Clinton Just Says No to Marijuana (and to California and Arizona)

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Certainly. The man is unfit to "preside". Maybe we should work to have him impeached. on what grounds? just because YOU think he is unfit? _ ____

Response:

Fuck Bill Clinton! — -.-. .-.. .. -. – — -. … ..- -.-. -.- … -… .. –. - .. — . _ ____ -.-. .-.. .. -. – — -. … ..- -.-. -.- … -… .. –. - .. — .

Response:

Bob, A book has been written supporting your thesis. For a full comparison read "Drug Warriors and Their Prey: From Police Power to Police State" by Richard Lawrence Miller , Praeger ISBN 0-275-95042-5 This is a thoroughly researched historical parallel between Nazi law and modern drug law, between the searching out of Jews and the searching out of drug users, between the denial of employment to Jews and the denial of employment to drug users, between the confiscation of Jewish property and the confiscation of drug users’ property, between the incarceration of 1% of the German population, and the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of drug users and distributors. Miller points to the use of the Jews in the development of the Nazi state. "Jews," as a category of people, served as a focus for fears that were used to justify the expansion of state powers. He points out that a critical step in finding a solution to "the Jewish question," or "the Jewish problem," was the creation of a consensus among Germans that there WAS a Jewish problem. "Jews" were said to cause crime, spread disease by sexual promiscuity, and undermine economic productivity. It was said that "Jews" were terrorists and created emergencies that warranted powerful new laws. Bureaucratic rivals within the German state competed for power, prestige, and resources by developing newer or more dramatic anti-Jewish measures than their opponents. Political rivals within the Nazi establishment competed for attention in making new claims that the "Jews" were a threat, that they were creating a crisis in German society that demanded a solution. Similarly, the contemporary need to find a solution to the drug "problem" has been carefully constructed, with the assistance of the news media, the educational establishment, business groups, and special interests. There is, however, no moral or constitutional justification for present policies that attempt to define an entire "troublesome" class of people (drug users), persecute them, and banish them from society. Most of the above text was written by Eric Sterling and E.J. Pagel. Simon – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Bill Clinton, who continues to do an impression of an alterating current generator, switched back to conservative mode today, by signaling his intent to fight legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Let me first say that I am not a Clinton supporter and generally agree that he is a major waffler. That notwithstanding, it’s really only a press support myth that Clinton supports drugs. Clinton has a long track record of taking a hard line on drugs, even pot. He has lead an administration that has: 1. Very active Fed Law Enforcement – FBI / BATF. - War on drugs - Campaign on militias - Campaign against "White Supremacy" groups - Major efforts on international terrorism - War on local Terrorism - V-Chip - Encryption Export Regs 2. Stepped up the War on Drugs at home with: - Support for two tier cocaine sentencing standard (Also supported by courts) - Support for mandatory sentencing guidelines for drug dealers (Also supported by courts) - Empowerment of BATF and FBI in drug cases, such as impounding property without due process. (Somewhat supported, may have to release a bunch of dealers) 3. Local Police have enjoyed more power during Clinton’s Admin - Added thousands of Cops - Support for Road Blocks to catch Drunk Drivers (Also supported by courts) - Gun Control every place possible - Brady Bill - Spousal Abuse Clause - National Manhunt on Militias (Replaced Cults of the 80’s) - Supported relaxed Search, Maranda, Warrant Processes 4. Empowered Border Patrol and Military to take more aggressive actions against illegal aliens and drugs over the borders. I am not sure what Clinton’s stand on Drugs is, but there is a test you can apply determine how Clinton will decide any given issue: Just ask, Will it give the Government more power or reduce the rights of citizens? If the answer is yes to either, then Clinton will support it. Watch out for the "popularity factor". This quantum aspect is what fools many Clinton followers. While the General Clinton Relativity Test will provide a general answer, if it is wildly unpopular after his spin machine has had a decent chance to sell it then he’ll reverse, no matter how many supporters it leaves in the cold. Drugs are a great tool for Clinton, it’s popular to bust "bad guys", the citizens can be scared into giving up all kinds of rights, and convinced to fund wonderful government programs. We can throw all those pesky inner-city folks in jail (the ultimate welfare program) and spawn another whole chunk of Government ready to come in a "help" or at least "feel the pain" of those not in jail. Drugs are the best thing for Government since Communists, now that the commies are no fun anymore they had to create a new "master bad guy". Commies are a hard act to follow, drugs were not enough to replace the fear of commies, the Governments old standby for seizing or exercising unreasonable power, so they had to throw in the militias, hate groups, local gangs and international terrorists, oh my, I almost forgot, there is the dreaded drunk driver, public enemy number 2. Anyway, the only people who have ever said Clinton would be easy on drugs are the press (sells papers) and us Republicans (we don’t like him…), Clintons track record has shown that he has been real hard on drugs. BobJ.

In the end people get the government they deserve. Read "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A.E. vanVogt Simon

Response:

I think the argument in the case of 209 is an equal-protection-of-the-law thing. Kind of like the Colorado constitutional amendment that prohibited homosexual citizens from using legislative channels. The constitutional argument against of 209 is that it singles out gender- and ethnicity-based factions from using the tools of legislation. By using the initiative route, California’s electoral majority has tilted the *political* playing field.

This is how it reads: Text of Proposition 209 a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. Looks like an anti-discrimination law to me. No wonder the voters passed it. Max Kennedy

Response:

…snip… The above is the some total of your contribution in substance. You are so impressive, your points so witty and accurate. Yes, JB you have once again demonstrated your intelligence, why you are so special that I bet you get to take the short bus to school. BobJ.

I wasn’t trying to be funny or witty, and it’s not once again. This is a first for me. I was just pointing out that your arguments trying to defend Clinton’s drug policy are fallacious. Why so defensive Bob? JB

Response:

Nah, he’s still holding the same stupid position he has right along. Did you know that marijuana is Schedule One, but Methamphetimines is schedule 2? That’s right, folks–the feds think weed is more dangerous than meth! Meth is a seriously evil drug that fucks people up massively. It amazes me that anyone could argue against marijuana being legal, much less argue against it being legal for medicinal purposes. Marijuana is not physically addictive, and it does much less to impair a person than other prescription drugs.

We’re not even talking legalization here, but simple decriminalization for medical purposes. But you may have noticed that the Feds haven’t tried to file suit against California or Arizona. The reason for this is simple: if they challenge the consitutionality of the laws that just passed, they will lose. Decriminalizing marijuana for medical purposes violates nobody’s civil rights. Guess people will just stick with drinking booze, killing people while under the influence, beating their wives while drunk, stabbing people in barfights, etc… instead. Alcohol – the "good" drug.

"The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honor you can bestow on him. It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself." – Joseph Sobran, Universal Press Syndicate Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina

Response:

Bob in what area of the Clinton Whitehouse do you work? …Propaganda snipped for brevity…. what about Al Gore’s son being busted for selling pot? What about Roger Clinton? …snip…snip….snip… you just spent a lot of time telling us what his stand is. Obviously, You are not subjected to random drug and alcohol testing like flights attendants are. Flight attendants for Christ’s sake! Bullshit J.B.

The above is the some total of your contribution in substance. You are so impressive, your points so witty and accurate. Yes, JB you have once again demonstrated your intelligence, why you are so special that I bet you get to take the short bus to school. BobJ.

Response:

Certainly. The man is unfit to "preside". Maybe we should work to have him impeached. — -.-. .-.. .. -. – — -. … ..- -.-. -.- … -… .. –. - .. — . _ ____ -.-. .-.. .. -. – — -. … ..- -.-. -.- … -… .. –. - .. — .

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s not difficult: the lawfully-enacted decisions of The People shall only be respected when they happen to coincide with the will of Bill Clinton. Both of these issues will, of course, head to the Supremes. I’m personally looking forward to the Administration trying to explain how, exactly, Prop 209 is unconstitutional. The Prop 215 case will make a fascinating study of how the Supremes view states’ rights. I’m not so sure, Paul. Several of the current Supreme Court justices don’t much seem to care anymore about justifying their decisions with coherent reasoning or in basing them in traditional notions of constitutional law. Look what the majority did in Romer v. Evans. Some of the justices seem just to be looking for excuses to uphold the laws they like, and to strike down the ones they don’t, regardless of the Constitution… I predict that the Court will strike down Prop. 209 and uphold California and Arizona’s legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes- not because there’s any constitutional reason to do either, but merely because that’s where the majority of the justices’ political sympathies lie.

That begs the question: Where does the government derive the authority to outlaw marijuana? I mean, how is it that pot is illegal and alcohol is legal? If they are basing the prohibition of pot on medical dangers, surely Alcohol poses at least as significant a danger to the nation’s health. I would argue that alcohol is much worse. We can see the damage that it does. I hope the marijuana issue makes it to the supreme court. At least then there could be some high level discussion of the issue, rather than uneducated pinheads like Gerald Soloman deciding drug policy. Read his comments on drug legalization from last january, they are pretty laughable. He it a true dumbshit. John

Tom Steegmann www.netheaven.com/~steegman Don’t bother sending me junk mail. That goes for spammers, MLM’s, gun nutz, and all of you in the Blak Helikopter Krowd If you need to get in touch with me in a hurry, contact Blak Helikopter # UN1096459823E1209695883861094, and ask for unit 489TS1092469. I’ll be manning the mind kontrol machine. Go Bills!

Response:

NOT, mind you, that I disagree with your viewpoint, but could you be a bit more articulate? — -.-. .-.. .. -. – — -. … ..- -.-. -.- … -… .. –. - .. — . _ ____ -.-. .-.. .. -. – — -. … ..- -.-. -.- … -… .. –. - .. — .

Response:

It’s not difficult: the lawfully-enacted decisions of The People shall only be respected when they happen to coincide with the will of Bill Clinton. Both of these issues will, of course, head to the Supremes. I’m personally looking forward to the Administration trying to explain how, exactly, Prop 209 is unconstitutional. The Prop 215 case will make a fascinating study of how the Supremes view states’ rights.

I’m not so sure, Paul. Several of the current Supreme Court justices don’t much seem to care anymore about justifying their decisions with coherent reasoning or in basing them in traditional notions of constitutional law. Look what the majority did in Romer v. Evans. Some of the justices seem just to be looking for excuses to uphold the laws they like, and to strike down the ones they don’t, regardless of the Constitution… I predict that the Court will strike down Prop. 209 and uphold California and Arizona’s legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes- not because there’s any constitutional reason to do either, but merely because that’s where the majority of the justices’ political sympathies lie. John

Response:

Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Clinton, who continues to do an impression of an alterating current generator, switched back to conservative mode today, by signaling his intent to fight legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Let me first say that I am not a Clinton supporter and generally agree that he is a major waffler. That notwithstanding, it’s really only a press support myth that Clinton supports drugs. Clinton has a long track record of taking a hard line on drugs, even pot. He has lead an administration that has: 1. Very active Fed Law Enforcement – FBI / BATF. – War on drugs – Campaign on militias – Campaign against "White Supremacy" groups – Major efforts on international terrorism – War on local Terrorism – V-Chip – Encryption Export Regs 2. Stepped up the War on Drugs at home with: – Support for two tier cocaine sentencing standard (Also supported by courts) – Support for mandatory sentencing guidelines for drug dealers (Also supported by courts) – Empowerment of BATF and FBI in drug cases, such as impounding property without due process. (Somewhat supported, may have to release a bunch of dealers) 3. Local Police have enjoyed more power during Clinton’s Admin – Added thousands of Cops – Support for Road Blocks to catch Drunk Drivers (Also supported by courts) – Gun Control every place possible – Brady Bill – Spousal Abuse Clause – National Manhunt on Militias (Replaced Cults of the 80’s) – Supported relaxed Search, Maranda, Warrant Processes 4. Empowered Border Patrol and Military to take more aggressive actions against illegal aliens and drugs over the borders. I am not sure what Clinton’s stand on Drugs is, but there is a test you can apply determine how Clinton will decide any given issue: Just ask, Will it give the Government more power or reduce the rights of citizens? If the answer is yes to either, then Clinton will support it. Watch out for the "popularity factor". This quantum aspect is what fools many Clinton followers. While the General Clinton Relativity Test will provide a general answer, if it is wildly unpopular after his spin machine has had a decent chance to sell it then he’ll reverse, no matter how many supporters it leaves in the cold. Drugs are a great tool for Clinton, it’s popular to bust "bad guys", the citizens can be scared into giving up all kinds of rights, and convinced to fund wonderful government programs. We can throw all those pesky inner-city folks in jail (the ultimate welfare program) and spawn another whole chunk of Government ready to come in a "help" or at least "feel the pain" of those not in jail. Drugs are the best thing for Government since Communists, now that the commies are no fun anymore they had to create a new "master bad guy". Commies are a hard act to follow, drugs were not enough to replace the fear of commies, the Governments old standby for seizing or exercising unreasonable power, so they had to throw in the militias, hate groups, local gangs and international terrorists, oh my, I almost forgot, there is the dreaded drunk driver, public enemy number 2. Anyway, the only people who have ever said Clinton would be easy on drugs are the press (sells papers) and us Republicans (we don’t like him…), Clintons track record has shown that he has been real hard on drugs. BobJ.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Organization HSH Associates Distribution: Organization: Countdown to ‘97 – Quayle for Prez Lines: 31 X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] : Bill Clinton, who continues to do an impression of an alterating : current generator, switched back to conservative mode today, : by signaling his intent to fight legalization of marijuana for : medicinal purposes. : : Two weeks ago, at a news conference, he promised to fight Prop 209, : soundly approved by California voters, in the courts. A few *minutes* : later, at the same news conference, he found it necessary to lecture : Serbian strongman Milosevic, saying "Elections should be : be respected and the voice of the people should be heard; and : the human, political, and civil rights of the people should be : respected…. Our sympathies are always with free people who : are struggling to express their freedom and want to have the : integrity of their elections respected." : : Only Clinton could get away with such open hypocrisy. "The integrity of : their elections respected" indeed. It’s not difficult: the lawfully-enacted decisions of The People shall only be respected when they happen to coincide with the will of Bill Clinton. Both of these issues will, of course, head to the Supremes. I’m personally looking forward to the Administration trying to explain how, exactly, Prop 209 is unconstitutional. The Prop 215 case will make a fascinating study of how the Supremes view states’ rights.

I agree, both issues will likely wind up in the Supreme Court (no question that Prop 209 will), but what is Prop 215? [I live on the right coast, not the left. :) ] "We can look forward to four more years of wonderful, inspirational speeches full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection, plus more goddamn nonsense." David Brinkley, ABC News, after Clinton clinched his re-election.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Organization Netcom Bill Clinton, who continues to do an impression of an alterating current generator, switched back to conservative mode today, by signaling his intent to fight legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Let me first say that I am not a Clinton supporter and generally agree that he is a major waffler. That notwithstanding, it’s really only a press support myth that Clinton supports drugs. Clinton has a long track record of taking a hard line on drugs, even pot. He has lead an administration that has: 1. Very active Fed Law Enforcement – FBI / BATF. – War on drugs – Campaign on militias – Campaign against "White Supremacy" groups – Major efforts on international terrorism – War on local Terrorism – V-Chip – Encryption Export Regs 2. Stepped up the War on Drugs at home with: – Support for two tier cocaine sentencing standard (Also supported by courts) – Support for mandatory sentencing guidelines for drug dealers (Also supported by courts) – Empowerment of BATF and FBI in drug cases, such as impounding property without due process. (Somewhat supported, may have to release a bunch of dealers) 3. Local Police have enjoyed more power during Clinton’s Admin – Added thousands of Cops – Support for Road Blocks to catch Drunk Drivers (Also supported by courts) – Gun Control every place possible – Brady Bill – Spousal Abuse Clause – National Manhunt on Militias (Replaced Cults of the 80’s) – Supported relaxed Search, Maranda, Warrant Processes 4. Empowered Border Patrol and Military to take more aggressive actions against illegal aliens and drugs over the borders. I am not sure what Clinton’s stand on Drugs is, but there is a test you can apply determine how Clinton will decide any given issue: Just ask, Will it give the Government more power or reduce the rights of citizens? This last phrase hit the nail on the head. Clinton and his cronies will do anything to increase the power and presence of the Federal government in the day to day lives of the citizens of this country. He trotted out Shalala, McCaffrey, and Reno to give a press conference (on C-Span) to explain the any law the states pass is subservient to FEDERAL LAW. What ever happened to the CONSTITUTION (and State’s rights)? Oh yeah, Clinton and his big government pals decided to use it as toilet paper (again).

Reno’s participation is even more ironic considering that she just used her token appearance before the Supreme Court (that all AG’s get) to argue for *increased* police powers. Some Justices were obviously *appalled* as she advocated expanding the authority of police to order *all* occupants out of a car after stopping the vehicle–not just the driver–and even the aged and infirm. Her position here is probably to the right of Pat Buchanan. The irony is that Reno has recently been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Perhaps someday, an infirm Reno, *hobbled* by Parkinsons, will be ordered out of a car by a hot shot rookie cop who probably never heard of her–and if Clinton has his way, she won’t be able use any "controlled substance" to ease her pain after being *hustled* out of the car. Shocking, just shocking. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the answer is yes to either, then Clinton will support it. Watch out for the "popularity factor". This quantum aspect is what fools many Clinton followers. While the General Clinton Relativity Test will provide a general answer, if it is wildly unpopular after his spin machine has had a decent chance to sell it then he’ll reverse, no matter how many supporters it leaves in the cold. Drugs are a great tool for Clinton, it’s popular to bust "bad guys", the citizens can be scared into giving up all kinds of rights, and convinced to fund wonderful government programs. We can throw all those pesky inner-city folks in jail (the ultimate welfare program) and spawn another whole chunk of Government ready to come in a "help" or at least "feel the pain" of those not in jail. Drugs are the best thing for Government since Communists, now that the commies are no fun anymore they had to create a new "master bad guy". Commies are a hard act to follow, drugs were not enough to replace the fear of commies, the Governments old standby for seizing or exercising unreasonable power, so they had to throw in the militias, hate groups, local gangs and international terrorists, oh my, I almost forgot, there is the dreaded drunk driver, public enemy number 2. Anyway, the only people who have ever said Clinton would be easy on drugs are the press (sells papers) and us Republicans (we don’t like him…), Clintons track record has shown that he has been real hard on drugs. BobJ.

"We can look forward to four more years of wonderful, inspirational speeches full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection, plus more goddamn nonsense." David Brinkley, ABC News, after Clinton clinched his re-election.

Response:

…snip…. Let me first say that I am not a Clinton supporter and generally agree that he is a major waffler.

Bob in what area of the Clinton Whitehouse do you work? …Propaganda snipped for brevity…. 2. Stepped up the War on Drugs at home with:

….more propaganda snippage… what about Al Gore’s son being busted for selling pot? What about Roger Clinton? …snip…snip….snip… I am not sure what Clinton’s stand on Drugs is, but there is a test you can apply determine how Clinton will decide any given issue:

you just spent a lot of time telling us what his stand is. Just ask, Will it give the Government more power or reduce the rights of citizens?

Obviously, You are not subjected to random drug and alcohol testing like flights attendants are. Flight attendants for Christ’s sake! Anyway, the only people who have ever said Clinton would be easy on drugs are the press (sells papers) and us Republicans (we don’t like him…), Clintons track record has shown that he has been real hard on drugs. BobJ.

Bullshit J.B.

Response:

: : Only Clinton could get away with such open hypocrisy. "The integrity of : their elections respected" indeed. It’s not difficult: the lawfully-enacted decisions of The People shall only be respected when they happen to coincide with the will of Bill Clinton. Both of these issues will, of course, head to the Supremes. I’m personally looking forward to the Administration trying to explain how, exactly, Prop 209 is unconstitutional. The Prop 215 case will make a fascinating study of how the Supremes view states’ rights.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Bill Clinton, who continues to do an impression of an alterating current generator, switched back to conservative mode today, by signaling his intent to fight legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Let me first say that I am not a Clinton supporter and generally agree that he is a major waffler. That notwithstanding, it’s really only a press support myth that Clinton supports drugs. Clinton has a long track record of taking a hard line on drugs, even pot. He has lead an administration that has: 1. Very active Fed Law Enforcement – FBI / BATF. – War on drugs – Campaign on militias – Campaign against "White Supremacy" groups – Major efforts on international terrorism – War on local Terrorism – V-Chip – Encryption Export Regs 2. Stepped up the War on Drugs at home with: – Support for two tier cocaine sentencing standard (Also supported by courts) – Support for mandatory sentencing guidelines for drug dealers (Also supported by courts) – Empowerment of BATF and FBI in drug cases, such as impounding property without due process. (Somewhat supported, may have to release a bunch of dealers) 3. Local Police have enjoyed more power during Clinton’s Admin – Added thousands of Cops – Support for Road Blocks to catch Drunk Drivers (Also supported by courts) – Gun Control every place possible – Brady Bill – Spousal Abuse Clause – National Manhunt on Militias (Replaced Cults of the 80’s) – Supported relaxed Search, Maranda, Warrant Processes 4. Empowered Border Patrol and Military to take more aggressive actions against illegal aliens and drugs over the borders. I am not sure what Clinton’s stand on Drugs is, but there is a test you can apply determine how Clinton will decide any given issue: Just ask, Will it give the Government more power or reduce the rights of citizens?

This last phrase hit the nail on the head. Clinton and his cronies will do anything to increase the power and presence of the Federal government in the day to day lives of the citizens of this country. He trotted out Shalala, McCaffrey, and Reno to give a press conference (on C-Span) to explain the any law the states pass is subservient to FEDERAL LAW. What ever happened to the CONSTITUTION (and State’s rights)? Oh yeah, Clinton and his big government pals decided to use it as toilet paper (again). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the answer is yes to either, then Clinton will support it. Watch out for the "popularity factor". This quantum aspect is what fools many Clinton followers. While the General Clinton Relativity Test will provide a general answer, if it is wildly unpopular after his spin machine has had a decent chance to sell it then he’ll reverse, no matter how many supporters it leaves in the cold. Drugs are a great tool for Clinton, it’s popular to bust "bad guys", the citizens can be scared into giving up all kinds of rights, and convinced to fund wonderful government programs. We can throw all those pesky inner-city folks in jail (the ultimate welfare program) and spawn another whole chunk of Government ready to come in a "help" or at least "feel the pain" of those not in jail. Drugs are the best thing for Government since Communists, now that the commies are no fun anymore they had to create a new "master bad guy". Commies are a hard act to follow, drugs were not enough to replace the fear of commies, the Governments old standby for seizing or exercising unreasonable power, so they had to throw in the militias, hate groups, local gangs and international terrorists, oh my, I almost forgot, there is the dreaded drunk driver, public enemy number 2. Anyway, the only people who have ever said Clinton would be easy on drugs are the press (sells papers) and us Republicans (we don’t like him…), Clintons track record has shown that he has been real hard on drugs. BobJ.

Response:

I read an interview once with a mobster who said they were not in favor of ending prohibition. It put them out of business. These things can make sense in other ways besides simple hypocricy. Max Kennedy

Response:

d Followup-To: <"talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism, alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correc t,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,t alk.politics.guns,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democ rats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.the ory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt. current-events.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.m e Distribution: Organization: Countdown to ‘97 – Quayle for Prez Lines: 31 X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] : Bill Clinton, who continues to do an impression of an alterating : current generator, switched back to conservative mode today, : by signaling his intent to fight legalization of marijuana for : medicinal purposes. : : Two weeks ago, at a news conference, he promised to fight Prop 209, : soundly approved by California voters, in the courts. A few *minutes* : later, at the same news conference, he found it necessary to lecture : Serbian strongman Milosevic, saying "Elections should be : be respected and the voice of the people should be heard; and : the human, political, and civil rights of the people should be : respected…. Our sympathies are always with free people who : are struggling to express their freedom and want to have the : integrity of their elections respected." : : Only Clinton could get away with such open hypocrisy. "The integrity of : their elections respected" indeed. It’s not difficult: the lawfully-enacted decisions of The People shall only be respected when they happen to coincide with the will of Bill Clinton. Both of these issues will, of course, head to the Supremes. I’m personally looking forward to the Administration trying to explain how, exactly, Prop 209 is unconstitutional. The Prop 215 case will make a fascinating study of how the Supremes view states’ rights.

Response:

The people elected this moron. The people get the government they deserve.

Response:

Bill Clinton, who continues to do an impression of an alterating current generator, switched back to conservative mode today, by signaling his intent to fight legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Two weeks ago, at a news conference, he promised to fight Prop 209, soundly approved by California voters, in the courts. A few *minutes* later, at the same news conference, he found it necessary to lecture Serbian strongman Milosevic, saying "Elections should be be respected and the voice of the people should be heard; and the human, political, and civil rights of the people should be respected…. Our sympathies are always with free people who are struggling to express their freedom and want to have the integrity of their elections respected." Only Clinton could get away with such open hypocrisy. "The integrity of their elections respected" indeed. Then last week, he joined numerous liberals and an avalanche of black leaders of various backgrounds in giving Ebonics the bum’s rush (and NO federal funding). Now he has moved to the right of Bob Dole in telling Califonia voters (again) and Arizona voters what he thinks of the "integrity of their elections." He would therefore deny people of these states, no matter how severely ill, the chance to inhale for medical reasons what he once had the opportunity to do for fun–but he declined to inhale <giggle, giggle. Oh my, this guy has more moves than Barry Sanders of the Detroit Lions. Stay tuned…. "Sure, if I could…I tried before." — Bill Clinton, in a 1992 MTV interview, responding to a teenager’s question if Clinton regretted "not inhaling". "We can look forward to four more years of wonderful, inspirational speeches full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection, plus more goddamn nonsense." David Brinkley, ABC News, after Clinton clinched his re-election.

Response:

)Bill Clinton, who continues to do an impression of an alterating )current generator, switched back to conservative mode today, )by signaling his intent to fight legalization of marijuana for )medicinal purposes. ) Is this true? What a slimeball. I thought he was promising to let up on the idiotic drug war? It amazes me that anyone could argue against marijuana being legal, much less argue against it being legal for medicinal purposes. Marijuana is not physically addictive, and it does much less to impair a person than other prescription drugs. Guess people will just stick with drinking booze, killing people while under the influence, beating their wives while drunk, stabbing people in barfights, etc… instead. Alcohol – the "good" drug.

Response:

And yet Slick Willie loves to snort cocaine for his own personal recreational needs… What a hypocrite.

Response:

Yes, it’s true. And, yes, I thought we were posting all awhile that Clinton was just as much in favor of the drug war as Bush was. Look what Clinton did to crack sentencing… Raised it sky high. Has no problem pardoning his friends for the same crimes though. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -It amazes me that anyone could argue against marijuana being legal, much less argue against it being legal for medicinal purposes. Marijuana is not physically addictive, and it does much less to impair a person than other prescription drugs. Guess people will just stick with drinking booze, killing people while under the influence, beating their wives while drunk, stabbing people in barfights, etc… instead. Alcohol – the "good" drug.

Response:

Filed under: Activism Politics

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism