The Too Conservative Obama Supports Decriminalization of Pot!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Linky (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/31/obama-decriminalize-pot_n_84277.html)

Yes, we can add this to the long list of other conservative positions like supporting gun control, universal health care, his 100% rating by pro-choice organizations, etc.

But I am sure he's just a druggie.

[rjwould]

You mean "liberal" positions, don't you? I agree with him on the marijuana issue. There are way too many people in jail for marijuana possession and use.

[T.A.M.]

I think it was sarcasm through opposite labeling.

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

Sadly it won't matter, since even if he tried to make it an issue there are too many cowards in congress that would prevent any change from happening.

However, it is refreshing to have a candidate who is willing to say this while he's actually running, rather than to Rolling Stone after he's out of office (and still campaigning for a wife who opposes decriminalization).

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/bong.gif

[corplinx]

Yet more domestic policy positions that don't mean a hill of beans. I'll care about the president's position on legal marijuana when theres a chance congress might do make a bill about it.

Edited to add: Yes, this does reflect on the candidate's judgement overall and I understand why it might be noteworthy despite the snowball chance in hell thing.

[steverino]

If I smoked weed, I wouldn't even be able to pronounce Obama's name, let alone find my voting card.

[rjwould]

Sadly it won't matter, since even if he tried to make it an issue there are too many cowards in congress that would prevent any change from happening.

However, it is refreshing to have a candidate who is willing to say this while he's actually running, rather than to Rolling Stone after he's out of office (and still campaigning for a wife who opposes decriminalization).

Two reasons I could not vote for Bill Clinton in 1996 was the fact that his justice department was just as ruthless as any going after marijuana, but, then again, he was in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry.

The other was the telecommunication act of 1996---which was obvious in 1995..

[Trakar]

Linky (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/31/obama-decriminalize-pot_n_84277.html)

Yes, we can add this to the long list of other conservative positions like supporting gun control, universal health care, his 100% rating by pro-choice organizations, etc.

But I am sure he's just a druggie.

So, according to your article, Obama raises his hand when asked on camera at a national debate which candidates oppose decriminalization, but some staffers say he actually approves of decriminalization and so we're, as voters left to take away from this seanrio whatever we personally wish to take away from it, with no clear decisive proof of position one way or the other?

And this is the man you want to put in the White House?

[cisco]

So, according to your article, Obama raises his hand when asked on camera at a national debate which candidates oppose decriminalization, but some staffers say he actually approves of decriminalization and so we're, as voters left to take away from this seanrio whatever we personally wish to take away from it, with no clear decisive proof of position one way or the other?

And this is the man you want to put in the White House?

"So, according to your article, something irrelevant happened that hardly anyone cares about on an issue that's been dead in the water for decades and doesn't mean much in comparison to the real issues?

And this is the man you want to put in the White House?"

Sorry, I just had to mock that because it's the most hilariously weak piece of party-baiting I've seen in this election so far. Don't worry though, I really doubt it'll hold the top spot for long.

[Trakar]

"So, according to your article, something irrelevant happened that hardly anyone cares about on an issue that's been dead in the water for decades and doesn't mean much in comparison to the real issues?

And this is the man you want to put in the White House?"

Sorry, I just had to mock that because it's the most hilariously weak piece of party-baiting I've seen in this election so far. Don't worry though, I really doubt it'll hold the top spot for long.

Party-baiting?

[Thorn]

Looks like Obama cares about "The Blaaaaacks", too.

[Puppycow]

Is there a perception that Obama is too conservative?

There's a new ranking out today that says he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007 (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/). FWIW. In 2006, he was 10th and 16th in 2005. Hillary's rankings were 20th in 2005, 32nd in 2006 and 16th in 2007. So Barack has been consistently more liberal.

[cisco]

Party-baiting?

I think I meant partisan-sniping. You can just take it to mean "argument so ridiculously transparent and weak I lol'ed."

[Skullaxide]

Anyone who votes for Obama solely on this basis doesn't understand that crazy people will not let him decriminalize marijuana.

Remember when alcohol was illegal in America? Lol.

[Trakar]

I think I meant partisan-sniping. You can just take it to mean "argument so ridiculously transparent and weak I lol'ed."

How are you defining "partisan?" I think that this is the worst administration in American history, guilty by their own public statements of both federal and international crimes. I believe that all of the Republican candidates are far worse than any of the Democratic candidates. But just because the two remaining Democratic choices aren't as bad as any of the Republican candidates, does not mean that I support their Republican-lite positions on most issues of importance to me.

[cisco]

Remember when alcohol was illegal in America? Lol.
No. No one remembers that. It was almost 90 years ago.

[Trakar]

Is there a perception that Obama is too conservative?

There's a new ranking out today that says he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007 (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/). FWIW. In 2006, he was 10th and 16th in 2005. Hillary's rankings were 20th in 2005, 32nd in 2006 and 16th in 2007. So Barack has been consistently more liberal.

How exactly are they determining "liberal?"

In a Democratic controlled congress that refuses to prosecute or even investigate a president who admits on national television to having broken federal laws, and is in all likelihood guilty of violating several international laws...
Among the same group of "liberal" senators who approved the bankruptcy reform legislation....
the same senators who keep funding the occupation of Iraq...
who have twice approved the "patriot" act...
who arguably, in virtually every way are as much accomplices of this administrations crimes and malfeasance...
among these senators, Barrack and Hillary are among the more "liberal" senators?!!
Somehow, I'm less than impressed.

[Skullaxide]

No. No one remembers that. It was almost 90 years ago.

Oh, my bad.

[cisco]

a president who admits on national television to having broken federal laws
Huh, who, wha? Cite?

[Corsair 115]

Yet more domestic policy positions that don't mean a hill of beans. I'll care about the president's position on legal marijuana when theres a chance congress might do make a bill about it.That resistance to decriminalizing marijuna by the U.S. government extends to its neighbouring nations.

Some years ago the previous Canadian government was considering decriminalizing possession small amounts of marijuana. The U.S. let it be known through various channels that such any action would not be looked upon kindly and would likely cause issues with cross-border travel. The Canadian government subsequently shelved any decriminalization legislation.

[Trakar]

Huh, who, wha? Cite?

President Bush has admitted he secretly ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without ever seeking constitutionally-required FISA court approved warrants.

President Bush, interviewed on PBS’ NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, December 16, 2005. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec05/bush_12-16-05.html)

[cisco]

President Bush has admitted he secretly ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without ever seeking constitutionally-required FISA court approved warrants.

President Bush, interviewed on PBS’ NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, December 16, 2005. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec05/bush_12-16-05.html)

You're going to have to be more specific, because I read the relevant section of that interview (skimmed the rest) and he says nothing of the sort. In fact he says quite the opposite. Quote exactly what part you are referring to.

[Trakar]

You're going to have to be more specific, because I read the relevant section of that interview (skimmed the rest) and he says nothing of the sort. In fact he says quite the opposite. Quote exactly what part you are referring to.

So you haven't read any of the articles concerning this issue?

Criminal Inquiry Opens Into Spying Leak (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/31/politics/31inquire.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)

ACLU Slams DOJ Investigation of NSA Whistleblower, Says Government Must Independently Investigate Violation of Wiretap Laws" (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23288prs20051230.html)

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html)

Bush says he signed NSA wiretap order (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.html)

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html

[cisco]

So you haven't read any of the articles concerning this issue?

How 'bout, instead of bombarding me with links, you just quote the relevant part from your first link? I shouldn't have to spend hours reading just for you to make a point.

[Trakar]

How 'bout, instead of bombarding me with links, you just quote the relevant part from your first link? I shouldn't have to spend hours reading just for you to make a point.

The references in the first link are meaningless if you don't have any background of the subject. And the interview linked doesn't contain explicit admission of guilt.
The additional links offered in the follow-on post provide the background that most other Americans who were paying attention to what was going on over the last several years had, it was a faulty assumption on my part to presume that you were aware of these facts. BTW, it shouldn't take more than 10-15 minutes intotal to skim through the articles I linked/listed.

[UserGoogol]

The references in the first link are meaningless if you don't have any background of the subject. And the interview linked doesn't contain explicit admission of guilt.

Implicitly admitting to things doesn't count as admitting to guilt.