a question for ron paul supporters
CH156378
Posts: 1,539
should i still take ron paul serious as a canidate? it seems that a serious canidate for president doesn't introduce legislation with barney frank on legalizing pot. isn't that kind of throwing in the towel. i do appreciate his efforts. however even ron should realize after introducing this bill his chances went from never going to happen to no way in hell. thanks.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Hail, Hail!!!
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Considering the positive impacts this leglislation could have, yes I think this is a very serious move, and a great idea. If cannabis were made legal tomorrow, in time border violence as well as all other drug related violence would decrease dramatically. New business opportunities would present themselves from farming to a hugely wide array of products that can be made from hemp / cannabis right here on American soil, from food to clothing to fuel, etc... In a struggling economy (or any economy for that matter) government should only concern itself with enforcing contracts and making sure that no one is getting robbed, and allow for as many opportunities for non-violent consenting parties as possible. I personally do not advocate taxing this product, but that will likely be part of its legalization, which some people would view as a positive, that is additional revenue for the government while downsizing the amount of police and federal agents who were busting people for non violent crimes. Billions of dollars could be saved with a formal end to the failure known as "the war on drugs." There has always been an ongoing debate about welfare and who pays for who in this country. We could debate the merits and need for law-abiding citizens on welfare endlessly. But, I think the one thing most of us agree on is that no one wants to pay more than they have to to house, feed, and clothe prisoners, especially when many prisoners do not belong in prison for victimless crimes. Tons of money can be saved there. And lastly, this is an issue of personal freedom. If we can't decide what we can do with our own bodies, what can we really decide for ourselves? Legalization of cannabis is rarely framed in this manner but it should be, and if it were, it wouldn't be considered a "fringe" or "crackpot" idea.
Godfather.
Godfather.
why? I think now more than ever a bill limiting the federal government is a great way of separating himself from the talking heads who claim small government but then support the DOMA or the patriot act. Legalizing marijuana will happen eventually.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You are making it hard to be taken seriously when you mention Dr Paul and Sarah Palin in the same sentence.
Sarah Palin promotes herself in her books, Ron Paul promotes LIBERTY, and always has.
As much as I'd like to see Paul as an independent, I don't think he should change his party affiliation just because the rest of his party do not see eye to eye with his O.G. Republican ideas. If anything, the rest of his party is coming his way, at least they are starting to speak his language in terms of the economy and even foreign policy to some degree. Whether the rest of these guys are at all believable in what they say, I do not think so. But proof that the party is actually headed in his direction is best shown by comparing the 2008 Republican primary debates to the 2012 debates. The fact that Gary Johnson is in the mix (when the mainstream media allows him to be) is a major sign that the Republican Party is trying to emulate Paul / their classic ideas to gain votes if nothing else.
Blah blah blah.
My point is that they both have their own style which is aimed not at getting elected so much as stoking their own base.
Ron Paul is too much of a wildcard for the Republican Party. They will nominate someone like Mitt Romney and use Tea Party favorites, such as Palin, Bachmann and Paul to motivate that bloc to vote for their party candidate. The Republicans want someone who will tow the party line... not someone like Ron Paul, who thinks and votes independently.
The Republicans will field a candidate that fits the definition of the Republican Party.
Hail, Hail!!!
I agree with a lot of things you post (prince of dorkness), but I think you are way off base here. It's almost as if you are lumping Ron Paul in with these others simply because he is republican?.
I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's ideas, but I respect any politician who says they want to end all wars and bring all the troops home from all bases around the world.
Just because the bought media drones dismiss him as crazy, it doesn't make it so.
Godfather.
I hardly doubt he has any funding/support from the Koch brothers. And Fox News hardly likes him.
I don't understand why there is all this backlash against him on this board. He is an honest politician who stands by his views and is consistent. He wants to bring all of the troops home and audit the fed. Those are two things I think most people here would agree. And that's his two biggest issues.
Now you can disagree with him for a lot of his crazier ideas, but who else has the guts and honesty to say what they believe and stand by it. I'd like to hear what any other GOP candidate has to say about some of the things that Dr. Paul gets asked.
an honest person will never be elected, there is too much curuption and goes too deep and besides that most of the american voters have been trained by the media to avoid such honesty and crazyness.
Godfather.
Like Vinny said it is the (R) next to his name. Proof that most people here preach bipartisanship and voting for the best candidate, but then look away when the answer slaps them in the face.
Liberals (classical or neo) really hold the key to this guy getting the Republican nomination. I said it in another thread, and I'll say it again-- Barack Obama has his party's nomination. Registered Democrats should switch parties for the primaries and vote for the Republican who is going to keep Obama most honest, especially in terms of foreign policy, Ron Paul. Even if liberals/Democrats cannot bring themselves to vote against their party in the national election, they owe it to themselves and everyone else to make sure that Barack isn't any lamer than any of the other lame ducks in presidential history. The best way to do that is to run Ron Paul against him.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brandon10 is a pretty liberal guy right?
If you were to classify me...I guess it would be very liberal. And although I would disagree with many of Ron Paul's ideas, foreign policy is the issue at the top of my list. I also like Ron Paul because he doesn't bullshit when he says he is for personal freedoms.(compared to the other fakes in the GOP)
No, of course not. I'm lumping him in because I think he's jus another Fox News Grenade-Thrower.
Meh.... I think he says those things so he won't get elected. A Republican who is against the war is going to be about as electable as an anti-gay Democrat in San Francisco.
I don't think he's crazy. And I don't think Sarah Palin is stupid. I think they're both very sane and very smart and VERY much focused on making money, fame and a fan base who'll pay to hear them open their mouths and make noises. Any noises.
He is not a "Fox News grenade thrower". In fact Fox News continually bashes him from every angle possible.
I guess I'm not as much of a cynic as you. I have seen Ron Paul in debates and interviews for quite a few years now. He has never wavered from certain positions. When someone continually says they are for certain things, I tend to believe them. He has not only said he wants to change the way American foreign policy operates, he has stated why he believes foreign policy needs changing. And I have always agreed with him 100%.
Well not in the same way that the Tea Party drum-beaters are, no. But He says things that I think are just to get him the "maverick radical" vote that would otherwise go to Ralph Nader.
I'd have to see more of that. But... I'm willing to listen, anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0
That is from 4 years ago.
Oh if that were only even possible in the world we live in. But the US learned in the 40s that blessed isolation is something that ended with the invention of the airplane. We have to have a part in the world stage. I'm not saying we should go to war but I DO think it would better serve our interest to go and keep the peace.
I just wonder if we're even capable of that.
Another one for you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDLIMRC65WE
There's a huge difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Isolation would mean not trading with other countries-- where non-interventionism promotes travel, business, and trade among nations because that helps keep peace among them, just like anyone that you personally do business with. The true isolationists are the ones who are waging war and sanctions on other countries, as well as funding both sides of a conflict.
He says those things because he believes them. Again, he has not wavered on any of his stances. He's been wanting to audit the fed for decades.
Who is paying Ron Paul to speak? To my knowledge, since he is a member of Congress he can't get paid. Before you go throwing out accusations, do some fact checking.
Palin does get big money to speak, which is why she quit her job, among many other reasons.
All of the legislation he has introduced is consistent with his message of liberty and freedom.