Printable View
Sent him an email asking where he stood on MMJ in Colorado. Here is his reply.
I opposed it as an initiative. WE now own it as a constitutional amendment and must manage it accordingly. I want to see it managed like a pharmaceutical.
Dan Maes
The Peoples Candidate
Re-energizing Colorado 's Economy
303-670-2010
[email protected]
Dan Maes for Colorado Governor in 2010
Maes is a monster. He poses as a small-government conservative, but when it comes to social issues, he has made it clear that he will use the power of government to impose his own views on Coloradans; for example, Maes is anti-choice, opposes gay and lesbian civil rights, and supports anti-immigrant legislation like Arizona's recent law. I believe Maes will end retail MMJ sales in this state if elected.
...good thing this guy has absolutely zero chance of being our governor. When he comes to my town I plan on heckling him.
Just what we need another Rouge CowboyQuote:
Originally Posted by HighPopalorum
If Jaimes Brown makes it through the Libertarian Primary, here is what he thinks:
"They'll continue to incarcerate or even murder your family members for SAFER recreation while mandating your children receive potentially fatal vaccinations. Yet these are the same people taking unilateral control over health care. I am the enemy of evil, greater and lesser. I am not beholden to the corporatist machine of monopolized profits and socialized losses that your two party system created and is beholden to. If you want to turn the ship around and return to a constitutionally limited government that upholds the principles of liberty, civil rights, and justice, vote Jaimes Brown for Governor of Colorado on November 2, 2010."
Vague and sinister, particularly re: vaccinations. I'm repulsed by the LP now, after a long period of disaffection. (I was an intern at the Cato Institute, but don't tell my liberal friends!) Did you notice that they removed their unequivocal statement against the drug war from their party platform in 2006, leaving only one sentence:Quote:
Originally Posted by blackadder
2000:
The so-called "War on Drugs" is in reality a war on the American people, our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. We deplore the suffering that drug misuse has brought about; however, drug prohibition is more dangerous than drugs themselves. The War on Drugs is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order and to peace in the world; furthermore, it has provided a rationale by which the power of the state has been expanded to restrict greatly our right to privacy and to be secure in our homes.
We specifically condemn the use of "profiles" as sufficient to satisfy the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment, the use of "civil asset forfeiture" to reduce the standard of proof historically borne by government in prosecutions, and the use of military forces for civilian law enforcement as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act which forbids this practice.
We call for the repeal of all laws establishing criminal or civil penalties for the use of drugs and of "anti-crime" measures restricting individual rights to be secure in our persons, homes, and property; limiting our rights to keep and bear arms; or vote.
In the 2010 platform..... barely a mention. (The bolded bit above survived.) I used to love their militance, their refusal to compromise. Now, if you open up the dictionary to compromised it has their picture. Check out their flip flop on immigration, induced this year by the Tea Party wing. I'm cherry picking the quotes, but these are the relevant bits:
2000:
...
We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
2010:
Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
Is that vaguely sinister or sinistrally vague? I hate to say it, but the LP and I have parted ways. They caved to the right on these and other issues, and I became more liberal as I grew. Oh well....
Sorry for being off topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkedout
Who we definitely DO NOT WANT--is Scott McInnis. This guy is corrupt and is on record for telling law enforcement in C. Spgs.--that he is going to contact the Obama administration and tell him to ignore our admendment 20 of the Colorado Constitution and that he will ask Obama to enforce federal laws on all Colorado laws and admendments to our constitution.
McInnis would make for the worst governor in our states history.
Here's the article--McInnis to put brakes on medical marijuana.
Guv hopeful McInnis wants to put brakes on medical marijuana | mcinnis, obama, hopeful - Public Affairs - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
If Dan Maes doesn't win the Republican primary I will be voting for Hickenlooper.
Isn't his Slogan the Jobs Governor, I guess its OK to kill Jobs when they are connected to MMJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by rightwinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangwomyn
Yeah--but after the recent news of his plageriorism-and actually receiving 300K for it--it tells me how corrupt Scott McInnis really is--which just gave me another very good reason NOT to vote for him.
His anti--mmj stance--against a voter approved admendment is way over the top for me too.
So I will be voting for Dan Maes in the primary--and if he loses I have no problems with crossing party lines to vote for Hickenlooper in the general.
You've made several anti-mcinnis posts, yet the reasons you've given such as the anti-mmj thing, apply to the person you're lobbying for as well, maes.Quote:
Originally Posted by rightwinger
What's the real reason you are anti-mcinnis? Please don't use the MMJ topic, since they have the same position.
I hope this post isn't taken as a personal attack, I am just curious. I certainly wouldn't bother explaining my political views to some random on the internet, so feel free to ignore.
Scott McInnis is a fucking turd and doesn't stand a chance. I personally believe, even though this will be my first election, Hickenlooper will win and even that could be bad. I just saw on the 7 o'clock news that Tom Tancredo many be running as a third party candidate. He's for outright legalization and I personally think if he uses that as his platform, he'll take votes away from both 'Big Parties".
Tom Tancredo, foe of illegal immigrants, to run for governor? - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election - USATODAY.com