Shared publicly  - 
Telia Garner's profile photoLuke Bustamante's profile photoPaige Alcorn's profile photoJames Brahm's profile photo
Frankly, I think Mr. Obama has done a great job on righting the economy...sweeping change for the sake of change is a step backwards no doubt.
I'm sorry if this is going to be a shock to you, but it isn't from lack of trying that green energy hasn't actually gained any jobs. You can look no further than the Republicans in both the House and Senate for that one. They have repeatedly blocked any kind of investment into anything other than fossil fuels. Which by the way, it isn't President Obama's fault that gas prices have skyrocketed over the past 3 years. That also can be blamed on two things, one the global need for oil has grown immensely over that time frame, and the other reason is the greed of the corporations that control the oil.

What specifically would you try as president that hasn't already been proven to not work? I have yet to truly hear one thing from your campaign that hasn't already failed this country.
The jobs that have started to come back. As of yesterday, there were more job openings than anytime in the last 4 years. All steps in the right direction.
Net employment is down every month. What jobs?
Huh? $1.85 a gallon? You might be able to fool some into believing that but I've lived in California all my life and in 2008 gas prices were over $5.00 a gallon! That was before the Obama administration even had time to move into their office. What does this have to do with Obama?
I'm not blaming Obama or Rommney, clearly we all know who's to blame!
Our nation is by no means going to be completely "fixed" by one person in four years. Also, how are gas prices indicative of Obama's performance? He has worked to end subsidies to oil companies that are reporting record profits. As I recall, Romney plans to increase support to these parasites on our tax dollars and our natural resources.
+Don Goldsmith - I hardly think you can put that on the Obama Administration. Mr. Bush funded two wars by borrowing money for the whatever.
+Craig Eddy - I just hired 3 full-time employees, as I'm finally feeling like its prudent to do business has been seeing sales increases for the last six months straight, and that all goes to my bottom line.
+Don Goldsmith far be it for me to sound like Obama, but who is to blame for starting the war in the Middle East. Don't say Osama Bin Laden!
Blame = always make an excuse for why O'bummer's bad ideas don't work: it was Congress' fault (but wait, for two years the Democrats controlled both houses).

The truth is, bad ideas don't work because they're bad ideas. They'll never work.
Please use truth. Gas prices topped more than $4 per gallon June of 2008, before the Presidential Election. Why tell lies when we can just use the truth?
+Don Goldsmith, Romney spends a lot of time blaming his predecessor. Far more than I recall Obama spending.
+Craig Eddy - Rommeny's ideas are GOOD? LOL... smoke and mirrors, lies, and representation of the facts don't make for good ideas.
+Ginger Gregory, that is very narrow-minded. You cannot possibly mean that. Even if you disagree with Obama politically, I am sure you know people who would be completely incapable of running a government.
+Mitt Romney is last election would-be runner up...I don't honestly think he's added anything new to his approach and therefore doesn't have any merit this time around. It seems he more interested in telling us what wrong with America, and honestly, I don't find it useful in anyway.
Um, wow. I was definitely not paying $1.85 for gas in 2009. I have no idea where you get your info from. Maybe you get special discounts from your oil buddies. But it reached all-time highs during the Bush administration. And wait, you're against wind energy and clean energy? I guess we should just keep polluting the planet and air then. Do you have to oppose everything simply because a Democrat supports it? You'd think clean energy and air and a clean planet for our future would be something everyone would want. >.>
+Steve McIlroy, we need more people defending the facts about environmental issues. Thank you!
+Ginger Gregory - Actually, Mr. Bush holds that record. He spent more money than all presidents from Washington to Clinton. Mr. Obama hasn't even come close.
Mr. +Mitt Romney What's your plan to get Americans jobs. I mean real jobs. Not "give tax breaks to your friends and hope it trickles down to more jobs" I mean how are you going to create them.

Oh and Mr. +Mitt Romney how is the president responsible for oil prices?
+elisha chirchir It is official, the former Governor is Pres. Barack Obama, could not believe the former Gov. will pull that stunt. I know is election tactic - quick response to any allegation from the other side - but common man, even you don't believe yourself, Mr Gov.

As for all who does not believe the current admin has done enough, go tell it to the folks in the EU zone, still dragging the world economy down with their misguided policies, underestimating the severity of the financial crisis. I have no doubt though that if the former Gov. was in the white house and faced with the same problem, will allow reason to prevail not ideological nonsense. Any one who is still employed ought to thank the current admin $ the Fed for taken the unpopular actions to stem the loss of jobs we witnessed at the end of '08 and early '09. The folks across the pond which they had capable men, like Bernanke and Geithner on their side. Cheers.
I'm still trying to pay off my parents debt...your Point? What's really sad is that if Mr. Rommney is elected my grandchildren will inherit his value of discriminating against Americans by supporting amending our Constitution to limits the rights of Gay and Lesbians for generations to come. Debt is not what I'm worried's my and future Americans freedoms.
+Don Goldsmith - Really? I'm gay...and I consider myself to be a Moral person and an American. It's sad that you would even consider morality of myself and other Americans as a Political issue. It goes to show you're bigot in more ways than I could probably imagine.
+Marty D'Arcy - You might want to find a source that is not biased. It's simply not true! What the article doesn't take into account is the bilions for dollars that have been repaid. Thank you...
+Bryan Maher That came directly from Government Data, Bryan. What more do you want?
+Marty D'Arcy - again, not when you take into account the money that has been repaid as required under TARP. More than 3/4 of that money has been returned to the treasury...and we the people posted a nice profit in the process. So Yeah...
+Don Goldsmith - That's whack yo! LOL... Too funny... Charging me interest is immoral but I pay plenty of it.
+Bryan Maher When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obama’s 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.
Which means that he cannot have added more than all other Presidents combined.
+Bryan Maher
Excellent! Thank you for your reason and clear-headedness in these issues.
+Bryan Maher That money may have been returned to the treasury but it was only taken from other programs (like Medicare). The DEMs are afraid to balance the budget cause they don't want us seeing what they have done to the system.
+Marty D'Arcy - The DEMS... lol. The last president to balance the budget was Mr. Clinton...and when he left office there was a surplus.
+Don Goldsmith - first I hardly consider myself a Troll or a Fool. I'm simply expressing my views and exercising my right to free speech in a public forum.
+Marty D'Arcy Last I checked there is no proposal from the GOP which balances the budget. It's a bit unfair to attack the Dems when the other party is up there with them on this issue.
Must there be a proposal, Georgi? We are all aware of having no budget and it has been mentioned numerous times by the REPS.
+Don Goldsmith - Why so mean spirited? Frankly, it makes you seem like an ass. Maybe your not...I don't know...but just because I disagree with you doesn't make it ok for you to call me names. Lowest common denominator I guess?
+Georgi Trifonov You must be on a different time zone than I since you always step in to chat at my bedtime! lol.
Well, Obama has got it so screwed up, yes, it will take some very creative thinking to fix it. Believe me, they are working on it night and day. Unlike our current leadership. The next admin' will Certainly be held to account for every dime.
+Don Goldsmith You're funny. I think bigot was the appropriate response to your comment calling me immoral. I suggest you exercise your right to block me if you don't like what I have to say.
+Bryan Maher You're right Bryan, Clinton was the last President to balance the budget. And as of now we have the largest deficit we have ever had in my lifetime. Yep....math wasn't my best subject but 15 TRILLION is higher than I can count! If we keep this up our grandchildren will still be paying for it! great-grandchildren maybe. Hopefully Romney can help us get this turned around.
+Marty D'Arcy But my point was: you argued that the Dems are afraid to balance the budget because they must have done something to the system. I think the reason is that they can't balance the budget without cuts AND new revenue... Unless you believe the Ryan budget which "balances" the budget in 20 years IF everything goes according to plan...
+Marty D'Arcy - If you look at what the Bush administration spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan you'll see what that number rose so quickly.
+Georgi Trifonov Pls don't misquote me, Georgi. I said nothing about the Dems being afraid of anything.
Why don't you all tally up who's in which party to see who disagrees with who. The real problem is that americans today have drastically different political ideas. Our founders would be disgusted by the liberalism of Romney, let alone this abomination in office that has merely one accomplishment as president of the USA (killing Osama). SMH. By the way, how is Romney's info from CITED government websites lies and warped truths? The only reason Romney even has to waste time on sheets like this is to try to get people like you to get your head out of the Obama delirium.
+Bryan Maher It's the Bush tax cuts that added the most to the debt, not the wars.
+Marty D'Arcy and I quote: "+Bryan Maher That money may have been returned to the treasury but it was only taken from other programs (like Medicare). The DEMs are afraid to balance the budget cause they don't want us seeing what they have done to the system."
what a small accomplishment...your previous handlers couldn't handle their own...Romney's kids aren't gonna keep us safe from Al-Zwaheli -
+Bryan Maher Okay, Bryan. You are only here to blame, I see. People are pretty tired of all the blaming by now. Let's just say that personally I am more concerned than you about America's debt and how it will be paid. Sometimes it's like a broken record in here and far more than my brain or nails can handle at this hour. Rest well ya'll!
right, when Clinton ran a surplus it was to hide from you. Hatican would rather be in the bedroom than the Boardroom.
Haticans, Hypocrins, say conservative, but want to be in everyone's bedroom to Police even that.
+Marty D'Arcy - I'm not here to blame...I frankly am not happy with either parties approach to solving our countries problems. My point is you can't just make blanket statements that aren't true and not expect to be challenged for having said them. I don't like it when people or politicians distort fact and figures to benefit their point-of-view.
send children of welfare families to their death in endless wars, give to Charities out of the kindness of your Ego, than bash those who can't feed themselves properly on Minimum Wage so they get Welfare food assistance. Cost of Living goes up, wages never do.
send your kids to the land mines...
Obama will bring ours Home with the Honor of completing the mission. Something your predacessors were unable to achieve.
+Seth Taylor - Couldn't agree more...but it would seem these folks don't care...they just want Mr. Obama gone at any cost even to the determent of the entire country. They regurgitate the lies that support their point-of-view and call the rest of names because we don't agree with them...Sad really.
I gave him a chance, but after witnessing his private, dismal rally of 500, when Obama stomped with 30,000 in 08 was embarassing even for me to entertain. His ground force of Voter support was as impressive as Woods trying to play golf lately. Id never feel safe with is Pilgrims engaging the Iranians. ARe You FckINg kidding me?
+Bryan Maher but they claims are true. He cited the info from the government's websites. Also, if your not partisan, why defend Obama so much and criticize obviously republican beliefs (WoT, capitalism, tax breaks, etc.) also, Obama spent more in 4 years than bush on 8,
+Seth Taylor I think you misworded your post. Surely you meant "bring ours home at any cost".

+Bryan Maher How is Obama being gone detrimental to the entire country? So far all we have is one war ended that was already on track to end, another war still going on, mountains of additional debt, a continuously failing economy, a total lack of action on anything substantial except a failed healthcare bill that nobody wanted in the first place... Obama's campaign is tooting the "forget about the last four years and look the future" horn when the "future" is what happened the last four years with Obama in charge.
+Cameron Derwin - +Mitt Romney didn't use the information as it was stated. He construed it in way that misrepresents what the data actually reflected. Look Deeper!
then he goes on a welfare bashing speech in Lansing of all places, where all of us minimum wage workers get food stamps. These families give their children to the military, but his Charitible, so called Christian/Morman ass can't find it in his heart to support food assistance to working people. If you on the rolls of DHS, you either disabled, going to school, or working. it aint no fuckin free ride. It aint my fault Cost of living is beyond the reach of average wage workers. War caused the collapse. Everyone wants their money, and big bodies hold it due to the uncertainty of safety.
+Seth Taylor War didn't cause this at all. We went to war in 2001. The economy collapsed in 2007/2008. Most people would argue that those 6-7 years were some of the most prosperous years this country has seen. Crappy legislation and regulation caused the economic collapse.

edit: yes I realize we didn't literally go to war in 2001.
+BJ Cardon - The economy began to tank in 2006...remember we all got a rebate to spend to help boost it. LoL as if... So no war didn't cause it, lame economic policy and the dismantling for the safe guards to protect us from this sort of meltdown were quashed.
Reading just the read text gives the wrong impression. "10,000 Jobs" is a good thing, until you read the small text that says that those were the jobs that were lost. I would change the bold/red text emphasis to be on words like "shed" and "laid off" and "doubled"
Both of them are worse, but Obama is less worse than Mitt Romney. And gas price wasn't 1.85 when Obama took office. It was already 3+.
+Andrea Cristiano Maietta Astonishing that anyone is still supporting Obama.
Astonishing as Obama ran up the fraudulent debt to double during the last 3 years. Americans are born with $50,000 debt, and each tax payer owes $135,000 debt because of irrational and misleading policies. Obama ran up 6.5 trillion debt while previous 43 presidents combined 6.2 trillions debt. Astonishing.
no kidding, he only found the Most Dangerous Man On the Planet to Americans.
+Bryan Maher, +Seth Taylor , et al,

For reference about how far behind we are:

It's about total debt, not spending and revenues. Since the US government spends more than it takes in (currently, every single day) it has to borrow money in the form of selling bonds. These bonds are purchased (generally) by foreign governments. This is all money that must be paid back or we lose our ability to sell bonds.

Also, when people say Obama has spent more than all the previous Presidents combined, it's actually undisputed by the mainstream left. They know we've been spending more than ever before to try and get some economic turnover, a jumpstart to the economy, if you will.

Well, it isn't working and we're shedding more people from the workforce than are getting hired. Therefore, less taxes = less federal revenue = more debt. It's a vicious cycle.

Please carefully consider what others are saying here and appreciate their concerns about the economy.
Obama is an idiot beyond measure.
+Bryan Maher Sorry, I missed that you responded to me with all the chaff in between here... IIRC, that stimulus check was given based on 2006 tax returns but was done in 2007... I'm swinging from the hip here though, I don't have time to actual research it right now.

Still, most people probably saw 2001-2007 as a pretty prosperous time in their lives. I'm not saying Bush did everything right, but he can at least claim that.

A lot of the problems we had (and still have) are from legislation passed in the 80s and 90s. I don't think Bush is any more (or less) to blame for our current predicament than Obama, but Bush kept the economy floating without much Congressional support whereas Obama has floundered right along with it.

But you're right, like I said crappy legislation and (I should have said poor) regulation got us here.
+Bryan Maher I have over 30 full time employees and we need to hire more but are not doing so as it is not prudent to do so at this time. The cost of healthcare alone is stopping me from hiring. Obama has destroyed this country and the economy. My cost to hire an employee has doubled since obama took office and passed that horrific obama care. Once Romney takes office, it will be the first thing he does, repeal obama care. Once Romney takes over, the economy can get back on track.
+Seth Taylor +Bryan Maher Seal Team 6 completed the objective, not Obama. He just took credit for it. Seals found Osama, killed Osama. Obama just took credit for saying "yes, go ahead".
Uh... I don't think gas was $1.85/gallon in January 2009. Nice try though.
+John Mayson Do your research please before commenting. Average Gas price on 1/17/2009 was $1.85

Select 4 year and see where gas prices skyrocketed when obama took office. +Warren Dew You were spot on. Thanks for bringing facts to the discussion. Seems everyone else is content to spew opinion vs. facts. Bravo to you.
+John Mayson According to Consumer News gas was $1.84 in late Jan, 2009.

This is a matter of record. The price of gas reflects the dynamics of supply and demand but more important, the value or buying power of the US dollar.

Gold, per ounce
Jan 2009: $895
Jan 2012: $1,744

One thing the president has control over is the money supply and the Empty Suit has been overprinting US currency, which hurts everybody in the US and reduces international confidence in the dollar.
Blaming the president solely for the rise in gas prices would be similar to blaming Congress for the conflict in Afghanistan. Gas prices depend on a multitude of factors, the biggest of which is OPEC speculation on the oil in the Middle East. Most oil is speculated as much as one month before the oil even comes out of the ground. Next, the state of peace in the middle east also determines how the prices of gasoline rise and fall. OPEC and the oil companies are the main cause in the rise of gas prices, not President Obama. Get your facts straight, Mr. Romney.
National energy policy does have a long-term effect on the cost of energy. The current regime has taken credit for increased oil production that was approved during the Bush administration yet has worked against domestic energy production.
+Dom Aristide
, with all due respect, Obama has created a climate of distrust by his bungling with foreign policy and unwillingness to help America sustain herself, so, he is responsible, indirectly at least.
Thumbs up for citing your facts!
No matter which politician puts out "facts" you need to see them with eyes wide open. Romney will put out facts and stats that support his position and Obama will do the same. That leaves it to those who are asked to choose to dig for what all of it means.

Romney uses the doubling of gas price to drive home his contention that the economy is doing poorly. He mentions the failed investments to call into question the idea that government is in the business of picking our winners and losers and he brings up the quot on investments to drive the point that Obama's ideas won't bring about the results that are stated.

Has he engaged a bit in hyperbole? Probably - they all do. It is not a partisans responsibility to weigh the facts as much as it is to put forth their strongest case. We should weigh the information.

Regardless of the stats, do we feel things are on a track that will continue to get better without a change? That is the real question. For me, being unemployed for almost two years now, I have a hard time swallowing the rhetoric. But that's just me. If most other people feel differently, then Obama will be elected president (and he has probably until Labor Day to show improvement or expose decline). Not all of the forces that will be in play are his to control, but they aren't for any president. I will judge him on my personal belief of whether these policies will improve things beyond where they are today - because if today is the high-water mark, we are in trouble,
Why is everyone saying gas prices were $4 in 2008. Maybe it doesn't seem like that large of an increase but in 2008 it took me $20 to fill my 10 gallon tank, now it takes me over $40. So I'm pretty damn sure thats about right haha. Look shit up before you talk out of your butt
These higher gas prices WILL rear their ugly heads at the grocery store, exponentially, too.
Remember when $1.85 felt like a lot for a gallon of gas? Oh, how I miss those days.
About Solyndra, not all investments work out. That is true for everybody in the world including yourself +Mitt Romney.
Wind energy has not "shed" 10,000 jobs. Alternative energies overall have gained us jobs by creating a new division of the energy industry. We can never have enough energy. By creating alternative energies we have not taken any jobs away from oil, or coal companies. It has just created more jobs in another area.
As for gas prices, That is not +Barack Obama's fault. Those prices were going to rise either way. More drilling does not equal lower gas prices. Here is something that backs that up:
Its so much deeper then this. Look at our TRUCKERS, the fuel is so hig that the most cant afford to make there runs. which means that little johnnies milk will go up even more
+Thomas Terence Of course he understands - but how would making that point help him? That is Obama's point to make - that is how the game is played. And it works both ways. Don't take either campaign at its word. Critically look at both. All of the people above who believe either one of these candidates are all right or all wrong are deluding themselves. But again, that is not the purpose of their campaigns, that is the duty of our scrutiny.

I do think that since the price of oil is a future looking thing, we would get some positive movement if there was a sense we were serious about really going after whats here (in addition to aggressively going after other energy sources as well). That seems to me a pretty obvious thing. It is hard for Obama to really sell that though, since his constituency includes those in the green energy movement. So it will be Romney making that case (as he is doing).
No, +Brett Asay the Bush administration blamed Clinton for not taking care of Osama, for putting the policies in place that eventually helped lead to the 2008 collapse (easing of lending practices). They blamed the Clinton administration for the economic weakness, and on and on. In all of these cases, there is a certain amount of blame (or credit) that can be associated with those who came before. It is the responsibility of a president to help move the country forward, not dwell in the past. If you don't believe in your ability to rise above the situation you find yourself in, then you shouldn't run for the presidency.

If Romney does become president, he will be judged on where we are after 4 years, not on where he starts.
+Thomas Terence aren't you saying the opposite then? That it would be OK for Obama, but not for Romney? Consistency. . .
+Beto Aguirre - IF these accusations are true, they are sad. The world was a much different place when Mitt Romney was in high school. Hopefully all of the people who felt OK about bullying others in HS have grown up since then. Most do. In Romney's case I don't see that kind of bullying as a part of who he is at this time. Most people do stupid things early into adulthood, which is a reason why the presidency requires a person to be 40. I think going back to his 30s, 40s, etc are more appropriate to examine to get the measure of who he would be as president.
+Thomas Terence I think you can find Romney's views on the economic revitalization - they just don't excite people the way these hot-buttoned issues do. I remember John McCain be slammed as another George Bush. Lots of the same kind of whining. It was McCain's job to get people to see him differently and he couldn't - his failure. This is Obama's challenge - Romney has his own challenges. Welcome to our never-ending politics.
Our two party system sucks so bad. Lesser of two evils is so old and lame. No one wins :(
+Don Goldsmith which Middle Eastern war are you referring to exactly "for the record"? I'm referring to the one that Bush started in the Middle East.
^^ I love how it is the Democrat who can't spell, it is "you're" not "your".
Jon P
Just wanted to chime in. People constantly blame economy on Bush. The dems controlled the legislature for Bush's last two years. That would mean that the Democrats had control of both houses prior to and into the start of the economic crisis.
Really? Was it ever proved that the kid he hazed fifty years a ago was gay? As for long hair lets see long hair on men in 1957 at a conservative private school why would that be a something that might be frowned on?
How about we focus on more important issues rather then saying that something that happened when he was 18 has any being on how he would govern. Oh that's right your candidate can't run on those issues because he can't. So he must find every possible other thing to talk about.
+Thomas Terence, were you even born 45 years ago? Also what evidence do you have Mitt Romney knew this guy was a closeted homosexual?

What about Pres. Obama's pushing a girl? How can he possibly talk about standing up for women with a straight face?

By the way, if you've ever made an insult against one person who happens to be a part of a particular demographic (white, tall, short, old, young) for a reason other than that demographic, does that mean you can't even let that person decide X part of his/her life? Gosh, Thomas. How insensitive of you.

Oh yeah, and how can Pres. Obama say, with a straight face, he stands up for animal rights when he ate dog meat less than 45 years ago -- that sick, sick juvenile . . .
+Merle Reine Thanks. Amazing how many people will make charges of factual inaccuracies without actually checking the facts first. It only took a few seconds to confirm that Romney was correct here.
oh herro question prease, why does mitt romney hate homosexuals?
+Georgi Trifonov The Muslim Brotherhood is a different organization from Al Qaeda. Granted characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization is questionable. They are pretty fundamentalist, though.

And we're drifting pretty far away from energy policy here.
+Thomas Terence We really only have two choices in the fall, so what's relevant is a comparison between Romney and Obama, not what each is like in the abstract.
+Thomas Terence I think the "media bias" argument comes from the fact that unlike the Romney story, the media never highlighted Obama's being a pot head in high school.
+Thomas Terence He did. It was never a secret that Obama was a pot head in his younger years. We can only hope his view on the war on drugs also "evolves". Maybe Biden should give another interview soon :)
+Thomas Terence It's not just conservatives, unfortunately. There hasn't been a leader on the left to say we should end the war on drugs. In fact, it's people who are considered "fringe" like Ron Paul or Pat Robertson who have said we should do so.

The sad thing is that there is more support for legalizing marijuana than gay marriage for example but still there isn't anyone who would speak for it. Makes you wonder how powerful the prison lobby is...
We can only hope on the next Meet the Press, Biden will say: "I'm absolutely comfortable with people smoking marijuana. In fact, I'm high right now." :)
+Thomas Terence +Warren Dew I think the "media bias" claim comes from things like this:

Also, Thomas, you've assumed the conclusion (by saying that Romney did it, when the claim of bias has come up with regard to the question of whether he did or not - Romney's response of "I have no memory of such a thing" gets derided with "he did it and now he doesn't even remember it, so he must have been doing things like that frequently!" or "liar!" from what I've seen so far), unless I misunderstood you. But you are showing your own bias with the way you respond to these things - please try to be more objective, ok?
+Georgi Trifonov +Thomas Terence I think the lobby that keeps the "war on drugs" going is parents of teenagers who don't want their kids on drugs, and want it to be the government who "does something" about it.
+Warren Dew As you and I know, Warren, moral responsibility starts at home and, like religion, it has no place in government control.
+Warren Dew Yes, concerned parents and people who didn't learn anything from Prohibition. Banning alcohol gave us the Mafia. Banning marijuana gave us the cartels + the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
+Marty D'Arcy Actually, the Founding Fathers had no objection to the states establishing their own religions, that's why the First Amendment stipulates that Congress shall make no laws respecting religion. There is no Constitutional separation of church and state- Not in the US Constitution. The separation of church and state is from the 1936 Soviet Union Constitution.
+Georgi Trifonov The Mafia existed long before Prohibition.
Banning alcohol in Islamic nations never created the problems of Prohibition- Perhaps the US should learn from them.
+Milton Ragsdale The 14th amendment was intended to apply the bill of rights against the states, and has been interpreted mostly to do that.
+Warren Dew I do agree- It was one of many moves to punish the South.

I have to point out that the Pledge of Allegiance was another- I refuse to recite that non-binding oath because its only purpose was to rub defeat into the noses of members of the Confederacy.
Hai all, we need not blame anybody, we should blame oneself for not doing more as we need
+Milton Ragsdale the Mafia existed yes, but never on the scale that it rose to during the Prohibition years.

The parallel with Muslim countries is completely inapplicable in the US, so I don't understand why you even bring this up. It's really all about economics: the US has an insatiable demand for drugs and alcohol. Someone will provide what people want, one way or another. We can make it legal and tax it, or illegal and leave all the money to go to organized crime.

And I'm not even going to talk about all the money we spend on prisons here...
+Georgi Trifonov You want dangerous substances made legal then think taxing them would benefit society?

For centuries people have made lucritive business by avoiding taxes: It is called smuggling and yes, groups like the Mafia still make money smuggling tobacco and alcohol across state lines today.

The government claims tobacco and alcohol as deadly but cannot resist the money tied to them- That money is more important than peoples' health yet the same government has offices dedicated to ending the use of tobacco and alcohol and offices to subsidize those industries.

You will note that ending Prohibition didn't spell the end to organized crime- The rise of labor unions, the Second World War, government rationing, and taxes actually caused organized crime to expand after the end of Prohibition so legalizing drugs won't make the Cartels go away- They'll produce cheaper, nontaxed products and smuggle those across borders and into states that apply their own taxes.

Don't get me wrong- Government should drop all forms of regulations and taxes. If adults want to kill themselves, I have no problem with it, as long as the government doesn't waste any money keeping these worthless bastards alive.
I don't want the government to have a monopoly on anything- If Bill Gates has enough money to build or buy his own nuclear weapons he should own them. The Second Amendment protects that Right.
If I am able to bodge together my own warheads, I have the right to own or sell them.
+Milton Ragsdale I don't consider marijuana a "dangerous substance". Alcohol and tobacco kill far more people every day than marijuana. The fact that marijuana has been demonized in this country since the 1920 is well-documented. Thankfully, people are now starting to realize the truth.

Organized crime did shift to other means of profiting after the end of Prohibition, but the flow of bootleg booze ending combined with more pressure from the FBI made sure that we don't have the broad daylight shootouts of the 20s and 30s. And yeah, maybe legalizing marijuana won't make cartels go away (there's still cocaine!), but is surely will cut the flow of cash to a lot of the major gangs in our biggest cities.

Government can't drop all regulations and taxation. You can't have your cake and eat it. Having the best military in the world, developed infrastructure, quality education to name a few costs money.

I'm not gonna argue the Second Amendment, I own a gun too. But when the Founding Fathers wrote it, they ment farmers with muskets, not billionaires buying weapons of mass destruction. So that's not covered, I'm afraid.
+Georgi Trifonov Fatal accidents where marijuana was a contributing factor include railroad incidents.

Make marijuana use common and you shall see a rise in marijuana-related fatalities. I really don't care when drug users and drinkers die but they often take innocent people with them.

As far as weapons are concerned, the hunters of the mid-18th Century carried rifles more accurate and more powerful than the general-issue muskets given to soldiers so many civilians were better armed and often better trained.

Civilians owned and operated warships and were granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal, the government license to attack, destroy and capture ships flying the flag of enemy nations- It is still part of Article 1 of the US Constitution (Section 8) and the US has never signed any any-privateering treaty so the law is still valid.
You see, few people actually realize that marijuana was legalized in three states back in the 1970s. After marijuana was legalized in those states, education levels dropped, the number of violent crimes nearly doubled, and heroine usage tripled. Essentially, legalization led to havoc. Immediately after the re-illegalization, the violent crimes rate dropped, heroine usage fell, and education levels rose again.

The Mayo Clinic, world renowned for its major medical studies and medical applications, have proved that marijuana itself is very dangerous not because marijuana itself is so dangerous, but because marijuana is a linking drug. It has been medically proven that marijuana users are at more than double the risk to use hard drugs such as heroine, cocaine, and meth. And as we all know, hard drugs are extremely dangerous. This is the problem the authorities have with marijuana.
+Milton Ragsdale Experience doesn't support your claim. If you make it legal, there will certainly be a period of increased usage (and abuse), but it will eventually level off to a predictable level. Note that the % of people who have tried weed in the US, where it's illegal, is higher than that of other countries like The Netherlands and Portugal where it's legalized.

As far as your "right" to own warheads: sorry, no court in this country will ever support you on this. Things have changed a bit since the 18th century. 
+Georgi Trifonov What does "predictable level" mean?
The end of Prohibition did not end illegal alcohol distilling and there are indications that independent alcohol production is at an all-time high.

I don't care that other countries don't have similar numbers- There are significant cultural differences between the US and other countries to render statistics irrelevant. I'm sure the minority crime rate is far lower in the Netherlands an Portugal as well but I know there's nothing in the policies in those nations that could ever reduce the crime numbers in the US unless you decriminalize rape and robbery.

While today's courts may not support my weapons position they'd still be wrong.
+Jim Clark Obviously the court eunuchs that support the Empty Suit in the White House have no message other than their intolerance of rational dissent.
That's right Obama's from Hawaii, how much more un-american does it get?
Apparently, John Boehner and his lying, back-stabbing, finger-pointing partisan bullshit and spin-doctored-doublespeak rhetoric had nothing to do with it.
i realize i just posted that on his page.
bryan are you an idiot? you wanna know who is sweeping change for the sake of change? your retard obama thats who! whos slogan was "change america" obama's goal was to fundamentally change america..and he did he fundamentally changed america into the economical crises many fight right now
THANK YOU LUKE BUSTAMENTE. couldn't have said it better myself..............
I see that giving money to Bil Oil is a priority.  No wonder they contribute so much to your campaign.
Add a comment...