President Obama- Drug Warrior?

[longjohn119]

All I see here is a lame attempt to get you to vote Republican by ignoring and whitewashing the fact they will be worse and it was in fact the Republicans and Nixon who started the War on Drugs policy.

This is GOP Propaganda that is completely one sided .... Not even a shout out to the ONLY Political Party in America that would actually legalize marijuana, the Libertarian Party

THAT should tell you all you need to know, if you want to vote against Obama vote 3rd Party but if you vote for Republicans thinking it's going to get better then you are a Fool

It's as simple as that ....

 

[bentom187]

ron paul is registered republican,but is libraterian in philosiphy and action.
so one must register as republican to vote for him in the primaries,and if you change your mind you can vote for whoever in the general election reguardless of affiliation.
just clearing that up.

 

[Closet_Grower]

you people realize this is all a puppet show? none of this matters.

sorry im high.

please resume pointless banter

 

[Smoke Buddy]

Can you cite some examples? You're speaking in very broad strokes and so I'm afraid if I respond in kind this conversation will rapidly deteriorate to mud-slinging. I saw the president talking about bi-partisan leadership. I see the president appointing republicans to his cabinet and to other serious posts. That's not something GWB or GHB or Clinton did a lot of.

I saw the president compromising over and over and over with republican demands. The presidents poll numbers are as low as they are because democrats feel like he's selling out THEIR agenda because he compromises TOO MUCH. So he's clearly willing to risk the disfavor of his own base in order to try to get something done.

I have seen the republicans balk at passing ANY legislation and then I see FOX news blaming Obama for not giving republicans EVERYTHING they want.

Again, I don't understand (maybe you can take a crack at explaining it) why anyone who wasn't wealthy would be in favor of republican policies.

I know they TALK about small government, but during the 8 year reign of GWB we went from budget surplus to record deficit. We started two major wars (and not "4 bodies on the ground at the embassy" wars). And also hired civilian contractors and mercs to do dirty work for us.

And after 10 years and a war on two stages, he didn't catch the network that we were supposed to be at war WITH. Billions of dollars spent, billions of dollars going to companies like Halliburton and the Carlyle Group (which the guys in power at the time were major shareholders of!)

Bush cut regulations on big companies that promptly took their manufacturing overseas (costing american jobs). He cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations (which did not lead to new jobs at home) and he had the debt limit raised 19 times (to a tune of four trillian dollars). Where's the outrage? The bank bailout was orchestrated before he took office. The Patriot act was passed during a republican presidency. The rich keep getting richer and now they're trying to make people believe that "unions have outlived their usefulness". I know because everybody who listens to fox news tells me this. Then they blame the unions for the lack of jobs, the cost of healthcare and the price of gas.

It's so strange to me that anybody who was struggling would want to take the right to bargain away from their fellow workers.

Not strange at all that the wealthy people who own the companies that are employing these people would want to take it away. IN a declining economy, the only way to make money is to tighten your belt. And if cutting the livelihood of thousands of your fellow humans is what it takes to get that bonus.... fuck 'em. They should've gotten Daddy's money and gone to Harvard like any sane person would.

And then they hoodwink the people that should hate them the most by claiming to be the party of conservative values, religious belief and small government.

It really makes me sad.

I think I can do that, sure.
A couple examples of the presidents mocking the opposition are for instance he used the slur "tea bagger" in a speech right after the left press started using that with a wink and a smile ha ha. I didnt think it was funny or presidential myself. Its on tape somewhere you probably saw it yourself. Then he mocked the reps position on immigration with the "some people want alligators in the moat" comment. Theres quite a bit of subtle disdain for his opposition quite evident in many speeches. The point is that he doesnt help us who didnt vote for him to feel like he is our president too.

As far as the rogue and unaccountable comment, that comes directly for their lack of process on healthcare and stimulus. Rammed through without even reading it or debate.. you know "We must pass the bill to find out what is in it" Thats just plain wrong.

The president has made overtones of compromise, mostly only after he has to like on the debt cieling debacle. I seriously dont see a guy who works with the republicans.

I didnt like Bush either. I was OK sort of with Afghanistan but not Iraq. He was a major disappointment to many conservatives for his spending and just signing any bill put before him. He said yes as long as they would say yes. It was a tidy little arrangement ultimately seperating the treasury from the people. Haliburton yep. GE and Solyndra are Obamas Haliburton, or Worse. Could get fugly.

Anyhow hope that answers your Q.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I think I can do that, sure.
A couple examples of the presidents mocking the opposition are for instance he used the slur "tea bagger" in a speech right after the left press started using that with a wink and a smile ha ha.

... the origin of the term isn’t nearly as relevant as whether or not it is now offensive to Tea Partiers (Partyers? Spellcheck hates both), and whether Obama knew this when he said it, or knew of the term’s sexual connotations. You could criticize Tapper for not raising that question, but I think he’s giving the President credit for more intelligence than that...

... In emails, protest signs, t-shirts, and online, early Tea Party literature urged protesters to “Tea Bag the White House,” and to “Tea-bag the liberal Dems before they tea-bag you.”

The suggestion is that the metaphoric “tea-bags” be shoved in the mouths of the President, Democratic members of Congress, and even ordinary citizens who identify as liberal Democrats. The idea that they just didn’t know the term’s only (at that time) meaning is belied by the fact that they obviously knew it was negative (and non-consensual), since they didn’t want it done to them, and also because it only had one meaning.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/president-obama’s-use-of-teabagger-term-provokes-media-debate/

Do you really lay awake over soap operas like this?

Then he mocked the reps position on immigration with the "some people want alligators in the moat" comment. Theres quite a bit of subtle disdain for his opposition quite evident in many speeches. The point is that he doesnt help us who didnt vote for him to feel like he is our president too.

What's all this fluff got to do with your first post where you make all the no-compromise assertions? You talk about being angry, grow some skin. And avoid them tea bags.

As far as the rogue and unaccountable comment, that comes directly for their lack of process on healthcare and stimulus. Rammed through without even reading it or debate.. you know "We must pass the bill to find out what is in it" Thats just plain wrong.

You're wrong alright.

... The issue is how to sequence the Senate health bill, which the House doesn't like, with the package of fixes (including, Pelosi said, the elimination of the Nebraska and Florida deals, the delay of the excise tax, more affordability and oversight provisions and more funding of community health centers), which the House does like. There are a number of procedural options on the table,...

"The bill is locked down," Pelosi says. "We're just waiting for the Congressional Budget Office." When the bill emerges, Democrats will be able to say "definitively" what is in it. And then, Pelosi believes, her caucus will see that this is "the most important bill most of us will ever pass," that it is legislation on par "with Social Security and Medicare." The bottom line, Pelosi says, is that "I have faith in my members." In a couple of days, we'll see if that faith is well-founded.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/nancy_pelosis_strategy_for_pas.html

See? In American government, the house (in this case) passed their version of heath care insurance reform. The bill moved to the senate and inevitable revisions meant the house had to vote again (on the senate revisions) before the president signed the bill into law. But this particular reform had to be scored by CBO before the house could vote on the senate revisions.

Pelosi spoke of the process after the house had passed their version. This doesn't mean the same bill will come back. Therefore, the speaker's comments reflected the probability that the senate would amend the bill (and even CBO could affect final passage.) This is because we had a cost ceiling on heath care insurance reform and CBO could mark provisions as expendable or keeper.

Andrew Breitbart doesn't care about these undeniable aspects. He just makes negative statements to get press. And I guess you listened. But we don't pass laws through the house alone. And no speaker ever knows what happening when bills are outside house procedures. Common sense. We learned it as kids on Fraggle Rock. Remember Bill? I guess not.

The president has made overtones of compromise, mostly only after he has to like on the debt cieling debacle. I seriously dont see a guy who works with the republicans.

I get the feeling you don't get the facts, you get the rehash by pundits. And if you're watching Fox that explains it. Don't you remember Cantor telling Beohner several times the Tea Party caucus wouldn't agree to Boner's compromise proposals? The house leadership was so fluffed up the press was speculating that Cantor was positioning himself for speaker.

 

[zymos]

I can sense that this thread is heading towards its inevitable conclusion-
It's been fun, everyone!

 

[KSP]

I saw the president talking about bi-partisan leadership. I see the president appointing republicans to his cabinet and to other serious posts. That's not something GWB or GHB or Clinton did a lot of.

I saw the president compromising over and over and over with republican demands. The presidents poll numbers are as low as they are because democrats feel like he's selling out THEIR agenda because he compromises TOO MUCH. So he's clearly willing to risk the disfavor of his own base in order to try to get something done.

I have seen the republicans balk at passing ANY legislation and then I see FOX news blaming Obama for not giving republicans EVERYTHING they want.

I know they TALK about small government, but during the 8 year reign of GWB we went from budget surplus to record deficit. We started two major wars (and not "4 bodies on the ground at the embassy" wars). And also hired civilian contractors and mercs to do dirty work for us.


Bush cut regulations on big companies that promptly took their manufacturing overseas (costing american jobs). He cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations (which did not lead to new jobs at home) and he had the debt limit raised 19 times (to a tune of four trillian dollars). Where's the outrage? The bank bailout was orchestrated before he took office. The Patriot act was passed during a republican presidency. The rich keep getting richer and now they're trying to make people believe that "unions have outlived their usefulness".

Before the bin

Sorry to take some liberties editing parts of a great post Anti, just highlighting what I thought were the high points (for me). Couldn't agree more with you. In fact, I don't know how anyone could disagree, unless they're hooked up to a Fox IV.

DB, you've been all over this thread with many great posts and points, I'm just out of rep for you for now.

 

[Smoke Buddy]

I want to appologize to the members here for what ever my part was in screwing up this thread. I had no intention of doing such a thing.

Disco, grow some skin dude. I will say this as my final post. You have single handedly destroyed the thread you putz. Not being open to others with other opinions than your own shows immaturity and lack of class. Leaving me the a silly rambling unhinged message is also a sign your not too calm and collected. You are losing it dude.. and all because someone said things you dont like. You know your totally pwned here. All I have to do is say something, anything and you pop up like a jack in the box. weak sauce bro. Plus, I like happy fun debate not a fact check war where you present your pointed research. Im much more interested in what you think.. Well, I used to be.

peace

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Why did they switch from wanting to raise the taxes for those making $200,000 to only those making $1 M or more? Everyone making 6 figures or more should pay more. I make well less than that and do just fine. Anyone see the wealthy people whining that they can't create jobs ridiculous? They aren't creating many if any jobs now, just shoveling their wealth into their pockets at a record rate while most of us suffer. This will not change if taxes are raised to spread the burden more fairly! They should be ashamed of themselves, greedy a-holes!

Yeah I don't get it the "job creaters" act like it's all obamas fault and without him new jobs are going to magically appear when the fact of the matter is they are sending hundreds of thousands of jobs to places like India, China and Malaysia and they back the republicans so they don't have to pay fair share of taxes while they rapeour country of jobs and money.

 

[Anti]

Disco, grow some skin dude. I will say this as my final post. You have single handedly destroyed the thread you putz.

First you apologize for your part in it then you say it was all disco. Can't be both of those, homie. He called some names, which I disagree with. He also backed up his statements with facts, included links so you could study them yourselves. That's good debating and just good for rational discussion all around. And here you are in your "last post" calling him a putz. Pots? Kettles?

Plus, I like happy fun debate not a fact check war where you present your pointed research. Im much more interested in what you think

I'm much more interested in people posting up facts and links to support their conclusions. People who don't like doing that are probably not checking their own facts before they come to their conclusions. Like many of the things you posted here sound exactly like what I hear when I turn on fox news.

(For the record, I have a DVR. I DVR fox news, CNN, CSPAN and Current TV. I listen to the perspectives that they all present and then I do a little fact checking using my good friend google.)

I like to make up my own mind. I do not see Obama doing everything I think he should. I mention this in my posts. What I am not seeing from the other side of this debate is a willingness to say "You know, when Bush signed the Patriot act, I was really disappointed". And I'll say it now - When Obama resigned the Patriot Act, I was really, really disappointed. It's bullshit and it's evil and it needs to go. He is not acting like the guy I voted for and the only way he'll get another vote is if it's a choice between him and Romney, Perry, Bachman. If Ron Paul can pull off a miracle and get the republican nod, I'll vote for him. If American's Elect manages to put him on the ballot, I will probably vote for him. But so far, any other contender looks to be worse for my pocket and my liberty than Obama.

And yes, I mostly also agree with the people who think its all a sham and that the world is being taken over by corporate interests. But I just don't see "not participating at all" as sending a clear message. If someone can get all fired up and start a nationwide campaign to vote "none of the above" to send that message, I'll jump on board. Until then, I'm gonna vote for the wiffle ball bat instead of the billy club.

And I'm going to decide each issue that I vote on without looking to see what republicans or democrats (or anybody else) thinks is in my best interest.

And I'm going to debate with people and hope that they post up facts so that if I turn out to be wrong on a subject, I can find out and learn something.

There's a slight chance that Obama will still do good things for us in a second term. There's talk that he may finally close Gitmo in time for the next election. That was something he campaigned on (was supposed to close it within a year) that I would like to see happen. He got "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repealed, and I'd say that's a major victory for civil liberty in the US.

Maybe toward the end of his second term, when he has nothing to really lose, he'll start answering the questions posed to him about decriminalization, medical use, etc. without laughing them off.

Not likely to happen with a Romney, Perry, Bachman, etc. presidency. Maybe Ron Paul will do us a solid, but like I said already, I don't know what he can do if he can't get the support of the house and senate.

 

[dagnabit]

I can't believe all the racism I'm reading...

The only reason people believe Obama is different from previous presidents is the color of his skin....

Shame on you

 

[Yah`mon]

Can you cite some examples? You're speaking in very broad strokes and so I'm afraid if I respond in kind this conversation will rapidly deteriorate to mud-slinging. I saw the president talking about bi-partisan leadership. I see the president appointing republicans to his cabinet and to other serious posts. That's not something GWB or GHB or Clinton did a lot of.

I saw the president compromising over and over and over with republican demands. The presidents poll numbers are as low as they are because democrats feel like he's selling out THEIR agenda because he compromises TOO MUCH. So he's clearly willing to risk the disfavor of his own base in order to try to get something done.

I have seen the republicans balk at passing ANY legislation and then I see FOX news blaming Obama for not giving republicans EVERYTHING they want.

Again, I don't understand (maybe you can take a crack at explaining it) why anyone who wasn't wealthy would be in favor of republican policies.

I know they TALK about small government, but during the 8 year reign of GWB we went from budget surplus to record deficit. We started two major wars (and not "4 bodies on the ground at the embassy" wars). And also hired civilian contractors and mercs to do dirty work for us.

And after 10 years and a war on two stages, he didn't catch the network that we were supposed to be at war WITH. Billions of dollars spent, billions of dollars going to companies like Halliburton and the Carlyle Group (which the guys in power at the time were major shareholders of!)

Bush cut regulations on big companies that promptly took their manufacturing overseas (costing american jobs). He cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations (which did not lead to new jobs at home) and he had the debt limit raised 19 times (to a tune of four trillian dollars). Where's the outrage? The bank bailout was orchestrated before he took office. The Patriot act was passed during a republican presidency. The rich keep getting richer and now they're trying to make people believe that "unions have outlived their usefulness". I know because everybody who listens to fox news tells me this. Then they blame the unions for the lack of jobs, the cost of healthcare and the price of gas.

It's so strange to me that anybody who was struggling would want to take the right to bargain away from their fellow workers.

Not strange at all that the wealthy people who own the companies that are employing these people would want to take it away. IN a declining economy, the only way to make money is to tighten your belt. And if cutting the livelihood of thousands of your fellow humans is what it takes to get that bonus.... fuck 'em. They should've gotten Daddy's money and gone to Harvard like any sane person would.

And then they hoodwink the people that should hate them the most by claiming to be the party of conservative values, religious belief and small government.

It really makes me sad.

Funny you bring that up, I hear it so much myself.
So lets look at an example, almost every auto company hires people in at half the rate they used to. Pay way less. ( maybe more now with new recent contracts)

So you cut the workers wages etc... did the price of the vehicles they produce drop? Hell no.... instead of money going to the working middle class like it should, who would then spread it when they spend it. It goes straight to a handful of top tier workers, who probably helped the downfall in the first place.

Being a dem, I felt he did let us down a bit with that whole fiasco, but when the GOP is holding a gun to all American's heads... Obama had to give in.

American's got fucked, Obama knows it. I believe thats why he is doing this job plan.

If it wasn't going to work or help.. I believe republicans would let him go for it, they know it would be his downfall come election.
I think republicans are afraid of it, because they know its a good plan and will probably get him re-elected.

Either way, if anyone but Ron is running come election time... Obama is a shoe in.

I like Anti's bat analogy... but to me its more like... I'll take a gently lubed finger over a dry baseball bat getting shoved up my ass any day of the week.

The auto workers thing is fact, rest of my post is just my opinion.

Yah`mon

 

[Yah`mon]

I can't believe all the racism I'm reading...

The only reason people believe Obama is different from previous presidents is the color of his skin....

Shame on you

I've seen a few things, but nothing extremely racist. What are you referring to? If anything your comment comes off more racist then anything I've seen.

Yah`mon

 

[KSP]

I've seen a few things, but nothing extremely racist. What are you referring to? If anything your comment comes off more racist then anything I've seen.

Yah`mon

He's just baiting. I hope so anyway, because you'd have to be pretty stupid to actually believe that.

 

[dagnabit]

you mean just as stupid as believing because you oppose his policies you are racist?

or as stupid as believing he is any different than any of the others?

or as stupid as believing the current political climate is somehow the meanest/least cooperative in history?

why else would anyone continue to say he is somehow different unless they re doing so based on race?

of course the post was a tongue in cheek poke at the morons who pull the tired old "you are a racist if you disagree" toy out of the box.

but what other reason do they have to believe this warrior(drug and military)is different from the last?

 

[bentom187]

ill appologize for everyone including myself,if we can just get back on course, of prohibition and the reason its not gonna end anytime soon .

it inevitable to talk about politics,but i think in order to keep it civil,facts should reason with common sense,and pehaps a reference or two. ( think indipendent sources) not media outlets.
and i think it would be awsome if we could negate the DEM vs REP talk,we are both here to support leaglization .

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... I like happy fun debate not a fact check war where you present your pointed research. Im much more interested in what you think.. Well, I used to be.

peace

A fun debate. Is that like having sex with yourself?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... it inevitable to talk about politics,but i think in order to keep it civil,facts should reason with common sense,and pehaps a reference or two. ( think indipendent sources) not media outlets.

What's wrong with news? Why does it have to be alternet to be credible? I can watch Fox and discern the news from opinion just fine. You can discern fact from opinion on any news or news/opinion outlet.

and i think it would be awsome if we could negate the DEM vs REP talk,we are both here to support leaglization .

Closer to taking points-vs-fact talk.

 

[bentom187]

i dont make the rules you can do what you want, i just wanted some thoughtfull replies ,instead of regurgitations from the news.
i may be able to decern the difference but im keeping in mind those that accept news as facts.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

you mean just as stupid as believing because you oppose his policies you are racist?

or as stupid as believing he is any different than any of the others?

or as stupid as believing the current political climate is somehow the meanest/least cooperative in history?

why else would anyone continue to say he is somehow different unless they re doing so based on race?

of course the post was a tongue in cheek poke at the morons who pull the tired old "you are a racist if you disagree" toy out of the box.

but what other reason do they have to believe this warrior(drug and military)is different from the last?

I remember campaign speeches about hope and change. IMO, hope and change speeches weren't about mmj nor wars. If I remember correctly, hope and change speeches referenced dialog in Washington, wanting to effect compromise in government in order to accomplish tasks.

At campaign time, Obama said he'd take the 'war' to where the fight was, in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Since then, the dreaded war on terror has metastasized into other countries.

I remember when Obama's party used to special op and FBI terrorists. They didn't like the idea of whole wars and occupying nations. But not only didn't O's predecessor (who said he wasn't a nation builder) live up to campaign rhetoric, the political arm of this operation propagandized how we deal with terrorists. Special ops and FBI are seen as weak and breaking out the whole military is where it's at.

So now we'll have to wait until enough public opinion rests on criminal prosecutions instead of military operations. At least half of the general public want to keep military commissions intact, they want to keep Guantanamo open and they don't want terrorist trials in civilian courts. This means the wars will continue and blaming it on one guy doesn't consider how we got here.

Obama did say he'd bring home or redeploy Iraq troops and that hasn't happened fast enough for my personal preference. But demanding an Iraq withdrawal doesn't necessarily consider the national security implications.

If you campaigned on a promise and later learned of negative security implications, it might affect your decisions as commander in chief.