Medical Marijuana Supporters Not Donating To Obama

[peanutbutter]

It doesn't pain you for us to see you contradicting yourself from post to post?

 

Nope .. actually have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I support those that try to keep me out of jail. I try to increase the numbers of those that feel the same way.

[Restorium2]

Maybe this will make it clearer;

 

First you say you will not support the lesser of two evils. Trying to make us believe you don't support republicans. Then I remind you about your monetary support for republicans.

 

To top that off, you admit your lack of truthfulness, and up the anti by telling us about how active a republican you are.

 

 

"One of two choices" is in error.

 

I avoid choosing evil to rule over me. Even if it is the lessor of two.

 

Libertarian .. I vote what I believe.

BS. You are giving money to the republican party. I read your posts. You are giving money to the republican party so you can continue with your money making adventure at the dispensaries. Libertarian my foot. Has Calton switched too? Flip flop?

You forgot to mention that I got elected as a republican county delegate.

[CaveatLector]

Just because someone is democratic, doesn't mean they support us.

Just because someone is republican, doesn't mean they are against us.

 

 

If you were playing blackjack and had a queen and a jack would you hit or stand? Seems as though you are saying "hit me" because, well, there's a CHANCE you could draw that 1.

 

If you want to play the odds, and assuming you're a 1 issue voter, then your best bet is to vote democrat unless you have specific info regarding the candidates' positions.

[peanutbutter]

LOL well the repubs think I'm a closet democrat.

 

They lost me when they tossed away the results of a public election process in Tampa.

 

There is one thing that is more important than medical marijuana as an issue. That would be the right of the people to control the government.

 

Any time you feel that the results of an election should be ignored, you shouldn't be in office.

 

So I looked at the democrats for a week or so. I heard that voice count.

 

Both parties are determined to rig the whole thing as best as they can.

 

So I revert to the Libertarian party.

 

My greatest hope is to make sure there is no clear majority in the electoral college. Crash the whole thing.

[CaveatLector]

 

 

My greatest hope is to make sure there is no clear majority in the electoral college. Crash the whole thing.

 

That doesn't crash anything. That assures that the US Congress will decide for us. There is a contingency plan in the 12th amendment. I don't remember the details but look it up.

[+Malamute]

There is no Libertarian candidate for President on the ballot in Michigan this year.

 

So ya going Green?

 

Most "new age"(reform) Libertarians ignored the Party and sided with the Republicans in the primaries this year and neglected gathering signatures to get the Libertarians on the ballot.

 

These "new age" Libertarians came to the Party after being disillusioned by George Bush in 2006 and nearly tore the Libertarian Party apart in 2008. They fought the standard bearers of the Libertarians and it took 6 rounds of voting to put Bob Barr as the lead of the party and to radically change the platform of the Libertarian Party. These same "new agers" have now gone back tot he Republicans and done nothing but leave the Libertarian Party in shambles and without the proper infrastructure it took them 35 years to establish. They removed some of the most important philosophies pertaining to libertarianism and installed what i would call "tea party" principles. Such as removing the Non-Aggression principle.

 

Here is an article from back then about it:

 

 

Evicting Libertarian Party Principles: The Portland Purge

 

by L.K. Samuels

by L.K. Samuels

 

Portland, we have a problem. The July 1–2, 2006, Libertarian Party National Convention in Portland, Oregon, is over, but the repercussions will be felt for years. A small, well-organized group of pragmatists and conservatives – the LP Reform Caucus – attempted to oust the original heirs of the Libertarian Party.

 

First, the usurpers attempted to abolish the LP pledge, arguing that it is simply too shocking for the general public. They failed, but barely. Next, through a parliamentary procedure, the Reform Caucus successfully gutted the LP national platform from over 60 planks to about a dozen. Little remains, not even the venerable plank opposing foreign interventionism.

 

With typical political thinking, this small discordant group dismisses anyone favorable to the platform as "anarchistic," predisposed to stopping any "Big Tent Libertarian" outreach ventures. Unable to abolish every plank in one full sweep, the reformers plan to recruit new LP members from the ranks of other political parties, specifically from the religious-right "Constitution Party." With these people as card-carrying LP members, they hope to finish off the remaining platform and pledge at the 2008 convention.

 

So what do these reformers want? They desperately want to win elections. They believe that by watering down or abolishing the LP platform, the voting public will empower the Libertarian Party with greater vote totals. Whether this strategy would ever succeed is questionable. The Green Party has made their platform far more acceptable to the general public with little electoral success. Their 2004 Presidential candidate David Cobb received only 118,000 votes compared with Michael Badnarik’s 400,000.

 

So what are some of the principles that they believe must go? First and foremost is the non-aggression principle, which is considered the main threat to an election-oriented populism. If Libertarians would simply throw away this ideal, explaining LP policies on taxation, the drug war, foreign policy and military intervention would no longer be a campaign embarrassment. The LP would be free to advocate all sorts of government programs and interventions since taxation would no longer be considered a violation of human rights. Voters would no longer fear that someone out there actually believes an individual’s property does not belong to the state.

 

The reformers even want to dumb down the drug issue. One member of the Reform Caucus suggested that if they could not get rid of the drug war plank, which survived the Portland purge, it could be watered down to "drug laws can hurt minorities and low income citizens." This would eliminate any suggestion that individuals have a right to drug use – such an honest consistency would obviously frighten voters.

 

These reformers are attempting to make the LP more palatable to the vote-getting political mainstream. And yet, the founder of the Libertarian Party, David Nolan, has repeatedly said that he and the early founders were more interested in the educational opportunities available through a campaign for office. To them, actually winning an election was secondary.

 

Should the Libertarian Party base its success solely on achieving political power? Should we seek political power as the end-all? One Reform Caucus leader echoed this sentiment by arguing that the LP must "win elections at any cost," which comes close to the Machiavellian notion that the "ends justify the means." To him libertarian principles were an impediment to greater LP election victories.

 

What will happen to the Libertarian Party if it attempts to fool voters about what Libertarians really believe? Will voters reward our deceptive campaigning with more elected candidates? Will diluting and hiding our message increase membership? Or will it open the floodgates to more conservative, religious right, and pragmatic members who have little understanding of our philosophy? And what will happen if other reformers in later years pressure the LP to dilute our message again to gain an even a greater share of the popular vote? Where does this erosion of principles end?

 

It is troubling that the Reform Caucus wants the Libertarian Party to make a grab for more political power, as if Libertarian politicians would impose Libertarianism on the public. This has traditionally been unappealing to even moderate Libertarians. Most Libertarians run for office to decrease government power, not to increase it. They take a defensive posture. They do not run to gain power; they run to defend citizens from coercive powers, oppressive taxation, and government interference in everyone’s lives. Of course, in the realm of the political elite, this is as popular as a mosquito in a nudist colony.

 

If Libertarians discard or hide their principles, they will have no maps to take them where they had set out to go. They will be ideologically naked in a political world that has little regard for individual autonomy. Like clothes, principles provide a fabric with which to cover one’s vulnerable parts. Without them, most people would be susceptible to the seductive and corrupting influence of a political system only interested in its own survival at the expense of taxpayers. Any electoral victory by a non-principled "Big Tent Libertarian" would be hollow and meaningless. He or she would simply become part of the systemic problem of overreaching government.

 

True libertarians must retain unyielding principles. They can compromise on issues and policies to make government smaller, but they must not compromise on their core beliefs in free choice, non-aggression, and self-ownership.

The Reform Caucus attempt to highjack the Libertarian Party is a sad tale of a post-911 retreat from core principles. Without strong moral guidelines, the Libertarian Party might as well as change its name to the Conservative Party or the Reform Party. If the Libertarian Party wishes to remain the "Party of Principle," it must have some.

[cristinew]

Now the Libertarian party has been hijacked just like the Republican and Democratic party //

 

 

New that wen Bob Barr was there candidate last time,, so i voted green last time.. But if Johnson were on the ballot i would support him

 

And my republican congressmen Dan Benisheck did vote in favor of MM,, so maybe i should give him my vote,

 

Obama Just might get my vote too because Mitt is so anti, everything,

 

And the Michigan House Republicans wish everyone would vote democrat there

Edited October 17, 2012 by cristinew

[GanjaWarrior]

what cannabis patient would even consider voting for a republican,, NOT ONE REPUBLICAN IN MICHIGAN HOUSE OR SENATE VOTED TO KEEP OUR LAW THE WAS IT IS

 

I think that would take the same kind of insanity that it does to vote obamma....NOT ONE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT HAS PURSUED US THIS HARSHLY>>>>EVEN USING THE IRS>>>>>NOT ONE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT SAID HE WOULD LEAVE IT TO THE STATES, THEN PURSUED US LIKE A RABID DOG!

[+Malamute]

Well, that is just not true.

 

Nixon? Reagan? Bush or Bush?

 

Do you recall the drug war at all?

 

Obama has protected cannabis patients from prosecution.

 

He is still pursuing dispensaries and other large commercial interests.

 

Is that not progress?

Edited October 17, 2012 by Malamute

[cristinew]

Not One Michigan House republicans vote no on the 4 bills Just a fact,,..

 

I guess ganja does not remember the drug war push by Nixon Reagen and Bush,,

 

Obama has cut funding for helicopters looking for cannabis cant say that for the above 3

[SFC]

Yep we didn't even see a serious ariel presence this year in Tuscola county. Over the last 15 years at very least it was the first time they didn't scour every freaking field in the county. Ganja is probably too young to remember beyond Clinton.

[Restorium2]

Yep we didn't even see a serious ariel presence this year in Tuscola county. Over the last 15 years at very least it was the first time they didn't scour every freaking field in the county. Ganja is probably too young to remember beyond Clinton.

I've been waiting to hear some reports like this because I have seen a much decreased ariel presence in my area too. In fact, none. Last year there were many news stories about the fly overs. One copper chopper even had a reporter ride along. Ironically, they only found some legal patient outdoor grows to show the news watchers. This year there hasn't been any news stories involving fly overs.

Here's the funny part;

Right at the end of the copper chopper season last year a local spokesman for the drug task force said they already were granted full funding for this year's fly overs. I call BS. I think they got cut and wanted to bluff. That's what it looks like from my angle of vision.

[Bisharoo]

Good to hear, and thanks for that Restorium2! Maybe they are running out of our money to use for such an overkill of plant eradication activities, that folks are saying we can't afford for you to keep spending millions of our money to try to trip people up in some technicality any longer. Possibly, they could find a new hobby, like catching actual criminals who do harm to others would be a good place to start. Maybe the tide is slowly turning back to sanity in some areas. We can hope for that to be true anyways.

Peace...

[SFC]

They did still do flyovers on tips. We had one event in early August where they flew over a field on a tip and wrecked somebodies fall , lol. I did see them hitting Saginaw county fairly hard over a few days in early September as well. They were still up, just not as heavily as they ever have been. Keep in mind that Saginaw county is BAYANET and Tuscola is TNU as well. BAYANET may have likely had more funding.