Yesterday was a fascinating day for me. I wrote a little blog post earlier in the week in which I said President Obama should be fired for putting resources behind medical marijuana prosecutions in California. And then the Internet puked on my shoes. (See my post below for all of the fun.)

It seems some clarifications are in order.

Sorry I Confused Some of You

You can see from the many comments on this blog, and on the other Internet sites that linked to it, that people had very different interpretations of what I wrote. The people with good reading comprehension correctly understood my point: Jailing an American citizen for no reason other than political gain is a firing offense.

The people with bad reading comprehension, and the people who saw nothing but the confused summaries and tweets from those people, interpreted my argument as saying Romney is likely to be softer on drugs than Obama. And based on that misunderstanding, people concluded that my endorsement of Romney was the stupidest opinion in the galaxy. They'd be right if that had been my reasoning.

The fascinating thing here is that I believe the source of confusion is that people literally don't recognize objectivity when they see it. I got a lot of comments along the lines of "You say X is true and then in the same paragraph you say Y." What I actually said is "X is likely to be true, but here's an argument for Y." That's how objective people talk. They make a prediction and then explain why it might be wrong. That's the only way you know all sides have been considered. Partisans and non-thinkers say, "My prediction is 100% certain."

If I were to say the weather in California is good, but today it is cold and foggy, about 20% of readers would say, "Make up your mind! First you say the weather is good and then you say it is cold and foggy! You make no sense!"

Bad Analogy People

The people who aren't good with analogies waded in next, pointing out that President Obama killed U.S. citizens abroad because those citizens were part of a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of the United States. While that situation is worthy of discussion, it misses the central point of my post. There's a big difference between protecting the country and expecting some political gain from doing so versus jailing a small businessman in California for political gain while not even pretending it benefits the country. I expect my president to do some nasty stuff in my best interest. I don't expect him to do nasty stuff to citizens for no reason other than his own reelection interests. The latter is a firing offense.

The Law is the Law

The next thing that fascinated me is the number of people who said President Obama is obligated to pursue legal action against medical marijuana dispensaries in California because the law is the law and we can't have our leaders picking and choosing which ones they support.

To the people who hold that view, I wonder what country you have been living in. In the real world, legal resources are always limited, and leaders at every level of the legal system make choices every day about what is important enough to pursue and what is not.

As I write this, every police chief in every district is looking at his resources, looking at all the work his office is charged with doing, and deciding that something on the order of 50% of what the legal code asks him to do is simply impractical. So he focuses his resources on the 50% that are his highest priorities.

While the law is the law, the more important fact is that the budget is the budget. We elect our leaders to set priorities and act accordingly. The point of my post is that President Obama is using the country's limited resources to shut California dispensaries - possibly the country's lowest priority - for no reason other than political gain. In the process, he's putting a small businessman in jail for 10 years to life. That's a firing offense.

On my side of this debate is a Harvard-trained lawyer by the name of President Obama. During his first campaign for president he promised he wouldn't waste limited government resources pursuing medical marijuana cases. I'm not a Harvard-trained lawyer so I will take his word for it that a president can choose to ignore low-priority prosecutions without violating his oath.

The President Doesn't Personally Put People in Jail

Some commenters mocked me by arguing that the President doesn't control federal law enforcement at the granular level. You can't blame him for every decision made in the field. He's not personally slapping handcuffs on perps. True enough. But in the case of California dispensaries, he authorized the flip-flop in policy from ignoring the situation to going after them. Holding him innocent from the logical repercussions of his policy is like saying history should cut some slack for Pol Pot because he didn't personally kill anyone.

The Lesser Evil Argument

Supporters of President Obama argue that firing the President FOR ANY REASON means accepting a devastating alternative in a Romney presidency. While I applaud the complete dismissal of morality in the interest of practicality, let's take a minute to see if the practicality argument is so cut and dried.

My observation is that voters often - perhaps usually - don't get what they think they voted for. Nixon surprised everyone by getting cuddly with China. Bush Junior turned from isolationist to military adventurer. Obama went from weed-friendly to badass destroyer of state-approved dispensaries. Some fiscal conservatives have blown up the budget while some free-spending Democrats balanced it. If you think you can predict how a candidate will act in office, you might need a history lesson, or perhaps a booster shot of humility.

Now consider Mitt Romney, the most famous chameleon of all time. I submit that a hypothetical Romney presidency would be nearly impossible to predict with any accuracy. In each of his past leadership roles he has morphed into whatever the job required. During the primaries, his job required him to be far right. In the general election we see him drift toward the center, or as his advisor famously said, "Shake the Etch-a-Sketch." It would be naïve to assume Romney wouldn't shake it again once elected, given that even non-chameleon presidents do so.

Romney knows that the electorate is full of idiots and he needs to be a gigantic liar to win their votes. I totally get that. The funniest part is his budget plan that he promises to describe in detail after he gets elected. Dumb people see this as "He has an awesome fiscal plan!" Democrats see it as "He's a liar with no plan!" I see it as "You know I'm a brilliant and experienced turnaround guy. I know how to do this sort of thing. And if I give details now it just paints a target on my back. So chill."

In any event, Congress will be the ones who decide on the next budget. It will probably look similar no matter who gets elected. I don't believe, for example, that a Romney budget would overfund the military. Congress would moderate that, and Romney probably doesn't mean it anyway. Remember, his job today is to lie to get elected. His job once elected is quite different.

I also have no faith in my ability - or yours - to compare Obamacare (essentially a Romney plan) to how healthcare might change under a Romney administration. If you think you know the answer to that question, you're kidding yourself.

Some Democrats say the biggest risk in a Romney presidency involves Supreme Court nominees. But I think we saw after the unexpected opinion from Justice Roberts on the Obamacare ruling that the court has a built-in safety net against being too blatantly partisan and destroying its own credibility in the process.  I think the risk of a conservative-heavy Supreme Court ruining the country by adhering too slavishly (irony!) to the Constitution is low. You might not like some of their rulings, but they probably won't kill you. And if we are being objective, a court with too many lefties would have its own risks.

You're Endorsing Romney to Cut Your Rich Guy Taxes, Bastard!

Some folks suspect that I'm a weasel-bastard who is using the California dispensary issue as a smokescreen for bobbing to the right so I can save on taxes under a Romney administration. There's no defense against an accusation that I have secret motives, but let me describe the economics as I see them.

Over my career, my net worth has moved in lockstep with the overall economy. So whatever plan is good for the entire country is probably the one that helps me most, no matter what my tax rate is. And realistically, given a choice between taxing the rich, including myself, versus taxing people with no money, I don't see a choice. Even Romney knows we can't grow our way out of the problem. He's not an idiot; he's just a guy who needs idiots to vote for him.

So no, I don't see a scenario in which someday I am flying my diamond-encrusted helicopter over the rioting masses of starvation-crazed ex-middle-classers and thinking to myself that things worked out well for me. I don't see the option of living the good life at the expense of the 99%. That's not even a thing. I stopped working to satisfy my personal cravings years ago. Everything I produce and everything I earn these days is for the benefit of others. So I don't mind higher taxes on the rich if it makes sense for the country. With the exception of M.C. Hammer, the rich get richer no matter what the tax rates are. I'm afraid that won't change regardless of who gets elected.


Where's your evidence that President Obama is enforcing drug laws in California for political reasons alone?

What other reason is there? And remember that your answer has to account for the fact that President Obama has never bothered to explain his unexpected change of policy. Nor has anyone in his administration explained it.

I think it is fair to say President Obama didn't learn anything new about the dangers of medical marijuana in California that he didn't know before he got elected. If he did receive new information, he could simply point it out to defend his change of policy.

Californians voted to legalize medical marijuana dispensaries after considering all factors from freedom to health and safety to economics. Our prior governor, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed a law decriminalizing possession of small quantities of marijuana with a classic summary: "No one cares if you smoke a joint." (It's funnier when you imagine it in Arnold's accent.)

The medical marijuana dispensaries have now operated long enough that we can see their impact.  So far, it seems that dispensaries raise tax revenues, reduce crime in their neighborhoods, and help a lot of patients find relief. Dispensaries also keep their customers away from shady dealers who might offer more harmful drugs. The dispensaries probably have no appreciable impact on supply. Illegal marijuana is easy to obtain just about anywhere.

The trend toward full legalization of medical marijuana is accelerating all over the country for the same reasons that swayed Californians. I see no reason the trend will reverse. Does it make sense to send someone to jail for a crime that will likely become a non-crime during the jail term? What kind of leader devotes resources to that?

Have you ever met someone who smoked a lot of marijuana, as President Obama did when living in Hawaii, while simultaneously holding the view that the people who sold it to him should go to jail? I don't know the exact answer to my own question, but I'm guessing the number is near zero.

Now let me confuse the readers coming over from Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Gawker, Mediaite.com, and some of the other Low Information Voter sites. I'm going to display something called "objectivity." It involves discussing the odds that I might be wrong. It does not mean I just changed my mind. It means I'm attempting to consider all sides. Here goes. . .

There is some chance - I think a very small one - that President Obama has a non-political reason for cracking down on California's medical marijuana dispensaries, although I can't even imagine what reason a liberal  ex-stoner  with a budget problem might offer. If he chooses to tell the public his reasons, I will happily reassess my opinion. But keep in mind that one of my neighbors down south is about to go to jail for ten years to life because of President Obama's decision to devote limited Federal resources to prosecuting dispensaries. When a president doesn't offer reasons for jailing Americans, you have to call that a firing offense. (Saying he is following the law isn't a reason. Federal resources are limited and citizens expect their leaders to ignore low priorities.)

In summary, if President Obama is devoting limited federal resources to go after marijuana dispensaries for no reasons other than political gain, including, for example, attracting campaign funding, he should be fired. If he has a reason for jailing a small businessman, and he chooses not to share it, that too is a firing offense.

Why do you keep ignoring third-party candidates?

The best way to fire an incumbent president who is running for reelection is to vote for the only candidate with a realistic chance of beating him. If a voter switches from Obama to Romney it causes a two vote difference: one less vote to Obama and one more for Romney. Moving one vote from President Obama to a third party candidate is a one vote difference in the competition between President Obama and Romney.

And frankly it makes a stronger statement to endorse Romney since I disagree with most of his stated policies. It underlines the difference in importance between a true firing offense and policies you believe would be less desirable than the alternatives.

If my endorsement carried any weight whatsoever, I'd consider backing a third-party candidate. But no one will change opinions based on what I blog about. So I have the freedom to write whatever has the most entertainment value for me, with the hope you'll enjoy the show too.

You're crazy when you say a good reason to believe Romney won't be a disaster as president is that he's lying about what he would do in office.

I'm betting that a chameleon will stay a chameleon. That's his history. He adapts to whatever situation he's in. The alternative is to believe a candidate for President will do all the things he promises during the campaign. How has that worked out for you?

Update 2:

Single issue voting is stupid

I agree. One must always look at the big picture. That's why I'm glad O.J. Simpson got acquitted of criminal charges for allegedly murdering his ex-wife. He only had one bad day. You also have to consider his football records.

When Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid," I took that to mean the economy is just one issue among many. I don't know how else to interpret that.

I also think Nixon got a bum deal with that Watergate thing. That was just one mistake.

If President Obama decides to give our nuclear codes to Iran, let's agree to count that as one mistake that should be weighed against all of his good work. For example, there's the time he recycled, and the time he could have lied but didn't. So that's two good things versus one bad thing.

[sarcasm off]


I think we're all on the same page now. So let's focus on whether the one issue I raised in my offending blog post - that President Obama is effectively sending a guy to prison for no reason other than political gain - and see if that crosses the line for you. Do you want to live in a world where your President can incarcerate citizens for no reason beyond political gain?

Now you might say President Obama is just doing what the law requires when he puts resources behind closing marijuana dispensaries. I dismissed that argument above. (Summary: We expect our leaders to focus their limited resources on high priorities. To willfully do otherwise for political gain, and put people in jail in the process, has to be a firing offense in a free country.)

If you think the one issue I'm talking about is drug policies, and you believe both candidates will have similar policies, then of course that one issue should not sway your decision. But that isn't the one issue I'm focusing on.

My one issue involves President Obama jailing a citizen for naked political gain. You can argue whether my facts and assumptions are correct, but I don't think you can dismiss it as just one issue among many. Jailing a citizen for no reason other than political gain has to be a firing offense. I'd like to believe every citizen agrees on that point.

Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +467
  • Print
  • Share


Sort By:
Oct 19, 2012
To paraphrase Shakespeare's Queen Gertrude, "The cartoonist doth protest too much, methinks!"

You're upset because people disagreed with you? What did you expect? You are a liberal cartoonist one-percenter who just endorsed Romney in arguably the bluest of blue states. You said that Obama should be fired because he (although it was actually his justice department) enforced a federal law for political reasons just because YOU disagree with that law; then, you say that it was no big thing that Obama killed a US citizen. You went on to defend your position by saying that the great strength of society lies in ignoring laws - that ignoring laws make the world a better place.

Then, when you get reasoned and logical pushback, your response is to say your critics don't have enough reading comprehension to understand how absolutely correct you are. Really? It's OUR fault? We're too inept to understand your infallibility?

I know it stings to get criticism. God knows I get enough of it, being a conservative who blogs on middle-of-the-road and left-leaning web sites. But there are two kinds of criticism: one is emotional ad hominem rants, and the other is reasoned disagreement. No problem with ignoring the former, but ignoring (or worse, being disparaging toward) people who hold the latter opinion is not how to win friends and influence people.

Look, I've defended you before with the limited reading comprehension thing, but this just isn't it. What you have here is a group of people who understood exactly what you were saying but disagreed with it, and presented reasoned and logical posts disagreeing with you. Now maybe you have a valid point with people who responded to posts on other sites that distorted what you said, but that's a world of difference from those who follow this blog and know your methods, opinions and writings.

My advice, which you will certainly ignore, is to not take yourself so seriously. Try to find the humor in the situations you feel most upset about. If you don't, you will begin to lose your perspective, and we'll lose the fun, crazy, happy-go-luck guy we all know and like. You're welcome.

[Do I seem upset that people are disagreeing with me? I had a great week reading all of it. I genuinely enjoy it. And you are right that the dumb commenters are mostly on the Low Information Voter sites, not so much here. -- Scott]
Oct 19, 2012
Hi Scott,

In light of your recent decision to begin "endorsing" Romney (in quotes to avoid being taken out of context -- that was your word), I would like to ask you something:

You said in your post that Romney is likely to continue the same policies, but "one can't be sure." That sounds to me like after firing Obama for his offense, you are in favor of hiring another man who you believe will probably (but not certainly) commit the same offense. Do you agree with that statement? If so, how do you justify that?

On a side note, I've recently become a strong advocate of the website isidewith.com, which presents a free survey about the various political issues of the day and reports back with which candidate you align with most closely. The results are free and don't require any sort of registration. Just as an example, here are mine: http://www.isidewith.com/results/161683639 (I'm not affiliated with the site in any way.)

As you can see, I align strongly with the President, and hardly at all with Gov. Romney. I freely admit that I lean strongly to the left, and I have always voted Democratic for the presidency.

The isidewith.com survey takes about ten minutes. For the most accurate results, make sure you expand all of the "Choose Another Stance" options, specify how important each issue is to you, and expand all of the additional questions in each section. I'd be very interested to see how you stack up on policy relative to the candidates. I know you've said in the past that you're a Libertarian without the crazy parts, and I believe that's consistent with the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. If nothing else, your results would provide an interesting context with which to read your political blog posts.

If you do take the survey and share your results, and it doesn't pick Romney, would you change your vote? Let's assume that since you're "firing" Obama, you'd pick the second-place survey result if Obama came up first. Are you too pragmatic to vote for a third-party candidate? How do you justify that when you readily admit that our two-party system is broken? And isn't a vote for Gary Johnson (or any other third party candidate) still a vote to fire Obama?
Oct 19, 2012
I thought you're original post endorsing Romney was incredibly bad. Although I still don't buy your argument (I don't think putting someone in jail is equivalent to murder, among other objections), I thought this one was much better (funnier, more rational, less angry-sounding). I was worried after your original endorsement that this was going to turn into a crazy conservative blog; I'm glad to say this post provides strong evidence it won't.
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
Scott, I'm happy for you when you get lots of attention, but can you please write about something uber-geeky so these people get bored and go away? Then again, maybe you could rehash Men's rights. That was fun.
Oct 19, 2012

I'm enjoying Scott's media experiment as well...
Oct 19, 2012

[Observing political arguments by citizens is like watching a couple of 8 year old kids arguing about wrestling... Knock it off kids it's fake anyway, go find something constructive to do... or as I was told when I was little... go paint lines in the road or something... LOL]

Dont ruin our fun dude. This is the most active the blog has been in a while and, on top of that, weve had Scott respond to So Many of our comments! Im tempted to disagree with him on things he cares about more often!
Oct 19, 2012

I'd 100 that if I wanted to take the time to make a pc name change vote script.
Oct 19, 2012
Observing political arguments by citizens is like watching a couple of 8 year old kids arguing about wrestling... Knock it off kids it's fake anyway, go find something constructive to do... or as I was told when I was little... go paint lines in the road or something... LOL
+105 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
Isn't the prosecution of the business man in California for a legal pot dispensary an Obama attempt to maintain employment numbers?

"Big pharma" and the liquor industry aren't the only ones with a vested interest in keeping pot illegal. There's a lot of jobs at stake in the finding of pot, eradicating it, prosecuting people, defending the accused, incarceration, parole.

The prison system needs customers and pot is good for their business. Also remember that it takes a lot of support industries for the prison system to function. Guards and guns and construction and laundry and food and...it's a real long list.

In the interest of sparking the economy, shouldn't we make additional harmless things illegal?

Choking the chicken would be a great crime to supplement the people incarcerated for having or smoking pot.

You could make the argument that historically there's never been a pot smoker who didn't choke the chicken. That sounds like a precursor to me!
Oct 19, 2012
[The fascinating thing here is that I believe the source of confusion is that people literally don't recognize objectivity when they see it. I got a lot of comments along the lines of "You say X is true and then in the same paragraph you say Y." What I actually said is "X is likely to be true, but here's an argument for Y." That's how objective people talk. They make a prediction and then explain why it might be wrong. That's the only way you know all sides have been considered. Partisans and non-thinkers say, "My prediction is 100% certain."]

I dunno Scott...here you remind me of a very good writer who writes very good stories that totally go over the head of the reading public and then blames the public for his poor book sales. Logically speaking what you say about the paragraph in question may be true but even now, after I know what you really meant, when I read that paragraph I get an impression similar to the one I had at first; that some part of you really beleives that Romney might reverse Obamas drug policy. I think maybe to be really objective you should have gone a bit further in explaining how unlikely it is that Romney would do so. I also think that doing so would have made your objectivity more obvious to your audience.

Or maybe you're right and my reading comprehension is worse than most. But based on some of the other comments Ive seen here I doubt it.
+17 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
Endorsing somebody based solely on the hope they're lying to you seems illogical to me.
Oct 19, 2012
"I would not legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes, and the reasons are straightforward: As I talk to people in my state and at the federal government level about marijuana and its role in society, they are convinced that the entry way into a drug culture for our young people is marijuana. Marijuana is the starter drug....The idea of medical marijuana is designed to get marijuana out in the public marketplace and ultimately lead to the legalization of marijuana overall. And in my view, that's the wrong way to go. I know that other people have differing views. If you'd like to get someone who is in favor of marijuana, I know there are some on the Democratic side of the aisle who will be happy to get in your campaign. But I'm opposed to it, and if you elect me president, you're not going to see legalized marijuana. I'm going to fight it tooth and nail." -Mitt Romney
Oct 19, 2012
[The people with bad reading comprehension, and the people who saw nothing but the confused summaries and tweets from those people, interpreted my argument as saying Romney is likely to be softer on drugs than Obama. And based on that misunderstanding, people concluded that my endorsement of Romney was the stupidest opinion in the galaxy. They'd be right if that had been my reasoning]

This was me. However, I take issue with your characterization of my response as "bad reading comprehension". Given what you wrote, it was entirely reasonable to interpret it as saying you thought there was a chance Romney might not be as hard on marijuana dispensaries as Obama. You also accused me, and others who came to the same conclusion as I did, of lacking objectivity. I suggest that you re-read that passahe with a more objective eye and you'll see that maybe your writing wasn't as clear as it usually is. (Although I still stand by the sentiment expressed in my user name: AdamsIsBrilliant)

I now understand you to be saying soemthing to the effect of, "I don't know what Romney will do on this issue. There's a chance he might not be as bad as Obama on this issue (even though his campaign rhetoric gives no indication of that - he may be just be pandering). But regardless of our speculation as to what Romney might do, we KNOW what Obama did, and that was unacceptable. Therefore, he must be fired."

(If that doesn't fairly state your position, then honestly, I don't think you're making your point as clearly as you think)

The problem is that your "firing" analogy only goes so far before it breaks down. An election differs from a firing in one key respect: When you fire someone, you're not limited to a single person to use as his replacement. When you fire an employee, you can reasonably conclude that his replacement won't engage in the same conduct that got the other employee fired. If you're firing someone who is chronically late, you're probably, when you go about finding a replacement, going to pick someone from among a pool of applicants who has a record of not being late.

An election is not like that. If you "fire" Obama, you don't get to pick "Best Possible Non-Obama Replacement Candidate". You get Romney. It's one or other. (And if you don't believe that it IS one or the other - and that voting for a Third Party candidate is a logical option, then it would be irrational for you to vote for Romney instead of Gary Johnson, as some other commentators have pointed out).

You may think, "I'm okay with Romney, because even though he says otherwise, it's possible that he may actually do the right thing." Fair enough. But, if you accept that as a possibility (which I think is reasonable), then you must also accept as a possibility that Obama, as a lame-duck, second-term President, may also do the right thing and discontinue the administrations's policy on medical marijuana. In fact, that strikes me as a LIKELIER scenario than first-term President Romney lightening up on medical marijuana. First-term Romney is going to be under the same political pressure as first-term Obama was to keep the policy going, and I would argue, even more so, because his party is bigger proponent of the War on Drugs than Obama. Further still, Romney is probably much more personally repulsed by marijuana use than Obama, who has never denied using cocaine in college.

If your one and only goal is to punish President Obama, then I must concede that your position makes sense. He committed what you consider a "fireable" offense, and Romney hasn't (even though he may do so in the future) so Obama must go. If that's your argument, then it is logically sound.

But if your goal is to vote for the person who is less likely to continue with the policy, then voting for Romey seems illogical. You're committing the fallacy of comparing the past acts of one candidate against an imagined future action of another. At the very least, logic would dictate that you compare apples to apples. If you believe that a first-term Romney would be more likely than a second-term Obama to end the current policy, then I'd love to know what you base that on.

Care to respond, Mr. Adams? I very much appreciate that you responded to my comment on your last blog post. This will be my last post on this issue - I know you don't have time to go ten rounds with everyone who comments on your blog. But I am very curious to know A) Whether you're more interested in punishing Obama, or trying to make sure the policy is discontinued, and B) Why you think don't think lame-duck Obama would be better on this issue than first-term Romney?
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
One last post, then, to refute this doggerel:

Inactivity or failure to uphold a promise is not in the same ballpark of immorality as having someone murdered. Your hypothetical CEO has broken a clear principle that everyone holds. Not so with President Obama. Even his alleged promise was actually quite ambiguous and convoluted. Here's what he said in an interview:

"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it's against federal law. I can't nullify congressional law."

"I can't ask the Justice Department to say, 'Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books.' What I can say is, 'Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.' As a consequence, there haven't been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes."

So maybe he's telling the truth and the most he can realistically do is to advise the Justice Department to prioritize its resources. We have no way of knowing. Everything is sufficiently foggy that Obama cannot possibly have unamibugously broken a generally agreed upon principle. So you're left with nothing but a purely utilitarian argument against Obama...which doesn't work, as he certainly believes his election will be for the greater good. So no -- there's no "firing offense".
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
Re: Romney as a "...brilliant and experienced turnaround guy...". While it is is true he was fantastic at enriching *himself* with these efforts, yes. But the companies he was supposedly "turning around", not so much.

Anybody remember KB Toys?
Oct 19, 2012
I wanted to say you're wasting your time, Scott. They're not listening. Then I realized that I enjoyed it and it made me think, and you've expressed that that's your purpose. Mission accopmlished, you crafty basterd.
Oct 19, 2012
Another category of response you would seem to have missed, Scott: point of view. You are interpretting Obamas actions in the worst possible light: the equivelant of murdering an innocent person for his own personal political gain. I can see how you reached that conclusion but is it really so hard to see the other interpretations one might reach? Like 'hes enforcing federal law in a town that asked him to'? Yes I know, you compared that to killing someone because you were asked to. But theres a difference between a person asking another person to break the law and a town asking the president to enforce it. I also know that I agreed with you on the principle of selective law enforcement but in my view federal drug laws just arent that wrong to enforce.
Oct 19, 2012
I'm sending this e-mail from the simulation that is my life. In this simulation I vote for the candidate who most closely represents my values, even if it is a minor 3rd party with no prayer of winning.

It is easy to flush my vote down the toilet voting for a 3rd party when the candidates from each of The Two Parties are as similar as they are this year. Voting for Gary Johnson is also my way of flipping a middle finger to the social conservatives that have hijacked my republican party.
Oct 19, 2012

I'm not debating his argument against Obama. All I'm saying is that if it's a huge issue don't endorse another guy who will almost certainly do exactly the same thing. Endorse nobody, or endorse a candidate that supports the issue you're upset about.
+4 Rank Up Rank Down
Oct 19, 2012
@EtherGnat, his issue with Obama isn't just his policy on drugs. Scott is complaining that someone is being jailed for political rather than public safety reasons via selective enforcement of a stupid law even though they pose absolutely no threat of harm to society. It's particularly bothersome if you suspect that Mr "Total Absorption" himself actually believes from personal experience that marijuana use is almost harmless. In addition, we all remember his promise to let states set their own policies on the matter without interference by the federal government. Does it rise to a firing offense? Honestly, if I were in a swing state, I'd vote for him anyway. Like Cornel West has said, he plans to vote for Obama in November and then protest his policies in February. But apparently Scott doesn't like to quibble that way. Of course, since I don't live in a swing state, I'll get to vote for Jill Stein and feel good about my ballot on some level.
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog