Yes he's a crack pot, but its not bullshit. Typical liberal to always side step the truth in favor of your own delusions.
Bernie Sanders calls for an end to marijuana prohibition
- Thread starter Cur
- Start date
- Status
Yes he's a crack pot, but its not bullshit. Typical liberal to always side step the truth in favor of your own delusions.
kinesis
Member
In my opinion it should be like it was prior to 1937.
In reality, they'll want to tax it as a commodity.
Here's what I said...
---
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/51046/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=17703
SUBJECT: Tell Bernie to amend his bill.
"I'm against it, it blocks interstate commerce.
I want my Senators to be reminded that we should focus on the whole picture of cannabis capitalism. Fair equal market opportunity and enterprise not only for the storefronts, but people who wish to ship as well. Focus on trade.gov, ttb.gov, uspto.gov, usps.gov, ustr.gov, doc.gov, adequate SEC enforcement (like with what happened in San Jose, CA and the city), federal injunctions and remedy against what Governor Brown did with AB266 and SB643, sba.gov with grants for dept. of agriculture, export/import through customs, NAFTA or whatever it is, reform of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics, etc.
Bernie Sanders was on a Marijuana.com article saying (in support of the post office deficit ) "Let the USPS ship weed!" now he comes out with a watered down bill that limits capitalism, enterprise, and free market. "
--- norml stuff below
I'm writing to urge your support for The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2015, which would remove all federal criminal penalties for possessing and growing the plant and gives states the power to establish their own marijuana policies.
Never in modern history has there existed greater public support for ending the nation's nearly century-long experiment with marijuana prohibition and replacing it with regulation. The historic votes on Election Day -- where a majority of voters in Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia decided at the ballot box to join Colorado and Washington in abolishing cannabis prohibition -- underscore this political reality.
The ongoing enforcement of cannabis prohibition financially burdens taxpayers, encroaches upon civil liberties, engenders disrespect for the law, impedes legitimate scientific research into the plant's medicinal properties, and disproportionately impacts communities of color. Twenty-three states now permit the medical use of cannabis, while four states now regulate the plant’s production and sale to all adults. Federal officials should not stand in the way of these state policies.
Despite more than 70 years of federal marijuana prohibition, Americans' consumption of and demand for cannabis is here to stay. It is time for federal lawmakers to acknowledge this reality. It is time to stop ceding control of the marijuana market to untaxed criminal enterprises and to allow state governments the opportunity to pursue alternative regulatory policies.
I urge you to support this legislation
In reality, they'll want to tax it as a commodity.
Here's what I said...
---
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/51046/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=17703
SUBJECT: Tell Bernie to amend his bill.
"I'm against it, it blocks interstate commerce.
I want my Senators to be reminded that we should focus on the whole picture of cannabis capitalism. Fair equal market opportunity and enterprise not only for the storefronts, but people who wish to ship as well. Focus on trade.gov, ttb.gov, uspto.gov, usps.gov, ustr.gov, doc.gov, adequate SEC enforcement (like with what happened in San Jose, CA and the city), federal injunctions and remedy against what Governor Brown did with AB266 and SB643, sba.gov with grants for dept. of agriculture, export/import through customs, NAFTA or whatever it is, reform of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics, etc.
Bernie Sanders was on a Marijuana.com article saying (in support of the post office deficit ) "Let the USPS ship weed!" now he comes out with a watered down bill that limits capitalism, enterprise, and free market. "
--- norml stuff below
I'm writing to urge your support for The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2015, which would remove all federal criminal penalties for possessing and growing the plant and gives states the power to establish their own marijuana policies.
Never in modern history has there existed greater public support for ending the nation's nearly century-long experiment with marijuana prohibition and replacing it with regulation. The historic votes on Election Day -- where a majority of voters in Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia decided at the ballot box to join Colorado and Washington in abolishing cannabis prohibition -- underscore this political reality.
The ongoing enforcement of cannabis prohibition financially burdens taxpayers, encroaches upon civil liberties, engenders disrespect for the law, impedes legitimate scientific research into the plant's medicinal properties, and disproportionately impacts communities of color. Twenty-three states now permit the medical use of cannabis, while four states now regulate the plant’s production and sale to all adults. Federal officials should not stand in the way of these state policies.
Despite more than 70 years of federal marijuana prohibition, Americans' consumption of and demand for cannabis is here to stay. It is time for federal lawmakers to acknowledge this reality. It is time to stop ceding control of the marijuana market to untaxed criminal enterprises and to allow state governments the opportunity to pursue alternative regulatory policies.
I urge you to support this legislation
again, are you guys willing to give up 50% of your harvests to give to someone who can grow just as you can, but chooses not to because he knows he will get his share by law?
think about that for a second and let it sink in.
it's the same as raising taxes to fund social programs; not that social programs are bad, they are good so long as they do not create dependence, they are good as long as they don't have huge budgets and end up becoming corrupted beasts.
the Scandinavian model is not that great
Shit I'd be willing to pay 50% of my harvests in tax under two conditions...
1. I can grow twice as much as I do now
2. And I don't have to trim the plants I'm using to pay my tax. I despise trimming
im already paying about 40% tax on my income from my "real" job... So another 10% isn't that much more n mayb I'll get some sort of benefit from that extra 10%..
A guy can hope right?
I just don't really get being upset over people collecting government assistance.. No one is living the high life on welfare.
The real criminals in this country are the oligarchs.
rootfingers
Active member
For real, in my state the people who are in need get the budget slashed for them first. Over the past 5 years I've watched hospitals close down in my area that were housing and treating people with moderate to severe mental disabilities and those people are on the street now. Its so tiring seeing a 3rd world city crumbling down around me while folks spew shit about mew mew mew I don't want to pay for anything for anybody but myself. Well fuck you, you don't get to use the roads I pay for or the police or the libraries and your kids can fuck off to the desert for school and speak languages they make up. The greedy I'm in it for myself stance doesn't fucking work because we are ALL using the accumulation of human history to prop us up even if you don't believe it. Fuck your stupid narrow view and your pathetic fearful greed.
so do you have anything reasonable to say or just emotional old trite rants?
if you wanna talk about greed, why don't you start by studying a little the history of the political left and its role in the world; that may be an eye opener: Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Mussolini, Castro, Chavez, just to name a few.
Some argue that Hitler was a leftist, given the fact his movement was called National Socialism, but Hitler was so crazy that it is hard to tell whether he was from the left or right or what? one thing is for sure though, he claimed to want to distribute wealth more fairly.
The whole point of Socialism, and that includes Democratic Socialism, is that the government is in charge of re-distributing the wealth according to what the government defines as 'fair'.
this is pretty bad for economies, as history has proven quite a few times already, yet we seem not to learn from our mistakes, as opposed to your claims.
a government can run all kinds of social programs (hospitals, mental institutions, schools, etc...) without basing itself on Socialist ideologies. These are not mutually exclusive things.
I see people like Bill Gates giving more money to all kinds of social programs than any self-proclaimed Socialist; mainly because Socialists are waiting for the government to fix everything for them, to provide them with all their needs with the "government budget"...
but pray tell, where does this budget come from? if people are not producing goods and services and generating some sort of revenue and instead are waiting for the government to provide, then out of where will the budget come from?
just look at what happens in Cuba; people are 100% dependent on the government, you can't even decide to raise chickens for eggs or meat by your own initiative...
if you guys whine all day about "sheeple" and "big government" and yet want a Socialist government, you are a little bit more than just severely confused.
peace
R
Robrites
Bernie Sanders' victory is inevitable, famously accurate mock election determines
Bernie Sanders' victory is inevitable, famously accurate mock election determines
The people have spoken: Bernie Sanders will be the next president of the United States.
At least the people on the campus of Western Illinois University have spoken.
Since 2007, WIU has conducted a complicated mock presidential election one year before the real thing. An earlier, intermittent version of the simulation started at the university in 1975 and moved over to the University of Missouri for a while. The mock election has always picked the candidate who went on to actually win the White House.
The rest... http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/11/bernie_sanders_victory_is_inev.html
Bernie Sanders' victory is inevitable, famously accurate mock election determines
The people have spoken: Bernie Sanders will be the next president of the United States.
At least the people on the campus of Western Illinois University have spoken.
Since 2007, WIU has conducted a complicated mock presidential election one year before the real thing. An earlier, intermittent version of the simulation started at the university in 1975 and moved over to the University of Missouri for a while. The mock election has always picked the candidate who went on to actually win the White House.
The rest... http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/11/bernie_sanders_victory_is_inev.html
Bernie will not be the Democratic nominee. Like I mentioned before in an earlier post, the super delegates to the DNC will see to it that Hillary is the nominee. Currently it's nothing more than a show to let democratic primary voters feel like they have a choice. If the DNC's nominating process were fair and a true representation of what voters wanted there would be no such thing as Super Delegates that can pick who the nominee will be.
Hitler was in no form or fashion a socialist
National Socialism was just a lie, one of many
Forgive me in advance that is not an affront to any person movement or clause (it takes me an hour to type a sentence like this or so it seems so forgive me please:
But hell yeah what the f was I trying to say).... oh yeah the Bern master has me wanting to.. well I would have sad all kinds of things about making spawn or whatever but I will spare you. this guy is the greatest thing since the 60s and should win... lets all make it happen... go Bernie!
So you confirm you have no real argument aside from rants.
Also, you show us the typical leftist attitude: authoritarian, overly aggressive and emotionally unstable.
Thanks for serving as an example
Not disagreeing with you, but just pointing out the fact that all populist do the same...they sell the people all these wonderful big daddy government that will shower you with free stuff and justice, and when they go into power, all hell breaks loose...
Dr.RedWhite
Active member
Back away from the pipe! You need some heavy therapy!
Dr.RedWhite
Active member
OK smart guy point out the real difference between socialism and fascism. And indeed Hitler was a socialist. WW1 set up the misery that allowed Hitler to rise just as Obama and the left want those same issues to overcome us and force us into Marxism.
Dr.RedWhite
Active member
Quoting CBS leftist propaganda and touting right wing fear mongering shows just how little you know.
Hitler inherited a German welfare state, perhaps not so different from our own
he relabeled it to suit his purposes, but the welfare state did remain intact
fast forward to 1980's, Ronald Regan inherits a welfare state
when he leaves, it's still pretty much the same welfare state
Ronald Regan a socialist?
creativeprocess
Member
When Bernie Sanders said in his debate with Hillary Clinton that Denmark was a socialist country, which the United States ought to consider emulating, it created a big debate. Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen weighed in, saying that his country had a market economy, not a planned economy.
Cathie Jo Martin and Kathleen Thelen are scholars of comparative political economy who have recently written books that talk about the Danish model. Martin is a professor of political science at Boston University; her book with Duane Swank, “The Political Construction of Business Interests,” asks why businesses in countries like Denmark are willing to work with social partners to shape active policies on labor. Thelen is the Ford professor of political science at MIT. Her book “Varieties of Liberalization and the New Politics of Social Solidarity” examines how Denmark has found a way to deal with global market pressures that eludes many other European countries. The interview has been lightly edited for style.
Henry Farrell: Denmark’s prime minister says that Denmark is not a socialist country and that Denmark is a market economy. How does the Danish model differ from stereotypes of “big brother socialism”?
Kathleen Thelen: Where to start? When people think of the “Danish model” they tend to think first about the country’s generous social policies, and assume that the point of all of this is to protect people from the market. This is wrong: Danish labor markets are very flexible. The difference with the United States is that [Danish] labor market policies are precisely designed to move the unemployed into training programs that enhance their marketable skills. This helps them reenter the labor market as soon as possible and is the core of the country’s famous “flexicurity” model — high flexibility in the labor market combined with extensive state support for skill development. Denmark spends more on active labor market policies than other OECD countries, far and away more than the United States, which is a laggard in this respect, as the graph below shows.
Cathie Jo Martin: I agree! Denmark is the most egalitarian country in the world, but in December 2014, Forbes (once again) ranked Denmark as the best country in the world to do business. (The U.S. ranking was 18th.) The country’s formula for growth is a high level of workforce skills and extensive cooperation among employers and workers to support labor market flexibility. Denmark experienced slower growth rates after the financial crisis, but these largely reflected poor policy decisions about the housing market that had little to do with the core features of the Danish growth strategy.
H.F.: What are the key institutions underpinning Denmark’s flexible approach to helping workers and firms deal with changing market conditions, and how do they protect workers while retaining flexibility?
K.T.: The most important institutions underpinning this flexible approach are those that help both young people and adults develop skills. Denmark has an extremely well developed system for initial vocational education and training (for youth) – well supported both by employers and the state. This is one reason why Denmark’s “NEET” rate (the number of young people Not in Employment, Education or Training) is comparatively low. Beyond this, though, the government also supports ongoing skill development for adults, as well– and not just for the unemployed. Denmark is a leader in adult education —providing training courses that are easily accessed, generously supported by the state and widely available to anyone who wishes to enhance his or her own skills. This is why Denmark has one of the highest rates of participation in adult education and training in the world. Rapid technological change makes it important for all adults to be able to upgrade their skills flexibly and throughout their working lives. This is not big brother socialism. This is really smart capitalism.
C.J.M.: Retraining and vocational training policies both support “flexicurity.” The first retools workers whose skills are becoming outdated with changing economic conditions. Workers may be easily laid off from their jobs but the government will quickly move them into training programs and then back into the workforce. For example, in 2011 Denmark spent about five percent of its GDP on training, compared to the U.S., which spent less than one percent.
Danish employers like these retraining policies. For my book, I interviewed 107 randomly selected companies in Denmark and Britain about their participation in government retraining and jobs schemes, in which employers hired long-term unemployed workers. British firms participated for cheap labor and good relations with government. There, businesses with low-skill workers and large sales to the public sector were significantly more likely to participate. In contrast, 68 percent of the Danish firms participated in the programs (compared to 40 percent of the British ones), and the Danes believed that the programs could help fill real labor needs.
Vocational training also supports flexicurity by providing a high level of skills to non-academic workers. Yet in recent years, fewer young people have entered the vocational track, both because they view academic credentials as more appropriate to the knowledge-intensive society, and secondary school drop-out rates have risen. Consequently, in 2014, vocational training was reformed to make it more relevant for the post-industrial economy. The reform introduced greater flexibility for high-skilled workers, better basic skills and easier transition into tertiary education. It also expanded shorter courses for workers with more limited skills.
H.F.: You both argue that the Danish model of flexicurity has been much better able to build labor market protections that cover all of the workforce, than other European states such as Germany (where protections are concentrated on traditional industrial workers). Why has Denmark succeeded better in building these protections?
C.J.M.: Denmark has very strong, broadly representative national employers’ associations and unions that have developed many labor market and social policies since the late 19th century. Although these groups play a smaller role today in negotiating wages through collective bargaining, they remain powerful in policy-making processes. The major groups representing the “social partners” forge agreements in tripartite committees established by ministries and special commissions established by parliament. For example, the Danish active labor market programs were created through a labor market commission (Zeuthen Udvalg) composed of representatives of the major associations, party representatives and bureaucrats. Insiders reported remarkably little disagreement within the commission, and roughly 80 percent of its recommendations subsequently became law.
This means that many fewer public policies are developed through the legislature in Denmark than in in the United States. A representative of a major employers’ association once told me, “Business and labor are like Siamese twins.” They both want to build efficient labor market policies and retain their influence over policy-making. Because public policy is largely set by stakeholders rather than by politicians, regulations are transparent, broadly applicable, sensible and enduring. Politicians seeking a “bridge to nowhere” to help win an election don’t get a seat at the table.''
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-most-business-friendly-country-whos-right/
Cathie Jo Martin and Kathleen Thelen are scholars of comparative political economy who have recently written books that talk about the Danish model. Martin is a professor of political science at Boston University; her book with Duane Swank, “The Political Construction of Business Interests,” asks why businesses in countries like Denmark are willing to work with social partners to shape active policies on labor. Thelen is the Ford professor of political science at MIT. Her book “Varieties of Liberalization and the New Politics of Social Solidarity” examines how Denmark has found a way to deal with global market pressures that eludes many other European countries. The interview has been lightly edited for style.
Henry Farrell: Denmark’s prime minister says that Denmark is not a socialist country and that Denmark is a market economy. How does the Danish model differ from stereotypes of “big brother socialism”?
Kathleen Thelen: Where to start? When people think of the “Danish model” they tend to think first about the country’s generous social policies, and assume that the point of all of this is to protect people from the market. This is wrong: Danish labor markets are very flexible. The difference with the United States is that [Danish] labor market policies are precisely designed to move the unemployed into training programs that enhance their marketable skills. This helps them reenter the labor market as soon as possible and is the core of the country’s famous “flexicurity” model — high flexibility in the labor market combined with extensive state support for skill development. Denmark spends more on active labor market policies than other OECD countries, far and away more than the United States, which is a laggard in this respect, as the graph below shows.
Cathie Jo Martin: I agree! Denmark is the most egalitarian country in the world, but in December 2014, Forbes (once again) ranked Denmark as the best country in the world to do business. (The U.S. ranking was 18th.) The country’s formula for growth is a high level of workforce skills and extensive cooperation among employers and workers to support labor market flexibility. Denmark experienced slower growth rates after the financial crisis, but these largely reflected poor policy decisions about the housing market that had little to do with the core features of the Danish growth strategy.
H.F.: What are the key institutions underpinning Denmark’s flexible approach to helping workers and firms deal with changing market conditions, and how do they protect workers while retaining flexibility?
K.T.: The most important institutions underpinning this flexible approach are those that help both young people and adults develop skills. Denmark has an extremely well developed system for initial vocational education and training (for youth) – well supported both by employers and the state. This is one reason why Denmark’s “NEET” rate (the number of young people Not in Employment, Education or Training) is comparatively low. Beyond this, though, the government also supports ongoing skill development for adults, as well– and not just for the unemployed. Denmark is a leader in adult education —providing training courses that are easily accessed, generously supported by the state and widely available to anyone who wishes to enhance his or her own skills. This is why Denmark has one of the highest rates of participation in adult education and training in the world. Rapid technological change makes it important for all adults to be able to upgrade their skills flexibly and throughout their working lives. This is not big brother socialism. This is really smart capitalism.
C.J.M.: Retraining and vocational training policies both support “flexicurity.” The first retools workers whose skills are becoming outdated with changing economic conditions. Workers may be easily laid off from their jobs but the government will quickly move them into training programs and then back into the workforce. For example, in 2011 Denmark spent about five percent of its GDP on training, compared to the U.S., which spent less than one percent.
Danish employers like these retraining policies. For my book, I interviewed 107 randomly selected companies in Denmark and Britain about their participation in government retraining and jobs schemes, in which employers hired long-term unemployed workers. British firms participated for cheap labor and good relations with government. There, businesses with low-skill workers and large sales to the public sector were significantly more likely to participate. In contrast, 68 percent of the Danish firms participated in the programs (compared to 40 percent of the British ones), and the Danes believed that the programs could help fill real labor needs.
Vocational training also supports flexicurity by providing a high level of skills to non-academic workers. Yet in recent years, fewer young people have entered the vocational track, both because they view academic credentials as more appropriate to the knowledge-intensive society, and secondary school drop-out rates have risen. Consequently, in 2014, vocational training was reformed to make it more relevant for the post-industrial economy. The reform introduced greater flexibility for high-skilled workers, better basic skills and easier transition into tertiary education. It also expanded shorter courses for workers with more limited skills.
H.F.: You both argue that the Danish model of flexicurity has been much better able to build labor market protections that cover all of the workforce, than other European states such as Germany (where protections are concentrated on traditional industrial workers). Why has Denmark succeeded better in building these protections?
C.J.M.: Denmark has very strong, broadly representative national employers’ associations and unions that have developed many labor market and social policies since the late 19th century. Although these groups play a smaller role today in negotiating wages through collective bargaining, they remain powerful in policy-making processes. The major groups representing the “social partners” forge agreements in tripartite committees established by ministries and special commissions established by parliament. For example, the Danish active labor market programs were created through a labor market commission (Zeuthen Udvalg) composed of representatives of the major associations, party representatives and bureaucrats. Insiders reported remarkably little disagreement within the commission, and roughly 80 percent of its recommendations subsequently became law.
This means that many fewer public policies are developed through the legislature in Denmark than in in the United States. A representative of a major employers’ association once told me, “Business and labor are like Siamese twins.” They both want to build efficient labor market policies and retain their influence over policy-making. Because public policy is largely set by stakeholders rather than by politicians, regulations are transparent, broadly applicable, sensible and enduring. Politicians seeking a “bridge to nowhere” to help win an election don’t get a seat at the table.''
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-most-business-friendly-country-whos-right/
As Stephen Colbert offered- "Reality has a well known Liberal bias."
CBS is leftist? Really? Left of what, other than the John Birch Society? How far left can a media outfit be & rely on advertising revenue from multinational corporations for their very existence?
The correct answer to the last question is "not very far at all."
Far right wingers are very strong believers, not necessarily in the truth, at all. It's more like fundamentalist religion than politics, sad to say.
great interview! thanks for posting creative
again, Social Programs and Free Market are not mutually exclusive, basically. If you vote for Bernie you will be voting in a Socialist who thinks the Market needs to be controlled by the government and that only in this way can Social Programs be effective; which is illogical and inconsequential to conclude that anyway.
that interview is just a blow to the head to all these outdated socialist dinosaurs lol...
I bet all the people that want big daddy government to maintain them, sure as hell don't wanna study something to become a productive member in the work-force in a free market; they just want to the government to take from the "evil 1%" to give to the "good 99%"...
can't believe the U.S is just a few steps from becoming like Venezuela...
oh well...
oh shit, Snap!
Dr.RedWhite
Active member
Once again quoting a leftist to make a point. Reality has nothing to do with liberalism! Look at the present administration, is that your reality? Get a grip! CBS is a torch bearer for leftist progressive bias and if you can't see this then do some research.
Why not quote Rand Paul on legalizing Marijuana, you get to keep your rights and government has no constitutional right to harass you on whatever you want to injest.You would not know what a "far right winger" was if he was standing in front of you.
It might interest you to know that prohibition was started by the democrats in 1937. Look up Harry Anslinger, and it was based on racism against Black Jazz musicians! If you had the balls to stand up for your constitution you would have ended prohibition long ago but you prefer to let your leftist thought handlers dupe you into letting them do your thinking.
great interview! thanks for posting creative
again, Social Programs and Free Market are not mutually exclusive, basically. If you vote for Bernie you will be voting in a Socialist who thinks the Market needs to be controlled by the government and that only in this way can Social Programs be effective; which is illogical and inconsequential to conclude that anyway.
that interview is just a blow to the head to all these outdated socialist dinosaurs lol...
I bet all the people that want big daddy government to maintain them, sure as hell don't wanna study something to become a productive member in the work-force in a free market; they just want to the government to take from the "evil 1%" to give to the "good 99%"...
can't believe the U.S is just a few steps from becoming like Venezuela...
oh well...
Heh. I'm pretty sure that Bernie knows Denmark has a market based economy. And I'm pretty sure that Denmark is more socialist than this country at the same time while not being socialist in the same sense as the former Soviet Union as the Danish Prime Minister points out.
None of that means that Bernie wants the market to be "controlled!" by the govt other than as necessary to maintain the general welfare. It's not like we've done a great job of that over the last 35 years or so.
That last part is where Reaganomics fails to deliver other than through counterbalance with the welfare state. If, as you offer, people need the govt to sustain them that's a failure of capitalism not a failure of govt.
You fail to realize that people have needed govt to sustain them since ancient times, since the Pharoahs built giant granaries & before.
- Status
