>Abortion
>gay marriage
>Things Mitt Romney wanted to abolish when he became president
>Hurp
>I'm not even a democrat.

Still has nothing to do with the propositions.

Do I really have to explain this to you? Go back and read the original post.

Yes, you do have to explain it, because what you said has nothing to do with the fact that Barack Obama had nothing to do with the propositions.

Neither did this post.

Besides the direct juxtaposition of Barack Obama and the results of several propositions? No, absolutely nothing. Now stop changing the subject.

*pats the top of your head*

Here's a good .gif for you!

To be honest, you seem to be some arrogant high school child who takes politics to be some sort of joke, and you irrationally defend the political side your parents side with. Even though I'm not attacking Obama, you feel compelled to attempt to demean my viewpoint-however, you've done a terrible job of it. And "patting me on the head" just makes you come off as a high school sophomore. It's time to stop attempting to talk politics over the internet until you have a few years under your belt.

I'm 20 year's old, in my third year of college. My mom is a republican, my dad's a democrat. I'm independent and voted for Jill Stein.

This isn't even about politics right now though. I'm trying to explain how short-sighted you're being. You insist that the post is about the propositions that were passed so the post doesn't make sense. I'm telling you that it's referring to the president's stances on the 3 mentioned issues which actually makes sense.

I'm really unsure how stupid you are right now so I'm going to explain this several different ways.

No one mentioned ANYTHING about the propositions
"gay rights, womens rights ... and some weed"
Those are things that Obama supports. It's not about the propositions that were passed, but what he supports that Romney opposed.

>No propositions
>Presidents Stances on those issues
>Now the post makes actual sense

So... Obama has a stance on marijuana in the context of politics? If you can show me where you learned that, I will concede the argument.

“My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that’s something I’m open to because there’s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain. But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.”

“I don’t think that should be a top priority of us, raiding people who are using … medical marijuana. With all the things we’ve got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn’t be a high priority.”

That's where he stands. Also, before you say it, yes, medical marijuana counts as "weed".

I'm a computer animation and interactive media major. I haven't done a single research paper. Honestly, you have google, copy paste search man.

Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States, stated the following in a Mar. 22, 2008 interview with Editorial Page Editor Gary Nelson, published in The Mail Tribune:

"When it comes to medical marijuana, I have more of a practical view than anything else. My attitude is that if it's an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate.

I don't buy that ********. I'm a music major and I do research papers that have nothing to do with my major, and some that do. You seem unfamiliar with the concept of "general education" courses. Quite the hole in your story.

It's not my job to do the research. If you want to debate, it's your job to cite your sources. If you don't have the source, then how do you have such a precise quote?

And finally, my final point: I've already had a debate with OP over this subject, so I know from context what he was talking about. Nothing you say really beats insider info. Good day.

Art History: No research papers, just midterm and final exams based on what we learned in class.
Math: No research papers, just midterm and final exams based on what we learned in class.
Science: No research papers, just midterm and final exams based on what we learned in class.
Psychology: No research papers, just midterm and final exams based on what we learned in class.
English: Just had to write two short stories based off personal experience
English short story class: Had to write a final paper discussing two stories we read in class comparing their themes and symbolism
Current English class: Thesis on the evolution of the word "gender' due next week.

Not all colleges work the same. Go figure.

Either way, there was a different way to look at the post that actually did make sense. That's all I was trying to point out.

Are you still going on about this? Really? I stopped replying for a reason, because your replies completely deviated from the topic and you stopped making sense. There is nothing to be said further. Good day to you, sir/madame.

You said the post was about the propositions so they make no sense.

The post does make sense though if you don't assume it's about the propositions, but Obama's stances on the issues.

You're not a very bright fellow now are ya?

Congratulations on making a lick of sense! I'm very proud of you. Next time you might not want to resort to an ad hominem logical fallacy though- makes you sound completely childish. You'll eventually learn that when you come to the big boys table for talking politics. For right now though, I guess we're stuck with your itty-bitty cutie powitickeeeeees! Yaaaaaaay! But let's address your actual (terrible excuse for an) argument. The post was obviously about the propositions- there is a little thing in the adult world called "implication," and you would do well to learn how to recognize it. I can prove it, too! President Obama's platform has nothing to do with marijuana. The only reason OP would have included that is because he was referring to the recently passed (note: by the voters) legislation.

Next time, make sure you're not completely clueless about things such as logic, debate, rhetoric, current events, and politics before you try to argue with someone, hmm? Until you graduate high school and actually learn a thing or two about the world, nobody wants to hear the drivel that comes from your mind.

I'm not even arguing with you. I'm just pointing out why you're wrong.

Why did I have to tell you two times to understand this? Comment #210 is just #204 reworded.

Obviously the only problem here is that you're reading into implications that don't make any sense.

Obama's is an advocate of looser laws regarding marijuana while Romney platform mentions the criminalization of all marijuana and the abolishment of the use of medical marijuana nation wide.

Comment #174: I tell you that it's about the candidate's stances on the issues. Romney's stance was to abolish gay marriage and abortions through constitutional amendments which opposes Obama's stances on those issues

#196: Is this really not obvious?

#202: It's not about the propositions.

#204: It's about the stances

#210: It's about the stances

#212: It's about the stances

I feel like I'm talking to a little kid.

Also, I don't believe that you are twenty. Surely you would have taken a Psych class where you learned what an "argument" is. You are presenting an argument, and so am I. I never said we were "arguing" in the colloquial sense of the word.

Argument:
An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".

I'm not telling you that you're wrong. I'm just trying to explain to you that there's more than one way to look at the post you complained about.

under the implications you assumed, then you're right. Obama had no play in the results of the propositions that were passed.

Tell me where you got the info that he has a stance on marijuana.

Why do I have to ask you two times for you to understand this?

I obviously typed that and sent it before I got your reply. Have some common sense. I feel like I'm talking to a little kid.

I researched the candidates before I voted.
You asked twice because I was replying to two different comments at the same time.
At least our sentiments to one another is mutual.

You can't recognize when I'm quoting you to make fun of you? Sheesh.

I was being literal on purpose.

Who said the direct juxtaposition had to be between Obama and the results of several propositions? Wouldn't it make much more sense if it was a reference to where he stands on those three issues? Seeing how if he wasn't elected, we would have Romney, who stated he wanted to stomp out gay marriage, women's right to have an abortion, and the decriminalization of medical and recreational marijuana with constitutional amendments.

whats the original text: i thought someone is having fun, or someone is drinking my beer, but they don't sound right]