"HELP, I'M STONED, WHO SHOULD I VOTE FOR?"
THE HIGH TIMES PRESIDENTIAL UN-ENDORSEMENT
Thu, Sep 25, 2008 2:53 pm
Four years ago, HIGH TIMES endorsed John Kerry for president of the United States in an editorial titled “Help, I’m stoned, who should I vote for?” Apparently, Mr. Kerry didn’t win. Still, our endorsement made the rounds via email and the political blogs, stirring up some debate and also, perhaps, a bit of backlash.
After all, there must be someone in America who thinks that our current harsh policy towards the world’s most benign and healing herb makes sense. Nobody that we’ve ever met, naturally, but the old-guard supporters of the War on Marijuana are still out there, and they’re certainly not shy about attacking a candidate for being “soft on drugs.”
Still, with 78 percent of Americans these days in favor of “making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe in order to reduce pain and suffering,” this may be the election when the anti-pot politicians are finally branded as “soft on compassion and respect for basic human dignity.”
When he was questioned repeatedly by Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana during the current presidential campaign, Republican Senator John McCain, true to form, attempted at first to take every side of the issue, claiming that he opposes arresting medical-marijuana patients, while admitting that he would continue the federal government’s raids in California and the 11 other states that have created med-pot programs.
“I do not approve of the medical use of marijuana—I never have, and I never will,” McCain finally acknowledged under heavy fire. “I believe there are other ways of relieving that pain and suffering.”
Presumably, the senior senator from Arizona was referring to prescription painkillers like Percocet and Vicodin. He should know, since his second wife, Cindy—heir to a massive beer-distribution fortune—was caught by the DEA in 1993 stealing large supplies of these drugs from her own charity organization in order to treat a personal habit that had spiraled out of control.
So, if you were John McCain, how would you react when you found out that your multi-multimillionaire trophy wife was a thieving drug addict whose habit eventually destroyed the American Voluntary Medical Team, which she’d originally founded with the noble goal of bringing medical relief to war-torn regions of the third world? If you guessed “Treat her like everybody else,” you don’t know anything about the War on Drugs.
Instead of upholding the law, McCain used his inside connections to scuttle the DEA investigation, shipping his wife off to a country-club-style drug-treatment center as part of the diversion program, while having the whistleblower who exposed her crimes fired and investigated for “extortion.” Naturally, the media all went along for the ride, dutifully reporting on his “brave” wife’s battle with addiction, while largely ignoring her brazen theft of medicine intended to treat poor people injured in distant military conflicts. As usual, the War on Some Drugs and Some of the People Who Use Them just doesn’t apply to the rich and powerful.
Meanwhile, the three remaining major-party candidates—Barack Obama (Democrat),Bob Barr (Libertarian) and Cythnia McKinney (Green)—all agree that the federal government must finally accept that individual states have a right to enact protections for medical-marijuana patients, the doctors who treat them, and the growers who supply their medicine. HIGH TIMES kindly recommends that you vote for one of them—or, better yet, for our own columnist Bobby Black, proudly running on the Freak Power ticket. But not John McCain.
For more information on the candidates’ positions on marijuana and the War on Drugs, check out granitestaters.com/candidates/
» add a comment
Slave #569-33-0085
Jan 19 2009, 9:19 am
"Right-Wingers and Neocons Love Obama's Cabinet Appointments"
Posted by Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet
As Barack Obama's opus, Team of Rivals, continues its rolling debut, the early reviews are in and the "critics" are full of praise for the cast:
"[T]he new administration is off to a good start."
-- Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.
"[S]uperb ... the best of the Washington insiders ... this will be a valedictocracy -- rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes."
-- David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist
"[V]irtually perfect ... "
-- Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and John McCain's top surrogate in the 2008 campaign.
"[R]eassuring."
-- Karl Rove, "Bush's brain."
"I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain ... this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign ... [Hillary] Clinton and [James] Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for 'neo-liberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservativism.'"
-- Max Boot, neoconservative activist, former McCain staffer.
"I see them as being sort of center-right of the Democratic party."
-- James Baker, former Secretary of State and the man who led the theft of the 2000 election.
"[S]urprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush's second term and the incoming administration ... certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush ... "
-- Michael Goldfarb of the neoconservative Weekly Standard.
"I certainly applaud many of the appointments ... "
-- Senator John McCain
"So far, so good."
-- Senator Lamar Alexander, senior Republican Congressional leader.
Hillary Clinton will be "outstanding" as Secretary of State
-- Henry Kissinger, war criminal
Rahm Emanuel is "a wise choice" in the role of Chief of Staff
-- Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain's best friend.
Obama's team shows "Our foreign policy is non-partisan."
-- Ed Rollins, top Republican strategist and Mike Huckabee's 2008 campaign manager
"The country will be in good hands."
-- Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Secretary of State
**Team of Rivals will be playing all day, every day for at least the next four years**
Jeremy Scahill pledges to be the same journalist under an Obama administration that he was during Bill Clinton and George Bush's presidencies. He is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and is a frequent contributor to The Nation and Democracy Now! He is a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute.
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/109160/
It's a good thing no one in our "mainstream media" actually dared to ask Obama what exactly he meant by change...
Oh, and next time Bloviating GI Hoe Joe Biden yells out at you, his subjects, whatever you do just forget he invented the Drug Czar...
HU210
Jan 15 2009, 9:03 am
Obama’s transition team responded to the second round of Change.gov questions on Friday, proving yet again that they’d sooner defeat the purpose of the site than actually discuss drug policy.
Last time, a question about marijuana legalization got the most votes from the public, resulting in a one sentence "no" response. This time, the questions were broken into categories, and this question came in first in the "national security" section:
"Our current war on drugs is failing America. Billions of dollars are spent on a losing campaign. Our prisons are overflowing with people that don't deserve to be there. What is the government going to do in an effort to fix this major problem?"
But it wasn’t answered. It was the only leading question to receive no acknowledgement, thus the national security category was ignored entirely. Obama’s team claimed that some leading questions were put aside to make room for new ones:
Since there were so many popular questions in so many categories, we tried to pull out some of them that had been addressed previously by the President-elect or Vice President-elect in order to focus the video portion on questions that haven’t been as specifically addressed during the Transition.
The questions that fall into this category appear at the bottom of the post, except when you scroll down, you find the marijuana question from the first round, but not the new drug war question that won in the second installment. It’s sort of a bait and switch, the idea being that by referencing the old marijuana question, we’ll forget that a totally different drug policy question won in the second round and Obama refused to touch it.
All of this is perfectly predictable, and I won’t meet with much success trying to make a controversy out of it. Still, it serves as yet another obnoxious reminder of the desperate avoidance of any meaningful discussion of our drug policy in mainstream politics.
Change must mean more of the same-eh?
From: StopTheDrugWar.com
HU210
Dec 18 2008, 1:53 am
A: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana
Well, wait until after the election to clear that up. Its at Open for Questions at change.gov.
This was one of the most popular questions asked.
Barry Soetoro
Nov 25 2008, 10:04 am
Barry Soetoro IS Barack Obama .. google it .
Election Null and Void ?.... we'll see .............
hey dan
Nov 15 2008, 5:27 am
to below
Nov 10 2008, 2:16 pm
Dan
Nov 9 2008, 7:06 pm
Seriously if you don't care about learning anything more than what the media tells you, then don't get mad at me. Maybe you should evaluate the stupidity of your statements and then certainly get mad at yourself.... I would.
HU210
Nov 9 2008, 12:57 pm
This is a hoot!!
yo adrian!
Nov 6 2008, 11:03 am
ADRIAN
Nov 5 2008, 10:43 pm
mr big nuts
Nov 5 2008, 8:03 pm
RE:"to 'hey dan'"
Nov 5 2008, 7:52 pm
to "hey Dan "
Nov 5 2008, 2:52 pm
What will we know about Obama once the media treats him like everyone else who ever ran for president ?
What will YOU dicover about Obama once he's fucked you a couple of times ? (probably nothing I'm sure )
Meanwhile , most of us just sit back and smile at you cute little monkeys .
F U
Nov 5 2008, 7:05 am
hey dan,
Nov 4 2008, 7:39 pm
damoncold
Nov 4 2008, 7:24 pm
Dan
Nov 3 2008, 3:49 pm
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California . He is
very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was
wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself
to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during
this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from
Pakistan . During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made
a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia ,
next Hyderabad in India , three weeks in Karachi , Pakistan where he stayed with
his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.
My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one
of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in
college. When he came back he start ed school at Columbia University in New
York . It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry.
Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia ? It's not cheap to say the
least! Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After
Columbia , he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a
year. Why Chicago ? Why not New York ? He was already living in New York .
By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo
Syria , and a real estate developer in Chicago . Rezko has been convicted of
fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the
Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'.
About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School . Do you have any idea
what tuition is for Harvard Law School ? Where did he get the money for Law
School ? More student loans? After Law school, he went back toChicago . Rezko
offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis,
Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar'
which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial
contributors when he ran for office in Chicago . In 2003, Rezko threw an early
fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was
instrumen tal in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate
race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for
$1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where
did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita,
purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that
Nadhmi Auchi , an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks
before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times
with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele
Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any
major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for
this? Shiraz , Iran ! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was
'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with
'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran . This past
week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that
during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the
war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in
Pakistan ? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign
contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle
class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East ?
And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times
posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Step
hanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim
faith'. When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. Some mistake!
All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it
- Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily
Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7,
2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why
haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting
this?
A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from
within'!!!"
?
Nov 2 2008, 5:13 pm
LOL yea , thats prerty much babble on top of babble :o) .
Does stupid hurt ? You must be in constant pain .
to "?"
Nov 2 2008, 4:49 pm
@ the last 6 posts:
Nov 2 2008, 4:42 pm
HU210
Oct 31 2008, 3:30 pm
--Bill Hicks
Happy Halloween,Lick this sopt (:
HU210
Oct 31 2008, 3:06 pm
Once again you demonstrate your enemy of freedom tendencies.
Anti-drug crusaders always attempt to reverse cause and effect.
Upon closer examination. All of the negatives that you cite are actually Drug law created problems.
After showing you 400+ years of prohibition failure. You then aks if I think some drugs should be illegal. Hell yes, they should ALL BE LEGAl.
The real question here is -Why do you support a known failed policy? Isn't the definition of crazy, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
My next post will be a lesson on what is crime.
stem
Oct 31 2008, 2:38 pm
Slave #569-33-0085
Oct 31 2008, 8:12 am
But no one should forget that one of Obamas first, biggest decisions as potential President was to name Biden as his running mate.
Change? You betcha! Biden, who created the Drug Czar and gave us the RAVE act. Biden, who never met a surveillance law that he didn't like. Biden who voted for the patriot act. Biden who hates the idea of Med Herb and on and on and on.
Note the eerie silence about these things from all things Media?
I'm afraid Change isn't coming to the drug war via Obama if Biden is any indication. Oh, and Biden wants to help rebuild Georgia. Not our GA. The one next to Russia. Pay real close attention to this blowhard Biden.
Some of us have seen this whole play before. A few times. Like Mr. "I didn't inhale" Bill, who went on to lock up more smokers than Reagan and Bush before him.
?
Oct 31 2008, 6:49 am
OBAMA HAS NEVER MADE A PROMISE TO DO ANYTHING ON THE SUBJECT OF MARIJUANA .
Your inability to factually claim otherwise is a WIN for reality . Your attempts to spin and hype is annoying if only for the fact that you do it so badly :o) . And to bury your stupid with another load of stupid serves no purpose other than highlighting your folly . BUT , bury away ! I'll be back to dig it up :o) .....
To HU
Oct 31 2008, 1:03 am
to the rediculous "?"
Oct 30 2008, 11:31 pm
Defjr
Oct 30 2008, 5:38 pm
Dan
Oct 30 2008, 3:37 pm
PLEASE
Oct 30 2008, 3:36 pm
Vote for RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He stands up for everything our country prides itself in! WHY do we continue to let these RICH PHONIES persuade our minds.....
Don't vote for someone just so Mcain doesn't win. Watch the video and remember ---HE IS 100% for DECRIMINALIZATION OF MARAJUANA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HU210
Oct 30 2008, 6:50 am
But Obama Lemming and his candidate still want drugs illegal. Some change!
The failure of the Reagan administration's war on drugs is simply the latest in a series of prohibition failures going back several centuries:
16th c. Coffee banned in Egypt and supplies of coffee burned--use spreads rapidly.[95]
17th c. The czar of Russia executes tobacco users.[96]
1650 Tobacco prohibited in Bavaria, Saxony, Zurich; the Ottoman sultan zealously executes smokers to no avail.[97]
1736 The Gin Act fails to halt consumption in England.[98]
1792 The penalty for opium selling in China is strangulation.[99]
1845 New York bans the public sale of liquor--repeals law two years later. [100]
1875-1914 27 states and cities ban opium smoking--opium smoking increases sevenfold.[101]
1914 Passage of Harrison Narcotics Act controlling opium and coca derivatives.
1914 The czar bans alcohol--the Bolshevikslift ban in 1924.[102]
1914-1970 Congress passes 55 laws to strengthen Harrison Act.[103]
1918 Special Committee studies Harrison Act effects--widespread smuggling and increased use of narcotics--and calls for stricter enforcement.[104]
1919 Eighteenth Amendment banning alcoholis passed--repealed in 1933.
1919-1933 Use of marijuana, ether, and coffee increases.[105]
1921 Cigarettes are illegal in 14 states.
1924 Congress bans heroin completely--after law passed, heroin replaces morphine in black market.[106]
1937 First federal law against marijuana.
1949 Law enforcement crackdown on non-prescription barbiturates--use increases 800 percent 1942-69.[107]
1955 Shah of Iran bans opium--ban partially repealed in 1969.[108]
1956 U.S. Narcotic Drug Control Act provides for death penalty for selling heroin to minors
1958 Soviet premier Khrushchev raises alcohol prices 21 percent to reduce consumption--he later deems the program a failure.[109]
1959 Campaign against glue-sniffing begins--causes increase in glue-sniffing by1969.[110]
1962 FDA halts legal production of LSD--LSD use skyrockets by 1970.[111]
1965 Amphetamine enforcement intensifies--causes "a boom in cocaine smuggling" by 1969.[112]
1968 Campaign against marijuana use among U.S. troops in Vietnam--soldiers switch to heroin.[113]
1969 New York City increases drug arrests by 9,000--no impact on drug availability noted.[114]
1971 All-out campaign against heroin use inVietnam fails.[115]
1971 900 pounds of heroin seized in NewYork City--no increase in price occurs.[116]
1971 President Nixon declares drugs "America's public enemy No. 1."[117]
1972 The House passes a $1 billion anti-drug bill.[118]
1972 President Nixon declares drugs "America's public enemy No. 1"--again.[119]
1973 Rockefeller's tough drug bill is passed in New York.
1973 President Nixon announces, "We have turned the corner on drug addiction in America."
1975 Malaysia enacts death penalty for drug trafficking.[120]
1975 Singapore enacts death penalty for drug trafficking--a few years later, top drug official says, "Heroin seems to be more widely used than ever."[121]
1977 Bar Association committee concludes that Rockefeller drug law had no effecton heroin use.[122]
1980 300,000 youths in Malaysia are using illegal drugs.[123]
1983 Malaysia toughens death penalty for drug trafficking.
1985 Soviets crack down on alcohol consumption.
1986 Moscow officials lower taxes on alcohol.[124]
1987 Malaysia's 12-foot-high, double-barbed-wire security fence protecting 32 miles of border with Thailand fails to halt drug traffic.[125]
1987 Soviets increase penalties against moonshining.[126]
1987 Legal alcohol production down 50 percent in Soviet Union; hard liquor moonshining up 40 percent; homemade wine production up 300 percent; 200,000 prosecuted for illegal home brewing.[127]
1987 Soviets launch "Operation Black Poppy" to stop opium use--2,000 poppy fields destroyed.[128]
1987 The Russian city of Murmansk bans sale of men's cologne (containing alcohol) until 2:00 p.m., when liquor stores open.[129]
1987 Glue-sniffing doubles among high school students in Soviet Union.[130]
1988 The Senate adds $2.6 billion to federal anti-drug efforts.
1988 Title of Tampa Tribune feature article: "The Joke among Federal Agents: 'We've Turned the Corner on Drugs."'
1989 Secretary of State James A. Baker III reports that the global war on narcotics production "is clearly not being won."[131]
Also read John Gettmans Cannabis Column #48, to see how well the drug war is working today.
?
Oct 30 2008, 5:28 am
1) I don't know why you bring up the FDA's position on the matter as it is common knowledge . Oh , I forgot , you're trying to bury your stupid . ( by the way , its a Federal agency )
2)"Obama is a SENATOR not a federal agent ,can't you tell ?"
I said Fed , you said agent . Lets explore that nonsense because it IS possible that you just don't know .
Obama: junior UNITED STATES SENATOR .,, running for the office of President :head of the Executive Branch of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT .
3) Federal : national , especially in reference to the government of the United States .
So now we are back to the main issue . Obama (a Fed) has never PROMISED to do anything on the topic of marijuana . Your contention that he speaks to stoners with a secret code that (apparently) only OBAMA-ites can decipher is just plain silly . He appears to be well educated with a firm grasp of the english language . I'm confident that he KNOWS what he is saying .
Obama " if there is sound science " ... the Feds do not recognize any science favoring the use of cannabis . ( SHIT !! I forgot to inform you of the definiton of IF:a. in the event that , b.on the assumption that , c. on condition that)
Obama :if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicines are prescribed " no wiggly room on that one .It is not controlled and prescribed like other medicine .
Obam : " then its something we should consider " no PROMISE here either .
Ok, Hu,
Oct 30 2008, 1:06 am
You two seem confused...
Oct 29 2008, 11:52 pm
damoncold
Oct 29 2008, 8:31 pm
HU210
Oct 29 2008, 6:53 pm
The anti-drug crusader's main argument is that drug use is bad for the individual and "society". His reasoning is flawed. Many things individuals do have undesirable effects. Thousands of people die each year in traffic accidents. Skuba diving, parachuting and hang gliding are all high risk activities that can result in accidential deaths. Race car drivers are constantly exposed to many dangers. Do we outlaw all activites that could be dangerous?
Many people use the same line of reasoning when supporting drug legislation, and none as cunningly as the Absloute Moralist. As Anti-Drug Crusader, he will obscure the facts by appealing to his supporters emotions and feelings, just as he did when successfully forcing prohibition on America.
Value is in the minds of men, we all look at things differently. Even among a group of friends, each individual will have varying tastes and ideas. This is what is meant by "subjective value", that the value of things or ideas are subject to an individual's own preference.
The Anti-Drug Crusader confuses his own subjective values with un-objective facts. What he feels is irrelevent for scientfic investigation. He and his followers have not investigated the drug problem from a scientific point of view and are unwilling to do so.
Yo Obama Lemming
The first thing that gave you away in your reply to my post. Was your common anti-drug crusader attempt to excange the word use for abuse, as if they were one and the same.
Drugs have done great things for us.
It was none other than the Greek people eating ergot rye mold (LSD), that gave us the basic tenants of our westeren civilization.
The idea of represententive government, trial by jury, etc., yup, ideas of people who were real fucking high.
HU210
Oct 29 2008, 5:48 pm
When I stop laughing at you I will respond.
Calling me a cokehead, I must have really struck a nerve-eh?
Thanks for making my point for me, again, RE: Your Absolute Moralist leanings.
Just keep on eating your words.
?
Oct 29 2008, 8:12 am
1) You are aware the Feds don't recognize any science favoring the use of weed .. right ? From your post it isn't clear that you do . Send a letter to Washington explaining
the science favorable to weed use is sound . Maybe they have never heard that before :o) . And , you do know Obama is a Fed ...right ? ( FED means Federal not HAS ALREADY EATEN )
" if there is sound science " speaks for itself . Oh ..wait a minute ..."sound science " ..maybe he's talking about some kind of audio science like music ......( i feel I must say that last thing was not meant to be taken seriously so don't hurt yourself)
2)"if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed " .What other medicines require a state permit to even have ? What other medicines do you grow and cultivate at home ? What other medicine do they knock the door down and haul you away for having/cultivating without a state permit ? The quote speaks for itself . It is NOT controlled and prescribed like other medicines .
Do you read between the lines with everything or just this topic ? You must get disappointed a lot .
Selective hearing
Oct 28 2008, 7:19 pm
?
Oct 28 2008, 2:46 pm
May 15th of THIS year
Obama : "The way I want to approach the issue of Medical marijuana is to base it on science. And > IF < there is sound science that supports the use of medical marijuana and > IF < it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, then its something we > SHOULD CONSIDER < " : From "Six Minutes With Barack ", Willamette Week May 15, 2008
Of course I added the > < for emphasis . That means pay attention to those words .
1) "if there is sound science " he is a fed , the Feds do not recognize the science
2) "if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed " it isn't controlled or prescribed in that manner .
3) " then its something we should consider " that means should think about it.
This quote is the most recent I could find on that issue . And there is also no promise in that statement either .
blerg
Oct 28 2008, 1:46 pm
Click Youtube video of Obama promising not to let the federal government interfere in states with medical marijuana laws.
?
Oct 27 2008, 5:24 pm
?
Oct 27 2008, 4:58 pm
?
Oct 27 2008, 4:53 pm
PROMISE : a declaration assuring that one will or will not do something , a vow .
You were saying something about desperation ?
?, your desperation is showing..
Oct 27 2008, 4:15 pm
would1 /wʊd; unstressed wəd/ [wood; unstressed wuhd]
–verb
1. a pt. and pp. of will 1 .
2. (used to express the future in past sentences): He said he would go tomorrow.
3. (used in place of will, to make a statement or form a question less direct or blunt): That would scarcely be fair. Would you be so kind?
4. (used to express repeated or habitual action in the past): We would visit Grandma every morning up at the farm.
5. (used to express an intention or inclination): Nutritionists would have us all eat whole grains."
However you would have us believe that it was used intentionally like this(continued quote):
6. (used to express a wish): Would he were here!
7. (used to express an uncertainty): It would appear that he is guilty.
8. (used in conditional sentences to express choice or possibility): They would come if they had the fare. If the temperature were higher, the water would evaporate.
Do you see the problem with that logic yet? Is that why you've been so adamant in saying he didn't mean it, because of other definitions of the word "would" that don't even apply in the context of what he said? Is that why you've been refusing to accept that he said it, because you think that he meant "would" in the 6th, 8th, or maybe 7th definition instead of "would" in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th definition? That is a really weak and fragile thing to base an arguement on, I don't even have to debate it any further, all I need to say now is this: Do you know what would really means? actually thats a silly question, I just told you, so the only real question now is, will you listen to reason, or continue this ill-inspired tangent of fallacy?
??
Oct 27 2008, 9:35 am
I'm willing to bet you still can't grasp the logic .......
?
Oct 27 2008, 9:31 am
Yaayyyyyyyyyyy , Lets hold him to that PROMISE !!!!!
McCain will de-criminalize weed . Yayyyyyyyyyyy !!!!
His mind is open to it !!!!
Dosn't matter everybody else knows different . !
Yayyyy where are all the McCain-ites ?
McCain will save the day regardless of his position on everything . He made a promise !!!!!
Let me guess .... you don't get it ? ......
dopey t
Oct 27 2008, 7:39 am
?
Oct 27 2008, 6:20 am
Not you or anyone else has come up with antyhing that resembles a promise from Obama about stopping weed raids or legalization/de-criminalization . NOT ONE .
Let me examine your latest blurp
1) "Just trying to dis Obama ".. nope , as a matter of fact its the exact opposite with.." I don't blame Obama for this rumor" .. see how your inability to comprehend what you have read has left you looking stupid again ?
2) "calling facts rumors " .. you are mistaken again . In reality , its the other way around . Do you know the defenition of the word fact ? Seeing the pattern yet ?
3)" You want others to believe your lies" you are mistaken again . Its the other way around . I don't want people to believe your ignorance . See the pattern ?
4) "spouting the same tired disproven attack lines " get a dictionary and learn the meanings of the words you use .
5)"you think he never said what he said, we showed you he did " ..Really ? When did you do that ? I am aware of what he said , thats no problem . Its what he didn't say that is at issue and you have NOT "showed" anything of the kind .
6) "I'm not the one who called it a promise , the sources did " . Thats been my claim from the start Now you are attempting to distance yourself a little . I see you are starting to distinquish fact from fiction . Very good .
to ? again
Oct 27 2008, 5:13 am
?
Oct 26 2008, 7:48 pm
Reading between the lines doessn't count.
Wishful thinking doesn't count .
You and your ilke erroneously apply the word "promise" to something that contains nothing of the sort .
And yes , I have looked at EVERYTHING thats supposed to contain this promise , Just isn't there .
I also don't blame Obama for this rumor . Its coming from the Obama-ites (amen )
Really?
Oct 26 2008, 4:03 pm
Tommy
Oct 26 2008, 3:11 pm
cheetos
Oct 26 2008, 11:07 am
to ?
Oct 26 2008, 8:03 am
?
Oct 26 2008, 7:39 am
He has only implied that he would look into it , and just as many times implied the opposite . Are you one of those people that only hear what you want to hear ? Headlines don't count and just as important , reading between the lines doesn't count either .
Punk ? lol .. good thing you don't have to back that up either .
The fact is...
Oct 25 2008, 7:47 pm
?
Oct 25 2008, 2:41 pm
to cokehead
Oct 23 2008, 9:07 pm
"appropriate"
Oct 23 2008, 8:19 pm
HU210
Oct 23 2008, 8:10 pm
Why the drug war is a crime against humanity,explained in plain english.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3608.shtml
Maybe Obama can understand this
HU210
Oct 23 2008, 6:19 pm
Come on punk. I cant wait to bitch slap you yet again!!
HU210
Oct 23 2008, 5:49 pm
Drug use is one of the many steps some individuals go through. Some people use them to learn new ways to tap the powers of the subconcious,after the techniques are learned, they discontinue the use of drugs and move on to more natural ways of expanding awareness. Others moderately use drugs in certian social settings or when listening to music or watching TV. Although some people wreck their lives through drug abuse, must we also destroy the lives of individuals who are going through a necessary step in their development? It is a crime to interfere with someones personal development. It is even a greater crime to wreck his life by imprisoning him, and practically ruining his chances for a successful career.
It has been proven through history that individuals learn from their own experiences, than they learn from government edicts. If a drug has harmful effects, allowing unrestricted use will expose them faster, thereby discouraging people from using it. Anti-Drug legislation prevents this from happening.
@Obama lemming
Thanks for showing us, Your and Obama's true colors, The Color of the Absolute moralist!
3rd party voter
Oct 22 2008, 5:33 pm
Obama *does not* support marijuana decrim.
"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama said during a debate at Northwestern University. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."
When confronted with the statements on the video, Obama's campaign offered two explanations to the Times in less than 24 hours. At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said that the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting his 2004 statement was correct. Then after the Times posted copies of the video on its Web site today, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use.
"If you're convicted of a crime, you should be punished, but that we are sending far too many first-time, non-violent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws," Vietor said. The spokesman blamed confusion over the meaning of decriminalization for the conflicting answers.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/31/obama-flip-flops-on-pot/
"...I would not punish doctors if it's prescribed in a way that is appropriate. That may require some changes in federal law. I will tell you that...the likelihood of that being real high on my list is not likely..."
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/15/1641/60593
Now what does "in a way that is appropriate" mean? lol
The serfs can only guess...and trusting a politician is a bit ridiculous don't ya think? Maybe ask Joey "drug czar" Biden, he ought to know!
:o)
Oct 22 2008, 11:04 am
to the clown
Oct 21 2008, 11:46 pm
:o)
Oct 21 2008, 6:20 am
to the clown
Oct 20 2008, 11:22 pm
:o) to below
Oct 20 2008, 5:00 pm
Ever wondered why ?
Clue: no , it ain't us .............
I know you are, but what am I?
Oct 20 2008, 5:21 am
HU210
Oct 19 2008, 9:50 pm
Lets review. You must be arrested (busted) to get to a Court or Drug court. Court is where cases are adjudicated and aquitals or convictions are rendered. Understand yet, Simpleton?
In a drug court plea bargins are used to render a conviction. Drug courts only serve to manifest the idea that drug usage is wrong. Do you understand my aversion to drug courts yet, Simpleton?
I enjoy watching you destroy your Obama's support here at the HT site. With your boorish, fact-less, ad nauseam postings. You are doing more to rally 3rd party support than all of my posts have. Keep up the good work!
As to your request that I make a choice between the Dem-publican or the Republi-crat. Is like asking me to choose between Hitler or Mussolini. A choice of how fast that I want to see our nation destroyed. I dont want to see our nation destroyed. Understand yet,Simpleton?
That is why I will be voting for a 3rd party candidate. Understand yet, Simpleton?
I can understand you having to puke . Why with all of the words that you have had to eat lately. Understand yet,Simpleton?
How does it feel to be bitch slapped again,Simpleton?
Isn't it time that you got a job and a life and moved out of your mama's basement, Simpleton? You have way to much time on your hands.
Good Day.
HU210
Oct 19 2008, 8:57 pm
Lets review. One must be arrested(busted)to get to a Court or drug court. Understand yet, Simpleton? The court system is where cases are adjudicated and aquital's or convictions are rendered. Understand yet, Simpleton?
In a drug court plea bargin conviction's are rendered. Drug courts only manifest the idea that drug usage is wrong. Do you understand my aversion to drug courts yet, Simpleton?
I enjoy watching you single handedly destroy your Obama's support here at the HT site. With your boorish, factless, ad nauseam postings. Your posts do far more to rally 3rd party support,than all of my posts.
As to your request that I answer your hypothetical question of a choice between the Dem-publican or the Republi-crat. That is like asking me to choose between Hitler or Mussolni. A choice of how fast I want to see our nation destroyed.
I dont want to see our nation destroyed. That is why I will be voting for a 3rd party candidate. Understand yet,Simpleton?
How does it feel to be bitch slapped yet again? Simpleton.
Good Day!
yea , thats so
Oct 19 2008, 8:43 pm
Is that so?
Oct 19 2008, 6:54 pm
Obama
Oct 19 2008, 4:53 am
to the mfairy guy
Oct 19 2008, 2:21 am
anonymous
Oct 19 2008, 2:13 am
mfairy
Oct 18 2008, 5:07 pm
It'll grow from income redistribution to smoke redistribution. (sarcasm, but still... to hell with the marxist/communist/socialist bullshit!)
I say people should get a damn job and buy their own damn weed!
Obama
Oct 18 2008, 8:04 am
or de-criminalization . Wishful thinking doesn't count . You think if you say it enough times it becomes reality ? I can provide links to places that will tell you the easter bunny is real , but that doesn't make it so either .
to HU210
Oct 18 2008, 7:40 am
You claim to have examined obama's voting recond, and you claim he's "bush lite", hang on, that's so much spin I want to throw up, here I go.... ok, now, I've done some reading and I think this link here will simplify and show at least some of the ways in which that is bullcrap, I've also looked at lists of exact votes, but listing every "yea, nay and not voting" would be pointless, so here's a link for you to check out, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23276453/ , it's two pages, just click 2 at the bottom when finished with the first page, obviously. now, If you want to compare anyone to bush, mccain is bush cubed, you know, exponentially worse, bush vodka, a whole gallon of it, you know that. oh and about congressman braLey, so what if one congressman from iowa didn't kiss your ass, you gonna bitch about that for the rest of your life? you assume it represents an overwhelming steriotype of all democrats, how childish. stop stretching the truth, you're ripping it. and about ron paul, he IS stabbing you in the back. he knows he has zero chance at being the president in '09, yet he intentionally stuck around telling fairy tales about him wanting to legalize pot and end all gov't programs like the IRS and SS and medicaid, putting a worm on a hook, a hook you bit into hard, and now you're being reeled in while you think you're just swimming, and what happens next? you vote for him, math gets fuzzy, mccain gets elected. why else don't republican leaders put him in check? because it's the same trick they pull every time, and suckers like you keep falling for it. and this "lesser of two evils" line your type keeps using, heard the same thing in 2000, you thought gore was just as evil as bush and it didn't matter, who's laughing now? I'll tell you, NOBODY, because bush has seriously fucked things up thanks to you people and it's not funny anymore. when you say lesser of two evils, have you ever considered that the "lesser" one might not be evil? maybe that evil was exagerated? or at the very least, that one might be WAY less evil than the other, like how pot is much less evil than murder? is pot still evil? according to your math it is. but I have to say, your math is wrong, and you need to consider the fact that obama is much less evil than mccain, by a wide margin. they are not at all the same. and there are significant differences in how they would handle the white house, if you can't see that, and still think it doesn't matter who wins, then you are in no position to give anyone advice on politics, you are blind, stop trying to direct traffic.
to ganjaman
Oct 18 2008, 6:32 am
Don't be rediculous
Oct 18 2008, 6:19 am
:o)
Oct 18 2008, 3:22 am
Obama ( amen ) has never promised to do anything concerning mmj .
Obama ( amen ) has in fact made it known that he feels the exact opposite on the subject .
Obama -ites 13:45
And Obama (amen ) said -ith to himselves "thou art surely somebody now . See how the peasants flock to hear the words that have-ith not come from my orafice ?" to which the smart-ith people replied in unison "Thou doth speak sideways and backwards and have much to account for once the 'tards
have -ith awaken from their stupor " . As this was so , Obama said " got it covered homey , I never-ith said what has-ith been implied " .
hey ID boy
Oct 18 2008, 3:00 am
Tiburon_Noir
Oct 17 2008, 11:41 pm
1. Charge for a liscense to grow, and or sell..
2. Tax to buy the same way that we do for tobaco or liquar.
The only problem is that anyone can grow it anywhere, so it will be harder for the government to control it, but those are the people who should be fined or imprisoned. In about 10 years no one will remember the days of feeling guilty for hittin a bowl or smoking a blunt. Other countries have done it and everyone knows that AMERICA is so fucked that we dont even realize that our laws is what makes us look so bad. This plant is the most used of all the illegal drugs but is safer than tobaco, or alcahol. no one gets weed poisening like alcahol. and real bud doesnt have all the added shit wich an everyday ciggaret has. the government is talkin all this shit about being broke and owing money. than take a page from a broke student and flip what little money you have to pay rent re-up and bank the rest. DO YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH MONEY THE GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE OFF THIS IN JUST 5 YEARS. THINK ABOUT IT.
IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS HIT ME UP AT TIBURON_NOIR_BLACK@MSN.COM
HU210
Oct 17 2008, 3:36 pm
Drug courts means that you still are BUSTED-dum ass!
I have examined Obamas voting record in the US Senate. Execpt for his vote against the war in Iraq. Obama is just Bush lite, no change just more of the same BS.
As for democraps in general. My congressman-Braely,Democrap- wont even entertain the idea of Barney Franks pot bill. So as I told him. No vote for you or anyone in your party.
Even Republican Ron Paul has supported Barney Franks bill.
I will write in Ron Paul. I wont be fooled by a candidate that smiles in your face and then stabs me in the back.
On another note. How do you cut taxes and still pay down a national debt that just climbed past 10 trillion dollars?
Talk about bold faced lies. That Obama sounds more like Bush everyday.
Oh I get it, the more that things stay the same the more they change.Double speak,anyone? Obama/Mc cain, same shit different piles
A choice between the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Good day
gangjaman
Oct 17 2008, 12:37 pm
nice try
Oct 17 2008, 9:03 am
HU210
Oct 17 2008, 6:47 am
Oct 15 2008, 10:21 pm
encourages use of drug courts INSTEAD OF PRISON TERMS. His use of COKE was a mistake, never said pot by name was a mistake. ME as an anti drug crusader? A desperate attack on me by you,. NOT!
Munch munch those words.
It has become evident to everyone reading here that you are full of crap
Realist to FAKE
Oct 17 2008, 6:13 am
Nowhere in any of them does Obama make any promises and thats the clincher . He has never made the statemnent attributed to him . And THATS my point . Whether you believe it or not doesn't change anything . Spinning , hyping and wishful thinking doesn't count in the real world . You're just hearing what you want to hear regardless of what was said .
moving tward the center
Oct 16 2008, 8:50 pm
HU210
Oct 16 2008, 7:57 pm
Barack Obama supports, with some reservations, legalization of medical marijuana. He not only admits that when he tried marijuana he inhaled, he mocks Bill Clinton’s denial:
When a voter asked Obama if he was for the legalization of medical marijuana, Obama said that he wasn’t in favor of legalization without scientific evidence and tight controls. Citing his mother who died from cancer young, Obama compared marijuana to morphine saying there was little difference between the two.
“My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that’s something I’m open to because there’s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain,” Obama said. “But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.”
But he added that he was concerned that the reasons for the use of marijuana would grow and create a “slippery slope.”
“I was feeling really tense, so I needed a joint,” Obama joked with the crowd of those who might try and undermine that type of system.
The question was followed up by another voter asking him, “Unlike other presidents, did you inhale?”
“I did,” Obama said to loud applause and laughter. “It’s not something that I’m proud of. It was a mistake … But you know, I’m not going to. I never understood that line. The point was to inhale. That was the point.”
Hey Obama lemming. Obama said that his MJ usage was a mistake. Keep munching those words.
liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2430
to the FAKE REALIST first
Oct 16 2008, 7:20 pm
HU210
Oct 16 2008, 5:39 pm
Hows eating those words going for ya?
HU210
Oct 16 2008, 6:54 am
Obama Stirs The Pot: Says He's Open To Authorizing Medical Marijuana
CINCINNATNI (TDB) -- Illinois Sen. Barack Obama admits he's inhaled. He's been honest enough to say inhaling is really "the point" of experimenting with marijuana in the first place. Now the Democratic presidential candidate also says he is open to the idea of approving marijuana use for medical purposes -- provided there is solid evidence it can alleviate pain.
Obama made his remarks in Audubon, Ia., on Sunday, and was careful to say he did not support legalizing pot. Surprisingly, his comments have not yet received much attention from the Main Stream Media.....
Realist
Oct 16 2008, 5:17 am
He has never promised anything on the sunject of legalization/de-criminalization . But he has made it known that he feels the exact opposite .
I can sit through 4 years of Obama if that were to happen . I don't think I would be hurt much . But what will all the Obama-ettes do when they realize they were duped ? Oh , thats right ... they'll just blame someone else . And all Obama has to say is "I didn't promise anything " because he didn't .
And so , the Obama-ettes will have nobody to blame for their woes but themselves . Maybe someone else will come along at that point and tell them what to think and make things all better .
hah
Oct 16 2008, 2:03 am
HU210
Oct 15 2008, 11:00 pm
If your candidate had balls enough to stand against the war in Iraq when it was political suicide to do so. Then he should have the balls to stand against Americas longest running war. The war on drugs and pot.
But he wont because he is an anti-drug crusader.
Go ahead, vote for Obama, and jump off of the cliff with the rest of the Obama lemmings. See if I give a damn. When all is said and done, you will be eating your words,not me.
I'm done with ya Bozo!
short version
Oct 15 2008, 10:21 pm
HU210
Oct 15 2008, 6:12 pm
I comprehend what I read perfectly.
Few if any people go to jail let alone prison for a first offence possession of drugs. They seldom go to jail or prison even for a first offence for drug sales. Unless they sell to children. How dis-ingenious of the agent of cahnge to say that at all.
The fact that Obama thinks that people need to be compelled into drug treatment via drug courts,demonstrates that he thinks drug usage to be an unacceptable lifestyle. He even states this in his book. (My drug usage was a mistake) Funny Obama didnt need to be forced into treatment to get "on the right track" as he describes it. (Typical political hypocrite).
It has become transparent that you are also an absolute moralist anti-drug crusader. A real nanny stater you are to support compelled seat belt usage to boot!
On to the double speak point. When an alleged agent of change goes about business as usual while serving in the Senate. By voting in favor of FISA and allowing all sorts of stuff including sneeking the sun-setted anti-drug IRS investigation law to be tacked onto the bailout bill. That is double speak as I see it. You know, say one thing and do another.
As far as reading comprehension skills go,you fail. One only needed to look at the title of this article-The High Times Presidential UNENDORSEMENT- to make that determination.
As a self appointed spokesperson for Obama. You do more damage to his chances for election, with your redundant 3rd party fear tactic ad nauseum. Than any other poster here.
read it again,
Oct 15 2008, 2:53 am
HU210
Oct 15 2008, 1:49 am
His approach still treats drug usage and users as unacceptable.
Worth noting here about Obama's seatbelt comments. Seatbelt usage increased because seatbelt enforcement went from being a secondary offence to a primary offence. In other words. They could not pull you over for not wearing your seat belt, but now they can. More police state mentality?
Is that what this agent of change is promoting, in the name of our safety?
Sounds like Orwellian double speak to me!
To anonymous:
Oct 14 2008, 10:35 pm
Oh really? How about this?
Oct 14 2008, 10:32 pm
Rolling Stone Magazine, July 10, 2008
By Jann S. Wenner
The following is an excerpt from RollingStone's interview with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
RollingStone: The War on Drugs has cost taxpayers $500 billion since 1973. Nearly 500,000 people are behind bars on drug charges today, yet drugs are as available as ever. Do you plan to continue the War on Drugs, or will you make some significant change in course?
Obama: "Anybody who sees the devastating impact of the drug trade in the inner cities, or the methamphetamine trade in rural communities, knows that this is a huge problem. I believe in shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we focus more on a public-health approach. I can say this as an ex-smoker: We've made enormous progress in making smoking socially unacceptable. You think about auto safety and the huge success we've had in getting people to fasten their seat belts. The point is that if we're putting more money into education, into treatment, into prevention and reducing the demand side, then the ways that we operate on the criminal side can shift. I would start with nonviolent, first-time drug offenders. The notion that we are imposing felonies on them or sending them to prison, where they are getting advanced degrees in criminality, instead of thinking about ways like drug courts that can get them back on track in their lives - it's expensive, it's counterproductive, and it doesn't make sense."
anonymous
Oct 14 2008, 4:38 am
DEFJR
Oct 14 2008, 2:24 am
DEFJR
Oct 14 2008, 2:19 am
I have yet to find Barack Obama's stance on marijuana reform in print.I am a Obamamama but find it distressing when I cannot find an answer to the senator's stance on this very unpopular issue. Dodging questions is NOT new to politicians. Senator Obama - do you support a change in policy in the war on drugs. Maybe more mental health and rehabilitation centers instead of crowding our jails with non-violent pot smokers
An American citizen posted this question, and has never been answered. Here is the link:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/marijuanarreform/gG5kBS/commentary
Now the KEY REASON I will note vote for Mr Obama. His selection in running mate shows he will not allow marijuana to be legalized for any reason.
Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress. Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a “Drug Czar” is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about). ...
Biden sponsored the RAVE Act, a bit of legislation that makes sponsors of events liable if attendees consume illegal drugs. As RU Sirius reminds us, "A month after Biden's act was signed into law, DEA agents in Montana used it to intimidate the owners of a venue into canceling a benefit to raise money for Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws."
Here is the link to it:
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m8d27-Joe-Biden-has-a-mixed-record-on-civil-liberties
So if Mr Obama want anyone to think he would be "open" to marijuana reform, why did he pick the man most responsible for the horrific laws, and prosecutions for the last 10+ years?
"Any questions?"
LOL, not funny...
Oct 14 2008, 2:08 am
HU210
Oct 13 2008, 8:36 pm
Paris Hilton "08"
really HU,
Oct 13 2008, 7:30 pm
BTW I'd still like to know your answer to my question earlier, you know the one, between the two, who would you rather, or perhaps, who would you mind the least being in that chair?
HU210
Oct 13 2008, 5:39 pm
How tragic. You are in for a very big let down I'm afraid.
Unfortunatly, that is what it takes to wake up and start thinking clearly again. So sad to see you wasting your vote on who the TV tells you is gonna win.
I would not vote for either one if they were the only ones in the race. I have made this clear to them and you. That no position favoring cannabis legalization and no vote from me. It is that simple. I am to old to keep letting these hustlers get away with lieing to get my vote.
I got backbone kid. I aint afraid to vote for the candidate that favors my values up front. Even if they have no chance of winning. Voting my true conscience, thats what allows me to sleep at night.
Oh, and PS
Oct 13 2008, 10:02 am
In Short
Sen. Obama has publicly promised to end the federal raids on state medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. Sen. Obama also voted against an amendment in the U.S. Senate that was intended to undermine state medical marijuana laws.
What Sen. Obama Has Done:
On April 19, 2007, Sen. Obama voted against the Coburn amendment, which, if enacted, could put medical marijuana patients and caregivers at even greater risk than they already face and could be used by opponents to attempt to shut down state medical marijuana programs across the country.
On July 21, 2007 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire, a GSMM staffer asked Sen. Obama if he would end the raids. Sen. Obama replied: "The Justice Department going after sick individuals using this as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense."
Endquote. so, "Realist", this might not say that he tried to legalize weed, but it does show he is for a common sense approach to pot laws, and it shows that he is much more likely to listen to reasonable arguments for relegalization than mccain ever will be, and there are alot of solid, reasonable arguements to be made, all we have to do is show him the facts, and as president he will have access to all the resourses and information he asks for, he can order a scientific study and an inquiry into current laws and regulations, which (unless he's fed bad info and somehow can't find the real obvious info that is everywhere) in turn will lead to the inevitble truth that cannabis should be legal and used as medicine and hemp should be used industrially, as most of us have figured out on our own, like I said, I'll personally send him copies of books like "the emperor wears no cloths", among others. My main point I guess is that he is at least on the right track, and is the best choice for all of us who want pot law reform,(like I said, 3rd parties don't have a snowballs chance in the sun of beating mccain) and that that isn't the only reason to vote for him and against mccain.
excuse me,
Oct 13 2008, 9:35 am
— U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), August 21, Nashua, N.H. the link to this is right in this article. as for the rest of your post I already answered your question before you asked it, don't you read the posts you comment on? Doesn't look like it.
On to HU now, glad to hear you've been trying, but who were those letters to? I can understand if you feel discouraged, after all I bet half those leters didn't get past their secrataries desk, however, I still write and email, haven't called yet, I don't have their numbers, anyway just because "weed ain't legal" yet doesn't mean they dont want to hear from their constituents, as for them "only hearing the money that bought them the job" I wouldn't be so sure, but if there's one thing I'm sure of, even if he isn't being completely honest, mccain would be much worse, and I for one will do what I can to stop him, and the only way to get that done is to vote against him, voting third is irrelevent and does nothing to push against him, infact it helps him, voting for his only competitor is the best and perhaps only(legal) way to stop him, plus obama isn't a half bad choice for president if I do say so myself, you may have lost faith in all "politicains" however that doesn't mean an honest one doesn't try once in a while, obama's got some solid smart plans that are 50x better than mccain's. and even if you don't think he's honest what could go wrong if he gets elected, you think he'll just turn around right away and do the exact opposite of what he plans? If that does actually happen you'd have a much bigger arguement and a solid base for third parties to run on in 2012 or 2016 and I'd be right behind you if that happens, but I highly doubt he's half as big a liar as mccain, he's nothing but lies. Now really, honestly, who would you rather have in office, mcinsane or "unknown" obama? I'm asking now, between the two, who would you rather have in office, all things considered, and don't dodge saying "neither" or "other", who between the two would you rather see in office?
HU210
Oct 13 2008, 6:44 am
Enough people didnt vote to have elected someone else.
Myself and many others have followed the course of action that you suggest. In fact I have a small forest of paper form letter responces from Demos and Repbs from the last 20+ years.
Weed still aint legal.
Once they are elected, they can only hear the money that bought them the job.
Go ahead live in your Obama fantasy. You will see that I speak the truth.
Realist
Oct 13 2008, 4:37 am
Obama has never promised to legalize anything .
What has he done in the past to legalize/decriminalize ?... 0
Why would he ?... 0
Hell , you people don't even know if he COULD do something about it . A magic wand isn't included with the oval office .
400,000
Oct 13 2008, 2:45 am
HU210
Oct 12 2008, 7:18 pm
From http://writein2008.blogspot.com
Want to be a US Presidential write-in candidate in 2008?
Choose a state from the list on the right to see that state's requirements to make sure write-in votes for you get counted in the upcoming 2008 US Presidential election.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
All the States are up!
We have added all the states. Check here for how to become a write-in candidate for President in the United States from Alabama to Wyoming!
Posted by lavapen at 12:24 AM 3 comments
Older Posts Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) Choose A State
Alabama (1)
Alaska (1)
Arizona (1)
Arkansas (1)
California (1)
Colorado (1)
Connecticut (1)
Delaware (1)
District of Columbia (1)
Florida (1)
Georgia (1)
Hawaii (1)
Idaho (1)
Illinois (1)
Indiana (1)
Iowa (1)
Kansas (1)
Kentucky (1)
Louisiana (1)
Maine (1)
Maryland (1)
Massachusetts (1)
Michigan (1)
Minnesota (1)
Mississippi (1)
Missouri (1)
Montana (1)
Nebraska (1)
Nevada (1)
New Hampshire (1)
New Jersey (1)
New Mexico (1)
New York (1)
North Carolina (1)
North Dakota (1)
Ohio (1)
Oklahoma (1)
Oregon (1)
Pennsylvania (1)
Rhode Island (1)
South Carolina (1)
South Dakota (1)
Tennessee (1)
Texas (1)
Utah (1)
Vermont (1)
Virginia (1)
Washington (1)
West Virginia (1)
Wisconsin (1)
Wyoming (1)
Links
http://writein2008.blogspot.com
Get your states phone number and join the fun today.
Fact
Oct 12 2008, 4:29 pm
however(con't from before)
Oct 12 2008, 4:43 am
R.E.S.P.E.C.T.
Oct 12 2008, 12:22 am
that person will have no choice but to see taxes rise. All of our financial experts (the fed) say this. The federal government will spend more than 2.5 trillion more over the next decade than it brings in in taxes. So how would any of them pull of that miracle? They cant.But if there is any possible way to show them they are wasting huge amounts on fighting MJ smuggling, sales, production, and oh yeah the millions arrested each year that have to be fed and housed in jail, maybe that deficit would not be so hard to tackle. Here is yet another link showing how the "current" laws are creating more problems than they are fixing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_re_us/pot_environment
And this is costing ALL AMERICANS, no matter what party you are affiliated with, more and more every day. I appologize if I upset anyone, as it is not my intent. But untill we force them to listen, they never will.
question,
Oct 11 2008, 9:24 pm
Sigh, idiots...
Oct 11 2008, 8:49 pm
to below
Oct 11 2008, 6:17 pm
OR
Oct 11 2008, 7:01 am
LOL
Oct 11 2008, 5:53 am
The future of this country has already been decided regardless of who is sitting in office . It really doesn't matter who gets elected , thats just the scam to make you think you have some say in things .
How do you control a large population .. tell them they are free and have some say in whats going on . Its worked for a lot longer than you would believe .
to defjer
Oct 10 2008, 7:27 pm
E I E I O
Oct 10 2008, 6:25 am
ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now)
has been busted for over 2000 incidents of voter fraud in this election . Registrations forms from dead people etc etc .
Obama paid these people $ 800,000 to help him get elected .
Just go to cnn and see for yourself .
DEFJR
Oct 9 2008, 2:57 pm
But even tiny percentages for third-party candidates could have an impact. In Florida, a CNN poll released Oct. 1 showed Obama at 51 percent to McCain's 47 percent in a head-to-head matchup. McCain's support fell to 43 percent when Barr was listed along with independent candidate Ralph Nader and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney.
Still dont thik we can affect the race? If every pot smoker would speak up we could really make a difference. Those that do nothing and ""just vote between the 2 parties" are the whole problem with why the 2 parties dont listen anymore!
somedude420
Oct 9 2008, 1:46 am
Defjr
Oct 8 2008, 10:59 pm
How many Billions have been wasted on housing and caring on people that have no violent history and are only in jail for smoking a little pot?
How is it that the CIA and other Federal Agencies can bring in coke, to fund thier "black ops".? One proven case: Iran-Contra.
Why is marijuana illegal, if Alcohol, Caffine, Nicotine...(many others) being more dangerous to your health are legal, and in some cases not even regulated.
Why is it that companies openly traded on Wall St such as CXW, GGI, CRN (prison facility operation companies), make their money by having more prisoners in their system? So when did America revert back to slavery to allow this human trading on Wall St?
When you see how often and obsurd the government lies, (both dems and reps) you realize there are MAJOR changes needed. So, I re-assert my intent of NOT voting for Obama or McCain, and will be throwing to one of the 3rd pary candidates.
So this is my statement to Mr Obama, and Mr McCain.
I will not vote for you. You do not understand the meaning of "for the people" as illustrated by your continued silence on the issue of legalization, or decriminalization. You prefer to continue the lies of previous administrations. The Biggest lie from the White House never was Iraq having WMD. It has always, and always will be the lies about "the war on drugs". And how about your familiy members? BOTH of you have had a loved one "hooked" on a drug and NIETHER of them went to jail!! Why? because they got hooked on manmade drugs that companies own. God forbid it was marijuana they were doing, im sure it is so much more..........SAFE!!!
YesWeCanGetHigh
Oct 8 2008, 8:24 pm
HU210
Oct 8 2008, 7:04 am
Except that they added this to the bailout bill last week.
Thats right, Obama and McCain voted in favor of renewing the anti-drug legislation.
Real change artists. Short change artists!
to below
Oct 8 2008, 3:46 am
1988 vs 2008
Oct 7 2008, 9:24 pm
HU210
Oct 7 2008, 6:19 pm
Dont look like change to me!
HU210
Oct 7 2008, 5:58 pm
vote smart
Oct 7 2008, 12:24 am
Vote 4 Ron Paul
Oct 6 2008, 10:59 pm
Green Hit
Oct 6 2008, 10:55 pm
HU210@ Say what
Oct 6 2008, 6:04 pm
He could have at least done that!
All those words to say nothing. Sure you aint Biden, Say what.
Go ahead vote for Obama. We will be here and still be considered criminals 4 and 8 years from now. For your info I voted for Carter and Clinton only because I thought that they would be the one's to get legalizing done.
I WON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN!! He either comes clean or NO VOTE!
HU210
Oct 5 2008, 9:49 pm
Didnt they both approve the FISA law as well?
Not a dimes worth of difference.
to HU210
Oct 5 2008, 8:48 pm
US Citizen
Oct 5 2008, 6:31 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRmB93McZeI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
HU210
Oct 5 2008, 1:45 pm
Taken From: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10057618-38.html?
> > part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5
> >
> >
> > IRS undercover operations: Privacy invasion?
> >
> > The bailout bill also gives the Internal Revenue Service new
> > authority to conduct undercover operations. It would immunize the
> > IRS from a passel of federal laws, including permitting IRS agents
> > to run businesses for an extended sting operation, to open their
> > own personal bank accounts with U.S. tax dollars, and so on. (Think
> > IRS agents posing as accountants or tax preparers and saying, "I'm
> > not sure if that deduction is entirely legal, but it'll save you
> > $1,000. Want to take it?") That section had expired as of January
> > 1, 2008, and would now be renewed.
> >
> > Starting with the so-called Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1988, the IRS
> > has possessed this authority temporarily, with occasional multiple-
> > year lapses. A 1999 internal report said the IRS had 126 "trained
> > undercover agents" working in field offices at the time. This is
> > the first time that such undercover authority would be made permanent.
> >
> > Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Chuck Grassley (R) have been pushing to
> > make it permanent for a while, claiming (PDF) in April that:
> > "Undercover operations are an integral part of IRS efforts to
> > detect and prove noncompliance. The temporary status of this
> > provision creates uncertainty, as the IRS plans its undercover
> > efforts from year to year."
> > There's another section of the bailout bill worth noting. It lets
> > the IRS give information from individual tax returns to any federal
> > law enforcement agency investigating suspected "terrorist"
> > activity, which can, in turn, share it with local and state police.
> > Intelligence agencies such as the CIA and the National Security
> > Agency can also receive that information.
> > The information that can be shared includes "a taxpayer's identity,
> > the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts,
> > deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth,
> > tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax
> > payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be
> > examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any
> > other data received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or
> > collected by the Secretary with respect to a return."
> > That provision had already existed in federal law and automatically
> > expired on January 1, 2008.
> >
> > What's a little odd is that there's been little to no discussion of
> > the IRS sections of the bailout bill, even though they raise
> > privacy concerns. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said this week:
> > "I will continue to work with congressional leaders to find a way
> > forward to pass a comprehensive plan to stabilize our financial
> > system and protect the American people by limiting the prospects of
> > further deterioration in our economy." He never mentioned the
> > necessity of additional IRS undercover operations.
DO YOU STILL TRUST McOBAMA?
Crazy Dave from Boston
Oct 5 2008, 5:01 am
Crazy Dave from Boston
Oct 5 2008, 4:57 am
Dex
Oct 4 2008, 4:59 pm
All that tax money... hmmmm.... it might help to pull us out of this economic slum that we're in.
mr. miester
Oct 4 2008, 3:22 pm
cough... ahem,
Oct 4 2008, 1:16 am
suncloud
Oct 3 2008, 11:14 pm
shaggy
Oct 3 2008, 6:14 pm
say what?
Oct 3 2008, 5:45 pm
shaggy
Oct 3 2008, 5:10 pm
shaggy
Oct 3 2008, 5:02 pm
anonymous
Oct 3 2008, 4:35 pm
You gotta be kidding .... I quess Uncle Sam isn't the only ones who think weed smokers are stupid .....
umm
Oct 3 2008, 9:33 am
umm
Oct 3 2008, 9:31 am
umm
Oct 3 2008, 9:28 am
HU210
Oct 3 2008, 6:57 am
So you present a different twist on the " there are bigger issues that legalizing pot".
Thus admitting that your candidate intends to do nothing for us.
The one issue where our votes could make a difference and you dismiss it as trivial.
All of these larger issues will automaticly get attention despite who gets elected.
If weed legalization is such a minor issue. Then there should be no problem getting weed legalized-right?
All that the 2 top political's have to do is rely upon the truth, and it will set them free.
What they really need to do is practice step # 10 of most 12 step programs. Take a personal inventory and promptly admit that they have been wrong on the issue of weed.
The make amends by supporting legalization.
Honestly.You sound like an insurance salesman. has business been that slow that you have to come to the HT site and take the inventory of honest people for wanting for a candidate that supports their view.
honestly
Oct 3 2008, 5:57 am
To-To "Not Me"
Oct 3 2008, 4:43 am
to "not me"
Oct 2 2008, 10:14 pm
Not Me
Oct 2 2008, 8:42 pm
StashZoo.com
Oct 2 2008, 8:08 pm
shaggyisamoron
Oct 2 2008, 6:36 pm
StashZoo.com
Oct 2 2008, 3:40 pm
shaggy
Oct 2 2008, 2:55 pm
Old as dirt
Oct 2 2008, 7:27 am
The ONLY way to determine who and why is by looking at their record . How did they vote on issues that mean anything . How many times have they changed their position on key issues . Do they show up where they are supposed to be to cast a vote .
It DOESN"T matter how much money the have or how many cars they own or who has the prettiest wife either . Thats just assinine .
And of course they tell you what you want to hear , like a used car salesman , but how often are political promises kept ? It ain't much........
And speaking of promises , NO Obama has NOT promised anything about stopping weed busts .
HU210
Oct 2 2008, 6:32 am
As for myself. I wont be fooled again.
If the 2 main clowns want my vote. Then they can use the national bully pulpit to speak the truth about cannabis.
Now that would be a real CHANGE or STRAIGHT TALK!
The truth is on their side, but they stand with the lies.
TrueLiberatarian
Oct 2 2008, 6:29 am
here
Oct 2 2008, 6:14 am
cebo
Oct 2 2008, 2:18 am
HighARCKey
Oct 2 2008, 1:13 am
As far as this election goes, even if you've never considered it...VOTE for O'bama/Biden this election 'cause as much as we may dislike it, this is a two-party Democracy! Peace...
suprised
Oct 2 2008, 12:08 am
umm
Oct 1 2008, 11:20 pm
The future does look bleak, but hopefully, the changes coming will be for the best. Maybe the govenment will lay off the imbibers and legalize. They can't afford to hire, prosecute, imprison, pay guards etc. It would free up alot of otherwise innocent people, and it is the only right thing to do.
cebo
Oct 1 2008, 10:58 pm
HU210
Oct 1 2008, 10:55 pm
Snoopy for president 2008
cebo
Oct 1 2008, 10:54 pm
HU210
Oct 1 2008, 10:47 pm
Its gonna be a sacrafice either way.
Better to let the current financial mess collapse like the towers.
Even if it sparks a depression.
Better to jail,(or hang),the banker types to some mandatory hard time for these shenanigans.
Golden parachutes only assure that we get screwed again.
gstlab3
Oct 1 2008, 9:32 pm
gstlab3
Oct 1 2008, 9:14 pm
UMM
Oct 1 2008, 2:59 pm
If 700,000,000,000 dollars was givin to 300,000,000 people, they would get approx. 2,333.00 each. But they want to give the money to the rich? I don't understand why.
umm
Oct 1 2008, 2:51 pm
Ron Paul thinks the collapse can't be avoided due to the over spending government.
The sellout, or bailout or whatever you want to call it will only prolong the inevitable according to Mr. Paul if the sensless spending doesn't stop. You have to respect his opinion, as he seems rather knowlegable, and most importantly truthfull.
Scarey times.
Well, as long as there is greenery, there is good times...:)
♥
PoliceOfficer
Oct 1 2008, 2:37 pm
to defjr
Oct 1 2008, 7:58 am
Off Topic
Oct 1 2008, 5:23 am
Supposedly , there are just over 300 million people in the US . Why not give us 300 million citizens 1 million dollars each . 300 million sounds like a hell of a deal compared to 700 billion . Then we taxpayers would be "bailed out " as opposed to the institutions who put themselves in the hole .
Oh , what a minute , now I get it ..... the big boys wouldn't make a profit ! What could I have been thinking ........................
2pac
Oct 1 2008, 3:58 am
GOD BLESS AMERICA...PLZ!!!
Defjr
Sep 30 2008, 10:05 pm
about two parties
Sep 30 2008, 8:13 pm
420 warrior
Sep 30 2008, 7:31 pm
to: 420 warrior
Sep 30 2008, 7:04 pm
Digg this kidd, I aint got no documenation of education.
Guess what OBama aint fooling me. I do not enjoy being mocked because I refused to go into debt for a piece of paper signed by the conspiracy.
So you better watch your mouth when you call us paperless stupid.
Another thing I think we can both agree on is the McCain stigma we get stuck with when we diss on Obama. These sheep are so stupid they think there are only two options for president. So when we diss on Obama they immediately label us as a McCain Supporter. I'm sure you and I would never in our lives vote McCain or Bush.
Hemp4Li
Sep 30 2008, 5:11 pm
Cynthia Mckinney is the Green Candidate.
Second. Biden Obama's VP has supported the war on drugs for decades.
Third. Barr is former CIA, and I dont trust any CIA person, wiether it be George Bush Sr. or Osama Bin Laden (google Tim Osman).
so the best choice Is Cynthia Mckinney, or Bobby Black.
Oh and Pakelekia ruined all further KMK purchases from me, he is a total asshole what a shit head I thought was kewl.
ps:
Sep 30 2008, 4:55 pm
2007
Sep 30 2008, 4:51 pm
to chuck,
Sep 30 2008, 12:49 pm
to you again,
Sep 30 2008, 12:42 pm
But : to hey but face
Sep 30 2008, 7:32 am
So , either its just wishful thinking on your part ( and I think thats the problem ) or you're trying to help .
My position : had Obama actually made this "promise" my opinion of him would have grown a notch . As Obama has no control over those who hype and spin his position , my opinion of him has not deminished either .
umm
Sep 30 2008, 1:59 am
♥
pete
Sep 29 2008, 10:26 pm
Passout-Patient
Sep 29 2008, 9:37 pm
1) i could never vote for a person (McCain) that would tell the HOLE country that he wants to get rid of the ruling on Roe Vs Wade... Now if you dont know what that is; then do some research; but McCain wants to illegalize it EVEN in cases of rape and incest... got 3 words for that; Sick fucking mind.
2) Obama's always had my vote....
chuck
Sep 29 2008, 9:36 pm
peepee
Sep 29 2008, 9:24 pm
hey but face
Sep 29 2008, 9:12 pm
But ..
Sep 29 2008, 4:28 pm
If I were to say to Obama : It is commonly known that you have PROMISED to end the raids on mmj users and their caregivers .
I think his reply to be : what PROMISE are you talking about ? What video are you talking about ?
But ..
Sep 29 2008, 4:11 pm
Heres the "money " question : wheres the "promise " ?
"WOULD ": 1 )In speaking on something that depends on something else .
2 ) In expressing a wish
" PROMISE " : a vow
Lets not get into the Ronald Reagan example .
Thanks for the McCain quote , but I've seen it a few times also .
OBAMA VIDEO LINK
Sep 29 2008, 1:18 pm
http://hightimes.com/news/ht_admin/2370
And here's the money quote, taken from this video:
"I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users," Obama said. "It's not a good use of our resources."
Contrast this to McCain who said:
"I do not approve of the medical use of marijuana—I never have, and I never will,”
420 warrior
Sep 29 2008, 11:40 am
candid cannabis user
Sep 29 2008, 11:35 am
Old time rock n roll
Sep 28 2008, 11:44 pm
HU210
Sep 28 2008, 8:57 pm
But
Sep 28 2008, 1:51 pm
Anyways , back to the "promise" Obama never made to "stop the raids against mmj users and their caregivers " .
Anybody help me out ? When and where ? My opinion of Obama would grow a notch .
Poof
Sep 28 2008, 11:51 am
hell never end the raiding
hell never allow medical marijuana
hell never legalize it or decriminalize it
mccain supports warrantLESS domestic surveilance (satellites, infra red cameras)
heres a message to anybody wanting mccain to win the election:
GET YOUR FUCKING HEAD OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS IF YOU LIKE SMOKING WEED!!!!!!
Obama may not be the best choice here, but maybe if we all supported RON FUCKING PAUL a little bit more then we wouldnt all be in this position right now bitching about who to vote for. 3rd party guys are probably the best choices here due to the celebrity status being given to both mccain and obama. in all honesty, theyve forgotten about the people (yea thatd be us) and care more about making their parties and party leaders happy. remember, when you vote for the big names in the election, youre letting their party's leaders run our country, not even them.
Poof
Sep 28 2008, 11:45 am
Shannon2
Sep 28 2008, 9:33 am
Fill it out, mail it in. They will send you a ballot by mail.
Oh, yeah. Then fill that out and send IT in and be that much safer from arrest by Nazi's in the years to come for something that is not the government's RIGHT to interfere with anyway.
Republicans want less interference in people's life, but this is THE WORST government interference....telling people what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes...are they going to tell me who I can't fuck next?
Oh, yeah, wait....they do that do with thier gay-bashing!!!
Get your absentee ballots and guarantee your voice is heard...it's YOUR chance to fight and win against the men with the guns.
In FLOON's name we toke, in FLOON's name we VOTE!!!!!
viva FLOON the party God, and viva all Americans brave enough to vote!
BLK007
Sep 28 2008, 9:15 am
But to kinder
Sep 28 2008, 6:55 am
that he is against decriminalization of marijuana .
This is similar to the UFO/Flying Saucer crowed insisting they are real because Ronald Reagan said so . He did not and wishful thinking doesn't count .
Again , Obama has :
1) never made that promise .
2) has never claimed that a promise was made
3) no idea who made it up .
ps : you don't have to defend Obama on this , he didn't do it .
FunJon
Sep 28 2008, 1:38 am
Check out:
socialistalternative.org
kinder
Sep 27 2008, 8:49 pm
Yes Obama,did say it.See the search box to the right on this page enter "Obama" you will see.
PUS SEE
Sep 27 2008, 8:40 pm
SEE!!! 6TH ANNUAL NEW YORK BURLESQUE FESTIVAL GALLERY!!!!
RON PAUL OR BOB BARR BABY!!!!! THAT"S THE ONLY WAY!
Paul Supporter
Sep 27 2008, 7:24 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
Who said: "...We have not devoted nearly enough science or time to deal with the pain management and chronic pain management that exists. There's got to be a better answer than marijuana. There's got to be a better answer than that."
http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/joe-biden/2/medical-marijuana-and-drug-policy/1/
Joe Biden is not a friend of freedom. But many people will vote for his ticket anyway. The citizens deserve what they get. Once again.
But ....
Sep 27 2008, 5:47 pm
Boston
Sep 27 2008, 4:54 pm
oh, hey but!
Sep 27 2008, 3:46 pm
shucks
Sep 27 2008, 3:29 pm
But ......
Sep 27 2008, 7:45 am
Their opening statement about Obama says:" Sen. Obama has publicly promised to end the federal raids on state mmj patients and their caregivers "
I have a problem with this talk of " publicly promised " ..when and where did this take place ? I have seen many quotes on the subject , all political double speak and manufactured vaugeness . Not once have the words "I promise or even I will " on the subject .
Anybody have any example ?
< WARNING > : i will verify
George P. Shutltz
Sep 26 2008, 11:27 pm
Or are the Rep's too frightened of that? I can't imagine one of the men who was there during the Reagan years, saw what happened to him, against Iran-Contra, for the ending of the drug war, calling him a "good man" who understood anything, let alone Iraq.
I'm sorry, If the republicans want him to run the Hoover Institute, select they're next candidates, but won't acknowledge his stance on the drug war... That's not only embarassing to the people who know all this, but it's also a slap in the face of America.
izit420
Sep 26 2008, 5:35 pm
» add a comment