RNC 2012

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
A bit cocky don’t you think ?

[/quote]

Eh… If I didn’t dislike his agenda so much that wouldn’t bother me, other than the fact it is our chair, that we gave him, and it would go along way if he kept in mind the constitution he wants to change so bad, is the only reason he has the chair to sit in.[/quote]

So there is not a chance in hell I’d ever vote for Romney for many reasons. Why couldn’t the Repubs pick someone like Johnson? While some of his policies I am lukewarm on I’d be down for voting for him in a second.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

I know he doesn’t fit the mold of the party any longer, but I can’t find fault with many of his issue positions.

[/quote]

Obama would have absolutely crushed Johnson. Oh wait…that’s why you wanted him to be the nominee. Ha…got it.[/quote]
No I agree with his positions. He can’t be nominated by the current Republican party he doesn’t court the evangelicals. I don’t mean he should be nominated now that he is the Libertarian nominee. I think the Republicans should adopt a more Libertarian like platform if you like.

I am realistic he would have a hard row to hoe with cutting medicare and social security and defense spending and ya know being actually for limited government and wanting to stay out of all issues of personal choice, but dare to dream.[/quote]

So let me get this right, you wanted Johnson because he would have stayed out of your personal affairs. But you are going to vote for Obama? Someone who has nosed government in between you and your doctor, taking over 1/6th of the economy in the process. Someone who wants to grow government so that it can be even more intrusive than it already is.

You are going to have to explain that to me.

Thanks.[/quote]
I was living with Johnson repealing national healthcare as one of the issues I am not a fan of in order gain some of the other things. I am completely ok with requiring people to buy their own goddamn insurance. I like that while hes going to cut medicare and social security he’s also pledging to cut the military by 40 percent. He’s also going to restore habeus corpus and end gitmo as it is now. Repeal the patriot act. End the war on drugs. Allow gay marriage. Keep abortion legal.

The better question would be is your commitment to small government enough to overcome your distaste of his views on personal morality. I find that unlikely.

102

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What kind of people are voting for Romney but would rather vote for Obama over Johnson? (If Johnson was the rep nominee)
[/quote]

People scared of “too much too soon” radical change in government.

Obama’s change is in the opposite direction, and also very radical, but much more subtle. It is fucking brilliant to be honest. Obama is a very smart man, and very good at doing what he wants to do.

Johnson isn’t “forward”, he is in fact backward, lol. Even though what he wants to do is much more in line with what we need, what the government was supposed to be and would be a better option than Mitt or Obama in the long term.

103

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What kind of people are voting for Romney but would rather vote for Obama over Johnson? (If Johnson was the rep nominee)
[/quote]

People scared of “too much too soon” radical change in government.

Obama’s change is in the opposite direction, and also very radical, but much more subtle. It is fucking brilliant to be honest. Obama is a very smart man, and very good at doing what he wants to do.

Johnson isn’t “forward”, he is in fact backward, lol. Even though what he wants to do is much more in line with what we need, what the government was supposed to be and would be a better option than Mitt or Obama in the long term. [/quote]

I agree with the “too much too soon”. But because of how slowly things move it would never be “too much” or even “too soon” because of congress. Legitimate concern but not a legitimate reality.

104

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What kind of people are voting for Romney but would rather vote for Obama over Johnson? (If Johnson was the rep nominee)
[/quote]

People scared of “too much too soon” radical change in government.

Obama’s change is in the opposite direction, and also very radical, but much more subtle. It is fucking brilliant to be honest. Obama is a very smart man, and very good at doing what he wants to do.

Johnson isn’t “forward”, he is in fact backward, lol. Even though what he wants to do is much more in line with what we need, what the government was supposed to be and would be a better option than Mitt or Obama in the long term. [/quote]

I agree with the “too much too soon”. But because of how slowly things move it would never be “too much” or even “too soon” because of congress. Legitimate concern but not a legitimate reality.[/quote]

Right, and that is why the government was set up the way it was. The slow pace and forced compromise was intended to make it hard to take away liberty and at least slow down the slide into tyrany to a pace where the people could load their muskets.

The only way Johnson and people like him ever get a real shot is the electorate has to change first off, but besides that is to start local. Mayor and selectman turn into state reps and governors, and they in turn become congress and the president.

Once 32 states have Johnson’s leading them, the national scene will adapt.

At least that is my theory. The only way the people can take back our country is to pay attention, be aware and start at home. Start with the individual, spread to the family, spread to the community, spread to the state, and then sit in the White House.

105

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I know damn Liberals piss me off too, More proof people believe anything

[/quote]

So the orginal peice ended up incorrect?

Good thing I didn’t go running around like a loon using it to further my agenda, and only commented on how something like that looks, in the thread on the subject.

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
His speech was good. Clint seemed a bit deranged though…wtf.[/quote]

Dude is in his 80s… I hope to be half that well together when I’m that age.

I’m not one for celebrity worship, and am pretty much anti-celebrity opinion when it comes to politics, world issues and moral values. His whole deal was just entertainment really.

[/quote]

I love Clint, just for the record. But I think he detracted from the message more than he helped, esp where he was in the program. Maybe a bit earlier in the night would’ve worked better. Kinda broke the flow in my view…
[/quote]

I am huge Clint Fan and Clint is entitled to his opinion but he is showing his age and I agree he was some what disheveled . But he is an old guy
[/quote]

Let’s see how sharp you are when you hit 82. [/quote]

Let’s not rush things :slight_smile:

106

Filmmaker Michael Moore predicts Romney wins.

107

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
A bit cocky don’t you think ?

[/quote]

Eh… If I didn’t dislike his agenda so much that wouldn’t bother me, other than the fact it is our chair, that we gave him, and it would go along way if he kept in mind the constitution he wants to change so bad, is the only reason he has the chair to sit in.[/quote]

So there is not a chance in hell I’d ever vote for Romney for many reasons. Why couldn’t the Repubs pick someone like Johnson? While some of his policies I am lukewarm on I’d be down for voting for him in a second.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

I know he doesn’t fit the mold of the party any longer, but I can’t find fault with many of his issue positions.

[/quote]

Obama would have absolutely crushed Johnson. Oh wait…that’s why you wanted him to be the nominee. Ha…got it.[/quote]
No I agree with his positions. He can’t be nominated by the current Republican party he doesn’t court the evangelicals. I don’t mean he should be nominated now that he is the Libertarian nominee. I think the Republicans should adopt a more Libertarian like platform if you like.

I am realistic he would have a hard row to hoe with cutting medicare and social security and defense spending and ya know being actually for limited government and wanting to stay out of all issues of personal choice, but dare to dream.[/quote]

So let me get this right, you wanted Johnson because he would have stayed out of your personal affairs. But you are going to vote for Obama? Someone who has nosed government in between you and your doctor, taking over 1/6th of the economy in the process. Someone who wants to grow government so that it can be even more intrusive than it already is.

You are going to have to explain that to me.

Thanks.[/quote]
I was living with Johnson repealing national healthcare as one of the issues I am not a fan of in order gain some of the other things. I am completely ok with requiring people to buy their own goddamn insurance. I like that while hes going to cut medicare and social security he’s also pledging to cut the military by 40 percent. He’s also going to restore habeus corpus and end gitmo as it is now. Repeal the patriot act. End the war on drugs. Allow gay marriage. Keep abortion legal.

The better question would be is your commitment to small government enough to overcome your distaste of his views on personal morality. I find that unlikely.

[/quote]

Eh…I’m not a libertarian and I think that when the rubber hits the road that most of the libertarian points just don’t measure up.

With perhaps a rare exception or two I agree with Romney just about right on down the line.

108

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Filmmaker Michael Moore predicts Romney wins.

Who cares what that admitted communist thinks?

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Eh…I’m not a libertarian and I think that when the rubber hits the road that most of the libertarian points just don’t measure up.

[/quote]

It’s because you are so old. :wink:

109

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Filmmaker Michael Moore predicts Romney wins.

Who cares what that admitted communist thinks?

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Eh…I’m not a libertarian and I think that when the rubber hits the road that most of the libertarian points just don’t measure up.

[/quote]

It’s because you are so old. :wink:

[/quote]

I don’t know cutting the military budget in half and legalizing (all) drugs just doesn’t make sense to me.

But I agree with you if I was young and naive I would feel that these are good things :wink:

110

We legalized pot here in Cali, the problem now is is that pot dispensaries popped up EVERYWHERE.

The state is now trying to crack down, and the Marijuana Growers Union (yes this exists) is fighting this tooth and nail.

Crime is also rampant, as pot dispensaries are being robbed for their pot and cash.

Be careful what you wish for.

111

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
We legalized pot here in Cali, the problem now is is that pot dispensaries popped up EVERYWHERE.

The state is now trying to crack down, and the Marijuana Growers Union (yes this exists) is fighting this tooth and nail.

Crime is also rampant, as pot dispensaries are being robbed for their pot and cash.

Be careful what you wish for. [/quote]

Societal benefit used to argue for legislation…its all in what small government you want after all.

112

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
We legalized pot here in Cali, the problem now is is that pot dispensaries popped up EVERYWHERE.

The state is now trying to crack down, and the Marijuana Growers Union (yes this exists) is fighting this tooth and nail.

Crime is also rampant, as pot dispensaries are being robbed for their pot and cash.

Be careful what you wish for. [/quote]

Societal benefit used to argue for legislation…its all in what small government you want after all.[/quote]

I am still waiting for the societal benefit part.

113

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
We legalized pot here in Cali, the problem now is is that pot dispensaries popped up EVERYWHERE.

The state is now trying to crack down, and the Marijuana Growers Union (yes this exists) is fighting this tooth and nail.

Crime is also rampant, as pot dispensaries are being robbed for their pot and cash.

Be careful what you wish for. [/quote]

Societal benefit used to argue for legislation…its all in what small government you want after all.[/quote]

I am still waiting for the societal benefit part.[/quote]

Its your argument. You are saying it benefits society to keep drugs illegal. Ya know to have legislation making it the case. Its the crux of your position. Which obviously can be extended to all types of uncomfortable results for you. For example I think a national health care system would be a benefit to society. Its a bit hypocritical if you were to say argue that societal benefit is an ok justification for one type of legislation that you personally like but not ok to argue the same for a piece of legislation that you don’t.

I do think it would benefit society to not have federal anti drug laws, but thats not the point I was making. The prior paragraph is.

Still having something criminalized in much of the nation keeps the price artificially high and adds crime. But lets say we had vast fields of weed growing in Iowa instead of corn and weed cost 1.89 a pound with a couple dollar a pound tax thrown on to fund drug treatment or missiles to shoot arabs or something, there might be a bit less crime involved.

Crime has increased with the war on drugs it hasn’t decreased.

114

I think your idea of legalized weed sounds better than the reality of legalized weed.

Unless you are here and see it for yourself, don’t talk to me about theory, as I see the shit in front of me daily.

Apparently you are ok with pot stores being within walking distance to schools and daycares. Awesome, we can make sure the caretakers of those kids get loaded up right before they run their afterschool programs.

You think making one decision over another has no consequence, dude I live here and see the shit all the time.

What seems apparent, is that the grass is not greener on this side, with pot being legalized.

Your idea about taxing the drug, and using it to pay for drug treatment, sounds like a dog chasing it’s tail.

Legal weed = more weed smokers = more drug treatment. It’s a wash (at best). Drug rehab is expensive, WAY more than $1.89 lb of weed would bring in to tax coffers.

115

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I think your idea of legalized weed sounds better than the reality of legalized weed.

Unless you are here and see it for yourself, don’t talk to me about theory, as I see the shit in front of me daily.

Apparently you are ok with pot stores being within walking distance to schools and daycares. Awesome, we can make sure the caretakers of those kids get loaded up right before they run their afterschool programs.

You think making one decision over another has no consequence, dude I live here and see the shit all the time.

What seems apparent, is that the grass is not greener on this side, with pot being legalized.

Your idea about taxing the drug, and using it to pay for drug treatment, sounds like a dog chasing it’s tail.

Legal weed = more weed smokers = more drug treatment. It’s a wash (at best). Drug rehab is expensive, WAY more than $1.89 lb of weed would bring in to tax coffers.

[/quote]

What do you think about gun control? Which side of that is greener?

116

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I think your idea of legalized weed sounds better than the reality of legalized weed.

Unless you are here and see it for yourself, don’t talk to me about theory, as I see the shit in front of me daily.

Apparently you are ok with pot stores being within walking distance to schools and daycares. Awesome, we can make sure the caretakers of those kids get loaded up right before they run their afterschool programs.

You think making one decision over another has no consequence, dude I live here and see the shit all the time.

What seems apparent, is that the grass is not greener on this side, with pot being legalized.

Your idea about taxing the drug, and using it to pay for drug treatment, sounds like a dog chasing it’s tail.

Legal weed = more weed smokers = more drug treatment. It’s a wash (at best). Drug rehab is expensive, WAY more than $1.89 lb of weed would bring in to tax coffers.

[/quote]

Its okay you want to demonize weed. How much more damage do you think alcohol does than weed? People can buy that everywhere. I would say hands down alcohol is much more damaging than weed to society and when it was banned what happened? Lets learn from the past a bit.

So your argument is daycare providers and teachers (if weed were legalized) would suddenly go into a frenzy of afterschool smoking? This is your position?

I was joking about the drug treatment take the money to make missiles. I don’t think people need to be rehabbed from weed at worst I think it makes people fat weak and loaded with estrogen but no worse than a bag of doritos and a sixpack likely far better if driving is involved.

I think most of the risks you are throwing out are fallacious. I also think that prohibition creates much much more serious crime than legalization does. This is obvious for cases like weed you should pick a more disgusting drug like heroin where I think you’d get more traction.

I could throw out Portugal as a real example for you as well.

The economic costs of the war on drugs are huge. I agree that societal good can’t be solely based on economics however. I also say that most of the violent crime that is associated with the drug trade is because of the illegality of the market.

The stuff about daycare workers and such is largely in your mind because alcohol a drug that is just as bad if not worse is readily available currently and we don’t have the vast majority of teachers getting drunk(though god knows with the little shits a lot of kids are they probably should be allowed to.)

117

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I don’t know cutting the military budget in half [/quote]

Real world, we can’t do this. I mean not in any way that wouldn’t take 40 years.

Plus, I don’t mind living in the country with the biggest military.

I do assume the money could be spent better though.

Again, real world? No, it would be such a cluster fuck at first, it would ruin entire cities.

But there is part of me that looks at the other side, the theory of it, and feels it looks good on paper.

I know this is awful, but it would thin out some idiots from the herd though.

haha, touche

118

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What do you think about gun control? Which side of that is greener?[/quote]

The side that allows the citizens to defend themselves against a government tyranny.

119

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

What do you think about gun control? Which side of that is greener?[/quote]

The side that allows the citizens to defend themselves against a government tyranny. [/quote]

Right on brother like the tyranny that is trying to keep me from my weed and porn! :stuck_out_tongue:

120

RNC Sham 2012 - YouTube!