Thread: Obama is president, but the war in Iraq continues.

So Obama won re-election. I'm glad Romney was kept out of office but I'm not too fond of Obama either. This is a post I made a while back on another forum that sort of summed up how I felt about the guy but looking back at it now, some of those points look like they might be off. For those of you who are more knowledgeable when it comes to the American system, mind fact checking/correcting and letting me know if my distrust for Obama is justified?

Originally Posted by GavinGill

He's closing down legitimately licensed dispensaries left and right - depriving suffering/dying patients of their medicine. Yet he's always paying lip service to the marijuana users, trying harder than any other president before him to make it look like he's "pot friendly"... even though Obama has amped up the drug war even more-so than Bush.

Americans have no rights whatsoever. None. At all. Because of the Obama administration, "possible terrorists" can be arrested and detained indefinitely without any trial. You can be stripped of every "legal right" you thought you had, and thrown in a cell without ever going to court or being proven guilty. Just sit there and rot.

And "possible terrorist" doesn't mean someone who builds bombs for fun. Anyone who pays with cash, owns firearms, or even has 7 days worth if food in their house is technically a "possible terrorist."

And internet censorship? The Obama administration is fighting tooth and nail for that. Bill after bill after bill, each one proposed in hopes of being able to censor the internet. This is the only place left where freedom of speech truly exists, it's the only way for us to get the real facts since the mainstream media is constantly putting a spin on major stories, sometimes ignoring them altogether. Censor the internet, and you effectively bar the public of finding out the truth. Just look at how hard they're going after WikiLeaks - simply because it shows people just how corrupt the system really is.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

So Obama won re-election. I'm glad Romney was kept out of office but I'm not too fond of Obama either. This is a post I made a while back on another forum that sort of summed up how I felt about the guy but looking back at it now, some of those points look like they might be off. For those of you who are more knowledgeable when it comes to the American system, mind fact checking/correcting and letting me know if my distrust for Obama is justified?

He's closing down legitimately licensed dispensaries left and right - depriving suffering/dying patients of their medicine. Yet he's always paying lip service to the marijuana users, trying harder than any other president before him to make it look like he's "pot friendly"... even though Obama has amped up the drug war even more-so than Bush.

Americans have no rights whatsoever. None. At all. Because of the Obama administration, "possible terrorists" can be arrested and detained indefinitely without any trial. You can be stripped of every "legal right" you thought you had, and thrown in a cell without ever going to court or being proven guilty. Just sit there and rot.

And "possible terrorist" doesn't mean someone who builds bombs for fun. Anyone who pays with cash, owns firearms, or even has 7 days worth if food in their house is technically a "possible terrorist."

And internet censorship? The Obama administration is fighting tooth and nail for that. Bill after bill after bill, each one proposed in hopes of being able to censor the internet. This is the only place left where freedom of speech truly exists, it's the only way for us to get the real facts since the mainstream media is constantly putting a spin on major stories, sometimes ignoring them altogether. Censor the internet, and you effectively bar the public of finding out the truth. Just look at how hard they're going after WikiLeaks - simply because it shows people just how corrupt the system really is.

Underlined statements are true. So most of what you said is true. The bolded + underlined statement is true, though I'm not sure if their standard of what consitutes a possible terrorist is that broad. Is it pretty expansive though.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

So Obama won re-election. I'm glad Romney was kept out of office but I'm not too fond of Obama either. This is a post I made a while back on another forum that sort of summed up how I felt about the guy but looking back at it now, some of those points look like they might be off. For those of you who are more knowledgeable when it comes to the American system, mind fact checking/correcting and letting me know if my distrust for Obama is justified?

The majority of this is pretty correct, though he did come out AGAINST SOPA and PIPA, which effectively killed it, but he was kinda forced to do that. I think that was 2 parts public reaction and 1 part actual concern.

The other two are my reasons for disliking Obama: He's probably the toughest on pot of any president ever, and he signed NDAA with the indefinite detention rider. He also uses drone attacks, which I really don't agree with at all.

The problem is I don't think Romney would have fixed any of those, and I think he would have made them worse if anything else.

Saying that Obama is tougher on pot than the person who initiated the War on Drugs is probably the most ignorant political statement I have read since anything Universal Mind had to say in the past two days.

Originally Posted by Warheit

Saying that Obama is tougher on pot than the person who initiated the War on Drugs is probably the most ignorant political statement I have read since anything Universal Mind had to say in the past two days.

Nixon initiated the war formally. But Obama has ordered more DEA raids than Bush, so in that sense he has been tougher.

Voting is like taking a multiple choice test where every answer is a wrong answer.

Originally Posted by Warheit

Saying that Obama is tougher on pot than the person who initiated the War on Drugs is probably the most ignorant political statement I have read since anything Universal Mind had to say in the past two days.

I have seen two of your asinine posts now. Either make an argument or shut your blind Obama worshipping ass.

Tell me something good Obama has done with the war on drugs. Anything.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Underlined statements are true. So most of what you said is true. The bolded + underlined statement is true, though I'm not sure if their standard of what consitutes a possible terrorist is that broad. It is pretty expansive though.

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

Voting is like taking a multiple choice test where every answer is a wrong answer.

Gary Johnson was the right answer.

Originally Posted by Woodstock

Gary Johnson was the right answer.

I'm a libertarian myself (actually I'm just anarchist but that word scares stupid people), but please consider not voting. Even a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote FOR the system. We libertarians say we don't like rulers, but then how can we vote for a ruler, even if it's Gary Johnson?

The best way to bring about freedom is to avoid and ignore the government whenever possible, and raise our children non-violently.

Originally Posted by cmind

I'm a libertarian myself (actually I'm just anarchist but that word scares stupid people), but please consider not voting. Even a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote FOR the system. We libertarians say we don't like rulers, but then how can we vote for a ruler, even if it's Gary Johnson?

The best way to bring about freedom is to avoid and ignore the government whenever possible, and raise our children non-violently.

The issue with this is that it doesn't convince people. It doesn't even really convince me anymore. I support not voting when you have a legitimate reason to do so, i.e. you vehemently disagree with ALL candidates available. But if you have some guy who is consistent and has strong convictions about minimizing the size of government, you might as well throw your vote at him.

I agree with the second part of your post, but I would just amend it to the following: "The best way to bring about freedom is to avoid and ignore the government whenever possible, raise our children non-violently, and oppose any of the state's encroachments." By opposing encroachments I mean either actively educating others AND/OR voting for certain candidates or measures. At some point you're not gonna be able to ignore the state.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The issue with this is that it doesn't convince people. It doesn't even really convince me anymore. I support not voting when you have a legitimate reason to do so, i.e. you vehemently disagree with ALL candidates available. But if you have some guy who is consistent and has strong convictions about minimizing the size of government, you might as well throw your vote at him.

I agree with the second part of your post, but I would just amend it to the following: "The best way to bring about freedom is to avoid and ignore the government whenever possible, raise our children non-violently, and oppose any of the state's encroachments." By opposing encroachments I mean either actively educating others AND/OR voting for certain candidates or measures. At some point you're not gonna be able to ignore the state.

I used to vote for the libertarian party here where I live, but recently I've heard Stefan Molyneux talking about voting and he makes what I find to be a really solid case for why it can't work. If you're not familiar with his arguments, check out his youtube videos on the subject.

Originally Posted by cmind

I used to vote for the libertarian party here where I live, but recently I've heard Stefan Molyneux talking about voting and he makes what I find to be a really solid case for why it can't work. If you're not familiar with his arguments, check out his youtube videos on the subject.

I'm quite familiar with Stefan, and I can tell you've been influenced by him based on your statement regarding non-violent parenting. Personally I have to take him with a grain of salt. Some things he says are great, others are pretty off-track.

My statement still stands, by the way. I'd rather you present a response than turn me to Stefan. My argument is that there should be a two-pronged approach. Ignore when necessary, oppose when necessary.

No one voted for him to end the war this time around. They voted for him because he is a turd of a lighter consistency than Romney. I live in a red state though so I voted for the green party.

Originally Posted by cmind

I used to vote for the libertarian party here where I live, but recently I've heard Stefan Molyneux talking about voting and he makes what I find to be a really solid case for why it can't work. If you're not familiar with his arguments, check out his youtube videos on the subject.

I voted for Vermin Supreme(<-the guy with the boot on his head) this year. I considered voting for Johnson, but I didn't, because in the end I don't want a representative democracy. To me this was the best way to voice this in the modern political arena. If you don't vote then this can be interpreted as not caring.