No, I think Mitt's the guy that would never get into business with W because he knew that if he played his rules to the game, W's dad would destroy his career.
Dems circa 1992: "It's the economy stupid." Dems circa 2012 "Stupid ********ing economy." http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/dems-obama-voters-dont-believe-economy-talk/593901]Carville: Voters don't believe Obama's economy meme[/url]
I would have quoted Brummie's post too if I could figure out how to multi-quote. Oh well. No, it's a really intelligent argument. Please do not confuse the two. If I unrepentantly committed adultery in my younger days, and then led a crusade to have it made illegal, that would be... pragmatism? Really? No, that would make me a hypocritical ideologue. "Whatever his feelings on it"? Can we all stop pretending that Barack Obama doesn't share the violent position on the War on Drugs? We're not all that blind, are we?
There's no evidence once so ever that Barack Obama is on a "crusade" to make marijuana illegal. It's already ********ing illegal.
Yes, yes it is. We all know this. However, a) Medical Marijuana is "legal" in many states. These could be left well enough alone with zero political consequence. Barack Obama even stated he would do that. He, um, evolved his position. b) Some other countries have considered relaxing their laws against marijuana. The policy of the Obama Administration is not to let people make their own local decisions on this. Think, how often does the U.S. Government chime in when Latin American countries debate the issues of the day? It does when the issue is marijuana policy. What percentage of Americans care what the drug policy in Guatemala is? Yeah, no one. That is what you have described as pragmatism. The pragmatic approach would be to leave well enough alone, and let states and other countries determine their own policies. That's not what's going on. And, since this is the Mitt Romney thread, it behooves me to point out that he is no better on this issue.
The internet was invented in the 1930s. It might have caught on slowly, but that was only due to fiat currency.
That's how what's done? Obama should do this sort of thing...when, exactly? Did the Berlin Wall get rebuilt when I wasn't looking? Just who is Obama supposed to challenge? Seems like he made a pretty definitive statement to that Bin Laden, fellow.
You're confusing pragmatic administration with pragmatic politics. Obama doesn't want anyone calling him soft on drugs, so he's not peddling a soft line. There is, again, zero evidence for any kind of crusade and even less evidence that any of this is "ideological".
Right. Obama's invested his political capital in gay marriage because, let's face it, that's going to energize his base more than marijuana legalization would. Again, pragmatism.
Back to Romney: He killed an anti-bullying guide in Massachusetts because it mentioned "bisexual" and "transgender". 1. Yeah, there's a point that was missed there. Kinda tragicomironic. 2. Yeah, there's kind of a narrative there.
Speaking as a straight, used-to-be pothead, its probably more important and virtuous as well. And he seems to have jumped on it as soon as was -- dare I say it?-- practical.
Speaking as someone with multiple married gay friends (hooray Massachusetts), I disagree. The War on Drugs is a much bigger issue, from both the policy AND moral standpoints. Totally agree on your (and others') practical politics points though.
Unfortunately both President Obama and Romney are total clowns with joke policies. Johnson is the only real choice in this election from a policy standpoint. But since most Americans are clowns themselves, I expect them to vote for a fellow clown.
Then please list "all of them" are briefly describe why "all of them" are joke policies. I do have a sneaking suspicion that you have an inability/unwillingness to think critically, but hey, I'm open to being proven wrong. Which specific joke bills did he veto? At least you're willing to admit you're clueless. Honesty is a good policy.
Obamacare. Romneycare. Taxpayer funded bailouts. Cash for clunkers. Stimulus. All policies with the same DNA. Government trying to solve a problem created by the government. Just a bunch of hack jobs both of them. One will expand welfare and entitlements, one will expand the military industrial complex i.e. welfare and entitlements for rich people. All bills aimed to increase size of government and curtail social liberties and spread of religious dogma. You can't argue with the results. His line item vetoing of bills from both parties left the state with a $1 billion surplus, and also protected social freedoms from religious thuggery. Any prediction, however safe, is a form of projection. Are you saying that it is not true that an overwhelming majority of Americans will vote for President Obama or Romney?
Oh come on, you know as well as I do that when any policy supported my mastershake is opposed by a politician it makes that politician a zealous ideologue who's a bad person for his stance!
This is true. But since both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are no-talent ass clowns, they're forced to rely on the votes of fellow no-talent ass clowns, and there are fewer of those than normal clowns. It's a tough demographic hurdle to overcome.