I don't want someone who makes hard bad decisions and then stubbornly stands by them. I had enough of that with Bush.

Also, if you think Obama has not made hard decisions, you have not been paying attention. I don't agree with alot of what he has done, and sometimes I want him to fight more, but the man has an effective, if not subtle, style.>> ^Auger8:

Every election boils down to the lesser of two evils and here's the important question here.
Do you want another Obama in the White House who will fold up under the slightest pressure from the Senate or the House, or do you want a man who will actually be a President and make the hard decisions and stand by them for good or bad?
No one candidate is perfect period but in my opinion he's better by far than a complete Religious crackpot like Santorum or a Romney who's only goal is to reverse everything his predecessor has accomplished. Or worse still a Gingrich who thinks the corporations should run this country for us.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
-He is against drug laws...

He's against federal drug laws... he wants the states to decide.

I'm not sure I've heard him say if he opposes drug prohibition at the state level, but he certainly doesn't want the federal government telling the states they can't prohibit them.

I'm confused by your statement do you think War Crimes and Manslaughter aren't forms of violence that should be prohibited? Why do you lump those things in with self-defense which even nations act on. If some country attacks us should we turn the other cheek. Are you saying War Crimes are acceptable losses.

What Ron Paul is saying is that violent crimes should be prohibited, as in the crimes we already have laws against, like murder, rape, genocide, those things. Instead of giving life sentences to a crack head whose only real offense in trying to escape reality. I'm not saying hard drugs don't sometimes incite violence what I'm saying and what he is saying is that the war of drugs has caused more harm than good it has taken more lives than any other war past or present period.

And for what?! They are still no closer to stopping the flow of drugs in the world than they ever were in fact the flow has increased with billions of dollars lost to underground mafias across the globe. If you legalize it and then tax it the government could make up the national deficit in a single year. The mafias would instantly be put out of business because who would buy something from a street corner dealer when you can just go to a pharmacy or Walmart and buy it legally and for less money too. If you don't believe the war on drugs has failed then turn on your TV and watch the series about Moonshiners in America. If they can't enforce the very original laws of prohibition still to this day we need to stop and really think about an alternative solution to the problem.

>> ^truth-is-the-nemesis:

wait, the only thing we should prohibit is violence? - what about self-defence, manslaughter & war-crimes? those are types of violence but receive lesser or no prison sentencing at all if it can be proved as suitable in a court of law. Paul just makes sweeping generalisations & this is why i dislike libertarianism it doesn't work in the real-world, not all drug offenders are none violent - and hard drug usage also seeps into other crimes so trying to just fit all drug related crime into one neat little box seems a bit fanciful.
Don't just uncritically believe everything Paul feeds you, remember he's a Dr. who does not believe in evolution & thinks that the government should not provide vaccines to people because it's their liberty not to have them. Seriously...

@NetRunner (For brevity)

There is, in my mind, a bigger issue at hand than the tissue at hand (Sorry, Elmo in Grouchland ref...)
And that is the movement of society. Paul isn't, as I have note before, a means to an end. He is the first step in a million mile march. The only two things he can get done in office is 1--Change the direction of our nation's military might (Which is far more important than say Unions from a financial perspective.) 2--Stop federal enforcement of the drug war.


To say you don't trust him on certain things is odd. What would it take to earn your trust? And don't get me wrong, he won't start a movement to get certain things done (I.e., more tolerance for homosexuals)--he is the movement of the right to a center again (Where homosexuals are widely more accepted...) His best friend is politically a death-knell (Dennis Kucinich,) he has continued to hold onto his politically-doomed drug policies, he speaks freely, he doesn't take (much) money from the big guy...etc.

However, how well has Obama done to legalize gay marriage? (He can't, that's up to either the courts or the legislature.) Protecting the unions? (Can't, that's really a state level thing when it comes to practicality...I.e., if the state wants a loophole to doom a union, they can enact one.) One man isn't god in an office--and that's why I don't hate Obama for being a mortal man.

I just can't see myself voting for the never ending war between Big Business R and Big Business D... Voting for Obama or Bachman, or Clinton or Bush, is voting to continue that war and honestly I don't want a part of it. Once we realize this truism we can fix our nation.

(Los Angeles, CA) – Today the NAACP passed a historic resolution calling for an end to the war on drugs. The resolution was voted on by a majority of delegates at the 102nd NAACP Annual Convention in Los Angeles, CA. The overall message of the resolution is captured by its title: A Call to End the War on Drugs, Allocate Funding to Investigate Substance Abuse Treatment, Education, and Opportunities in Communities of Color for A Better Tomorrow.

“Today the NAACP has taken a major step towards equity, justice and effective law enforcement,” stated Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP. “These flawed drug policies that have been mostly enforced in African American communities must be stopped and replaced with evidenced-based practices that address the root causes of drug use and abuse in America.”

The resolution outlines the facts about the failed drug war, highlighting that the U.S. spends over $40 billion annually on the war on drugs, locking up low-level drug offenders – mostly from communities of color. African Americans are in fact 13 times more likely to go to jail for the same drug-related offense than their white counterparts.
“Studies show that all racial groups abuse drugs at similar rates, but the numbers also show that African Americans, Hispanics and other people of color are stopped, searched, arrested, charged, convicted, and sent to prison for drug-related charges at a much higher rate,” stated Alice Huffman, President of the California State Conference of the NAACP. “This dual system of drug law enforcement that serves to keep African-Americans and other minorities under lock and key and in prison must be exposed and eradiated.

”Instead of sending drug offenders to prison, the resolution calls for the creation and expansion of rehabilitation and treatment programs, methadone clinics, and other treatment protocols that have been proven effective.

“We know that the war on drugs has been a complete failure because in the forty years that we’ve been waging this war, drug use and abuse has not gone down,” stated Robert Rooks, Director of the NAACP Criminal Justice Program. “The only thing we’ve accomplished is becoming the world’s largest incarcerator, sending people with mental health and addiction issues to prison, and creating a system of racial disparities that rivals Jim Crow policies of the 1960’s.”
Once ratified by the board of directors in October, the resolution will encourage the more than 1200 active NAACP units across the country to organize campaigns to advocate for the end of the war on drugs.

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^petpeeved:
I'd like to force all American politicians who still favor the catastrophic "War on drugs" policy to live in Ciudad Juarez for one year.
In the history of the human race, no political ideology has come close to causing as much senseless death and misery as has the criminalization of drug use.

Right. The fact you can't legally buy weed in America is the single greatest cause of suffering in Mexico...


*double citation needed*

>> ^petpeeved:

I'd like to force all American politicians who still favor the catastrophic "War on drugs" policy to live in Ciudad Juarez for one year.
In the history of the human race, no political ideology has come close to causing as much senseless death and misery as has the criminalization of drug use.


Right. The fact you can't legally buy weed in America is the single greatest cause of suffering in Mexico...

>> ^Sarzy:

I'm sorry, I thought I was debating with a vaguely rational person. "Death squad"??
I'm done.>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.



You're done? what, apologizing for murderous thugs?
Good call!

I'm sorry, I thought I was debating with a vaguely rational person. "Death squad"??

I'm done.>> ^marbles:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).


Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?


I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.

As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?

They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

I'd like to force all American politicians who still favor the catastrophic "War on drugs" policy to live in Ciudad Juarez for one year.

In the history of the human race, no political ideology has come close to causing as much senseless death and misery as has the criminalization of drug use.

It's not in my nature to fault someone for being an ol' softy, so I can't begrudge your desire not to take a victory lap. I, however, will rejoice once I see the Hammer frog marched to the slammer. Thus always to the corrupt. He brought it all on himself, so good riddance. Besides, there's a line forming to fill his dirty shoes in Congress, so it was time for him to let the The Next Generation take his place. We don't need another fat Captain Kirk, do we?

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I agree with everything you said except the part about no sympathy. It's just how I'm wired. I have no sympathy for people who do something awful, escape justice, and then find some other hardship in life. But people who do wrong, and meet justice for their actions, I feel sympathy and pity for. I can't get happy about it -- I feel more sadness and some relief than elation.

I'm sure a 2 minute visit with him in prison would cure it, but still, I'm not big on doing a victory dance when justice is served.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
As far as crime and punishment is concerned I'm also a liberal:

- Our drug policy is an abomination, and mandatory minimum sentencing is outrageous. It's the main reason the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
- Three strikes laws should be eliminated
- The death penalty is barbaric
- Our criminal justice system is still racist. Black men and other persons of color are convicted at higher rates, and are more likely to be incarcerated and receive longer sentences than white dudes that commit the same crimes.

HOWEVER, I have NO sympathy for any type of public official who betrays the trust of the people he is supposed to serve. That goes not just for politicians, but judges, prosecutors, and cops too. One of surest ways to to bring about the downfall of a society is to have dirty public officials running the show. And I'm not partisan about this. If DeLay were a Democrat, independent, socialist, Green, or what have you, I'd feel the same way about him.

The only thing I don't want to happen to the guy is for him to get raped or otherwise harmed while he's in prison, but then I feel the same way about everyone in prison. Prison shouldn't automatically mean rape, beatings, and the possibility of homicide, but when you have prison overcrowding because of harsh sentencing laws, it's hard for guards to ensure the safety of all inmates. And let's not forgot that it's mostly Republicans like DeLay who have been the authors of all the tough-on-crime legislation in the first place.

So DeLay got what he deserved. Also Republicans like him (and many Democrats) have never served the interests of the people, but of their corporate masters. These corporate assholes in turn fucked up the economy through fraud and other criminal behavior. Many, many people have lost their jobs or their life savings or both because of this shit. They have created misery on an enormous scale. They are criminals as well who also deserve to go to prison. Madoff is just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands more need to be sent to the clink, because Madoff and other people like him didn't do this shit all by themselves.

Those are the people that Tom DeLay served. I hope he receives the maximum sentence. Not a drop from my bleeding heart will be shed for him.



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I did hear about that. I'm one of these seriously bleeding-heart liberal types. Now that he's going to jail, I feel sorry for him.

Still, it's good to see that parts of our justice system still work.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
You might have seen this story already, but if not, then it should make your Thanksgiving happy.

I agree with everything you said except the part about no sympathy. It's just how I'm wired. I have no sympathy for people who do something awful, escape justice, and then find some other hardship in life. But people who do wrong, and meet justice for their actions, I feel sympathy and pity for. I can't get happy about it -- I feel more sadness and some relief than elation.

I'm sure a 2 minute visit with him in prison would cure it, but still, I'm not big on doing a victory dance when justice is served.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
As far as crime and punishment is concerned I'm also a liberal:

- Our drug policy is an abomination, and mandatory minimum sentencing is outrageous. It's the main reason the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
- Three strikes laws should be eliminated
- The death penalty is barbaric
- Our criminal justice system is still racist. Black men and other persons of color are convicted at higher rates, and are more likely to be incarcerated and receive longer sentences than white dudes that commit the same crimes.

HOWEVER, I have NO sympathy for any type of public official who betrays the trust of the people he is supposed to serve. That goes not just for politicians, but judges, prosecutors, and cops too. One of surest ways to to bring about the downfall of a society is to have dirty public officials running the show. And I'm not partisan about this. If DeLay were a Democrat, independent, socialist, Green, or what have you, I'd feel the same way about him.

The only thing I don't want to happen to the guy is for him to get raped or otherwise harmed while he's in prison, but then I feel the same way about everyone in prison. Prison shouldn't automatically mean rape, beatings, and the possibility of homicide, but when you have prison overcrowding because of harsh sentencing laws, it's hard for guards to ensure the safety of all inmates. And let's not forgot that it's mostly Republicans like DeLay who have been the authors of all the tough-on-crime legislation in the first place.

So DeLay got what he deserved. Also Republicans like him (and many Democrats) have never served the interests of the people, but of their corporate masters. These corporate assholes in turn fucked up the economy through fraud and other criminal behavior. Many, many people have lost their jobs or their life savings or both because of this shit. They have created misery on an enormous scale. They are criminals as well who also deserve to go to prison. Madoff is just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands more need to be sent to the clink, because Madoff and other people like him didn't do this shit all by themselves.

Those are the people that Tom DeLay served. I hope he receives the maximum sentence. Not a drop from my bleeding heart will be shed for him.



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I did hear about that. I'm one of these seriously bleeding-heart liberal types. Now that he's going to jail, I feel sorry for him.

Still, it's good to see that parts of our justice system still work.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
You might have seen this story already, but if not, then it should make your Thanksgiving happy.

As far as crime and punishment is concerned I'm also a liberal:

- Our drug policy is an abomination, and mandatory minimum sentencing is outrageous. It's the main reason the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
- Three strikes laws should be eliminated
- The death penalty is barbaric
- Our criminal justice system is still racist. Black men and other persons of color are convicted at higher rates, and are more likely to be incarcerated and receive longer sentences than white dudes that commit the same crimes.

HOWEVER, I have NO sympathy for any type of public official who betrays the trust of the people he is supposed to serve. That goes not just for politicians, but judges, prosecutors, and cops too. One of surest ways to to bring about the downfall of a society is to have dirty public officials running the show. And I'm not partisan about this. If DeLay were a Democrat, independent, socialist, Green, or what have you, I'd feel the same way about him.

The only thing I don't want to happen to the guy is for him to get raped or otherwise harmed while he's in prison, but then I feel the same way about everyone in prison. Prison shouldn't automatically mean rape, beatings, and the possibility of homicide, but when you have prison overcrowding because of harsh sentencing laws, it's hard for guards to ensure the safety of all inmates. And let's not forgot that it's mostly Republicans like DeLay who have been the authors of all the tough-on-crime legislation in the first place.

So DeLay got what he deserved. Also Republicans like him (and many Democrats) have never served the interests of the people, but of their corporate masters. These corporate assholes in turn fucked up the economy through fraud and other criminal behavior. Many, many people have lost their jobs or their life savings or both because of this shit. They have created misery on an enormous scale. They are criminals as well who also deserve to go to prison. Madoff is just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands more need to be sent to the clink, because Madoff and other people like him didn't do this shit all by themselves.

Those are the people that Tom DeLay served. I hope he receives the maximum sentence. Not a drop from my bleeding heart will be shed for him.



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I did hear about that. I'm one of these seriously bleeding-heart liberal types. Now that he's going to jail, I feel sorry for him.

Still, it's good to see that parts of our justice system still work.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
You might have seen this story already, but if not, then it should make your Thanksgiving happy.