I've already said in another thread I don't think decriminilization will ever happen, so you can assume I don't think it will happen under Obama. What I have said repeatedly is that I do think he will end federal raids, based on the fact that in at least three different interviews he has said that he would. It also says very clearly on his website that he intends to do so. Now, I know you can just say he's lying, but thats the best I can see at this point.
Ok, I spent over 20 minutes scouring his site looking for ANYTHING on drug policy and couldn't find it. Care to link us? Because I know what I read there previously, and he states that drug use is immoral. His shit keeps changing, and not in the way that we're looking for.
welp, i also can't find anything on his website. I could have sworn he had something there under the healthcare section. Looks like I was wrong. But you can look here.
Alright, I know you don't know who you're dealing with here, but let me be the first to guarantee you that I do not rely on the words of a politician alone. Wanna know where the meat is? Look to where the rubber meets the road, his VOTING RECORD.
And, continuing on this track, allow me to present you with a recent Washington Times article outlining his well-documented flip-flopping on this very issue. (You'll need to follow the link to see the video clips of Obama himself.)
Gotta remember the linky-poo!
wow, all that for nothing. You do understand the basic difference between decriminalization and ending federal raids right? Marijuana will never be decriminalized. Obama won't decrimanilize it, he doesn't want too, I never suggested he would. Ending federal raids is not decriminalization. So, although you've listed several examples of Obama not supporting decriminalization, nobody here suggested he had. Looks like you've wasted that brilliant debate skill of yours.Alright, I know you don't know who you're dealing with here, but let me be the first to guarantee you that I do not rely on the words of a politician alone. Wanna know where the meat is? Look to where the rubber meets the road, his VOTING RECORD.
So, you wanna play? Let's play. Because I am very good at this, and I can support all of my assertions (as long as he doesn't keep changing his playbook on me/us). So far you're not relying on his voting record, but his quotes. Be ready to receive the same shit you sling, then.
Ready.....????
Set...!
GO!
Let's start with a source that has no agenda other than simply telling the truth, shall we? I use ontheissues.org to check out all candidates who've held a position where they vote. This, by necessity, tends to leave out governors and the like. So, one must find other avenues, and I do.
Barack Obama on the Issues
And, continuing on this track, allow me to present you with a recent Washington Times article outlining his well-documented flip-flopping on this very issue. (You'll need to follow the link to see the video clips of Obama himself.)
Gotta remember the linky-poo!
Washington Times - Obama flip-flops on pot
I have more (I always do). Are you ready? It's not pretty. Let me remind you that Mr. Veitor, Obama's spokesman, is claiming "definition confusion" for a man who has a degree as an attorney (not to mention that he passed the bar). If you aren't aware, your attorney is shit if s/he does not understand clear definitions of all terms and terminology, thusly leading to YOU being fucked.
He also took a paycheck as a teacher, so, again, unclear on definitions? My ASS. He wants to appeal to the most people possible, therefore he is playing the classic politician's game.
Someone like Ron Paul, however, has the years and years of voting records that back up his statements. He's got years of giving his paycheck as a representative back on his record. Did you know that? I bet you didn't. He's got his name on the very legislation that would remove criminal penalties on a federal level. How about your boy Obama...? Oh! That's right, he can't seem to make up his mind. Whoops.
Ready for more? You are in need, but not of buds.Obama's Voting Record Complicates His Shift to Center (Update2)
By Kristin Jensen
July 8 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is trying to claim the political center, following in the footsteps of previous nominees including Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980. Yet the Illinois senator has a higher hurdle than most: a consistently liberal voting record.
In recent weeks, Obama said he supports gun-ownership rights, backs legislation giving immunity to telephone companies that participated in an anti-terrorism surveillance program and would consider cutting corporate taxes. On July 3, he said he would ``continue to refine my policies'' on the Iraq War.
Obama built his candidacy on the support of his party's liberal base, which favors restrictions on guns and wiretapping, raising taxes for companies, and pulling U.S. forces from Iraq. As an Illinois state legislator, he voted against a law carving out self-defense exceptions to local handgun bans; as a U.S. senator, he opposed business tax cuts and extending warrantless eavesdropping, and backed tougher gun laws. On Iraq, he has long focused on ending the war and withdrawing troops.
The candidate is now trying to fend off Arizona Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, who needs to try to ``unmask Obama as an old-style liberal in a flashy new costume,'' said Trent Duffy, a former aide to President George W. Bush and a partner at the Washington communications firm HDMK.
`Seeming Authenticity'
At the same time, changing positions may present risks by endangering one of Obama's biggest assets, his ``seeming authenticity,'' said Mark Corallo, a strategist who worked on Republican Fred Thompson's presidential bid.
Obama, 46, rejects the notion that he is trying to move to the center.
``The people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me,'' Obama said today during a campaign stop in Powder Springs, Georgia. ``The message I want to send to everybody is: You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that, if I don't agree with you on something, that it must be because I'm doing that politically.''
Gun control emerged as an issue last month after the Supreme Court struck down Washington's handgun ban. McCain, 71, quickly praised the decision.
Past Votes
Obama was on the defensive because of past support for more restrictive laws. In addition to the 2004 state vote on the self- defense bill, which critics said might eviscerate local handgun bans, Obama in 2005 voted as a U.S. senator to expand the types of banned ammunition and against a measure protecting gun makers and sellers from lawsuits.
On June 26, Obama said he has ``always believed'' in gun- ownership rights, though he supports ``common-sense'' restrictions. Washington's law ``overshot the runway,'' he said in an interview with Bloomberg Television that day.
On surveillance, Obama last year voted against expanding the wiretapping program for six months. Now, he backs a bill that would end lawsuits against telephone companies and allow surveillance to continue.
The new bill has changes and is a ``compromise'' reflecting the importance of getting ``that program in place,'' Obama told reporters in Ohio on July 1.
Questions on Taxes
Obama also faces questions on taxes. In 2006, he voted against extending write offs for small businesses and Bush's cuts to the capital-gains rates.
Campaigning June 9 in North Carolina, he assailed Bush's ``tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs.'' A week later, he told the Wall Street Journal that corporate tax rates could be reduced after eliminating loopholes.
Some of the Republican charges of flip-flopping are misplaced. Last month, Obama drew fire for denouncing a Supreme Court decision barring the death penalty for child rapists. Yet in his 2006 book, ``The Audacity of Hope,'' he wrote that some crimes are ``so heinous'' that capital punishment is justified.
As examples, Obama cited ``mass murder'' or ``the rape and murder of a child.'' On June 25, he told reporters that ``the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime.''
In other cases, the criticism may be tougher to deflect. On Iraq, Republicans seized on recent comments by the candidate and his staff as evidence that he might backtrack from his 16-month withdrawal plan. His foreign-policy adviser, Susan Rice, said July 1 on MSNBC that he would ``redeploy our forces responsibly, at a rate that our commanders say is safe and sustainable.''
Leaving Iraq
Obama said last week and again today that he has always called for the U.S. to be as ``careful'' leaving Iraq as it was ``careless'' getting in and said his plan to end the war hasn't changed. Yet his comment about how a trip to Iraq would allow him to ``refine'' his policies was assailed as evidence he was backpedaling.
``The hard-core left is willing to tolerate some of those shifts,'' Duffy said. Any change on Iraq, though, ``is a bridge too far.''
In 2005, his first full year in the U.S. Senate, Obama earned 100 percent ratings from the AFL-CIO labor federation and Americans for Democratic Action, according to Congressional Quarterly. Those ratings were 93 percent and 95 percent in 2006.
Obama also favored restoring habeas corpus rights to suspected terrorists, while opposing the confirmations of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, and a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning.
Obama, who has campaigned as a politician who can bridge partisan divides, voted with his party 97 percent of the time last year, 96 percent the year before and 97 percent in 2005, according to Congressional Quarterly. McCain's ``party unity'' scores in the last three years were 90 percent, 76 percent and 84 percent; in 2001, the Republican supported his party just 67 percent of the time.
I think I actually have a better grasp than what you're demonstrating.
Ending federal raids is tantamount to removing penalties, as a raid is one hell of a penalty in and of itself. So, how's he gonna stop the Alphabet Boys from making their raids if he's in office without decriminalization? Best he can offer us at this point is a rescheduling, and he's not putting that on the table. And I'm serious with that question, how is he going to end federal raids without changing the law?
Is it so hard to fathom that we could leave Iraq, and still need an increase in troops, I have already explained to your husband this same point....here goes....We are currently fighting 2 wars, and what we have learned from fighting these wars is that the U.S does not have enough active duty forces to sustain 2 wars. When we leave Iraq we will still be in afghanistan, so we must be prepared for a second potential conflict to arise....wherever or if ever it does occour. Thats the point, you learn from you mistakes..........and by the way i'm not saying Obama has some future plans about invading countries or starting wars.....but as commander and chief it his responsibilty to have the military ready....in this case for a second conflict hence the troop increase........................but you believe he is lying...and he has some sinister plans........maybe your right......I'll guess we'll find out this yearThat's like the people insisting that he's gonna get us out of Iraq, while, again on HIS official site, he talks about increasing ground troops by OVER 100,000. Increasing an already under-paid military by a huge city's-worth of people (wondering where the money's gonna come from for that), but to what end? Connecting the dots isn't really that hard.
Reading is wonderful. Reading comprehension, even better.
Wrong again. Marijuana is illegal on a federal level. This means, people can't trade marijuana over state lines. Walmart can't sell it, you can't have it delivered legally, anything that involves crossing state lines is illegal. Within state lines, the FEDS have no right to raid a facility that is selling only within state borders. That is the problem with raids today. They go past their authority and raid clinics practicing by legal state laws. This is why Bill Richardson wrote a letter asking Bush to end the raids. It was Bush's decision and his alone. Under Obama's Presidency, marijuana will still be illegal on a Federal level. You still won't be able to sell over state lines and there will be no national weed chains. The difference is, he will stop the FEDS from interfering with state business. So, you asked how is he going to end raids without changing the law? He doesn't have to. The current Federal law has no authority over the states and its current practice is illegal.I think I actually have a better grasp than what you're demonstrating.
That's like the people insisting that he's gonna get us out of Iraq, while, again on HIS official site, he talks about increasing ground troops by OVER 100,000. Increasing an already under-paid military by a huge city's-worth of people (wondering where the money's gonna come from for that), but to what end? Connecting the dots isn't really that hard.
Reading is wonderful. Reading comprehension, even better.
I bet your mommy got it really good from a ..... guy, in fact she liked it probably so much that you did not feel loved by her anymore. No wonder you turned into a racist pigDuring the 50's and 60's era, any white woman who would "lay down" with a black man was considered "white trash" "a whore" "sleezy" "low down and no good" I heard it from the mouth of a man who should know he said it I didn't. Talking about your Barrack Hussain Oboma go to
ATLAH Daily Webcast - Manning Fierce Prayer for Bristol Palin
Ah, but then that means that those who just love Obama, those who are insisting that he's going to get us OUT of Iraq, are not looking at the big picture. Yes, it is very difficult to fathom that we would "need" the type of increase he speaks of, yet that we would not be going into any other wars (he's already talked about "aggressive diplomacy" with Iran, gosh, I wonder what that could mean
) where we really don't belong. As a matter of fact, the idea of increasing troop strength and NOT planning on going to war is fucking ridiculous. Wow, you really believe that the federal stance on raids on dispensaries began with Bush? Either you don't know your recent modern history, or you don't remember, or you're so rabidly pro-Democrat that if it falls under the administration of a Dem you refuse to accept the facts.
In a word, Bullshit........................This drivel is not worth refuting.Ah, but then that means that those who just love Obama, those who are insisting that he's going to get us OUT of Iraq, are not looking at the big picture. Yes, it is very difficult to fathom that we would "need" the type of increase he speaks of, yet that we would not be going into any other wars (he's already talked about "aggressive diplomacy" with Iran, gosh, I wonder what that could mean
And, you have yet to answer the first, most basic question with regard to increasing troops by the amounts this man is saying--HOW are we gonna pay them? We can't even pay well those we have now. We cannot properly treat them medically or psychologically. So, do you think he's got a real game plan to both fix what's broken and then make it BIGGER?
The moment the U.S. stops being the world police is the moment we don't have to worry about the size of our military, which is already appreciable. We'd actually be killing two birds with the same stone, because most of our "conflicts" have been created by our meddling where we don't belong and haven't been asked to go.
So, here's a concept. How about we focus instead on not getting into physical conflicts with other countries, especially those that have done nothing to the U.S. nor have asked for our interference? Eh? I know! Totally weird concept.
Wow, you really believe that the federal stance on raids on dispensaries began with Bush? Either you don't know your recent modern history, or you don't remember, or you're so rabidly pro-Democrat that if it falls under the administration of a Dem you refuse to accept the facts.
I see why Dave found you so frustrating to deal with. Despite being hit with hard facts you refuse to concede anything. You seem to have made your mind up first, facts be damned. That's a little backwards, especially considering the legal heads who have been fighting this, at least here in Cali, since Prop. 215 was voted in back in 1996 (hint: Bush was not president then!) and Clinton said that he didn't care what the states voted for, HE was going to fight it and send federal agents after us. You conveniently keep skipping over that part.
Your insisting that something is so, or isn't so, does not at all make it so. You think you've got an ironclad case for stopping the feds without changing ANY laws? Then why the hell haven't you put your nose to the grindstone and helped those who are trying to make that happen no matter WHO'S POTUS???? Hmmm?
You wanted something more than quotes and people responding with "he's lying". You got it, yet you're not happy with it. You know, I still have more about Obama and his stance on marijuana use, a lot more.
