Marijuana.com

SacredJellybean

So it's all Bill Clinton's fault that 3000 people died on September 11th? Man, what a dick. How'd he get elected twice? He sounds like a total loser.

C'mon, dude. I'll give you that he fucked up in not taking Osama Bin Laden, but there are many reasons we were attacked on that day, namely our support for and military bases in Saudi Arabia and Israel. Bush probably knew there was a chance that we would be attacked - did he act properly? No, he declared a bullshit War on Terror, occupied two countries, and has wasted to date somewhere around 4000 American soldiers' lives and dozens of thousands of lives of Iraqis, not to mention has sunk billions of dollars into not only the debacle that is the Iraq war, but in tax cuts for the wealthy, crippling our economy and leading us into a nice recession. And you want to elect a man who's basically patting him on the back and said "Good job, my man! I can take it from here!" ? One of the biggest reasons being his friendliness to gun control rights?

Sorry, man, I just see higher priorties than that. You might be right in that Obama will be a huge pussy, but I'd rather have a pussy than some nut job war hawk that wants a repeat performance in Iran. We tried that once, it was a huge mistake. Let's get a pussy into office for once. Clinton may have been a pacifist, but can you really compare his 8 years to Bush's 8 years? There's speculation that he'll go down as one of the most hated presidents in history (do I believe that? Nah, I think Nixon was a bigger criminal, but Bush is pretty close behind).

[edit]

It has occurred to me that you might have been referring to Osama when you said he's responsible for the largest attack on U.S. soil to date, and I apologize for misinterpretting that.

__________________
"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

In many respects, it IS, at least partially, Clinton's responsibility. Osama just wasn't considered a serious enough threat for Clinton to act. As a result, Americans died en masse. I'm NOT saying Bush was completely innocent, but he didn't turn Osmaa down when he was offered on a silver platter. You can always argue that hindisght was 20/20 on the issue, but the simple fact is we had America's most wanted served up with an apple in his mouth more or less, and we decided noty to take custody. Thje rest, as they say, is history. In all reality, I WAS referring to Osama being responsible for the attacks, but quite frankly, who is to say 9/11 would have happened regardless if we took Osama in or not? He planned and bankrolled the operation, did he not?


My support for McCain is at least partially because of his stance on gun control. I'm not ashamed to admit that. However, it is far from my only reason. For all practical purposes, I think Hilary is a c#@t. I don't like her, her tactics, her attitude or her ideas. Obama certainly worries me as well. For all his talk of change, it seems to be just that--talk. He hasn't been forthcoming with his actual plans on implementing such change,and when he does attempt to do so, his lack of comprehesnion are even more appearent. I also don't believe he's going to be a friend to those in agriculture, either, which is a big concern of mine, since thats where my family has its roots in this country. Life is getting harder and harder for some of America's families in the heartland, and I don't see Obama as being one to reverse that trend by any means. And while war is never "popular" and I have serious issues with our initial invasion of Iraq and the lies it was based on, I don't think pulling out immediately will do anyone any good. If we don't at least aim to achieve SOME stability over there, who do you think we be redeploying eventually to finish things up? We made the mess, its only fair we help straighten it up. Failure to do so will simply cost more American lives over the long haul, IMO, because we'll simply end up going back again, after what progress has been made is lost again. The American lives lost during the war to date will certainly have been in vain if we cut and run, rather than live up to our obligations.

While gun control is obviously a hot button of mine, its certainly not the sole reason I support McCain. To imply otherwise is selling me short and reducing me to a single-issue voter, neither of which I appreciate. My support for MCain isn't, as I've said a thousand times elsewhere, because I think he's the best man for the job, but because I fear what will happen to our country....on many levels....if Obama (or Hilary, buty I think she has a snowballs chance in hell at this point) is put in charge. Call me paranoid, call me nuts, whatever.....but if Obama wins in 2008, the nation will be beggging for new leadership by 2012. I don't think it will take 4 years for America to realize the mistakes it has made if Obama is seated as President. Maybe I'm wrong....maybe America will prosper under Obama's leadership. I'm not afriad to admit I mioght be completely off-base. However, my gut feeling is that electing Obama is one of the worst choices this country could make at this point. Maybe someday he might have what it takes to lead this nation, but as it stands now, I don't think this is that time. Quite frankly, a "pussy" (your words, not mine) in the White House is the last thing America needs when so much of the world has their sights set on us. While I don't believe we should go out of our way to provoke, nor do I think playing nice with everyone, no matter how despicable they are, is the answer either. Being diplomatic sounds great in principal, but isn't always the most effective or prudent course of action.

__________________
You CANNOT help the poor by destroying the rich.
You CANNOT strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You CANNOT bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You CANNOT lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You CANNOT further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You CANNOT build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You CANNOT help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.
I'll stick to my guns, money, religion and freedom...you can keep the change

SacredJellybean

Don't pidgeon-hole me (funny, because you thought I was pidgeon-holing you ). I know you aren't a single-issue voter. I've read and understand your position that you believe McCain is the least of the 3 evils. I chose my words carefully for a reason: gun rights are obviously one of your bigger reasons for choosing McCain. I don't think that's unclear in the least. I believe you've stated (something along these lines) before that a politician being too big of an enemy to guns rights is a deal breaker to you. I'm not condemning that or saying that you're inside one of the groups of people that Obama pointed out who become single-issue voters.

What I was trying to get at was that gun lobbyists are among the strongest in the country. The cost of bullets may have gone up, and a lot of stupid laws have been put in place, but no one's gonna take your guns away, ever. There are far too many people with guns in this country, along with our culture and history, etc. I'm not gonna bore you, you know all this already. I just feel like Obama wouldn't be able to do much about gun control at a national level. It seems like more of a states issue to me, but I would be interested to see what he says about gun violence and how he would address it as commander-in-chief.

I was talking to my cousin about this, and he told me

I don't think we should cut off Iraq completely (that would obviously be stupid), but I do think we should pull our troops out, PENDING further evidence that the area isn't getting better. There's been talk of some progress, so I'm a little more ambivalent about pulling out. If we can't accomplish our goals within, say, another couple years, I'd say it's time we threw in the towel. Sometimes you just have to -- remember Vietnam?

You're right about one thing: we're hated the world over. Do you know when the anti-American sentiment got really bad? That's right, it was around the time we started this bullshit War on Terror, invaded Iraq, and said "You're either with us or against us." Bush has pulled so many blunders in his administration, there's simply hardly any conceivable way I could see anyone wanting to elect someone else like him. And possibly worse! He wants to continue the same failed policies! He has no integrity, because now he's courting the same people he called "agents of intolerance" and attempting to appear as a Bush substitute, when it was a very different story when him and Bush were running against each other and the Bush camp attacked him with smear campaigns. People were dumb enough to elect Bush a 2nd time, but if they elect McCain, I will have lost all faith in this country.

Let me ask you this: who's more scary looking, a big mean black guy with a Muslim name, or an old, craggly white-haired walking corpse? Only joking. But I don't think electing Obama will set us up for any attacks or make us seem weak, in all honesty. Do you really think that radical Islamists have given up? They're out there and will always be out there. As long as we're supporting Israel and Saudi-Arabia, we're gonna get a few jihandists up our ass, and the best we can do is try to either prevent it (with sound intelligence) or be prepared for it as best as possible.

Let's single this out for a minute. All I'm saying is that it's more diplomatic to say we disagree philosophically with another leader of the world than to call him a wacko. As president of United States, you're representing our country. Do you really believe a hot-tempered, foul-mouthed old man would be more diplomatic than someone as articulate as Obama? And yes, I realize that he lacks experience and that his answers are a bit vague, that a lot of his appeal is just pretty words, and this is a huge weakness, but I still trust him more than Hilary and about 1000 times more than McCain.

Freedom_User

Of course McBush has more experience, hes like a 100! I am also worried about McBushes VP will be.

I would agree, that no President will never take peoples guns away. As one of the NRA member puts it, "you'll have to pry mine from my cold, dead hands." May I ask why McCain has this better gun policy? Just curious. You and I have had differences in the past, but I realize it will never go away, and I accept gun rights.

__________________

Plainsman1963

I don't mind having a President who "calls 'em like he sees 'em" (calling his wife a cunt is probably a bit more than we need do and crosses a line into something else, as well as the bomb bomb iran), but how about having a President that not only "calls 'em like he sees 'em", but also walks the walk as well?

It's one thing to insult Chavez...Yet, McCain hasn't said a word that I've seen about stopping buying oil from Venezuela...Hmm...

Words are cheap.

__________________


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

Posting Guidelines

 

troublemaker_42

How anyone can support a person even his followers describe in such a way is beyond me When even the people who want him in office admit these huge faults, its easy enough to see why his detractors have no shortage of ammo. I'm sorry, but until he can at least articulate HOW he's going to do the things he claims he's going to do (besides the global tax he supports American Thinker: Obama's Global Tax ) I can't get behind him. I have a million ideas too, but without a mechanism for putting them in place, they are for most purposes uiseless....much like how I see a lot of Obama's promises. Running our country isn't something on which you can "just wing it". All the ideas in the world are nothing more than that without a firm plan of action to make those things happen. I'm not comfortable when someone can only give vague answers when asked aboput the HOW part of his ideas.

The global tax concept has been explained well enough, and I find it appalling. Why should we spend that money fighting global poverty when our own country is in an economic crisis and many of our own citizens are living in poverty, homeless, and hungry? He claims we can't support the war in Iraq due to cost, yet proposes giving a share of our GNP (roughly .7% of our GNP, or $845 billion over 13 years), in addition to all the aid we provide presently, to this tax fund? If he plans on leading America, maybe he should concentrate on our own problems instead of giving away our undervalued dollars to foreign entities? While I agree we can't fianancially support the Iraqi war forever, I don't think merely shifting where we're throwing away our money to is the answer, either. You see, when he DOES explain himself, its no less scary than simply being left in the dark about his plans. I mean, he basically is proposing this as a method of buying back the respect America once had in the world. (from Obama's website). Our I'm sorry, but you can't buy respect. If wants the US to be repected, he needs to do more than throw money at the problem. WE already provide massive amounts of aid to foreign countries. Until we have our domestic issues solved, I see no point in expanding that expenditure, especially considering the economic climate.

As far as the gun control issue goes, Obaam still scares the hell out of me. I don't think an all-out ban is on the horizon, but that doesn't mean Obama is a friend to gun owners, either. Take a look at ontheissues.org, and tell me you, as a gun-rights supporter, are 100% comfortable with what he has to say. Quite frankly, I don't think ANY gun owner who doesn't want more regulations, stipulations, taxes, etc to deal with when buying a gun would be comfortable voting for Obama His voting record concerning firearms speaks volumes more than what comes out of his mouth presently. Of course he isn't making it an issue during the campaign, because he wants the votes of the 80 million gun owners of America. However, his voting record shows EXACTLY how he feels about firearms.

from ontheissues.org :

What about the states that have Constitutional protections against local regulation of guns? Is every citizen in these locales issued a police officer for protection 24/7? Philadelphia just signed several gun control laws into law that were shot down almost instantly, because they were in clear conflict with the state's Constitution, making them completely unenforceable. AS it stands now, however, I think the Supreme Court;s upcoming decsion on local gun bans will resolve the issue once and for all, and I believe it will fly in the face of Obama's flawed ideas.

Complete contridiction. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say SOME poeple in SOME locations can own firearms. How is creating your own interpretation of the 2nd Amendment somehow considered "supporting" it? Thats like saying I "support" the 4th amendment, but I don't believe it requires warrants to search drug dealers/users. Its this type of nonsense that comes from this man that I can do without. You can't "support" something whose meaning you obviously can't or refuse to grasp.

I have a feeling his idea of "common sense" is a lot more regulatory than I'd be comfortable with, at least considering his stance on related issues. to be fair, I'd need more info before tearing this point apart, but his overall attitude concerning firearms (going by VOTING records, not what he states publicly) leads me to believe we'd have vastly different definitions of "common sense regulations"

Why? The first state that has ever had such a law (South Carolina) repealed it recently after 30 years on the books after it was determined to have zero effect on crime

What about non police officers? Why should one have to be an ex LEO in order to carry a concealed weapon?

Seems logical enough...I have always championed enforcing existing gun laws rather than enacting new ones. If dealers are acting illegally, do something about it. The law provides for such things as it is now


Yeah, because the law-abiding shouldn't be able to defend themselves in the highest crime areas AS far as morality---that has NOTHING to do with guns, and everything to do with people. A gun is neither moral nor immoral. It is merely a tool...whether that tool is used for good or evil depends on the person holding it. A gun has no more morals than a toaster, automobile, or a bong. I guess I just don't comprehend this comment. First of all, those in the inner city have more need for self-defense than most of us ever will, yet he wants "guns out of the inner city". The morality issue belongs elsewhere, as it simply cannot be applied towards guns any more than it can be applied to any other inanimate object. Is his cigarette smoking a moral issue as well? After all, the cigarettes he smokes daily are responsible for far more deaths than fiorearms. If he is serious about saving lives, he'd do more by banning cigarettes than attacking gun ownership. Hows that for an issue of morality? By that logic, its MUCH mpore moral to "save" people from themselves by banning cigarettes than it is by restricitng gun ownership. If its about saving lives, theres no comparison...cigarettes kill far more Americans than guns do.

I have big time issues with this one. I own several semi-auto firearms. They have many legitimate sporting purposes, as well as being the common-sensae choice for self-defense. I've hunted with many of mine, and enjoy target shooting with them as well. Keep in mind these are NOT "machine guns" which have been federally regulated for decades.

This directly affects my state's economy. You see, many pro-gun control leaders have realized that the 2nd Amendment poses significant barriers in achieivng their goals. However, many have turned to a new arena of battle, and thats the suing of of gun companies when their products are used in a crime. How the fuck is that any different than suing Chevy or Ford for a drunk-driving accident? Guns aren't repsonsible for crime, people are. Hold the individuals committing the crimes responsible rather than launch a misguided war agaisnt the company that made the gun. SD is actively recruiting gun companies to the state because of our liberal laws and welcoming atmosphere. Fewer companies will choose to relocate or even remain in business if lawsuits like this are allowed to go on.

more info on voting record and quotes concerning gun control
Sportsmen for Obama? - Home

Tell me again why, as an avid gun owner, I should be comfortable with this man leading my country?

troublemaker_42

And Obama hasn't exactly been at the forefront demanding we stop purchasing such oil either, has he (legitimate question--in a quick search I found no info stating such a thing)? Words may be cheap, but does that mean silence is golden?

SacredJellybean

I'll address that huge monolith of a post later at work, but I just want to focus on this first:

I understand what you mean, but for me, it's a question of who's the least corrupt and most diplomatic. I also agree with him on his policies on health care, removing the tax cuts Bush put in place, and pulling our troops out of Iraq. I also like his voting record on things like energy and the environment, not to mention that he hasn't said AFAIK that he needs evidence of marijuana's medicinal value to stop federal raids. I'd rather have someone who lacks experience and isn't corrupt than Bush 2.0. How anyone would want another Bush in office and flush this country further down the toilet is beyond me.

Also, that people think he's a great speaker (a shallow reason for liking a candidate) does not mean he has no substance to back him up.

Plainsman1963

I never said he did?
Since I am in the McCain thread, I've been trying to concentrate on Mccain.

I wouldn't spit on any of the 3 "main" candidates if they were on fire, so don't think I am defending any particular one.

But I've also maintained that I will never ever ever vote for the "least of the evils", so we probably don't see eye to eye on this.

"The only wasted vote is for someone you don't believe in"

SacredJellybean

You said it yourself, this is unenforceable. The Constitution takes precedence over local/state laws, which I agree with. Next.

No, but that's what's already being done. Guns are being banned from places like schools, and a topic of heavy dispute is whether the 2nd Amendment applies to all citizens or just "militias". Also, note that the Constitution describes it as a "well-regulated militia", meaning that some restrictions should be put in place. Personally, I think most gun laws are worthless, and I don't own any guns either, so I'm somewhat apathetic to the whole thing.

Drug dealer/users already don't require a warrant to be searched.

This one is a little dumb. I could see it helping if there was a problem with the unauthorized sale of guns, because then people could be buying them from manufacturers and selling them on the streets. This was enforced in South Carolina, though, and I can't imagine it being a problem there.

I'd trust an ex-LEO who has training and has served on the police force with a concealed weapon more than some other random guy on the street. I could see some rationalization behind this, but it does seem a little silly. Then again, I don't know much about other restrictions currently in place on carrying concealed weapons, so I admittedly have no frame-of-reference.

I disagree with this one too, so no argument here.