• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

United States Election: Nov 6, 2012 |OT| - Barack Obama Re-elected

Status
Not open for further replies.

DietRob

i've been begging for over 5 years.

nNSm5.gif
 
SMH at the person who voted no for legalizing marijuana. The drug war is a waste of money and police resources, it is racist in the way that it affects minorities more than whites, it supports the corporate jail industry, it is not a dangerous drug and people should be free to do whatever they want.

The whole prohibition against marijuana is simply a political and racist tactic used by the majorities trying to oppress the minorities who used it (blacks, minorities, liberals who opposed the vietnam war, etc.)
 

JeTmAn81

Member
Ignoring the medical benefits, which you can easily google.
- Banning it promotes the illegal drug trade, Which kills people.
- Alcohol, Oxycotin, and other way, way, way, more dangerous chemicals are legal.
- And oh yeah, cigarettes cause cancer.

Its not just about recreation.

I voted no on alcohol in Washington State. I still haven't heard an argument for why legal, easy access to recreational alcohol would be good for the people of this state


Why can't Evilore get Obama to post a thread in the OT :\

I wouldn't approve alcohol if it was on the ballot, either. But that genie is out of the 40oz bottle.

Also, less crime is not an argument for making it entirely legal. Make pot offenses misdemeanors, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 

YoungHav

Banned
I voted no on marijuana in Washington State. I still haven't heard an argument for why legal, easy access to recreational pot would be good for the people of this state.
Your racist ass just supported the continuing unconstitutional incarceration of young black and latino males. If you ever get drunk in life you're a hypocrit as well.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
I'm aware of that, but he is associated with them. I know, but the New York Times has an obvious bias so trusting there affiliates would be like you trusting Foxnews.

You're still conflating the normative--what the New York Times wants to happen because there bias liberals DIMoCRUDS who are communistic--with the descriptive--what polls suggest will happen.

For example, imagine it's a week before the 2008 election. The candidates are Barack Obama, atheist muslim America-hating paller-around-with-terrorists... and Sarah Palin, a real American mom (and ... some dude, maybe her grandfather, who was running as her VP). Look, it's obvious Palin was the right choice to vote for. Only the worst Latte-drinking Volvo-driving tattoo-having liberal MOR O N S would disagree. But she didn't win. Now, she didn't win because Obama stole the election with Tony Rezko and the Chicago Crew, and he wasn't eligible to be president anyway because he's not a natural born citizen. But he won. That doesn't mean it was the right decision for America. That doesn't mean Barack Obama was a better choice than Sarah Palin. But it does mean that more people voted for him. And this wasn't a magical surprise after election night. It was actually something we could have expected, based on the fact that the polls suggested it was going to happen. Again, I don't support Hussein "Barry" Soetero-Obumber more than you do. But we knew he was going to win.

Flash forward four years and we have America's Comeback team, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. These are two CHRISTIAN men who are the best choice for America after four years of failed leadership and broken promises. No one disputes that. But four years later, we still have polling. Now, what does that polling say?

It's possible that the polling is wrong or that people are interpreting it wrong, but the polling is there. So when a media outlet says "This is what the polling says", that's different than saying "This is who we want to win".

Do you understand now?
 
I voted no on marijuana in Washington State. I still haven't heard an argument for why legal, easy access to recreational pot would be good for the people of this state.

No dog in this fight but there's literally no solid argument for criminalization. Expensive (enforcement, legal system, prisons), lost potential tax revenues, if legal it could be better regulated, and it's going to exist anyway.
 

Sixfortyfive

He who pursues two rabbits gets two rabbits.
By the same token, can you make an argument for why legal, easy access to alcohol would be good for the people of your state? False equivalency, blah blah, but why would recreational marijuana access be bad for the state?
I can't stand the smell. I'd probably vote against it for that reason alone.
 

Klocker

Member
CNN exit poll


Voters who attend church weekly:
Romney 62%
Obama 37%


Voters who never attend church
Obama 62%
Romney 34%
 
Anyone know how you make that Gaf livethread extension update the thread more often? It's at 60 seconds now which is obviously too slow for this thread.

Go to C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\Extensions\blbfgndoggabppkoehpipfadjelcofmp\1.0.6_0

and edit live.js

change the line (line 4):

Code:
    "delay": 59*1000, // 1 minute
 
I voted no on marijuana in Washington State. I still haven't heard an argument for why legal, easy access to recreational pot would be good for the people of this state.

If American states start lifting the prohibition then there will be less income going to Mexican cartels, meaning fewer people will be getting killed over such a harmless drug, that's a hell of a lot of moral obligation in itself.
If you need something closer to home and if you think pot is bad, you need to understand that good people who want it still get a hold of it and can be hit with criminal charges - legalization takes a ton of burden off of your justice system.
 
SMH at the person who voted no for legalizing marijuana. The drug war is a waste of money and police resources, it is racist in the way that it affects minorities more than whites, it supports the corporate jail industry, it is not a dangerous drug and people should be free to do whatever they want.

The whole prohibition against marijuana is simply a political and racist tactic used by the majorities trying to oppress the minorities who used it (blacks, minorities, liberals who opposed the vietnam war, etc.)

The drug war isn't just about marijuana...

I'm not against marijuana, feel free to do it on your own time. However if you're a nurse, doctor, bus driver, etc, and you come to work high on marijuana, you deserve the book thrown at you.

That being said, the drug war is also focused on cocaine, heroine, PCP, meth, etc which are obviously far more dangerous than marijuana and deserve to be cracked down upon.
 

DietRob

i've been begging for over 5 years.
Honestly I'm a little surprised that this thread is only at 4640 posts.

I figured there would be an OT 2 before we even knew a winner.
 

JeTmAn81

Member
Your racist ass just supported the continuing unconstitutional incarceration of young black and latino males. If you ever get drunk in life you're a hypocrit as well.

I never said that I supported criminal penalties for marijuana as they currently stand. I don't agree with the impact those have on society. But again, that's not a reason to make it totally free and legal. Ridiculous straw man there, though.
 

Kusagari

Member
The drug war isn't just about marijuana...

I'm not against marijuana, feel free to do it on your own time. However if you're a nurse, doctor, bus driver, etc, and you come to work high on marijuana, you deserve the book thrown at you.

That being said, the drug war is also focused on cocaine, heroine, PCP, meth, etc which are obviously far more dangerous than marijuana and deserve to be cracked down upon.

And? Why would you even bring this up? If someone comes to work drunk I'd hope everyone thinks the same.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
I'm not using one editorial endorsement to say that the NYT has a biased and favorable opinion of President Obama. Everyone and their mother knows that the NYT is biased and skewed to the left. It's the name of the game.

Of course I expected them to endorse Obama, but don't expect me, or the average person to take 538 or Nate Silver seriously when they're associated with an organization that has been in the Democratic parties pocket for decades.

538 was right on the Obama v. McCain campaign, but that was easy to call.

Early contender for silliest post of the night.
 

kaskade

Member
Regardless of his success, or what he's done behind the scenes, there's something oddly sincere/genuine about the guy to me. Cool post.

Exactly. Looking at Obama/Biden I at least feel like they truly care. My best example would be Biden vs. Ryan's closing speech. I really felt like Biden cared about what was happen. It felt like Ryan couldn't give two shits and was just spouting off random facts. Fuck him.

Example
 

Shambles

Member
No dog in this fight but there's literally no solid argument for criminalization. Expensive (enforcement, legal system, prisons), lost potential tax revenues, if legal it could be better regulated, and it's going to exist anyway.

So what I hear is that it's not the fact that it's illegal that's the problem it's the insane drug war attached to it. Still not very compelling reason to legalize it. I think it's a reasonable middle ground up here where it's not legal but you won't go to jail for using it. I don't know if the technical term would be misdemeanor but something along those lines.
 

JeTmAn81

Member
Furthermore folks, I'm not going to continue posting various arguments about the pot thing, but you have seen at least one person post a non-GAF approved position, so that spices things up just a bit, right? Let's continue on with our election day observations.
 

DietRob

i've been begging for over 5 years.
Is there something streaming live on you tube or somewhere to follow the election news until Stewart and Colbert own the night tonight?

Give me some links peoples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom