Obama Tries to Rewrite His History of Promising Forbearance for Medical Marijuana Suppliers

[squiggly]

I never said that.

Whats your point?

Obama doesn't have the power to back up his words? What..?.....did he not know the extent of his presidential power when he made the comments? Well he should have....he is the fucking president of the Unuted States of America.

You imply it in the bold statement above--suggesting that he made some sort of promise he couldn't keep is essentially the crux of the argument you made there.

I'm asking you to produce that promise in quotable form from the president's mouth.

When people ask someone running for president "what they would do" in a given situation--it does not always translate into the person saying "I will do this". This is understood in politcs--especially when the person answering the question does not have the power to do said thing (which is the case here).

His opinion is that we have better things to be doing--but that doesn't mean he can just unilaterally change the way the entire government handles these things. Presidents do not have that power for good reason--and I'm quite glad it is that way.

The point is that if a president had that power--democrats would be more lenient on drug policy, and republicans would be more strict. But they don't--so it's a futile and pointless argument.

Again--this is a case of you not understanding the job description. If a person runs for president on the idea that "I will change this law" it's always understood to mean that he will do his best--because it is also understood (again, by 4th graders) that he doesn't get to make every decision, that in fact laws go through their own version of "due-process" before (and after) becoming law.

The only promises which are historically held-to (or held responsible for failing to) are ones which discuss bills that a president would veto or sign. If he said "I would sign a bill" or "I will veto a bill" and then doesn't--that's when he's broken a promise. Bush Sr. "Read my lips no new taxes" and then he signed new taxes into law--that is a broken presidential promise.

I'll say two things I know for sure.

1. The president never said I promise anything as it goes to this issue.
2. The president never had the power to do much about this sans congress--both he and any interviewers asking him about this understood that. Again, it is not his responsibility to explain to you personally how things work so that your opinion won't be so deluded. Unfortunately, the job for educating people about politics falls on 4th grade social studies teachers (who obviously do a terrible job) and on ourselves.

What I'm arguing isn't that the president is perfect--but rather that over the last 40 years this country has become confused about who is running the show. Congress is "king" of the united states and it always has been/will be. They are the most direct line to the people and that is why they have this power. The president is only meant to keep them, and the military, in line.

The president of a company doesn't actually go build the widgets or do the leg-work on an upcoming project. He delegates, demands a plan (asks for in the case of our president--he cannot command that one be formed), and has the final say.

It's essentially the same here, the only difference being that his subordinates are a bunch of whiny old fucks who want to play "party-lines" rather than run the country. The president cannot fire them. We have to--and there is the trick. So long as we're worried about the president these guys don't get fired. They are impotent and have all failed at their jobs. They should not be running the most powerful nation (for now) in the world. I personally don't blame the president for the failure of congress, you can if you want but I'd say it's driving a pretty hard bargain to hold one guy responsible for 500 people (over half of whom are hell bent on his utter destruction).

 

[Capulator]

Squiggly,

I am not sure the bold face type is actually required to belittle someone else. I love a heated debate, but this looks like its getting personal.

Good vibes people...

 

[Tobor the 8th Man]

I edited this because I don't know enough about any of the dispensaries to make any kind of informed opinion. I am nearly the same way with the political arena. I should not have opinionated on any of these subjects.

I will stick with my prediction though that Obama is going to win a second term and win rather easily.

Tobor is out!

 

[sanvanalona]

Hey squiggly, I think people have a hard time listening to a guy(pres) who says one thing and then they see another thing happening, regardless of who is to blame, have their not been executive orders in the history of usa that have circumvented this almighty congress you speak of?

Hey Baba, I think maybe we all got a little starry eyed during/after the election in thinking that mmj would be entirely left alone, wishful thinking. In the midst of all this, many of us forgot what he actually said. The Ogden memo was a little two sided and that was a problem my attorney and I spoke about from the beginning. Shit the entire time my attorney was saying that he is not giving the o.k. to dispensaries, I should of listened a little closer in retrospect. I guess I am just saying that he has backtracked for sure from what was implied, especially in Montana as I personally know some of those raided and some of those people were not breaking any laws, but just got their bank accounts too big, but he never expressed full legalization or absolute stand off from a federal stand point. MMj and its future does lie in congress, unfortunately that organization is pretty fucked at the moment. Good thoughts on this people, and good points!

 

[waayne]

squiggly you're making some valid points, especially about Obama exercising poor judgement in his choice of Leonhart and also the Drug Czar
Gil Kerlikowske.

Kerlikowske's record speaks for itself.
He has always made it clear that he would never support MMJ or legalization.........
Kerlikowske's rhetoric mimics his predecessors pretty much word for word.....

I totally agree that Obama has exercised extremely poor judgement in choosing those appointees.

Barney Frank was recently quoted as saying the Obama administrations stance on MMJ looks very much like the Bush administrations policies.......

I will be curious how they try to spin all this this rhetoric about MMJ when he starts campaigning in liberal parts of the USA

 

[squiggly]

Kerlikowske's record speaks for itself.
He has always made it clear that he would never support MMJ or legalization.........
Kerlikowske's rhetoric mimics his predecessors pretty much word for word.....
I totally agree that Obama has exercised extremely poor judgement in choosing those appointees.

Leonhart really essentially lied to the guy--I think that if you go back and pile through the interviews that's a pretty clear truth that reveals itself based on the back-and-forth that developed between her and the administration during her confirmation--I was equally concerned when I saw this happening but as I watched it closely and saw it all unfold, I was convinced she had made it seem that Obama's policy was a good one and that she'd follow it--and once she got the nomination she flipped 180.

I think this was definitely a bad judgment on his part--but do not believe that it was intentional. As you point out--he sort of has shit all over his face about it, and he could've avoided a lot of that if he'd either A.) nominated another person or B.) come out against legalization/MMJ. In this case he's alienated both sides--he's said he wants to be lenient, but his administration is going against that and making him seem both incapable of controlling them, and in some circles as though he is supporting them as the claims here suggest. We might be able to reconcile that with our own personal views--but we as Americans collectively need to realize that we can't have our cake and eat it too. Either he's for it or against it. I believe he's for MMJ and that the kerfuffle which has played out here sort of betrays what my point has been this whole time--that his power is actually very limited unless it concerns national security. He is the commander-in-chief of the military, not the American people.

What you saw with the Bush administration was an administration that was working completely in concert with itself. Obama has made the mistake of trusting people's expertise rather than making it about party lines. It was a good faith gesture that was totally misguided--and I don't believe he'll repeat it if re-elected. That said, I do believe we'll see another concerted administration if we get Romney in there. Republicans are like the Borg or something. Hive mind type shit, anything that will increase family values or money for rich people goes. Think for a second which party is in the deepest recesses of the pharma industry's pockets (keeping in mind that I don't mean to imply Dems are clean on this--that is definitely not the case). It's the GOP--these dudes have not-the-slightest interest in allowing you to grow an analgesic, stomach-settling, anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant, cancer-fighting, super-plant in your backyard.

Use your brains guys--I beg you. Follow the money. This is actually something I know a little bit about as I have done/will continue to do work for the pharma industry.

If you hate the appointees that much--just remember which party the belong to and who found and installed them in the first place. They will do it again. I'm not saying you should love Obama, but if you're going to hate him you should at least concede that he's the lesser of two evils on this particular issue. He may not be the champion you wanted, but right now he is definitely best-case scenario.

As for Kerlikowske's role-- the position he holds is actually a very important one and it goes much deeper than simply domestic issues. This is a foreign policy issues and smuggling issue. Those are the things he is particularly focused on as it goes to interdiction. Think what you will--but smuggling activities need to be stopped. The groups behind this are ruthless murderers.

Most of his job is concerned with, conversely, demand reduction. This actually represents a sustainable and sensible policy--it just happens to be grossly underfunded.

That he doesn't support legalization is definitely true--but as it goes to policy issues, he doesn't really matter all that much. He is supposed to coordinate--but that's more about operational integrity, and keeping the executive branch informed. He doesn't have a helluva lot of power. The drug czar as a position has changed considerably since the days of Nixon (when he was very important).

You can make the argument that if Obama is a MMJ champion he should be looking to remove this guy--but isn't it also true that this dude might be the best guy for the job? I believe that the Obama administration actually made this point when appointing him--that he is uniquely qualified and that removing him might upset some important balances that his office has helped to attain.

 

[marski420]

Sorry Squiggly brother but trying to defend corrupt politics is not the answer. Im not sure you realize that if they can make illegal wars happen in the blink of an eye without public support they can do anything. Weather you like it or not politics is a joke and when you stand for this corrupt shit nothing changes until you realize its an illusion keeping us from being truly free. Theres always promise of good changes but when will they come? When will you realize they arent coming and its time to change the way you see the world? Truth is not many people want real freedom, they beg for social intervention because its all they know. On the TV show 'Sons of Anarchy' the main character finds these words written on a wall "Anarchism... stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals" That is the way life should be lived IMO but I know theres going to be people who strongly disagree, and if you do disagree I most likely know why. You truly believe you need protecting from "terrorists" and all the bad men the government have set up as boogeymen. You believe it will be straight mayhem on the streets and nobody will respect each other, killing / stealing ect You believe that giving up your power/freedom to the government under the guise of 'protection' is the answer.Really there only needs to be one change for a better life to happen and thats to change our reward system from what it is now. Our reward system has been hijacked to believe being a greedy rich cunt is the only way to get through life in one piece, that collecting as many material things as possible is your goal. The thing that matters most to me in this life is the truth(Politics and Religion offers a lot of that,huh?) without the truth you are nothing but an empty shell. One love my brothers!

 

[Illmind]

U know its irratating that people misinterpret things and then blame their actions on that. Lets be hobest obama said 'he would like to prioritize the raids so med patients werent gonna get busted' he didnt say im tonna tell the feds to ignore all pot laws. So after obama administration thousands of new growers start popping up its insane and its not just med states now theres a grow busted 8 times a month plus here. Up from like 8 a year. That to me says its a growing trend and if i c it they see it. U cant just let it sprawl out of control. Blatanly growint shit in open is just disrespectful and if they let ppl get away with that then people gonna wanna take a mile. Who u gonna vote for a man that paid 76 million on his campaign for president so he can make 200k a year. Ya im sure u can trust him, he also refuses to review his tax return to public and probably paid santorum to drop out. This who u want? Or wait u want some jackass that wants to legalize pot and has 10,000 other stupid radical ideas that doesnt stand a chance. I want someone to give me one good reason why obama is sucha bad pres? Healthcare or penalty is only thing that urks me. That will never pass tho. Obama is about as honest and has about as good intentions as your gonna get. Hes black so u know he gonna try hard as to not bring shame to him or his race. Good speaker, well educated honest, and if u actually listen he has good ideas. He can push some stuff through but with a splot house if not 65% republicans everytime obama trys to make a change they vote it out.. Congress is childish as it gets when it comes to democrat republican. Obama wants to bridge the gap and move forward the reps just want control back.. Where do u go?

 

[Illmind]

78million well spent tho they got the general public believing everything is obamas fault. Funny whenthey got osama they claimed that as a reelect campaign but i said nobody will even remember theyll be hating on him for some misguided quote they red from a republican ad lol. What did geoege bush jr do so well he got 8 years? Lol worst pres ever almost

 

[Mississip Hip]

You imply it in the bold statement above--suggesting that he made some sort of promise he couldn't keep is essentially the crux of the argument you made there.

I'm asking you to produce that promise in quotable form from the president's mouth.

When people ask someone running for president "what they would do" in a given situation--it does not always translate into the person saying "I will do this". This is understood in politcs--especially when the person answering the question does not have the power to do said thing (which is the case here).

His opinion is that we have better things to be doing--but that doesn't mean he can just unilaterally change the way the entire government handles these things. Presidents do not have that power for good reason--and I'm quite glad it is that way.

The point is that if a president had that power--democrats would be more lenient on drug policy, and republicans would be more strict. But they don't--so it's a futile and pointless argument.

Again--this is a case of you not understanding the job description. If a person runs for president on the idea that "I will change this law" it's always understood to mean that he will do his best--because it is also understood (again, by 4th graders) that he doesn't get to make every decision, that in fact laws go through their own version of "due-process" before (and after) becoming law.

The only promises which are historically held-to (or held responsible for failing to) are ones which discuss bills that a president would veto or sign. If he said "I would sign a bill" or "I will veto a bill" and then doesn't--that's when he's broken a promise. Bush Sr. "Read my lips no new taxes" and then he signed new taxes into law--that is a broken presidential promise.

I'll say two things I know for sure.

1. The president never said I promise anything as it goes to this issue.
2. The president never had the power to do much about this sans congress--both he and any interviewers asking him about this understood that. Again, it is not his responsibility to explain to you personally how things work so that your opinion won't be so deluded. Unfortunately, the job for educating people about politics falls on 4th grade social studies teachers (who obviously do a terrible job) and on ourselves.

What I'm arguing isn't that the president is perfect--but rather that over the last 40 years this country has become confused about who is running the show. Congress is "king" of the united states and it always has been/will be. They are the most direct line to the people and that is why they have this power. The president is only meant to keep them, and the military, in line.

The president of a company doesn't actually go build the widgets or do the leg-work on an upcoming project. He delegates, demands a plan (asks for in the case of our president--he cannot command that one be formed), and has the final say.

It's essentially the same here, the only difference being that his subordinates are a bunch of whiny old fucks who want to play "party-lines" rather than run the country. The president cannot fire them. We have to--and there is the trick. So long as we're worried about the president these guys don't get fired. They are impotent and have all failed at their jobs. They should not be running the most powerful nation (for now) in the world. I personally don't blame the president for the failure of congress, you can if you want but I'd say it's driving a pretty hard bargain to hold one guy responsible for 500 people (over half of whom are hell bent on his utter destruction).

Ok...here ya go....from the horses mouth..

 

[Mississip Hip]

Does the president have to say "I promise" for it to count?

WTF?....

You know civics like the back of your hand....but c'mon man....you are defending a liar.

 

[sanvanalona]

This is the problem again Mississippi Hip, you are using a youtube video as your reference. This is a little ridiculous, they play him during his campaign and simply put lie 1-7 but where is the proof? Proof is a little more murky. Truth is the Obama administration has been much more open than previous admins, especially Bush: . That is a website that will explain at least the attempts of transparency which what is used as three different lies in your video. If you want to call him a liar be direct, shit google it I am sure there are some hard facts of him saying one thing and doing another, but let me ask you do you know anything about the other man running for office, Mitt Romney? This guy has no position that he will not change, from healthcare to abortion this guy plays both sides of the aisle. That is what I would call a liar, as far as Obama not being able to do all that he had hoped for as President maybe I can suggest a good book to you: "My Life", by President Bill Clinton. He talks a lot about what he wished he could change and was unable to do. That has been the overall theme of Squiggly's post: presidential powers are limited. Still need some better evidence on this one. Who are you voting for MH? What better option do we have?

 

[squiggly]

Ok...here ya go....from the horses mouth..

Did I miss the line on medical marijuana?



You don't get to just go off topic in a debate because you hit a point in the argument you couldn't overcome.

What you're doing is known as the "straw man" fallacy and it has no place in a logical debate.

• Person A has position X.
• Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
• Person B attacks position Y.
• Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
  
  It doesn't work that way--address the actual challenge I put forth and we'll get talking.
  

  Does the president have to say "I promise" for it to count?
  
  WTF?....
  
  You know civics like the back of your hand....but c'mon man....you are defending a liar.

  
  Yes, in fact, he does--if it goes to an issue which his position will be intrinsically unable to address. What you're forgetting is the way the questions which brought about some of his quotes were framed.
  
  Many things are simply asking his opinion. It is understood that the president isn't vowing to do something which a president normally cannot do unless he says so.
  
  It has been done before where a president has vowed to make something happen that really wasn't within the presidents ability to do--and either they've fallen flat or accomplished their goals. In either case though, a logical public wouldn't have held them responsible for things they were, by definition, not responsible for--unless they had promised to make the change.
  
  That's what's happening here. Everyone wants to make it his responsibility--but that rests elsewhere for the most part currently. I don't say this to "defend a liar" but rather to keep the actual culprits, movers, and shakers from being automatically protected by the scapegoating of Obama.
  
  To my mind not holding the people responsible who are actually responsible is terrible (especially when the letter of the law spells it out for you)--and holding someone responsible who is not is doubly reprehensible--both because you've scapegoated them and because you've let the real villains off the hook.

 

[Mississip Hip]

Ok man.

So as long as he doesn't say "I promise" he doesn't have to do what he says?

in your book maybe.

In my book that makes him a liar.

I see we have a difference in opinion as to the definition of liar.

Webster agrees with me....you dont have to omit "I promise" for it to be a lie.

Ask a judge....or is it different for the president?


BTW...use the quote feature. I haven't said he lied about MMJ in this thread....just that he is a liar in general.

 

[Mississip Hip]

This is the problem again Mississippi Hip, you are using a youtube video as your reference. This is a little ridiculous, they play him during his campaign and simply put lie 1-7 but where is the proof? Proof is a little more murky. Truth is the Obama administration has been much more open than previous admins, especially Bush: . That is a website that will explain at least the attempts of transparency which what is used as three different lies in your video. If you want to call him a liar be direct, shit google it I am sure there are some hard facts of him saying one thing and doing another, but let me ask you do you know anything about the other man running for office, Mitt Romney? This guy has no position that he will not change, from healthcare to abortion this guy plays both sides of the aisle. That is what I would call a liar, as far as Obama not being able to do all that he had hoped for as President maybe I can suggest a good book to you: "My Life", by President Bill Clinton. He talks a lot about what he wished he could change and was unable to do. That has been the overall theme of Squiggly's post: presidential powers are limited. Still need some better evidence on this one. Who are you voting for MH? What better option do we have?

I am not debating the monkey show on the ballot.

I said Obama is a liar.

Do you disagree?

 

[Dirty White Boy]

What yall are getting fucked up is your mixing local state and federal law. Feds have one set state another and county another. State wide you can vote yes we want mmj, then your county can vote for prohibition, but federally its a schedule 1 drug period. Yall kinda dig what I'm saying. We could almost guess the age location and race on these posters in this thread........

 

[sanvanalona]

Like I said earlier, we are all liars to one degree or another. Its the extent of the lies that matter, as well as frequency and severity. What I don't agree with however, is saying that someone is a liar and not backing it up with facts......and those are still lacking from the Iraq accusation to the youtube video.

 

[Mississip Hip]

ok then..

I'm out.

I know better than to stick my nose in this kinda shitpile.

Only gets me in trouble.


peace and hippie grease homies!!!!!!!!

 

[Mississip Hip]

Bill Maher called and asked me to post this one last thing.....lol....

I wish no ill will toward anyone here. I wish to not fight. I wont respond. Regardless of the bait.

I want to voice my opinion without having to explain. Thats my perogative.

The whole monkey show is a joke to me and I am scared for my kids. I deal with our socialist government encroaching on my private life by "joking" about it because I dont know what else to do.We are in some scary times. This little "weed thing" is nothing compared to where our economy is going...

 

[kolah]

I hear ya, Mississipp Hip.

Obama, Bush, Reagan, FDR, Lincoln...it don't matter what puppet they stick in that ugly white building in DC. (meet the new boss, same as the old boss) The writing is on the wall, man. Yes, it is quite a monkey show (and this repub vs dem "illusion-of choice" is a fucking circus act), but I see it as a well thought-out plan that is being precisely executed as we speak. They have boldly bragged about it for years and it continues as planned...full speed ahead...while the majority of people sleep. What kinda bugs me is to see people with some intelligence still being fooled and suckered into the illusion. They regurgitate what the newspapers, TV and phony books tell them and they truly believe that is Truth. Their belief systems and egos are so locked up in the farce that they will never admit they have been hoodwinked. In that sense, I have lost a bit of hope for humanity. Despite the on-going shit, I still have a zest for life and choose to live a life filled with Love. I appreciate what I have every day and I just chug along in a world I have created in my head. I have, in a way disconnected from the madness and just enjoy being just a casual observer to it all. All empires rise and fall, this will be no different. All things eventually go cyclic and all will be better. But first we have to visit hell for a brief visit.