Dude, even stoners think that Godfathers Pizza sucks.

Everyone Involved In Pizza's Preparation, Delivery, Purchase Extremely High (new window)

Obligatory

"If states want to legalize medical marijuana, I think that's a state's right,"

Am I the only one who, whenever he hears the phrase 'state's rights', immediately thinks of slavery? Or is that just from living in the south surrounded by pickups with rebel flag bumper stickers?

Well, that would be some consolation if he won. But I'm not holding my *pot smoke* breath.

Now he won't even need an electrified fence to fry drug mules.

Karac: Am I the only one who, whenever he hears the phrase 'state's rights', immediately thinks of slavery?

no

Pander to stoners all you want; don't expect them to remember to vote

"Just a joke" comment in 3...2...1...

Hey everybody do the Ron Paul! It's the latest presidential contender dance craze!

I see Cain's "I'm not a real nominee, get me the fark out of here" plan has now advanced to the point of positioning himself as simultaneously more conservative than Romney and more liberal than Obama, in the hope of pissing everyone off. Interesting approach.

Isn't that a conflict of interest or something?

If you've ever gotten high enough to order Godfather's pizza, join a program, because, man, you need help.

Karac: Am I the only one who, whenever he hears the phrase 'state's rights', immediately thinks of slavery? Or is that just from living in the south surrounded by pickups with rebel flag bumper stickers?

I think "we should have the right to raise our kids to be unhealthy dolts!"

Aren't we already trying to do this?

It's all fine and dandy that the state of washington has pot dispensaries, but FEDERAL law trumps state laws.

And as Fark Conservatives like to point out with how horrible Pres. Obama is with the DHS and TSA. You NEVER put the genie back in the bottle. War on Drugs is too much of a cash cow and a base talking point to EVER let go.

/farking genies. they never go back into their bottles.

Nice subby, nice. Even made Cain sound nice.

AppleOptionEsc: War on Drugs is too much of a cash cow and a base talking point to EVER let go.

In wot respeck charlee?

War On Drugs is one of the unmentionable 'third rails' of politics that never get challenged by anyone except the fringe. The Republicans don't use it to rile up the base; if anything, it's the Democrats who rile them up with promises about doing away with it that never materialize.

Ok now he's speaking my language...*remembers Cain gaffes* um...yeah, no.

Shaggy_C: it's the Democrats who rile them up with promises about doing away with it that never materialize.

[citation please]

I guess this makes him "libertarian" now right?

I mean if Ron Paul believes governments can make official religions and ban sexual acts in the bedroom but wants to legalize pot makes him "libertarian" doesn't it work for Cain too?

Pizza pizza pi- pi- pi????????? whooooooo! ^

Corvus: Shaggy_C: it's the Democrats who rile them up with promises about doing away with it that never materialize.

[citation please]

IIRC, Obama said he wasn't going to enforce federal pot laws in states that had legalized pot. But then he did it anyway so it wasn't much of a promise.

Corvus: I guess this makes him "libertarian" now right?

I mean if Ron Paul believes governments can make official religions and ban sexual acts in the bedroom but wants to legalize pot makes him "libertarian" doesn't it work for Cain too?

He's always been a libertarian. He is butt buddies with Neal Boortz and discusses libertarian issues on his radio show in Atlanta for years.

*unimpressed*

So when do we finally throw this bum out?

Ron Paul, too?

Seriously, if I have to hear another Ron Paul Used Car Salesman™ tell us about all the wonderful sh*t he's going to do...

Corvus: Shaggy_C: it's the Democrats who rile them up with promises about doing away with it that never materialize.

[citation please]

What do you want a citation for? That Democrats talk about reducing the drug war? Or that the Democrat base includes a lot of drug users? Or that Democrats, once in office, actually pursue the drug war just like Republicans?

Cain is just trying to establish his "states rights" cred on a popular issue so he can appeal to the states rights absolutists among the teabagger/neo-Confederate idiots.

I guess Cain doesn't know that the Civil War was instigated by the "states rights" issue pf whether future states could decide for themselves whether slavery was legal. If the Rightests had won Cain might have grown up a slave.

whidbey: Ron Paul, too?

Seriously, if I have to hear another Ron Paul Used Car Salesman™ tell us about all the wonderful sh*t he's going to do...

The difference between Herman Cain and Ron Paul... One of them thinks Herman Cain should get to sit at the lunch counter.

This is why I cheer RON PAUL on, even if I disagree with him on a lot of issues and gives off that "crazy uncle or grandpa" vibe. As Paul does better, his opponents start to appropriate his ideas. A Paul vs. Obama showdown would force Obama to face his own hypocrisy on the war on drugs, warmongering, etc, but it'll also force a stark enough contrast he will be also forced to vigoriously defend the role of government.

If the nominee in 2012 isn't Paul, then Obama's second term is essentially a write-off. Anyone who thinks he'll magically get "more liberal" if they just suck it up and let him play moderate off against standard conservaderp without needing them is delusional.

/Still leaning pretty heavily towards Johnson, unless Paul polls well enough.

magusdevil: whidbey: Ron Paul, too?

Seriously, if I have to hear another Ron Paul Used Car Salesman™ tell us about all the wonderful sh*t he's going to do...

The difference between Herman Cain and Ron Paul... One of them thinks Herman Cain should get to sit at the lunch counter.

To be fair, I've never heard an interview with Cain as to whether the Civil Rights Act should be decided by the states as of yet.

He'd f*ck it up somehow.

Jensaarai: A Paul vs. Obama showdown would force Obama to face his own hypocrisy on the war on drugs, warmongering, etc, but it'll also force a stark enough contrast he will be also forced to vigoriously defend the role of government.

All he would have to do is calmly explain his support the very most basic programmes that even the large majority of Republicans refuse to touch. A Paul/Obama contest wouldn't turn Obama more liberal. FFS, he could become even more conservative and still have a huge difference between himself and Paul. The only thing that would make Obama more liberal would be to run against a liberal Republican. An oxymoron, I know. But what reason would he have otherwise to pivot to his left?

Shaggy_C: Jensaarai: A Paul vs. Obama showdown would force Obama to face his own hypocrisy on the war on drugs, warmongering, etc, but it'll also force a stark enough contrast he will be also forced to vigoriously defend the role of government.

All he would have to do is calmly explain his support the very most basic programmes that even the large majority of Republicans refuse to touch. A Paul/Obama contest wouldn't turn Obama more liberal. FFS, he could become even more conservative and still have a huge difference between himself and Paul. The only thing that would make Obama more liberal would be to run against a liberal Republican. An oxymoron, I know. But what reason would he have otherwise to pivot to his left?

Um, what's wrong with having a sane moderate Presidency once in a while, even if the party does kind of hover near the center?

And yes, there are no "liberal Republicans" even your precious Huntsman...

Jensaarai: A Paul vs. Obama showdown would force Obama to face his own hypocrisy on the war on drugs, warmongering, etc, but it'll also force a stark enough contrast he will be also forced to vigoriously defend the role of government.

Obama can actually explain in detail how his proposed solutions address real-world problems. Paul just babbles on about ideals but is never able to connect his ideals to reality. He can't debate for shiat.

I guess now we know the reason he keeps forgetting stuff.

I don't know who ordered the Pepperoni-oni-oni-ham-ham.
Blame Yourself!

MrEricSir: Paul just babbles on about ideals but is never able to connect his ideals to reality. He can't debate for shiat.

Well, when you're that right about everything you shouldn't have to. People just magically accept your ideology. Why, look his at followers...

whidbey: Um, what's wrong with having a sane moderate Presidency once in a while, even if the party does kind of hover near the center?

Nothing wrong with it when the other option is a fringe nutjob. But the farther right the Republicans go, the farther right the Democrats can go, capturing even more of the center. The assertion that a far right opponent would cause a Democrat to go left is just silly.

Shaggy_C: Jensaarai: A Paul vs. Obama showdown would force Obama to face his own hypocrisy on the war on drugs, warmongering, etc, but it'll also force a stark enough contrast he will be also forced to vigoriously defend the role of government.

All he would have to do is calmly explain his support the very most basic programmes that even the large majority of Republicans refuse to touch. A Paul/Obama contest wouldn't turn Obama more liberal. FFS, he could become even more conservative and still have a huge difference between himself and Paul. The only thing that would make Obama more liberal would be to run against a liberal Republican. An oxymoron, I know. But what reason would he have otherwise to pivot to his left?

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree, mostly because the closest thing we have to a liberal Republican is Romney or Huntsman. The only ones who will openly confront him significantly from the left on any issues would be the two libertarians.

Even a calm explanation of support for basic programs would be a lot more from a powerful Democrat than we've gotten lately. You get Obama talking up the role of government at the same time he's on the defensive about socially liberal issues, and I think there's a formula for changing the course of his administration.

We're seeing a lot of sublimated frustrated with Obama in the OWS movement right now, IMO. A lot of these people would be out protesting the wars *and* Wall Street if McCain were president right now. If Paul chose to beat Obama over the head with the wars, it'll create massive amounts of cognitive dissonance all over the political spectrum. Republicans have already shown an amazing ability to go anti-war when a Democrat is in office, but the anti-war left will be left in a state of crisis. Obama's slow progress winding down the wars and a blind eye turned to his global escalation is what's keeping them with him. In the face of an emphatic anti-war challenge, it'll be time to put up or shut up. Combine that with a more developed version of Paul's prototype arguments he's floated about "priorities," when in more liberal settings, such as "End the war first, then talk about domestic policies etc" and Obama will have to change his tune.

Of course, I'm a Johnson supporter because he'd do the job better -- he has the exec experience, and a history of using the veto pen when needed but picking his battles. He's the reasonable libertarian Republican. Still, Paul has the potential to shake things up.

I dunno, I don't want Paul to be president, but I think that matchup provides constructive opportunities, rather than a repeat of the same ol' same ol'.

Of course, maybe I just want things to shake up for my own amusement, heh.

whidbey: Shaggy_C: Jensaarai: A Paul vs. Obama showdown would force Obama to face his own hypocrisy on the war on drugs, warmongering, etc, but it'll also force a stark enough contrast he will be also forced to vigoriously defend the role of government.

All he would have to do is calmly explain his support the very most basic programmes that even the large majority of Republicans refuse to touch. A Paul/Obama contest wouldn't turn Obama more liberal. FFS, he could become even more conservative and still have a huge difference between himself and Paul. The only thing that would make Obama more liberal would be to run against a liberal Republican. An oxymoron, I know. But what reason would he have otherwise to pivot to his left?

Um, what's wrong with having a sane moderate Presidency once in a while, even if the party does kind of hover near the center?

And yes, there are no "liberal Republicans" even your precious Huntsman...


Gary Johnson does appear to be to the left of Obama on many issues, but he's not even getting invited to the debates (only 2 so far, early on) and therefore isn't really much of a contender. Johnson loses me on repealing HCR and instituting a flat tax though.

stoli n coke: Dude, even stoners think that Godfathers Pizza sucks.

Because of marijuana, I once decided to dip egg rolls in cheese and chorizo dip. They were delicious. I can't look down on any pizza.

stoli n coke: Dude, even stoners think that Godfathers Pizza sucks.

I believe you meant Little Caesers.