posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 10:44 PM
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by seachange
Sorry, but from your post, it looks like you have been dupe by propagandists.
Obama is a "constitutional scholar". Never one time... never once
has Democrat Obama ever said: "Prohibition required an amendment in the early
1900's, and today we still have that requirement, therefore I order the DEA to comply with the constitution and only prohibit substances specified by
the constitution. Any agent prohibiting any other substance will be fired immediately." That is something that I could imagine Republican Ron Paul
saying if he becomes president.
In 2009 the Democrats controlled the house. In 2009 the Democrats controlled the senate. In 2009 the Democrats controlled the executive office.
In 2009 HR2943 was a bill for decriminalisation. There were 11 co-sponsors. 2 of them were Republicans. One of them was Ron Paul. HR2943 failed
despite all of the control they had. Name someone Obama has pardoned in the drug war. Republican Ron Paul has said clearly he plans pardon people
found guilty of a variety of things related to the drug war. If you show one thing Obama has done to end the drug war then I'll change my position
that he is for it. Actions speak much louder than words. For example, Obama's words said that he would bring home the troops within 16 months of his
obtaining of the office, but his actions showed he loved war every bit as much as McCain would have.
It is the republican representatives who allowed lobbyists to rewrite the laws in regulations, were they ignored corporate abuse, while
cracking down on small businesses. The numbers of lobbyists grew immensely once republicans took over congress.
One crime syndicate pointing
to an even worse one doesn't make it any less dishonest or criminal. Not that I think the Republicans are any worse of a crime syndicate, rather its
just your bias for one side giving you rose-colored glasses.
As, so now the U.S. military needs and act of congress before taking out a known enemy during a time of war. That he is hiding out in another
country shouldn't make any difference. If our enemy crosses borders, we must get congress to approve continuing to go after that enemy? Do you think
we would have ever won WW II with that type of thinking?
I'm not sure what a "time of war" is exactly. Congress shouldn't declare a time of war. Instead they should declare who they're
going to fight a war with. They should declare a war on an enemy and then can shoot to kill IF NECESSARY. I never said that a declaration of war must
be limited by borders, so that is a bad assumption on your part. As for WW II, I could not have either won or lost WWII because I was not alive
during those years. During WW II I'd have a very intelligent strategy... stay the hell out of it because the USA government should not be rewarded for
purposely provoking a war with Japan.
edit on 2-10-2011 by seachange because: (no reason given)