If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube) Video Penn Jillette rips Obama over his drug policies: "He's chortling with Jimmy Fallon about lower class people" (includes profanity)   (youtube.com) divider line 240
    More: Video, obama, man whore  
•       •       •

6351 clicks; posted to Video » on 21 May 2012 at 1:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



240 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-22 01:26:28 AM

TommyymmoT: Poo_Fight: TommyymmoT: Romney wouldn't be any better.
If anything, he'd be worse.

Simply because he's not Obama, Right?

No. Romney claims to have never even so much as drank a beer in his entire life.
I doubt very much that somebody who has never even drank a beer would be at all sympathetic to (gasp!) pot smokers.


Romney's response to a mmj patient. Very telling. It's short, watch it.

Link
 
2012-05-22 01:39:16 AM

AeAe: So what's going to happen with CA legalizes cannabis full on? I believe there are several competing ballot measures for full legalization.

If BO only supports medical mj, and one of those ballot measures passes .. then what?

Should be interesting.


Well, if what he's suggesting in this interview is true, the conflict lies in the problem that there are large-scale growers who are selling to medicinal and recreational users alike. So, if that's true, they are violating current state laws as well as federal laws. If CA legalizes it for both, then there would be less of a reason to raid those operations (if they are registered with the state) unless, of course, there's evidence that they are transporting across state lines which, inevitably, would happen. So, in a way, it could be less of an issue than it is now, but it still poses similar problems until it's legalized on a national level.

You're right. It should be interesting.
 
2012-05-22 01:47:59 AM

TheJoe03: Some of these Obama supporters would give Obama a pass on anything, so it really doesn't matter what you say to them. They'd rather mock weed smokers instead of dealing with the actual topic at hand. They also enjoy moving the goalposts and claim that we are stating that Obama promised to outright legalize weed, though not one person hear actually said that.


Where are you seeing this goalpost moving that you're talking about?

In this thread?

I also haven't seen anyone mocking smokers in the thread- plenty of people mocking Penn, but that's mostly because he's that type of a character. Who's mocking smockers?
 
2012-05-22 01:48:22 AM

AeAe: TommyymmoT: Poo_Fight: TommyymmoT: Romney wouldn't be any better.
If anything, he'd be worse.

Simply because he's not Obama, Right?

No. Romney claims to have never even so much as drank a beer in his entire life.
I doubt very much that somebody who has never even drank a beer would be at all sympathetic to (gasp!) pot smokers.

Romney's response to a mmj patient. Very telling. It's short, watch it.

Link


Thanks for the link. Yeah, I've seen that, and actually kind of forgotten about it, but his reaction was almost one of revulsion, and illustrated my point quite well, Thank You.
Many Mormons don't even drink coffee. These are the people that believe prayer is pretty adequate medical care.

If he's elected, I can only see the problem getting worse.
It would be like slamming the country into reverse, only ending up in a worse ditch than the one we're already trying to get out from.

Not even decisions like Roe v. Wade would be safe from attack from a guy that thinks polygamy, and families the size of football teams is OK.
 
2012-05-22 03:12:03 AM

lohphat: Citrate1007: Penn is going to vote for Ron Paul.

Then Penn doesn't understand how national elections work and is throwing his vote away.

Voting for a candidate without legislative support is like building a pyramid from the top down -- the two candidates with legislative backing have already been chosen: Mitt and Barak -- any other candidates have no legislative or financial backing -- if they did, they'd already be in the lead nationally.

Ron Paul is a candidate with no allies and is not in the running. Period.


Your logic is... simple and focuses on today, not tomorrow. Do you vote Republican across the board, by chance?

Many states keep individual candidates or minor parties off of ballots, even if they are expected to receive votes in a state. Given the whole Electoral College thing, in many, many circumstances, voting for a third-party candidate is a GOOD thing for the future of a slightly more dynamic election process. After all, you could "waste" a vote on a third-party candidate while still seeing "your guy" win the election (there are probably at least 10-15 states where they needn't vote in November, because Romney or Obama has already won the popular vote). The candidate may not win a single state, but it COULD set up a party for a more impressive run in the following election. It may even put them on the ballot in states where they were otherwise ignored, as a good turnout in numerous states would show that a third party is viable. If done properly, it could kick-start a four-year run as an independent candidate (and four years of fundraising for a minor party and/or candidate), if one is not a member of Congress, the Cabinet, etc.

It amazes me how many people forget HOW the President is elected. It's not a national popular vote, and term limits are short. In many cases, voting for a third-party candidate for President is the ONLY viable solution to potentially throw a third party into the national conversation. It's not going to happen in the House or Senate, as non-R/D candidates are too few in number to make a significant dent, and a President could potentially be elected with a relatively small percentage of the national popular vote. Money and Fox News rhetoric will NOT always dominate the political discussion in this nation.

Sadly, the WRONG guys seem to be running as independents or third-party candidates these days. Even years ago, Ross Perot was old and arguably ran in the wrong era. If Ross Perot were running TODAY on many of his past platforms, he'd receive a decent amount of support (moreso than he did in 1992).
 
2012-05-22 03:16:04 AM

Homicider: There are dozens of other, perfectly legal drugs that work just as well, if not better for cancer patients.


Like what?

Granted, when my friend was dying, she used a synthetic THC compound (could not smoke or eat much), but it seemed to do more than a lot of the other crap she was receiving for pain and nausea.
 
2012-05-22 03:17:45 AM
Incidentally, when you're dying of cancer and look like you just walked out of Auschwitz ca. 1945, you can't really take too many prescription drugs due to the numerous horrible side-effects.
 
2012-05-22 03:46:12 AM

Jorn the Younger: Where are you seeing this goalpost moving that you're talking about?

In this thread?


I showed you two articles that made the point that Obama went from lowering priorities when it comes to medical marijuana to starting an all out assault against it. I don't get how you can defend that if you are in your heart a liberal who is against the drug war. You said that Obama never said such a thing in his campaign but that is not true. He clearly stated he wouldn't waste federal resources on medical marijuana and leave it more to the states and then a year into his term he decided to drop the hammer on medical marijuana. To me, it makes no sense, he could have just either never said anything about it or at least kept up the same efforts that Bush did. He has actually busted more medical marijuana clubs than Bush did in his first term.
 
2012-05-22 03:47:42 AM

Homicider: Oh, right. None of you are saying that Obama ought to legalize weed.


Oh he ought to you moron, but no one here expected him to or said that he claimed he would. Learn to read.
 
2012-05-22 03:52:48 AM

Jorn the Younger: Where are you seeing this goalpost moving that you're talking about?


I think one post (not from you) said something such as, "You guys are babies because you expected Obama to legalize dope", or something similar. I'm way too lazy (stoner) to go back and find the posts that said that but I sure as hell read that sentiment in this thread.
 
2012-05-22 04:15:16 AM
Legalizing pot is serious business. Penn was right to chide Obama for being flippant over an issue that leads to massive bills to the public for law enforcement, courts, and for-profit prisons not to mention devastating real world consequences to real people's lives. That said, while I enjoy his stage and teevee shows Penn's being a bit disingenuous and politically naive here. I get the feeling Obama would like to ease back on the war on drugs but his early efforts in this area soon devolved back into the same old same old Bush era policies with a vengeance. This has been a great disappointment to a lot of people. State legalized MMJ should be a no-brainer but apparently the Feds still think busting them is a pretty good idea for some reason. That should be the first place people in the political arena should try to find legislative support but they shouldn't expect an easy fight. The lobbyists arrayed against legalization range from Law Enforcement Officers to people who own prisons to the tobacco and alcohol and prescription drug industries to organized crime.

The underground economy created by an illegal drug industry gives rise to criminal elements within society that can have devastating impact on governance. See: Mexico. Unpopular and unjust laws like anti-pot laws also erode public trust in police which is never a good thing.

Prohibition never works but we keep trying it. Such a silly species.

To whoever suggested that "adults do not favor legalization"... Grow the fark up.

/Off to smoke some Pink Kush now cos this thread totally harshed my mellow.
 
2012-05-22 06:35:04 AM

quatchi:
The underground economy created by an illegal drug industry gives rise to criminal elements within society that can have devastating impact on governance. See: Mexico. Unpopular and unjust laws like anti-pot laws also erode public trust in police which is never a good thing.

Prohibition never works but we keep trying it. Such a silly species.

To whoever suggested that "adults do not favor legalization"... Grow the fark up.

/Off to smoke some Pink Kush now cos this thread totally harshed my mellow.


There are plenty of other drugs, existing and to be invented, that will be marketed illegally after weed is legalized.

Yes, many adults favor legalization. But how much of the market for weed here is under 21s? Under 18s? Even if weed is legalized and taxed, I would guess that it will still be against the law for a third to a half of its market to consume it.

When did the police ever enjoy public trust?
 
2012-05-22 07:03:28 AM

TheJoe03: Jorn the Younger: Where are you seeing this goalpost moving that you're talking about?

In this thread?

I showed you two articles that made the point that Obama went from lowering priorities when it comes to medical marijuana to starting an all out assault against it. I don't get how you can defend that if you are in your heart a liberal who is against the drug war. You said that Obama never said such a thing in his campaign but that is not true. He clearly stated he wouldn't waste federal resources on medical marijuana and leave it more to the states and then a year into his term he decided to drop the hammer on medical marijuana. To me, it makes no sense, he could have just either never said anything about it or at least kept up the same efforts that Bush did. He has actually busted more medical marijuana clubs than Bush did in his first term.


Since you seem to have all the details, how does the number of busts compare with the number of active dispenseries? Has Obama raided more than Bush did as a percentage of dispenseries in operation?

Also, you posted two links to articles where people claimed Obama said he would roll back enforcement. The only actual quotes I've seen linked or pasted in this thread that are actually from Obama is him explaining how saying he wouldn't prioritize it doesn't mean he's not going to enforce federal law.

I'm not trying to move any goalposts, I'm trying to have a discussion that takes place in reality, but far too many people, on this topic and plenty of others, seem to believe that promises were made that were not.

And so you know, I'm not "in my heart" a liberal, I don't think of myself as a liberal, though I am fundamentally opposed to The War on (some) Drugs, as I am opposed to any war carried out by a government against its own people.
 
2012-05-22 07:11:31 AM

tirob: Yes, many adults favor legalization. But how much of the market for weed here is under 21s? Under 18s? Even if weed is legalized and taxed, I would guess that it will still be against the law for a third to a half of its market to consume it.


I forgot kids don't drink or smoke cigarettes.
 
2012-05-22 08:08:06 AM

TheJoe03: tirob: Yes, many adults favor legalization. But how much of the market for weed here is under 21s? Under 18s? Even if weed is legalized and taxed, I would guess that it will still be against the law for a third to a half of its market to consume it.

I forgot kids don't drink or smoke cigarettes.


So did I. Must have been all that booze I consumed when I was a teenager.
 
2012-05-22 10:21:27 AM

tirob: knobmaker: tirob: knobmaker: tirob: I know that my life revolves around the legalization of recreational marijuana use so much that it is my sole criterion for choosing a President. Anyone who doesn't see that this is the most important issue in the United States today has their priorities all wrong.

Oh for heaven's sake. The War on Drugs has done far more damage to the country than any pack of flea-bitten religious fanatics in the Middle-east ever could.

That's a debatable proposition if I've ever seen one. The DEA hasn't run airplanes loaded with fuel into office buildings as of yet.

I don't know. 3000 died on 9/11. Milton Friedman, that wild-eyed liberal, has calculated that the War on Drugs causes 10,000 unnecessary deaths every year. That's probably a low estimate now, since he made that calculation some years ago.


How many unnecessary deaths per year does Mr. Friedman think will occur if the sale of methamphetamines and cocaine and opium derivatives for recreational use is made legal here?


Well, he's dead, so he doesn't think much of anything these days.

But consider that there's a drug which is just as deadly as those you mention, causes a lot of deaths, and yet is legal. We tried to ban it, but the unforeseen consequences of the ban were so horrific that the electorate demanded an end to the ban. We don't seem to be as smart as our grandparents.

Bear in mind also that anyone who wants these drugs now can get them. Prohibiting them has not made them less readily available. So we get the terrible social consequences of prohibiting them, but we don't prevent people from using them, which was supposed to be the point of prohibiting them. Ask yourself this: when is prohibiting these drugs going to start making them unavailable? Real Soon Now?

Besides all that, remember that almost all the death and disease associated with the use of these dangerous drugs is a direct result of their illegality, NOT their pharmaceutical effects. For example, opiates are remarkably benign drugs, provided that the doses are standardized, and needles are clean. Wealthy users do not experience the same ill effects as street junkies. Look at Keith Richards, or one of the founders of Johns-Hopkins. That's not to say that it's a good thing to be a wealthy junkie, but if heroin were cheap and clean, junkies would have far fewer bad health effects (and commit far fewer crimes.) Or take meth, the current drug war bugaboo. A lot of working people in Thailand use meth; it's as omnipresent there as weed is here. But observers don't fear the terrible effects of the drug as much as they fear the consequences of a crackdown. In the last crackdown, thousands were murdered by police in extra-judicial executions.

That's where the drug war is taking us. I don't think we should go there.
 
2012-05-22 11:07:02 AM

knobmaker: tirob:

But consider that there's a drug which is just as deadly as those you mention, causes a lot of deaths, and yet is legal. We tried to ban it, but the unforeseen consequences of the ban were so horrific that the electorate demanded an end to the ban. We don't seem to be as smart as our grandparents.

Bear in mind also that anyone who wants these drugs now can get them. Prohibiting them has not made them less readily available. So we get the terrible social consequences of prohibiting them, but we don't prevent people from using them, which was supposed to be the point of prohibiting them. Ask yourself this: when is prohibiting these drugs going to start making them unavailable? Real Soon Now?

Besides all that, remember that almost all the death and disease associated with the use of these dangerous drugs is a direct result of their illegality, NOT their pharmaceutical effects. For example, opiates ...


I don't think that Prohibition is apposite here because it was an attempt to outlaw a drug that had been legal in Western society for thousands of years. The recreational use of most of the substances now called controlled is relatively new, at least in the United States and other western countries, and it has been against the law everywhere in the West (and in most other places)for over a hundred years.

Prohibiting these drugs will never make them unavailable, and it has not made them less available to those who really want them. I think it *has* made them less available, or at least less attractive to buy, to that class of people--neither of us knows how large it is--who are thinking about experimenting with them.

For every Keith Richards there's a Janis Joplin.

A lot of working people, especially on farms, use meth in this country. Doesn't mean it should be legalized. I have seen friends' lives ruined by meth. And we don't know where the drug war is taking us; we haven't had thousands of extrajudicial police killings of suspected drug dealers in this country yet, and I can only hope that we continue not to have them.

Experience has shown that there is a downside--a bad downside--to permitting controlled substances to become licit. China, Singapore, and Taiwan don't have their draconian drug laws for nothing; the use of opium and its derivatives in those countries was so prevalent before the adoption of those laws that it affected the local economies and national security, not to mention the deleterious effects on the quality of life caused by thousands of junkies sleeping in the streets. The problem can get very frustrating; I have heard a story that Mao was once asked how China got rid of its hundreds of thousands of opium addicts, and that he replied, "We shot them." Probably apocryphal, but if Singapore will now and again hang a drug dealer's ass--they do--it is because people there remember what it was like when the streets were full of burnt-out addicts.

I don't have a quick fix, as it were, to this problem. I think I have already written that I would try a Portuguese-style decriminalization of drug *use* coupled with severe penalties for drug *sales.* But I have seen no evidence that legalization has ever worked, anywhere, anytime.
 
2012-05-22 11:07:29 AM

Poo_Fight: Simply because he's not Obama, Right?


Please, DO tell us why Romney, a practicing Mormon who won't even drink tea or Pepsi because they're "evil", is going to be Pot Savior you've been waiting for. You being such an impartial genius.
 
2012-05-22 12:22:44 PM

Homicider: Poo_Fight: Simply because he's not Obama, Right?

Please, DO tell us why Romney, a practicing Mormon who won't even drink tea or Pepsi because they're "evil", is going to be Pot Savior you've been waiting for. You being such an impartial genius.


Please, do tell us why Democrats, if we continue to support them when they break their promises, won't simply continue to break their promises?

Obama promised that if he was elected that he would not to use federal resources to fight state laws on medical marijuana.

Here's an example of what he's been doing:

Matthew Cohen, a medical-marijuana farmer in Mendocino was growing 99 plants under the direct supervision of the county sheriff. As part of a pioneering collaboration with local law enforcement, Cohen marked each of his plants with county-supplied tags, had his secured facility inspected and distributed the marijuana he grew directly to patients in his nonprofit collective.

Cohen appeared to be precisely the kind of caregiver that (Obama) advised should be given safe harbor for operating in "clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law." But last October, DEA agents stormed Cohen's farm in the middle of the night and cut down his crop.

Sheriff Tom Allman, who learned of the raid on his turf only an hour before it was executed, was outraged. "Matt Cohen was not in violation of any state or local ordinances when federal agents arrived at his location,"


Obama lied. Now, are you going to reward this behavior or not?
 
2012-05-22 12:31:24 PM
For those of you claiming that marijuana isn't medicine for those who are suffering, here's what a sitting New York State judge with pancreatic cancer has to say:

My survival has demanded an enormous price, including months of chemotherapy, radiation hell and brutal surgery. For about a year, my cancer disappeared, only to return. About a month ago, I started a new and even more debilitating course of treatment. Every other week, after receiving an IV booster of chemotherapy drugs that takes three hours, I wear a pump that slowly injects more of the drugs over the next 48 hours.

Nausea and pain are constant companions. One struggles to eat enough to stave off the dramatic weight loss that is part of this disease. Eating, one of the great pleasures of life, has now become a daily battle, with each forkful a small victory. Every drug prescribed to treat one problem leads to one or two more drugs to offset its side effects. Pain medication leads to loss of appetite and constipation. Anti-nausea medication raises glucose levels, a serious problem for me with my pancreas so compromised. Sleep, which might bring respite from the miseries of the day, becomes increasingly elusive.

Inhaled marijuana is the only medicine that gives me some relief from nausea, stimulates my appetite, and makes it easier to fall asleep. The oral synthetic substitute, Marinol, prescribed by my doctors, was useless. Rather than watch the agony of my suffering, friends have chosen, at some personal risk, to provide the substance. I find a few puffs of marijuana before dinner gives me ammunition in the battle to eat. A few more puffs at bedtime permits desperately needed sleep.

This is not a law-and-order issue; it is a medical and a human rights issue. Being treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, I am receiving the absolute gold standard of medical care. But doctors cannot be expected to do what the law prohibits, even when they know it is in the best interests of their patients. When palliative care is understood as a fundamental human and medical right, marijuana for medical use should be beyond controversy.


Stop spreading the lie that marijuana isn't medicine, just because Obama is farking that particular chicken.
 
2012-05-22 01:36:51 PM
I think the thing that disturbs me most is people defending Obama on this issue. It's like people defending Bush. There's no defense...wrong is wrong.

I'm not saying you don't have to believe your candidate is the better candidate...but Obama deserves criticism on this issue and should NOT be above it. Why so many Obamaniacs are reluctant to criticism him on this issue is beyond me.
 
2012-05-22 02:27:45 PM

bhcompy: Empty Matchbook: //still think Penn's one of the worst "It's not proselytizing when WE do it!" atheists out there.

Except Penn doesn't put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la" when you try to talk religion to him. He'll listen to you, tell you he disagrees, and will move on.


Fair enough, but that doesn't mean he doesn't proselytize or call ANYone who believes "broken" (not just bigots). In an interview he said that atheism is the result of a loving household (and this wasn't just for him personally, he was saying this as a generalization) because you don't need to seek unconditional love from an unknown force if you have it at home, which I found PROFOUNDLY insulting on SO many different levels. It was Mark Maron's WTF podcast, lest you think I'm inventing it seeing as how we ARE on the internet.
 
2012-05-22 03:32:20 PM

Jorn the Younger: Also, you posted two links to articles where people claimed Obama said he would roll back enforcement. The only actual quotes I've seen linked or pasted in this thread that are actually from Obama is him explaining how saying he wouldn't prioritize it doesn't mean he's not going to enforce federal law.


So how does lowering the priority on medical marijuana mean increasing enforcement? Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I guess Forbes and Rolling Stone are lying and YOU are the one telling the truth, even though you never backed anything up. What exactly does lowering priorities mean to you, record raids? Complacent fark.
 
2012-05-22 04:38:32 PM

technicolor-misfit: A friend of mine lives in Vegas, and she says Penn is a notorious douchebag.


He takes his morality to heart. In his last book he basically says he loves proselytizing. Loves it. He think everyone should scream at the top of their lungs what they believe instead of only sticking with the same crowd.

doing so tends to make people sound douchey
 
2012-05-22 05:14:34 PM

BullBearMS: Homicider: Poo_Fight: Simply because he's not Obama, Right?

Please, DO tell us why Romney, a practicing Mormon who won't even drink tea or Pepsi because they're "evil", is going to be Pot Savior you've been waiting for. You being such an impartial genius.

Please, do tell us why Democrats, if we continue to support them when they break their promises, won't simply continue to break their promises?

Obama promised that if he was elected that he would not to use federal resources to fight state laws on medical marijuana.

Here's an example of what he's been doing:

Matthew Cohen, a medical-marijuana farmer in Mendocino was growing 99 plants under the direct supervision of the county sheriff. As part of a pioneering collaboration with local law enforcement, Cohen marked each of his plants with county-supplied tags, had his secured facility inspected and distributed the marijuana he grew directly to patients in his nonprofit collective.

Cohen appeared to be precisely the kind of caregiver that (Obama) advised should be given safe harbor for operating in "clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law." But last October, DEA agents stormed Cohen's farm in the middle of the night and cut down his crop.

Sheriff Tom Allman, who learned of the raid on his turf only an hour before it was executed, was outraged. "Matt Cohen was not in violation of any state or local ordinances when federal agents arrived at his location,"

Obama lied. Now, are you going to reward this behavior or not?


Why the fark would anyone supporting the legalization of marijuana EVER vote for the GOP? That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
 
2012-05-22 08:45:55 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Why the fark would anyone supporting the legalization of marijuana EVER vote for the GOP? That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.


No, continuing to support Obama no matter how many promises he breaks is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Again, learn a lesson from the gays. When Obama refused to come through on the promises he made to the gay community for two years, gay activists organized a fundraising/support boycott. Gay protesters started showing up at every Obama campaign appearance. Then gay voter turnout hit record lows in the midterms as well.

Immediately after that, in the lame duck session of Congress DADT was overturned, Obama decided he would no longer defend the Unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act, and announced that he was "evolving" on the issue of gay marriage.

If you support politicians no matter what they do and no matter what promises they break, they have no incentive to keep their word.

Ask yourself this: if you were a Democratic Party official, wouldn't you also ignore - and, when desirable, step on - the people who you know will support you no matter what you do to them? That's what a rational, calculating, self-interested, unprincipled Democratic politician should do: accommodate those factions which need accommodating (because their support is in question), while ignoring or scorning the ones whose support is not in question, either because they will never vote for them (the hard-core right) or will dutifully canvass, raise money, and vote for them no matter what (the Democratic base).

Anyone who pledges unconditional, absolute fealty to a politician is guaranteeing their own irrelevance.


The Democrats keep moving farther and farther to the right and as long as we give them unconditional support, they will continue to do so, since there is no downside to them doing so.

It was often said that Bush/Cheney used fear as their principal political weapon - and they did - but that's true of the Democratic Party as well. When it comes to their base, Democratic leaders know they will command undying, unbreakable support no matter how many times they kick their base, because of the fear that has been instilled in the base - not fear of Terrorists or Immigrants (that's the GOP's tactic), but fear of Sarah Palin, the Kochs and the Tea Party. Rachel herself made this point quite well before the 2010 election:
I talked at the top of the show tonight with Gail Collins about how one way to motivate your natural base for an election is to make your base afraid of what the other side has to offer. And that is true. That works. That works on both sides. It works for conservatives about liberals and it works for liberals about conservatives.

But one less soul-sucking way to motivate your base and to win an election and to keep winning elections and to, frankly, have history look kindly upon you, is to get your base to cheer for you - not just to cheer against someone else, but to see you standing up, not just to bad guys with worse ideas than you, but to see you standing up for what is right because you know it is right, because we know you know it's right, even though you also know standing up for it is hard.

It may be that this fear of Republicans is rational (or, given how many GOP-replicating policies and practices the Democrats embrace, maybe it isn't). But whatever else is true, one thing is for certain: dedicated partisans who pledge their unbreakable, eternally loyal support for any Party or politician are going to be steadfastly ignored (or worse) by that Party or politician, and rightfully so.


The Democratic party needs to learn to fear their base.
 
2012-05-23 05:58:24 AM

TheJoe03: Jorn the Younger: Also, you posted two links to articles where people claimed Obama said he would roll back enforcement. The only actual quotes I've seen linked or pasted in this thread that are actually from Obama is him explaining how saying he wouldn't prioritize it doesn't mean he's not going to enforce federal law.

So how does lowering the priority on medical marijuana mean increasing enforcement? Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I guess Forbes and Rolling Stone are lying and YOU are the one telling the truth, even though you never backed anything up. What exactly does lowering priorities mean to you, record raids? Complacent fark.


You mistake a desire for an honest appraisal of reality with complacancy

You still haven't provided any documentation of Obama making the promise you're accusing him of breaking.

Am I happy with the situation? No. But we don't improve the situation by whining about broken promises, especially when those promises weren't actually made in the first place.

You shouldn't feel to bad about being taken in by that sort of thing though, professional candidates tend to be very good at presenting themselves as a blank canvas onto which you can project your positions and opinions, and leave you feeling like they're with you, even though if you look at the actual words they said objectively, they have offered no actual support for your specific cause.

And you say again "record raids" while excising from your quote of my post the question regarding the context of those record numbers. I've looked, but I haven't been able to find any information on number of raids as a percentage of active distributaries. Given that you chose to ignore the question rather than refute it, I'm assuming that you don't either, but no law or policy exists in a vacuum, and if you want to affect actual change in the real world you have to look at things in the context of the real world.

I understand it's in the interest of your cause to make things look as severe as possible, but I wasn't looking to play that game. And if you're going to state the President has broken a promise, you'd better have documentation of him actually making that promise, or else it's only going to hurt your credibility, except with people who already agree with you anyway. That way lies the echo chamber problem, and the marijuana legalization movement has enough problems already without turning into the next GOP-style circle-derp
 
2012-05-23 06:35:43 AM
"I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It's not a good use of our resources." - August 21, 2007, event in Nashua, New Hampshire

"I don't think that should be a top priority of us, raiding people who are using ... medical marijuana. With all the things we've got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn't be a high priority." - June 2, 2007, town hall meeting in Laconia, New Hampshire

"You know, it's really not a good use of Justice Department resources." - responding to whether the federal government should stop medical marijuana raids, August 13, 2007, town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire

"The Justice Department going after sick individuals using [marijuana] as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense." - July 21, 2007, town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire



Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/promises-117589-campaign-marijuana.htm l#ixzz1vgh3zvXD

You're the one not trying to have a real debate, you keep ignoring the proof. All I have to do is a quick google search, it ain't hard, stop being disingenuous. The even further proof you asked for is not even available for us to see, thus you moved the goalposts and side stepped the entire point. You couldn't find any research to back up your claim about percentage of dispensaries, and then you want me to find it. Why are you even attempting all of this, to prove some point about echo chambers? Sounds like a bunch of bullshiat to me.
 
2012-05-23 06:37:36 AM
"What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state [medical marijuana] laws."

Barack Obama, Oregon Mail Tribune, March 22, 2008
 
2012-05-23 06:40:25 AM
How about this article from 2008.
 
2012-05-23 06:42:14 AM
Gonna love the excuse you have for that one. His campaign literally saying that they would have a hands off approach to medical marijuana. Where do the goalposts move now? Stay tuned...
 
2012-05-23 08:56:56 AM

TheJoe03: So how does lowering the priority on medical marijuana mean increasing enforcement? Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. I guess Forbes and Rolling Stone are lying and YOU are the one telling the truth, even though you never backed anything up. What exactly does lowering priorities mean to you, record raids? Complacent fark.


I hate what Obama has done in the case of medical marijuana. There ARE many cases where helpful businesses were raided, not because of profiteering but because they had a large supply and/or clientele. I DO believe he's gone back on his word, BUT ANECDOTES ARE NOT F*CKING STATISTICS. It's possible that Obama is, statistically, "keeping his word," and these articles are NOT proving or disproving it.

As someone who lives in a medical marijuana state, and since anecdotes pass for evidence now, I've noticed a rather common trend: if you don't "advertise," you're usually left alone (well, that, and you know your clients and make sure they aren't pieces of crap who want to blackmail you in some way or another, or if you do them "wrong" in some way, have them turn you in or claim you were breaking the law). There are numerous businesses in town who were not visited by the feds, but they also weren't paying for newspaper ads, radio ads, or posting on Craigslist. Of course, the businesses that were raided are almost all still in business, and they're still profiteering in ways they were not supposed to.

I'll be honest, if Obama were as "liberal" as idiots who follow Fox News claimed, he'd have told the feds to focus exclusively on profiteers. Of course, he'd also have probably guaranteed reelection by doing that.
 
2012-05-23 09:07:00 AM

TheJoe03: "What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state [medical marijuana] laws."

Barack Obama, Oregon Mail Tribune, March 22, 2008


Again, you're not helping your argument. Obama is a man with a law background. "Try" has meaning. As it is, the majority (not all, again, WHICH IS A PROBLEM TO ME) of raids have, in fact, taken place against dispensaries that are profiteering, which is not legal per the state laws that exist on medical marijuana nearly (if not) everywhere.

The earlier quotes you posted almost exclusively included the word "users." Has Obama been targeting "users" of medical marijuana?

AGAIN, I don't like how Obama has approached this issue (and his authoritarianism is possibly going to be his downfall in the next election), and it's another example of a "liberal" politician who is too farking scared to lead this nation in a FORWARD direction. But I also don't like cherrypicking and ignoring KEY legal terms from a person with a legal background. He's clearly not as forgiving on the issue as he IMPLIED he would be, but the statements quoted don't directly conflict with the actions of the federal government (and, just maybe, that's the joke of it all).
 
2012-05-23 03:17:36 PM

puffy999: He's clearly not as forgiving on the issue as he IMPLIED he would be, but the statements quoted don't directly conflict with the actions of the federal government (and, just maybe, that's the joke of it all).


The thing is, the American people aren't law professors, all this semantics bullshiat doesn't matter. Makes him seems like a sneaky bastard willing to twist words in order to get votes and use the same concept to switch it up and the claim he never really broke a promise. Hey, maybe I'm sick of politicians doing stuff like that and perhaps he shouldn't have implied he would take it easy on medical marijuana. What did he expect? For the pro-weed crowd to not notice the raids? He wants to have his cake and eat it too.
 
2012-05-23 04:24:35 PM
Subject about Obama, Boobies tries to divert from the subject at hand. Classic.
 
2012-05-23 06:32:00 PM

Jorn the Younger: If you're interested in my personal opinion, I think medical legalization is garbage; I support total legalization, and I don't think medical legalization is a productive step towards that goal.


It's been a very productive step here in California, along with Arnie making simple marijuana possession for non-prop 215 patients an infraction with only a $100 ticket. Most cops wont even go that far. The biggest impediment to legal weed in CA (we had a prop last election) is from the a lot of the pro-weed people, ironically. People here don't want the govt to be involved with marijuana at all, we like the current system where it's private collectives and card holders that buy and supply the marijuana. Then we got the guys in true NorCal (Mendocino, Humboldt, etc) who depend on growing good ass weed to sell to the clubs. People think the govt would put weed in the hands of the govt instead of the normal growers.

Nationwide, I think the growth of medical marijuana only helps the issue become more mainstream and for the further movement to finally be discussed by our leaders. Beyond that, Latin America has been pushing to legalize drugs, I feel that it is only a matter of time before our leaders are forced into action. The bloodshed in Mexico is an even big eye opener for our people and govt. It wasn't too big a deal when it was going on Colombia but now it's next door and a direct effect of the Drug War. Sorry for digressing.
 
2012-05-23 07:37:16 PM

TheJoe03: Jorn the Younger: If you're interested in my personal opinion, I think medical legalization is garbage; I support total legalization, and I don't think medical legalization is a productive step towards that goal.

It's been a very productive step here in California, along with Arnie making simple marijuana possession for non-prop 215 patients an infraction with only a $100 ticket. Most cops wont even go that far. The biggest impediment to legal weed in CA (we had a prop last election) is from the a lot of the pro-weed people, ironically. People here don't want the govt to be involved with marijuana at all, we like the current system where it's private collectives and card holders that buy and supply the marijuana. Then we got the guys in true NorCal (Mendocino, Humboldt, etc) who depend on growing good ass weed to sell to the clubs. People think the govt would put weed in the hands of the govt instead of the normal growers.

Nationwide, I think the growth of medical marijuana only helps the issue become more mainstream and for the further movement to finally be discussed by our leaders. Beyond that, Latin America has been pushing to legalize drugs, I feel that it is only a matter of time before our leaders are forced into action. The bloodshed in Mexico is an even big eye opener for our people and govt. It wasn't too big a deal when it was going on Colombia but now it's next door and a direct effect of the Drug War. Sorry for digressing.


Hey TheJoe.. are there any ballot measures for legalization this year? I was trying to look it up, but wasn't successful. It looks like the ones earlier this year didn't get enough signatures?
 
2012-05-23 08:01:05 PM

AeAe: Hey TheJoe.. are there any ballot measures for legalization this year? I was trying to look it up, but wasn't successful. It looks like the ones earlier this year didn't get enough signatures?


I don't believe there is, I think there was too many competing legalization propositions. They should have organized it into one proposition instead of splitting support up.

/Reading the the propositions just now, I found that we have one to repeal the death penalty, should be interesting to see how that turns out.
 
2012-05-24 01:37:08 AM

TheJoe03: "I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It's not a good use of our resources." - August 21, 2007, event in Nashua, New Hampshire

Users are not dispensaries

"I don't think that should be a top priority of us, raiding people who are using ... medical marijuana. With all the things we've got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn't be a high priority." - June 2, 2007, town hall meeting in Laconia, New Hampshire

Users are not dispensaries
shouldn't be a high priority isn't won't be enforced.

"You know, it's really not a good use of Justice Department resources." - responding to whether the federal government should stop medical marijuana raids, August 13, 2007, town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire
Which is not a promise to re-allocate those resources

"The Justice Department going after sick individuals using [marijuana] as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense." - July 21, 2007, town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire
Users are not distibutaries, and admitting it makes no sense is not a promise not to do it.


Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/promises-117589-campaign-marijuana.htm l#ixzz1vgh3zvXD

You're the one not trying to have a real debate, you keep ignoring the proof. All I have to do is a quick google search, it ain't hard, stop being disingenuous. The even further proof you asked for is not even available for us to see, thus you moved the goalposts and side stepped the entire point. You couldn't find any research to back up your claim about percentage of dispensaries, and then you want me to find it. Why are you even attempting all of this, to prove some point about echo chambers? Sounds like a bunch of bullshiat to me.

If you review the discussion we've had, I think you'll find that not once I have moved the goalposts, but rather you have repeatedly failed to get through the goalposts that you put up in the first place.

You said Obama made a promise and he broke it. I said if he made that promise, give me the quote, and you haven't. You can't. Because it isn't true.

I'm not on the opposite side of this issue from you, but you';re not going to get my support if you are incapable to facing reality. If you want to critizie President Obama and his administration regarding their polices on this issue, do so- but do so while remaining in the real world. If you want real support for your cause, it can't be based in lies.

And while you're accusing me of disengenuity, it is in fact yourself who is cutting out and ignoring parts of this discussion.
 
2012-05-24 02:21:53 AM
I could give a fark if you're on my side or joining my cause, I hate arguing with people that have some point that has nothing to do with the actual argument. Fact remains, Obama IMPLIED he'd be chill about weed but he ain't, so therefore I can't respect him on this issue and I am wary about all his comments at this point. I don't see how I failed to show that he implied that we should put less priorities on medical marijuana, but in his doublespeak he left room to act like he never broke a promise. I'm not like you, semantics is just a game to me, I care more about common sense and it's obvious he wanted liberal voters to think he would take it easy on marijuana clubs. So yeah, I'll continue to criticize Obama on this issue, and even if I buy your bullshiat about him not implying during the campaign that he would stop or slow down the raids, I still think Obama is dead wrong on this issue and has shown himself to be yet another authoritarian politician. Case closed, fark your opinions and semantic arguments, go on CNN or some other purveyor of bullshiat that has nothing to do with the issues. He gave himself an out, and that is cowardly.
 
Displayed 40 of 240 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report