It does matter. The executive branch is the enforcement arm of government. A President has the power to simply stop enforcing shitty laws, and if we elected the right guy, that could happen.

You're mostly right, though. The "special interests" that would hate to see drugs legalized:

Drug dealers
Pharmaceutical companies
Pharmacies
The drug cartels
All law enforcement agencies
Prison facilities
Politicians
Social Conservatives/Culture Warriors
Attorneys

It's hilarious/depressing, but both the alleged enemies (drug cultivators, distributors, traffickers) and our "protectors" in government are on the same team. It's like everything else. This is not about good versus evil, it's about the rich securing their wealth on the backs of the poor.

12/7/2011 5:06:34 PM

Drug dealers and cartels are of no threat to anyone. They would just simply be crushed by the corporate weight of Big Pharma the moment they were legalized.

I think you've romanticized this idea that legalizing drugs would somehow lift people out of poverty, though. That just wouldn't happen. Pfizer and Big Tobacco would just come in and absorb the drug trade and those at societies lowest rungs would just have to resort to finding some other way to make ends meet.

12/7/2011 5:18:05 PM

Quote :

"Drug dealers and cartels are of no threat to anyone. They would just simply be crushed by the corporate weight of Big Pharma the moment they were legalized."

Drug cartels and drug dealers aren't a threat to anyone? The fuck?

Drug cartels and dealers would be out of a job if drug prohibition was ended. Without a black market, no one's going to go to some sketchy dude's house to pick up drugs. There's no need. Real businessmen can get involved in the industry.

Quote :

"I think you've romanticized this idea that legalizing drugs would somehow lift people out of poverty, though. That just wouldn't happen. Pfizer and Big Tobacco would just come in and absorb the drug trade and those at societies lowest rungs would just have to resort to finding some other way to make ends meet."

I don't think that at all. Drug legalization alone would not bring people out of poverty, but it would deal with some of the underlying causes of poverty. I brought this topic up because someone was talking about impoverished minority communities and children with no work ethic due to the lack of a family structure.

Why isn't there a family? Because the dads are getting locked up on drug crimes. Have you ever looked at the mugshots on WRAL? It's not an exaggeration to say that at least of the 80% of the individuals are non-white, and at least 80% are taken in on drug charges. Maybe if we didn't lock people up for this shit they'd be able to start doing something with their lives. Instead, they go to prison for minor drug charges and come out a full fledged criminal.

Quote :

" resort to finding some other way to make ends meet."

That would just be terrible, wouldn't it? If people had to find some way to make a living that didn't involve selling drugs that have a inflated price due to government intervention?

[Edited on December 7, 2011 at 5:42 PM. Reason : ]

12/7/2011 5:41:26 PM

The drug dealers and cartels are of no threat to anyone who profits from the status quo. That's what I meant by that.

I agree that people shouldn't be getting locked up for non-violent offenses. I agree that not breaking up families because of drug charges would probably help. And while I agree that we should be ending the war on drugs, it will still remain that being poor will be a crime in this country. It always has been.

12/7/2011 5:49:18 PM

Behold, Rick Perry's new ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0PAJNntoRgA

12/7/2011 6:52:28 PM

Let me just say. If you vote for Newt Gingrich you are a fucking douche.

Anyone who gives a fuck about anything can't look themselves in the mirror if they vote for THAT guy and then tries to act like they are any better than Obama voters.

A sell out is a sell out no matter what he supposedly represents. The guy is a piece of shit, period.

Obama is less repugnant than Newt, honestly. At least Obama is honest about stealing from the middle class.

12/7/2011 11:57:18 PM

Yeah, I don't think there's even a case to be made that Newt Gingrich isn't among the slimiest of politicians.

12/8/2011 12:45:46 AM

^^^Fuck you, Rick Perry.

12/8/2011 1:49:46 AM

aaaaaaannnnnd countdown until Rick Perry gay sex scandal starts now...

12/8/2011 2:00:17 AM

ehe

12/8/2011 7:41:14 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, I don't think there's even a case to be made that Newt Gingrich isn't among the slimiest of politicians."

Also, hasn't the right been calling Obama "arrogant", "narcissistic", "self-obsessed", etc? Newt is all of these things, openly and explicitly, constantly.

12/8/2011 12:33:26 PM

12/10/2011 11:41:15 AM

How the fuck does he got off saying that kids can't openly celebrate Christmas? Our entire fucking retail industry is based around Christmas.

12/10/2011 12:01:05 PM

Rick Perry: idiot or greatest troll ever?

12/10/2011 12:13:21 PM

12/10/2011 12:29:46 PM

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

12/10/2011 2:06:18 PM

I love how the only people that have a big problem with the end of DADT are people who don't serve. DADT went away, the military still operates normally without complaint.

12/10/2011 2:59:41 PM

That's because they don't actually support the troops. It's a facade. They're not real patriots. I mean, how absurd is it that the people that allegedly "support the troops" insist that we continue putting them in potentially deadly situations with no real endgame or exit strategy?

If you support the troops, then you should support getting them the fuck out of harms way unless there's a real threat to our national security. This "maintaining stability in the region"/"securing cheap resources" bullshit has to stop. That's why active military overwhelmingly support Ron Paul over any other candidate.

12/10/2011 4:01:02 PM

^ [citation needed]

12/10/2011 4:07:22 PM

12/10/2011 4:25:43 PM

^ That's meaningless in what you're trying to prove.

1. There are no citations for the chart's facts.
2. Even if was accurate, doesn't show the majority support Ron Paul, just that Ron Paul gets the most money. I mean 10 E-4s can support their candidate, lets say Romney, and donate 1% of their earnings. One O-6 does that same, but supports Paul. Ron Paul gets more money but is clearly in the minority.

Seriously, being enlisted isn't exactly the best paying job ever, especially with a family, I'd wager most of us don't donate to politics.

[Edited on December 10, 2011 at 4:37 PM. Reason : z]

12/10/2011 4:31:06 PM

Quote :

"That's why active military overwhelmingly support Ron Paul over any other candidate."

That's a logical leap.

Certainly it's exactly the case for some.

With many others, I'd say it's that there is broadly a streak of libertarianism in the military. Maybe because we're a young demographic, maybe because we know how shitty it is to be told what to do all the time and subject to the whims of higher, maybe...I don't know, but I've noticed it (and at a minimum, a desire for limited government and not a by preoccupation with social "morality" issues.

I have heard plenty of frustration with the way OIF and OEF have been fought, but definitely not much Ron
Paul-like strict isolationism.

12/10/2011 4:42:23 PM

^^http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/07/ron-paul-military-campaign-donations-/1

These figures aren't just made up, they're based on numbers that have to be reported due to campaign finance laws.

So it's the big shots in the military donating all this money, or it's just the young guys that don't know any better donating the money? Which is it?

Ron Paul isn't a strict isolationist. His position is that, if there were an actual threat, he would go to Congress, which is how the process is supposed to work. If we're constitutionalists here, that's the way it should be done. This business where the President unilaterally makes the decision to go to war is very dangerous and has gotten us into a lot of trouble.

[Edited on December 10, 2011 at 4:51 PM. Reason : ]

12/10/2011 4:50:23 PM

Agreed, but be real here. Ron Paul is an isolationist.

12/10/2011 4:52:44 PM

If you're using a bogus definition of isolationism, sure. According to Wikipedia, there are two components to isolationism:

Quote :

"Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense)."

Quote :

"Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states."

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. He is not a protectionist. The best possible thing we could do to foster a more healthy relationship with these "rogue states" is to just trade with them. Sanctions foster hostility, and the same goes for saber rattling.

12/10/2011 4:57:25 PM

Quote :

"Behold, Rick Perry's new ad:"

What The FUCK?

How can republicans listen to this shit and not be embarrassed to be associated with this guy.

12/10/2011 5:09:52 PM

Quote :

"Without a black market, no one's going to go to some sketchy dude's house to pick up drugs. There's no need. Real businessmen can get involved in the industry."

People still go to fairly shady places to get lapdances, and those are legal, they also often go to fairly shady places to get all other sorts of things, payday loans, pawning, vehicle repossession, towing, prostitution (in Nevada) and sometimes even alcohol. Any activity associated with poorer people will most likely also be associated with "sketchy dudes".

12/10/2011 5:14:13 PM

Quote :

"How can republicans listen to this shit and not be embarrassed to be associated with this guy."

A substantial portion of Republicans more or less agree with him.

12/10/2011 6:45:02 PM

LOL @ New calling Palestinians "invented people."

And apparently, he's standing by it...

12/10/2011 6:59:52 PM

I laughed. Newt loves to shoot from the hip.

It won't hurt him with GOP voters, but the shit will really hit the fan if he somehow becomes president.

12/10/2011 7:44:41 PM

Why are GOP voters some dumb? Seriously...

Everyone in my country ass family doesn't know anything about anything but will vote for the guy that says God the most.

12/12/2011 1:03:52 PM

hahaha, maybe Newt got the Palestinians confused with the Lumbees.

12/12/2011 1:06:29 PM

Quote :

"Inteviewer: Some people say Mitt Romney isn't the most consistent candidate because he's changed his mind about big, important issues over the years. O'Donnell: That's one of the things I like about him. He's been consistent since he changed his mind."

facepalm

http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2011/12/14/bts-odonell-endorses-romney.cnn.html

12/14/2011 12:00:22 PM

Why does the GOP apparently think changing your mind is a bad thing? Do they simply not trust any information they're exposed to after 5th grade?

12/14/2011 12:56:52 PM

Changing your mind when faced with new evidence is fine.

Changing your mind because it's politically convenient isn't.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 1:16 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2011 1:11:59 PM

Quote :

"Changing your mind because it's politically convenient isn't."

Like when Ron Paul went from courting backwoods Texan white supremacists with racist newsletters for his congressional campaigns, to disavowing racism to court idealistic, socially liberal 20-something's for his national campaign ? Or was he exposed to some kind of evidence later in life that demonstrated that both blacks and whites are equally fleet-footed on average?


[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 1:28 PM. Reason : okay that was an unnecessary dig but i couldn't resist]

12/14/2011 1:27:20 PM

^ Change Texas to West Virginia and you've described Robert Byrd's career.

If Byrd can get the benefit of the doubt, so can Paul.

/Of course, a lot of people didn't ever really give Byrd the benefit of the doubt.

12/14/2011 1:45:18 PM

where's the gif of this one?

12/21/2011 3:21:38 PM

Quote :

"^ Change Texas to West Virginia and you've described Robert Byrd's career. If Byrd can get the benefit of the doubt, so can Paul. /Of course, a lot of people didn't ever really give Byrd the benefit of the doubt."

I generally don't give any pre-70's Democrat the benefit of a doubt, let alone one from the South, so no objections here.

12/21/2011 3:31:09 PM

Quote :

"Like when Ron Paul went from courting backwoods Texan white supremacists with racist newsletters for his congressional campaigns"

except he never did that. keep playing the race card, though. it doesn't look bad at all

12/21/2011 4:51:09 PM

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-medias-deaf-dumb-and-blind-campaign-coverage/250315/

big fan of this column

12/22/2011 12:59:36 AM

not sure if it's been listed here yet, but the redirects from http://www.newtgingrich.com/ can bring some lulz

12/22/2011 12:59:46 AM

Quote :

"except he never did that. keep playing the race card, though. it doesn't look bad at all"

Except he most certainly did. Multiple newsletters spanning many, many years published by RP and sent to his constituents.

What? A congressman in a backwoods district of Texas relies in part on racists for support? Ya don't say

Keep playing the "race card" card though, it's not like the right hasn't made a total fucking joke out of itself by doing so in response to literally any mention of race or racism

12/22/2011 10:00:16 AM

Ron Paul had 6-10 people writing for that newsletter and he was a practicing gynecologist at the time. Was it a mistake to not read every word that came out during those years? Yes. Does that make Ron Paul a racist? No.

Everything Ron Paul has ever actually said indicates that he is not a racist, and is in fact a true civil libertarian. The guy is advocating policies that would mean the release of many, many black criminals. Does that sound like something a racist would support? It seems to me a racist would support continuing the war on drugs, as doing so disproportionately affects black communities.

12/22/2011 10:13:58 AM

Ron Paul isn't handling this race thing very well. All the other candidates had dirt dug about them when they took the lead, now its Paul's turn.

and you can simultaneously work and edit a newsletter, its not that hard.

I would bet that Paul is just racially insensitive but not really racist. This isn't surprising if he's the Type of Peron to not hang around with people different than himself.

12/22/2011 10:20:53 AM

Just a lil coincidence that, while these newsletters were coming out, Paul was showing up in congress to vote against MLK day. Yet today he can't be bothered to even show up to vote against NDAA.


edit: Also this was the early 80's, when Rothbard was openly advocating "Outreach to rednecks" to build a libertarian coalition from them and a few other fringe groups

[Edited on December 22, 2011 at 10:37 AM. Reason : .]

12/22/2011 10:25:27 AM

Quote :

"The guy is advocating policies that would mean the release of many, many black criminals. Does that sound like something a racist would support? "

He employed racists to print newsletters for him back when Texas was the target. Now he's down with pot legalization and anti-racism since he's working on 20-something idealists for the national campaign. It's almost as though his tactics and even positions subtly shift with the electorate he's targeting. It almost sounds like he's...he's...a politician!!!!!!!

12/22/2011 10:27:28 AM

No no Ron Paul is the only truly principled man in congress, he's DIFFERENT man. Not like the rest. He'll usher in a NEW KIND of politics...Hope...change...hope...change....

12/22/2011 10:29:13 AM

3 posts in a row with progressively increasing sarcasm...Paul has him coming apart at the seams folks

12/22/2011 11:17:49 AM

Quote :

"and you can simultaneously work and edit a newsletter, its not that hard."

While operating a private medical practice? C'mon.

The guy got immensely popular in the 80s. He was stretched too thin, some bad shit was said in a publication with his name on it, and that's literally the only "scandal" in his past. This is been brought up for a couple of decades when people simply don't want to have a real debate on the issues.

Quote :

"edit: Also this was the early 80's, when Rothbard was openly advocating "Outreach to rednecks" to build a libertarian coalition from them and a few other fringe groups"

I wouldn't be that surprised if it was Rothbard that wrote those things, if it wasn't him, maybe Lew Rockwell. Rothbard was all about building coalitions, and he even reached out to radical black liberation movements at times.

Quote :

"He employed racists to print newsletters for him back when Texas was the target. Now he's down with pot legalization and anti-racism since he's working on 20-something idealists for the national campaign. It's almost as though his tactics and even positions subtly shift with the electorate he's targeting. It almost sounds like he's...he's...a politician!!!!!!!"

He was "down" with those things in the 80s too.

12/22/2011 11:18:01 AM