Romney

1/2/2008 1:59:01 AM

absolution: would you like me to delete everything noncompliant with the original terms of this thread?

1/2/2008 4:59:23 AM

^^^ In Islamist Pakistan, government elects YOU!

1/2/2008 5:55:40 PM

gooo hillary!

1/2/2008 5:56:53 PM

sigh

1/2/2008 7:01:51 PM

Ron Paul

1/2/2008 9:09:00 PM

bigger sigh

1/3/2008 3:28:17 AM

between obama and mccain i am currently leaning toward mccain


to me its pretty much "big changes(obama) versus little changes(mccain)"


i dont want any drastic changes right now

1/23/2008 9:46:47 AM

I'd vote for McCain

1/23/2008 8:34:36 PM

Mitt

1/23/2008 9:37:37 PM

Ron Paul

if hes not on the ballot Ill vote for him anyways

1/23/2008 10:03:09 PM

John McCain. I've waited eight fucking years for the opportunity.

1/23/2008 10:08:21 PM

i so wish he had gotten the opportunity in 2000. the country would be much much better off.

1/23/2008 10:12:56 PM

btw

fuck Mitt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4




[Edited on January 23, 2008 at 10:23 PM. Reason : private equity douchebag]

1/23/2008 10:13:28 PM

I'd vote Ron Paul... all the other GOPers are Conservative Pretenders.

1/23/2008 10:31:45 PM

Yeah, seriously - here's Mitt Romney telling a wheelchair-bound medical marijuana patient, to his face that he doesn't support medical marijuana, and generally acting like a douchebag. Including not answering the guy's question: "Would you arrest me for using medical marijuana?"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A

Who the hell actually supports this guy?

1/23/2008 10:43:40 PM

i wish the dems had a better candidate(white male thats qualified)

1/23/2008 10:48:26 PM

Oh, and meanwhile, back at the McCain camp:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/01/gingrich_doesnt_regret_decision_to_skip_2008_race/

Quote :

"In a 90-minute town hall meeting in Derry, N.H., McCain also challenged a woman in a wheelchair who said she needed medical marijuana to withstand the pain of her ailments. "Every town hall meeting I have, someone shows up and advocates for medical marijuana, and, by the way, in all due respect, alleges that we are arresting the dead and the dying, and I still have not seen any evidence of that," McCain told his questioner."

This is just the kind of level-headed, informed leadership we need as a nation.

But, oh please - do tell me how Ron Paul is crazy. Please, please do.

1/23/2008 11:01:47 PM

There are those of us for whom medical marijuana is not the defining issue of the Presidential campaign

1/24/2008 1:00:54 AM

yeah fucking really

i was gonna say he should work for the prodrugs lobby but ^ is pretty much what i was really trying to say

1/24/2008 1:07:17 AM

Quote :

"John McCain. I've waited eight fucking years for the opportunity"

That said, I pull for Ron Paul to do well and like to see him succeed up to the point that it hampers McCain.

1/24/2008 2:02:57 AM

If the ELECTION were held TODAY...

Hillary would win and all the actors that moved to Canada 7 years ago would start moving back.

1/24/2008 7:32:00 AM

Quote :

"There are those of us for whom medical marijuana is not the defining issue of the Presidential campaign"

Straight talk from McCain though, right? I mean, that's what you're all about, right?

You're not even fucking trying, and it shows. Intellectual laziness.

Quote :

"i was gonna say he should work for the prodrugs lobby but ^ is pretty much what i was really trying to say"

Has anyone told you what a moron you are, lately? Because they should. Moronic.

[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 8:20 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2008 8:20:03 AM

Wait, so Mitt told a man in a wheelchair TO HIS FACE what he believed in and not what the man wanted to hear? He doesnt stand a chance of getting elected in this country.

1/24/2008 8:58:32 AM

Quote :

"http://youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A"

I actually think Mitt handled that one well. I would have done the same if someone came up to me trying to trap me in a corner with a loaded question like, "Will you arrest a poor dude in a wheel chair because he smokes cannibus?"

I'd vote for Mitt.

[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 9:19 AM. Reason : didn't want to get flamed for bad grammar ]

1/24/2008 9:15:42 AM

How the hell is it a loaded question? In case it has escaped some here, policies have consequences. Do politicians suddenly not deserve to be confronted with those consequences?

Besides - was it that hard to answer the guy's question?

1/24/2008 9:55:15 AM

Did you even listen to the question he asked?

Wheelchair Hippie: "Will you arrest me and my doctors, if I get medical marijuana"
Romney: "I am not in favor of medical marijuana"
Wheelchair Hippie: "so will you have me arrested?"
Romney: "Hi, how are you?" (to another person)
Wheelchair Hippie: "Excuse me will you please answer my question?"
Romney: "I'm sorry" (to hippie)
Instigating Cameraman: "You're not going to answer his question governor?"
Romney: "I think I have. I'm not in favor of legalizing marijuana."
Instigating Cameraman: "He asked if you were going to arrest patients like him governor"

Sounds like a loaded question to me. They were trying to get him to say either,

1) "Yes, you would get arrested." Hence, proving that Mitt is a heartless bastard.
2) "No, I would not arrest you." Hence, proving that Mitt is a flip flopping bastard who is against legalizing marijuana but somehow manages to pander to a wheelchair hippie by telling him he wouldn't get arrested.

But, in the end they got the answer they wanted anyways:

3) "I'm against legalizing marijuana." Therefore, proving that Mitt must be a heartless bastard anyways for blowing off a poor helpless medical marijuana patient.

1/24/2008 10:20:09 AM

So Mitt shouldn't have to directly answer to the consequences of his proposed policies? He should just get a pass, because hey - it's unfair to actually confront him with a potential victim of his policies. As long as we throw the guy in the wheelchair in jail for using marijuana upon the advice of his physician out of sight of the cameras, no further justification is necessary. Am I following correctly? Because this seems like a pretty intellectually - not to mention morally - bankrupt position.

If he honest-to-God feels like cancer patients are a threat to the Republic, then by all means - he should have the balls to say, "Yes, I will put you and every other medical marijuana user in prison, given the chance." Notice he doesn't answer that question, though. I wonder why?

And, by the way - the issue here is federalism. The fact is, 12 states have laws which dictate that the use of medical marijuana is legal with a doctor's prescription. The issue is federal authorities overriding state laws. Which is entirely within the prerogatives of the president in regards to enforcement, regardless of one's opinions as to the larger issues of legalization.

But again, hey - who the hell cares about principles like "federalism" or even "moral decency?" It's so unfair to actually demand that politicians answer directly to the consequences of their policies!

[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM. Reason : Plus, he's got great hair!]

1/24/2008 10:29:07 AM

Obama

1/24/2008 12:42:54 PM

Hillary

.....to try to make sure my money wasn't wasted.

1/24/2008 2:03:25 PM

Quote :

"Straight talk from McCain though, right? I mean, that's what you're all about, right? "

No, actually, I'm all about his moderate policies and ability to bring the parties together somewhat, and not some campaign slogan on the side of a bus.

Quote :

"If he honest-to-God feels like cancer patients are a threat to the Republic"

This may not be lazy, but it is intellectually dishonest, preying on the fact that the guy has cancer to engender sympathy and then juxtaposing that with a horrid concept nobody else has brought up -- the "threat to the Republic."

Quote :

"And, by the way - the issue here is federalism."

No man, that's not the issue. There are other areas of discussion in this country that have to do with federalism, and God only knows there's more examples of every single politician that has ever lived, ever dodging a question when there is, at the end of the day, no right answer to it.

You're not a federalism nut, you are, at best, a medical marijuana nut, and far more likely, just a pothead.

1/24/2008 6:49:41 PM

Quote :

"No, actually, I'm all about his moderate policies and ability to bring the parties together somewhat, and not some campaign slogan on the side of a bus."

So, getting the facts utterly wrong and then maligning the motives one's opponents as malevolent and/or corrupt at every turn - is that the "moderate" or "bipartisan" part? Enlighten me.

Quote :

"This may not be lazy, but it is intellectually dishonest, preying on the fact that the guy has cancer to engender sympathy and then juxtaposing that with a horrid concept nobody else has brought up -- the "threat to the Republic.""

It's obviously enough of a threat to throw people like this in jail. Or did we forget that part? Is jail for people who don't pose a threat to the public now?

Or perhaps you could explain to all of us how a cancer patient using marijuana in accordance with state laws is a threat to public safety to warrant federal intervention.

Go on. It will prove amusing. (But I bet you're too much of a coward to even try.)

Quote :

"No man, that's not the issue. There are other areas of discussion in this country that have to do with federalism, and God only knows there's more examples of every single politician that has ever lived, ever dodging a question when there is, at the end of the day, no right answer to it."

Let's see, federal authorities (DEA) trumping state laws. Yes, not a federalism issue.

Are you high?

Quote :

"You're not a federalism nut, you are, at best, a medical marijuana nut, and far more likely, just a pothead."

Wow, three assumptions in one, and all completely fucking wrong. And here's a wild assumption, actually based on evidence - you're a brain-dead jackass who prefers making assumptions about the character and motives of others than addressing the arguments head-on. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

Hey, look at that - no wonder you endorse toolbags for high office: common identity.

Do us all a favor and refrain from voting this election.

1/24/2008 7:38:02 PM

Quote :

"There are those of us for whom medical marijuana is not the defining issue of the Presidential campaign"

1/24/2008 8:24:32 PM

Quote :

"There are those of us for whom medical marijuana is principles are not the defining issue of the Presidential campaign"

Fixed it for y'all.

1/24/2008 8:32:09 PM

i dont get it.

are you saying people who don't place medical marijuana issue top on their list are unprincipled?

1/25/2008 12:01:45 AM

Is this a serious question, or a specious one? Because I can give you a more-than-one sentence reply, but I'd really like to know if it's worth it.

Short answer, "No."

1/25/2008 12:11:11 AM

it was a serious question. it seemed like that's what you were saying, with the strikeout/edit along with a few prior posts.

at any rate, i don't see what was so wrong with Romney blowing the wheelchair hippie off. WHat did you expect him to do?

(1) obviously the guy was not a Romney supporter and was trying to make him look bad

(2) the loaded question "will you arrest me" was a trap. it was unanswerable. He might have well asked him, "Hey Mitt, have you stopped beating your wife?"

(3) Romney (or anyone else for that matter) has no idea what the wheelchair hippie's health issue is, and whether or not medical marijuana could even be considered a legitimate treatment for him. The guy was obviously a plant, so who knows if even his wheelchair wasn't just another prop.

(4) the President's job duties doesn't include "arresting" people. If someone breaks a law, the law enforcement having jurisdiction will make an arrest. For that matter, the President doesn't even write the laws.


Look, I personally never would vote for Romney, because while it's highly unlikely that I'll ever vote for a Republican President, I think I can say that I will never vote for a Mormon in any capacity in any conceivable future that I can imagine.

But at least Mitt Romney has the common sense to not respond to trolls, unlike certain people and their aliases who frequent these boards.







[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 12:25 AM. Reason : had to edit the Republican bit ... i could conceivably vote McCain -- it's unlikely tho.]

1/25/2008 12:22:08 AM

Quote :

"it was a serious question. it seemed like that's what you were saying, with the strikeout/edit along with a few prior posts."

No. Just that certain principles seem to be expendable, when inconvenient. And the fact that "principle" hardly seems to be the animating force behind supporting most of the politicians listed above, given the utter aversion displayed to it seen here, and in other threads.

Quote :

"(1) obviously the guy was not a Romney supporter and was trying to make him look bad"

So what? How is his question unfair? I'll put it this way:

1) Romney supports continuing federal raids on MM patients.
2) This person is a MM patient.
3) Romney would therefore arrest this person.

This person was asking if, confronted with a living, breathing artifact of his stated policies, if he would in fact actually follow through on it. Do policies not have consequences? Do we just imagine people getting arrested?

Enlighten me here, because I just seem too stupid to get it. Policies don't seem to have consequences in your fairy-tale land, nor do politicians deserve to get called on those consequences, in particular when they have very real and personal consequences.

Instead, I suppose they should be soft-balled questions by stage-managed "audience" members, I suppose? Would that be more "fair?"

Again. Please do enlighten me, since I'm not "getting" it.

Quote :

"(2) the loaded question "will you arrest me" was a trap. it was unanswerable. He might have well asked him, "Hey Mitt, have you stopped beating your wife?""

Please point out the false premise in the three I outlined above. "Beating your wife" is a question based upon a false premise. "Arresting people such as myself" is a true one.

Quote :

" (3) Romney (or anyone else for that matter) has no idea what the wheelchair hippie's health issue is, and whether or not medical marijuana could even be considered a legitimate treatment for him. The guy was obviously a plant, so who knows if even his wheelchair wasn't just another prop."

The guy was eighty pounds! Do you seriously think he starved himself, got in a wheelchair, and put himself there as a plant? Do you really think they couldn't find someone who was a legit cancer patient? (Or that they just don't exist?)

Quote :

"(4) the President's job duties doesn't include "arresting" people. If someone breaks a law, the law enforcement having jurisdiction will make an arrest. For that matter, the President doesn't even write the laws."

Let's travel back to High School Civics class for a moment. The president, as the head of the executive branch, has authority over how federal law enforcement is conducted. They choose which crimes to enforce, and which crimes to ignore, or at the very least, make a low priority. Or were you under the assumption that federal law enforcement resources were somehow infinite?

Therefore, the president has every prerogative of who gets arrested under federal laws - it's called law enforcement priorities. With an executive order, the president could just as easily stop raids in states where the laws permit said use. Romney clearly does not support this. Therefore, it stands to reason that his policy would include using federal agents to arrest people like this person.

Quote :

"But at least Mitt Romney has the common sense to not respond to trolls, unlike certain people and their aliases who frequent these boards."

So, again - it's trolling not to softball the guy? Is any question which is not slavishly uncritical "trolling," or just the ones that specifically call attention to the consequences of their policies? Or is it just unreasonable to actually ask candidates to be held responsible for their positions?

1/25/2008 12:36:46 AM

well, i'm going to have to fall back on the obvious point here, which has already been made earlier:

Romney said he was "not in favor of legalizing marijuana."

its quite clear where Romney stands on this position. Marijuana is illegal and he will not support efforts to change it. If you do something illegal, it's a fairly sound inference that you are likely to get arrested for breaking the law.

I dont like Romney and I think marijuana ought to be legalized. But you're beating a dead goddamned horse here. Romney gave the question about as honest an answer you're ever going to get from a political candidate.

1/25/2008 12:50:30 AM

Look. Legalization and federalism are two very, very different issues. Nothing about this question is whether the FedGov should give up the War on Drugs, or just marijuana arrests in general.

This is a question of whether federal agents should continue to make raids on MM patients in states where this is legal. And just MM patients. That's it. It's actually not that huge of a concession if one say, actually believes in federalism. Which applies in other realms too, which is why it's a poignant question for a Republican candidate - this is a harder case. People who actually believe in the principle of federalism will apply it even in cases like this - see, for instance, Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion on Gonzales v. Raich.

Romney doesn't even answer the question. "I don't favor legalizing marijuana" doesn't answer the question. Should we expect him to? Maybe not - he is, after all, a politician. But the fact that he wouldn't even address the salient issue at hand - even when it's literally sitting in front of him - is telling. The fact is, Romney doesn't even seem to care - he really doesn't give a shit if this guy is thrown in prison - not even a pretense of compassionate disagreement. But hey, what's one more dirty hippie in prison, right? To hell with federalism, or human decency!

Meanwhile, you don't answer any of my questions. Was anything I asked really that hard to answer? Should we just exempt politicians from having the answer for the consequences of their policies? Or do policies just not have consequences anymore?

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 1:04 AM. Reason : GvR]

1/25/2008 12:56:16 AM

do you really expect Romney -- or any other anti MM political candidate -- to stand in front of a camera and tell a wheelchair hippie

Quote :

"yes, motherfucker, I'ma come arrest your skinny ass and throw you in motherfucking jail. then I'ma bust all your bongs and stomp on your buds."

i mean, what the fuck, dude? are you really that naive?

1/25/2008 1:03:53 AM

So we shouldn't bother to hold him accountable then? I mean, how naive is that - actually holding the guy to account for the consequences of his positions!

Shit, why bother asking critical questions then?

I mean, it's fucking easy, here. "I believe federal law reigns supreme in all cases, including yours. You'll have to take it up with your Congresscritter."

Christ, it's not that fucking hard.

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 1:10 AM. Reason : Really.]

1/25/2008 1:08:55 AM

oh ok that works

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 1:12 AM. Reason : the last 2 lines he added after the edit make sense]

1/25/2008 1:12:00 AM

Quote :

"So, getting the facts utterly wrong and then maligning the motives one's opponents as malevolent and/or corrupt at every turn - is that the "moderate" or "bipartisan" part? Enlighten me."

It is impossible for any one man to know all of the facts regarding every issue that might come up in a campaign. I accept that. And, perhaps, they ought to freely admit that they don't know every time they run into such an issue. I can possibly accept that too. What I can't accept is that there's a single person running for President who is innocent of this sin. So, maybe McCain and Romney are douchebags...but if they're douchebags in the same way as everyone else running, why pick them out? Oh that's right...you've got pretty much the one issue.

Every politician who has run for office in the history of democracy has dodged a question like this at some point, but you've picked yours very carefully.

Quote :

"Or perhaps you could explain to all of us how a cancer patient using marijuana in accordance with state laws is a threat to public safety to warrant federal intervention."

It's not the first time the federal government has intervened in contrast to state laws, and, in the past, the feds have been right on some big issues. I doubt you'd be screaming about federalism if the issue was Alabama keeping blacks out of public schools.

Let me step back here for a moment and point out that I am in favor of the controlled legalization of marijuana. I think that the continued criminalization of it is pretty dumb. I also think, in the grand scheme of things, that a citizen's right to make himself dumber with chemicals is pretty small in comparison to the other issues facing us.

The point is, I don't think cancer patients -- or any other group -- who uses marijuana is a threat to public safety, and I don't think they should be arrested. I also don't think that illegal immigrants should be arrested or deported or otherwise persecuted. In fact, if you look at my posts in this forum, you'll see I've been extremely vocal about that. However, I don't expect politicians to say as much right now. To do so would be suicide, and you can't get any good done if you don't have some real power. Same thing with marijuana, medicinal or otherwise, on the national scale.

Quote :

"Let's see, federal authorities (DEA) trumping state laws. Yes, not a federalism issue."

Oh, I agree it is a Federalism issue. But I'm calling you out for being full of shit by pretending that's why you care about it.

Lots of issues can be Federalist if you want. Abortion and gay marriage are fine examples. But you know what? The people who bitch about these things and mention federalism don't actually give a good god damn about federalism. They give a shit about homo mansex and baby killing, or the opposites thereof. And you're no different with this shit, no matter how high and mighty you want to play in your response.

Quote :

"And here's a wild assumption, actually based on evidence - you're a brain-dead jackass who prefers making assumptions about the character and motives of others than addressing the arguments head-on. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest."

There's something artful about bashing assumptions and then freely admitting that you yourself are making one. But I'll ignore that.

I don't give a shit that you want weed legal. I fucking want weed legal. I'd be in a much better mood right now if I could've bought that shit at the ABC store earlier when I was getting my cheap Canadian whiskey. There's no character judgment about your position. There is, however, a judgment about the fact that you are blatantly lying about your reasons for having it.

1/25/2008 1:15:30 AM

Quote :

"I mean, it's fucking easy, here. "I believe federal law reigns supreme in all cases, including yours. You'll have to take it up with your Congresscritter.""

oh please. it's NOT that fucking simple.

Besides the whole Tenth Amendment issue, you yourself just noted how federal law enforcement does not have infinite resources. Enforcement of some crimes have will necessarily take precedence over others.

It's an inherently complicated business, rife with political considerations.

Romney very well may not have formulated an exact table of precedence regarding MM enforcement. It very well may be one of those issues at the BOTTOM of his priorities. He certainly isnt going to shoot himself in the foot by making declarative statements on some issue that the majority of his likely primary voters DONT FUCKING CARE ABOUT.

come on dude. quit playing like you live in some fairy tale world where everyone speaks clearly all the time, nothing but complete and total honesty without any hedging.





[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 1:18 AM. Reason : ]

1/25/2008 1:16:40 AM

Quote :

"It is impossible for any one man to know all of the facts regarding every issue that might come up in a campaign. I accept that. And, perhaps, they ought to freely admit that they don't know every time they run into such an issue. I can possibly accept that too. What I can't accept is that there's a single person running for President who is innocent of this sin. So, maybe McCain and Romney are douchebags...but if they're douchebags in the same way as everyone else running, why pick them out? Oh that's right...you've got pretty much the one issue. Every politician who has run for office in the history of democracy has dodged a question like this at some point, but you've picked yours very carefully."

Do we have to review what happens when you assume, again?

I picked out those two cases because they readily displayed what I saw as a smallness of character. I could just as easily pick on McCain for calling people who oppose McCain-Feingold as "corrupt" and "pawns of the corporations." Or how about subtle racism during the debates?

I found these particular examples to be ignorant of facts, disregarding of professed principle (federalism), and generally disgusting. They happened to be readily available for me.

Quote :

"It's not the first time the federal government has intervened in contrast to state laws, and, in the past, the feds have been right on some big issues. I doubt you'd be screaming about federalism if the issue was Alabama keeping blacks out of public schools."

You can't tell me that the debate over civil rights was actually as simple as "For Federal Intervention" or "Southern Segregationalist." I mean, see: Goldwater, Barry.

Quote :

"However, I don't expect politicians to say as much right now. To do so would be suicide, and you can't get any good done if you don't have some real power. Same thing with marijuana, medicinal or otherwise, on the national scale."

Look, calling for an end to federal raids on MM patients in states with MM laws isn't exactly a "non-mainstream" position. More than one presidential candidate (other than Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich) has called for this very small step. (They just happen to be mostly Democrats - quite ironic given the GOP's supposed commitment to federalism.)

Quote :

"Oh, I agree it is a Federalism issue. But I'm calling you out for being full of shit by pretending that's why you care about it."

You know what I really, really don't like? Maybe you've noticed this - when people make unfounded assumptions about my positions, character, and motives.

I actually do give a shit about federalism. This is just one case where a supposed commitment to federalism by some frays apart, which is why I use it. (It's easy to be a federalist when it comes to gay marriage, homo mansex, and kidkilling. It gets less easy in cases like this.)

Quote :

"Lots of issues can be Federalist if you want. Abortion and gay marriage are fine examples. But you know what? The people who bitch about these things and mention federalism don't actually give a good god damn about federalism. They give a shit about homo mansex and baby killing, or the opposites thereof. And you're no different with this shit, no matter how high and mighty you want to play in your response."

And your basis for this is what, exactly? What evidence do you have for this, other than baseless assumption?

Quote :

"I don't give a shit that you want weed legal. I fucking want weed legal. I'd be in a much better mood right now if I could've bought that shit at the ABC store earlier when I was getting my cheap Canadian whiskey. There's no character judgment about your position. There is, however, a judgment about the fact that you are blatantly lying about your reasons for having it."

You know what? I don't smoke weed. I know, you can continue to persist under the belief that this is my chief motivation for favoring federalism, fine. My main reason for being interested in this issue is because I'd like to pare back the scope of the Federal Government in order to allow states to have a little more diversity in setting their own laws. I'd rather see California legalize heroin and Utah bring back Prohibition, for all it's worth.

And for the record? I do support legalization. I think we'd all be better off if we legalized weed. It still doesn't mean it's the reason I support stopping this kind of federal intrusion into a state affair - the issue of simple human decency notwithstanding. It just stands out as a particularly poignant and indecent trespass of federal power over state laws - with particular stress to the "indecent" part.

And you know what? I don't have to smoke weed to think we'd be better off legalizing. There is such a thing as just supporting policy on the simple fact that it's just principled.

1/25/2008 1:33:15 AM

Quote :

"oh please. it's NOT that fucking simple. Besides the whole Tenth Amendment issue, you yourself just noted how federal law enforcement does not have infinite resources. Enforcement of some crimes have will necessarily take precedence over others. It's an inherently complicated business, rife with political considerations."

You know what? I expect someone running for the highest office in the land to have some vague grasp on their law enforcement priorities and philosophy of government. This is the kind of thing you actually, you know, hire experts to think about when you actually run for office.

For instance, do they actually believe in federalism, or is just one of those code words for "Let's overturn Roe v. Wade and pass a constitutional ban on homo marriage."

Quote :

"Romney very well may not have formulated an exact table of precedence regarding MM enforcement. It very well may be one of those issues at the BOTTOM of his priorities. He certainly isnt going to shoot himself in the foot by making declarative statements on some issue that the majority of his likely primary voters DONT FUCKING CARE ABOUT."

Federalism. It's kind of one of those defining issues of a candidate's governing philosophy.

I know it's not one of those bullshit culture war issues like abortion or gay marriage or the Pledge of Allegiance, but seriously. Having a feel for a candidate's philosophy on the proper role of the federal government is "moderately important."

Quote :

"come on dude. quit playing like you live in some fairy tale world where everyone speaks clearly all the time, nothing but complete and total honesty without any hedging."

Tell me something. Are the questions I type in a language other than English? Is the font too small? Because I ask and I ask and I ask, and frankly, you do a worse job answering than Mitt. Yeah, I know you're on your quixotic quest to be mod around here, but last time I checked, that isn't an election.

The answer I put up there was hardly a hedge. "I feel it's my obligation to enforce federal law as written, even when it conflicts with state laws, and you'll just have to petition Congress to change laws you don't like." Doesn't require a whole hell of a lot of thought and applies to damned-near any federalism question. Gay marriage? Pull out the stock quote.

So, I ask again:

Should we just not hold politicians accountable for the consequences of their positions, and stop asking any critical questions at all?

1/25/2008 1:44:25 AM

Quote :

"I could just as easily pick on McCain for calling people who oppose McCain-Feingold as "corrupt" and "pawns of the corporations." Or how about subtle racism during the debates?"

Perhaps you could have. But you didn't.

Quote :

"You can't tell me that the debate over civil rights was actually as simple as "For Federal Intervention" or "Southern Segregationalist.""

No, it wasn't, obviously. But those situations do point out how federalism isn't always so peachy, and how federal intervention is occasionally for the better.

Quote :

"I actually do give a shit about federalism."

It's entirely possible, but based on too fucking much experience with people here and elsewhere, I ain't buying it that this is why you decided to start bitching about medicinal marijuana.

Quote :

"(It's easy to be a federalist when it comes to gay marriage, homo mansex, and kidkilling. It gets less easy in cases like this.) "

No, it's pretty much just as easy in all these cases.

---

The rest of your post is all basically the same, and that's great, but you know what? Still don't care. I've been on this site long enough to know how it works. I've argued with a lot of people smarter than you, and a lot of people dumber, and I know how that works, too. If everything you've said is true, then congratulations, you're in a small but respectable majority. But I really don't give enough of a shit to go against my instinct and assume as much, especially not on an issue I really don't give much of a damn about.

So you are welcome to continue ranting about how I've assumed all these wrong things about you. Fine. I've made my point on why it doesn't bother me that John McCain did not answer the question to your satisfaction. I'll take a little shit over a lot of shit. It's the best you can do. Welcome to the world.

1/25/2008 2:28:46 AM

You're free to assume as you wish. And, meanwhile, you are free to be incorrect. (Given your freedom in making wild assumptions, I'm counting on this becoming a regular occurrence.)

But please, do spare me putting your prejudices upon me in the future, especially when you have little basis for doing so. I really don't give a shit whoever the hell ran over your puppy or burned you when they bring up federalism - I'm not them, and I'm not responsible for that.

And frankly, whether you "believe" in the sincerity of my own political philosophy (which you know next to nothing about, yet freely assume - what exactly does this say about you?) is immaterial - I really don't answer to you. (Amazingly enough.) Although your sheer arrogance in presuming so is rather stunning.

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 2:41 AM. Reason : .]

1/25/2008 2:38:47 AM

Look, I'm all for federalism and states' rights. I voted for Badnarik in the last Presidential election. I'm down to the last couple of chapters in my second read of Conscience Of A Conservative. I think that legalization of marijuana and abortion should both be issues left up to the States.

In principle, I agree with what you're getting at, SteveChaos. Oddly enough, I think GrumpyGOP and JoeSchmoe do, too.

However, I also agree with about 98% of what the two of them have said in this thread. The Cliff's Notes summary of what we're getting at is that (1) the way you are acting is part of why the movement you're supporting has no real credibility and little substantial success or support, (2) there are bigger State's rights fish to fry, (3) if we are generous enough to take you at your word that you don't even burn trees and that it's strictly an issue of principle to you, that doesn't excuse the OVERWHELMING majority of other people who agree get up in arms over this issue. They generally take a position, then arrange the legal means of supporting it (Federalism), and (4) While I don't like Romney, and desire much less bullshit from the mouths of our elected leaders (a virtue that Romney certainly doesn't possess, I might add) I suppose that if he were to offer a 20 minute speech on his positions regarding marijuana, I would certainly expect a more nuanced, well-supported, and detailed answer...but given all of the circumstances, and thinking somewhat pragmatically, what the fuck did you really want him to say? Getting so ridiculously bent out of shape over the nuances of what was as straightforward of an answer as the question really warranted is kinda silly.



I really can't say it any better than GrumpyGOP repeatedly has. Oh, and I sent in my vote for McCain in the FL primary a couple of days ago (I was waiting to make sure he didn't flop at the last minute, in which case I would've voted for Ron Paul just for the purpose of making a statement).

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 3:04 AM. Reason : asfd]

1/25/2008 3:01:17 AM