funkifize

And this is some big revelatory surprise? Did all you Obama supporters really believe that he was going to be any different? RON PAUL, BABY!

SacredJellybean

To anyone who really thought Obama would get into office and legalize marijuana within his first year (or his first term, and it's definitely also looking bleak for his second term, should he be re-elected): how old are you? How long have you been paying attention to politics? It's incredible enough that we elected a black man who admitted to (essentially) being a pothead and dipping into cocaine when he was younger.

Obama still has the advantage of favorable approval ratings, and it's political sabotage to openly promote the legalization of marijuana. Why do you think all those people in the conference clapped for Christ's sake? He'll have more political clout with favorable approval ratings, so you know what? Since legalization of marijuana isn't the most important issue to me, and that Obama supports other positions that are more important to me, I'm glad that he said he wouldn't legalize marijuana to help the economy.

And by the way, thinking that legalizing marijuana will help our budget problems by more than an insignificant measure (which is how the question was framed, which wasn't really the smartest idea) is foolish and misguided. We have a problem where we have to start saving or gaining money by the trillions. You think a few dozen billion will really help? Change drug policy because it doesn't work, change it because people who smoke weed deserve freedom, change it because the black market fuels drug cartels and very bad people, but don't sit there and pretend like it will solve our economic troubles. Flimsy reasoning like that will ultimately hurt us more. Legalizing marijuana on the California-wide-level will be more helpful for California's budget, but the scope of the federal government and its finances is much larger. If the suits in DC showed more support, I'd be more critical of Obama, but looking at it from a more practical perspective, I feel he did the right thing (although making light of the issue was still obnoxious).

If third parties were attractive enough to the voting public, they would get more attention. The media plays some role in who becomes the "it" person for Republicans or Democrats, but the media also follows the ratings, and if people cared enough about Ron Paul, the media would be forced to deliver. Vote for a third party? Sure, if the two main candidates were equally terrible and you want to show support without the expectation of your chosen candidate of actually being inaugorated. Calling that mindset ignorant, when voting for a low-key candidate is most certainly futile, is overly idealistic.

__________________
"Every age has its peculiar folly and if Charles Mackay, the author of the 19th century classic, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds were alive today he would surely see 'cannabinophobia' as a popular delusion along with the 'tulipmania' and 'witch hunts' of earlier ages. ... I also believe that future historians will look at this epoch and recognize it as another instance of the 'madness of crowds.'"
~Dr. Lester Grinspoon

Dreau Preau

Regardless of his shortcomings, Obama and Biden were a better choice than McCain and (God help us) Palin. Obama has done alot concerning our international relations already, much that needed to be done. I resent his stance on legalization, but it's a concession I'm willing to make to keep McCain out of office and likely the best step that could have been taken on America's way to ending prohibition.

And yes, voting for a third party in America is a political form of bitching.

TwoGreenOneRed

While I am starting to dislike his attitude towards our movement more and more, I stand by my decision to vote for him. While I hoped he would be more liberal and friendly towards us and the gay movement (they come hand in hand if you think about it), what was the alternative? McCain would have been way worse, especially on the marijuana issue, and at this point third party candidates don't attract enough attention to even be worth voting for.

I heard a song once before the election that said "If not Obama then what?" Well that's how I still feel about it.

funkifize

You are clearly misinformed about third parties. BUT, the Democratic and Republican parties actually control ballot access. That's why Libertarians have such a difficult time being heard. The media is controlled ultimately by political interests. NBC and it's family of companiess is owned by GE, entirely tied to the the military/industrial/political process. Don't think that it's the ideas of third parties that are not attractive. It would be like being forced to use a PC when you really need a Mac, but you have to "make do" until the technology becomes available to you, but your access is controlled by Microsoft, or whatever. This is purely a hypothetical analogy, but I'm trying to convey it in easily understood terms. Thinking Obama is an agent for change is like embracing the Ford Model T as the solution to our energy needs. Bad president. Bad politics. Not much differenvce between his speeches and what I read in the Communist Manifesto. It's just all bad, period.

Harry

President Obama is a Lawyer, Lawyers are the problem here, they make money off both ends of the great marijuana conflict. The DEA has Marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meth as a schedule II and Marinol as a schedule III and is made from Marijuana, costs $3,100.00 a month.

Schedule I means dangerous, with no medical value, well if Marinol is made from Marijuana, and is legal in all 50 states, than apperantly marijuana has value 1. as a drug, 2. Marijuana cannot kill you, marinol has less warnings than asprin.

All it takes is a stroke of the pen to change the law, and Obama and his lawyer pals have the pen... I want to here a DEA lawyer tell the American people how marijuana is more dangerous than meth.

Here's my suggestion, I am a very sick man who has taken marinol for over 2 years now, I use marijuana, it works for me, it sitll does, and I am going to go to Washington, DC and ask that very question as loudly as I can...

WTF Mr. President Obama, you haven't been to see the skulls and bones types have you? I hear that can be a pain in the ass...

202 456 1212 is the phone number for President Obama's house in Washington DC, if you want Marijuana legalized start calling there and leave a message for President Obama.

LowRider

Quote:

If third parties were attractive enough to the voting public, they would get more attention. The media plays some role in who becomes the "it" person for Republicans or Democrats, but the media also follows the ratings, and if people cared enough about Ron Paul, the media would be forced to deliver.

Not true, the media barley covered Ron Paul at all let alone anyone else for that matter. the only reason he was in the news was because at the beginning he raised more money than any other candidate. And to top it off the names Hilary and Obama were the most used names in the media at the time and McCain came third with all the other candidates barley even got mentioned. There is no fare coverage of anyone if you weren't Democrats or Republican. the media pushes them on us if you haven't noticed. Reason why MSNBC caters to the Democrats now, and Fox News is well they go were the popular support is and pretty much stay conservative. Hell even CNN was more Hilary and Obama. Remember the Tea Parties? Yea we were labeled by the media as lunatics.

Quote:

Vote for a third party? Sure, if the two main candidates were equally terrible and you want to show support without the expectation of your chosen candidate of actually being inaugorated. Calling that mindset ignorant, when voting for a low-key candidate is most certainly futile, is overly idealistic

So you vote for the lesser of the two evils? that my friend is fruitile. And the differences between McCain and Obama is that Obama is MORE willing to allow for Gov control and McCain is just right behind him. Republicans are just slower than the democrats my friend. If the canidiates weren't equally terrible i hate to see what terrible is in your book. I will always vote third party no matter who is at the helm in the media. That's a true Patriot, voting for who you beleive in not who might win.

Vesey

Seems like a waste of a vote. Ron Paul wasn't going to win, and everyone knew that. It was going to be Obama or McCain. I'd much rather have my vote go towards the best candidate who actually has a shot at winning, instead of throwing my vote in the political trash in the name of "patriotism."

I understand what you're saying, though. I wish it could work like that...

__________________

LowRider

That's the problem, when people think so and so is going to win and vote for those people how in the world is there ever going to be change? If people actually voted who they thought was the best and the media actually did fair coverage which they don't, the status quo will always remain the same. i can't get clearer than that.

Dreau Preau

While patriotism is not about standing up for what you believe in, its also standing behind the founding ideals of your community and your nation. Understandably, the founding fathers were opposed to partisanship, but eventually it was accepted that partisanship was inevitable in American politics. The same goes for the bipartisan nature of our government. Our government is a democracy, and, like all functional governments, it is propelled by human selfishness and greed. Would you let your own pride hinder your ability to influence your country?

Yet this brings up a lot of other questions.

How do we distinguish the proper amount of individual pride, when today a key criticism of politics is its ability to belittle individuality of politicians in the wake of a faceless representation of the majority opinion rather than reason, the same representation that keeps our movement from progressing as it should? Its this same type of representation that cements the two parties as the candidates for success, because they are the representations of the predominate extremes in American thought. This is something else that the founding fathers safeguarded this government against to the best of their only ability, but you can take a government only so far away from its people...