Honestly, I don't know a lot about Ron Paul besides his support of MMJ. Since Kucinich is not running, it seems he is the best choice on that issue. But I am not a 1 issue voter. I am not sure where he stands on the other issues. I supported most of Kucinich's positions, not gun control and maybe one other I didn't but 90% I did agree with. If Paul is like your typical all for the wealthy Republicans as usual, I do not support him. We do need more fairness in the tax code, if you want to cut something cut the military and subsides to big companies, not cuts that hurt people that really need help! Cuts are needed in some areas (those that focus on the past or keeping things the way they are), and spending in others (those that create progress and green jobs, and those that look to improving the future for all, not just a few).
President Obama- Drug Warrior?
- Thread starter mofeta
- Start date
Ron Paul won the California straw poll.
Ron Paul wants to End the Fed and legalize weed. He is the only person getting my vote. God help us if any of the other GOP clowns get in. Corporatist whores replacing a corporatist whore. The only person I see in the US not advocating crony capitalism (fascism) is Dr. Paul.
Obummer is Machiavellian to the 10th degree.
Ron Paul wants to End the Fed and legalize weed. He is the only person getting my vote. God help us if any of the other GOP clowns get in. Corporatist whores replacing a corporatist whore. The only person I see in the US not advocating crony capitalism (fascism) is Dr. Paul.
Obummer is Machiavellian to the 10th degree.
O'Bama was in his first term in the legislature. What leadership has he shown?
Did he really earn the right to even be considered for President just because he gives a good speech?
I believe that Ron Paul, in his many years of service, has shown leadership with his willingness to break away from the status quo. He wants to end the seemingly endless wars that have bankrupted us. Isn't that leadership? He wants to end the Fed. Isn't that leadership?
He wants to end this stupid "war on drugs", which is really a war on people.
Isn't that leadership?
He wants to end the "pay to play" system of government, with lobbyists and corporations calling the shots with their bribes.
Isn't that leadership?
His ideas are radical to some, common sense to me. Sure, he's not perfect, but who is?
We're almost there now, under the current and previous governments. We are on the brink of disaster, yet G.E. payed zero federal taxes last year. How does that add up?
I don't see any leadership now.
Just a bunch of rhetoric and broken promises, business as usual.
O'bama is ready to boycott the Palestinian petition for statehood, after having pretended for years to be pushing for statehood. What promise hasn't he broken, and how has he demonstrated leadership?
Ron Paul isn't perfect, but which candidate is the lesser of evils?
The whore is trying to raise the top's cap gains tax to income rates. Kinda interesting the whore is called a capitalist on one side of the opposition and a socialist on the other side of same opposition. Maybe he's striking a degree of balance in this thing called democracy.
With a second term, Obama at least wouldn't stand in the way of reform taking place from other (federal) directions. Ron Paul doesn't just want to legalize weed, he wants to dissolve the DEA. Correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Paul often suggests we would take steps to thwart crime in general but there's little detail.
How would we thwart hard drugs from entering the US with no DEA?
States don't have the authority to arbitrate over other states. Who decides national security issues? I'm all for curbing military excess. I'm not sure I'd agree with Dr. Paul on where we cut and where we sustain.
It's kinda tough analyzing what a Paul presidency would look like. IMO, Dr. Paul would benefit by concentrating on things he can accomplish as president. His extracurricular ideas, ie policy ideas even he knows he couldn't affect tend to spook the potential voter.
With a second term, Obama at least wouldn't stand in the way of reform taking place from other (federal) directions. Ron Paul doesn't just want to legalize weed, he wants to dissolve the DEA. Correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Paul often suggests we would take steps to thwart crime in general but there's little detail.
How would we thwart hard drugs from entering the US with no DEA?
States don't have the authority to arbitrate over other states. Who decides national security issues? I'm all for curbing military excess. I'm not sure I'd agree with Dr. Paul on where we cut and where we sustain.
It's kinda tough analyzing what a Paul presidency would look like. IMO, Dr. Paul would benefit by concentrating on things he can accomplish as president. His extracurricular ideas, ie policy ideas even he knows he couldn't affect tend to spook the potential voter.
Why do people have to come up with clever names for the current president? Back when it was bush, i saw plenty of bitching about "the shrub". Now I hear about "Obummer" and "Osama" and now apparently he's "O'bama."
Just makes your argument look weaker, IMHO, if you're attacking the name and not the policies.
I'm no Obama cheerleader. But I think he's done a lot more than people are giving him credit for. He repeatedly tries to compromise with the right, which is more than I ever saw Bush do. He repeatedly calls for an end to politics as usual and then as soon as his speech is over, the republicans (and many democrats) shrug their shoulders and go back to politics as usual. It'd be nice to see a little more fire from Obama, the way he was on the campaign trail the first time around, but I get the impression that he is sincerely trying.
There are so many lies coming out of the mouths of tea partiers and republicans. I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to lie if they had a position that was reasonable or worth defending.
Saying that Obama has started more wars than Bush, for example. Blatently reshaping history to suit your own purposes. Saying Obama has spent more than any other president... again, totally pandering and utterly bullshit. Calling him Hitler because he wanted to provide healthcare? Calling him a socialist?
Did any of you go to public school? Isn't that socialism? How about a public university on federal student loans/grants? Socialism! If people can't afford to go to a nice private school, fuck 'em. They can spend their entire lives at mcdonalds for minimum wage. (Minimum wage? SOCIALISM! Let's go free market and hire people at $0.50 an hour! The american way!) Can't afford to eat? Fuck 'em.
People whine about a welfare state when welfare is less than 10% of our national budgets. We could completely eliminate welfare, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs that keep the poor BARELY surviving and guess what? We wouldn't balance the budget, pay down the debt or change ANYTHING. Sure, there are some people scamming the system. But what do you think the big corporations are doing with their accountants and tax preparers? Do you think they're out to pay their fair share? Do you think they're lobbying to make things "fair and balanced?" Hell no.
The average CEO now makes 100x what the average worker makes. And it goes up every year. Why are we angry at the poor people for scamming the same system that the rich guys are RAPING?
I understand completely why Rupert Murdoch is a republican. I have no clue why anyone who isn't a multimillionaire would go along with their ideas, however.
(And no, I'm not a fucking democrat, either.)
Just makes your argument look weaker, IMHO, if you're attacking the name and not the policies.
I'm no Obama cheerleader. But I think he's done a lot more than people are giving him credit for. He repeatedly tries to compromise with the right, which is more than I ever saw Bush do. He repeatedly calls for an end to politics as usual and then as soon as his speech is over, the republicans (and many democrats) shrug their shoulders and go back to politics as usual. It'd be nice to see a little more fire from Obama, the way he was on the campaign trail the first time around, but I get the impression that he is sincerely trying.
There are so many lies coming out of the mouths of tea partiers and republicans. I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to lie if they had a position that was reasonable or worth defending.
Saying that Obama has started more wars than Bush, for example. Blatently reshaping history to suit your own purposes. Saying Obama has spent more than any other president... again, totally pandering and utterly bullshit. Calling him Hitler because he wanted to provide healthcare? Calling him a socialist?
Did any of you go to public school? Isn't that socialism? How about a public university on federal student loans/grants? Socialism! If people can't afford to go to a nice private school, fuck 'em. They can spend their entire lives at mcdonalds for minimum wage. (Minimum wage? SOCIALISM! Let's go free market and hire people at $0.50 an hour! The american way!) Can't afford to eat? Fuck 'em.
People whine about a welfare state when welfare is less than 10% of our national budgets. We could completely eliminate welfare, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs that keep the poor BARELY surviving and guess what? We wouldn't balance the budget, pay down the debt or change ANYTHING. Sure, there are some people scamming the system. But what do you think the big corporations are doing with their accountants and tax preparers? Do you think they're out to pay their fair share? Do you think they're lobbying to make things "fair and balanced?" Hell no.
The average CEO now makes 100x what the average worker makes. And it goes up every year. Why are we angry at the poor people for scamming the same system that the rich guys are RAPING?
I understand completely why Rupert Murdoch is a republican. I have no clue why anyone who isn't a multimillionaire would go along with their ideas, however.
(And no, I'm not a fucking democrat, either.)
S
Smoke Buddy
Well, I was answering a hypothetical... but like you, I realize its not a likely one. I pretty much agree except on the compromise issue... Calls from the left for compromise ring hollow given the extreme lack of compromise that the democrats showed while putting the last nails in the countries economic coffin by passing the government expanding stimulus and Obamacare... at the very moment when we needed real leadership they jam those bills which just put any recovery into the next fukin decade. Brilliant!
Awesome job on the flyers man! Very cool.
Ive been there too and I didnt see any of that bad shit. Could be because Im in a small town and people here are respectful for the most part. People here would have beat down anyone being disrespectful like that and if I was there I wouldnt support that kind of bullshit. I could ask you to defend the SEIU beating a black man for attending a tea party rally or the panthers intimidating voters with what appears to be the support of the Obama administration... but that is all in the weeds. Whats important is stopping the government from finishing off the economy and our pretty good way of life. Blame Bush if you must but then be awake and present enough to question the intellegence of the actions of this president given the timing of the economy. If you think that the stimulus and healthcare didnt freeze us in place you are blind. Sure there are lots of other mitigating points but Im sticking to the main ones. You demonize the Tea Party at your own peril because they are sounding the call for liberty... which requires a small government.. Neither of the parties will willingly do for us what we need done which is shrink the government back to a reasonable size and shape. We need the tea party to drive that effort. You really want to demonize that?
Good luck on your mission to legalize, I support you fully on that.
lybia ,syria,pakistan . private contractors are still troops. if they dont fight back its still war,more like genocide,and calling for the stepping down of a sovereign nations leader is still war or just talking crap.
socialisim is a failure
heres info on the public school system ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYmpoRBXgVM&feature=player_embedded
socialisim is a failure
heres info on the public school system ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYmpoRBXgVM&feature=player_embedded
IMO, O's a pretty good leader. It's not his fault we have a Hatfields' vs McCoys' type of government, if only before they started shooting each other.
O might not lead those whom happen to be against his policies but legislation has been and is being effected. Pelosi's congress was one of the most productive sessions in American history. If you look at the number of bills passed, she's THE most successful speaker. Looks like budget aspects will outweigh military objectives in Iraq. IMO, we'll start to see pressure on Afghanistan and troops will be reduced.
Healthcare costs are part of domestic austerity and the plan that passed rates a better bottom line than the ever bulging status quot. It ain't perfect but we're not through with the necessary reforms.
Contrary to some opinions, I've yet to see wholesale disregard for state medical mj law. I've seen lots of folks looking like they were making bank or evading taxes but they've only been charged for the most part. The devil is in the details.
First left prez to consider SS Medicare and Medicaid adjustments since Reagan and dems shored up SS in the 80s. If the hard opposition doesn't soften, we may lose the opportunity for reforms here. After all, this is the 'NO' congress. Even ideas they championed are tossed once they're embraced by this president. Makes me doubt the oppositions honorable intent to govern.
With all due respect, leadership comes from our leaders. Again, I mentioned speculative but that's just my opinion. However, I get the feeling a broad swath of the electorate verifies it.
Granted, Dr. Paul is a well respected leader of his like minded coutrymen. The whole thing about commanding vs demanding respect is exampled by how well our leader commands broad respect, not just that of his political base. O might be low but he's 3 to 4x better respected than Congress.
If I'm not mistaken, GE managed a $365 million refund from us, after paying zero taxes.
We may not agree on policy but balance is key. For the last 30 years, 68% of our corporations successfully lobbied to pay zero taxes. This president didn't sign a 'no new taxes' pledge with Grover Norquist. But since 1985, more and more legislators have signed that pledge while voting to give tax breaks to the folks that buy their campaigns.
What you're largely complaining about is the game. The player, not so much. Based on your posts, you could have done lots worse with Hillary Clinton. That's just an opinion but Bill didn't compromise to the point of being redundant like O has.
IMO, Dr. Paul has high degree of integrity. I'd like to think he'd be instrumental in a Palestinian Israeli peace. On the other hand, Dr. Paul would like to see civil rights laws rolled back, something about not needing a law to thwart discrimination. I'm not sure what type of influence he'd put on Israel to negotiate compromise.
I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul. IMO, he's honest and has honorable intent. My opinion won't hurt him a bit since I don't vote his party's primary. That said, his ideas might produce results we've already experienced and decided to take steps to mitigate. And if he manages to win, we might have the opportunity to prove me wrong.
I'm right there with ya, bentom187. I also believe drug use is more a societal problem than a crime problem. We still have the criminal element of hard drugs. IMO, we can manage a degree of addicts, give them counseling and (worst cases) clean needles.
How we do this economically depends on the stripe. Some would have us paying a profit to the private sector and some suggest churches would take up the slack. One of the benefits of living in society is to curb private profit where it kicks the economy in the nuts.
This is why we have subsidized energy. At the turn of the 20th Century, everybody wanted cheap energy... even libertarians. If socialized (subsidized) treatment and counseling has a smaller bottom line (and history says it will), I'd prefer a free market, socialized hybrid. And where I personally draw the line lends little to the post.
I liken my opinion of Dr. Paul to the forward of a very lengthy and detailed book. His ideas have merit but how he'd go about it seems to have produced negative results historically. Oh, we had a few people so rich they didn't know how much but we had lots of problems, they took and are still taking a long time to fix and a guy with a big ass eraser ain't the guy I want wiping the chalk board.
IMO, as president, Dr. Paul wouldn't be able to effect legislation in ways he'd desire. Just waxing the fed is enough to ask if the guy takes himself seriously. It's not unlike rolling dice with no numbers on em, except for recorded history that said... 'not too good.'. Supporters don't like what they have but they wouldn't know what they'd get. I'm not certain they've reflected on late 19th and early 20th century economic history. Paul might not look so spooky if he didn't appear to want to reinvent the wheel. Even if he does yet can't, making it all public seems to hurt his chances.
It's like the contractor who says he can get me in a better house w/o somebody checking to make sure he's above board with my best interests. What's he doing and how much is it gonna cost are two questions I think of. IMO, questions only market theory has addressed. Unless of course we look at history where similar theory was practically applied with negative macro results.
Which one of you is it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FzJfxyugek
Here's the top all-time political donors 1989 to present.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Big oil my ass. Try big labor.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Big oil my ass. Try big labor.
Well, I was answering a hypothetical... but like you, I realize its not a likely one. I pretty much agree except on the compromise issue... Calls from the left for compromise ring hollow given the extreme lack of compromise that the democrats showed while putting the last nails in the countries economic coffin by passing the government expanding stimulus and Obamacare... at the very moment when we needed real leadership they jam those bills which just put any recovery into the next fukin decade. Brilliant!
Whats important is stopping the government from finishing off the economy and our pretty good way of life. Blame Bush if you must but then be awake and present enough to question the intellegence of the actions of this president given the timing of the economy. If you think that the stimulus and healthcare didnt freeze us in place you are blind. Sure there are lots of other mitigating points but Im sticking to the main ones. You demonize the Tea Party at your own peril because they are sounding the call for liberty... which requires a small government.. Neither of the parties will willingly do for us what we need done which is shrink the government back to a reasonable size and shape. We need the tea party to drive that effort. You really want to demonize that?
Good luck on your mission to legalize, I support you fully on that.
Im not demonizing anyone - what im trying to do is display that what the majority of the people on the right believe (for the most part) is minformation.
So let me try to clear a few things up.
1) Obamas stimulus package: Without this injection into the country - the most optomistic reality would have been a loss of 1.2 million jobs while most believe that number would have been closer to 2 million jobs lost. So I consider the stimulus a success that we arent at an even larger percentage of unemployment.
2) The bailouts of the banks: If Obama had not bailed out the banks our dollar would have drastically devalued and we would have had a massive depression similar to the great depression in the '30s. So even though it sounds all well and good (and even deserved) to just say "its their problem - let them fail" it would have had a devestating impact on our country.
3) Obama's Health Care Plan: Ok, so estimates of Obama's health care plan are somewher in the neighborhood of 1-2 trillion dollars over a ten year period. Over 30 million new americans would be covered. Bush's wars in the middle east has been estimated between 1.4 trillion and 3.2 trillion dollars.
So in the scheme of things - whats worst? Spending 1-2 trillion dollars and helping tens of millions of americans. or spending about that same amount to go over seas and reap absoultely no rewards while contributing to the thousands of deaths on both sides.
Im just saying...if were going to blow tons of money - id rather it be on our own people - than just being thrown to the wind and stuffed in the pockets of corrupt defense contraters and secret ops hit squads.
Now you've done it DB.
You've brought up a really sore subject with me, having had personal dealings with the DEA.
The DEA is the most corrupt, dishonest, and dangerous organization in our country.
They are in the business of lying, stealing, destroying lives by the thousands, and were one of the biggest importers of cocaine into our country. Ever hear of Iran -Contra. Manuel Noriega? Google it.
The DEA was also recently complicit in supplying guns to the Mexican cartels.
http://deadlinelive.info/2011/07/08/dea-and-fbi-also-involved-in-mexican-drug-cartel-weapons-fiasco/
Also check out:
http://deasucks.com/
In my own personal dealings with the DEA back in the day, they offered me to walk and continue my lifestyle, which they would be monitoring. I would not have had to do a day in jail, but that deal would certainly have gotten me killed, as many were who have accepted their "offers".
I told them to shove it, take me to jail.
Aside from that, it is well known that in Portugal, where all drugs have been decriminalized, that the crime rate has virtually disappeared. No need to rob anyone when the drugs you crave are readily available, and the use of these drugs has not increased due to this policy. The government supplies clean needles.
The DEA operates for one reason in this country: asset forfeiture, a very big business both locally and nationally.
The DEA is as low as they come.
Just look at all the lies and the distorted valuations they put on drugs seized.
Beneath contempt.
Please, oh please, get rid of the DEA!
we dont need to subsidize it period,charity is just that and more likley to happen when people are thriving not on welfare or jusy gettin by.
my personal opinion about energey indipendence is that everyones best bet is to get off the grid,im on it and had a 2 1/2 day blackout during irene.
and im not sure why private enegey is subsidized,if theres no demand or barley one,then whats the point espeacially the fact that it already charges customers. its unsustainable.
Dr. paul repeatedley tells people in history freedom is a very new idea,as far as implimentation anyway.
im sure there isnt one of us that can say you remember when the govt didnt care about your personal life or the going on's of other countries,and politicians obeying the law.
its auditing the fed,then getting them out and there fake fiat currencey. and i would take that seriousley cause the fractional reserve banking system debases our currencey,wich is actually their counterfit,only gold and silver "coin" is autherized ,they issue paper backed by debt "bonds".
early american economic sytem was corrupt because we still had a first and ,later a second national banks. wich were privatley owned and so is our current federal reserve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB1yKsXUMh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG_yVHH_gRs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USGSOViaulc
my personal opinion about energey indipendence is that everyones best bet is to get off the grid,im on it and had a 2 1/2 day blackout during irene.
and im not sure why private enegey is subsidized,if theres no demand or barley one,then whats the point espeacially the fact that it already charges customers. its unsustainable.
Dr. paul repeatedley tells people in history freedom is a very new idea,as far as implimentation anyway.
im sure there isnt one of us that can say you remember when the govt didnt care about your personal life or the going on's of other countries,and politicians obeying the law.
its auditing the fed,then getting them out and there fake fiat currencey. and i would take that seriousley cause the fractional reserve banking system debases our currencey,wich is actually their counterfit,only gold and silver "coin" is autherized ,they issue paper backed by debt "bonds".
early american economic sytem was corrupt because we still had a first and ,later a second national banks. wich were privatley owned and so is our current federal reserve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB1yKsXUMh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG_yVHH_gRs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USGSOViaulc
I'll get you another link that shows open secrets is loose with the facts.
Why would the general peoples' interest be less worthy of organization than rich folks? Big Oil has dozens of lobbies and trade organizations that work to benefit the top. Not to mention the fact that union organization is non-profit and is more limited in influence than the private sector. Of the top ten contributors to the 2010 elections, unions made up 5th, 7th and 8th places, respectively.
All that power for so few people. Why can't we as the general public organize for our best interests? Unions aren't necessarily required, even among union sympathizers. The auto union didn't force Henry Ford to pay his assemblers enough to buy his cars. Henry was a rich man but he wasn't so greedy that he duped the public into thinking his workers were crooks.
IMO, 'hope and change' reflects a different dialog amongst participants. Sure we have corruption everywhere humans proliferate, in government and in the private sector. But these two entities themselves aren't the enemy. There was a day a politician couldn't keep a job unless his politics was acceptable. Now we've taken the individual from the equation and focus on corrupt clouds that don't operate w/o human influence.
S
Scrappy-doo
It's not about the truth it's about your rep message to me, "try sayin' something that isn't somebody else' lie". You didn't have to write that but you did either to start a conflict with me or because you are just an angry person and felt the need to vent to someone you don't know online. Not only that, but I've seen you post in a lot of threads and you always get into these big heated arguments with people. To me, like a said, you are an angry person and/or you just like to fight.
As far as my rep message to you, "1- I did apologize 2- What I said used to be true" I was referring to the fact that 1- I instantly apologized because I didn't feel like arguing, and 2- the statement I made that Obama has the worst approval rating in history... I should have also said 'this far into his first term'. Obama started out with near 70% approval and by the end of his first year he was down into the 40's, where he has been ever since.
GWB did end up with a worse rating, but if you compare where he was after 3 years to where Obama is now he kicks Obama's ass. And I hate GWB. And his dad. But the facts are the facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating
Scroll down to the graphs of the Gallop Poll approval ratings of the last 13 presidents and compare them to Obama.
In fact, Obama's graph looks almost exactly Like Dubya's, except he managed to do it in half the time.
So who's lies am I just sayin'?
Just so you'll know, direct quoting private messages violates TOU. But don't worry, I'm not as angry as you suspect.
Well, let's see... you didn't state personal opinion, of which I have no rebuttal. You spoke for the consensus and happened to be wrong. I noticed you already had several negative reviews and I left you positive rep instead. The mention of checking your facts was and still is free of charge.
We all get tight and loose with the facts. As far as I'm concerned, you owe no apology. Without your input, we wouldn't get the big picture. Do you remember Ronnie Reagan's numbers? They're similar to Obama's but Carter didn't soak the bagel quite so bad. This economy could sink politicians for years to come.
Did you ever run a relay and get behind the eight ball, enough to ensure you'd have to run several races to make up statistical deficits? Then the coach blames you when your personal numbers mathematically prove you're not the guy to bench. Somebody might have subjective reasons to bench your ass but the numbers don't support the idea. They can reference the race you didn't excel and say, "See here... twinkle toes can't run."
In other words, you maneuvered to unexplain the idea that Obama polled as the worst president ever. That day might come and you might be the fat lady singin. Until then...
If Congress wasn't 12%, 43% wouldn't look so bad. Oh yeah, Congress is about 12% approved.
O's numbers are going up and by the time the election rolls around he'll get a working majority and get some things done. Well I guess you own it pardner, accept for the fact you already admitted your mistake.
