Whhhaaaa...I can't have my pot so I won't vote for Obama.

[trumad]

Hey---I'm as pissed about the medical marijuana thing as anyone else... but come on.

[cali]

1. *snicker*

[stlsaxman]

2. *tee-hee*

[fascisthunter]

3. that poster you are calling out stated there were other reasons

oh well

[trumad]

4. What poster?

Since there are more than one.

[Kaleva]

57. I don't think it's a call out if one is refering to someone who has been PPR'd

I don't know if the OP is talking about anyone specifically and I'm just guessing as to who you may be talking about.

[southernyankeebelle]

5. I can't stand one issue voters. Like who the hell are they going to vote for? Mittens.

Doubt it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. Some whack-job like Roseanne Barr or Rocky Anderson

[southernyankeebelle]

91. And that is throwing away their vote.

[Lizzie Poppet]

104. In most states, it really doesn't matter.

With the Electoral Anachronism, er...college, in most states it would take a hell of a lot of people doing that to matter in the least. Only a small handful of states have any reasonable likelihood of becoming a "Florida 2000" scenario, in which the state's EC votes come down to a few popular votes. My state of Oregon, for example: I can vote for anyone I like, because no way in hell are Oregon's EC votes going to Rmoney.

It's long past time the president was elected by direct vote.

[southernyankeebelle]

105. If that were the case democratic party would always win.

[Freddie Stubbs]

108. Except in 2004, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, 1968, 1956, 1952...

[2on2u]

6. You can't have your pot and eat it too, don't you know the

rules??

[Throd]

7. Whaaa - I'm dying of cancer and the government is stuck in 1937 with marijuana prohibition.

[obamanut2012]

11. +1

[provis99]

16. heroin is more effective at killing pain than marijuana.

perhaps the pain people should be advocating for legalizing that for medical purposes instead. but the pot people don't care about that, because they are one-issue voters.

[coalition_unwilling]

25. OT, but I've heard that heroin is far more effective as a painkiller than even opium. Is that true?

[XemaSab]

26. Talk about missing the point

If taking an aspirin helps my headache, I don't need to reach for the opiates.

If taking an aspirin doesn't help, then I'd like to be able to reach for something else BEFORE I go for the opiates.

This shouldn't be confusing.

[Heddi]

27. It's not always for pain control, though

It's to control the nausea associated with high-dose pain medication and chemotherapy, and to help with the anxiety of having a large bore needle put in your vein every few days for chemo administration, and you know, the anxiety that is associate with the fear of dying a painful death, and dealing with your friends and family having to deal with your dying a painful, prolonged death.

It also helps people eat. Anorexia is very common because of the nausea and other side effects of chemo and cancer drug cocktails and HIV/AIDS cocktails. So "the munchies" gets these folks to eat, even just small amounts, and keep their already weakened immune systems going a bit stronger than if they weren't eating anything at all.

But pro-prohibition people don't care about that, because they only think that people that smoke pot are doing it to get high. PS: most people who are users of medical marijuana, especially cancer patients, ingest their cannabis through baked goods or in "pills" (crushed marijuana or hash in a tablet that is easily ingested or sprinlked on food or drink).

Keep on fighting for people who are dying, though, and getting any relief they can!

[Romulox]

35. And MASSIVELY more addictive. Think this through for a moment, please? nt

[Major Nikon]

47. The other side effects aren't so great either

Severe constipation, terrifying dreams, hallucinations (and not the good ones either), severe nausea, just to name a few.

[treestar]

54. True and the legal means like morphine

may also be more effective. It's not as if pot is the only pain killer in the world, either. In fact it is a hallucinogen, so it's primary effect is not even pain killing.

And where it is legal, it is legal and can be obtained.

[girl gone mad]

96. This post is an indication of just how absurd this war against pot has gotten.

Witness the anti-pot crusaders recommending MORPHINE in lieu of marijuana.

[99Forever]

58. As best I understand it,

Demerol IS synthetic heroin and is quite legal to be prescribed, as is morphine and a litany of other HIGHLY ADDICTIVE and dangerous drugs, each of them being far more destructive life and health when abused. Do you require that I tell you the main reason such upside down policies remain in effect? As I said in another thread, MMJ isn't my only or even my biggest gripe with this administration, not even close, but what it exposes for all to see, is just how tone deaf Obama and his biggest supporters are.

I suspect you probably don't like that little taste of reality.

[SammyWinstonJack]

53. +1.

[B Calm]

90. I have a friend dying of cancer

and he still manages to find pot available in a state that doesn't recognize medical marijuana.

[kenny blankenship]

100. +1

[liberal N proud]

8. Yep

Single issue so called supporters crawl out of the woodwork every time Obama does something that doesn't fit their single ideal.

[Autumn]

9. That one blows me away.

Amazing that anyone would think that. You can still have pot, I started pot about 6 months ago. After about 39 years of abstaining. Yeah it's good for pain and I don't have a medical license for it. Obama can oppose it all he want to, I can still get it.

Don't vote for Obama and let a puke get in, not only is pot still opposed you have someone fucking everyone times infinity.

[panader0]

14. "I can still get it" Damn right

Grow your own, break the law. I've smoked pot for about 45 years, got a fattie rolled for when the band shows up. Not once was it legal. That never stopped me. Hell, one of the one issue Duers lives in Cal where the pot laws are a lot more lenient than here in AZ.

[Autumn]

18. It's been illegal all my years.

If our government is too stupid to realize the benefits of legalizing it, well what can one say. They would rather keep the status quo and benefit a few than change and benefit the people.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

10. You are demonstrably not as pissed about MMJ as some people

It's just kind of inherent in your post, part and parcel.

[Canuckistanian]

12. And I never got my pony, either

And he PROMISED. Uh, no he didn't.

The second Holder was appointed, I knew that marijuana would never be legal, ever, anywhere.

Holder made his CAREER out of prosecuting MJ cases and is a true believer that MJ is a dangerous drug.

He's the Harry Anslinger of our time.

[EOTE]

46. Actually, he did promise that the federal government would take a hands off approach to MMJ.

That was, without a doubt, a lie.

So clearly this administration doesn't give a damn about the support of all those it lied to.

[hootinholler]

13. Is this making DU better?

Really, I would like to understand how exactly it does.

[jp11]

21. It makes some people feel superior and better than other to put those they

disagree with in their place in a thread they started to wag their finger at those they disagree with.

But for most of us it is just another thread to be sent to the trash bin.

[DiverDave]

76. ding, ding, ding

goin in the trash on this computer

[RZM]

15. 'Dude, it's like, society, man' [passes joint]

Actually I think it's a major issue. Pot prohibition is some serious bullshit. And I'd like to see the president take a leadership role in ending it.

But the again, I'd like him to do a lot of other things too. But mostly this. I'm not going to withdraw my support for the president on this because it's not the only issue I care about. But I will chide his punk ass on it. Because his position is like, a major buzzkill.

[XemaSab]

29. I'd like to see Obama take a leadership role on one thing

Take gay marriage, for example.

The country is ready for gay marriage. If Obama had said during his first week in office "I'm going to make gay marriage a priority," then it would have happened and everyone except for the radical right wing would be over it.

Similarly, if Obama had said "We're going to have legal weed," people would be over it by now.

Obama's not a leader, he's a follower.

[SomethingFishy]

44. [takes the joint] Legalizing would also solve many problems

like new crops to farm, new taxes, less of a strain on the courts, police, less profits for prisons, plus new markets for all the hemp products.


But hey a rational, well thought out argument isn't going to do any good here.

[polichick]

17. imo it's not the weed - it's the principle of maintaining the $tatus quo for...

...$pecial interest profit$.

Pres. Obama is a real $ell out when it comes to some interest groups.

[SidDithers]

19. I $ee what you did there...nt

Sid

[polichick]

20. $ubtle, huh?

[Romulox]

33. unre¢. nt

[demmiblue]

38. £o£. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

52. OK, I want to know where/how you got the cents symbol. thanks. n/t

[MineralMan]

77. If you're on a Windows system,

hold down the Alt key and type 155 on the number pad. When you release the Alt key, this will appear: ¢

On the Mac, Hold down Option and type 4. Or that's what I think it is. I don't do Mac.

[bluedigger]

22. Your right, of course.

Fuck it if they lock up a lot of hippies and brown people, make me piss in a jar for a part time job at minimum wage with no benefits, and search me at their whim.

Yeah, fuck it, it's just one issue.

[TheKentuckian]

23. Voting for Obama is a holding action in hopes of making a bad situation less crappy as

the options allow in many areas. Same goes for a sad number of legislators.

Whatever one is vexed by Obama or even many of the Turd Way about, the odds are Rmoney and especially the down ticket nutjobs will be worse be it marginally worse in some spots or orders of magnitude worse in others. That does not mean that situations won't grow less tolerable with another term but the hope is they will get "less worse" in comparison to the state of decay the TeaPubliKlans bring to the table.

The poster needs to grasp that and so do his/her detractors who would reel more back in if they could stand to bring some realism to their sales pitches. Zippitydodah is completely ineffective on and quite repulsive to the cynical and probably generates anger to people who feel burned that isn't helping anybody.

The reality is that many folks may feel pretty well fucked over and unrepresented in a number of areas that are very important to them. It easy and less troublesome to the heart to write people off as single issue when that last straw hits the pile. Especially when you are discussing an area with no serious opposing pressure from the public.
Let's not even pretend like the barbarians where even eying the gates on medical marijuana. There was no campaign in the media on the issue and not a single misspelled sign was attempting to bring the heat even among the teabaggers, not even the crazies in the House were making a peep.

There really is no excuse, it is a straight sellout move and a dick one at that, which doesn't inspire much respect or trust which carries over to other areas. Especially those that are paths of much greater resistance.

The "magic move" was there to be played, doing nothing and maybe quietly reallocating resources is all that needed to be done. Just let the wave roll on and let the states do just what they were doing but no and for no sound reason which indicates no real intent to do anything approximating the right thing here. No since in even woolgathering about a sensible reschedule.
A TeaPubliKlan would be willing to let big pharma replicate some bullshit pill and continue to feed the prison system with young folks and minorities and let the sick and dying suffer on until the chemist got something that would make a tidy profit for the drug companies.
The difference is that is probably the most you can hope for from a TeaPubliKlan and the least you can expect from a Democrat. The problem is we are stuck on the least, by and large. Where and how can pressure be firmly and steadily applied to move the dial?

[Tsiyu]

24. It's a free country

and people can choose the issues important to them.

Childishly mock others if it makes you happy, but understand that for many Americans, cannabis is vital to their wellbeing - because they can't eat, live without severe pain or tremors or anxiety, etc.

If Obama suddenly declared a War on Alcohol, or on whatever substance you freely consume today without fear of financial ruin and/or incarceration, you'd be "Whhhaaaaa-ing" as well.

Making fun of sick people - or those who love them - because they are desperate and afraid of what might happen to them given the current Puritanical bent of the JD, indicates immaturity and a lack of compassion, in my opinion

[Bonobo]

28. Not trivial. For some it will mean a painful death.

Imagine yourself int he last bed you will ever sleep in. It is your deathbed.

Now imagine yourself unable to eat without throwing up.

Imagine yourself in terrible full-body chronic pain.

Now imagine the political expediency of choosing to make medical marijuana illegal and sentencing these people to further misery for the rest of their lives.

But it is not only an issue for the dying. It is an issue for those who live with painful neuralgia, as just ONE of a myriad of examples of the kind of medical condition that cannabis is extremely helpful for easing.

Play this post off if you want, but it medical marijuana is not an issue about stoners wanting to be able to smoke it up. It is far more important than that.

[Luminous Animal]

30. This is a remarkably ignorant attack against an overall compassionate community...

who are losing their livelihood, racking up legal costs, and giving up advocacy for MMJ. It also totally disregards those who have had access medical care in a comfortable safe environment.

[bluestate10]

36. Larger fucking issues are at play. The OP asked a simple question.

Will you fuck women's choice, women's health issues, gay rights, childhood nutrition, the nation's economic wellbeing, and the future energy sources for the nation because of a hair across the ass about MMJ? It was a fucking simple question that had nothing in it about how great people that support MMJ are. There are other things that equally compassionate people are concerned about that effect real people who single issue people focused on MMJ are willing to fuck.

[Romulox]

37. When you say "women's choice", you mean "not including the choice to smoke pot," surely?

And when you say "women's health issues", you must mean "women's health issues that don't include safe access to medical marijuana."

And similarly, when you say "gay rights", you are purposefully omitting "the right of gays not to be persecuted for consensual activity in their own homes (which consists of marijuana use,)..."

And so on.

[blue neen]

39. IMHO, those are false equivalents.

For example, smoking pot definitely is not an effective form of birth control. The words "choice" and "health issues" mean much more than you are implying.

That being said, I support the legalization of medical marijuana, but it is not the answer to every problem that we face. It would be great if life was that simple.

Thanks.

[Romulox]

41. If they had meant "birth control", then why say "choice", which implies, well... nt

[Luminous Animal]

40. There is no question in the OP at all. Can't answer a question that was never asked.

[stevenleser]

63. Correct, but the OP IS a challenge that demands one defend not voting for Obama solely on that basis

It isnt exactly a question, no, but if you are one of the folks considering not voting for the President on that basis, the question would be could you look any woman or member of the LGBT community in the eye and explain yourself?

[Warren DeMontague]

80. How many people here have actually said they're NOT voting for Obama?

Im making noise about this because after I send him back for a second term, I expect him to grow a pair on this as well as other issues.

[bluestate10]

31. Single issue people are bad for the country.

Interestingly, the lastest person to say he won't vote for Obama over pot is going to a Ron Paul rally. Ron Paul votes something like 99% with republicans that are legislating removal of reproductive choice for women, marital choice for gays, reinstalling Don't Ask, Don't Tell, institutionalization of tax cuts for the very wealthy, removal of nutrition aid for poor children, a violent assault on women's health issues even ones completely outside of the issue of abortion. Anyone that call themselves a democrat and can look at the issues that I laid out then say they will not vote for President Obama or will sit home, or won't contribute money to Obama and democrats can go fuck themselves as far as I am concerned. I have no respect for them.

[Thor_MN]

32. Like, uh, what?

Nah, man, I'm just gonna, uh, hang around here today, you know?

[Romulox]

34. I'm sure the OP ticks the "liberal democrat" box on those infamous polls... nt

[Hawkowl]

42. Just one more thing

No public option. No closing Gitmo. No war crimes prosecuted vs. record number of whistle blowers prosecuted. No prosecution of corrupt Rethuglicans but plenty of support for the Un-Justice Department against Siegleman and Edwards. Pro Nuclear and off shore drilling....

So maybe, maybe losing the pot smokers just might do his campaign in when added to all those other liberals who no longer call themselves Democrats. Obama is without a doubt the most disappointing Democratic President in the last 100 years.

[GeorgeGist]

43. Are you on chemo?

[joeybee12]

45. Whaaaa....my Marlins suck so I'll start a pointless thread!

[trumad]

66. Actually they had a great weekend.

[trumad]

67. Thank you Skinner for reopening this thread.

I was losing faith but now it is restored.

[SomethingFishy]

49. Someone could list a hundred issues and you'd still

call them a whiner. A whining sycophant isn't any better than a whining single issue voter.

[trumad]

78. Great name...

sniff.

[SomethingFishy]

103. Oooh you got me with that one..

[Liberal_in_LA]

50. popcorn time

[treestar]

51. People who really think this is important would not be focused on the Presidency

They'd work on their state.

And even if there is legal medical marijuana, that does not mean those facilities can break federal laws with impunity. These posters seems to be calling for the law to be different, and for that to happen by Presidential fiat. Not every sophisticated and completely ineffective on the very issue they claim is so important.

[Romulox]

59. You've been told that the President DOES have the power to reschedule Cannabis.

And you've been told this more than once. That's because Congress has delegated that power to him and the DEA, an agency over which he has complete control.

You might do more reading on this subject, and less "explaining"--that is, if you are not intentionally adding more noise to this debate.

[treestar]

64. I don't believe that unless I see it directly in the statutes

I have a hard time believing that the POTUS has the power to make MJ legal all alone.

It could be another one of those "legal interpretations" by some extremist that says that.

[Romulox]

68. LOL. Ignorance as a shield. Hold it up proudly! nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

69. In that case, you're arguing from a point of complete ignorance

[Romulox]

70. Besides, if you had the ability to interpret US Code, you'd know this stuff already.

[Romulox]

71. Still, here it is, so that you can "believe" (lol!):

21 USC § 811 - AUTHORITY AND CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSTANCES

(a) Rules and regulations of Attorney General; hearing
The Attorney General shall apply the provisions of this subchapter to the controlled substances listed in the schedules established by section 812 of this title and to any other drug or other substance added to such schedules under this subchapter. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, the Attorney General may by rule—
(1) add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he—
(A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and
(B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) ofsection 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed; or
(2) remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/811

[treestar]

73. That is what they are using to make this point?

What about the determination required in subsection (a)(1)(B)(2)? Do you think the POTUS can freely interpret that as he pleases?

You need a lot more than that. That's the problem with amateur legal analysts.

What if MJ meets the requirements for inclusion in a schedule? What are those requirements? For a start.

[Romulox]

75. There is no subsection (a)(1)(B)(2). It's not a good cite, under standard legal notation.

A legal eagle such as yourself should really know that. You likely mean subsection (a)(2).

"What if MJ meets the requirements for inclusion in a schedule? What are those requirements? For a start."

Do your own research. You were ignorant of even the broadest outline of the subject just moments ago.

[treestar]

92. I'm not the one making the claim that Obama can

change the schedules "at the stroke of a pen."

What a rude response you just made.

You do the research; you're making the claim.

[Uncle Joe]

62. It seems to me you want to have it both ways, isn't that what California did?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014112586#post103

President Barack Obama’s emphasis on raiding medical marijuana dispensaries drew a rebuke from none other than House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) this week, who warned in a prepared statement that she has “strong concerns” about her political ally’s policy.

Since President Barack Obama took office, “more than 200" state-approved medical marijuana facilities have been raided, according to Kris Hermes, spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access (ASA), who spoke to Raw Story on Thursday.

...............

“I have strong concerns about the recent actions by the federal government that threaten the safe access of medicinal marijuana to alleviate the suffering of patients in California, and undermine a policy that has been in place under which the federal government did not pursue individuals whose actions complied with state laws providing for medicinal marijuana,” she said.

[treestar]

65. So what is the President doing that is not lawful?

Is there some law he is "enforcing" that is not on the books?

And is marijuana the only solution to this problem?

Why aren't people out trying to sell this to the public and to the states and Congress?

[Uncle Joe]

72. What he's doing is the opposite of what he said he would do as a candidate,

I have little doubt that a man of Obama's intellect didn't know what the laws were at the time.

Furthermore we are trying to sell it to the public, states and Congress, that's one purpose for all these threads on D.U. but occupying the most powerful office in the land will catch the brunt for the clamor of MMJ or legalization reform and pretty much any other law as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=644677

I hear there is safety in numbers, so come on out federal level Democrats, the water is fine and the people most prone to having been brainwashed by "reefer madness" have already or are moving on to the next great adventure.

The people are rapidly becoming aware to the wool that's been pulled over their eyes for so long and I don't believe you want to be on the wrong side of this issue.

[Rex]

55. That would be the sad, withholding a vote

for one single issue. I can't have my pot either, but I am still voting for the man. As everyone here is going to.

[Cal Carpenter]

56. This thread contributes to the greatness of DU

is a shit statement.

[stevenleser]

60. This OP was alerted upon and here are the results

At Fri May 4, 2012, 01:18 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Whhhaaaa...I can't have my pot so I won't vote for Obama.

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This is not worthy of General Discussion, and it's just a fight starter. Take it to H&M or offsite completely.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 4, 2012, 01:23 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: rude
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: On its own, the post isnt really all that bad...BUT as an OP it's clearly designed to start a brawl.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I do not like Trumad's one man mission against Mineralman and find a fair amount of Trumad's posts offensive/over the top/disruptive and would be happy to vote to hide any of those kinds of posts. However, this post is just not hideworthy. Why would anyone alert on this?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerter needs to leave their personal problems with trumad at the door. This is getting sad.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Not voting for Obama.. guess that says it all.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No one is serious with this statement, MM is just one of the changes liberals want PBO to change

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[stevenleser]

61. I did not vote to hide. nt

[RadiationTherapy]

74. Since I have a 'counter-thread' out there, I feel compelled to say

"not me". I don't 'alert'.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Remember "hold my feet to the fire"?

Do you think Nancy Pelosi is voting for Romney, because she's calling Obama out on this?

I haven't smoked it in years, and I think what is happening right now is a fucking travesty. The drug war needs to end, and it's because I respect our LEADERS that I expect them to actually LEAD.

[trumad]

81. Pelosi will vote for Obama.

Ya think?

[Warren DeMontague]

84. Yeah. Of course she will.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/state-issues/225499-pelosi-condemns-obama-administration-for-calif-medical-pot-crackdowns

So honestly, I don't get what's with all the flappy-armed panic and whining over criticism of an OBVIOUSLY WRONG, STUPID, EXPENSIVE, CRUEL and WASTEFUL policy that NEEDS TO END.

[trumad]

85. Of course it needs to end..

But if you hop on DU and claim you're not going to vote for Obama because of it...expect push back.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. I asked elsewhere in the thread, maybe you missed it: how many people have actually said that?

I ask that honestly. Because every time I talk about it, personally, I know I mention that not only of course am I voting or him just as I've voted for every Democrat back to Dukakis, but that part of my agitation on the issue is that I hope and expect some sanity and leadership in his second term.

[trumad]

88. it was a couple of other threads ---from now tombstoned members---that were posting that shit.

typical me---I went after them with that thread.

I'm not minimizing the importance of the issue....but---not voting for Obama because of it...really?

Not you of course....

[Warren DeMontague]

89. I think the fact that they're now ppr'd says a lot.

Personally, I'm used to having to decide between a democrat who invariably disappoints and a republican who ends up exceeding my worst fears. Not a great choice, but an obvious one.

[cthulu2016]

82. Why is this moronic flamebait still unhidden?

[trumad]

83. It was hidden until the owner of the site unhid it...

Probably to fuck with the Morans.

[Poll_Blind]

97. Wait, you're saying that a jury hid this thread and then Skinner unhid it?

This post seems to indicate that this thread wasn't locked by a jury.

Can you clarify? Did a host lock it or something? How do you know Skinner unlocked it?

PB

[trumad]

101. yes

[JonLP24]

86. Though if I do possess pot in the future and busted with said pot

I may not be able to vote for him when the state revokes my right to vote, if and if.

[Can I Come Home]

93. We cannot be single-issue on this

durec.

[Taverner]

94. I'm voting Obama, but I am supporting Pelosi

She is taking this on

Back her as well as Obama

Obama is the best we will get

Pressure him to fire Holder

[Aerows]

95. Wow

What a productive thread. This is the type of post that really brings the community together instead of dividing it.

[Odin2005]

98. War on Drugs = private prison slave labor.

I'm sure all the people forced into prison slave labor because they got caught with a joint think this is damn important.

[stranger81]

99. Is demeaning and caricaturing other DUers supposed to persuade them to your way of thinking?

If so, it's completely misguided. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, as they say.

Ridiculing your own side of the aisle is not going to win Obama any votes, fwiw.

[taterguy]

102. Dude

nt

[Jamaal510]

106. OP said exactly what has been on my mind.

I think dope should be legalized as much as the next dude. But it's sickening for me to watch some liberals and Dems either sit out an election and call themselves "sending a message", or support a Republican who opposes 99% of their stances just because of one or two issues.

[Scurrilous]

107. LOL