--party affiliation is horse shit. They force good ideas to be obstructed just because they come from an opposing party. It is no longer about the good of the country--it is about the good of the party, and that sucks.
 
DiscoBiscuit

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
xfargox said:
I want to clear something up: I didn't vote Paul '08, and I probably won't. That said, he is not the same as the majority of republicans AT ALL. If you think he is, you clearly didn't spend a minute of time even looking at his stances.
Click to expand...

That's not what the Col. said. Paul represents his constituents as a Republican, not a Libertarian. In order to get the support of the voters in his district, he has to support the ideals his constituency represents. When Paul runs as a Libertarian and chooses to support the Libertarian platform, only then will there be a significant difference.

I'm not saying Paul has compromised his ideals. Many representatives personally and ideologically lean from their constituents. It doesn't mean they're compromised, it means they compromise. There's a major difference in the two forms of that word.

Edit: And also, that graph is what I was referring to earlier when I was saying that I didn't care about whether or not conservatives smoked; I only care about how they do at the poll booths.
Click to expand...
If you care that conservative (legislators) do well, I'm afraid you'll find an obstacle between you and mj reform.
 
Last edited:
X

xfargox

Member
ColBatGuano said:
That was my point, but you missed it again! You also seem to have inferred that I'm not inclined to side with his positions, or that I don't know what they are, or that I don't know what Libertarianism is--I just don't know why he has to do it under the guide of being a Republican. If there are really that many Libertarians masquerading as Republicans--why don't they speak-up? Why do the Christian progressives continue to run that party into the ground?

You do know there are separate and opposing Libertarian ideologies as well? They aren't all the same just because they call themselves Libertarian. That was another point I was making--party affiliation is horse shit. They force good ideas to be obstructed just because they come from an opposing party. It is no longer about the good of the country--it is about the good of the party, and that sucks.
Click to expand...

Okay, I got you. I'm sorry, I was reading a bunch of posts. I agree if what you're saying that the two-party system is a bad one.

I don't think he's doing it under the guise of being a republican. He's publicly stated (multiple times) that he's a libertarian.

I agree with the majority of what you've said throughout this thread, I think I may have just missed a bit like you said :)

I also know that not all libertarians agree... in this world of division, there are always sub-parties, sub-sects, and other differing factions.

I also wish we could do away with the 2 party system. However, learning about 5-6 parties would just be sooooo much work for the voters (sad but true).
 
ColBatGuano

ColBatGuano

Member
greenhead said:
I'm not throwing around any term.

It was a Gallup poll and Americans were asked if they had a favorable or negative view of socialism.
Click to expand...

I wasn't directing my comment to you, personally, but to the pollsters who threw out the word "socialism" without actually defining what they meant by it. Sorry for the confusion.
 
C

ChronJohn

Member
xfargox said:
Okay, I got you. I'm sorry, I was reading a bunch of posts. I agree if what you're saying that the two-party system is a bad one.

I don't think he's doing it under the guise of being a republican. He's publicly stated (multiple times) that he's a libertarian.

I agree with the majority of what you've said throughout this thread, I think I may have just missed a bit like you said :)

I also know that not all libertarians agree... in this world of division, there are always sub-parties, sub-sects, and other differing factions.

I also wish we could do away with the 2 party system. However, learning about 5-6 parties would just be sooooo much work for the voters (sad but true).
Click to expand...

We could always just have no parties and just vote on the issues? Like "candidate #123 thinks this this and this press B to vote for this person". People are so blinded by partisan politics they often pass up candidates who they actually agree with simply because of partisan differences. Ron Paul is a perfect case study of this. He runs as a Republican because he knows as a Libertarian he would fail. Whether or not he was elected as a Republican the last 128931283 times he was elected. Case and point.. the fucking Tea Party is running against him in his district. The party that he helped found. Why? Because Americans are so ignorant that when the going gets tough, and they see their party failing, they latch onto the next best thing with a familiar face.. Sarah Palin! Who by all accounts is a straight up NEO CON. So these Tea Partiers, blinded by partisanship, choose not to support the candidate who literally spawned their movement, because he runs as a Republican. So they have to have their own Tea Party candidate. Who probably likes Sarah Palin. Thus continuing the ignorant support of neo-con ideology.

This whole thread started from the basis that Republicans are worthless when it comes to getting cannabis legalized. And on every level of government, it's true. But the same can be said about Democrats. However when you have a very far left leaning person like Barney Frank joining with a very far right leaning person like Ron Paul to get legislation passed to decriminalize cannabis at the Federal level, as well as protect medical patients from the Feds, and still nothing gets done.. it just shows you how fucked up our system is. You really couldn't get much more "bi-partisan" than that and it still doesn't even make it out to a floor vote. This type of legislation is what we should be supporting (links are in my sig) and yet I haven't heard a peep about these bills since they were introduced. Monumental bills, which would go a long way to helping us out, solving a LOT of our problems and ending a lot of headaches. And no one seems to give a flying fuck. Obama, who said explicitly that he supports decriminalization and keeping the Feds out of the medical states' business, has done nothing to advance these bills (which would also end a lot of his headaches what with all the DEA dickery going on), yet he continues to ram budget buster after budget buster legislation through Congress. Fuck red, fuck blue, the only thing I care about is the red white and blue which is what too many Americans and politicians are forgetting about. :rant:

sorry I just had to get that stress off my chest like breast reduction
 
DiscoBiscuit

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
I'd like to say there are some very responsible posts here. A touchy subject is actually being debated with only a few room crashers doing their thing. I'm sure there is much disagreement but it's being discussed and not cussed. Regardless how any of you feel towards me, I'm glad you're here making the subject very informative. :D
 
X

xfargox

Member
ChronJohn said:
We could always just have no parties and just vote on the issues? Like "candidate #123 thinks this this and this press B to vote for this person". People are so blinded by partisan politics they often pass up candidates who they actually agree with simply because of partisan differences. Ron Paul is a perfect case study of this. He runs as a Republican because he knows as a Libertarian he would fail. Whether or not he was elected as a Republican the last 128931283 times he was elected. Case and point.. the fucking Tea Party is running against him in his district. The party that he helped found. Why? Because Americans are so ignorant that when the going gets tough, and they see their party failing, they latch onto the next best thing with a familiar face.. Sarah Palin! Who by all accounts is a straight up NEO CON. So these Tea Partiers, blinded by partisanship, choose not to support the candidate who literally spawned their movement, because he runs as a Republican. So they have to have their own Tea Party candidate. Who probably likes Sarah Palin. Thus continuing the ignorant support of neo-con ideology.

This whole thread started from the basis that Republicans are worthless when it comes to getting cannabis legalized. And on every level of government, it's true. But the same can be said about Democrats. However when you have a very far left leaning person like Barney Frank joining with a very far right leaning person like Ron Paul to get legislation passed to decriminalize cannabis at the Federal level, as well as protect medical patients from the Feds, and still nothing gets done.. it just shows you how fucked up our system is. You really couldn't get much more "bi-partisan" than that and it still doesn't even make it out to a floor vote. This type of legislation is what we should be supporting (links are in my sig) and yet I haven't heard a peep about these bills since they were introduced. Monumental bills, which would go a long way to helping us out, solving a LOT of our problems and ending a lot of headaches. And no one seems to give a flying fuck. Obama, who said explicitly that he supports decriminalization and keeping the Feds out of the medical states' business, has done nothing to advance these bills (which would also end a lot of his headaches what with all the DEA dickery going on), yet he continues to ram budget buster after budget buster legislation through Congress. Fuck red, fuck blue, the only thing I care about is the red white and blue which is what too many Americans and politicians are forgetting about. :rant:

sorry I just had to get that stress off my chest like breast reduction
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd agree with that too.

However, we are a country of political machines. I guess we just like having "teams" and shit or something, I dunno.

Besides, that would require people to know their own stances on certain things... HOW RIDICULOUS!

hehehehehe
 
SpasticGramps

SpasticGramps

Don't Drone Me, Bro!
ICMag Donor
Veteran
DiscoBiscuit said:
IRegardless how any of you feel towards me, I'm glad you're here making the subject very informative. :D
Click to expand...

Hear, hear! Political discussions can be informative and actually interesting if the party politics is dropped.

Politics has to do with philosophy not parties.
 
itisme

itisme

Active member
Veteran
ColBatGuano said:
I wasn't directing my comment to you, personally, but to the pollsters who threw out the word "socialism" without actually defining what they meant by it. Sorry for the confusion.
Click to expand...

Very true. That is exactly what I meant when I said a survey can easily be manipulated.

They need to release how the data was gathered and many other details before it could be a valid survey.
 
X

xfargox

Member
I think this thread is heading towards a digression of epic proportions.

I still would like to maintain my point that I don't care if Republicans smoked an ounce a day. If they don't want it legal, they're not in the same boat we are.
 
SpasticGramps

SpasticGramps

Don't Drone Me, Bro!
ICMag Donor
Veteran
xfargox said:
I think this thread is heading towards a digression of epic proportions.

I still would like to maintain my point that I don't care if Republicans smoked an ounce a day. If they don't want it legal, they're not in the same boat we are.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. Neo-Con Progressive Republicans do not want it legalized. They are a dying breed though and thank God.

Religion is in fierce decline in the US. Once that variable is out of the equation I believe true conservatism will come back to life.

Socially Moderate, but fiscally conservative and strict adherence to the Constitution when it comes giving the power to the states. Freedom from the federal government and an isolationist foreign policy. Bring the whole military home.

That's the banner of real conservatism, not that Neo-Con pop culture definition that the likes of Palin spews and that's been shoved down our throats for decades.

The fucking Pope hijacked and completely killed what was left of my political philosophy decades ago. I believe now, after 100+ years, we are starting to remember why we are supposed to hold those values dear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top