"'Judgment is mine,' saith the Lord." Or so the story goes. But if I were the Lord, here's how I'd feel. I could consider forgiving Franklin D. Roosevelt for allowing his Treasury department to kill the hemp industry in America, 'cuz, hell, a guys gotta watch out for his friends in the fabric and banking industries. (for more on this: http://www.hemphasis.net/Politics/politics.htm)
I could consider forgiving Harry Truman, D. D. Eisenhower, JFK, and even LBJ, for not reversing that course, and for, in fact respectively increasing the strictures on cannabis and penalties for possession thereof. It'd be hard, but I'd consider it.
Now it gets really hard to start considering forgiveness. Nixon? Ford? Carter (well, that's not so hard)? Reagan? Bush? Clinton? Bush 2? In succession, each of these folks except Carter oversaw a progression of injustice in legislation, arrests, and prosecution of people for trying to feel better. If these people begged forgiveness I might forgive them after making 'em spend a few light years in purgatory. They, at least, said they were going to punish people for trying to feel better.
Here's where I might draw the line. Barack Obama is a man who knows cannabis. He should know what devastation its prohibition is causing. He promised to stop prosecuting people for trying to feel better in states where it's legal to try to feel better. His Atty Genl reiterated the promise. They, in fact, increased arrests for simple possession, and unleashed an unprecedented plague of federal prosecutions in states where attempting to feel better is legal. Burning in hell for eternity seems like light punishment to me.
The question is not how I can refuse to vote for him because of that. The question is, "How could you vote for him in spite of that?"
5 comments:
I will vote to reelect the President because Ron Paul will not be the earth hater's nominee and hope that Gary Johnson can mount an effective Libertarian effort because he will take more votes from the Republicans than he will from us.
It's just that simple, Bob.
Cool.
I keep trying to imagine what it would look like if Ron Paul became president. The only thing that comes up for me is that I think he just might veto everything for 4 years, or at least until Congress starts to get the picture of who is finally in charge around there.
I wish Obama would do some of that. If he did, Bob might not be so pissed at him.
Bill: First, it's unlikely you'll have to do more than speculate.
2nd: There's supposed to be a sort of three-legged stool, the checks and balances; executive, legislative and judicial.
A lot of us tried to imagine what it would look like if Barack Obama became president. A lot of us are not fulfilled.
My take is this is a guy out of his local dart league. I say this with full realization that the president of the united States is, in street-level parlance, merely the bitch of the banksters, no matter what baseball team he once owned.
For all practical purposes, between elections, and subject to impeachment, the President is in charge, Bob. As in any game, there is a way to play it right up to the edge of the rules. In most cases, Obama has eschewed this legal territory for his first years in office.
I'm guessing both you and I are disappointed about that, if perhaps for different reasons.
I would like to have seen the veto pen wielded far more generously from the git-go to get those congressional bitches whipped into shape. (has he even vetoed one bill yet?)
As we say in marketing, 'you only get to be new once.'
Post a Comment