Tell us about your life, jo ella.
Your age, your schooling, what kind of a family you come from, what (if anything) you do for a living, etc.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
And yet, back when he was running for president in 2008, Obama insisted that medical marijuana was an issue best left to state and local governments. "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," he vowed, promising an end to the Bush administration's high-profile raids on providers of medical pot, which is legal in 16 states and the District of Columbia.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216#ixzz1uJw8m4HU
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
When it comes to this, and just about everything else given how Obama has been walking around in the Bush-Cheney 'Unitary Executive-I-Don't-Answer-To-Nobody'-shoes, the president does have the power, which was bestowed on him by Congress.
The relevant section of the Controlled Substance Act specifically gives the president (through the attorney general) the power to implement a process to reschedule cannabis administratively.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Recreational marijuana would still be treated as a schedule I drug.
What we're talking about is medical marijuana, as a schedule III drug. THC, the active psychotropic ingredient in marijuana, already is classified as schedule III.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
It actually is that simple. AG Holder agrees.
An equivalent way of thinking about it might be when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade. States had all kinds of different criminal laws on their books regarding abortion. All of those laws just ceased to be enforceable, no repeals were necessary, as soon as Roe vs. Wade decision came down.
And now, should Roe be overturned, those same criminal laws from 40 years ago, still in place, would be the laws governing abortion.
Should marijuana be reclassified as schedule III, the regulations for schedule III drugs would govern medical marijuana.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I suggest that Obama, Holder and I know the same thing: The law.
Attorney General Eric Holder was a guest of The Huffington Post at the correspondents' dinner. Before it began, a HuffPost reporter noted to Holder that Obama's reference to "congressional law" was misleading because the executive branch could simply remove marijuana from its "schedule one" designation, thereby recognizing its medical use.
"That's right," Holder said.
With all due respect, DOMA is not an equivalent comparison; what Obama did on DOMA was have his solicitor general stop defending it in court.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Drugs are governed under the Controlled Substance Act, and the important thing is that this law explicitly gives the executive branch the power to unilaterally change the legal status of particular drugs. Obama wouldn’t need to “nullify congressional law,” because he currently has the legal power to change marijuana’s classification. The relevant section of the ControlledSubstanceAct specifically gives the attorney general the power to implement a process to reschedule cannabis administratively.
Marijuana is categorized as schedule I, which means it legally has no accepted medical use. This is why medical marijuana, while legal under some state laws, is illegal under federal law.
However, the law explicitly gives the executive branch the power to change the scheduling of particular drugs without needing Congressional action. Obama can instruct the relevant agencies under him to take an honest look at the research and reschedule marijuana so it qualifies as having legitimate medical uses. The Obama administration could easily and justifiably move marijuana to, say, schedule III, which happens to be the same schedule that synthetic THC is in, making medical marijuana legal under federal law.
There would be nothing unusual, extraordinary or legally suspect about Obama doing this. The executive branch has often moved certain drugs to lower or higher schedules based on new data without Congressional involvement. In fact, multiple sitting governors have petitioned the Obama administration asking him to move marijuana to a lower schedule, so he should be aware of the flexible authority he has.
Obama's not some hapless victim whose actions on this issue are constrained by congressional law. The truth is pretty much the exact opposite. Under current law Obama effectively has the power to unilaterally make medical marijuana legal. Obama is not legally forced to wage a war on medical marijuana; it is something his administration is actively choosing to do.
Apparently Eric Holder agrees:
AttorneyGeneral EricHolder was a guest of TheHuffingtonPost at the correspondents' dinner. Before it began, a HuffPost reporter noted to Holder that Obama's reference to "congressional law" was misleading because the executive branch could simply remove marijuana from its "schedule one" designation, thereby recognizing its medical use.
"That's right," Holder said.
Presidents ignore laws all the time, but even that isn't necessary for this.
The law explicitly gives the executive branch the power to change the scheduling of particular drugs without needing Congressional action.
Obama could easily and justifiably move marijuana to, say, schedule III, which happens to be the same schedule that synthetic THC is in, making medical marijuana legal under federal law.
So Obama is either lying or he's ignorant of the law.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
"I can't nullify congressional law. I can't ask the Justice Department to say, 'Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books."
The Democratic Party is trying to move the party even farther to the right of the right-of-center (where the DLC has moved the party to) in order to attract into the Democratic Party the moderate Republicans (the politicians and their supporters) who have been disenfranchised from the Republican Party since the Chrlstian right took over control of the party. To make the Democratic Party the one true 'Corporate Party' of the US, thereby marginalizing both the far rightwing and the left (the base of the Democratic Party and frankly where most Americans are).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
It's real-tor, not real-it-or.
The 't' is silent in often.
Lay is an intransitive verb - Hens lay; people lie. "Bob was lying on the couch", not laying.
There is no such word as enthused; It's enthusiastic.
'Gypped' is an ethnic slur.
And in spelling, remember "It's 'i' before 'e', except after 'c', and when it has the 'a' sound, as in neighbor and weigh (ex. sieve, receive). And weird is just weird (and science is, too - remember it by the movie with that title).
And separate isn't seperate.
Slow news day.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Even more heretical:
By polluting the environment and pressuring Congress to eliminate regulations (and pressuring the executive branch to not enforce those regulations it can't eliminate), Americans are getting sick from toxic waste dumped in the air, sea, ground and water, affecting everything we breath/touch/ingest, corporations should be footing all healthcare expenses of all people, not just their employees.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
There are only two choices. If anyone thinks Mitt and the Mormon church will be less discriminatory than they have in the recent past then make your vote count.
You blame Nader voters when, had Nader not even run, had he not be in the race, Bush still would've won. Because Republicans had gamed that election more ways than we're ever going to know about. You might as well blame Pat Buchanan with the same vigor and vitriole.
AlGore won. Gore got more votes in Florida. Any way it was counted (and the biggest point that people seem to forget is that there were 179,000 perfectly readable ballots that never got counted), Gore got more votes than Bush.
Whatever the means necessary to get BushCheney into the WhiteHouse would've happened. Had Nader been in the race, had he not in the race, whatever. Had Nader not run, the outcome would've been the same. The powers that be were not going to let Gore win, no matter what, and gamed it innumerable ways.
If the means for getting BushCheney into the WhiteHouse required a close election and Nader not been running, some other means would've been used.
For pity's sake, the CIA was working on GOP absentee ballots in the weeks leading up to election day in Florida. That was the most amazing revelation from the televised court hearings in the post-election days in Florida -- 'CharlesKane' testified to altering absentee ballots in the MartinCounty's Registrar's office in the two week period prior to election day (it's against the law and should render the ballots null and void). When Kane was sworn in, he had to identify himself and give his occupation and employer. Retired CIA. The judge asked him why he was altering the absentee ballots, and he answered "I go where I'm told." Verbatim quote. The judge didn't follow up. There was next to no news coverage of this, and none by the networks.
Have you forgotten JebBush's vote purging scheme?
Have people really forgotten all the different ways that that election was gamed by the GOP? And that's just in Florida. And just the ways that we learned about because of legal proceedings in the post-election days.
There was a coup d'etat in America in 2000. A bIoodless coup, but a coup nonetheless.
And Democrats suppressed investigations, and then screwed over the Congressional Black Caucus's attempts to expose that stolen election.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Nader again?
That's the proof of just how susceptible to spin you are, and probably because instead of actually reading the data, you form your opinions from the opinions you hear from others on cable news programs.
Aside from the fact that in a nation of more than 300 million, unless you make it a law that voters can only vote for a Democrat or a Republican, unless you outlaw all other political parties, you can't possibly control how people vote. Unless, of course, you're able to control the voting machines.
Nader didn't do anything to Gore that HarryBrowne, PatBuchanan, HowardPhillips, et al (other party candidates) didn't also do, yet you don't hear them being blamed. Gore and Bush weren't owed other party's voters, and studies have shown that Nader pulled more votes from Bush than from Gore.
You presume that Nader voters would've voted for Gore (or voted at all) when studies and exit polling have indicated that's not the case.
But here's the thing:
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The argument that lost the Democrats the election in 2010 was the argument that people who were not 110% satisfied with Obama should have tantrums and stay home. They got the government they deserved - unfortunately, those of us who met our responsibility to vote also got the government that the non-voters deserved.=========================================
Solutions for what? How to get Democratic politicians to behave like Democrats? How to get Democratic policies and legislation passed? How to get rid of conservatives from government?
I've laid out solutions, beginning with "Stop voting for DLC-controlled Democrats". All roads (to campaign finance reform, clean and green energy, ending corporate personhood, strong banking/environmental/etc. regulations, JOBS, education, no more resource wars, gay rights, civil rights restoration, affordable quality medical treatment for everyone, and so on) begin with that. Everything that has been done these past 30 years has been done with Democrats' compliance -- Couldn't have happened without Democrats signing on.
Do you really not understand the problem and how to fix it?
Neither party is interested in ending corporate control over our government. It feathers their nests now and will take care of them once they've left office. Unless and until the money is out of politics, we're all just wasting our time, flapping our gums. Obama isn't interested in reforming that. He's not interested in reforming anything. He's only interested in making it look like he's reformed government. He's not alone -- All professional politicians has 'reform' as their campaign's centerpiece. A lot of promises to reform, and when it's time to get reelected and whatever happened in the previous 2 or 4 years is spun to try to convince voters (and more importantly, about 10% of the voters, Independents who see themselves as centrists) that the reform that they wanted they got with their side of the D&R equation.
Both parties generally take their bases for granted, but there is something to the adage, "Republicans fear their base and Democrats loathe their base".
So we're back to the question that has kept this farce going for so many election cycles now, moving the parties and the government farther to right while the people, when informed of the issues, tend to agree with and want liberal solutions):
Why should Obama-Democrats do anything for you if they know you're going to vote for them no matter what?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
And you have a choice, too. Recognize that Obama has betrayed you, and all "them that brung 'im". And the reason you're inclined to vote for him is not because he's satisfied your expectations, but because you hope that, contrary to his words and action, will do what he's never done in the past.
Your blind faith is dooming us all to continued Republican policies and legislation.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I have faith that he'll champion marriage equality in his next term.
We're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republicans. There are other alternatives besides sitting out the election or voting for Republicans. There are other candidates running as independents, from Green to Libertarian, in just about every race. If for no other reason than to get the 5 percent that is necessary for getting a seat at the table, I think that may be enough for great numbers of Democratic voters this time around. And we'd better do it because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn this all around. This week's primaries swept out a bunch of incumbent Blue Dogs.
I say this as an old, OLD liberal Democrat (a 'New Deal' Democrat) who has never voted for a Republican, never will, but I can honestly say that I can't imagine ever voting for a Democrat again.
I never advise people to sit out elections, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. It's what p!sses me off about Obama, and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying them that brung 'im. Because by shutting out liberals, the base, from his administration, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, eliminating regulatory oversight from finance reform legislations, he's given pro-corporate, Republican-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government.
So we're not limited to just Romney. But should Romney get into the White House, will Democrats in Congress be as successful as Republicans have been in stopping Democratic policies and legislation, or will they rubberstamp Romney's policies and join in voting for Republican legislation as they have done during recent past Democratic administrations?
Perhaps with a Romney White House, Democratic politicians will be forced to work on behalf of the 99%, or be thrown out of office in 2016, replaced finally with real Democrats.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Yeah, he could do it if it weren't an election year.
Let's put another falsehood to rest: That Obama's DoJ not defending DOMA somehow proves he supports gay marriage.
Even if the DoJ isn’t defending DOMA in court, it’s still the law of the land.
“Not defending DOMA” and “repealing DOMA” are not synonymous anymore than saying “I think all couples who are married are entitled to the very same rights and the very same privileges” is remotely similar to, “I think all couples should have the right to marry, regardless of gender”. Obama’s trying to have it both ways.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama didn't repeal DADT; Congress did.
Obama actually IMPEDED repeal.
Obama and Democrats didn't do everything in their power to end it. Not after the House had fallen to Republican control, and certainly not before the 2010 midterms or when Obama came into power on 1/20/09 and Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress.
Right before the midterms I asked commenters here if they thought Democrats would be as effective at obstructing Republicans as the Republicans as the minority party have been these past 4 years at obstructing Democrats.
Obama's been giving silent assent and aid to Republicans by not taking to the bully pulpit over this and all issues. Obama could certainly sign a stop-loss order (read my previous comments here and here before the standard knee-j3rk response about a new president overturning it).
As AxelDC said:
This was an obvious case for reconciliation. The bill is the DoD budget, and reconcilliation is to avoid filibusters on budget issues. The House overwhelmingly passed it, the Senate had 57 votes, and Reid and Obama refused to push it through.
What about a stop-loss order on Day 1? Obama has that authority and Congress would have to override him.
Instead, he thought he would be too clever by half and predictibly fail in the Senate and hope the public would punish Republicans for it. Didn't quite work out that way did it? Either pass it in reconciliation in December or the courts will have to do what Obama refuses to do.
The audacity of campaigning, the timidity of governing.
Then you should vote for Romney and see what you get from him.============================================
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
