It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)I'm starting to like Ron Paul(149 posts)(149 posts)
(149 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
morecowbell24: Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party fighting for minority rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn1pQHoiVgY
avatar
orcishgamer: You're really, really looking at a small slice of the evidence out there. Most of the evidence is to the contrary. Don't think just because he wants to abolish the drug war (which would definitely help many minority groups) that he's not also in favor of policies that would royally fuck over the same groups. Ron Paul is for some sort of crazy idealism, and not even the good kind of idealism, people who get in the way of those ideals are just some unfortunate causalities.

I don't like any of the candidates for POTUS and that includes Ron Paul.
avatar
hedwards: ....
avatar
orcishgamer: The real question is whether the harm is greater or less than the harm caused by current policies. Vancouver BC (I could be wrong on the city, but definitely BC) has a clinic, Insight (Insite?) that simply provides a safe and clean environment for taking drugs, they provide all materials save the drugs themselves. They have tons of ODs but very few deaths thanks to the nursing staff. A few of those people move upstairs to Onsite which is a treatment program, some never do, either is okay. I'm fairly convinced we could legalize drugs and make it safe. Part of the reason meth is such a problem in my state is precisely because drugs are hideously expensive (well, except for pot). We'd likely eliminate some of the nastier crap out there by eliminating the war on drugs.
Yeah, Insite is in Vancouver - I've seen it lots of times in downtown.
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: Ron Paul is a loser and he is weak. He only appeals to young, left-wing college kids, who have drug dependency issues.


Things I have seen him say during the debates and interviews he has done:

- He is for languages other than English in voting booths

- He is for the outsourcing of jobs

- He is against border control

- He is against a strong military

- He doesn't want to put his foot down on anything

- He wants drugs to be legalized

- He is old and weak, and he is soft on the enemies of the United States

- He takes a "blame America first" approach on EVERY foreign policy issue out there

- He associated with 9/11 truthers and other Commie conspiracy nuts until he actually thought he could win the nominee back in '08, and then proceeded to throw them under the bus [which was funny, because then all of the fruitloops started to say he was a Freemason and a part of the Illuminati] and was actually a frequent guest on the Alex Jones show.


He would be another 4 years of Jimmy Carter or Obama, thank God he doesn't have a chance in hell to be the Republican nominee, much less the actual president. Ron Paul is more of an Anarchist with Marxist leanings, rather than a right-wing Libertarian. Anybody who runs a presidential campaign of "Do what you want, I won't mind!" is obviously weak, and a whackjob, not to mention, economically and morally dangerous.


Oh, I forgot one thing. There was the whole debacle with him and the racial newsletters. Now, regardless of whether or not you agree with what was said in them, Ron Paul has previously promoted his newsletters, and then proceeded to say he didn't have control over what was written when the media started hounding him about it. Now if he can't control/run a fringe newsletter that might have about 20 people working for him, how in the hell is he supposed to run the most powerful nation on the planet, with over 310,000,000 people, which is made up of various political parties, religions and ethnic backgrounds? In short, he wouldn't, or he would just run the country straight into the ground.
You sir, are unintentionally funny.
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: Ron Paul is a loser and he is weak. He only appeals to young, left-wing college kids, who have drug dependency issues.
I am young, left wing, and in college. I have no drug problems - but I really wish I did know someone who sold weed. Instead I snort staples and eraser bits.

avatar
XmXFLUXmX: - He is for languages other than English in voting booths
That's insane. Americans can't even get English right - for starters, it's "maths" not "math".

avatar
XmXFLUXmX: - He is for the outsourcing of jobs
I didn't realise you still had jobs to outsource. Except for the porn stars and the Apache helicopter factories, of course.

avatar
XmXFLUXmX: - He is against border control
You mean he's against a fence that stretches along most of the US-Mexico border, lined with law enforcement and vigilantes in Toyota Hiluxes with assault rifles?

avatar
XmXFLUXmX: - He is old and weak, and he is soft on the enemies of the United States
The enemies of the US, which basically means anyone the Americans have invaded in the last 50 years and/or prays to a funny god, some of whom pose no proven threat to the United States and the western world.

By the way, does China count as an enemy or an ally of the US? And if it's on both lists, do they cancel out?

avatar
XmXFLUXmX: Anybody who runs a presidential campaign of "Do what you want, I won't mind!" is obviously weak, and a whackjob, not to mention, economically and morally dangerous.
As we all know, people in a power with a mentality of "you can't do what you want and I will mind" has done wonders. Who can forget the kids whose lemonade stand got shut down by the authorities. Or the time when George W. Bush had a massive rave party in Baghdad in 2003. It really endeared him to the Iraqi people and the Americans back home.

avatar
XmXFLUXmX: In short, he wouldn't, or he would just run the country straight into the ground.
Oh come on, the United States is so broke, so socially broken, so politically inept, it's already subterranean.
Post edited March 13, 2012 by michaelleung
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: Ron Paul is a loser and he is weak. He only appeals to young, left-wing college kids, who have drug dependency issues.
avatar
michaelleung: I am young, left wing, and in college. I have no drug problems - but I really wish I did know someone who sold weed.

Instead I snort staples and eraser bits.
Well, can't you fake a medical condition and get prescribed cannabis? Or do I need to send you something in the mail from a friend of mine?
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
michaelleung: I am young, left wing, and in college. I have no drug problems - but I really wish I did know someone who sold weed.

Instead I snort staples and eraser bits.
avatar
Rohan15: Well, can't you fake a medical condition and get prescribed cannabis? Or do I need to send you something in the mail from a friend of mine?
No, that's illegal.
Posted March 13, 2012
A great acquaintance once said "Ron Paul would shit his pants if he became president."
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
PhoenixWright: A great acquaintance once said "Ron Paul would shit his pants if he became president."
If he did it during an Address to the Nation the ratings would skyrocket.
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
hedwards: That's great, so we should wait until there's a direct and provable harm to others before we act on it. This is why I have so little respect for libertarianism. Drugs are dangerous until proven safe. That's always been the case historically, and I see no reason to change that now.

If pot or acid or whatever is safe for ingestion, then the research should bear it out. Suggesting that people should be allowed to use drugs like crack, meth, methadone or ecstasy with very real societal harm is extremely short sighted. Methadone even when used as prescribed for legitimate reasons is still quite dangerous and resulted in more deaths in my home state than any of the other prescribed painkillers.

Pot is less supported than other drugs in terms of societal necessity to keep banned, but when you suggest that all drugs should be legalized, that is an extreme position to take, far more so than what most people would advocate for. Legalizing pot is almost certainly going to happen in the future though.
You mistakenly believe that the criminalisation of and the war on drugs reduce drug use. If anything, the evidence indicates the contrary. Not least because drug use is demonised in the society and those with a problem are accordingly less inclined to seek help. As someone already pointed out, Portugal's drug use has fallen since decriminalisation (read about the law, it's quite well formulated). And ultimately, those who want to do drugs, do drugs. Drugs are still as readily available as they were before the West started pouring trillions into combating them. Perhaps this money could be better used for treatment and rehabilitation?

Essentially people need to realise that the war on drugs is like The Prohibition. You might not like drugs but they sure as hell won't be going anywhere no matter how much you want them to.

The Economist is an advocate on the reform of drug policy. Have a look at these two articles for example (I cannot actually find the one that I wanted to link initially):
http://www.economist.com/node/14845095
http://www.economist.com/node/18772646

e: this one is also good:
http://www.economist.com/node/14309861
Post edited March 13, 2012 by FraterPerdurabo
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
PhoenixWright: A great acquaintance once said "Ron Paul would shit his pants if he became president."
I think jokes about his age are rather inappropriate.
avatar
FraterPerdurabo: Essentially people need to realise that the war on drugs is like The Prohibition. You might not like drugs but they sure as hell won't be going anywhere no matter how much you want them to.
'nuff said.
Post edited March 13, 2012 by SimonG
Posted March 13, 2012
Parallels between the war on drugs and prohibition can get a little shaky. There are some similarities, yes, but the actual material is very very different. Alcohol isn't as dangerous as most drugs, and it's been a part of our culture for millennia. While there is a "drug culture," alcoholic beverages have been used since practically the dawn of civilization, and are extremely firmly entrenched into our identities (even if we don't drink). Prohibition was massively unpopular because huge percentages of the American public drank. The war on drugs doesn't have anywhere near the opposition that Prohibition did. Most folks actually support it (or are at least neutral on the issue).

I'm not saying that the war on drugs hasn't caused a lot of problems, especially in Mexico, Columbia, and the southwest, but legalizing all of the drugs so they can be regulated isn't going to magically fix those problems either. Just look at the diamond trade. Technically it's illegal to buy or sell blood diamonds in the US, but since it's extremely hard to actually determine where an individual diamond came from, it doesn't really mean anything. The US doesn't have any jurisdiction in diamond-producing countries, and so it can either buy blood diamonds, or buy no diamonds at all. If drugs were all legalized, we'd still be buying them from the cartels.
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
QC: I agree, nobody
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15912398/democrats-plan-statewide-push-to-repeal-voter-id-law
Is actively protecting
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/voter-id-laws-struck-down-in-texas-wisconsin/
Minority voters. Hell, who will protect
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-of-arizonas-restrictive-immigration-law/2011/12/12/gIQA4UYepO_story.html
voters who are in this country legally and yet suspected constantly of illegal presence? Or voters who don't have ID's? Hm. Nope, can't think of anyone. Ron Paul.
The good news is that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will eventually hear the case for the state, and the injunction will be shot down. Part of the weakness of the case is that there is no plaintiff. In other words, they can't actually find someone disenfranchised to whom they can point. Next, they'll look at the last election, where ID was required, and find that there were no valid complaints of disenfranchisement. Given that the citizens of the state have had 10 months to obtain a free ID and that we can't find any disenfranchised voters, I think the injunction will be overturned.

If there is one weakness in WIs current ID law, it's in the provisional balloting. Except for that one thing it mostly mirrors the laws from other states, which have already passed muster with the US Supreme Court.

Ron Paul himself? Interesting guy but I'm not sure I'd want him as President.

As to the original youtube clip, it should have started with:

"Imagine for a moment, that somewhere in the middle of Texas a group of extremists conspired to commit an act of terror against heavily-populated targets in Beijing. Imagine that they succeeded. Imagine that more than 3,000 civilians died in the multi-pronged attack."

That would at least give some perspective for the rest of the clip.
Posted March 13, 2012
When Ron Paul starts promising a second Ireland, or any other country, that's when you just take him out back and put him down.
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: Ron Paul fans who brag about how much drugs they do, and speak only in sarcasm: This is why Ron Paul hasn't won a single state and nobody takes him seriously outside of his personality cult on the internet.
I was kind of surprised to see there was a topic about him. I guess some people are taking him seriously... that is not something I was planning on doing.
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
bevinator: Alcohol isn't as dangerous as most drugs, and it's been a part of our culture for millennia.
Seriously??? Are you trolling or is this something you truly believe?
Posted March 13, 2012
avatar
bevinator: Alcohol isn't as dangerous as most drugs, and it's been a part of our culture for millennia.
avatar
JudasIscariot: Seriously??? Are you trolling or is this something you truly believe?
Alcohol compared to heroin, it's absolutely completely totally safer.

Except if you were to inject alcohol into your veins. I think that would be a problem.
Post edited March 13, 2012 by michaelleung
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)I'm starting to like Ron Paul(149 posts)(149 posts)
(149 posts)