you're not a Democrat lol You voted for the idea of Obama, not Obama. He was surprisingly honest about his intentions during the campaign, I don't know where he threw you off guard.
Your head is so far up his ass that I'd love to see you defend the next 3 pages of Campaign promises broken. Broken promises can also be called lies. I'm sure you'll spin them as non-priority issues that he's waiting to get around to. He's just been to busy starting unconstitutional wars under the NATO/UN guise with American troops, right? PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are Promise Broken Make sure you glance all 3 pages now.
Making promises to naive bleeding hearts and then seeing the reality of the world through the eyes of the office of presidency of the United States makes keeping all those promises almost impossible. Again, honesty is overrated in government, nothing would ever get done. I really do wish he'd keep his promise of releasing the gitmo detainees and placing them under house arrest in the homes of some of the most vocal pacifists, let's start with Ron Paul. And I really like Ron Paul as a person, bless his heart, he just doesn't belong in politics. But if someone voted for Obama thinking being the most left wing senator, and looking at his voting record, somehow means he won't overstep his bounds in their rose-colored glasses wearing eyes, than that's pretty ignorant. Intelligent people who vote for Democrats such as Obama do it because they appreciate a powerful president who is not afraid to tread the lines between president and dictator. It's only the useful idiots that vote for them based on love and peace promises. Democrats are more successful war leaders than Republicans could ever dream of, regardless of the reputation they've ended up with from the masses.
It sounds like Obama campaigned on the idea of Obama, didn't "fool" normal people, because at this point people see him out as the snake he is.. the only people he fooled are like you, where he has you doing his bidding, and trying to justify why politics can't have honesty in it. You are now added to my ignore list AlienBlood, because even though I like people on the other side of the aisle to debate with, you literally bring nothing productive to this table. Seriously, reread those last 2 posts by you and take a look within as to whether that's how you want to be portrayed.
I was a "democrat" and voted for Obama too.. Everything Ron Paul stands for is what Obama claimed to be from his campaign, besides the entitlement (pandering) card of course.. Obama campaigned on: - Bringing the troops home - Closing Guantanamo - Ending torture - Easing enforcement on drug laws - Ending corporate bailouts Obama is nothing more than a big fat liar
According to AlienBlood, all "democrats" should know that when your Democratic leader tells you their stances towards increasing peace, limiting militarism, and increasing government transparency -- that you are not a "real democrat" because obviously you should know that that's not what the Left is all about. Apparently, being a neo-con is justified, because as soon as you sit your rear down in the Oval Office, there is only one perspective on how to then deal with things, and that there is only one solution no matter if you are Dem or Rep.
I get excited of the fact that if/when President Ron Paul sits down in the Oval Office, he can show apathetic people that Government/Politics doesn't have to be the 3-headed snake that it has been for the past 100 years. There are still people with integrity out there, that can stand by & use their voting records to prove that their ideas are steadfast and consistent (as opposed to the typical politician who tries to run away from their voting record, or tries to justify it...) And lastly to show that the status quo is broken, and there are more than one way to handle situations that can and will lead us towards positive solutions.
so steroids(not just anabolic either) aren't drugs either? They do WAY more harm to your immune system than MJ ever could. Weakening the immune system is something we would call a side effect, and I'm unaware of any substantial weakening that occurs. If anything it may have to be used with caution in anyone with a weakened immune system (people with HIV still use anabolic steroids as treatment and they are the epitome of immunocompromised) but once again this is in no way enough of a reason to not use the drug in the smoking form if it's the most viable option for the patient. Just because doing something is recreational does not in any way mean that it's not medicinal. Those are not mutually exclusive categories and I'm not sure why you keep trying to use recreation as a means to deny medicinal value. Just curious, but do you (alienblood) have any formal training in medicine at all?
The only formal training AlienBlood has is in being a neo-con troll sent from MSM to defend the status quo.
The last time I had a kidney stone I got loaded up with morphine and was high as fuck(and happy as shit), I guess they used the "recreational" stock bottle instead of the medicinal one.
Really? They gave you tinfoil, a straw, and a lighter? Whoever did that should lose their license to practice medicine, and probably serve time.
I love how you avoid all the points that show how full of crap you are and then reply with a troll statement like this. I'm done beating the dead horse.
Tell me why when you get a rec you have to sign agreeing that you understand smoking is unhealthy and only other forms of administering the thc is recommended?
:facepalm: How did you know that when I smoke my marijuana I use those exact tools! Wtf are these glass pipes people speak of?
Pot Smoking Not Linked to Lung Cancer | Salynn Boyles | WebMD Health News | Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
First of all .com websites aren't credible sources. Try again. Secondly, it is proven that smoking anything increases your risk of cancer and cancer isn't the only reason smoking isn't accepted as medicinal administration of drugs.
So you don't like his .com source but you're cocky enough to say something is proven and not give any source other than your own babble? edit: and the article has a source to the actual study so you can read it, there's not a much better source than that
You know if you had told me this 4 years ago i would have said your crazy. If you told me 4 years ago that we would have had a black democrat president i would have said the same thing. I think Ron Paul might actually have a shot, Who would have thought!