2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: Rocky on March 17, 2017, 05:09:05 PM
-
Some friends of mine became tired of the "O'le Blue Boy " system here in Hawaii and have started a movement to "Make Hawaii Great Again '!
A 3 year REPUBLICAN resident of Hawaii has unseated the democratic held District 47 State Chair. District 47 is the largest district on Oahu.
Now not only do I (we) have a legit reason in attending the meetings, but I have also thrown in my hat running for or serving as an Officer, Delegate, Committee Rep or any other support I can offer.
Meet your new District 47 Chair; I have begun working/volunteering in our voting district to help promote the Republican Party platform of Conservative, Constitutionally limited government, Personal Responsibility, and Individual Freedom with an emphasis on reforming and rebuilding our State's GOP Party from the bottom up. We the Republican, conservative, liberty minded people of Hawaii have a voice and it is not being represented in our State and Federal Legislative bodies.
I hope you agree and if so, we have work to do.
If you want to know a little more about me please read my attached Bio.
I am currently planning Precinct Election meetings to get our local house in order, are you interested in attending the meetings, running for or serving as an Officer, Delegate, Committee Rep ?
This will be discussed and explained at the first meeting, TBA, in greater detail. I can also send you more info upon request if you want to get involved immediately.
If you have any questions, or just want to talk to me about this initiative, please feel free to call.
I truly look forward to working in our community, with our people, making our District Great Again and helping to lead the charge to effect our State in a mighty way.
Positive, informed,& motivated people are needed, and curious, sincere newcomers will always be welcome!
Many new Republican Party leaders, in numerous Districts, have committed to pursuing a Grass Roots Strategy for success and an effort to strengthen the Hawaii GOP.
Please consider what your main concerns, interests, or passions are, and if you feel you could help in any way at all or simply attend a Precinct meeting once a month, let me know.
So, what do you think? What really matters to you?
Should we be getting this message to decent, qualified people who are willing to run for office and change the direction of our State?
We can, if only we unite and fight for what we know is right!
********************************************************
Which issue or issues matter the most to you? Is there an issue not listed here- let me know ;-)
• Jobs, Economic Growth
• Second Amendment Rights
• Religious Freedom - Freedom of Speech
• De-funding Planned Parenthood - Right to Life
• Environment
• Tax Reform- less not more- the Rail
• National Security
• Protecting Medicare and Social Security
• Conservative Educational Reform- Common Core
• Veteran Affairs
• Fixing our Broken Immigration System
• Repealing Obamacare- Healthcare reform- Food Freedom- GMO's
Etc....
If you are concerned, will you please share this with some of your like-minded friends, contacts, co-workers and neighbors.
Also, let me know if you want email updates or if you want to participate in any way :)
"Mahalo nui "!
In Liberty and ...in peace!
Sincerely,
Rhonda Welsch
386-576-4308
If she can take over the largest almost single handily, Imagine what you can do !
Bio here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8YdUGFrSbBBR2hPOW5qZHZ4cGZLTWZDSXhoV0wzQzdHdjdj/view
HAWAII REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE RULES
http://gophawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Rules-of-the-Republican-Party-of-Hawaii-As-of-May-22-2016.pdf?mc_cid=72c651969d&mc_eid=91980bb8ad WAII REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE RULES
I ask you now to take control over your own districts.
This may be the start of turning Hawaii Red, or at least purple. :worship:
-
I'm surprised that there is not a single comment or commitment yet.
No wonder Hawaii so Democrat.
Kind of reminds me our "2015 get your Hawaii CCW Ap" just to show the AG's numbers were off.
C'mon, let's Make Hawaii Great Again !
-
I have been PM'd the following after wondering wy nobody cared about this post so I will attempt to clarify OUR purpose.
Hi Rocky,
Maybe it's a lack of information. Two question that comes to mind:
1. What is being asked? Is this the Hawaii GOP that is asking for help? Or is it Rhonda Welsch?
Is it you who is asking for help?
It is Rhonda Welsh representing the GOP asking for our help.
I will be getting more info from her but she has already responded to me twice since my post. She really seems to be a go getter.
Her personal responses to me have been faster than the automated generic messages received from any other politico ever.
It just seems that if we had more "like minded" folks attending and participating in the GOP, real serious changes CAN be made.
What do they need help with?
Seeking those interested in attending the meetings, running for or serving as an Officer, Delegate, Committee Rep.
Executive committee officers are mostly near the end of your terms and ready to be REPLACED.
We are not talking a full time job here, just participation.
There are over 50 positions available.
Imagine a voting for someone in your district that actually has the same ideals as you?
Or better yet, being that Someone !
2. Are you participant in this or are you passing along info?
I am a participant and have let Rhonda know I am available as a volunteer for ANY position.
My passing along this info is part of my participation.
Received Yesterday
Good morning from your District Chair, (RHONDA DISTRICT 41)
I am forwarding this email to help you as new officers, Delegates,and members of our Republican Party of Hawaii, to understand mutual concerns I and other District Chairs are attempting to address today at the State Committee Meeting in Maui. I will be at Republican Headquarters this afternoon while this meeting is conducted to participate via Tel Con Call, hopefully!
Please go to Hawaii Republican Party website www.gophawaii.com
Familiarize yourself and search through the "About " tab- there you will find four tabs - all are important, but Please download copy of Rules of the Hawaii Republican Party that apply - I have Hawaii and Honolulu County saved and hard copies for reference purposes.
Read this email, think about the issues being addressed and consider what you think we need to do in light of these concerns. Let me know where you stand and feel free to reply to me, or others addressed in the forwarded letter. HD Chair Brett Kulbis is doing a superb job of identifying immediate issues and requiring accountability by all concerned Party Members.
Rhonda Welsch - District Chair HD 47
386-576-4308
Brett Kulbis District Chair HD-41 Emailed reply to Chairman AFTER State Committee Meeting in Maui.
Mr. Chairman,
Wow, where do I begin!! There are some extremely serious problems and concerns with this meeting packet we’ve all just belatedly received for tomorrow’s meeting.
First, this agenda completely ignores the concerns I’ve gathered from the State Committee; concerns which I presented as a draft agenda in the absence of a properly presented one which should have been sent to us last Friday. This is not the agenda of a party organization which is trying to fix our problems so we can start winning. This is a go-through-the-motions agenda. Even our newest District Chairs can see that. How can we win elections if we keep blowing off stuff like those I suggested?
Secondly, there is no “New Business” on your agenda? Yet to my, and probably many others, complete surprise, you’re hitting us with some substantial new business concerning selling the headquarters. Not only is there no item on the agenda relating to the attachments about an apparently proposed sale of HQ, you’ve deliberately given us zero time to read, comprehend, and properly discuss these materials, or was that your intention. It would seem to be since you didn’t include the letter mentioned by Carol Thomas regarding OLRW’s lawyer opinion on this proposed action. How is this any way to do business?
Third, we are missing the 2016 budget report showing planned vs actual (income and expenses). It will be hard to examine your proposed 2017 budget for the year which is already three months late if we have no idea how good or bad your projections were for 2016. The State Committee got blindsided by Oahu League’s current newsletter which reported that an HRP bank account of $100,000 has been depleted. Your new 2017 budget is so unrealistically rosy and optimistic, that before we could even consider this budget we would need to know what really happened over the past 22 months.
Fourth, why have you sent us 2-year old financial data and confusing FEC report? If anything, we want more recent data showing our financial condition, sorted by subcategories of income and of expenses. It feels like someone is trying to pull a fast one, perhaps with some smooth talking. This is so wrong and unethical!!
Tomorrow’s lightweight, dismissive agenda seems to be putting us on a fast-track to repeating the results of 2016 in 2018.
Most of the people participating in tomorrow’s state committee meeting just got elected, while the executive committee officers are mostly near the end of your terms. 2016 was a disaster and we deserve to know the fullness of what went wrong and how to fix it. Not waste our time on some red herring that only benefits your agenda, what ever that is.
v/r
Brett Kulbis
District Chair HD-41
State House District 41 Ewa Villages, Ewa Beach, Ewa Gentry, Ocean Pointe, West Loch
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it; the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
As you can see, we now have some PO'd newcomers making waves for real change.
Let's be part of that change !
-
Looks good Rocky.
I have lost some of my fight on the legislative action side as our testimonies have little to no effect because the politicians just don't listen or care what we have to say. Hitting my head against a wall is going to yield a similar result.
Working to replacing them by challenging them at the elections would have a much better end result to seeing any change.
Thank you for doing this. I will re-assess and see if and how I am able to help.
-
I think it might be difficult for people to get enthused by something that one of the elected members, Brett Kulbis, characterizes by writing (among other criticisms), "It feels like someone is trying to pull a fast one, perhaps with some smooth talking. This is so wrong and unethical!!". The whole thing smells of the typical Uniparty events we now see going on in Washington, D.C. where both the Democrats AND Republicans are fighting Trump tooth and nail to keep themselves in power, rather that be truly concerned about what would most help all Americans in the long run. It's a sham.
Yeah, click on that link to the gophawaii (if you can get the web page to load). Read their platform. Lots of "soundbite" claims about "liberty" and "smaller government" and "right to life", but no mention of personal liberty regarding possessing and consuming arbitrarily and capriciously government-dictated "illegal substances" (which have less scientific evidence of harm than legal alcoholic beverages), nor of how the "right to life" is consistent with laws illegalizing personal choices at end of life to have one's life terminated in a pain -free manner, nor of getting the government out of interactions between consenting adults who might want to exchange various goods and services, etc. etc. etc. In other words, it's just imposing it's own moral dictates (vs. the shallow claim of "liberty") versus the moral dictates of the "other side" dictators. Their claims of supporting "liberty" are basically equivalent to the Dems who claim "I support the Second Amendment, but... (as long as a person is allowed to own a single shot .22LR rifle exclusively inside their home, that's good enough)".
And, no, it's not a case of "the perfect is the enemy of the good"... more like "the not quite as bad in some ways". I don't really want to support anyone who wants to deny me any of my liberties and wants to turn me into a criminal for choosing to exercises my rights and preferences where no one else is harmed.
-
I think it might be difficult for people to get enthused by something that one of the elected members, Brett Kulbis, characterizes by writing (among other criticisms), "It feels like someone is trying to pull a fast one, perhaps with some smooth talking. This is so wrong and unethical!!". The whole thing smells of the typical Uniparty events we now see going on in Washington, D.C. where both the Democrats AND Republicans are fighting Trump tooth and nail to keep themselves in power, rather that be truly concerned about what would most help all Americans in the long run. It's a sham.
I'M ENTHUSED JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE IN A POSITION OF POWER IS LETTING THE PUBLIC KNOW WHO'S SCREWING UP AND WANTS TO REPLACE THEM AND EXACTLY WHY YOU SHOULD ACT NOW TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE SYSTEM.
Yeah, click on that link to the gophawaii (if you can get the web page to load). Read their platform. Lots of "soundbite" claims about "liberty" and "smaller government" and "right to life", but no mention of personal liberty regarding possessing and consuming arbitrarily and capriciously government-dictated "illegal substances" (which have less scientific evidence of harm than legal alcoholic beverages), nor of how the "right to life" is consistent with laws illegalizing personal choices at end of life to have one's life terminated in a pain -free manner, nor of getting the government out of interactions between consenting adults who might want to exchange various goods and services, etc. etc. etc. In other words, it's just imposing it's own moral dictates (vs. the shallow claim of "liberty") versus the moral dictates of the "other side" dictators. Their claims of supporting "liberty" are basically equivalent to the Dems who claim "I support the Second Amendment, but... (as long as a person is allowed to own a single shot .22LR rifle exclusively inside their home, that's good enough)".
AGAIN, EXACTLY WHY YOU SHOULD ACT NOW TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE SYSTEM THAT BRETT AND THE LIKE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
THEIR PLATFORM IS NOT NECESSARILY BRETT'S, YOURS OR MINE.
THE IDEA HERE IS TO CHANGE THINGS
THERE ARE IMPORTANT POSITIONS THAT NEED TO BE FILLED WITHIN ALL OF OUR DISTRICT PRECINCTS AND NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT !
"PUNAPERSON FOR HAWAII PUNA DSTRICT CHAIR" :thumbsup:
And, no, it's not a case of "the perfect is the enemy of the good"... more like "the not quite as bad in some ways". I don't really want to support anyone who wants to deny me any of my liberties and wants to turn me into a criminal for choosing to exercises my rights and preferences where no one else is harmed.
IN MY FIRST POST I COPY AND PASTED HER EMAIL. *(SUBJECT LINE Reforming Hawaii's GOP)
PLAIN AS DAY IT SAYS...
Which issue or issues matter the most to you? Is there an issue not listed here- let me know ;-)
• Jobs, Economic Growth
• Second Amendment Rights
• Religious Freedom - Freedom of Speech
• De-funding Planned Parenthood - Right to Life
• Environment
• Tax Reform- less not more- the Rail
• National Security
• Protecting Medicare and Social Security
• Conservative Educational Reform- Common Core
• Veteran Affairs
• Fixing our Broken Immigration System
• Repealing Obamacare- Healthcare reform- Food Freedom- GMO's
Etc....
HERE IS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL ASKING FOR YOUR OPINION ON ISSUES (NOT JUST THOSE LISTED) WHO MIGHT ACTUALLY LISTEN !
A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL ASKING YOU TO NOT JUST VOTE, BUT ACTUALLY BECOME A COG IN THE WHEEL OF CHANGE.
KINDA LIKE GANDHI'S "NO VOTE, NO GRUMBLE"
“You must be the change you want to see in the world.”[/font][/font]
THESE FOLKS AND I ARE GETTING INVOLVED BECAUSE THE SAME-O SAME-O KEEPS HAPPENING AND WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF IT.
THESE FOLKS AND I ARE GETTING INVOLVED BECAUSE LIKE YOU,WE "don't really want to support anyone who wants to deny me US any of my OUR liberties and wants to turn me US into a criminal for choosing to exercises my OUR rights and preferences.
WHAT IF HAWAII'S LOW VOTER TURN OUT WAS BECAUSE ALL OF THE REPUBLICAN TYPES SIMPLY HAD NO ONE TO VOTE FOR ?
-
Not to be anal, but shouldn't this belong in the political area?
That being said, until you can throttle the Chairmen of committees
or at least make them fear for their lives, nothing will change.
Hawaii is so "Deep leftist" only blood shed for liberty can fix it.
I don't think we here are willing to start shooting politicians, after all
that is illegal and nobody here would do or advocate anything illegal.
So just say to the Democrats "Thank you sir, can I have another",
(From Animal house the movie). and be good little citizens.
-
Not to be anal, but shouldn't this belong in the political area?
That being said, until you can throttle the Chairmen of committees
or at least make them fear for their lives, nothing will change.
Hawaii is so "Deep leftist" only blood shed for liberty can fix it.
I don't think we here are willing to start shooting politicians, after all
that is illegal and nobody here would do or advocate anything illegal.
So just say to the Democrats "Thank you sir, can I have another",
(From Animal house the movie). and be good little citizens.
Your not being anal, I posted in General to get the word out knowing that mods would move it. :shaka:
The idea here is to REPLACE the Chairmen of committees and other offices and positions. :shaka:
"I don't think we here are willing to start shooting politicians" either but I am willing to try and personally replace them. :thumbsup:
And no, I will no longer voluntarily "Bend Over" and take another " and be good little citizen".
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Ben Franklin
-
The committee chairs are voted in by the members. There's a lot of jockeying for position that happens on who gets to be chair of what committee.
There's a lot of that "be a good little follower and next year you can be a chair of so and so committee" among the legislators also.
-
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Emil Svrcina <emil_svrcina@hotmail.com> wrote:
Aloha fellow Republicans
We are draining the swamp in Hawaii Republican Party one RINO at the time.
Then we will have our party back to fight the real enemy and drain the swamp of the corrupt 62 year old one party monopoly of Democrats in Hawaii.
Do you believe our leadership who thinks this way?:
"We are a thriving and inclusive Party"
"I am extremely proud of how our Party welcomes and fosters voices from every background"
I think: we have dying party Club and our leaders are proud to be unprincipled, lukewarm, and silent in the face of evil.
Lets make the 2017 the new beginning for HRP.
Join the movement: www.hawaiirepublicanaction.com
Vote Brett Kulbis in as Honolulu County Chair on 3/27 and vote (Mormons) - Fritz and Jack - out on 5/13.
Emil Svrcina
District 37 Chair
-
An oft-quoted remark of Benjamin Franklin, or a number of other people who probably never said it, is that insanity may be defined as “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Heading into November 2017, our Nation will have 31 State Houses with a Republican majority, compared to 2010 when we only had a majority in 16.
The entire country, for the most part, has rejected the radicalism of the previous Administration's leftist policies with a resounding message.
The National Republican Party has been revitalized.
However, Hawaii's Republican Party continues to lose more representatives every election since the year 2000.
The current leaders of our HRP are either lying or delusional.
There is a total " lack of commitment " to speak to the needs of "Hawaii's national security and economic future" , or to provide an honest explanation for these facts.
Why are Hawaii's conservative citizens disengaged?
Where are our States conservative influencers?
We must identify and promote the power players who can help get candidates elected, put through policy proposals, cause ideological changes, and affect popular perceptions.
We need politicians, lobbyists, advisors, donors, corporations, industry groups, labor unions, single-issue organizations, NGO's, non-profits, to name a few.
Where are these people?
We need a strategy for success and we must start by holding those responsible for HRP's failure accountable.
The activity of the influence-rs who are changing the color of America Red must be activated here in Hawaii as well.
If we fail to do this, Hawaii's Republican, conservative citizens will suffer greatly and the window of opportunity our President has given us will be forever closed.
We cannot allow this on our watch.
The family, the Bill of Rights, the institutions that hold our society together are under attack and we must bring truth to this fight.
The time is now, the cause is freedom, the choice is ours...will we stop this insanity?
-
The time is now, the cause is freedom, the choice is ours...will we stop this insanity?
That's a rhetorical question, right?
You, and we, all know the answer to that is "no".
-
Quote from: Rocky on March 23, 2017, 03:48:50 PM
The time is now, the cause is freedom, the choice is ours...will we stop this insanity?
That's a rhetorical question, right?
You, and we, all know the answer to that is "no".
Wasn't a rhetorical question, was just wondering if you were with us which you have answered.
BTW, here's who's making your decisions for you to "bend over and ask for another" in Puna....
1 Chairman Justin Scharf 808-319-9471 justinscharf@outlook.com
1-9 President Alan Koahou 808-657-8270 amkoa2305@gmail.com
2 Chairman Sibi Hoke 808-933-1066 808-989-7714 sibi@hawaii.rr.com
4 Chairman Marc Fullmer 808-982-7605 pbm959@gmail.com
1-5 President Ron Vizzone 808-982-7697 808-494-4460 da_viz49@yahoo.com
District map attached.
As you seem to not want to make change, be "good little citizen" and move along, nothing for you to see here.
For all others :wave:
Honolulu County Convention
March 27th, 2017
Location: Koko Head Elementary, 189 Lunalilo Rd. Honolulu
Time: Registration 5:30, Convene 6:15 PM – 8:30 PM. Credentials closes 6:30 PM.
Contact: Convention Committee Chair Jennifer Anderson, jennifer@gophawaii.com, 808-838-9276
I believe it's $10 @ the door
-
Quote from: Rocky on March 23, 2017, 03:48:50 PM
The time is now, the cause is freedom, the choice is ours...will we stop this insanity? Wasn't a rhetorical question, was just wondering if you were with us which you have answered.
BTW, here's who's making your decisions for you to "bend over and ask for another" in Puna....
1 Chairman Justin Scharf 808-319-9471 justinscharf@outlook.com
1-9 President Alan Koahou 808-657-8270 amkoa2305@gmail.com
2 Chairman Sibi Hoke 808-933-1066 808-989-7714 sibi@hawaii.rr.com
4 Chairman Marc Fullmer 808-982-7605 pbm959@gmail.com
1-5 President Ron Vizzone 808-982-7697 808-494-4460 da_viz49@yahoo.com
District map attached.
As you seem to not want to make change, be "good little citizen" and move along, nothing for you to see here.
For all others :wave:
Honolulu County Convention
March 27th, 2017
Location: Koko Head Elementary, 189 Lunalilo Rd. Honolulu
Time: Registration 5:30, Convene 6:15 PM – 8:30 PM. Credentials closes 6:30 PM.
Contact: Convention Committee Chair Jennifer Anderson, jennifer@gophawaii.com, 808-838-9276
I believe it's $10 @ the door
I wish you well in your endeavors.
No, I'm not a Republican. I can give you a list of Republican party positions on various issues that I strongly (to put it mildly) disagree with (all of which are positions where the Republican party advocates that people, rather than having freedom and liberty to make personal choices that do no harm to others, obey the dictates of government or be deemed criminals and suffer at the capricious whimsy of jack-booted thugs. Just one example: Legally buy and consume all the alcoholic beverages you want, but possess a fraction of an ounce of cannabis (or any other "illegal drug") and go to jail. Hypocrites.). I can also include quotes from a personal email from Ms. Welsch where she herself articulates some of those positions (though she differs from the official party positions on others). I can also provide some quotes both from her own website and websites that she links to regarding what one might call the "overarching ideological basis" for her views, which is fine, unless you happen to be either 1. NOT religious, or 2. religious, but not a member of that particular religion.
Give us an update on what happens at the meeting. I look forward to the insanity ending. When do you expect we'll see exactly what results? :shaka:
-
I wish you well in your endeavors.
No, I'm not a Republican. I can give you a list of Republican party positions on various issues that I strongly (to put it mildly) disagree with (all of which are positions where the Republican party advocates that people, rather than having freedom and liberty to make personal choices that do no harm to others, obey the dictates of government or be deemed criminals and suffer at the capricious whimsy of jack-booted thugs. Just one example: Legally buy and consume all the alcoholic beverages you want, but possess a fraction of an ounce of cannabis (or any other "illegal drug") and go to jail. Hypocrites.). I can also include quotes from a personal email from Ms. Welsch where she herself articulates some of those positions (though she differs from the official party positions on others). I can also provide some quotes both from her own website and websites that she links to regarding what one might call the "overarching ideological basis" for her views, which is fine, unless you happen to be either 1. NOT religious, or 2. religious, but not a member of that particular religion
Give us an update on what happens at the meeting. I look forward to the insanity ending. When do you expect we'll see exactly what results? :shaka:
Dude, your really stuck on that pakalolo thing aren't you ? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :sleeping:
The committee chairs are voted in by the members. There's a lot of jockeying for position that happens on who gets to be chair of what committee.
There's a lot of that "be a good little follower and next year you can be a chair of so and so committee" among the legislators also.
Monday, we will be voting on who will be the Honolulu County Chair.
We will not be voting for a follower but a leader, No "Jockying" involved.
By volunteering and participating, to paraphrase HeMan, "I HAVE THE POWER" to help make change
-
Dude, your really stuck on that pakalolo thing aren't you ? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :sleeping:
No. I'm stuck on the "hypocrite thing", or the "liar thing", depending on how you view it. It's "interesting" that you find being a hypocrite/liar to be rolling-on-the-floor funny. Those who claim to advocate for liberty and then actually advocate for taking liberties (and freedom itself) from people, you know, like (most) Republicans re "illegal drugs" while they legally consume their particularly-preferred intoxicant (alcohol). Or re "right to life" except for when someone at end-of-life wants to make their own determination as to exactly how and when they die. Or like when two consenting adults mutually agree to a mutually beneficial arrangement but the Republicans want to put them both in jail (but especially the woman) because the Republicans have some religious-based morality that says people "shouldn't" do that. Etc.
I notice that you were very selective in what you chose to respond to in my post, including the questions I asked. Why not answer those? I mean if you have nothing to hide about your claimed advocacy for "liberty" and "freedom". Please feel free to address any of the above issues, and "When do you expect we'll see exactly what results?"
PS I don't use any psychotropic substances (alcohol, cannabis, coffee, etc.). My interest is liberty and freedom for individuals not being squashed by government, especially a government of hypocrites. Neither do I belong to any religion, yet I support "freedom of religion", though I have a very strong preference that religions refrain from attempting to use government laws to enforce the religion's beliefs.
-
No. I'm stuck on the "hypocrite thing", or the "liar thing", depending on how you view it. It's "interesting" that you find being a hypocrite/liar to be rolling-on-the-floor funny. Those who claim to advocate for liberty and then actually advocate for taking liberties (and freedom itself) from people, you know, like (most) Republicans re "illegal drugs" while they legally consume their particularly-preferred intoxicant (alcohol). Or re "right to life" except for when someone at end-of-life wants to make their own determination as to exactly how and when they die. Or like when two consenting adults mutually agree to a mutually beneficial arrangement but the Republicans want to put them both in jail (but especially the woman) because the Republicans have some religious-based morality that says people "shouldn't" do that. Etc.
I notice that you were very selective in what you chose to respond to in my post, including the questions I asked. Why not answer those? I mean if you have nothing to hide about your claimed advocacy for "liberty" and "freedom". Please feel free to address any of the above issues, and "When do you expect we'll see exactly what results?"
PS I don't use any psychotropic substances (alcohol, cannabis, coffee, etc.). My interest is liberty and freedom for individuals not being squashed by government, especially a government of hypocrites. Neither do I belong to any religion, yet I support "freedom of religion", though I have a very strong preference that religions refrain from attempting to use government laws to enforce the religion's beliefs.
I was just noticing how the pakalolo was referenced heavily in both of your post.
The "rolling-on-the-floor funny was followed by sleeping (aka crash) in reference to the pakalolo, nothing to do with hypocrite/liar.
As for your first post, i really see no questions asked of me and my response was to "GET INVOLVED TO CHANGE THE THINGS YOU DO NOT LIKE ( legalize pakalolo, right to life, 2a etc...).
Mind you, part of the Republican doctrine is to have LESS government control/involvement in your life and the quotes from Brett Kulbis are merely his testament that things need to be changed.
:shaka:
.
-
I was just noticing how the pakalolo was referenced heavily in both of your post.
It was referenced because it is a clear and unarguable instance of the lie that Republicans support personal freedom and liberty and want "to have LESS government control/involvement in your life". How is making criminals of people who possess or consume something less harmful than the legal drug alcohol (and no Republicans are calling for criminalizing the drug alcohol) an instance of "LESS government control/involvement in your life"? I added a couple of other instances of the lies and hypocrisy in the second post because you don't want to respond to the actual issue of the lies and hypocrisy but only to divert by attempting to make light of one particular instance of the lying and hypocrisy as if that issue is marginal or only of interest to people who differ from you in some way you discount or demean and therefore those people deserve no respect for their freedom or liberty.
The "rolling-on-the-floor funny was followed by sleeping (aka crash) in reference to the pakalolo, nothing to do with hypocrite/liar.
Yeah, I noticed that you don't ever answer the questions about the hypocrisy and lying of your, and Republican, claims about personal liberty and freedom in the instances I mentioned.
As for your first post, i really see no questions asked of me and my response was to "GET INVOLVED TO CHANGE THE THINGS YOU DO NOT LIKE ( legalize pakalolo, right to life, 2a etc...).
Mind you, part of the Republican doctrine is to have LESS government control/involvement in your life and the quotes from Brett Kulbis are merely his testament that things need to be changed.
:shaka:
Okay, here's the one question that I DIRECTLY asked: When do you expect we'll see exactly what results? I'll spell that one out for you: Exactly what is going to happen, and approximately when, in terms of any actual real life practical changes in any legislation coming out of the Hawaii state legislature? Also, specifically exactly what in relation to the three issues I mentioned?
I also asked for a report on the meeting. Here, I'll spell out a few specifics:
1. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to either 1. make the drug alcohol have the same illegal status of all other "illegal drugs", or 2. make all "illegal drugs" have the same legal status as the drug alcohol?
2. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to support individuals at end-of-life to have the legal ability to make any choices they wish about terminating their life in the manner and time they might choose?
3. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to support consenting adults to legally engage in mutually agreed upon arrangements of any sort?
In other words tell us how this new "change" in the Republican party is going to turn 180 degrees from their long held policies that are EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of your claim that "part of the Republican doctrine is to have LESS government control/involvement in your life"? You can do that by providing quotes from the meeting, votes on these issues from the meeting, or any published documents stating the views of the people voted in at the meeting.
.
-
Again, Republican doctrine is to have LESS government control/involvement in your life.
"It (pakalolo) was referenced because it is a clear and unarguable instance of the lie that Republicans support personal freedom and liberty" and want "to have LESS government control/involvement in your life". How is making criminals of people who possess or consume something less harmful than the legal drug alcohol.
I don't see ANYONE "calling for criminalizing the drug alcohol" so let's not single them out.
It wasn't the Republicans who started ATF now led by Thomas Brandon who was brought in under the Obama administration ?
(If you do a little history, you'll see that Pakalolo was made illegal due to it's affect on alcohol sales.)
Yes, there may be "Lies and Hypocrisy " now, but isn't that what we're trying to change ?
As for your first post, I see your statements but still see no questions asked of me.
(Questions are sentences usually ending with a question mark (?)
Okay, here's the one question that I DIRECTLY asked: (IN YOUR THIRD POST) When do you expect we'll see exactly what results? I'll spell that one out for you: Exactly what is going to happen,
Which I did answer
" Monday, we will be voting on who will be the Honolulu County Chair."
A change here in itself should start the chain reaction of events to bring reforming and rebuilding of the State's GOP Party from the bottom up rolling.
I am relatively new here but am doing VERY much research. Enough to know the Hawaii GOP as is needs to change for reasons mentioned by Kubris and others.
and approximately when, in terms of any actual real life practical changes in any legislation coming out of the Hawaii state legislature?
Can't answer as I do not make or approve legislation that but know that we will have to have Republican's IN OFFICE to facilitate any change.
also, specifically exactly what in relation to the three issues I mentioned?
I also asked for a report on the meeting.
Meeting hasn't occurred yet.
Here, I'll spell out a few specifics:
1. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to either 1. make the drug alcohol have the same illegal status of all other "illegal drugs", or 2. make all "illegal drugs" have the same legal status as the drug alcohol?
2. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to support individuals at end-of-life to have the legal ability to make any choices they wish about terminating their life in the manner and time they might choose?
3. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to support consenting adults to legally engage in mutually agreed upon arrangements of any sort?
This "meeting " is the Honolulu County Convention where the Honolulu County Chair Person will be elected.
(Had you researched the Hawaii Republican Party website www.gophawaii.com link provided, you would have known this and more.)
The topics you mentioned above will not be covered nor discussed at this meeting.
As for your questions, personally...
#1 I know of no "policy positions" ever put forth on this idea
#2 This I will get back to you on as I believe it may have been previously discussed.
# 3 is so vague, my mind went into a 4th dimension LOL
If you are sincere about making these changes, I suggest you step up.
Mind you at this time, I am not a " legislative politician" nor is anyone in this group.
We are here to help support Republican Politicians (Like Sam Slom Who we believe was not well represented in the last election), maybe even glean and groom them from our own ranks.
Will keep you updated.
:shaka:
-
@Rocky: If you don't know what the longstanding Republican Party positions are on those three issues, well, hard to imagine that you are active, or want to be active in the Republican Party. The longstanding Republican Party positions are to DENY personal freedom and liberty. That is, in your terms, the Republican Party wants MORE "government control/involvement in your life". Again, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim. And if you think that you are going to make the Republican Party into the Democratic Party or Libertarian Party on any of those issues, guess again.
I wouldn't be surprised that no one brings up those issues at a Republican Party convention to question the candidates who are running for positions to administer Republican policy and tactics, because there is near unanimous agreement on those issues that Republicans want MORE "government control/involvement in people's lives" and anyone who brought up these issues and suggested "change" would be marginalized at best, possibly ostracized, unless there is a large contingent of libertarians there attempting to take over the party and ACTUALLY move to promote policies that really do return liberty and freedom to individuals.
As an aside, it's laughable that you write: "It wasn't the Republicans who started ATF now led by Thomas Brandon who was brought in under the Obama administration ?" And I'm not talking about the grammar. Let's look at ALL of your Republican presidents in the past 49 YEARS:
Nixon: Outspoken advocate for banning handgun possession by civilians. Didn't do jack for Second Amendment rights.
Gerald Ford: Didn't do jack for Second Amendment rights.
Reagan: Signed on with the Brady Campaign, and when governor of California banned open carry because "black people" were exercising their rights. Didn't do jack for Second Amendment rights.
G.H.W. Bush: Resigned his membership in the NRA in protest. Didn't do jack for Second Amendment rights.
G.W. Bush: Didn't do jack for Second Amendment rights.
You'd think with those 28 years in the White House they'd have helped us out...
-
I've been done with Republicans since GWB. Libertarian all the way!
-
PP
1. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to either 1. make the drug alcohol have the same illegal status of all other "illegal drugs", or 2. make all "illegal drugs" have the same legal status as the drug alcohol?
I STILL know of no "policy positions" ever put forth on this idea and still cannot find any. If there is such policy position by the GOP, please enlighten me otherwise your ridiculing me for not finding such policy is equal to me not finding policy on how "the Martians must corroborate with the Russians to sway US elections.
2. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to support individuals at end-of-life to have the legal ability to make any choices they wish about terminating their life in the manner and time they might choose?
As I said, "I will get back to you on as I believe it may have been previously discussed" and here is what I' know or have found out.
I am assuming by : "end-of-life " you are relating to Health Bill SB 1129 SD2 which establishes a medical aid in dying act that establishes a REGULATORY process under which an ADULT resident of the state with a medically confirmed terminal disease may obtain a PRESCRIPTION for medication to be SELF-ADMINISTERED to end the patient's life.
(First of all I find the term "medication " ludicrous as a medication is described as "a drug used to treat an illness".)
Some of the most recent arguments were as follows.
Death certificate accuracy:
What if patient dies from a Heart attack after SELF-ADMINISTERING the prescription?
Is this suicide and if so, does this mean all insurance pay outs are null and void ?
SELF-ADMINISTRATION was not defined.
What if patient is unable to SELF-ADMINISTER ? Do they no longer have the right to "end of life?
The projection of death did not consider the effects of additional or continued medication. i:e; You'll die in 6 months IF you don't do your meds.
This bill also SUGGESTED that the patient be "counseled" to have someone present and not to ingest the lethal medication in a public place, but was not "required" on the bill
What if I as a patient decide to "check out" and end my life alone via self administered prescription at Sunset Beach while watching my last gorgeous sunset ?
Who can confirm cause of death ?
What about the vacationing family from Kansas who goes for that early sunrise walk on the beach and their 5 year old trips over my dead body and is traumatized ?
There is no specification on which medication or in what doses would aid someone in dying and how this would happen safely.
What doses and administration (pill, injection, etc..) or do we just give everybody the same big o'le hand full of Phenobarbital and hope for the best ?
What if they don't die for whatever reason and end up in worse shape (coma/HOSPITALIZED for the last 6 months)
3. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to support consenting adults to legally engage in mutually agreed upon arrangements of any sort?
Again, this so vague, my mind is still in a 4th dimension.
Maybe you meant
What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to support consenting adults to engage in mutually agreed upon legal arrangements of any sort?
Please be more specific or make reference
You're finally mentioning 2a rights is refreshing but you single out these previous Republican presidents on 2a only, not any of your questions to me.
My mentioning of the ATF was in more in regards to it's affect on pakalolo and alcohol jointly (npi) and respectfully
As for the rest of your comments regarding the Republican Party, you do not mention the affect the Democrats have had especially in the degradation of the State of Hawaii
I don't think there ever has been or will there ever be a political party that I can TOTALLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING the represent, I'm just going for what I see is the best option and how to help it if I can.
.
As I have said, I'm in to make change ( which I already have) INCLUDING change in the Republican Party not a change in you personally.
I was just saying if you don't like something, change it but I can see this being the same as me trying to convince a anti-gun leftist how legal firearm possession decreases crime.
-
PP
1. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to either 1. make the drug alcohol have the same illegal status of all other "illegal drugs", or 2. make all "illegal drugs" have the same legal status as the drug alcohol?
I STILL know of no "policy positions" ever put forth on this idea and still cannot find any. If there is such policy position by the GOP, please enlighten me otherwise your ridiculing me for not finding such policy is equal to me not finding policy on how "the Martians must corroborate with the Russians to sway US elections.
2. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to support individuals at end-of-life to have the legal ability to make any choices they wish about terminating their life in the manner and time they might choose?
As I said, "I will get back to you on as I believe it may have been previously discussed" and here is what I' know or have found out.
I am assuming by : "end-of-life " you are relating to Health Bill SB 1129 SD2 which establishes a medical aid in dying act that establishes a REGULATORY process under which an ADULT resident of the state with a medically confirmed terminal disease may obtain a PRESCRIPTION for medication to be SELF-ADMINISTERED to end the patient's life.
(First of all I find the term "medication " ludicrous as a medication is described as "a drug used to treat an illness".)
Some of the most recent arguments were as follows.
Death certificate accuracy:
What if patient dies from a Heart attack after SELF-ADMINISTERING the prescription?
Is this suicide and if so, does this mean all insurance pay outs are null and void ?
SELF-ADMINISTRATION was not defined.
What if patient is unable to SELF-ADMINISTER ? Do they no longer have the right to "end of life?
The projection of death did not consider the effects of additional or continued medication. i:e; You'll die in 6 months IF you don't do your meds.
This bill also SUGGESTED that the patient be "counseled" to have someone present and not to ingest the lethal medication in a public place, but was not "required" on the bill
What if I as a patient decide to "check out" and end my life alone via self administered prescription at Sunset Beach while watching my last gorgeous sunset ?
Who can confirm cause of death ?
What about the vacationing family from Kansas who goes for that early sunrise walk on the beach and their 5 year old trips over my dead body and is traumatized ?
There is no specification on which medication or in what doses would aid someone in dying and how this would happen safely.
What doses and administration (pill, injection, etc..) or do we just give everybody the same big o'le hand full of Phenobarbital and hope for the best ?
What if they don't die for whatever reason and end up in worse shape (coma/HOSPITALIZED for the last 6 months)
3. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to support consenting adults to legally engage in mutually agreed upon arrangements of any sort?
Again, this so vague, my mind is still in a 4th dimension.
Maybe you meant
What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to support consenting adults to engage in mutually agreed upon legal arrangements of any sort?
Please be more specific or make reference
You're finally mentioning 2a rights is refreshing but you single out these previous Republican presidents on 2a only, not any of your questions to me.
My mentioning of the ATF was in more in regards to it's affect on pakalolo and alcohol jointly (npi) and respectfully
As for the rest of your comments regarding the Republican Party, you do not mention the affect the Democrats have had especially in the degradation of the State of Hawaii
I don't think there ever has been or will there ever be a political party that I can TOTALLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING the represent, I'm just going for what I see is the best option and how to help it if I can.
.
As I have said, I'm in to make change ( which I already have) INCLUDING change in the Republican Party not a change in you personally.
I was just saying if you don't like something, change it but I can see this being the same as me trying to convince a anti-gun leftist how legal firearm possession decreases crime.
Most life insurance policies, especially long term Whole Life policies, have a short suicide exemption period. Some are 30 days -- some as long as a year. The idea is like a firearm waiting period -- to prevent someone planning on suicide from benefiting from a newly issued policy.
No one can prevent suicide years after the policy was purchased. Obviously if the suicide is long after purchase, there was no immediate risk of suicide nor intent to take unfair advantage of the insurance coverage.
We live in a country that allows a pregnant woman to make the decision to kill a living, soon-to-be person under the guise of "privacy", but you're arguing the notional details of an adult deciding to end a life they do not want any longer? In the big picture, all life matters, but in certain cases, we allow for the termination of life based on someone's decision -- as they are going through one of the most difficult times in their lives.
Nothing controversial there!
-
PP
1. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to either 1. make the drug alcohol have the same illegal status of all other "illegal drugs", or 2. make all "illegal drugs" have the same legal status as the drug alcohol?
I STILL know of no "policy positions" ever put forth on this idea and still cannot find any. If there is such policy position by the GOP, please enlighten me otherwise your ridiculing me for not finding such policy is equal to me not finding policy on how "the Martians must corroborate with the Russians to sway US elections.
I don't have time to even begin to answer your "response"... which again avoids the actual questions by diversion, claimed ignorance, and/or straw man responses.
Briefly regarding the first issue, who the hell do you think do think created "The War on Drugs"? I know, you'll say you can't find anything out about that because that doesn't exist blah blah blah. It was REPUBLICAN Richard Nixon (he was a president of the United States and marshaled all the taxpayer dollars he could to arrest, prosecute, and imprison people for possessing a single cannabis cigarette, etc., all the while having a serious scotch and Seconal addiction... remember when I used the word "hypocrisy" earlier?).
Here's a quote from the REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM (you've heard of that, right?): "Drug abuse and addiction ruin lives. There can be no debate about it. Every adult has a responsibility to teach children about the dangers of drugs - in terms of both physical harm and potential death, as well as lost opportunities for success.
To continue this progress, we must ensure that jail time is used as an effective deterrent to drug use and support the continued funding of grants to assist schools in drug testing." [Emphasis added]
There are literally dozens of quotes, found quickly with any search engine, from REPUBLICAN politicians supporting criminalization of every drug except alcohol. But you can't find any of those. Or you are going to create a "new" Republican party that will put all psychotropic substances on a level legal playing field, right? Good grief!
-
Most life insurance policies, especially long term Whole Life policies, have a short suicide exemption period. Some are 30 days -- some as long as a year. The idea is like a firearm waiting period -- to prevent someone planning on suicide from benefiting from a newly issued policy.
No one can prevent suicide years after the policy was purchased. Obviously if the suicide is long after purchase, there was no immediate risk of suicide nor intent to take unfair advantage of the insurance coverage.
We live in a country that allows a pregnant woman to make the decision to kill a living, soon-to-be person under the guise of "privacy", but you're arguing the notional details of an adult deciding to end a life they do not want any longer? In the big picture, all life matters, but in certain cases, we allow for the termination of life based on someone's decision -- as they are going through one of the most difficult times in their lives.
Nothing controversial there!
Agreed, policy's vary, I was merely repeating the information I received from someone who actually ATTENDED the SB1129 SD2 meeting.
"I" am not arguing anything nor have I stated a side on any of the subjects/questions given to me.
Like I said. I'm here for change.
:shaka:
-
PP
1. What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to either 1. make the drug alcohol have the same illegal status of all other "illegal drugs", or 2. make all "illegal drugs" have the same legal status as the drug alcohol?
I STILL know of no "policy positions" ever put forth on this idea and still cannot find any. If there is such policy position by the GOP, please enlighten me otherwise your ridiculing me for not finding such policy is equal to me not finding policy on how "the Martians must corroborate with the Russians to sway US elections.
I don't have time to even begin to answer your "response"... which again avoids the actual questions by diversion, claimed ignorance, and/or straw man responses.
My response was not " diversion, claimed ignorance, and/or (a) straw man responses."
Possibly ignorance by the way of lack of knowledge, but knowledge which I requested of you which you have not provided. So I ask again, can you even prove there is such a policy ? If not you're back to the Martians
Briefly regarding the first issue, who the hell do you think do think created "The War on Drugs"? I know, you'll say you can't find anything out about that because that doesn't exist blah blah blah. It was REPUBLICAN Richard Nixon (he was a president of the United States and marshaled all the taxpayer dollars he could to arrest, prosecute, and imprison people for possessing a single cannabis cigarette, etc., all the while having a serious scotch and Seconal addiction... remember when I used the word "hypocrisy" earlier?).
Again, you need a history lesson.
Marijuana had increased restrictions and labeling of cannabis as a poison began in many states from 1906 onward ( see FDA) , and outright prohibitions began in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s marijuana was regulated as a drug in every state, including 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act.[1] The first national regulation was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.[2]
Here's a quote from the REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM (you've heard of that, right?): "Drug abuse and addiction ruin lives. There can be no debate about it. Every adult has a responsibility to teach children about the dangers of drugs - in terms of both physical harm and potential death, as well as lost opportunities for success.
To continue this progress, we must ensure that jail time is used as an effective deterrent to drug use and support the continued funding of grants to assist schools in drug testing." [Emphasis added]
Are you talking Crack, cocaine, heroin and other opiods ?
"Majorities across most demographic groups say alcohol is more harmful than marijuana to a person’s health and to society. But roughly a third of Hispanics (32%), people 65 and older (31%) and Republicans (36%) say marijuana would be more harmful to society than alcohol, if it were as widely available."
The above figure would mean 64% of Republican's say alcohol would be more harmful to society than marijuana
http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/section-2-views-of-marijuana-legalization-decriminalization-concerns/
There are literally dozens of quotes, found quickly with any search engine, from REPUBLICAN politicians supporting criminalization of every drug except alcohol. But you can't find any of those.
Your not looking .
Or you are going to create a "new" Republican party that will put all psychotropic substances on a level legal playing field, right? Good grief!
Really dude ?
I answered question #2 because it had substance and validity.
How about you show me policy's for your questions 1 & 2 and I'll try to help you out.
:shaka:
-
Agreed, policy's vary, I was merely repeating the information I received from someone who actually ATTENDED the SB1129 SD2 meeting.
"I" am not arguing anything nor have I stated a side on any of the subjects/questions given to me.
Like I said. I'm here for change.
:shaka:
https://youtu.be/83yIX3kWv-A
-
I answered question #2 because it had substance and validity.
How about you show me policy's for your questions 1 & 2 and I'll try to help you out.
1. You didn't answer question #2. You went from your oft repeated claims (and that's all they are, unsubstantiated claims in these circumstances) that Republicans "want to have LESS government control/involvement in your life" as a (false) statement of general principle, to, when challenged specifically on the end-of-life question to spinning completely irrelevant (to your general principle claim) claims about possible problems with life insurance!! (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif) Talk about off topic! Just admit it... it's plain as day: When it comes to end-of-life liberty and freedom the Republican party wants MORE government control/involvement in your life, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim, to the extant that they want to criminalize people for making their own choices about the end of their own life. But... I'm sure you won't admit that plain and simple fact. Just like most Democrats won't admit that they don't support Second Amendment-guaranteed rights even though they always say "I support the Second Amendment... but..."
2. You don't answer question #1 either, but again just give irrelevant historical data that doesn't in any way contradict the FACT that Republicans, including Nixon's infamous "War on Drugs" and subsequent Republican policies are both hypocritical (in that they have almost always failed to include "alcohol" as a "drug" and distinguish between "use" and "abuse", etc. etc. etc.) and clearly attempts to "have MORE government control/involvement in your life" by making people into criminals and prisoners for making personal choices that harm no one else. The Republicans want total control of individuals making certain choices. They want to deny law-abiding citizens the right to liberty and freedom over issues which are no business of the state at all.
Here are some quotes from some articles written by Republicans about their positions re "illicit substances" (and a few choice comments included as well):
Jail time and school drug testing deters drug use
Drug abuse and addiction ruin lives. [Uh huh. Just like "gun violence" and "gun crime" ruin lives and therefore we must disarm the civilian population, right? What about the people who "use" "illicit drugs"/guns but don't harm anyone else?] There can be no debate about it. Every adult has a responsibility to teach children about the dangers of drugs - in terms of both physical harm and potential death, as well as lost opportunities for success.
We must ensure that jail time is used as an effective deterrent to drug use and support the continued funding of grants to assist schools in drug testing.
Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 75 , Sep 1, 2004
Clinton surrendered Drug War; cry out for drug-free schools
The entire nation has suffered from the administration’s virtual surrender in the war against drugs, but children in poor communities have paid the highest price in the threat of addiction and the daily reality of violence. Drug kingpins have turned entire neighborhoods into wastelands and ruined uncounted lives with their poison. Not surprisingly, teen attitudes toward drug abuse have veered sharply away from disapproval. With abundant supplies in their deadly arsenal, drug traffickers are targeting younger children, as well as rural kids.
Still, there is no substitute for presidential leadership, whether internationally or here at home, where America’s families cry out for safe, drug-free schools. A Republican president will hear those cries and work with parents to protect children. We will bring accountability to anti-drug programs, promote those that work, and cease funding for those that waste resources.
Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention , Aug 12, 2000
Aggressively pursue drug kingpins; include death penalty
In a Republican administration the Department of Justice will require all federal prosecutors to aggressively pursue drug dealers, from the kingpins to the lackeys. We renew our support for capital punishment for drug traffickers who take innocent life.
Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention , Aug 12, 2000
Marco Rubio on Drugs
While many of Marco Rubio’s drug stances sit with the rest of his party, he believes in a stricter world than most other Republicans. While many have criticized the minimum sentencing laws and wish to see first time offenders deferred to drug courts, Rubio believes the opposite, stating, “I personally believe that legalizing drugs would be a great mistake and that any reductions in sentences for drug crimes should be made with great care.” Rubio believes in maintaining stricter sentencing for all offenders, not just repeat or violent offenders.
Mitt Romney on Drugs
Drug policy is one issue that Mitt Romney has not spoken extensively about. However, his stance against marijuana legalization makes it seem that he would stand strongly against any leniency on drug issues. In 2008, Romney vowed to fight “tooth and nail” against marijuana legalization. For 2016, he seems to be taking a similar stance, stating “I oppose marijuana being used for recreational purposes and I believe the federal law should prohibit the recreational use of marijuana.” He has not provided a definitive stance on medicinal marijuana. When asked about it in May, he responded, “we’ve got enormous issues we face, but you want to talk about medical marijuana.” During his time as governor of Massachusetts, Romney vetoed a bill allowing pharmacies to provide individuals clean hypodermic needles without a prescription. The bill was intended to stop the spread of infectious diseases, buy Romney argued the program would have “unintended consequences” and encourage the use of heroin.
http://www.republicanviews.org/republican-views-on-drugs/
Republicans also call for stricter federal regulations over marijuana, amongst the rampant state legalizations for medical and recreational use. Republican John Fleming of Louisiana states, “as marijuana is de-stigmatized, use goes up, and it finds its way into the homes and candy and cookies and baked goods, and once it gets there, it finds its way into the brains of teens. Marijuana will also become more pervasive as states continue to embrace permissible laws on medical marijuana and the recreational use of marijuana, and kids and youth will have easier access to the dangerous, addictive drug.”
* * * * *
https://www.drugrehab.com/republicans-substance-abuse-policies/
For half a century, the Republican Party has advocated for strict drug laws and little tolerance for drug use. Republican presidents are credited with launching the war on drugs, creating policies that filled prisons and using military resources to combat international drug trafficking.
Nearly 50 years after President Richard Nixon took office, the war on drugs is widely viewed as a failure.
President Richard Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970.
Today, Republicans advocate for criminal justice and health care reform, but most conservatives condemn marijuana legalization or decriminalization.
Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Narcotics Control Act of 1956, lengthening minimum sentences for drug traffickers.
Congress responded by passing the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, which Nixon signed in 1970. Title II of the bill, more commonly known as the Controlled Substances Act, became a key component of future U.S. drug policy.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970
This act clarified and strengthened the federal government’s authority to regulate the manufacture, distribution and possession of controlled substances. It also created five classifications of drugs called schedules. The law increased funding for treatment, education and research.
A combination of agencies, including the Bureau of Customs, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, were tasked with enforcing the regulations of new drug laws.
* * * *
The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse [Created by Nixon] was tasked with reviewing the drug’s effects and the effectiveness of national drug policy. Republican Gov. Raymond Shafer of Pennsylvania led the bipartisan commission, often referred to as the Shafer Commission.
In its report titled “Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding,” the Shafer Commission concluded that marijuana users were not dangerous, and it recommended that drug policy focus on prevention and treatment.
“We have concluded that society should seek to discourage use while concentrating its attention on the prevention and treatment of heavy and very heavy use. The Commission feels that the criminalization of possession of marihuana for personal use is socially self-defeating as a means of achieving this objective.”— 1972 Report from the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
Nixon and Congress largely ignored the recommendations of the report, and marijuana has remained a Schedule I [same as heroin, etc.] controlled substance for more than 40 years.
****
When the Republicans challenged Carter’s bid for reelection in 1980, the party made it clear that it believed a tougher stance on drugs would be more effective than the decriminalization of marijuana that Carter advocated.
“In recent years, a murderous epidemic of drug abuse has swept our country. Mr. Carter, through his policies and his personnel, has demonstrated little interest in stopping its ravages. Republicans consider drug abuse an intolerable threat to our society, especially to the young.”— 1980 Republican Party Platform
“We’re making no excuses for drugs — hard, soft, or otherwise,” Reagan said in 1982. “Drugs are bad, and we’re going after them. As I’ve said before, we’ve taken down the surrender flag and run up the battle flag. And we’re going to win the war on drugs.”
The 1988 Republican Party platform leading up to Bush’s bid for presidency advocated for an even tougher approach to drug crime.
The party’s stance on drug policy included:
Opposition to legalization or decriminalization of any drug
Support for stiff penalties, including the death penalty, for drug traffickers
Increased penalties, such as ineligibility for federal assistance or loans, for anyone convicted of a drug crime
After entering the oval office, Bush bolstered supply reduction efforts with a national drug control policy that focused heavily on law enforcement efforts. The policy sought tougher drug sentences for recreational users.
With the 1989 plan, Bush requested a $7.9 billion budget for the war on drugs, an increase of $2.2 billion from the year before.
The Republican Party platform of 1992 continued to advocate for punishments for drug offenders and to oppose drug legalization or decriminalization.
...there were a number of marijuana legalization initiatives in states such as Nevada and Arizona that the Bush administration helped defeat.
During the 2012 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney was unclear about his stance on drug policy, but he was adamantly opposed to the marijuana legalization movement.
2016 Republican Party platform
It condemns marijuana legalization and lax federal policies toward recreational marijuana use.
Comments:
The initiatives in Colorado and Washington are both endorsed by their local democratic parties. The Colorado republican party also endorses Colorado legalization initiative.
As far as killing marijuana and drug reform bills the Republicans seem more active in that regard:
NY marijuana decriminilization reform bill killed by Republicans:
http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2012/06/20/senate-republicans-stop-new-york-marijuana-decriminalization-bill/
Democratic governor in NH veteod a medical marijuana bill:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/27/gop-controlled-legislature-passes-a-medi
At the federal level democrats attempted to defund the war on medical marijuana and this was shot down by republicans:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/democrats-seek-end...
In 2012 12 states failed to pass medical marijuana 9 were majority cotrolled republican legislatures although to be fair 1 of those was vetoed by democratic gov in NH (as stated above) and Wisconsin is split. But still clear difference here.
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002481#III
* * *
As a longtime registered Republican and medical marijuana advocate (legally blind, glaucoma, anxiety, insomnia, chronic back pain are my reasons for using) let me translate their platform for the masses:
"We wish we could lock up every pot-smoking delinquent, but we don't have enough money. Richard Nixon is our God, Irving Krystol is our prophet, Ronald Reagan is our puppet, and the Tea Party our slaves. We shall continue to use code words, vague rhetoric, false statistics, and outright lies to demonize anything we consider "counterculture". We need to invest heavily in privatized prisons. We hate the fact that medical marijuana exists, and unfortunately we haven't found a way to destroy it outright. When medical marijuana is mentioned, we will just close our eyes and plug our ears, spewing forth the same bigoted garbage as our associates Bill O'Reilly and the exalted John Walters.. We keep a few medical MJ supporters in our party to give the illusion that there might be hope. Anyone up for a game of Super Pac-Man?"
The DNC will go something like this:
"We will expose the drug war, especially the war on medical marijuana, as the complete failure it is. We will have speakers to discuss this failed policy. But... we are truly a bunch of pansies who are scared of the Republicans. Besides, it seems that a good 25% of us are against medical marijuana. If we come out in full support of medical marijuana, it would make Diane Feinstein, John Lynch, and Hitlary Clinton throw a tantrum. Anyways, where's the booze?"
* **
SOOooooooooo.........The party that advocates smaller government and "getting the government off our backs and out of our lives"... still will not advocate the idea that our bodies belong to us and we ARE FREE to ingest what we will. This proves my theory that the whole political process is a huge circle jerk with Obama and Romney as pivot men........The whole lot of them can go straight to hell !!!!!
-
I answered #2 with the information I received from someone who was at the meeting. and it was far more than insurance, but you won't argue these valid points.
If your such a proponent for SB 1129 SD@, why did you not show up and take a stand and fight for it's passage ?
Cause it's easier to sit on the sidelines and whine about how nothings changing.
Your question #1 was...
What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to either 1. make the drug alcohol have the same illegal status of all other "illegal drugs", or 2. make all "illegal drugs" have the same legal status as the drug alcohol?
I asked for the specific policy you speak of but you are unable to provided.
I gave no irrelevant historical data, actually I gave no data at all because again I asked for the specific policy you speak of but you are unable to provided
You're unbridled enthusiasm for the legalization of Pot is overwhelming.
All I can see is an angry Hawaiian mossback who wants to make all "illegal drugs" have the same legal status as the drug alcohol so he can come down to town twice a year to have consenting adults legally engage in mutually agreed upon arrangements (buy his Pot).
You probably didn't vote, your gripe against alcohol is probably because one of your parents was an alcoholic and who knows what your end of life is about, again, probably something personal.
And speaking of personal, a dear family friend, the father of the young man I spent y much of my early childhood with was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, (way before it was a popular term) and expressed his "Right to end Life" with a .357 in the mouth of his backyard.
He did not need permission bureaucrats' .
Your hijacking of my thread and my trying to inform you are now ended.
Happy Harvesting !
:shaka:
-
You're a liar. Not one single one of your ad hominem speculative demeaning judgments about me is factual. But that's not surprising since you seem to either live in a fantasy land devoid of facts, or are, like the rest of your posts about this supposed Republican party "change", full of nothing but bullshit and more lies. Perhaps you are a liar AND that ignorant of the intent of the newly elected head of the Honolulu County Republican apparatus. Both he (Brett Kulbis) and the person you began this thread with by publishing a message from (Rhonda Welsch) have substantial enough online writings to substantiate that their agenda is fueled by and based upon a deep commitment to fundamentalist christian doctrine, and imposing their interpretations of those doctrines on all citizens as government-enforced law. And that those fundamentalist christian doctrines have absolutely nothing at all to do with your repeated claims that the "new" "changed" Republican party "wants LESS government control/involvement in your life". In fact of course, it's THE EXACT OPPOSITE, which you have never once in the course of this thread directly addressed. It would be so simple, for example: "Yes, even the "new, changed" Republican party wants government to control individual decisions about which substances a person may legally purchase, possess, and consume. And, yes, the "new, changed" Republican party wants government to control individual end-of-life decisions by mentally-competent terminally-ill individuals." But we'll never see that admission of the truth, because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Some examples of their fundamentalist christian-based agenda:
Brent Kulbis:
"Hawaii Future Project is a non-profit public interest group designed to expand the understanding and implementation of Judeo-Christian Values as the foundation of self government."
"History has shown that the fabric of society, when united around biblical principals ..."
"Biblical Authority: The Source of Societal Influence: [A]ll Christian Authority arises from the conviction that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God."
Here is a response from Ms. Welsch re if she supports "liberty and freedom" and " "wants LESS government control/involvement in your life" regarding end-of-life decisions by mentally-competent terminally-ill individuals:
"I believe life is given by God- man or State has no right to intervene in that bi-lateral agreement. Legally assisted Suicide- for me is unacceptable because it would be like Pandora's box- UNCONSTITUTIONAL-BAG IDEA!!! it is morally wrong- any law that violates God's laws is unenforceable... "
Of course there's tons more of similar ilk, including links on their sites to other sites that are even more explicit about making the United States into a christian theocracy. That would have nothing at all to do with personal freedom and liberty, nor "LESS government control/involvement in your life", but rather an imposition of a certain set of (interpreted) values from some highly edited and not infrequently mistranslated ancient writings full of self-contradictory "values" and so vague and cherry-pickable that as a whole it can mean anything to anyone.
Of course you won't answer any of the simple questions asked with simple answers because you know that your premise is false, the goal of these people is NOT "LESS government control/involvement in your life", but the imposition of a particular set of religious values as interpreted and enforced by politicians and law enforcement. Just for fun I'll throw in a fourth question: What is the "new" fundamentalist-christian-based Republican party position going to be on all matters concerning LGBTQ? [Here, I'll save you the trouble of making up shit and lying again: "You must be some pot-smoking fag or tranny or something."]
I answered #2 with the information I received from someone who was at the meeting. and it was far more than insurance, but you won't argue these valid points.
Your "valid points" are nothing but a smokescreen you use to avoid simply stating that you believe the government has the right to dictate which choices are or are not acceptable at end of life and thus you would have to contradict your original claim of wanting "LESS government control/involvement in your life".
If your such a proponent for SB 1129 SD@, why did you not show up and take a stand and fight for it's passage ?
I don't have the financial resources to travel to Oahu and testify before every committee holding hearings on bills i support or oppose. Besides, I don't support anything but the total removal of government from end-of-life decisions, just like I don't support cannabis being controlled by the government via "decriminalization" and "taxation", etc.
Cause it's easier to sit on the sidelines and whine about how nothings changing.
And you're not "whining"? Be sure to post details about how everything's changed now that you are involved. I mean especially what legislation is passed, that wouldn't have been before "the change", wherein we see "LESS government control/involvement in your life". Please be specific.
Your question #1 was...
What policy positions were put forth, with what degree of support, to either 1. make the drug alcohol have the same illegal status of all other "illegal drugs", or 2. make all "illegal drugs" have the same legal status as the drug alcohol?
I asked for the specific policy you speak of but you are unable to provided.
I gave you literally pages of documentation of Republican party and individual politicians hypocritically condemning some kinds of psychotropic substances and calling for stiff penalties for purchase, possession, and consumption of those without a single word about another psychotropic substance that they believe ought to continue to be legally available despite steep personal and societal costs (alcohol). Pretending that hypocrisy doesn't exist and that the positions supporting those views are completely irrational and have no supporting evidence is laughable. Except it's not funny to all the people in prison (nearly half the prison population).
I gave no irrelevant historical data, actually I gave no data at all because again I asked for the specific policy you speak of but you are unable to provided
You made several statements about the history of psychotropic substance government policies as if that had something to do with the long-held Republican policies of irrational hypocritical decisions about the legality or illegality of those substances. I notice you didn't even bother to attempt to repudiate any of those quoted Republican policies and Republican politicians.
You're unbridled enthusiasm for the legalization of Pot is overwhelming.
So? Is that supposed to be some kind of "criticism"? It would only be that to someone who harbors a deep-seated desire to control other people, especially those who happen to disagree with you. Thus, once again, putting the lie to your claim to "want LESS government control/involvement in your life". Oh, and it's not just "pot". All psychotropic substances should have legal statuses commensurate with their most objective medical and societal benefits and costs. if you are a consumer of alcohol, you might not like where that scientific conclusion leaves you.
All I can see is an angry Hawaiian mossback who wants to make all "illegal drugs" have the same legal status as the drug alcohol so he can come down to town twice a year to have consenting adults legally engage in mutually agreed upon arrangements (buy his Pot).
I can see the name-calling and the (false) judgment, but I don't see the relevance to the fact that on this issue (and the others discussed) that you lied when you said you "want LESS government control/involvement in your life".
You probably didn't vote,
False, lying accusation.
your gripe against alcohol is probably because one of your parents was an alcoholic
False, lying accusation.
and who knows what your end of life is about, again, probably something personal.
Yes, I've known several people who were made to suffer needlessly because they were not legally able to choose an option to peacefully end their life when it (according to their own mentally-competent evaluation) was no longer worth living. You yourself give the example of someone, who, denied such an option, may have made such a choice were it available rather that use a firearm, which was probably much more traumatic for the surrounding people. Why do you want to deny people that choice? "Probably something personal"? Or do you just, on principle, "want MORE government control/involvement" in people's lives, especially at one of the most significant moments of their lives?
And speaking of personal, a dear family friend, the father of the young man I spent y much of my early childhood with was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, (way before it was a popular term) and expressed his "Right to end Life" with a .357 in the mouth of his backyard.
He did not need permission bureaucrats' .
See above. But it's good to see that you have such compassion for such situations.
Your hijacking of my thread and my trying to inform you are now ended.
You could have just answered the original questions with simple clear language. Two sentences at most for each. Wonder why you didn't choose that option but instead went off on one irrelevant tangent after another?
Happy Harvesting !
If that is some kind of reference to my relationiship with cannabis, you are attempting to slander me again. I'll repeat: I do not sell, buy, possess, or consume cannabis. But, as per this entire thread, facts don't seem to matter to you.
:shaka:
-
So it's been 10 weeks since March 17 when the OP posted this thread about the amazing transformation about to take place in the Republican party as the fundamentalist christians (Kulbis, et al) would take over and make everything all good.
What's happened in the past 10 weeks to bring that about? I mean except for the Hawaii Republican Party electing and installing pretty much the same people that have always been there... and the "controversy"?
http://hpr2.org/post/internal-strife-hawaii-gop
Internal Strife in Hawai'i GOP
* * * * *
Also, the HIRA that the OP touts in another thread about "transforming" the Hawaii GOP recently railed against the legalization of cannabis without uttering one single word about the legal status of the much more dangerous, personally and societally costly drug alcohol. So much for "personal liberty and responsibility". Hypocrites!
-
So it's been 10 weeks since March 17 when the OP posted this thread about the amazing transformation about to take place in the Republican party as the fundamentalist christians (Kulbis, et al) would take over and make everything all good.
What's happened in the past 10 weeks to bring that about? I mean except for the Hawaii Republican Party electing and installing pretty much the same people that have always been there... and the "controversy"?
http://hpr2.org/post/internal-strife-hawaii-gop
Internal Strife in Hawai'i GOP
* * * * *
Also, the HIRA that the OP touts in another thread about "transforming" the Hawaii GOP recently railed against the legalization of cannabis without uttering one single word about the legal status of the much more dangerous, personally and societally costly drug alcohol. So much for "personal liberty and responsibility". Hypocrites!
As originally mentioned in my opening post, I was getting more involved in the political scheme of things to promote strength and change in Hawaii's Republican party as it seemed our political system here was/is totally one sided and it's not working.
Most of this change was to occur at this year's Annual Convention where "new blood" was supposed to be elected to "clean house" and make way to revitalize the Hawaiian Republican Party. :thumbsup:
The idea here is to REPLACE the ineffective Chairmen of committees Chair Fritz Rohlfing, and other offices and positions including power hungry greedy Rino types like David Chang, Beth Fukumoto, Pat Saiki, Jack James, Boyd Ready , Andria Tupolo and others so as to replace our Representatives like Gene Ward, Bob McDermott and others like them who continually remain silent in the house and seem to always be voting along with Democrat's on THEIR platform. :grrr:
So I threw my hat in with Rhonda Welsch the Chair for my district who had recently won her seat against all odds. She sounded sincere ( and sane) but when I questioned her more thoroughly, she scheduled me to meet with the VP of our district. The meeting was ... rough.
He accused me of being a plant by the very people I had intended to remove and worse yet, a Democrat spy. >:D
I later found out that he was Rhonda Welsch's boy friend. ( more :wtf:) So much for the nepotism eradication, but still I trudged on for the good of the cause.
I attended some meetings and did LOT"S of research. I found that the annual meetings for voting in officers and officials was always held on Kauai instead of Oahu where there were more representatives and voting delegates such as myself.
2,000 delegates in Hawaii and the Annual meeting averages 300 including the board, chairs and "other" politico's
So I wrote up and proposed several "rule changes" for the Rule Changes meeting prior to the annual meeting on Kauai where they would be voted on.
Change would be to at least alternate islands for annual meetings making them more accessible, and even better yet, to allow proxy voting by delegates thereby removing the costly and time consuming attendance at the meeting.
The people would have a say. It would not help this election, but would 2 years later.
I attended the Rule Changes meeting and found that Rhonda Welsch had added her name to my proposal, :wtf: but thought Eh, I'll take the support.
When my proposals came to the floor, there was no discussion and they were voted down unanimously. :o I was sitting next to Pat Saiki who told me "we don't want votes at the meeting, we want body's" :crazy:
Not even Rhonda Welsch who independently added her name to my proposal offered a motion for discussion much less one for a vote. (after the meeting she was scowling at me as I made her "look bad"). :wacko:
It was at that moment I realized there would never be any change and withdrew my support.
Shirlene Ostrov was voted in as State Chair on promises she made to "clean house" as stated above. :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
Nothing has changed, including the release of the results of an internal financial audit. It is already well known that the Hawaii GOP is not only broke, but in debt. So much that the Mainland GOP offered us no financial support, only advice. :wave:
PP, much of what you said about politics here in Hawaii is true, :worship: but I hope it is only true for our Republicans here in Hawaii because I've mentioned before, there must be at least two opinions in our government to maintain balance.
PS.
Regarding your original fist question...
Marijuana now is equal to Alcohol in regards to DUI in Marijuana legal many states. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:shaka:
-
Hooray for the new boss. Same as the old boss. I hope we don't get fooled again.
-
Hey Rocky. Here's another view/angle of the same problems you came up against... and facing all American citizens.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/08/02/the-swamps-biggest-willful-blindness-republicans-dont-need-democrats-to-fund-southern-border-wall/#more-136649
The Swamp’s Biggest Willful Blindness – Republicans Don’t Need Democrats To Fund Southern Border Wall…
On December 12th 2014 the Republican controlled House of Representatives passed a 1,600 page continuing resolution, an “omnibus” spending bill of over $2 trillion dollars. Every one of President Obama’s policy and agenda items was fully funded; including Obama’s executive action on immigration called DACA (Deferred Action for Children of Americans).
(https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/mcconnell-ryan.jpg)
Approximately two months later, February 2015, the key-note speaker for the CPAC conference was Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. The same Paul Ryan who just passed a $2+ trillion Omnibus and eliminated the debt ceiling. At the conclusion of his speech over 1,000 members of the CPAC audience gave Speaker Ryan a standing ovation.
During a discussion of the irony and hypocrisy someone coined the phrase “Battered Conservative Syndrome” to describe the audience. What, exactly, did that CPAC audience see as “conservative” in the fiscal action of Paul Ryan in the preceding two months?
Fast forward two and a half years later. Republicans are in control of the House of Representatives, Republicans are in control of the Senate, a Republican President is in the White House, and somehow there’s “negotiations” on how to fund the #1 campaign promise of President Donald Trump, the border wall.
Here’s the rub.
Here’s what pundits never discuss.
The Republican party doesn’t need a single Democrat to fund the border wall.
A single spending bill could come from the House of Representatives that fully funds 100% of the border wall. The spending bill then goes to the senate, where again, it doesn’t need a single Democrat vote because spending legislation is specifically what “reconciliation” was designed to facilitate. That House bill can pass the Senate with 51 votes and proceed directly to the President’s desk for signature.
So, ask yourself: why is this even a point of discussion?
The honest answer, for those who are no longer suffering from Battered Conservative Syndrome, is that Republicans don’t want to fund or build an actual physical barrier known as the Southern Border Wall.
It really is that simple.
To those who would claim this is too simplistic an overview, I would suggest they were probably part of that 2015 CPAC audience.
Yes, the UniParty is very real.
-
...Yes, the UniParty is very real.
Not that it makes a damn bit of difference, nor anyone really cares, but i have been saying all along that both parties are heading toward the same goals (Socialism). Only one party is heading in that direction faster than the other.
It is why I am a registered independent. I refuse to identify with either party any more.