Yes, Ron Paul is bad.

[girl gone mad]

Which only leads me to wonder...

if a horrible, bigoted, evil, awful, crazy, nogoodnik loser like Ron Paul can understand and admit that the drug war is racist and wrong and needs to end, why can't a rational, sane person like Obama do the same?

[Renew Deal]

1. Maybe Ron Paul is wrong about that as well?

[Cali_Democrat]

6. All nonviolent drug offenders should be pardoned

We see how these sentences impact minorities the most, especially blacks.

The drug war is indeed a racist concoction.

[TheDebbieDee]

35. The "Drug War" also makes a lot of money for

corruptible agents of law enforcement and companies that build, staff and manage prisons and prisoners.

[FarLeftFist]

97. Im ALL FOR legalizing marijuana but PLEASE keep heroin and cocaine less accessible.

It is a detriment to society. We should be encouraging healthy lifestyles, ESPECIALLY if we are IN FAVOR of single-payer. Rampant drug abuse would only burden our healthcare system, cause healthcare to skyrocket and encourage our citizens to do nothing with their lives but sell drugs.

[ellisonz]

143. Not to mention...

...meth. Fuck meth. Fuck Ron Paul.

[ixion]

12. Nope, he's very much correct on that particular point.

The 'war' on (some) drugs is an abject failure, and serves only to propagate the security state and private-prison industry.

Prohibition DOES NOT WORK.

[PeaceNikki]

29. Do you know how exactly Paul would effectively 'end' the war on drugs as POTUS?

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to know what his plan would be.

Sure, it's cool and sexy to say, "End the War on Drugs!". But, what would he do? Call off the DoJ? Huh, that would work while he was in office, but then what? Would he decriminalize drugs? How can he exactly do that... as POTUS?

[ixion]

36. It is a faux 'war', so ending it is as simple as saying "It's over".

Decriminalizing it another matter, as you point out, and would require Congress to cooperate.

Ending the faux 'war' is the first step, however. The anti-drug legislation passed over the past several decades has used this faux war as a rationale. Ending the 'war' needs to happen before decriminalization can begin to occur.

I think that most people know the drug 'war' has failed miserably. There are several verticals that profit handsomely from it. If you remove the profit motive, you remove their inclination to support.

One thing is clear however: It MUST end. It is a failed ill-conceived effort that is almost single-handedly destroying the fabric of society, not to mention costing a fortune (paid to the private prison industry) to lock up hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders.

Again: It MUST END, and the sooner the better.

[PeaceNikki]

40. I agree with you on some points and I am just asking for realistic, rational discussion.

Weed is schedule 1, how do we fix that? Honest question - who the hell can we get to change that? I don't even know. There are state and county and municipal codes that would have to change. It's a whole lot bigger than POTUS and calling for it to end is a start, but to affect change, needs to have a lot more meat behind it than just saying it's over.

[ixion]

44. You're mixing legislation with propaganda.

I agree that there are decades of anti-drug legislation that would need to be rolled back. This is a legislative issue.

The 'war' part is pure propaganda, and can be ended by declaring the propaganda null and void.

The Schedule is set by the DEA, and executive branch agency. The POTUS could direct the re-scheduling based on ample amounts of data showing that marijuana has medical uses. Since much of the legislation passed is based on the assumption that pot is Schedule I, that move alone would deprecate much legislation.

Your solution seems to be to let it continue because of the amount of legislation passed over the years. That is simply unacceptable.

They rolled back alcohol prohibition. They can do the same here. The only thing missing is the motivation.

[PeaceNikki]

47. WHAT!?!? *MY* solution?

No, that's not *my* solution. I haven't laid out a comprehensive solution to end it, I am simply pointing out that Paul hasn't either - and HE HAS NO INTENTION OF DOING SO. He's just talking shit. I am asking questions about how we can solve it. I agree that the 'war' is propaganda, but it's led to legislation that just cannot be 'undone' in one fell swoop like happened with prohibition. It's been going on for decades. I wish Democrats, people who CAN affect change, would work through this (or share what they have worked through) and come up with a realistic plan of action. In the meantime, I am not satisfied with Paul blowing smoke up by ass saying *he'd* end it. He can't, he won't and he's full of shit.

Just so we're clear, I am 100% on the side of legalization, I am just working through the logistics of how that exactly would occur. It's not as simple as waving a wand and calling it over.

I wish it were, but it's not.

[ixion]

49. Please show me where I mentioned a magic wand.

Because I don't recall pulling that out of my magic bag.

I'm saying that the 'war' part is easy, the legislation not as much. The FIRST STEP, however, is ending the 'war' part. Then re-scheduling, then begin deprecating the legislation.

Instructing the DEA to reschedule marijuana, and then instructing them to stop arresting pot smokers can all happen without the help of a legislative body.

And there were plenty of laws around the prohibition of alcohol that had to be cleaned up. I'm not saying it's an easy job, but it's a job that needs doing, and the best place to start is to pick a law, deprecated it, and move on.

[bvar22]

152. The White House and the DoJ apparently waved their "Magic Wand"....

...to Crack Down on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries,
or haven't you noticed?
THAT was a Pro-Active initiative taken BY the Executive Branch to excalate the War on (some) Drugs,
without Congress, legislation, or anything else.
If the White House had simply done nothing, nothing would have changed.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[BobbyBoring]

173. This is the most important reply in this thread

Obama and Holder decided that states have no rights when it comes to this issue. So obviously, the executive branch could end the war on drugs.

However, as long as social conservatives have the power they do, nothing will change.

[tishaLA]

84. He might end the federal war on drugs

But he'd leave it to the states and, suffice it to say, some states will take this as an opportunity to put in place draconian laws. And it wouldn't surprise me if many of the states that put in the most draconian laws were places that disproportionately targeted African Americans and Latinos.

So if you think it's better to have states do the damage--and to have a President who helped reduce the disparity in sentencing between powder cocaine and crack, for example, on the sidelines--that's a leap of faith that might sound good, but might be even more harmful than what we see now.

[stevenleser]

92. I agree. If you follow the current logic that Paul is pushing, that is exactly what would happen.

And what is worse, Paul would sit back and say that it is none of his business to try to influence what the states decide for themselves in that regard.

[ixion]

151. The ONLY reason states are passing laws is because a) The Feds do; and b) it's profitable for

private prisons.

Take away the profit motive, and you take away their interest.

[bvar22]

179. And SOME states would decriminalize Pot Growing, regulate and tax the Hemp industy,

and when the BILLIONS start flowing into the State Treasuries,
the other states WILL be very close behind.

NOBODY will turn down THAT kind of cash.

[RainDog]

81. the way any president who wanted to do so could

would be to appoint someone to head the DEA who thinks that the drug schedule should be amended and that all drugs should be removed from scheduling.

The DEA would hold hearings to educate the public and compile information and then the head of the DEA would decide to remove all drugs from the schedules - the DEA has the authority to do so.

this would effectively end the act of Congress that Nixon put into place with the initiation of the war on drugs.

at that point, various states would have to decide how they wanted to handle various substances.

I don't think this would happen under any president, but that's how it could happen if someone wanted to do this.

[Terra Alta]

20. the "war on drugs" is one of the very few things Ron Paul is right about.

Ending the war on drugs would save billions of dollars a year and free up prison space for real criminals(rapists, child molesters, murderers, and the like).

That being said, I'd rather eat rusty nails than vote for Ron Paul. I'm hoping Obama will do more to end the "war on drugs" in his second term.

[PeaceNikki]

22. The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy that Obama appointed is 'right', too.

So that says something about the administration's stance. I agree, DoJ needs to back off, but we need bigger change than that.

[ixion]

50. Change has to start somewhere.

And the DoJ backing off is a great place to begin.

[tavalon]

154. No, he's not. But that's the only thing he isn't wrong about and that's just not enough.

[tridim]

2. Because if he says that before his second term he will lose.

"Obama wants to legalize meth and crack!!!!111"

[RKP5637]

4. Definitely, that would be horrible timing!!!

[bvar22]

153. Yep!

We MUST do whatever Fox News tells us to do,
otherwise they will be mean and say bad things about us.
We simply can not afford to make Republicans uncomfortable.

Great Presidents, and Great Democrats do the RIGHT thing
without regard to what what the Republicans will say.
Its called "LEADERSHIP".

LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act 1964
Martin Luther King looks over his shoulder.

I NEVER though I would ever be forced to say that
"LBJ was the most Liberal Democratic President of the last 1/2 Century!"

How far we have fallen.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[tridim]

158. 1964, pre-Faux News, pre-RW hate radio and pre-Citizen's United.

Times have changed bucko.

Just talking about ending the WOD in an election year would be suicidal, anyone with a brain knows it can only happen in Obama's second term.

[bvar22]

159. "anyone with a brain knows" that Obama did NOT have to Double Down...

...on attacking Medical marijuana.

"Times have changed bucko."
That is NO excuse for NOT Doing the Right Thing.
THAT never changes,
only the excuses for cowardice in the face of the enemy do.

Americans LOVE a FIGHTER,
and loathe appeasers.
Paul Wellstone was KNOWN for Doing the Right Thing,
and WON support in Conservative Areas of Minnesota even from people who disagreed with him politically.






You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[RKP5637]

3. Yep, I often wonder similar ... The damn drug war does not work, but this country remains

in denial, like it does about many things.

[RainDog]

82. voter sentiment can and does change

and we've seen this happen on some drug issues.

the fight isn't against those who want the drug war to continue so much as it is against the religious right that wants to engage in all sorts of culture wars that allow them to create categories for right and wrong that have nothing to do with science - which is their way of approaching just about every issue.

[RKP5637]

87. They are such an evil force in this country, religious right. I'm not a religious person, but

they are the exact opposite of anything I ever learned in church.

[RainDog]

96. it's hucksterism

making a buck off people's fears

[RKP5637]

100. Exactly the right word!!! And not only a buck, but dominance and control of

the flock. So often their leaders are dominant authoritative males hungry for power and control, and often great wealth comes along with the package.

[RainDog]

113. sad to say

but one of the easiest ways to get rich in America is to be a lying sack of shit asshole or do something illegal. I don't want to do either of those things so I'll just be content with getting by, hopefully.

[PeaceNikki]

5. Maybe because ending the drug war is not something POTUS can even do.

I know... I 'get' the recent issues with the DoJ going after medical marijuana and I seriously dislike it. I do wish that Democrats as a whole should work more towards ending the drug war, for sure. But, let's be honest, a presidential candidate running on it as a platform is disingenuous since they are not, ya know... dictators. It would need support of Congress as well. There are a lot more people than Obama to ask and a lot more than Paul to make it happen.

[ProSense]

10. Ssssh? Don't

"Maybe because ending the drug war is not something POTUS can even do. "

....interrupt the Ron Paul is a "horrible, bigoted, evil, awful, crazy, nogoodnik loser," but he's right about weed campaign!

Maybe hearing it from the one who shall never be criticized may help:

"Yes, a President can't abolish drug laws - but he can have a big impact on enforcement and the Drug War."

http://twitter.com/#!/ggreenwald/status/153284641133047808

I mean, the hell with everything else, the most important thing is that this "horrible, bigoted, evil, awful, crazy, nogoodnik loser" is pushing some propaganda that Obama isn't.

[ixion]

15. That's funny, because it was a POTUS (Nixon and then Reagan) who started it.

At the very least, it could be reigned in on the executive branch side.

[PeaceNikki]

21. I agree that it should/could be reigned in. Current Director of the Office of National Drug Control

agrees, too. So, that's a start, no?

[treestar]

27. And not just Congress, but every state's legislature

Every single state has state level drug laws, and those are the most often prosecuted.

[PeaceNikki]

31. Oh, right... then there's that.

Like I said upthread just now: Sure, it's cool and sexy to say, "End the War on Drugs!". But, what would Ron Paul do to end the war on drugs as POTUS? What COULD he do? Call off the DoJ? Huh, that would work while he was in office, but then what? Would he decriminalize drugs? How can he exactly do that... as POTUS?

Answer: He can't. He's just talking shit. It's a lot bigger than him. Or Obama.

[ProSense]

7. Because

"if a horrible, bigoted, evil, awful, crazy, nogoodnik loser like Ron Paul can understand and admit that the drug war is racist and wrong and needs to end, why can't a rational, sane person like Obama do the same?"

...he isn't crazy!

[inna]

11. care to elaborate? as always, you do not make any sense whatsoever

[ProSense]

13. Wait

"care to elaborate? as always, you do not make any sense whatsoever"

...if "as always" I don't "make any sense whatsoever," why the fuck are you asking me to elaborate?

[inna]

19. lol, love the reply!!

:smooch:!! you're the best, pro!

[Cali_Democrat]

16. par for the course. n/t

[cthulu2016]

14. Anyone who doesn't favor the drug war is insane by definition?

[ProSense]

17. Actually

"Anyone who doesn't favor the drug war is insane by definition?"

...Ron Paul is crazy, but if you want to extrapolate, have at it.

[limpyhobbler]

8. Obama has to support the war on drugs because if he doesn't then the republicans might accuse him of

not supporting the war on drugs.

[hay rick]

24. Besides, supporting the war on drugs is "bipartisan." nt

[Terra Alta]

9. Because he wants to get re-elected.

Sad it has to be that way, but it is.

I'm hoping that once Obama wins a second term, he will focus more on ending the war on drugs and bringing all these non-violent drug offenders home(one of whom is a good friend of mine) but until then Obama has a lot on his plate, and is focusing all his efforts on getting re-elected.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Because the 1% rarely get busted on drug charges

It's amazing that Obama's cool with giving hard time to others for crimes he admits to committing himself.

Says a lot.

[Whisp]

23. guess Paul uses bait he knows will work.

be a horrible, bigoted, evil loser but just say one thing that resonates with Obama haters and gosh golly darn, why can't Obama be a bit more like Ron Paul.

*tears hair out and eats it

[limpyhobbler]

34. It's not just "Obama haters" who think our drug policy is insane.

I'm sure you'll find more democrats who want to reform drug policy than republicans.

[Whisp]

37. no disagreement from me that drug policy is all wrong.

Ted Bundy might have donated to a children's charity, so the fuck what, he was still a murdering scum. and just because Paul says one thing that makes some sense, (Im sure it's from the goodness of his heart only and not for pulling strings) but he's still a racist, sexist homophobic scum. There has to be some better voice for drug policy change than piece of shit Paul.

[limpyhobbler]

41. hahaha, you're right that's true

[PeaceNikki]

42. He's also talking out of his ass cuz he couldn't do SHIT as POTUS to end the war on drugs.

He might as well say he's going to give us all unicorns. I WANT A FUCKING UNICORN, REVOLUTION!!! FREEDOM! TYRANNY! BUY WINTER WHEAT! CROP CIRCLES! LIBERTY! COLOREDS GET THEIR OWN DRINKING FOUNTAINS! BOYCOTT LETTUCE! FEDERALISM! THE FOUNTAINHEAD! RENAISSANCE CITY-STATES! MARKET DECIDES! MEETING AT POTSDAM! THE WIND IN THE WILLOWS! GONE WITH THE WIND! SOME PIG! BRADY BILL! CHILD PROSTITUTES CAN JUST QUIT! GRAND WIZARD! CONSTITUTION! LIBERTY! LINCOLN LOGS!

[JohnnyRingo]

52. "Soft on Drugs"

Nothing will show a politician the door faster than those three words, even in this 21st century.

I know better of course, but the greatest multitude of people fear that legalizing drugs will attract hoards of desparate crackheads to their front porch looking to trade violence for drug money. I have old friends I used to smoke with who now want life sentences for their perceived addict neighbors.

Most people know the difference between weed and harder drugs, but blanket statements like "legalize drugs" is very effective ammunition for the competition. It ties in nicely with border security issues as well because cocaine and heroin are not domestic drugs.

One of the commentors you responded to has been in a lengthy debate with me recently over his/her desire to see Obama serve only one term. Go figure that person adamantly wants Obama to follow Ron Paul's lead on the downhill road to political obscurity.

[sabrina 1]

68. Well, since he's been against the Drug War going back eons, I wouldn't worry that he's 'out to get

Obama' anymore than he was out to get Bush, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and anyone else who supported the phony Drug War.

[Whisp]

76. you misunderstand

I mean the people that hate Obama pick up on that 'good' (:rofl side of moRon and give him more respect than they do for the Democratic President even tho that moRon is an outright hateful bigot

[treestar]

25. Ron Paul wouldn't be against it because it's racist or wrong

He would only say the government should not interfere with the free market. Libertarians only care about the free market.

Why would a liberal like Obama automatically think all drugs should be legalized? Even if they were, it would be regulated like other parts of the free market.

[girl gone mad]

48. Actually he has said it's racist and wrong.

Ron Paul: Drug War In U.S. Has Racist Origins
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/27/ron-paul-drugs-drug-war_n_1170878.html

Paul, in a speech aired at the time on C-SPAN went on. “Before the 20th Century there was none of that and it was the medical profession as well as many other trade groups that agitated for the laws. And you know there’s a pretty good case made that this same concept was built in with racism as well. We do know that opium was used by the Chinese and the Chinese were not welcomed in this country,” Paul said. “We do know that the blacks at times use heroin, opium and the laws have been used against them. There have been times that it has been recognized that the Latin Americans use marijuana and the laws have been written against them. But lo and behold the drug that inebriates most of the members of Congress has not been touched because they're up there drinking alcohol.” (In the same speech, Paul delves into drug trafficking and the CIA, which I’ll cover in a follow-up article.)

For the book This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America, I looked into the type of historical analysis Paul’s comment, which comes at roughly the 16-minute mark, represents, given that it is a fairly common interpretation of the origins of the drug war among its critics.

It holds up. The reaction of the American government, and its people, to drug use was -- and still is -- a complex mix of factors, involving lobbying by the medical community, pharmaceutical companies, the alcohol industry, temperance advocates, and religious movements. Historically, the argument has played out -- and continues to play out -- amid a backdrop of racism and class antagonism. Racism and bigotry were generally not the drivers of prohibition movements, but instead were the weapons used by temperance advocates to achieve their ends. The movement to ban alcohol, for instance, gained its strongest adherents without resorting to bigotry, but when World War I broke out, the movement was quick to tie beer and booze to instantly despised German immigrants, pushing the effort over the Constitutional hump.

[treestar]

57. that just shows how crazy he is

It is "racist" to want heroin/opium to be illegal, because some opium came from China?

[sabrina 1]

69. Are you in favor of the Drug War? n/t

[girl gone mad]

83. You're misconstruing his statements.

Try reading it again.

[RainDog]

85. you misunderstand - those who used opium were from China

people brought here to build railroads, etc.

then they were targeted for their opium use.

it's not crazy to note that the war on drugs is grounded in racism. It is.

Prohibition was also grounded in racism - as the reaction to it by German and Italian Americans at the time demonstrated. Prohibition was also a city vs. country issue.

[treestar]

157. But why should it remain legal then?

Every culture has a different drug, perhaps. But it's not racist just to make these drugs illegal.

Heroin is dangerous stuff. I wouldn't flip if it were legalized, but I'm sure not going to consider it some major oppression that it is illegal.

[RainDog]

160. two different issues

if a group is targeted - this is one way they are targeted. I was talking about history - hundred years ago or so, to talk about why certain things become bad while others that are more harmful remain good - or tolerated- in a society.

I agree that heroin is not good. I don't want people to use it for their own sakes, but a punishment model for drug addiction is not as effective or humane as a harm reduction model.

This is something that people have learned over the years about alcohol addiction. We no longer think that people who have a problem with alcohol are evil - we think they have a disease that can be treated. Yes, if their addiction results in behaviors that harm others, they are punished for this - but they are not punished for having the disease itself. They do not have to acquire their drug from illegal sources who use violence to settle disputes because they have no recourse to courts.

Prohibition taught us that it is worse than the problem it sought to fix, imo. Alcohol isn't some special case - it's like other substances that some people cannot use in moderation b/c of their own physical reaction to it - not because they want to be a criminal.

Doctors regularly prescribe opiates for pain for certain situations - they are not being evil, not trying to get someone addicted - they are using part of the medicine currently available to them. Even so, someone can develop dependence. We don't call that person a criminal - they are a person who has a medical problem. Who thinks we should toss someone in jail if he or she had back surgery and comes to rely upon opiates for pain relief? No sane person that I know. But we do try to have the sorts of medical care that can help to wean them off this substance for their own health - not to punish them for their use.

That's the difference between a criminal model and a harm reduction one.

[Spazito]

26. Really, you think the racist, Ron Paul, is 'against' the WOD because it's racist?

The racist, Ron Paul, supported by white supremacists groups like stormfront, is against the WOD because it is racist. That's what you are saying?

No, he doesn't give a rat's ass about minorities and what happens to them. He does care, however, about corporations and their rights which, were he to be in charge, they, and they alone, would be given the sole right to sell any and all drugs that are now illegal AND would make sure there were NO regulations controlling those companies as to the health and safety of their products.

[TheKentuckian]

45. That legitimizes or excuses persecuting the war on drugs how?

We know why Paul arrives at his positions and that it is not out of any search for good. In fact, he arrives at them by relentlessly pursuing an awful agenda and being more consistent than most of his fellow travellers probably in order to gain a niche and broaden his appeal.

None of that matters because on less than a hand full of matters he is correct however he got their or how dishonest he may be in espousing them. I certainly makes no differfence if he can bring about the policies. It only matters that they are important to people and get no other representation at high levels in either party.

Instead of bitching about how awful he is, why is our supposedly liberal party not taking these few positions away and making the old bigot a run of the mill Texas TeaPubliKlan?

I swear it is like many Democrats love the drug war, the police state, imperialist resource wars, and any systemic control on the central bankers at all (even if one isn't inclined to side with Paul's extreme positions in this area or want different extreme positions that aren't workable in his framework).

It doesn't fucking matter what Paul thinks or why, it matter why Democrats are not already occupying the ground and refuse to move to.
That is the only discussion that is not going to go right into a vicious circle.

If you want to support wireless wiretaps, the patriot act, and the drug war then do so on the policy rather than fending off the whole debate off using Paul's obvious heinousness because he is the only person in the spotlight even giving lip service to these issues.

[Spazito]

51. If it "doesn't fucking matter what Paul thinks and why"....

I have to ask why "what Paul thinks and why" is being used at all, yet, there it is in all it's splendor in the OP.

The WOD is appalling, using Paul as an opener for that completely dilutes the credibility of all that comes after.

Leave Paul out of the mix, carry on the criticism of whatever policies the Democrats have or don't have and, imo, credibility would be given on the argument therein.

[RainDog]

86. allow me to explain

in rhetoric, if you want to talk about something that's absurd to you, you can bring up someone who is absurd but note that even that person has occasional moments that make sense - no matter what the motivation of that person.

the OP is saying that Obama is smart, he's not a racist, he doesn't have to appeal to the lowest common denominator to win... so why can't he figure out that the WoD is a loser's game, in terms of public good.

it's a rhetorical question that doesn't seek an answer.

[Spazito]

104. One cannot put forward the supposition...

"If....Ron Paul can understand and admit that the drug war is racist and wrong and needs to end..." when Ron Paul IS a racist and therefore does not care if the WOD is racist in actual fact, the whole premise is false to begin with, rhetorical or not.

If the WOD is the issue, why not leave Ron Paul out of it and argue the merits of ending the WOD and how that would be done under this system of government.

Ron Paul, for all intent and purpose, is a non-entity in the issue of the WOD and bringing him into the equation assures the actual issue of the WOD and the need to be rid of it is lost and will NOT be debated.

Is the WOD the issue or is it something else?

[RainDog]

115. This board has been inundated with anti Ron Paul threads

the OP was making social commentary off that. that's why it was included. if those posts hadn't been here, I doubt this OP would be either. Such spin-off threads are a tradition at DU - a lot of times done tongue-in-cheek.

The OP is smart and her rhetorical strategy was smart.

It was an expression of frustration, not support for Paul.

the problem is that people here are in attack mode and see this post as some sort of validation of Paul. It's not. That entirely misses the point.

I posted a thread that allows people to see where they fit on a "political compass." I posted a joke thread about the DU political compass that includes topics that are not political - at least not traditionally.

But the point of the real political compass thread was to show that Obama aligns with the left/libertarian quadrant (economic left/social libertarian... not the same as Paul's economic version) more than Paul does - and, interestingly, that same political compass demonstrated how narrow political discourse is in the U.S. with both parties who have a chance of winning closer to one another on a variety of issues than they are with the left in the U.S. - iow - there is no real representation for a huge number of the population in the U.S. politically. Yet, people still vote for Democrats.

[Spazito]

124. So, if I am understanding you correctly, the frustration lies not...

with the WOD but with discontent over President Obama? If so, why the need to insert Ron Paul anywhere in the OP? I would beg to differ with you as to "The OP is smart and her rhetorical strategy was smart" given the responses have been focusing on the Ron Paul aspect and not on the "expression of frustration" you denote.

Again, leaving Ron Paul out of the equation and expressing one's frustration on the issue itself would, imo, focus the discussion on the validity or invalidity of the "frustrations" expressed, would it not?

At risk of repeating myself, Ron Paul is extraneous to the issue, if the issue is, indeed, frustration regarding policies and positions taken by the Democrats in Congress and/or the President. If one truly wants to address these policies and positions, bringing Ron Paul into the equations pretty well guarantees the discussion will sidetrack to Ron Paul and NOT to the issues, imo.

[RainDog]

128. if you don't like the OP, you can ignore it

believe me, I have more threads hidden at this time than since Michael Jackson died with the current all out assault on the whoever du jour. pol, journalist, etc.

I explained to you how people use someone who is ridiculous to show how something else is ridiculous. that's how Paul figures in, within the context of a bazillion posts about Paul on this board at this time.

If you don't like the way the post was created, you just have to suck it up and admit you cannot control everyone on this board. I know that might not be pleasant for some, but the reality is that you don't get to create posts for everyone else by making a claim.

If you don't understand why someone uses a sarcastic statement, then you don't.

But you also don't get to claim that, because you don't understand it, it has nothing to do with the post.

best of luck to you in all your endeavors.

[Spazito]

130. I don't have a problem with the way the post was created, I have a problem with...

the use of racist, homophobic, antisemitic, misogynist Ron Paul in the attempt to 'sell' the OP. I understand my critique of the OP would unsettle some but that is what debate is all about. OPs are all about asking for responses, I responded.

I don't hide threads, there are always good posts to be found in 99.9 percent of threads and I look forward to finding them, reading them and learning from them.

Best of luck to you in your endeavors and, in the big picture, may the Democrats win the majority of seats in the House and the Senate and President Obama be returned for a second term, I am sure that is what we all want in the end.

[RainDog]

131. yes. may democrats win majorities

and inch this nation just a little bit further toward sanity on a host of issues.

[Spazito]

135. We are in FULL agreement!

[sabrina 1]

70. Do you support the War on Drugs?

That is the issue. And who else is running who is against that so-called War that was the beginning of the loss of our rights? Anyone on the Dem side, the Republican side? Anyone other than Paul making it an issue in the Election?

[Spazito]

79. I made it quite clear in another post of mine...

the WOD is appalling. Using the Ron Paul as the wonder boy on this issue completely and utterly negates any credibility with regard to the actual issue.


Argue the WOD is bad and I think you would find few DUers would disagree with you on that. The process by which one can be rid of the WOD might well be open for debate but not the WOD itself.


Ron Paul is the worst example anyone can use to argue this issue, actually ANY issue, because he has NO credibility ergo anyone using him as an example may well be seen as having little credibility.

Stop using Paul, start arguing the merits of the issue itself and, if that happens I would not be surprised if actual and good debate would result.

[girl gone mad]

88. What a totally absurd post, start to finish.

No one here is using Paul as the "wonder boy" on any issue.

In no way does pointing out that a fool like Paul has managed to take a reasonable position on the WOD negate the credibility of the underlying argument. It's simply stating the obvious, which is that it can be done. It is politically feasible.

Ron Paul is definitely not the worst example anyone could use to argue the issue. That statement is pure hyperbole.

Maybe if you could stop resorting to exaggeration, misdirection and ad hominem and start arguing from a rational position I could take you seriously.

[Spazito]

98. To say Ron Paul, a racist, is against the WOD because it is racist....

is absurd on it's face and to say his position is reasonable, given he is a racist, is, again, absurd.

Ron Paul IS the worst example one can use to argue the issue of the WOD precisely because the argument your OP puts forward the presumption that Ron Paul is not racist and is concerned about racism, absurdity in it most obvious state.

The WOD is appalling, argue that on it's merits, leave the racist, homophobic, antisemitic, misogynist Ron Paul out of it.

[sabrina 1]

136. The only reason Ron Paul is being 'used' if you want to call it that, is because he is the only

Presidential Candidate so far who is using his national platform to talk about it. I don't know him, never was particularly interested in him, so I have no idea what is going on in his head and won't pretend to. People here seem to either know more about him personally or can read minds.

The fact is he is the only person talking about ending the WOD that has a loud microphone.

If you are bothered by the fact that it is a Republican doing it, then the way to take it away from him, is to have Democrats outdo him on this issue. Clearly he is getting support for his positions on major issues, like the wars on everything, and what he is thinking is irrelevant. It IS resonating with an awful lot of people and that is a fact.

My solution is to have Democrats start talking about Civil Liberties and the restoration of the Rule of Law. To tie that to the horrific decades long waste of lives and money that is the WOD and the use of it to strip people of their rights.

The country is ready, that is why he is resonating, that is why there is a huge and growing movement called OWS. Democrats need to stop focusing on Paul with personal attacks and smears, and start taking control of the situation.

YOU and every DUer may oppose the WOD, the attacks on Civil Liberties and the forever Wars on Terror, but what is the official position of the Democratic Party? They could drown Paul out in a matter of days, if they would come out and take a stand on all these issues. That is how to end Paul's campaign.

Btw, why is Paul the target of so much hatred? Why not Newt who actually SUPPORTS the WOD and the WOT and the WOTW (war on the world). It's odd that the guy who is talking about what used to be Democratic Issues, as you pointed out, we all are opposed to the WOD, is the one being attacked. Can you explain that? We could be attacking Newt for his support for all these wars. Don't you think it odd that we are not?

[Spazito]

140. His use of it is antithetical to what progressives believe....

He is a racist ergo his 'wanting' to do away with the WOD position has nothing to do with it being racist. It has to do with who is in control of the drugs, who sells the drugs, who grows the drugs and, for Ron Paul, that would be the corporations, corporations WITHOUT regulations regarding health and safety.

Using Ron Paul to attempt to initiate a discussion on civil liberties makes no sense. He is not for the civil rights of all, only for the few such as whites, males, corporations. As to the rule of law and Paul, well, he is against the passage of the Civil Rights Act which is a rule of law. One only needs to look at his voting record, what legislation he has put forth in his tenure as a member of Congress to see how 'uncivil' he is and how he interprets what the 'rule of law' is versus what it actually is.

Here is one example, a bill Paul put forward in 2007, entitled the `Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007':

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.3216:

As to "Why not Newt...", good question. Why are we not concentrating on the republican candidates who actually have a chance at being the republican Presidential candidate and their heinous positions on the issues your post raises along with a host of other issues?

I do think it is odd that Ron Paul is being held up as some kind of positive example of anything when it comes to posts on DU, it is odd indeed.

I certainly will be very happy when he is acknowledged as 'a footnote' in the 2012 elections, a batshit crazy footnote, and the sooner the better, imo.

Edited to correct sentence structure

[marlakay]

28. Because he is smart enough to know that while it will pass in a few states

maybe if put to vote, most states don't want drugs legalized or changed from the way they are.

I think Paul is right on this, one of the very few things he is but he can speak out because he knows he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, any state that would come close to believing his way on drugs would vote dem for the rest of his crap!

[joshcryer]

33. The demographics are changing, if he was elected in 2016 he'd have been all for it.

The OP is attributing stupidity to political calculation.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he advocated it at the end of his second term.

[ProSense]

30. Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002100852

Free weed!

[sabrina 1]

72. Do you support the war on drugs?

I can't tell from your posts and I'm trying to get a response that is on topic.

And who other than Paul is raising this as an issue in the Presidential Election?

[RainDog]

90. you won't get a reply, most likely

this is a political tactic to change the subject and try to create "guilt by association."

that works two ways in this case.

1. prosense is saying that Paul opposed the civil rights act, therefore cannabis legalization is wrong

2. prosense is saying that the OP is saying something she's not and this equates to opposition to the civil rights act.

it's not a very sophisticated tactic on this board.

[Warren Stupidity]

116. Actually I believe the intention is to get as many people

Evicted from here as "paulists" as possible.

[RainDog]

117. could be

I feel like contacting some linguist friends and tell them to come here and have at it with an examination of political rhetorical strategies.

I was hoping for a clean slate here - no one on ignore - let the worst of it roll off like rain - yet, when I see people attacked for things they didn't say, people called liars for things they didn't say - just see the general nastiness of it all...

I realize I'm not a saint and probably even Jesus would've said, eventually, what the fuck!

[sabrina 1]

148. You were right.

[joshcryer]

32. I'm sure he does, however, Obama has spent much of his political career campaigning.

Obama is very center of the line, very moderate, if not center-right. I think it's probable that Obama will come out for at least marijuana legalization toward the end of his second term.

I don't think you should attribute "failure to understand and admitting" something to Obama's personal belief system, which he keeps hidden very well. When asked about marijuana during the elections his answer was so calculated I had to facepalm.

[PeaceNikki]

38. What exactly is Paul's plan to end the war on drugs as POTUS?

Will he get weed off of schedule 1? How? Call of DoJ on busts? How will that help state and county level prosecutions? How will that help beyond his pretend term? Will he 'decriminalize' drugs? How? What about the laws in every state?

His blowing smoke out of his ass - he couldn't do SHIT as POTUS to end it.

[JoePhilly]

39. Yes, this should be Obama's top priority!!!!!!

... not.

[JohnnyRingo]

53. Look at the upside to Obama supporting drug legalization from the Oval Office.

That didn't take long, did it?
Hahahaha

[girl gone mad]

139. Straw man.

[DevonRex]

43. Why the fuck would you believe Ron Paul?

He's a fucking liar and a bigot. But hey, keep promoting him. I'm sure there are a few losers out there who will vote for RP on that basis. If they remember to vote, that is.

[TheKentuckian]

58. One does not have to believe him to push Democrats in this area. If the old crazy bigot

can espouse the positions then Democrats can lead on them.

It is the issues supercede and preexist the personality and the vacuum the lack of representation artificially gives the crackpot, institutional racist, pro-poverty, anti-labor personality credibility just for mouthing the words that others only are willing to oppose in arguably less draconian and/or self defeating fashion than others might or do while mostly perpetuating and expanding the rot in all substantive outcome.

Paul's flimsy legs should be kick out from under him, our party creates his effective space that allows for even the perception of being anything other than a run of the mill anarchist greedhead by owning what he only mouths and by doing so would go a hell of a long way is ending much of the internal strife in our party.

Ignoring these issues or rolling them into a fuckwit isn't going to make them go away and further hedging around on these topics seem to be a dog that doesn't hunt. It seems we have rather severe wedge issues in the party that many are also vested into pretending away the contentiousness or that there are differences of opinion while avoiding espousing an opinion all while we generally work within these status quos which makes them the political consensus.

There seems to be very little concern in real numbers and probability that Paul is a contender or that he will peel votes in some third party bid. The concern seems to be discussing certain topics or making demands of the party revolving around them, which quite seriously includes a large segment of fundemental civil liberties and some rather pointless and expensive wars too.

The worry is anything that puts the party at odds with the establishment and existing profit centers being talked about outside of what can be passed off as the fringe.

[Galraedia]

46. Ron Paul's supporters are the best argument against the legalization of marijuana

If they are willing to put marijuana first and ignore every other one of his batshit crazy ideas then obviously marijuana is a very dangerous drug, which may lead to paranoia, retardation, obsessing over Ron Paul, foaming at the mouth, and may cause you to join a cult.

[JoePhilly]

55. +1

[ixion]

56. But supporting Endless War is better somehow?

Not so much, really.

[Galraedia]

59. Pfft please.

Ron Paul wants to use America for his Civil War reenactment. Who cares about his foreign policies when his domestic policies will make the USA a country not worth defending.

[ixion]

61. You didn't answer my question... and Pfft is not a word.

Are you saying that supporting someone who codifies endless war is better? Because that's just what Obama did when he signed the NDAA. He enshrined the Bush Doctrine, via the AUMF. Ultimately, this act will have devastating long-term consequences. So are you saying you support that over ending yet another endless 'war' on (some) drugs? A faux war that has destroyed millions of lives, and cost trillions?

So you are, for all practical intents and purposes, saying you support both of these wars of abstraction indefinitely, correct?

It's a simple yes or no question, but a qualifier is acceptable once you've given your answer.

[Galraedia]

64. The NDAA is passed every year

The language has been changed, Obama made a specific statement, and further legislation is being drawn up. Why is all the blame on Obama for this bill but none of the Republicans who wrote it?

[ixion]

73. It's a given that the rethugs are to blame.

The question is: Why does Obama keep signing and/or supporting it? A signing statement is meaningless, because it's non-bidning.

[Galraedia]

80. There were too many yays and not enough nays.

That's why. Even if he vetoed it the majority supported it. Congress would just overturn his veto and waste everyones time.

[abelenkpe]

60. There are people on the left who are against war

No need to buy into Ron Paul's other crazy positions.

[joshcryer]

62. You think Ron Paul doesn't support endless war?

Ron Paul supports all manner of banana republics!

[ixion]

63. A banana republic is not the endless war of empire.

quite the opposite. I'm not trying to stick up for Paul. I'm trying to find parity in supporting wars of abstraction simply because you support your 'team'.

[joshcryer]

65. It's far worse. Empires fall, banana republics live on for generations.

Just look at all of the post-colonial shitholes the west left behind.

[ixion]

74. banana republics don't bomb other sovereign nations on a trumped up pretext.

so I would beg to differ.

[joshcryer]

77. I'd rather we have neither banana republics or empires, personally.

[ixion]

78. on that we agree.

[RainDog]

94. so how do you describe the other political majorities in this nation

who support legalization of cannabis?

do you also want to call the majority of liberals, Democrats, moderates and independents retarded?

you are making an assumption about where people place their political priorities - is that how you want to try to get away with that mud slinging?

[Galraedia]

103. Do liberals, Democrats, moderates and independents put cannabis before country?

People who are supporting Ron Paul because they "think" he's going to legalize weed are retarded. Ending wars and legalizing weed isn't worth the ass fuck he'd give this country. For the love of God the man is CRAZY. Check out his argument as to why he's against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The man is not all there in the head and neither are the people supporting him.

[RainDog]

112. I'm not defending Ron Paul

and neither is the OP.

you have a category of people you think have determined the Ron Paul is going to legalize weed - or at the least make it an issue. Actually, I sort of agree with you there about one such category of Paul supporters. I've mentioned this before and been told by some it was a ridiculous statement, even tho someone else here said that's exactly how he began his political involvement. I've seen this in quite a few young men too. I don't support it - I'm just noting it.

Quite a few who support Paul because of legalization tend to be younger techie guys who are low information on a lot of other issues. Paul sounds good to them b/c of his stance on legalization - they align with others who support Paul and those others talk about Paul's stances on various social spending issues and taxes, etc. Because these younger techie guys don't have kids, they don't care about school funding, libraries... they like the idea of pretending they are somehow totally autonomous, even when they aren't. some of this probably has to do with mommy and daddy issues, growing up but not yet grown up... but who knows. So this is how one issue can make them Paul supporters.

however, aside from Ron Paul supporters, ALL political groups other than conservative and republican support legalization of cannabis. - all political ids. All regions except the south. Even when a group is not in support, the margins are small and moving toward legalization - this is the national trend and has been for decades. even those in their 50s and mid 60s only come in at 49% not in favor. the only other groups who come down against legalization are retirees and mommies - and that, in itself, is a reason for some young guys to look at Ron Paul. While there are no doubt a lot of young men who are sort of crazy, they have their reasons for their support, even if I think it's misplaced.



I wish that Democrats would be able to come to a position that at least works toward decriminalization in order to recognize that the future of this nation is not in prohibition of cannabis. The reality is that people vote for Democrats because we have so few choices and none that can win that represent the majority of Americans on legalization or economic and social issues. American liberals are far to the left of any political party representation.

However, I also recognize that even if no national politicians, or a very few of them at the House level, come out in support of changes in cannabis laws, the action at the state and local levels are going to change the law. I just wish the Democrats would show some support for science rather than kowtow to the fear.

It's just a matter of time. I recognize that national politicians do not lead on a variety of issues. To be elected they have to maintain the status quo. But the people in a nation bring them to the point of change, eventually. Even Lyndon Johnson came around on civil rights politically, whatever his private position may have been.

[_ed_]

155. "Put marijuana first"

That's a very easy thing to say for someone who hasn't been personally affected by the war on drugs, and characterizing those who favor legalization as "just wanting to smoke up" sounds like a Republican talking point.

Do you know anyone in prison for pot? Then don't make light of a very serious issue.

Gotta love supposed liberals or Democrats using conservative drug war propaganda to support a prohibition-loving President.

[RainDog]

165. yes, I just ignored the "put cannabis before country" bullshit

because that is such a ridiculous statement on the face of it it doesn't even deserve comment.

no problem with those who put their own financial or political gain ahead of country in wars or arrests or destruction of families. that's okay, apparently.

I don't know that Obama is a prohibition-loving president.

I do know that our nation has no one who represents the MAJORITY in this nation on a host of issues. If those majorities stay home because they don't have the candidate that matches their political beliefs, the more regressive candidate wins.

Those who are motivated to get out and vote, or to get out the vote are people with an issue, generally. That's why the religious right has had such traction since the 80s. They NEVER get what they want at the federal level but they keep voting anyway - and give us even worse national candidates on economic and drug war issues.

The change the American people want has to come from state and local politics because we don't have true representative govt and we don't have enough people who bother to vote to create positive change b/c they don't believe it's possible via the ballot.

[Number23]

176. You just won the thread. Too bad it's so pointless and dumb

Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:37 AM - Edit history (1)

I thought the low number of recs was the perfect response until I came to your post.

Well done. Brilliant. Perfect.

[Patriot 76]

54. Using a third rate puke candidate's meme to bash a Democratic President.

Par for the course.

[girl gone mad]

91. In what way was the post bashing a Democratic President?

[pnwmom]

66. Because he thinks the only thing the government should ban is abortion. He doesn't

care about the issue of drugs, it just happens to fit into his anti-government meme.

[mmonk]

67. Politics.

[fascisthunter]

71. Nail Meet Hammer

Because they are dishonest weak minded fools who toy around with politics to make themselves feel they have a purpose. But all they do is deny the truth, a truth that needs attention and action that may inconvenience their life-styles(leisure).

[jmowreader]

75. As a Libertarian Ron Paul MUST be against the War on Drugs

It's one of their standard positions: the Government fights the Drug War, and Government is Bad, therefore the Drug War is Bad.

Ron Paul's ideal: eliminate all controls on all drugs including tobacco and alcohol products. He would be completely fine with someone selling a liquor that had meth in it. Too bad if it kills people--you should have the absolute right to use this product, because you are an American and restricting your Freedom of Choice is un-American.

[FarLeftFist]

89. Fuck Ron Paul!

[girl gone mad]

93. No thanks.

Definitely not my type.

[RKP5637]

101. Ohhhhhh what a gross thought!

[FarLeftFist]

105. How about: FUCK, RON PAUL!

[RKP5637]

106. Yep, now the caps work better! lol

[FarLeftFist]

107. The comma makes it a completely different sentence.

[RKP5637]

108. Oops, I missed the comma! That works!!!

[FarLeftFist]

109. This should work better: FUUUUCK, RON PAUL! *sigh*

[RKP5637]

110. PS: I just read you sig. line, man does that ever make sense!!!

[Herlong]

99. Obama only pretends to be like Ron Paul when he needs to get elected

What fools we mortals be. No politician is on your side!

[FarLeftFist]

102. When was that?

[stevenleser]

118. I'm with you. I don't recall President Obama trying to be like Ron Paul EVER.

And I am pretty happy about that.

[mzmolly]

171. I don't recall Obama

sounding anything like Ron Paul.

[Kokonoe]

111. OH, For Hevens Sake.

He will talk like Candidate Obama to get elected. So What.

Its just a dupe he needs to get elected.

Its for getting elected, Being elected is a different animal.

Ask The President

[Warren Stupidity]

114. The only candidate raising certain uncomfortable issues

Is a nutbag racist rightwing libertarian asshat. How sad is that?

All the other major candidates in both official state parties are for permanent global war, and the contingent state of emergency that has abolished essentially all of the bill of rights not previously scrapped by that other permanent war: the war on unsanctioned recreational drugs, which they all also enthusiastically support despite the obvious fact that it is a stupid budget busting failure that makes Prohibition look like a moderate succes.

It is pathetic.

[stevenleser]

119. Obama is not for permanent war. I have no idea why anyone would think he is. He just ended one AND

if you haven't kept up with the news, we just removed Mullah Omar from the wanted list and we are apparently negotiating behind the scenes with the Taliban to end the Afghan war.

One things for sure, I want to hire whoever developed the "permanent global war" theme to hawk whetever it is I ever need to sell. They have done a wonderful job with little to nothing to go on.

[RainDog]

120. what's the exit strategy for the War on Drugs?

that's the permanent war he's talking about.

1 TRILLION dollars spent over 40 years. more drug users now than when the WoD started.

The WoD is a failure of policy.

Yet no national politician dares to challenge the current course. This is Vietnam on steroids.

[stevenleser]

123. That was one of the things they were talking about, they were also talking about Iraq and Afghanista

I happen to be for ending the war on drugs.

[RainDog]

125. so, what's the exit strategy?

that's what few national politicians will address - that we have spent trillions of dollars and all we've gotten is an incarceration rate greater than the totalitarian Chinese assholes.

[stevenleser]

127. It's not one of my top issues and certainly not for POTUS candidates

There are many more state anti-drug laws than federal.

[RainDog]

129. exactly. you can't get elected as POTUS if you don't support failed drug policy

states would not have the policies they do if not for the federal govt, however, so you can't bring it back on them when they get money from the feds to put minorities in prison.

the WoD, as part of the Southern Strategy, now has Democrats putting minorities in prison.

That's a mind fuck and a half.

[stevenleser]

132. Sure I can bring it back on the states

You and I both know what the red states would do if all federal drug laws and federal mandates with money strings attached went away. The red states would jack up their anti drug laws and do it in such a way that was even more discriminatory.

[RainDog]

134. really?

while other states makes money off taxation? maybe.

I mean, Alabama only allows sex toys if they're for "medical use." Even Alabama, iow, finds ways around its own stupidity.

but if they have no federal financial money to hire law enforcement for the WoD, I sort of doubt they would continue it. If the cartels were not a factor for southern and border states, they couldn't use that as a reason for their actions.

I don't think the law could be executed in more discriminatory fashion at this time, as recent reports from Chicago and NYC have demonstrated.

I also think that there are fiscal conservatives in the south who only pretend to be part of the whacko fundie nuts, like Bush, and when the money is on legalization, that's where they'll go too.

[stevenleser]

137. Sure they would. They would build more corporately funded prisons where slave labor is done

for corporations and the state gets a cut. That solves the money issues nicely.

[RainDog]

141. the south already has the harshest laws overall

with federal money attached.

I doubt they need any greater incentive to punish people.

But then you have quality of life issues, things that Richard Florida talked about. We've seen some of that in action recently with automakers backing out of consideration of Alabama for manufacturing plants because of Ala's harsh immigration laws.

There comes a point when stupid can't beat economic punishment or incentive.

People I know would never choose to live in the south, would never apply for jobs in the region unless they absolutely had no other choice. This is brain drain - and this occurs in oppressive regimes. People refuse to migrate to and as many as possible migrate out.

From 2000 to 2007, more Americans migrated to Canada from the U.S. during the Bush years than at any time since the 1970s and the Vietnam War. The number DOUBLED from 2000 to 2007. It's much easier to move from one state to another than to another country.

So, no, I don't buy that states are a reason to continue oppressive federal laws. Those who can vote with their feet when the ballot box doesn't effect change.

[bvar22]

156. Simply Untrue.

My Wife & I "migrated" to the Deep South in 2006.
We moved from a Deep Blue Northern City (Minneapolis) to Dark Red Rural South.
We are joined by MANY "immigrants" from The North in this area.

There are MANY good reasons for this Southern Migration,
but mainly, The South is beautiful, and belongs to us ALL.
It is stupid to just give it to the Rednecks.

Our Liberal vote weighs much more here than it ever did in Minneapolis.
You can freeze in dark, driven by your prejudices,
but we LIKE it here, and are staying!

--bvar22 & Starkraven
Turning The South Blue



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[RainDog]

161. we were talking about state vs fed law

not the south as a beautiful geographic area. yes, it is.

I'm from the south and have lived in three diff. states there. I have relatives in five states there. I have friends in yet other states in the south.

The main recent reason for migration to the south was to follow jobs to states with no right to work laws. This has been a pattern for manufacturing - the move from the north east to the midwest to the south in search of cheaper labor - a trend that has continued to Mexico while managers live in El Paso and pay slave wages so that Americans can have multiple tv sets.

the pervasive intrusiveness of the religious right wing in the south is why many people I know would never choose to live there. I know about this aspect b/c I grew up there. that's also why I refused to live there when my children were younger - I did not want them raised in such an environment. I know many people with children who feel the same way. When religion fights science - people don't want their children in schools that have administrations that are on the side of the anti-science crew.

Of course, if you have enough money you can shelter your children from some of this influence - but I preferred for my children to go to public schools with kids from all over the world, from all different religions and with all diff. colors of skin.

When I visit the south it feel oppressive to me. Again, I'm not the only one I know who feels this way.

You experience is obviously different.

[RainDog]

162. btw, you don't have to take my word for it

if you read what people like Richard Florida have to say - those who can afford or have the job skills to live in areas that are tolerant are the places that have seen population growth among young people with skills to built society for this century.

people with such skills prefer to live in places that accept homosexuals as part of their communities, that have multi-cultural presences, that think it's worthwhile to spend taxpayer money on arts, that provide cultural opportunities rather than weekly church attendance for social life.

This is reality. The influence of right wing religion in the south is a negative for the region in terms of attracting people who create interesting communities.

[bvar22]

164. And intelligent, educated, "multi-cultural" people who are looking for:

*Producing more than consuming

*DIY Independent living

*Abundant Clean Water (This will become more important)

*Separation from Urban and Industrial Pollution

*Low Cost of Living

*Long Growing Season

*Low Winter Energy Overhead

*Fertile, inexpensive, unspoiled property

*Extensive national Forests

*Abundant Wild Game

...ARE choosing The South as the most viable area for Sustainable, Organic, non-toxic Lifestyles.
You would be surprised at how many Hard Core Liberals and Old Hippies we have found way out here in The Woods.

The Cultural problems in The South ARE changing, thanks to an influx of people like myself,
and (GASP) the multicultural effects of Sat TV and the Internet.
The young, even way out here in The Woods, ARE "connected".


Poverty, Fundamentalism, and Ignorance (redundant) are STILL a big problem,
but the Young are no longer completely programed by their churches and parents.
The ARE children of the Internet.
It is fascinating to watch.

I guess you see what you want to see.

[RainDog]

168. most young people do not take jobs in the woods

people who attend cultural events go to be with others, not to be on the internet.

but, again, I'm just talking about what sociologists have talked about for a while. and, as you agree, fundamentalism is still a problem.

however, the truth is also that cities in the south with universities, etc. are liberal and have been for a long time. it's the suburbs and rural areas that are problems - and they're problems all over the nation. I don't like the south for personal reasons. but I wish people well who are there and hope changes come sooner rather than later that move the south toward progressive populism, esp. on economic issues, rather than culture warring against women, homosexuals, anyone other than fundies, science and art.

glad someone is willing to take on the struggle.

[bvar22]

169. Peace Out.

We chose to move here from Minneapolis.
We DO miss the crowds, the Coffee Shops, The Movies, The Political Rallies (we both worked on the Wellstone Campaign),
The Labor Day UNION Picnic, The Theater, Independent Bookstores, The Bicycle Commuter Ways, The Opera, and ALL the other possibilities offered by a Large Northern City.

We haven't been out to Movie or anything else since 2006,
and supplemental income is a big but not insurmountable problem.
We know some entrepreneurs who are "picking" antiques and junk, and ARE making a living on Ebay.
Other artists, and there are many out here, ship their stuff to several shows per year, and pick up income.
Others telecommute, but they had established careers BEFORE moving out here.

We decided that investing our Sweat into rebuilding an abandoned property
and turning it into a ready-made Organic Retirement Refuge would be more valuable than working in Minneapolis.
We are happy with our choice,
but this would be more difficult if I were 30 years younger.

[Warren Stupidity]

121. We haven't left Iraq.

That war ain't over. Nor is the one in Afghanistan. But more to the point this administration has continued and expanded upon the global war on terror initiated by the bush administration, and that war is permanent as are the emergency measures enacted by both congress and the executive.

[stevenleser]

122. We've left Iraq. A large embassy doesnt qualify as a war. Nice try though. Next? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

126. Largest embassy on the planet.

Plus an unspecified number of assorted military forces. Iraq remains our client state and we will be officially back in if they ain't behavin'.

[Dewey Finn]

133. I gave this a rec.

I think it's a pertinent question, even though Paul's own history renders suspect any accusation he might make about the drug war being racist. It most certainly is, but even if Paul correctly described it as such, I still suspect his motives.

[DirkGently]

138. Best nutshell of this "issue" yet.

[joshcryer]

142. What makes you think that Obama does not believe the drug war is racist and wrong?

Has he denied that it is racist or wrong?

[TheKentuckian]

144. Of course he has by his actions. He's busting medical, that says it all and there is no

and I mean no reachable voters pushing him to do so.

He is a politician, waiting for him to say anything troublesome is largely pointless. Action is the better gauge.

[joshcryer]

145. I just recall his responses about it during the campaign and he seemed really, excruciatingly...

...moderate on the issue, failing to take a position at all. This sounds like the OP or people who agree with the OP have evidence that the OP reflects Obama's personal feelings.

I don't think that it does.

[TheKentuckian]

146. I really don't care about his personal thoughts but his policies and appointments

Those are pretty clear and all that comes out in the wash.The mind reading is extracurricular and immaterial.

I see no point in debating an official's private thougts, when what impacts us is what they do.
I'm perfectly willing to eagerly accept LBJ's civil rights efforts and results even if his private memoirs came to light and made it clear he was personally a first magnitude bigot.

I'd damn Lincoln if he continued slavery if we discovered it vexxed his soul.

The only discussion of weight revolves around the rubber hitting the road.

[joshcryer]

147. Anyone could've predicted a staunchly moderate post-partisan would've made those appointments.

I warned everyone but they were too busy believing in the idea of Obama as opposed to what he was saying.

Ron Paul is being credited for saying things and he hasn't introduced any sort of legislation that would support his "progressive ideas" with the exception of hemp and marijuana stuff. Why does he get credit but Obama doesn't, and Obama is a President residing over a congress that obstructs him every which way but loose?

For every piece of progressive legislation that he's introduced, 20 of them have been anti-progressive.

[JI7]

149. Doesn't Ron Paul think it's ok for Businesses to discriminate against people based on Race

Sex and other things like that ?

[OKNancy]

150. Here is why

1. At this time it's a political loser
2. Although the administration may agree that the war on drugs has failed, it's really not a high priority with all the other things going on

Additionally, I think there is a perception that many Paul supports don't really give a shit about war, his desire to dismantle the social safety net, or even care based on the unfairness of the laws. The perception is that they just want to smoke weed unencumbered.
That has been my observation from some of the conversations I've had with my not too bright distant relatives. Of course these folks don't vote either.

[mzmolly]

163. ...because not everyone agrees that drugs

should be legal? Or, that it's racist to suggest that drugs shouldn't be legal?

[RainDog]

166. you may have an opinion about whether racism is part of the drug war

but reality disagrees.

[mzmolly]

170. Classism

is more relevant. And, unfortunately, that applies to the justice system as a whole, not simply the "drug war".

Paul doesn't like an organized Federal Government. Every position he holds, can be traced to his "states rights" B.S.

[RainDog]

172. not according to arrest and conviction stats

more African-Americans and Latino-Americans spend time in court, get arrested in the first place, and are targeted in stop and frisk policies.

however, the rates of drug use are fairly standard across races.

no doubt class is part of it, because those who can afford lawyers can afford to buy rehab - but arrests demonstrate a racist application of the law.

this has nothing to do with Paul - Paul is just here to show the ridiculousness of the limited range of discourse allowed about the WoD in American politics.

[mzmolly]

175. Unfortunately, more people of color live in poverty,

as a whole. And, as you've pointed out, those with money can afford representation. So, I think it circles back around to class, ultimately. Not to mention, the poor are more willing, due to being financially desperate, to take the risk of selling drugs, than those who are insulated by wealth.

Regardless, I don't doubt that the same numbers of people partake in drug use on a percentage basis. And, if class is part of the equation, it will lead to race, in the statistics no doubt.

[RainDog]

178. from the last stats I saw, 800,000 were arrested in 2007 for simple POSSESSION

amounts too small to be considered anything other than

but, no doubt, economics have much to do with the issue too.

in this nation, the two are bound up in all sorts of ways

[Puregonzo1188]

167. Yeah I find it odd that someone who I'm pretty sure is racist, has admitted racism is the driving

factor behind the drug war and calls for it to be ended, and the first African-American President, who also admittedly experimented with drugs in college (which is no way a mark against him in my mind), is pretty ok with it.


Really very odd and very sad.

[vaberella]

174. Ron Paul is a racist...I sincerely believe he finds the drug war racist against whites. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

177. Well at least he and the President agree that marriage equality is all nasty and wrong

They share a faith, and strong dogma around marriage. So they do share common ground. They oppose equal rights for some to honor the religion of some others.
It is sad that a racist and the President agree on my equal rights. I'm sure you agree that it is a disgrace.