mastershake407

McCain is not a ignorant pussy regarding firearms. I love my pot and I love my guns. My 2nd amendment rights mean more to me than pot.

Just give me some quality pot, some cheap ammo and lots of land and leave me the fuck alone.

The dems have gun control
The repubs have the war on drugs

Both make me want vomit.

Frylok

Yes, quite so, that is exactly the problem. In an ideal world we'd have a field of candidates to choose from, and we'd get fair and straight answers on specific topic from each one of the candidates, then we'd all vote online and get the guy in there that can best do the job.

Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world. The Republicans and their plan to wipe out the middle class (or rather to steal all of our money and put us in the lower class), and to dictate morals by force has to be stopped at all costs. Eight more years of GOP rule after Bush would have been disastrous. Idealism, in the form of Ralph Nader, was the cause of Al Gore's loss and all of our subsequent woes ala the George Bush/Dick Cheney show.

So, I guess I'm saying I sympathize with the idealist side of your arguments, but I must go with the pragmatic (ie: WORKABLE) approach of picking the better candidate.

For the record, I think Barack Obama is an excellent, intelligent, compassionate, and wise president, and will go down as one of the best in our country's history. Drug law reform may not be on his agenda, at the momen,t or ever, but his policies have already paved the way for future advancements regarding medical marijuana and the perception of marijuana in general by the public.

We live in historic times.

SacredJellybean

You're getting into a chicken and egg argument. I could argue that McCain was a weak candidate that didn't have the charisma to excite anyone and that people were more open to voting Democrat after 8 years under the helm of Bush and Cheney and all the crap they brought down upon this country. It was an interesting battle for the Democratic primaries, with two minority candidates that had the Dems divided.

The point is, how can we quantify and prove that more people would have been interested in Ron Paul had he gotten more screen time? He didn't even win any states, man, and can the television media be blamed for all of it when the internet is such a great resource? Don't forget that the man does have some radical positions, such as reverting back to the gold standard, building a fence on our borders, completely eliminating the war on drugs, pretty much against anything that isn't outlined in our constitution, etc. I agreed with him on foreign policy and partially the war on drugs, at least. Republicans could have rallied behind them and I'm sure that if the powers-that-be thought he could have won, they would have selected him.

The Tax Tea Parties that occurred recently? You mean they aren't?

Then why did he release those torture memos? If he's for more government control, why is he pro-choice? Of course, he's a liberal democrat (or centrist, depending on who you talk to), and they're for more social programs, meaning it's a given that they want more government control, but it seems to me that the driving force behind taking away our civil liberties in the name of security is driven by Republicans. Obama has disappointed me on this front, admittedly, but he's certainly no worse than McCain would have been.

Being a true patiot and wanting what's right for your country is shown by voting for a candidate who you know will not be elected, throwing away the ability to control the damage these asshole politicians wreak upon us every term? Okie-dokie, glad we cleared that up.

__________________
"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

troublemaker_42

Two hot button issues with me are legalization and gun control..Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that Obama is not good for gun owners. Sure, he's promised to protect "hunters and target shooters" from having their guns taken, but what about collectors or other enthusists? What about people who want a gun, not for hunting or target practice, but for self-defense, home protection, or, "just to have one or just in case". All these are valid reasons for gun ownership as well, but Obama failed to address such gun owners during his campaign, and has made it no secret he doesn't thhink the average American "needs" a semi-auto, military-style weapon under any circumstancers and believes they should be banned (along with handguns, if you can believe Obama's own handwritten notes on a survey). From a gun owner's prespective, I was fearful of Obama the second I realized his record on gun rights. Wait, that implies he's somehow supported gun rights in his career...by and large, he hasn't whatsoever, and appears to be more of an anti-gun rights guy than any previous president. Democrats in general seem to favor gun control, but Obama seems more gung ho on the issue than many of his party (in fact 65 Democratic leaders have already written him telling Obama and Co. that they would resist any attempts to reinstate an assault weapons ban). He's pursuing a personal agenda when it comes to firearms, and a look at his history will reveal that isn't the least bit suprising

On my seocnd issue, I knew better than buy into the hype that he was going to be any more likely to legalize than any other president, but I thought his promise to end dispensary raids and whatnot were positive steps. Then, he made a joke out of the issue, basicaly dismissing millions who wanted legitimate answers regarding legalization. Right there, he showed me he really WAS just another politican, playing the game to his advantage at all times, not willing to take risks or otherwise entertain us in any way. Two hotbutton issues, and two fails.....and hundreds of other fails unrelated to those issues...(we all see how well giving billions to GM worked out....they satill went bankrupt, only this time after spending our hard earned dollars that were given to them. Why did we give them billions? Wasn't it to avoid what is happening regardless?).....2012 can't come fast enough, wheter its the end of the world, or just of his administration. I had hopes I'd be wrong when I said he'd be horrible for our naiton, and really hoped I would be....I predicted disaster and wanted success....however, what I've predicted has, thus far, been much closer to reality than my hopes and dreams have been... I can't get behind an administration that doesn't pay triubute to thosae who put him in office, or one that embraces and promotes lies and engages in fearmongering to get his way (Anyone hear that 90% of firearms confiscated in Mexico are of US origion? Guess what...its 17% that have been proven to come from the US, but you'd never hear that from the administration...evn Clinton has spouted off about it, despite it simply being untrue in every way.) Don't believe everything you hear......espeically if its from a politican's mouth

__________________
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."


If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

k1ngTHC

Fuck mccain fuck obama i lost all respect for him when he denied the #1 question in america which had to do with legalizing marijuana

__________________
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j9...3/PIC-0127.jpg
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j9...13/2vm7tzc.jpg

Dreau Preau

America is a democracy, and thus its leaders are, understandably, supposed to be restricted in terms of the individuality they can show regarding their decisions. Democracy means that, first and foremost, politicians are supposed to be accurate representatives--whether or not the majority opinion is right comes second. This is a fundamental flaw of democracy, but it seems better than the flaws of any other government, and considering the election of Obama I'd say that we're making good progress towards a more enlightened public. Obama has certainly raised the standards of American politics by being more truthful about his past and approaching foreign affairs in a more humble light, but being a politician isn't always about standing behind what you think, but standing behind what the people think. Unfortunately, what the people think can be wrong. It's because of America's Christian heritage that the government has any responsability regarding whether we make healthy choices in our private lives, and the separation of religion and state is still an ongoing process that I hope will continue at a steady rate with the legalization of harmful substances.

As for automatic weapons... I'm hesitant to support making them available considering their purpose, first and foremost, is for killing other people, and they do it very well. Sure, they're cool, but in my opinion they're more dangerous than domestic weapons need to be. A shotgun or a semi-auto handgun seems like enough to give a person a fair fight in self defense.

mastershake407

We are not talking about automatic weapons, those have been HEAVILY regulated since 1934 and cost several thousand dollars. They want to take the semi autos and handguns hell many want to take everything. And to be honest, if I wanted to go on a killing spree, I would want a semi auto instead of a full auto. A Full auto weapons only purpose as far as I am concerned is suppressing fire. Any other use is just wasteful.

hippie557

Pretty much says it all. It's a nonsense republican bashing a democrat article. Although I do feel that Obama isn't as "cool" and out for "change" as we all hoped.

__________________
"How does it feel?
To be on your own,
No direction home,
A complete unknown,
Like a rolling stone."

TwoGreenOneRed

^^^The title of the article he wrote is "Myth of a Maverick". That means he was probably anti-mccain.

I don't think the article was "nonsense republican bashing a democrat". I voted for Obama, but I would agree with the main gist of the article: Obama is being more centrist than many who voted for him had hoped for.

l No l FeaR l

I like the way you think

__________________
Peace, Love & Weed