I, for one, refuse to drink Obama's Kool-Aid

[max420thc]

Screw that, it's my money, and I'm keeping it, the government didn't (and still doesn't) have my permission to take it in the first place, at least not with out the threat of throwing me in prison and stripping me of property and in general making my life a living Hell.

the government rules by fear..they get people to do what they want out of fear...they are just like the mafia..you will give us your money..but instead of just breaking your legs or burning your business down they send the gestapo out to take it..along with what ever else they want...there has been several people commit suicide to get out of what they owe the IRS..and when the IRS is on you...you will wish you had the mafia after you instead..they never stop..and you will not get away from them...

 

[ViRedd]

the government rules by fear..they get people to do what they want out of fear...they are just like the mafia..you will give us your money..but instead of just breaking your legs or burning your business down they send the gestapo out to take it..along with what ever else they want...there has been several people commit suicide to get out of what they owe the IRS..and when the IRS is on you...you will wish you had the mafia after you instead..they never stop..and you will not get away from them...

And yet, we have those here in this forum who continually support this system. They rant on and on about FISA and "torture," while at the same time, support the IRS goons and the political party that keeps them in place. Go figure.

Vi

 

[jsn9333]

And yet, we have those here in this forum who continually support this system. They rant on and on about FISA and "torture," while at the same time, support the IRS goons and the political party that keeps them in place. Go figure.

Vi

I'll first note I do not support either of the "main" political parties. However, I do have a question. How is a government supposed to rule if not by fear? (I'm not being sarcastic... it is a serious question). Seems to me the alternative is anarchy, which I'm not sure is much better... because in anarchy *someone* is going to rule by fear (the strongest, or best armed). Given the nature of man, someone has to rule by force. Democracy seems to be the best way to do that in my opinion, even though it (like our world) has serious shortcomings.

Isn't tax collection is a necessary evil, in that sense? Even though I think the IRS (and spending) should be simplified and reduced in size by about 90%... I still see it still as a necessary evil if one wants to have a government. Is that wrong?

 

[Doctor Pot]

Most of us tokers here are fairly open minded people, interested in the world around us and willing to learn. If getting facts straight is such a high priority of yours, why don't you share your knowledge with us and actually point out what my "5 factual errors" are? Oh... I see, it is because you only step down to talk to people who have a maximum of two factual errors in their post. Okay.

To me, at least, it seems you either are: (a) completely self-centered (unwilling to share your advanced understanding of the world with those around you since you are way too far above them), or (b) you actually have so little knowledge about the facts that you must resort to completely unrelated statements about my "priorities".

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is (a). And in that case, I beg you, please point out my errors to me so one day I can be as smart as you. By the way... Is this you in this video?
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/128698/ Hahahaha....

How about (c) there are so many people out there who constantly spout off misinformation that continually correcting all of you would be like trying to empty the ocean with a thimble.

1) "But anyone involved in national power and politics who still thinks marijuana should be illegal is corrupt. Period. End of fucking story."
There are legitimate reasons for not supporting the legalization of marijuana, although I don't necessarily agree with them. For one, the public is generally not behind it, parents don't want their kids to have easy access to weed, etc. Obama was trying to win after all, plus he had to fight the negative image of being a pot smoker when he was younger, supporting the legalization of weed would get him branded a pothead, not an image he'd want to have, and he'd probably lose.

2) "During the primary campaign, he promised to take public campaign financing (with its spending limits). He even signed a statement to that effect."
He promised to work with John McCain to agree to public financing. Although this is kind of underhanded, it gave him an out without technically lying.

3) "In another example, Obama said he could never disown his fiery, black pastor and spiritual mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. That particular promise came when he was fighting the Clintons for the black vote during the Democratic primaries. Then, just a few short months later, when facing McCain for the white vote, Obama condemned Wright and announced he was leaving his church family."
He didn't "disown" his pastor, he left the church, saying that he didn't want them to have all this unwanted publicity. Also, he did that during the primary, and he already had the black vote locked up, so there was no reason for him not to leave sooner.

4) "or ends our need of foreign oil within 10 years (yes, he promised that)"
He promised to end our need of "Middle Eastern oil". We'd still be able to buy oil from Canada, Mexico, etc.

I guess 5 is just a repeat of 1 though.

 

[jsn9333]

How about (c) there are so many people out there who constantly spout off misinformation that continually correcting all of you would be like trying to empty the ocean with a thimble.

Oh my! Well, thank you for stooping down to our level and pointing out my "5 factual errors"... maybe I can learn something from you!

1) "But anyone involved in national power and politics who still thinks marijuana should be illegal is corrupt. Period. End of fucking story."
There are legitimate reasons for not supporting the legalization of marijuana, although I don't necessarily agree with them. For one, the public is generally not behind it, parents don't want their kids to have easy access to weed, etc. Obama was trying to win after all, plus he had to fight the negative image of being a pot smoker when he was younger, supporting the legalization of weed would get him branded a pothead, not an image he'd want to have, and he'd probably lose.

This statement of mine was an *opinion*, not a statement of fact. You should learn the difference before being so accusatory.

There are ignorant people who have been mislead by anti-weed propaganda, but ignorance is not a "legitimate reason" to criminalize something. It is a negligent, stupid reason. Besides... Obama is not ignorant anyway. He is powerful and high up enough to know the facts about marijuana and the lobbies that want it illegal. And he is willing to jail people in order to win political power (and money from the lobbies). Your excuse for him that "after all, he was trying to win," just emphasizes how corrupt his soul is. You be ashamed. Seriously.

Anyway... My "factual errors" count: 0. If you think my opinion was wrong, well then, so be it.

2) "During the primary campaign, he promised to take public campaign financing (with its spending limits). He even signed a statement to that effect."
He promised to work with John McCain to agree to public financing. Although this is kind of underhanded, it gave him an out without technically lying.

Asked last September on a questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network whether he would "participate in the presidential public financing system" if his "major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign," Obama checked the box marked "yes." See http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/06/19/the-problem-with-obama-s-public-financing-acrobatics.aspx

He also said, ""If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." See http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/06/19/the-problem-with-obama-s-public-financing-acrobatics.aspx

McCain agreed to forgo private funding, and Obama didn't. That was lie number one (first quote above). Also, he never once pursued an agreement to preserve public financing with McCain. That was lie number two.

Those are facts, my friend, and you simply have them wrong. All I did to find these quotes was google: obama said he would take public financing. It was that easy. For you to say "getting your facts straight is not a high priority" and then bumble the facts so badly is quite ironic.

So... my factual error count: still 0.

3) "In another example, Obama said he could never disown his fiery, black pastor and spiritual mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. That particular promise came when he was fighting the Clintons for the black vote during the Democratic primaries. Then, just a few short months later, when facing McCain for the white vote, Obama condemned Wright and announced he was leaving his church family."
He didn't "disown" his pastor, he left the church, saying that he didn't want them to have all this unwanted publicity. Also, he did that during the primary, and he already had the black vote locked up, so there was no reason for him not to leave sooner.

The definition of "disown" is: "To refuse to acknowledge or accept as one's own; repudiate." He is not related to Wright, so his statement that he would never disown him had nothing to do with family relationships as we commonly use the word. It had to do with accepting him not as a father, but as his pastor. That is what Wright was. The relationship between them was pastor/member. Obama first said he could never disown him (end the relationship), then he both repudiated him and ended the relationship.
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053102238_pf.html

If you don't think repudiating Wright and ending his relationship with him amounts to "disowning"... then we'll just have to disagree.

And Obama was a sure win in the primarys by the time he disowned Wright. He was not a sure win when he said he would never disown him.
For proof of that, see above that he disowned him in June, and see the following timeline, which shows that by June Clinton's supporters were telling her to drop out because Obama was a sure win. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008_timeline#June_2008

My factual errors count? Still 0.

4) "or ends our need of foreign oil within 10 years (yes, he promised that)"
He promised to end our need of "Middle Eastern oil". We'd still be able to buy oil from Canada, Mexico, etc.

I'll grant you that one. Forgive me, but I tend to think of "foreign oil" as Middle Eastern oil, since that is where most of our foreign oil comes from. I'll grant you that "factual error" since you are being so damn picky (and I feel sorry for you).

I guess 5 is just a repeat of 1 though.

Anyway, it's pretty clear you are the one who doesn't have high priorities as far as factual accuracy is concerned. In fact, your own post is above your two error threshold for responding, so I suggest you stick to your principals and stop writing in this thread. (Just kidding... ). Thanks for trying though... I'll be sure to say "Middle Eastern" oil from now on... I seriously do appreciate the correction.

Hopefully next time you'll stoop down to my pitifully low intellectual level sooner, since my one factual error is well below the maximum you'll put up with in a post.



(By the way, I just want to be clear, I think McCain is a corrupt liar too... I'm not making excuses for either of these assholes.)

 

[Doctor Pot]

This statement of mine was an *opinion*, not a statement of fact. You should learn the difference before being so accusatory.

There are ignorant people who have been mislead by anti-weed propaganda, but ignorance is not a "legitimate reason" to criminalize something, it is a negligent, stupid reason. Besides... Obama is not ignorant anyway. He is powerful and high up enough to know the facts about marijuana and the lobbies that want it illegal. And he is willing to jail people in order to win political power (and money from the lobbies). You're excuse for him that "after all, he was trying to win," just emphasizes how corrupt his soul is.

Anyway... My "factual errors" count: 0. If you think my opinion was wrong, well then, so be it.

Obama has supported decriminalization in the past, which means not giving jail time for possession. He didn't make a big deal out of it in the primaries, but there were a lot of more important issues.

Asked last September on a questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network whether he would "participate in the presidential public financing system" if his "major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign," Obama checked the box marked "yes." See http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/06/19/the-problem-with-obama-s-public-financing-acrobatics.aspx

He also said, ""If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." See http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/06/19/the-problem-with-obama-s-public-financing-acrobatics.aspx

McCain agreed to forgo private funding, and Obama didn't. That was lie number one (first quote above). Also, he never once pursued an agreement to preserve public financing with McCain. That was lie number two.

Those are facts, my friend, and you simply have them wrong. All I did to find these quotes was google: obama said he would take public financing. It was that easy. For you to say "getting your facts straight is not a high priority" and then bumble the facts so badly is quite ironic.

So... my factual error count: still 0.

But he didn't actually sign a pledge, which was the thing i was pointing out. I did say it was underhanded, and he did go back on what he said, but he did not sign a pledge.

The definition of "disown" is: "To refuse to acknowledge or accept as one's own; repudiate." He is not related to Wright, so his statement that he would never disown him had nothing to do with family relationships as we commonly use the word. It had to do with accepting him not as a father, but as his pastor. That is what Wright was. The relationship between them was pastor/member. Obama first said he could never disown him (end the relationship), then he both repudiated him and ended the relationship.
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053102238_pf.html

If you don't think repudiating Wright and ending his relationship with him amounts to "disowning"... then we'll just have to disagree.

And Obama was a sure win in the primarys by the time he disowned Wright. He was not a sure win when he said he would never disown him.
For proof of that, see above that he disowned him in June, and see the following timeline, which shows that by June Clinton's supporters were telling her to drop out because Obama was a sure win. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008_timeline#June_2008

My factual errors count? Still 0.

I wouldn't call what he did "disowning", but that was after Wright said a bunch of stupid shit on camera, not because the primaries were over. Speaking of which, you were wrong about the primaries being over, he left the church during them. And he didn't end his relationship with Wright, he still talks to him. And this "disowning" speech happened in April, not June, only a few weeks after his speech on race where he said he could never disown Wright. Only one state had a primary during that time. There's at least two factual errors right there.

I'll grant you that one. Forgive me, but I tend to think of "foreign oil" as Middle Eastern oil, since that is where most of our foreign oil comes from. I'll grant you that "factual error" since you are being so damn picky (and I feel sorry for you).




Anyway, it's pretty clear you are the one who doesn't have high priorities as far as factual accuracy is concerned. In fact, your own post is above your two error threshold for responding, so I suggest you stick to your principals and stop writing in this thread. (Just kidding... ). Thanks for trying though... I'll be sure to say "Middle Eastern" oil from now on... I seriously do appreciate the correction.

Hopefully next time you'll stoop down to my pitifully low intellectual level sooner, since my one factual error is well below the maximum you'll put up with in a post.

Obama has lied once that I am aware of, that being the public financing deal. And he didn't lie so much as change his mind, as in, he wasn't being knowingly dishonest when he said it. And you wanted this to be about lies Obama told, which so far appears to be fewer than yourself.

 

[jsn9333]

Obama has supported decriminalization in the past, which means not giving jail time for possession. He didn't make a big deal out of it in the primaries, but there were a lot of more important issues.

He didn't just "not make a big deal" in the primaries. He was against decriminalization throughout the primaries... and still is. The thing is, earlier he said he was for it... so, Obama has "flip flopped on pot." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/31/obama-flip-flops-on-pot/

Just a few short years ago, when trying to gather momentum, he told college students that he supported decriminalization. Then later, once more popular, he reversed and said he does NOT support decriminalization. And he has stuck to that line since. He gathers "grass"roots support with things like pot, campaign finance, fiery black pastors... then, once he used them to get popular, he disowns his supporters and turns his back on them... even supporting jailing them!

But he didn't actually sign a pledge, which was the thing i was pointing out. I did say it was underhanded, and he did go back on what he said, but he did not sign a pledge.

Obama signed a public pledge that he would accept public funding.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-publicfun.html

That, along with his statements that he would accept public funding if the Republican did, and that he would reach out to McCain to agree to take public funds together... shows he is a complete liar.

I wouldn't call what he did "disowning", but that was after Wright said a bunch of stupid shit on camera, not because the primaries were over. Speaking of which, you were wrong about the primaries being over, he left the church during them. And he didn't end his relationship with Wright, he still talks to him. And this "disowning" speech happened in April, not June, only a few weeks after his speech on race where he said he could never disown Wright. Only one state had a primary during that time. There's at least two factual errors right there.

Obama left his pastor (what I call "disowning" his pastor) by leaving his church on in June, at least it was reported in June: june 1, leaves church
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/us/politics/01obama.html

Obama has lied once that I am aware of, that being the public financing deal. And he didn't lie so much as change his mind, as in, he wasn't being knowingly dishonest when he said it. And you wanted this to be about lies Obama told, which so far appears to be fewer than yourself.

If you are aware of only one lie, then that is because you choose to remain ignorant and would rather make excuses for corrupt people, like most in this country do. And even one lie is enough for me to realize a person is not to be trusted. If he apologized to me for lying to me, it would be different. But he hasn't... because he is corrupt.

I will never vote for someone that is corrupt. And I will never vote for someone that supports throwing me in jail. Neither should anyone. Only when we start voting for people who tell the *truth* will we see the kind of change this country really needs. Just wait and see... Obama is a fucking asshole, and you'll eventually see it for yourself. Hopefully he won't have to put you in a cage for you to realize it.

 

[Doctor Pot]

He didn't just "not make a big deal" in the primaries. He was against decriminalization throughout the primaries... and still is. The thing is, earlier he said he was for it... so, Obama has "flip flopped on pot." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/31/obama-flip-flops-on-pot/

Just a few short years ago, when trying to gather momentum, he told college students that he supported decriminalization. Then later, once more popular, he reversed and said he does NOT support decriminalization. And he has stuck to that line since. He gathers "grass"roots support with things like pot, campaign finance, fiery black pastors... then, once he used them to get popular, he disowns his supporters and turns his back on them... even supporting jailing them!

In 2004, he was a state senator, and only had influence over Illinois state laws. If he decriminalized marijuana at a federal level, that would take away the states' rights to regulate it, and I can see why he could be opposed to that. So it's not necessarily a contradiction. The line I've heard from him is that there are far more important priorities in this country right now.

Obama signed a public pledge that he would accept public funding.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-publicfun.html

That, along with his statements that he would accept public funding if the Republican did, and that he would reach out to McCain to agree to take public funds together... shows he is a complete liar.

"He even signed a public pledge that he would work to create public funding should he ever become president." This hasn't happened yet, so he's not obliged to do anything yet.

Obama left his pastor (what I call "disowning" his pastor) by leaving his church on in June, at least it was reported in June: june 1, leaves church
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/us/politics/01obama.html

At that point, Rev. Wright was no longer the pastor.

If you are aware of only one lie, then that is because you choose to remain ignorant and would rather make excuses for corrupt people, like most in this country do. And even one lie is enough for me to realize a person is not to be trusted. If he apologized to me for lying to me, it would be different. But he hasn't... because he is corrupt.

I will never vote for someone that is corrupt. And I will never vote for someone that supports throwing me in jail. Neither should anyone. Only when we start voting for people who tell the *truth* will we see the kind of change this country really needs. Just wait and see... Obama is a fucking asshole, and you'll eventually see it for yourself. Hopefully he won't have to put you in a cage for you to realize it.

Pretty much all marijuana cases are tried at the state level. The DEA typically only gets involved in trafficking cases.

As a politician, you're asked a lot of catch-22 questions. Say you were running for office and someone asked you if he ever masturbated to pornography. That's not a question you would answer. With the negative atmosphere of today's campaigning, you have to watch every word to make sure you never say something that can be used out of context against you later, by your opponent. So in order for anyone to win, they have to either lie, distort the truth, attack their opponent even harder, or give vague answers. In this election cycle, Obama's opted mostly for giving vague answers. Granted, this isn't ideal, but he didn't design the system.

 

[jsn9333]

In 2004, he was a state senator, and only had influence over Illinois state laws. If he decriminalized marijuana at a federal level, that would take away the states' rights to regulate it, and I can see why he could be opposed to that. So it's not necessarily a contradiction. The line I've heard from him is that there are far more important priorities in this country right now.


"He even signed a public pledge that he would work to create public funding should he ever become president." This hasn't happened yet, so he's not obliged to do anything yet.


At that point, Rev. Wright was no longer the pastor.


Pretty much all marijuana cases are tried at the state level. The DEA typically only gets involved in trafficking cases.

As a politician, you're asked a lot of catch-22 questions. Say you were running for office and someone asked you if he ever masturbated to pornography. That's not a question you would answer. With the negative atmosphere of today's campaigning, you have to watch every word to make sure you never say something that can be used out of context against you later, by your opponent. So in order for anyone to win, they have to either lie, distort the truth, attack their opponent even harder, or give vague answers. In this election cycle, Obama's opted mostly for giving vague answers. Granted, this isn't ideal, but he didn't design the system.

Call it "being vague" if that helps you deal with life. I call it what it is. Lying. He doesn't have to answer the question if he doesn't like it. Instead, he answers it one way to gain support... then flip flops and fucks people who trusted him. That is different from being "vague"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/28/obama.pastor/index.html
He said he would've left if Wright had not retired (this was before he left). Therefore, Obama basically disowned Wright as his pastor, left him as far as his pastoral relationship. He disowned that relationship by that statement. This was after he said he would never disown him. Maybe it wasn't once he had the black vote sealed... but still, he says one thing and does another. That much is clear.

Maybe the signed pledge was about if he got elected. Fine. Nonetheless, he said he'd take the funding with McCain, and then didn't. He is a liar. He is not to be trusted. And he will put you in a cage for smoking pot... he is openly *against* decriminalization. He is a fucktard, and a crooked liar. Maybe McCain is a bigger fucktard. Who cares? They're both fucktards, and no one in their right mind should vote for either one of them. That's the way I see it. We'll see if I'm right or wrong I guess.

 

[Doctor Pot]

Call it "being vague" if that helps you deal with life. I call it what it is. Lying. He doesn't have to answer the question if he doesn't like it. Instead, he answers it one way to gain support... then flip flops and fucks people who trusted him. That is different from being "vague"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/28/obama.pastor/index.html
He said he would've left if Wright had not retired (this was before he left). Therefore, Obama basically disowned Wright as his pastor, left him as far as his pastoral relationship. He disowned that relationship by that statement. This was after he said he would never disown him. Maybe it wasn't once he had the black vote sealed... but still, he says one thing and does another. That much is clear.

So because he would have left the church in a hypothetical scenario, that constitutes disowning Rev. Wright?

Even if that constitutes disowning him, he said he couldn't before Wright made an ass out of himself on national TV. If I say I can't quit my job, and then win the lottery, and then quit my job, does that mean I lied when I said I can't quit my job?

Maybe the signed pledge was about if he got elected. Fine. Nonetheless, he said he'd take the funding with McCain, and then didn't. He is a liar. He is not to be trusted. And he will put you in a cage for smoking pot... he is openly *against* decriminalization. He is a fucktard, and a crooked liar. Maybe McCain is a bigger fucktard. Who cares? They're both fucktards, and no one in their right mind should vote for either one of them. That's the way I see it. We'll see if I'm right or wrong I guess.

But you don't want to become so ideological that the only people you'd vote for either would do a terrible job at running the country, or don't actually exist.

 

[jsn9333]

So because he would have left the church in a hypothetical scenario, that constitutes disowning Rev. Wright?

Even if that constitutes disowning him, he said he couldn't before Wright made an ass out of himself on national TV. If I say I can't quit my job, and then win the lottery, and then quit my job, does that mean I lied when I said I can't quit my job?


But you don't want to become so ideological that the only people you'd vote for either would do a terrible job at running the country, or don't actually exist.

Wright had already said all the things that supposedly "made an ass out of himself." He had been saying them for years. The only thing that changed was Obama... he often breaks his word. It is his M.O. If you haven't realized that yet, just wait. You'll probably realize it sooner or later.

If you think the only people who can do well at running the country are those who regularly lie, don't admit it when they do, are corrupt, and will turn their back on their friends and supporters for power... then I feel sorry for you. And if that is really how you feel, then people like you are why this country is so god damned fucked up.

 

[clovergs99]

Man OBAMA is not even in office yet so chill the fuck out. If you have not noticed George W. Bush is still our fucking wack ass president. Can the man get atleast 2 years in Office before you start claiming he's not doing anything. He's not officially the president until Jan. 20, so go get high for a year and come back on December 5th and tell me what Obama has done. You need to go drink some Kool Aid and chill the fuck out.

 

[fdd2blk]

I'll never vote for anyone who thinks marijuana should remain illegal for recreational purposes. That has less to do with my love of pot and more to do with my hatred of corrupt liars in office.

Anyone who is high up in politics and power and thinks that cannabis should remain illegal is corrupt. Sure, there are plenty of ignorant people who buy the propaganda of the DEA and the "Partnership for a Drug Free America". But anyone involved in national power and politics who still thinks marijuana should be illegal is corrupt. Period. End of fucking story.

All these promises Obama has made are bullshit, as we'll come to see in the years ahead. Obama came making promises of change and hope, but if he is willing to lie to us for money, votes, and power... then he fundamentally is quite the same as the President he is replacing. And if you still think he hasn't lied to us, read on.

During the primary campaign, he promised to take public campaign financing (with its spending limits). He even signed a statement to that effect. How much stronger of a promise can you make? Yet just a few months later, when faced with a pile of money if he'd only break his promise, and having won all the votes in the primaries that he needed from that promise, he went back on his word. His excuse was that the "system is broken" (as if the decades old system wasn't broken a few months earlier when he made his promise). In another example, Obama said he could never disown his fiery, black pastor and spiritual mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. That particular promise came when he was fighting the Clintons for the black vote during the Democratic primaries. Then, just a few short months later, when facing McCain for the white vote, Obama condemned Wright and announced he was leaving his church family.

This is the man of principle and we're supposed to hope in to bring change from "politics as usual"? Why should we believe a word this man says when, just like Bush, he is willing to lie to us for money, votes, and power? Again, anyone who is high up in politics and power and thinks that cannabis should remain illegal is corrupt. Period.

Let me know when Barack Obama gets the last of our boys and girls out of Iraq, or does what it takes to catch Bin Laden, or reigns in federal spending, or ends our need of foreign oil within 10 years (yes, he promised that), or stops the DEA from enforcing prohibition era hemp laws against state medical cannabis patients (he promised that too... very early in his campaign, when he needed all the "grass"roots support he could get). Let me know when these things happen, and I guess I'll eat crow. But what we're more likely to see is just further payouts going into the hands of the powerful banks and corporate entities that control the wealth in *both* major political parties. Besides that, very little is going to change.

One promise we know he'll fulfill is that tax break for most Americans. As with Bush's "stimulus checks", he knows he has to pay us off to get re-elected in 4 years. But we won't see much substantial change besides that, and until we stop electing liars to the most important office in the land, we probably never will.

have you seen this? http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5614


For Immediate Release: December 1st, 2008
U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law
Medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied review today

 

[jsn9333]

There's no need to wait and see. Why wait? He has already shown himself to be a liar and a corrupt, morally bankrupt individual just in his campaign. If you consider that a "change" from Bush, then you apparently don't know the same Bush I know. Anyone who will vote for a fucknut who will jail them for herb has got to learn some self-respect... that's what I say. Obama is a fucking assclown.

Sure, there is no perfect man or president. But for god's sake, there are a lot better choices then Obama and McCain when it comes to leadership that is honest and makes some damn sense.

Man OBAMA is not even in office yet so chill the fuck out. If you have not noticed George W. Bush is still our fucking wack ass president. Can the man get atleast 2 years in Office before you start claiming he's not doing anything. He's not officially the president until Jan. 20, so go get high for a year and come back on December 5th and tell me what Obama has done. You need to go drink some Kool Aid and chill the fuck out.

 

[jsn9333]

have you seen this? http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5614


For Immediate Release: December 1st, 2008
U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law
Medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied review today

Heck yeah! I'm stoked about moving out to San Fran for this coming summer. Might even get a medical card while I'm out there (would feel a little guilty taking advantage of the system though).

The only problem is that Federal Law still pre-empts state medical law when it comes to federal agents enforcing it. State agents (police) just can't enforce federal law that is contrary to state law, if I'm reading this case right.

Obama said he would stop the feds from enforcing federal law in California against patients... but I'm 99% sure he'll flip flop on that, just like all these other promises he's made. We'll see though, we'll see. I'd love nothing more then to have to eat my words on that one.

 

[Seamaiden]

Um, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with that decision, though. Not even our (coughcough) 'representatives' had anything to do with it, either.

And, it won't do anything to help with the recent decision regarding who qualifies as a caregiver. I see dark days for dispensaries because of that, though I do hope I'm wrong.

jsn, we may 'refuse to drink Obama's Kool-Aid', but he's what we've got now. Such is life. How long, do you think, before we go in after Iran? The Israelis already approached Bush, and he told them they're on their own, possibly pushing the issue back for Obama to deal with. To the best of my knowledge he has not changed the plan to increase troops, and I don't know that this is something that requires any approval from anyone else to put into place (Congressional approval). This is worrisome to me, because as I see it, the only reason to increase troops is to make ready for more war.

 

[fdd2blk]

Um, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with that decision, though. Not even our (coughcough) 'representatives' had anything to do with it, either.

And, it won't do anything to help with the recent decision regarding who qualifies as a caregiver. I see dark days for dispensaries because of that, though I do hope I'm wrong.

jsn, we may 'refuse to drink Obama's Kool-Aid', but he's what we've got now. Such is life. How long, do you think, before we go in after Iran? The Israelis already approached Bush, and he told them they're on their own, possibly pushing the issue back for Obama to deal with. To the best of my knowledge he has not changed the plan to increase troops, and I don't know that this is something that requires any approval from anyone else to put into place (Congressional approval). This is worrisome to me, because as I see it, the only reason to increase troops is to make ready for more war.

so we blame all the bad shit on a president who hasn't even taken office but the good shit is denied?


i was trying to make a point.


this is a hater thread anyways, unsubscribed.

 

[ViRedd]

However, I do have a question. How is a government supposed to rule if not by fear? (I'm not being sarcastic... it is a serious question). Seems to me the alternative is anarchy, which I'm not sure is much better...

This is the age-old question, isn't it? The ideal would be to have a small enough government that would be just short of anarchy. What this would mean is, the people would be in charge of government instead of government being in charge of the people. This is what once was.

We had such a system once; it was prior to the silent socialist revolution that occurred in this country beginning in 1933 when the Roosevelt administration came into power. Much like today, in the name of a financial crises, the people turned over the public treasury to the executive branch, giving that branch unlimited powers over the people.

Those of us who study and know unrevised history are very concerned with what is happening today. Over a trillion dollars of our future income has been commandeered by the Treasury Department in the name of the current "crisis" to make up for the stupid errors of our true masters ... the bankers. The Obama administration will use this platform of Bush's final days to ratchet up even more government powers over the people.

Lenin must be beaming from ear to ear from the grave.

Vi

 

[medicineman]

This is the age-old question, isn't it? The ideal would be to have a small enough government that would be just short of anarchy. What this would mean is, the people would be in charge of government instead of government being in charge of the people. This is what once was.

We had such a system once; it was prior to the silent socialist revolution that occurred in this country beginning in 1933 when the Roosevelt administration came into power. Much like today, in the name of a financial crises, the people turned over the public treasury to the executive branch, giving that branch unlimited powers over the people.

Those of us who study and know unrevised history are very concerned with what is happening today. Over a trillion dollars of our future income has been commandeered by the Treasury Department in the name of the current "crisis" to make up for the stupid errors of our true masters ... the bankers. The Obama administration will use this platform of Bush's final days to ratchet up even more government powers over the people.

Lenin must be beaming from ear to ear from the grave.

Vi

Yeah, Obama the big bad commie has commies hiding all over his administration and as soon as he takes the oath, he is going to sieze all personal income over 55,000 per year, and put a cop in every living room, right on comrade, hail comrade. the boogyman cometh,~LOL~.

 

[ViRedd]

Yeah, Obama the big bad commie has commies hiding all over his administration and as soon as he takes the oath, he is going to sieze all personal income over 55,000 per year, and put a cop in every living room, right on comrade, hail comrade. the boogyman cometh,~LOL~.

Obviously, you believe that history began in 1960.

Vi