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
Maes is the grass root candidate--which the 1st thing out of his mouth at speeches I have heard--is to cut the size of our state government. Which means less regulation, less taxes. That will run through on medical marijuana also. Yes, Maes wants medical marijuana regulated and taxed--as did our state legislature and Governor Ritter. It's already a done deal--there is nothing that is going to change that--with the exception of the Colorado supreme court--if they eventually overturn 1284.Quote:
Originally Posted by cologrower420
Maes is not McInnis--whom is totally out of touch with our medical marijuana laws and would do everything he could to wreak havoc. His Colorado Springs talk to law enforcement made that more than clear. McInnis is the one who took 300K from a foundation without actually earning it. That's corruption at it's best.
I think Maes is for tax revenue in this state and private sector capital growth. He's not stupid and realises that medical marijuana in this state is a huge industry--that brings in lots of tax revenue. Because of this--I believe he would not be an enemy of medical marijuana--and would be more inclined to lay off the currently over-regulation--license fees that either Hickenlooper or any other governor candidate would approve of. Being a small business person himself--he understands how detrimental government can be to business.
As far as his comment "he WAS opposed to it originally"--doesn't say that he is now. Lots of politicians on both sides of the isle "were" opposed to medical marijuana--that have had a change of heart--because of the boost of tax revenue to this state. Tax revenue ALWAYS gets their attention, in a positive way, especially to conservative politicians.
Tom Tancredo is known for breaking promises. He has seen this as an opportunity to jump into this race--that he cannot possibly win. So he uses his stance on legalizing marijuana His mouth is a loose canon. Just last week Tancredo stated we should bomb Mecca and impeach Obama--of course (without any legal grounds to do so.) He doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning this election.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkeeNuggz
To legalize marijuana in this state would require voter approval--just like in California. No governor can just legalise marijuana.
Therefore, a vote for Tom Tancredo is just another vote for John Hickenlooper. BTW--democrats love to tax and regulate--that is why I am voting for Dan Maes.
You, and anyone else who's like to be considered versed by those who ARE versed, need to quit beating the incorrect dead horse that Dems "raise taxes" and Republicans don't. Seriously. I'm not even going to give you any links or ideas as to where to read up on the subject.
I don't know why ignorant sheeple on both sides of the line suck up to "their" party with such fervor. It's fucking weird on so many levels. Like kids that kiss up to the cool kids in high school so they can tag along with them. "I voted 4 Sarah, she's my homie. Just like Jesus!!" :wtf:
AGAIN, ON BOTH SIDES!!
That said, Hick did a very nice job in Denver. With that said, I like what Palin did in Alaska. I'm more likely to vote for Hick, but Sarah said she's cool with the herb, so who knows. I'm sure I made almost 100% (or maybe 100%) of you sick with that statement.
Of course, I've studied what they actually DID while in office, as opposed to just listening to the BS spewed by my favorite talking head. Be it Limbaugh or Maher or whoever.
Read Up!! A mind is a terrible thing to waste. :thumbsup:
Give me a break--right now dems. in congress and the senate are debating "not" extending the Bush tax cuts. They are due to expire in Jan. 2011. Fed chairman Bernake is "begging" this administration not to raise taxes on ANYONE. In effect it would be a tax hike to the middle class and the wealthy of this country. Basically taking more money from American pockets.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarmerSteve
Now if you're capable of looking beyond the tippy--tip of your nose-what do you think that is going to do to medical marijuana sales? What do you think that is going to do to the economy in general?
I have listened "personally"--gone to all the meetings of these governor candidates until I am blue in the face. Currently--Colorado is experiencing 9+ unemployment--meaning there are lots of people that have opened up dispensories--C.Spgs. alone has 176--dispensories. A few months ago they only had 14. What does that tell you? There are a lot of laid off people in this state that have looked at medical marijuana has their new careers. Everyone is doing it. This bubble willl crash also.
And may I remind you that this bill (1284) is democrat Romer's and democrat Governor Ritter's bill. Ritter stating that he would veto any bill that didn't have cities and counties being able to ban medical marijuana dispensories. In this bill they totally REGULATE marijuana centers to the absolute extreme. They found another reason to make another enormous government agency in this state--and they did it. Right now the license fees are outrageous.
So now you have a choice. Do you select the governor that is pro-business and wants to CUT the size of government--along with government spending and government REGULATIONS--or do you want to stay with the same ol same ol--which is who I refer to know as Hickenritter?
Dan Maes is the most pro-business candidate. He is the one that wants to cut the size of state government--cut government regulation--and cut government spending. McInnis is the worst choice with his comments on medical marijuana. And Hickenritter-is just another Gov. Ritter. Stifiling job creation in this state--insuring that unemployment remains high--so you can have a little more competition in this industry.
Think beyond the tip of your nose.
If you think a republican would 'shrink' the government or remove existing regulations or laws (like 1284 or 109), you are crazy. Repubs love to claim small government, but look at bush. What did he do to 'shrink' the government?Quote:
Originally Posted by rightwinger
All politicians are pieces of shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cologrower420
I agree that "all" politicians are self-interested ego-maniacs. But--we still have the choose the best out of the worst.
We know for a fact that Romer and Ritter made these bills 1284 and 109--while there were several Republicans on the floor of the senate stating they were unconstitutional and or against Admendment 20.
We also know for a fact--that Romer was cheering on an additional 10% excise tax on medical marijuana sales--that cities could charge in addition to the sales tax. These guys saw what they believed to be this "pot of Gold" industry--and right now have over licensed fee-ed it, dramatically over-regulated it--to where it is almost impossible for an owner of a dispensory to make ends meet.
At this time--I am simply voting for someone who states the first thing he is going to do is lay-off state employees--cut the size of government--and stop over-regulating business in this state. Someone who is more interested in growing private sector business that trying to regulate it out of business. And that was exactly the intention of 1284 and 109.
I received a similar response and asked him to expand on his position.
He responded today stating, "I will be glad to place something more on my website." AND "I have time today to get to my website. I will do my best and thank you for your inquiry and input."
He hasn't updated it yet but here is his website:
Dan Maes for Colorado Governor in 2010
Cool. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.