Obama reelection 2012

[Moonlight J]

so Government does help create jobs?

[Lurker765]

Neither guy has my vote yet. Nor will get it based on their medical marijuana stances.

This isn't an issue I care about when voting, because, like anybody, I can get marijuana anytime I want, legal or not, medicinal or not, no matter what member of which party holds what office. So, practically speaking, it's irrelevant to me.

Philosophically, obviously, I don't like what Romney has to say about it. Realistically, Obama is no better. He said he would not use Justice Department resources to interfere with state medical marijuana policy. He flat out lied. His DEA routinely comes into our state and bullies the dispensaries, and his U.S. attorneys are very aggressive with their prosecutorial threats and strong-arm tactics. I know this an issue in other states as well (see yesterday's protests in Oakland). So, yeah, words are wind - there's not a lick of difference between the two.

Now, on the local front, Colorado Democrats are actually putting support for full legalization in the 2012 state party platform. I doubt it will result in actual legislation, but it's a step in the right direction.

You don't think that having Bush or Romney as Commander in Chief would have a different impact than Obama for this issue? Granted the Feds crack down some on medical dispensaries under Obama, but don't you think there would be a dramatic difference with a different President who was dead set against MJ?

After Colorado passed the medical MJ law and Obama took office it appears that there are now more MJ dispensaries in Colorado than Starbucks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/medical-marijuana-denver-starbucks_n_891796.html

Do you think this step towards reducing MJ arrests would have happened under a Bush/Romney type president? Isn't ending the absurd war on drugs a good direction to go and worth being a consideration in your vote?

[senorsheep]

You don't think that having Bush or Romney as Commander in Chief would have a different impact than Obama for this issue? Granted the Feds crack down some on medical dispensaries under Obama, but don't you think there would be a dramatic difference with a different President who was dead set against MJ?

After Colorado passed the medical MJ law and Obama took office it appears that there are now more MJ dispensaries in Colorado than Starbucks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/medical-marijuana-denver-starbucks_n_891796.html

Do you think this step towards reducing MJ arrests would have happened under a Bush/Romney type president? Isn't ending the absurd war on drugs a good direction to go and worth being a consideration in your vote?

Barack Obama had/ has nothing to do with the rise of dispensaries in Colorado. It's a coincidence of timing. His presidency just happened to coincide with the passing of our medical marijuana state initiative in 2009. It was purely a local effort.

In 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama said, “I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users; it is not a good use of our resources. AG Holder has promised to keep the Justice Department’s nose out of medical marijuana establishments unless they 'are acting out of conformity with state law.' "

U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag has actually ramped up the war on dispensaries ever since she took office in 2010, including those entirely in compliance with state law. Neither Barack Obama nor Eric Holder has done anything to rein in her little crusade.

I see no evidence that Barack Obama or any significant mass of Democrats at the national policy-making level have any interest in scaling back the imbecilic War On Drugs. Are they better than Republicans on the issue? Marginally, perhaps, in their rhetoric. In terms of action? No, not in any meaningful sense. Is getting punched in the face 19 times better than getting punched in the face 20 times? Sure. I'd rather not get punched in the face at all.

[B-Fly]

"Syria is [Iran’s] key ally. It’s their only ally in the Arab world. It is also their route to the sea." --- Mitt Romney

I had to double check the map on that one, lol.

[JudeBaldo]

"Syria is [Iran’s] key ally. It’s their only ally in the Arab world. It is also their route to the sea." --- Mitt Romney

But I'm sure he could find the Cayman's easily enough.

[senorsheep]

"Syria is [Iran’s] key ally. It’s their only ally in the Arab world. It is also their route to the sea." --- Mitt Romney

Fascinating. For someone who wets himself and flops about on the ground in angst when Republicans pull quotes out of context, I would think you might have looked up the context of Romney's remarks...

Talking about the relationship between Iran and Syria, Romney said: “It’s unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And …Syria is their key ally. It’s their only ally in the Arab world. It is also their route to the sea. Syria provides a -- a shadow over Lebanon. Syria is providing the armament of Hezbollah in Lebanon that, of course, threatens Israel, our friend and ally.”

So, now that we have applied some context and understand that Mitt Romney was discussing Iranian agitation in nations bordering The Mediterranean Sea, let's do a quick reading comprehension test. Do you think Mitt Romney meant:

A) Syria is Iran's route to the Mediterranean Sea

or

B) Syria is Iran's route to the Arabian Sea

Or, if you're feeling at all truth-y, you can just admit that you never really cared whether the quote was purposefully pulled out of context or not, and you were just excited at the opportunity to ridicule someone whose politics you hate.

Now that you have been thoroughly busted, I eagerly await your wild-eyed, name-calling tirade in response. Or you can really shock and amaze the forum and just admit that you didn't do your homework and got a little carried away. Whichever.

:smooch:

[B-Fly]

Fascinating. For someone who wets himself and flops about on the ground in angst when Republicans pull quotes out of context, I would think you might have looked up the context of Romney's remarks...



So, now that we have applied some context and understand that Mitt Romney was discussing Iranian agitation in nations bordering The Mediterranean Sea, let's do a quick reading comprehension test. Do you think Mitt Romney meant:

A) Syria is Iran's route to the Mediterranean Sea

or

B) Syria is Iran's route to the Arabian Sea

Or, if you're feeling at all truth-y, you can just admit that you never really cared whether the quote was purposefully pulled out of context or not, and you were just excited at the opportunity to ridicule someone whose politics you hate.

Now that you have been thoroughly busted, I eagerly await your wild-eyed, name-calling tirade in response. Or you can really shock and amaze the forum and just admit that you didn't do your homework and got a little carried away. Whichever.

:smooch:

From Iran, you still need to go through Iraq or Turkey before you can get to Syria. I guess if one assumes passage can be made through the Turkey/Iraq border region with or without support from the authorities of those nations, then Syria becomes a useful passageway to Lebanon and the Mediterranean.

[senorsheep]

From Iran, you still need to go through Iraq or Turkey before you can get to Syria. I guess if one assumes passage can be made through the Turkey/Iraq border region with or without support from the authorities of those nations, then Syria becomes a useful passageway to Lebanon and the Mediterranean.

You know the implication intended by posting that quote out of context. You, sir, are no idiot.

[OaklandA's]

You know the implication intended by posting that quote out of context. You, sir, are no idiot.

I must be an idiot. What is the context supposed to be? Iran and Syria don't share a border, so I don't understand what Romney is trying to say.

[senorsheep]

I must be an idiot. What is the context supposed to be? Iran and Syria don't share a border, so I don't understand what Romney is trying to say.

The lefty blogs that are yucking it up about the out-of-context quote are pretending that Mitt Romney doesn't know that Iran borders the Arabian Sea.

[OaklandA's]

The lefty blogs that are yucking it up about the out-of-context quote are pretending that Mitt Romney doesn't know that Iran borders the Arabian Sea.

Why are you bringing lefty blogs into this? I am asking a simple question - what does Romney mean when he says "It [Syria] is also their route to the sea." Sure, Iran borders the Arabian Sea. But Syria does not provide Iran a direct route to the Mediterranean or any other sea. What is the correct context for this remark? I think it is just a simple mistake, but you seem to be suggesting that it is not a mistake.

[senorsheep]

Why are you bringing lefty blogs into this?

Because eldiablo505 was repeating a meme being circulated in the lefty blogs for the purpose of portraying Romney as an idiot for not knowing that Iran borders not one, but two, seas. Like this:

I am asking a simple question - what does Romney mean when he says "It [Syria] is also their route to the sea." Sure, Iran borders the Arabian Sea. But Syria does not provide Iran a direct route to the Mediterranean or any other sea. What is the correct context for this remark? I think it is just a simple mistake, but you seem to be suggesting that it is not a mistake.

My best guess is that he is concerned that Iran could airlift personnel and resources into Syria, and stage agitation in The Mediterranean from there.

He might also be referring to Iran's direction and support of agitators that are already there.

I suppose it's possible he thinks Iranians could march on foot to Syria. It doesn't make to sense to me that Iran would use land convoys for that purpose when they have the air capability to do it, so I doubt that's what he meant.

Even if that is what he meant, is a geographical misstatement more relevant to the election than his policy ideas on The Middle East? I know you're a believer in skipping the partisan pea-shooting and getting to the meat of things, so I assume you agree with me that posting trivial "Gotcha!" nonsense from blogs in order to tweak a candidate isn't particularly worthwhile, yes?

[B-Fly]

Because eldiablo505 was repeating a meme being circulated in the lefty blogs for the purpose of portraying Romney as an idiot for not knowing that Iran borders not one, but two, seas.

The Caspian Sea isn't really a sea. Just a lake. Idiot.

:myturn:

[senorsheep]

The Caspian Sea isn't really a sea. Just a lake. Idiot.

:myturn:

Tell it to the geniuses circulating the graphic. LOL

[GwynnInTheHall]

The lefty blogs that are yucking it up about the out-of-context quote are pretending that Mitt Romney doesn't know that Iran borders the Arabian Sea.

I think what's missing here is the differentiation of context and intent.


Obama gave all the context need to explain his intent, so his words were indeed taken out of context.

Romney did not provide complete context, though it was most likely his intent that he meant the Mediterranean Sea, he did not say so. So there's really no "context" to draw from unless you're willing to fill in the blanks he left, which someone like me, can do, chooses to do as to get the "intent" of his words.

I'm surprised you let him off the hook so easily as you, Sheep, are the most literal poster here.


FWIW, Lewis Black hit on it the other night when he blasted both side for their BS, out of context, flat out Lies they've been using in their election ads.