OBAMA AND WEED

[NightFire]

Youre nuts if you believe that, not to mention completely ignorant either by choice or youre just uninformed on the subject lol, McCain is a moron, like a literal moron. He is the guy who gets to lose this election to the GOP and thats it.

Socialism is a much better form of government, at least the taxes there aren't paying for wars. You really need to do some research on this one friend, your understand of how socialism works is super flawed and basically what our government wants you to see it as. The misconception that socialism makes shitty hospitals with super long lines is completely false.

IF, and thats a huge IF, Obama does what he says he plans on doing, he is the obvious candidate. McCain will keep the country in the direction that we are in now, and if you seriously believe thats a good one, there is no convincing you. Its funny how Obama gets attacked for not supporting off shore drilling, and how quick everyone is to jump on the WTF? bandwagon.

Obama says he will end federal raids and "The War on Drugs" if he wins(I can't see how he can lose) we will probably either see another JFK or just another president who says one thing and does whatever hes told.

So, with the kind of attack against me you just posted, I assume you're one of those people that wants to live on everyone else's hard work?

Keep in mind, Nazi Germany and Cold War Russia were socialist countries, so to say the money won't go toward war is ignorant. Here is my understanding of socialism:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism

Socialism

social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

The second disagreement concerns the way in which society is to exercise its control of property and other resources. In this case the main camps consist of loosely defined groups of centralists and decentralists. On the centralist side are socialists who want to invest public control of property in some central authority, such as the state—or the state under the guidance of a political party, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Those in the decentralist camp believe that decisions about the use of public property and resources should be made at the local, or lowest-possible, level by the people who will be most directly affected by those decisions. This conflict has persisted throughout the history of socialism as a political movement.



Criticisms of socialism range from claims that socialist economic and political models are inefficient or incompatible with civil liberties to condemnation of specific socialist states. There is much focus on the economic performance and human rights records of Communist states, although some proponents of socialism reject the categorization of such states as socialist.

In the economic calculation debate, classical liberal Friedrich Hayek argued that a socialist command economy could not adequately transmit information about prices and productive quotas due to the lack of a price mechanism, and as a result it could not make rational economic decisions. Ludwig von Mises argued that a socialist economy was not possible at all. Hayek further argued that the social control over distribution of wealth and private property advocated by socialists cannot be achieved without reduced prosperity for the general populace, and a loss of political and economic freedoms.

Some individuals, such as Winston Churchill, have claimed that socialism slowly evolves into a totalitarian regime when people begin to defect from supporting it. During his 1945 election campaign Churchill stated that:

...a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance

 

[trouble]

oh ya yall know his wifes family owns budweiser?
wtf they sell the damn company..

Where did you get this information about McCains wifes family owning Budweiser? LOL! Budweiser has always been apart of Anheuser-Busch which was recently taken-over by Belgium based InBev. Cindy McCains family never owned Budweiser. Her family owns Hensley & Co. in Arizona which is only a distributor of Anheuser-Busch products. She is not related in any way to the Anheuser-Busch families.

I personally feel there should be a law that prohibits anyone that doesn't know who owns Budweiser from voting in the Presidential elections. Allowing morons to vote in the Presidential elections is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process.







..........................................................................

 

[SCF]

I hope we are keeping it civil. If there is a problem. PM me.


For now. For me. Democrat's in our office and in the cabinet and taking over the senate is the only way to go. Its just the way of the walk right now. Hope it does change. But I'm not holding my breath.


Go Dems!!!

 

[SweetNightmare]

I saw a obama n mccain ads back to back on tv today... all mccains said that obama sucked pretty much n a very tight assed way... thats enough to make me wanna vote for obama

 

[joseok]

Youre nuts if you believe that, not to mention completely ignorant either by choice or youre just uninformed on the subject lol, McCain is a moron, like a literal moron. He is the guy who gets to lose this election to the GOP and thats it.

Socialism is a much better form of government, at least the taxes there aren't paying for wars. You really need to do some research on this one friend, your understand of how socialism works is super flawed and basically what our government wants you to see it as. The misconception that socialism makes shitty hospitals with super long lines is completely false.

IF, and thats a huge IF, Obama does what he says he plans on doing, he is the obvious candidate. McCain will keep the country in the direction that we are in now, and if you seriously believe thats a good one, there is no convincing you. Its funny how Obama gets attacked for not supporting off shore drilling, and how quick everyone is to jump on the WTF? bandwagon.

Obama says he will end federal raids and "The War on Drugs" if he wins(I can't see how he can lose) we will probably either see another JFK or just another president who says one thing and does whatever hes told.

Socialism is a much better form of government?????? I hope that was a joke. Socialism is just a major form of slavery, thats my opinion. Obama is a real life puppet for the Illuminati end of discussion. Your life matters do some research.

 

[Deft]

Obama is the lesser of two evils as I see it. But I think that he would prop up some liberties while undermining others. I want more liberty and personal freedom all around and I don't think thats a goal of his.

 

[igrowdadankest]

Where did you get this information about McCains wifes family owning Budweiser? LOL! Budweiser has always been apart of Anheuser-Busch which was recently taken-over by Belgium based InBev. Cindy McCains family never owned Budweiser. Her family owns Hensley & Co. in Arizona which is only a distributor of Anheuser-Busch products. She is not related in any way to the Anheuser-Busch families.

I personally feel there should be a law that prohibits anyone that doesn't know who owns Budweiser from voting in the Presidential elections. Allowing morons to vote in the Presidential elections is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process.




Knowing who and who doesnt own a company makes no damn differance in voting.I know the people up the corner that own a small company and you dont know them so there for according to you you shouldnt be able to vote.

One a side note why is it saying my message is too short?I have way more than six characters.

 

[NightFire]

Knowing who and who doesnt own a company makes no damn differance in voting.I know the people up the corner that own a small company and you dont know them so there for according to you you shouldnt be able to vote.

I think he was referencing the nature of the post he was responding to, which was based around the fact that she/her family did own it.

 

[thinman]

political debate in a church?

political debate in a church?

does the fact there was a presidential debate held inside a church, moderated by an evangelical preacher, upset and offend most americans?

it's bad enough that many of us have to vote inside churches. i have protested this all my adult life. i can tell you that if most christians were told that they would have to vote inside jewish temples, or muslim mosques, there would be riots and protests galore. how would the debate have gone if it had been held in a jewish temple?

political people must bend to the commands and dictates of christians in order to advance up the ladder. isn't there supposed to be "separation of church and state" in the USA? didn't we break free from great britain to escape the bonds of state religion? religious persecution?

i issue this warning: beware of the radical christians among you. if you think radical islam is dangerous and the christians are not...beware. christianity has a bloody history throughout the world. i see this debate taking place in a church as a message that radical christianity is on the move and is strong enough, influential enough, to guide the USA into a monotheistic nation in a short period of time.

marijuana legalization under such a regime....don't make me puke. you'll wear the clothing they tell you to wear; eat what they tell you to eat, etc...even though jesus supposedly turned water into wine, alcohol will be banned, along with cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco. you think laws are barbaric and harsh now, wait until you have your tongue cut out for cursing or defiling the church. free speech? hahahehehahhaa....forget about that. right to assemble and protest? hehehehahaa...forget that too. right to a speedy trial and to face your accusers? heheahaha....nah, that's gone too. the right to remain silent and not be forced to offer testimony that may incriminate you? nah, that'll be gone too. search warrant? what's that....?

as an agnostic who leans toward atheism, i'm frightened by what i'm seeing these days in the USA. i'm scared by a president who commands the nuclear arsenal and also "talks" with god, and believes god "talks" to him or her. any good psychiatrist would recognize these symptoms as mental disease.

finally, i simply don't trust leaders who believe in an after-life. it cheapens our life here on earth. why not melt the earth with nukes if we're all going to a blissful place up in the clouds? the only hope for humanity is to do away with organized religions. the philosophy of ethics and moralism is not connected to any religion. you don't need to be religious to live a moral and ethical life.

both obama and mccain are politicians.....not statesmen. they talk and behave in ways that will advance their agendas and personal success. they will persue their own maniacal, egotistical goals regardless if it is in the best interest of the state or not. they will lie and manipulate to get ahead. neither of these assholes will do anything for us and our movement.

the key is for individual states to stand up to federalism. for instance, california should tell the federals to stay out of state business. after all, voters in that state expressed their will that medical marijuana be decriminalized. the federalists took those votes and trashed them as if they didn't count for anything. i have often heard that a person's right to vote is worth fighting and dying for, that voting is our most sacred right as americans. yet the federalists ignore the votes and will of the citizens of california. this is a very similar issue to the one that started the civil war---unfair export taxes on cotton (not slavery---slavery became an issue after the war began). the federalists ignoring the will of a state's citizens is a dangerous slope to go down. it could backfire on the feds and cause more states to side with california.

remember, all an american president can do on his own is start a war. in all other matters he is merely a signature on bills that come to him from the legislative branch, congress and senate. he can also veto those bills. he really isn't all that powerful. legislators can over-ride his wishes, and they can also impeach him.

what we really need in the white house is a strict constitutionalist and libertarian----neither of these two butt-wadds even know what they are.

 

[NightFire]

They should hold the presidential debates on pagan holy ground.

what we really need in the white house is a strict constitutionalist and libertarian

This is my dream...

 

[trem0lo]

Why don't you guys trash the "lesser of two evils" argument and vote third party? If both major candidates are evil in your eyes, why vote for them? It's true, yes, they have little chance of winning. But the only way things can really change and the voting system work as it's supposed to is if those parties get more votes, and that starts with you.

 

[NightFire]

I don't know what 3rd party candidates are still running.

 

[zappa66]

Why would I do something like write in RP? It’s a wasted vote. If all we pot heads did that Mcshithead could win because Obama didn’t get our vote. See the problem? That’s how come I go with the lesser of TWO evils.

 

[ItsGrowTime]

Why would I do something like write in RP? It’s a wasted vote. If all we pot heads did that Mcshithead could win because Obama didn’t get our vote. See the problem? That’s how come I go with the lesser of TWO evils.

But you are still voting for evil. And an evil that you really don't know what it will do after being elected.

 

[zappa66]

When I say the lesser of 2 evils I don't actually feel that the candidates are evil (necessary clarification).

I don't think Obama will be the best president ever, however McShithead WILL be a disaster of BUSH proportions. As you say "you really don't know what it will do after being elected."
We do however know what our flabby old friend will do and it wont be in the best interest of the mj community.

Politics is about compromise and being compromised. You have to be able to live with what you get and I CAN NOT live with mcbush. So yes I will go with Obama.

*No offence intended, only my opinion*

 

[DEVIL OG]

Now we gotta see who his running mate will be .. tick tock watch the clock

 

[StayHigh149]

wouldn't it be wonderful if the next time that Obama mentions that he "did drugs in college"....
someone would point out to thim that if he was caught with mj he would have lost all of his finacing for college...........kinda hard to be president without a college degree, huh?

common sense must prevail soon!

 

[guest]

Can anyone get this to Obama?

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=97169&page=2

 

[guest]

For that matter .. can anyone get it to John Mcain?

 

[zingablack]

sorry but getting it to mcdumbass wont do anything i saw a video of him telling a person in a wheelchair with MS that if he saw him smoking he would still have him arrested even if it helped him greatly.
no offense to mccain supporters just my opinion