HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jack_krass » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Oct 2, 2015, 12:07 PM
Number of posts: 1,009

Journal Archives

Should Hillary repudiate Richard Kagan's endorrsement?

Trump was (rightly) forced to repudiate David Duke's endorsement. Why not repudiate Kagan's endorsement?) PNAC was an integral piece of the pro war propaganda puzzle, and I think its fair to argue that this organiation has much blood on its hands.

Hillary would go a long way toward winning my vote if she did this.

I fear both an HRC and a Trump presidency

HRC will implement a hawkish PNAC inspired foreign policy.. I'd count on three or four "regirne changes", escalation in the ME, more mischief in Latin America, a good chance of war with Iran, and possibly WW3 as her and Putin will butt heads.

Trump is isolationist, but will focus his evil fascist tendencies inward. I see walls being built, possibly with prison labor, federal sanctioned discrimination and violence against immigrants, possiblly I fear, even "camps" for Muslims and other "enemies" of "American greatness"

Which would be worse? Both are nightmare scenarios IMO and it may come down to where you live and who you are. God help us in either case.

There *is* a difference between Democrats and Republicans

Example, Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Regan. Different universe.

However, barring a couple social issues, there is *NOT* much differnce between HRC (and other third way DOINOs) and Repiblicans,

-Both favor massive, complex, pro Corporate trade laws
-Both favor massive influx of H1B visas
-Both favor strict, punative drug laws
-Both are pro Defence
-Both are for private prisons
-Both are pro death penalty
-Both put corporate interests over the environment, ie fracking and pipelines
-Both endorse other republicans commonly
-Both admire Kissinger
-Both are agressive posturing war hawks


Hillary Clinton is *NOT* for pot legalization.

I'm sick of her sycophants spreading this lie. Hillary is for changing pot from a SCHEDULE-I drug to a SCHEDULE-II drug (SCHEDULE-II is the same as Morphine, Cocaine, and Methamphetamine). This keeps it *highly* illegal, with long prison terms possible for even possession (just as they are for Cocaine, another SCHEULDE-II drug).

The only effective change is that this means Marijuana, and derivatives could be used as medicine, as it is illegal to use any Schedule-I substance as medicine.

So why is Hillary for this?
-Out of the goodness of her heart? No
-Because it will help people? No
-So we can research this more(as the article implies)? No
-Because it would help Big Pharma? (and keep Big Prison happy) BINGO!!!!!!!

The Pharma industry likes this move because it allows them to market the active ingredient, and make derivatives, while keeping the raw plant *highly* illegal (refer to Opium Poppy for the gameplan). The prison industry loves this because it doesn't slow down the flow of (mostly minority) new inmates..

Don't it just touch your heart how well our government works together with our Pharma and Prison corporations? (and against our people) Almost brings a team to my eye.

Seriously, this enrages me and I have to laugh to keep from hitting something. Marijuana should be COMPLETELY UNSCHEDULED federally, like alcohol.

We, the banks, oil companies, and multinational corps have been paying Hillary's salary for the last

20 years, and finaced two presidential campaigns.

Shouldnt we expect her to do what she said she would in her speeches?

I think you're confused

Nobody here commits or support massacres. In fact, we believe (supported by evidence) that responsible gun ownership is a deterrent to massacres.

I could argue that the gun controllers who are responsible for the massacres, because, by always screaming ITS TEH GINZZZ, they detract from fresh ideas that could be useful.
Go to Page: 1