The Reason We all will Vote for Obama in 2012.

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Don't think Obama has ever claimed to be pro mmj.
Any President must by law uphold the laws of the USA. So any President cannot be for something that is against the law.

Barrack Obama is no different. He cannot , by law, change the laws; that is the domain of congress. BUT! He can Veto bad laws!

So who do you want in the veto Seat? Romney or Obama when it comes to National Medical Marijuana?

And forget Paul... Focus on what we have to work with.
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
This is why Congress is so slow...meet in the middle and only allow pre-12 week abortions. It keeps both sides happy, when life is life it's protected and women still get their choice.
Or do the sensible thing and allow women to evict the baby, but not kill it. Killing the baby is the issue, not removing it from the body.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
There is a massive difference. You prefer to call for the murder of the unborn, live with your decision.
sorry bro, you don't get to yell "liberty liberty freedom ron paul constitution freedom liberty" while using the government to control my wife's body.

move to iran.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
what's even funnier about cathorshit wanting to control women's bodies is his sig: Libertarian. The party of mind your own fucking business.
 

thehole

New Member
Ok, please explain, Democrats, why your party:

Supported slavery in 6 platforms from 1840-1860.

Opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution that successively wiped out slavery and gave both legal rights and voting rights to black Americans.

Supported segregation actively or by silence in 20 platforms from 1868-1948.

Opposed anti-lynching laws, specifically supported by the GOP in four platforms between 1912 and 1928.

Opposed the GOP-sponsored Civil Rights Acts of 1866, which focused on legal equality for blacks.

Opposed the GOP on giving voting rights to blacks in the District of Columbia in 1867. The legislation was passed over the Democrats' objection.

Nominated an 1868 presidential ticket of New York Governor Horatio Seymour and ex-Missouri Congressman Francis Blair. The Democrats pledged they would declare the Civil Rights laws passed by the GOP "null and void" and would refuse to enforce them. They lost to Ulysses Grant.

Opposed the Enforcement Acts, three laws passed by the GOP between 1870 and 1871 targeting the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and making it a federal crime to block the right of blacks to vote, hold office, serve on juries and have equal protection of the laws with whites.

Opposed the GOP Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited discrimination of blacks in public accommodations.

Used the Ku Klux Klan as what Columbia University historian Eric Foner calls "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party." Nor is there mention of the infamous 1924 Democratic Convention -- the "Klanbake" as it is known to history because hundreds of the delegates were Klan members. The Klan-written platform mixed the traditional Democratic message of progressivism and racism in the Klan-written platform.

Repealed the Civil Rights laws enacted by GOP Congresses and presidents, already damaged by the Supreme Court. When Democrats gained control of both Congress and the White House in 1892, the Democrats' President Grover Cleveland signed the repeal on February 8, 1894.
Grow the fuck up and live in reality.
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Any President must by law uphold the laws of the USA. So any President cannot be for something that is against the law.

Barrack Obama is no different. He cannot , by law, change the laws; that is the domain of congress. BUT! He can Veto bad laws!

So who do you want in the veto Seat? Romney or Obama when it comes to National Medical Marijuana?

And forget Paul... Focus on what we have to work with.

History tells us that this is incorrect.

Enforcement is largely decided by the president. Also, the appointment of heads of the departments are headed by him. Take ATF for instance. The definition of machine gun changes from week to week. Making items illegal or legal not based on law, but on whims. The DOJ could simply decide not to prosecute. The president ordered DOJ to not enforce DOMA. He could simply decide that whatever laws he likes are not valid and tell DOJ not to defend the law in court. He could tell the DOJ to not defend whatever he wants. He could refuse to defend drug laws if he wanted. A republican president could likewise say "We will not defend lawsuits against Obamacare." Without a defense, would the court not have to find in favor of the plaintiff/state? Ultimately, the president can decide whatever he wants.

He doesn't have to uphold the laws in any real sense. Does he act to stop illegal immigration even though it is illegal? No, instead he works to undermine states who are trying to enforce the law and stop a crime.

MMJ is already illegal, what difference does it make? They can't make it doubly illegal. Obama isn't working to legalize it. I fail to see the difference on this matter between the two.
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
what's even funnier about cathorshit wanting to control women's bodies is his sig: Libertarian. The party of mind your own fucking business.
I have never wanted to control anyone else's body. You don't get the right to murder a child just because it is in you. Murder is illegal, dontcha know.

That is why I support eviction vs abortion. Abortion is murder, eviction is removing the child from you. Even if they end up the same in the end, it is still a huge difference in terms of right and wrong. Just because you beat the communist liberal drum and follow the party line completely doesn't make you right. It makes you a stupid tool of communists. Republicans and Democrats are the same thing with a different animal on their retard capes.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I have never wanted to control anyone else's body. You don't get the right to murder a child just because it is in you. Murder is illegal, dontcha know.

That is why I support eviction vs abortion. Abortion is murder, eviction is removing the child from you. Even if they end up the same in the end, it is still a huge difference in terms of right and wrong. Just because you beat the communist liberal drum and follow the party line completely doesn't make you right. It makes you a stupid tool of communists. Republicans and Democrats are the same thing with a different animal on their retard capes.
you want to control what's going on in women's bodies.

why don't you just mind your own fucking business, hypocrite?

by the way, the cold war is over, dipshit.
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
you want to control what's going on in women's bodies.

why don't you just mind your own fucking business, hypocrite?

by the way, the cold war is over, dipshit.
I don't want control of what is going on in a woman's body. Stop being intentionally stupid, fuck face. You know the difference. That makes you worse than a hypocrite. It makes you a murdering fucktard who blindly follows the party regardless of right or wrong. The ultimate test of whether something is right or wrong is to stop and think: If your wife got pregnant, and carried the baby until she was in labor, then she decided she didn't want it and used an icepick to stab it in the head to kill it as it started to come out. Well, hell, this is still an abortion, the baby is inside of her. No rational person could ever watch this or be a party to it and not realize that it was hideously evil and murder. At what point does it not become murder? 10 weeks out? 20 weeks out? The day the sperm goes into the egg? I have no control over a womans body, nor do I want any, but if a baby has a chance of living outside the womb than it is no longer a part of the womans body, but is a person in its own right. I don't think an egg or sperm are a person, and I don't go around singing Monty Python's 'every sperm is special'. At some point it has to be murder, and it is definitely before birth. Your kind talk about sharing the wealth, and protecting the weak from oppression. Here is your chance, let the woman do what she wants with her body, but don't pretend a living being in her is part of her body, or that it is the only option. Eviction and abortion are the same exact thing to the woman. No one is forcing her to carry a child she doesn't want or be pregnant, yet it retains the rights of the fetus/baby/cumbubble or whatever you want to call it.

How can Democrats have the unhidden hypocrisy to on one hand say that it is about freedom of choice in your life to end a childs life but then turn around and say : candy is bad, outlaw and regulate. seatbelts are safe, wear or be punished. guns aren't safe, you shouldn't be allowed to have them. This and many more nanny state actions, yet the killing of the unborn is perfectly fine and a celebrated right. How can someone cheer over the 'win' that allows them to murder a baby that could live right now if it were delivered. Why stop with before the birth, maybe beating them to death with a mallet after they are in the crib would be ok too?

The Cold War was USA and its friends vs USSR and the 3rd world. It wasn't a win for either side, it just ended. Every year the parties push harder towards their side. Republicans towards fascism and the Democrats towards socialism. They have different methods and beliefs, but they come to the same conclusion. The state controls everything, they just use different justifications for controlling it. What is extremism today on the left is socialism and communism. It is where the party is gravitating to, just like the Republicans are going the other way. Do you really think the Democrats would stop with Obama and his health care? NO. How about the tax hikes on the rich? NO. Restrictions on personal freedoms? NO. It ends the same way. Badly.

You knew all of this already, yet you still follow the line of koolaid that has been set out for you. Uncle Buck, you are disgusting leper of a person, and are to be despised.
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
A normal abortion.

[video=youtube;p1uzPiALlRs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1uzPiALlRs&feature=related[/video]

I find it unimaginable that this one is even real.

Do you see the problem here? You support a party that believes doing this is ok, but letting kids drink soda or some redneck driving around with no seatbelt is a problem. You can put all the turtle fucking pictures you want up, but we both know that the truth is you are either ashamed of yourself, or sick inside. And your rhesus monkey too, or whatever his name is.
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;g46hlT_2804]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g46hlT_2804[/video]

Here is a demonstration of a partial birth abortion which 'pro choice' people fought to keep legal.
 
Top