Topic: Rick Perry has my vote for president!
squeegee !first/o5zA started this discussion 12 years ago #33,362
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) on Thursday voiced support for softening penalties for marijuana use, and touted his work moving in the direction of decriminalization.
"After 40 years of the war on drugs, I can’t change what happened in the past. What I can do as the governor of the second largest state in the nation is to implement policies that start us toward a decriminalization and keeps people from going to prison and destroying their lives, and that’s what we’ve done over the last decade," Perry said, according to the Austin American-Statesman.
Perry made the remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. While he does not favor legalization, he has supported alternate rehab and drug court programs, his spokeswoman noted.
"Gov. Perry has long supported diversionary and rehabilitative programs, like the drug courts we have in Texas that have proven results," said Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed in a statement to Post Politics.
Perry also said "states should be allowed" to decide whether to legalize marijuana.
Wow! he read my letter!"After 40 years of the war on drugs, I can’t change what happened in the past. What I can do as the governor of the second largest state in the nation is to implement policies that start us toward a decriminalization and keeps people from going to prison and destroying their lives, and that’s what we’ve done over the last decade," Perry said, according to the Austin American-Statesman.
Perry made the remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. While he does not favor legalization, he has supported alternate rehab and drug court programs, his spokeswoman noted.
"Gov. Perry has long supported diversionary and rehabilitative programs, like the drug courts we have in Texas that have proven results," said Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed in a statement to Post Politics.
Perry also said "states should be allowed" to decide whether to legalize marijuana.
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 5 hours later[^] [v] #462,132
Did he voice this opinion while campaigning for president?
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Metæ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 16 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #462,133
@OP
Which is why he signed a bill banning salvia divinorum last year.
Which is why he signed a bill banning salvia divinorum last year.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 38 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #462,134
@462,132 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
No, Perry is pulling a Ron Paul. He values states' rights as long as he thinks his state will vote an overwhelming majority in his opinion. If other states don't, well... let people move there. The problem with this (other than, say, yeah, this guy wouldn't last a minute, let alone get elected, as governor of a more liberal state) is that (when talking about abortion, drug use, poverty, crime, or pretty much any other issue (involving poor people) that they champion states' rights for) there is an overwhelming majority in their state (Yep, Texas I'm looking at you) who morally oppose all these things. Realistically, even if they give lip-service to all this freedom, none of this will get passed. Even if Texas voters' families are experiencing problems about these issues, the actual voters vote for legal penalties, more state-sponsored killings, private prisons, longer prison sentences, and a population incarcerated and enslaved by the government.
The poor don't actually have the means to just pick up and move on a whim. This isn't the wild west. This isn't the Oklahoma dustbowl. People don't just pick up and move on to somewhere else with a covered wagon or broken down pickup seeking a new life. Not realistically. Sorry, the states' rights argument is just not pulling any weight since Ross Perot tried to pretend it sounded good in 1992.
No, Perry is pulling a Ron Paul. He values states' rights as long as he thinks his state will vote an overwhelming majority in his opinion. If other states don't, well... let people move there. The problem with this (other than, say, yeah, this guy wouldn't last a minute, let alone get elected, as governor of a more liberal state) is that (when talking about abortion, drug use, poverty, crime, or pretty much any other issue (involving poor people) that they champion states' rights for) there is an overwhelming majority in their state (Yep, Texas I'm looking at you) who morally oppose all these things. Realistically, even if they give lip-service to all this freedom, none of this will get passed. Even if Texas voters' families are experiencing problems about these issues, the actual voters vote for legal penalties, more state-sponsored killings, private prisons, longer prison sentences, and a population incarcerated and enslaved by the government.
The poor don't actually have the means to just pick up and move on a whim. This isn't the wild west. This isn't the Oklahoma dustbowl. People don't just pick up and move on to somewhere else with a covered wagon or broken down pickup seeking a new life. Not realistically. Sorry, the states' rights argument is just not pulling any weight since Ross Perot tried to pretend it sounded good in 1992.
Anonymous D double-posted this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #462,135
Sorry for all the parentheses. A lot of LISP lately...
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 36 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #462,139
@462,134 (D)
The poor do move. Apart from the cost of gas these days I don't see why putting your possessions in a pickup truck and moving is any harder now than it ever was. My family is not rich, not even middle class, and we moved a number of times, both intra- and interstate. The grapes of wrath dustbowl emigrants were all very poor. Of course, only a statistically negligible amount of people would move out of a state over something like gay marriage or marijuana legalization but jobs and cost of living are powerful motivators.
It's funny, though, that Perry and Palin are more liberal (or at least talk more liberal) on the drug war than Obama is.
The poor do move. Apart from the cost of gas these days I don't see why putting your possessions in a pickup truck and moving is any harder now than it ever was. My family is not rich, not even middle class, and we moved a number of times, both intra- and interstate. The grapes of wrath dustbowl emigrants were all very poor. Of course, only a statistically negligible amount of people would move out of a state over something like gay marriage or marijuana legalization but jobs and cost of living are powerful motivators.
It's funny, though, that Perry and Palin are more liberal (or at least talk more liberal) on the drug war than Obama is.
Falco joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #462,140
well hes got my vote lol
smoke weed every day!
smoke weed every day!
Anonymous D replied with this 12 years ago, 50 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #462,143
@462,139 (Metæ)
> Apart from the cost of gas these days
And having a place to land when you get to wherever you're going, and new housing, and making do unless you have new work lined up right away, and getting settled in a new state, and... Have you ever moved to a different place?? WTAF?
Yep, nothing more than the price of gas... It's all good. The dirt poor can just ride out of our state into the sunset like it's the end of a western movie. Nothing to keep them here except reality and poverty, which we don't actually acknowledge until it infringes upon us.
> Perry and Palin are more liberal
[citation required]
> (or at least talk more liberal)
Hmmm...
> Apart from the cost of gas these days
And having a place to land when you get to wherever you're going, and new housing, and making do unless you have new work lined up right away, and getting settled in a new state, and... Have you ever moved to a different place?? WTAF?
Yep, nothing more than the price of gas... It's all good. The dirt poor can just ride out of our state into the sunset like it's the end of a western movie. Nothing to keep them here except reality and poverty, which we don't actually acknowledge until it infringes upon us.
> Perry and Palin are more liberal
[citation required]
> (or at least talk more liberal)
Hmmm...
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
squeegee !first/o5zA (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #462,144
kook !!32zdfdzi+ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 7 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #462,154
@462,139 (Metæ)
A lot of places ask for a security deposit, first and last months rent, require a credit check and background check, etc. Also a lot of people would be leaving their jobs, and family and friends. All of which can provide financial support during a crises.
A lot of places ask for a security deposit, first and last months rent, require a credit check and background check, etc. Also a lot of people would be leaving their jobs, and family and friends. All of which can provide financial support during a crises.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #462,157
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #462,189
@462,143 (D)
> > Apart from the cost of gas these days
> And having a place to land when you get to wherever you're going, and new housing, and making do unless you have new work lined up right away, and getting settled in a new state, and... Have you ever moved to a different place?? WTAF?
So these are only recent problems? I never said it was easy just that it's not harder now than it was, say, in the depression.
> Yep, nothing more than the price of gas... It's all good. The dirt poor can just ride out of our state into the sunset like it's the end of a western movie. Nothing to keep them here except reality and poverty, which we don't actually acknowledge until it infringes upon us.
Please re-read my post. I said I don't see how it's harder now than it was in the past. The dirt poor have ridden out of states in search of work. Steinbeck wrote a book about it.
> > Perry and Palin are more liberal
> [citation required]
Palin: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-palin-calls-marijuana-minimal-problem/ ""I think we need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts," Palin said. "And if somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society.""
Citation for Rick Perry's marijuana views is in the OP.
> > (or at least talk more liberal)
> Hmmm...
I mean liberal as in "liberty", not as in left wing politics.
> > Apart from the cost of gas these days
> And having a place to land when you get to wherever you're going, and new housing, and making do unless you have new work lined up right away, and getting settled in a new state, and... Have you ever moved to a different place?? WTAF?
So these are only recent problems? I never said it was easy just that it's not harder now than it was, say, in the depression.
> Yep, nothing more than the price of gas... It's all good. The dirt poor can just ride out of our state into the sunset like it's the end of a western movie. Nothing to keep them here except reality and poverty, which we don't actually acknowledge until it infringes upon us.
Please re-read my post. I said I don't see how it's harder now than it was in the past. The dirt poor have ridden out of states in search of work. Steinbeck wrote a book about it.
> > Perry and Palin are more liberal
> [citation required]
Palin: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-palin-calls-marijuana-minimal-problem/ ""I think we need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts," Palin said. "And if somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society.""
Citation for Rick Perry's marijuana views is in the OP.
> > (or at least talk more liberal)
> Hmmm...
I mean liberal as in "liberty", not as in left wing politics.
Metæ double-posted this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #462,190
@462,154 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
True, but all these were factors faced by migrants in previous generations as well. I'm not sure what renting a place was like in the old days but you are right: credit and background checks were not faced by migrants of previous generations.
True, but all these were factors faced by migrants in previous generations as well. I'm not sure what renting a place was like in the old days but you are right: credit and background checks were not faced by migrants of previous generations.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #462,203
@462,189 (Metæ)
> The dirt poor have ridden out of states in search of work. Steinbeck wrote a book about it.
This why I said that this isn't the Oklahoma dustbowl. These people, many of them farmers or already migrant workers had nothing to go back to. Please feel free to re-read my actual post.
While you still haven't addressed how poor people move from place to place magically without any job prospects or living arrangements other than the cost of gas, are you honestly defending the idea that poor drug addicts and pregnant teens can somehow move somewhere else if the local laws don't suit them?? You live in a fucking dreamworld. And really, what the hell else would that do (if it even worked) other than move the problem out of your backyard. How is that embracing freedom?
> Palin: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-palin-calls-marijuana-minimal-problem/ ""I think we need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts," Palin said. "And if somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society.""
> Citation for Rick Perry's marijuana views is in the OP.
Oh, okay. Palin said she wants lax law enforcement. That makes her super-liberal. Yay! BTW, Palin, during her time as mayor in Wasilla, tried to nix a city council bill about marijuana legalization, citing her worries about what her kids would think. (Apparently it's cool for adults to drink at family BBQs and Super Bowl parties, but fuck knows what would happen if you legalized pot for adults while the kids were watching. Someone please think of the children!) She has (sort of) admitted to smoking pot, but hasn't come out one way or another on legalization.
Feel free to review what these three people have actually said. Obama has said that he is not for legalization, but he has offered similar quotes (to your Palin quote) about not spending time prosecuting recreational drug users. Pretty much just take your pick from Barry's 'choom gang' years or elsewhere. Like Perry, Obama has stated that he is not for legalization, though he is soft on medicinal use and "doesn't consider it worse than alcohol". (You can Google that shit for yourself)
Perry has pleaded states' rights but has pretty much declared that he is not in favor of legalization. He has given lip service to other states doing it in the name of freedom! Good on you Rick Perry! Anyway here's and article from Forbes addressing the very question you raise. (with links back to Reason magazine criticizing Perry for being a fucktard who is trying to ride the libertarian bandwagon for votes while actually not being on it)
Anyway, tl;dr:
Scorecard:
Out of Obama, Perry and Palin, (who have all come on soft to the issue of tolerance, be it to pot smokers around them or the next state away) none claim to be for legalization. Both Obama and Palin smoked some pot and are for shunting resources away from prosecuting recreational drug users. Perry says it's cool when other people do it and proves to be the NIMBY shit we knew he was all along. In short, they waffle on the issue of pot, but suggest it isn't a problem. I can find no evidence that Palin or Perry are more "liberal" about this than any other waffling politician. (Obama included)
Also, I'm sorry you live in Hicksville. Maybe when they make pot illegal you can hop a Greyhound bus to LA with only $100 in your pocket. (You've got a strong back and work ethic, right? What could go wrong??) Once you get a job and a place to live, maybe you can tell me about this fantasy world you live in someday.
> The dirt poor have ridden out of states in search of work. Steinbeck wrote a book about it.
This why I said that this isn't the Oklahoma dustbowl. These people, many of them farmers or already migrant workers had nothing to go back to. Please feel free to re-read my actual post.
While you still haven't addressed how poor people move from place to place magically without any job prospects or living arrangements other than the cost of gas, are you honestly defending the idea that poor drug addicts and pregnant teens can somehow move somewhere else if the local laws don't suit them?? You live in a fucking dreamworld. And really, what the hell else would that do (if it even worked) other than move the problem out of your backyard. How is that embracing freedom?
> Palin: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-palin-calls-marijuana-minimal-problem/ ""I think we need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts," Palin said. "And if somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society.""
> Citation for Rick Perry's marijuana views is in the OP.
Oh, okay. Palin said she wants lax law enforcement. That makes her super-liberal. Yay! BTW, Palin, during her time as mayor in Wasilla, tried to nix a city council bill about marijuana legalization, citing her worries about what her kids would think. (Apparently it's cool for adults to drink at family BBQs and Super Bowl parties, but fuck knows what would happen if you legalized pot for adults while the kids were watching. Someone please think of the children!) She has (sort of) admitted to smoking pot, but hasn't come out one way or another on legalization.
Feel free to review what these three people have actually said. Obama has said that he is not for legalization, but he has offered similar quotes (to your Palin quote) about not spending time prosecuting recreational drug users. Pretty much just take your pick from Barry's 'choom gang' years or elsewhere. Like Perry, Obama has stated that he is not for legalization, though he is soft on medicinal use and "doesn't consider it worse than alcohol". (You can Google that shit for yourself)
Perry has pleaded states' rights but has pretty much declared that he is not in favor of legalization. He has given lip service to other states doing it in the name of freedom! Good on you Rick Perry! Anyway here's and article from Forbes addressing the very question you raise. (with links back to Reason magazine criticizing Perry for being a fucktard who is trying to ride the libertarian bandwagon for votes while actually not being on it)
Anyway, tl;dr:
Scorecard:
Out of Obama, Perry and Palin, (who have all come on soft to the issue of tolerance, be it to pot smokers around them or the next state away) none claim to be for legalization. Both Obama and Palin smoked some pot and are for shunting resources away from prosecuting recreational drug users. Perry says it's cool when other people do it and proves to be the NIMBY shit we knew he was all along. In short, they waffle on the issue of pot, but suggest it isn't a problem. I can find no evidence that Palin or Perry are more "liberal" about this than any other waffling politician. (Obama included)
Also, I'm sorry you live in Hicksville. Maybe when they make pot illegal you can hop a Greyhound bus to LA with only $100 in your pocket. (You've got a strong back and work ethic, right? What could go wrong??) Once you get a job and a place to live, maybe you can tell me about this fantasy world you live in someday.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #462,207
@previous (D)
Good lord that was a lot of vitriol.
Continuing the ''Grapes of Wrath"/dustbowl thing, do you think the Joad family (or any of the innumerable real-life families in similar dire straits) had a job and housing lined up waiting for them in California? I'm confused: on the one hand you say poor people with nothing can move if they have nothing to go back to, but if they do, they can't?
> are you honestly defending the idea that poor drug addicts and pregnant teens can somehow move somewhere else if the local laws don't suit them?? You live in a fucking dreamworld.
You're right. Only the 1% have ever been able to move from one locale to another. Everyone else is stuck for life wherever they had the misfortune to be born.
> And really, what the hell else would that do (if it even worked) other than move the problem out of your backyard. How is that embracing freedom?
I never wanted or stated that drug addicts or teen mothers or whoever else should leave their/my current state. I'm perfectly happy to have a marijuana store and a Planned Parenthood on every block. I don't see drug use or abortion as a "problem".
> Also, I'm sorry you live in Hicksville.
Thank you.
> Maybe when they make pot illegal
It already is.
> you can hop a Greyhound bus to LA with only $100 in your pocket.
> (You've got a strong back and work ethic, right? What could go wrong??) Once you get a job and a place to live, maybe you can tell me about this fantasy world you live in someday.
I like the straw man. I never said people who like weed should drop everything and hop on a Greyhound to California without two nickels to rub together if they don't like the laws in other states.
Yes, none of the three (Palin/Obama/Perry) are pro-legalization but, and this is subjective, Perry and Palin strike me as being more pro-decriminalization than Obama. Yes, it is NIMBY faux-libertarian lip service to kinda-sorta-maybe-someday decriminalizing it but look at how far it's come: major politicians are (essentially) saying the war on drugs is lost.
Good lord that was a lot of vitriol.
Continuing the ''Grapes of Wrath"/dustbowl thing, do you think the Joad family (or any of the innumerable real-life families in similar dire straits) had a job and housing lined up waiting for them in California? I'm confused: on the one hand you say poor people with nothing can move if they have nothing to go back to, but if they do, they can't?
> are you honestly defending the idea that poor drug addicts and pregnant teens can somehow move somewhere else if the local laws don't suit them?? You live in a fucking dreamworld.
You're right. Only the 1% have ever been able to move from one locale to another. Everyone else is stuck for life wherever they had the misfortune to be born.
> And really, what the hell else would that do (if it even worked) other than move the problem out of your backyard. How is that embracing freedom?
I never wanted or stated that drug addicts or teen mothers or whoever else should leave their/my current state. I'm perfectly happy to have a marijuana store and a Planned Parenthood on every block. I don't see drug use or abortion as a "problem".
> Also, I'm sorry you live in Hicksville.
Thank you.
> Maybe when they make pot illegal
It already is.
> you can hop a Greyhound bus to LA with only $100 in your pocket.
> (You've got a strong back and work ethic, right? What could go wrong??) Once you get a job and a place to live, maybe you can tell me about this fantasy world you live in someday.
I like the straw man. I never said people who like weed should drop everything and hop on a Greyhound to California without two nickels to rub together if they don't like the laws in other states.
Yes, none of the three (Palin/Obama/Perry) are pro-legalization but, and this is subjective, Perry and Palin strike me as being more pro-decriminalization than Obama. Yes, it is NIMBY faux-libertarian lip service to kinda-sorta-maybe-someday decriminalizing it but look at how far it's come: major politicians are (essentially) saying the war on drugs is lost.
Anonymous D replied with this 12 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #462,210
@previous (Meta)
> Continuing the ''Grapes of Wrath"/dustbowl thing, do you think the Joad family (or any of the innumerable real-life families in similar dire straits) had a job and housing lined up waiting for them in California?
Seriously, like I said, this isn't the dustbowl. Poor people could pick up and move then because they had lost everything. I'm criticizing your generalization that they do based on one period in history and questioning why you are defending the notion in general from that particular example.
> Yes, it is NIMBY faux-libertarian lip service to kinda-sorta-maybe-someday decriminalizing it
That's pretty much what I'm calling it.
> look at how far it's come: major politicians are (essentially) saying the war on drugs is lost.
People have been saying that for a long time now. I'm glad it is finally getting press, but Rick Perry is certainly is not the reason.
> Good lord that was a lot of vitriol.
Did you just seriously use the word "vitriol"? If you do ever come out to LA, please send me a message. I will buy us both boxes of Franzia, and we can sit and vehemently disagree about politics until late into the night. I think that would be fun.
> Continuing the ''Grapes of Wrath"/dustbowl thing, do you think the Joad family (or any of the innumerable real-life families in similar dire straits) had a job and housing lined up waiting for them in California?
Seriously, like I said, this isn't the dustbowl. Poor people could pick up and move then because they had lost everything. I'm criticizing your generalization that they do based on one period in history and questioning why you are defending the notion in general from that particular example.
> Yes, it is NIMBY faux-libertarian lip service to kinda-sorta-maybe-someday decriminalizing it
That's pretty much what I'm calling it.
> look at how far it's come: major politicians are (essentially) saying the war on drugs is lost.
People have been saying that for a long time now. I'm glad it is finally getting press, but Rick Perry is certainly is not the reason.
> Good lord that was a lot of vitriol.
Did you just seriously use the word "vitriol"? If you do ever come out to LA, please send me a message. I will buy us both boxes of Franzia, and we can sit and vehemently disagree about politics until late into the night. I think that would be fun.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #462,261
Does Perry like le feminine cock?
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 1 week later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,016
@462,210 (D)
I like the White Zinfandel flavor. We can sit on the porch drinking and discussing until dawn :)
I like the White Zinfandel flavor. We can sit on the porch drinking and discussing until dawn :)
Anonymous D replied with this 12 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,018
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,019
Anonymous D replied with this 12 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #463,020
@previous (Meta)
That's more Portland than LA, and the cops here will probably arrest you if you are sitting out front drinking. If they don't, the homeless people will start to gather around and join you. And then the neighbors will sue you over depreciating property values. How about we sit in the enclosed patio space? When it comes to wine, (and being a such a crazy liberal) I prefer reds, so we can have a box for each of us on the patio.
That's more Portland than LA, and the cops here will probably arrest you if you are sitting out front drinking. If they don't, the homeless people will start to gather around and join you. And then the neighbors will sue you over depreciating property values. How about we sit in the enclosed patio space? When it comes to wine, (and being a such a crazy liberal) I prefer reds, so we can have a box for each of us on the patio.
(Edited 43 seconds later.)