By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Do You think Obama's going to Be Impeached?

badgenome on 22 June 2012
spaceguy said:

 I think you legalize all of it and regulate the harder drugs a lot harder. This takes a lot of the power out of the kingpins hands. Yes there is always going to be someone but you take 90-95% of there money.

Not if you tax and regulate it too much, you won't. The black market is already too well established.



Around the Network
spaceguy on 22 June 2012
Kasz216 said:
spaceguy said:
Kasz216 said:
spaceguy said:
Kasz216 said:
spaceguy said:
 


I agree with you on Obama, however mitt is worse. I would vote Rocky Anderson but that would be like voting for romney. However yes Obama I see as a Moderate Republican. The point of this being a story is a joke to me.  Bush and Obama had about as much in this as anyone else it humors me.


I actually think Mitt Romeny is less republican.  At least in the ways Obama is a republican... which just happen to be the ways Republicans annoy me.

That is violation of civil rights and violation of other countries soverign rights.

Also, if Obama didn't know the US government was going to be distributing guns to be spread throught mexico, i'd think that is a BIG problem.

The president has to know when guns are being sold to criminals and the enemies of an allied nation.  If it was just a simple sting operation like Bush, and the interceptions just failed that's one thing. (that should immediatly be reported to the president.)

This however... was everything going to plan.  The only reason it ever came to light is because it killed a border patrol guard and it became political.

If Obama and Holder didn't know (which is hard to tell with Obama blocking the release of those documents now) then the leaders responsible for this should be arrested and put on trail.

tell you what, end the war on weed and the whole problem goes away. The war is mess. C'mon weed. I can't smoke but really, wish I could but I got a good job and that is way more important. Has made me drink a lot more.


I don't disagree on ended the war on Marijuna.  I don't think that'd solve the problem because of the other hard drugs but I do think it should be legal.

Legalizing it though I don't think would change most companies drug policy laws.

The main problem with it is that unlike beer, you can't really test to see if someone is high on weed at that moment.

So you'd have no idea if somebody was high on the job or not outside of just a vague judgement call.


Now if you leagalized all the hard drugs, that MIGHT do it... but people would have to be ok with the fact that a hit of cocaine isn't going to cost significantly more then a candy bar.

you actually can test weed with mouth swabs. It test up to like 5 hours or so.  I think you legalize all of it and regulate the harder drugs a lot harder.


Didn't know that... cool.  Maybe it would change company policies then.  Obama's regression on his Pot stance is one of my bigger issues with him.

Though I think it's kind of a stupid thing to do, the government shouldn't be regulating things people do for fun because it's "kind of stupid".  I mean, so's drinking, eating meat and dozens of other things.

I agree in a sense but I think that hard drugs should be done in a special building or room. If you look at the medicine market,it's a mess as well.   I would rather them get it for free and not take it anywhere but the medical building that is supplying it. I think it would limit others wanting to try it or accidents of people coming across it.



spaceguy on 22 June 2012
badgenome said:
spaceguy said:

 I think you legalize all of it and regulate the harder drugs a lot harder. This takes a lot of the power out of the kingpins hands. Yes there is always going to be someone but you take 90-95% of there money.

Not if you tax and regulate it too much, you won't. The black market is already too well established.


Read above post, thats what i mean by regulate. Keep it to specific area and make hard drugs free but only enough to get them by. However stuff like weed, just sell like cigarettes. Maybe take a chunk out of that as well, maybe.



badgenome on 22 June 2012
spaceguy said:

Read below post, thats what i mean by regulate. Keep it to specific area and make hard drugs free but only enough to get them by. However stuff like weed, just sell like cigarettes. Maybe take a chunk out of that as well, maybe.

Well, that certainly wouldn't work since only a total worthless junkie is going to want to do coke in a government room somewhere. The black market would still be huge, and now white market drugs would just be diverted to the black market just like they already are in the case of prescription drugs.



spaceguy on 22 June 2012
badgenome said:
spaceguy said:

Read below post, thats what i mean by regulate. Keep it to specific area and make hard drugs free but only enough to get them by. However stuff like weed, just sell like cigarettes. Maybe take a chunk out of that as well, maybe.

Well, that certainly wouldn't work since only a total worthless junkie is going to want to do coke in a government room somewhere. The black market would still be huge, and now white market drugs would just be diverted to the black market just like they already are in the case of prescription drugs.


well france gives free Herion and it has cleaned up the streets and has a high percentage of the people hooked, quiting. I see your point about the coke. However those people love to hide. So make it with A lot of hiding spaces. LOL  Not sure what is the right answer but the war on drugs is not.

I think lots of information on the subject is key.



Around the Network
spaceguy on 22 June 2012
spaceguy said:
badgenome said:
spaceguy said:

Read below post, thats what i mean by regulate. Keep it to specific area and make hard drugs free but only enough to get them by. However stuff like weed, just sell like cigarettes. Maybe take a chunk out of that as well, maybe.

Well, that certainly wouldn't work since only a total worthless junkie is going to want to do coke in a government room somewhere. The black market would still be huge, and now white market drugs would just be diverted to the black market just like they already are in the case of prescription drugs.


well france gives free Herion in specialized area's and it has cleaned up the streets and has a high percentage of the people hooked, quiting. I see your point about the coke. However those people love to hide. So make it with A lot of hiding spaces. LOL  Not sure what is the right answer but the war on drugs is not.

I think lots of information on the subject is key.


Not sure how I quoted here. I walked out of the room for some time.. Well I'm going to bed. Good night.



NobleTeam360 on 22 June 2012

impeached? no but deserves to impeached



Kasz216 on 22 June 2012
badgenome said:
spaceguy said:

Read below post, thats what i mean by regulate. Keep it to specific area and make hard drugs free but only enough to get them by. However stuff like weed, just sell like cigarettes. Maybe take a chunk out of that as well, maybe.

Well, that certainly wouldn't work since only a total worthless junkie is going to want to do coke in a government room somewhere. The black market would still be huge, and now white market drugs would just be diverted to the black market just like they already are in the case of prescription drugs.

I wonder how much cheaper persciption drugs would be if people could buy them recreationally.



badgenome on 22 June 2012
Kasz216 said:

I wonder how much cheaper persciption drugs would be if people could buy them recreationally.

A lot, I should think. I can't imagine why it should be any different than anything else, like the food and sodas that do-gooders like Michael Bloomberg are always complaining about being too cheap for the serving size.



killerzX on 22 June 2012
Adinnieken said:
richardhutnik said:
EdHieron said:
richardhutnik said:
GW Bush didn't get impeached. Clinton wasn't removed from office due to impeachment hearings. Why would Obama? Fast and Furious? Remind me how much worse this is than Iran-Contra.

I don't know how much worse it is.  I just know that due to the strengths of their various propaganda outlets that it looks like a lot of public opinion in the US is with the Conservatives and the last thing Obama needs is impeachment charges hanging over his head down the homestretch of the Presidential election.

My brother, who I hardly ever hear from, sends me a message over Facebook about this, and goes, "What is Obama hiding?".  He is a partisan Republican.  These individuals gave the last administration a pass.  I do have to wonder about this.  As far as I am concerned, Fast and Furious is more government incompetency found in the war on drugs.  Do something even more desperate by letting guns through and then hope to trace where they end up.  They return and shoot up U.S law enforcement officials.

GW had Abu Graib, and this would likely be comparible.  The way politics works, doing what Obama did gets turned around as a weapon.  The denial is worse than the act sometimes.

Of course, it could be spun as some sort of partisan attack, and used to score points.  Obama did allow the birthers to really rail and scream about that issue.  Once things went real nuts, out came the long form birth certificate, causing Trump to drop out of the race.

Fast and Furious was a program begun in 2006.  Obama was elected in 2008, in office in 2009.

no gun runner began then, fast and ferious, was under obama