playing the new call of duty and they got a dope map where the russians invaded the new york stock exchange. man i wish that would happen in real life!
You can quote Paul saying he's against the feds telling you what not to do. You can quote Paul saying he'd wax the DEA. I'm betting you can't quote Paul advocating your right to smoke pot.
.
remove it from the jurisdiction of the federal government and allow the states to regulate it like alcohol
it's something that should be legal...
the war on marijuana causes so much harm and accomplishes nothing..
the entire country and world is getting upset at its leaders, and it will only get worse if taxes keep increasing and our standard of living keeps decreasing. you think people are mad now? wait until the next few years when each family and person is going to be paying 3k more every year in taxes and healthcare bullshit. taxes, fees, permits, everything is being raised to generate revenue for politicians who know FUCK ALL how to handle it....
and meanwhile, the majority of population has had to make sacrifices, yet the fuckhead politicians get to keep their nice benefits and keep living their aristocratic lifestyle. in the old days of history, situations like this with a huge economic gap between the social classes would result in REVOLUTION!! these politicians and bankers would be taken to the guillotine in front of public!! yet this wont happen these days, because they have built up a massive police state, taken away rights, and now they can laugh and dump mcdonalds applications on protesters because the police protect them. makes me fucking angry as hell when i see what is happening, but there just isnt much i can do except continue to work the system and be a "virus" to their plans. all of us on here on IC are doing our part, making sure that future generations smoke the herb and wake up. and getting our tax free slice of the pie and building up our networks so in case SHTF we wont be standing in soup kitchen lines or killing eachother for resources.
end rant. time to smoke and forget about all this BS. i got acres in the foothills i will be set for life no matter what happens to this country.
you have in the past...
i can now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/marijuana-bill-barney-frank-ron-paul_n_882707.html
but that's only legislation pending in congress to end the federal war on marijuana..
you tend to prefer sloganism.
so lets hear ron paul say
remove it from the jurisdiction of the federal government and allow the states to regulate it like alcohol
[youtubeif]RkfQya3kTOI[/youtubeif]
weak sauce DB...
I have spent some time reading this interesting thread, I do love to hear folks out there express their opinions and share their knowledge. So now it's my turn, hehe- basically the USA and most other places around the globe are heading to to a decline that can't be halted. It will probably speed up. If the best instincts of humans were allowed to prevail we could probably make it through the coming eco-disasters. This can't happen, because the cancers of corporate capitalism, military industrial complex and greed is too strong. And we know that despite the few cool peeps out there, the majority of humans are as dumb as a rock, and not even capable of understanding the problems that beset them, who the real aggressors are. Thanks to all of you for sharing the gospel of good herb, I hope cannabis is a stepping stone for everyone to start growing trees, tomatoes, food, herbs and flowers.
i didn't realize you thought "legalize" meant complete deregulation and a federal mandate that all states completely deregulate...
I just don't quite agree on the term corporate capitalism.
As for the rest - a safe position. Good points.
Lol. I know more of Paul's plank than you do. He's on public record against earmarks. Defends his stance by not voting for the earmarks he inserts into legislation.
You don't see the hypocrisy? The only guy in the presidential race dissing earmarks is the #1 earmark procurer in his home state.
He doesn't lobby the feds for funds, he inserts funding into legislation he expects to pass. (backdoor) Then he says he doesn't vote on the bills that carry his earmarks, shirking national voting responsibilities for district interests.
Not to mention one less vote in 435 is a drop in the bucket for the #1 pork pusher for Texas.
Very interesting. If he votes against all appropriations, what bills are his appropriations being inserted into? After all, Paul says he doesn't vote for the bills that contain his appropriations.Channel: Fox News
Host: Neil Cavuto
Date: 3/10/2009
Transcript:
Neil Cavuto: He’s being targeted as maybe spending the most or at least earmarking the most for his constituents. He says it isn’t fair, but we thought it only fair to give him his due and allow him to explain what’s going on. I’m talking about Texas Congressman, former Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Congressman, the rap is that you’re a porker. That a lot of pork; 73 million plus, went to your district. Is that true?
Ron Paul: Well, it might be, but I think you’re missing the whole point. I never voted for an earmark, I voted against all appropriation bills.
How does Ron save that $73 million by helping appropriate it to his district? By voting no on the legislation. One less vote in 435 is a drop in the bucket. It doesn't mitigate the fact he inserts this funding into legislation.Ron Paul: So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood. Earmarks are the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So that’s the principle that we have to follow, and is the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark… you don’t save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.
Paul uses the back door of inserting funding into legislation rather than the front door of open lobbying. Doesn't sound very transparent.Neil Cavuto: But then, who proposes the bridge or the highway or the school? How does that even get in there?
Ron Paul: I have no idea, but the most important thing is to have transparency. If you don’t earmark something then somebody else spends it and there is no transparency. So, the principle of the earmark is very crucial.
That's it. When they're asking you about your own procurements, emphasize something else.Ron Paul: But we need more earmarks. The reason that we didn’t have earmarks on that 350 million dollars on TARP funds. We needed to earmark on every single thing. We need to earmark every single thing the Fed does. So this whole thing is a charade, just a charade.
IMO, a direct contradiction because his personal vote is the least element that stands in the way of his insertions. Who cares if he abstains if his procurement process is the same?Neil Cavuto: No, No, I understand. But it just strikes people as a little weird, Congressman, because you know, you champion and rail against government waste and I know you rejected and voted against this package. But yet your constituents are going to benefit to the tune of 73 million dollars in various projects from this package. So, it’s kind of like you are having your cake and eating it too.
Ron Paul: Neil, you’re missing the whole point. The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We are supposed to…. it’s like a tax credit and I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of your money back, I vote for it. So if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that.
But because the budget is out of control, I haven’t voted for an appropriation in years.
So why does he abstain from these votes? Why does he insert appropriations into legislation rather than direct requests? You know, letters to the president and or his key people - letters to appropriate committees or their staffs.Neil Cavuto: But would you argue then, sir, that when John McCain was here he was saying the whole earmark thing itself is what’s out of control.
Ron Paul: No, no. He totally misunderstands it, that’s grandstanding. If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1% of the budget. But if you vote against all the earmarks, you don’t cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We’re talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch. I’m saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch.
Just listen again to what I said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now, we gave them 350 million dollars, no earmarks, and nobody knows.
Neil Cavuto: No, No, I know you are right about that. Are you saying then, Congressman, that the monies that you appropriated, whether for the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, the Texas City Channel, Wallisville Lake, the City of Bay City rehab center… that that’s money in the aggregate that you would have called waste?
Ron Paul: It’s the kind I don’t vote for because I don’t believe the Federal Government should be doing it, but if they’re going to allot the money I have a responsibility to represent my people if they say, “Hey look, put in a highway for the district”. I put it in, I put in all their requests because I’m their representative.
Can we keep the Iraq examples out of the inquiry into why you abstain from voting for the earmarks you insert into legislation?Neil Cavuto: So you don’t think their requests are waste? You don’t think their requests are waste?
Ron Paul: Well, no, it shouldn’t be done. There should be a better way to do it. But if you’re going to spend the money, the Congress has the responsibility to say that it’s better to spend it on a bridge here than spend it on a bridge in Iraq and then blow it up and build it up again. These are the kind of earmarks that don’t count. You have to look at the responsibility of the Congress to earmark every single penny.
Yup. People are hypnotized by the media and the toys that go with it. I now see people crossing the street and walking right in front of traffic because they are staring at some hand held gizmo. It's bad enough driving and texting/talking, but now even pedestrians are doing it. It's as if the media has seized control of people's minds on a vast scale. The people don't seem to realize they are under an hypnotic spell....they have become droids....
i see your confusion...
there really are two definitions for the term "earmark"
in the strictest sense to earmark dollars is to label them. for instance in the dagnabit home before any check is deposited from a client every dollar has a name. there is no "petty cash" or "mad money" on paper every dime is allocated or "ear marked".
One rep's appropriation is another rep's pork. Just because we called Stevens' earmark 'a bridge to nowhere' doesn't mean his constituents felt the same way. While inserting earmarks into likely-to-pass legislation isn't illegal, it increases the chances of success while lessening the transparency Paul advocates.now the also publicly accepted definition of "earmark"(a testament to the dumbing down of our discourse)is a wasteful rider tacked onto an unrelated bill.
as you can plainly see any fool with a modicum of common sense would be for the former and against the latter..
hope this helps
Thanks for the link. He's still apparently for (and against) earmarks. I'll highlight the apparent disparities.
blue - for earmarks
red - against earmarks
bold - very interesting, considering
Very interesting. If he votes against all appropriations, what bills are his appropriations being inserted into? After all, Paul says he doesn't vote for the bills that contain his appropriations.
How does Ron save that $73 million by helping appropriate it to his district? By voting no on the legislation. One less vote in 435 is a drop in the bucket. It doesn't mitigate the fact he inserts this funding into legislation.
Paul uses the back door of inserting funding into legislation rather than the front door of open lobbying. Doesn't sound very transparent.
That's it. When they're asking you about your own procurements, emphasize something else.
IMO, a direct contradiction because his personal vote is the least element that stands in the way of his insertions. Who cares if he abstains if his procurement process is the same?
So why does he abstain from these votes? Why does he insert appropriations into legislation rather than direct requests? You know, letters to the president and or his key people - letters to appropriate committees or their staffs.
IMO, Paul takes a perfectly legal process and turns it into a questionable ordeal. Nothing he'll have to answer over but many look at this apparent discrepancy as hypocrisy. A kiss on the cheek doesn't excuse a knife in the back.
Seems to come down on both sides. Lets make that one purple.
Can we keep the Iraq examples out of the inquiry into why you abstain from voting for the earmarks you insert into legislation?
Doesn't matter to me whether the guy has focus challenges or he's attempting to pile on the mud so you don't get a direct response. I wouldn't vote for him in either case. Even if somebody else could explain what Ron seems to have trouble doing himself.
IMO, not voting for funding is a shiney object for folks to say, "Oh, Paul didn't vote for one cent of this $73 million." They either underestimate or don't care that the vote part is the least significant obstacle.
IMO, this is not unlike the weed issue where folks think he'll legalize. Based on his statements, he'd just put the control hat on other heads - 50 of them.