What is happening to the USA??? Give us your input.

[Yes4Prop215]

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!

 

[dagnabit]

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.

.

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]

it's something that should be legal...
the war on marijuana causes so much harm and accomplishes nothing..

weak sauce DB...

 

[zenoonez]

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.

Taxes are lower now than they were in the 90s, one of the problems that has led to the explosion of the national debt. The cost of healthcare has been rising at a unsustainable rate anyways, either the government did something to try to curb it or heathcare would be priced out of reach regardless. If you think government is your enemy you should start taking a look at who gets that government elected. Big business is the single greatest threat to The United States of America. We haven't been making politicians rich aristocrats, we have been making business men rich aristocrats. This government serves them and them alone.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

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 already mentioned Paul's 'states-rights' message clouds his presidential message. We have hundreds of dry counties, cities and town across America. Paul wouldn't impose weed legalization any more than he would alcohol. After all, Texas has the most dry entities and you don't mess with Texas.

I think it's just like his pork procurement. You get part of the message and the inconvenient part isn't (readily) disclosed. In this case the inconvenient part is you're reading between the lines. Paul isn't legislating legalization, he's attempting to substitute a series of infractions for the ones that currently exist.

IMO, you're making the same over assumptions you did with Obama. But I don't think we'll see it materialize, Paul's at single digits in national polls.

I'll give you this - I doubt Paul would stand in the way of legalization. But IMO, the desire to end federal control and leave it up to states isn't an endorsement for legalization where legalization wouldn't occur under the states rights rhetoric.

 

[Frosy]

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.

 

[dagnabit]

i didn't realize you thought "legalize" meant complete deregulation and a federal mandate that all states completely deregulate...

my bad

 

[Dudesome]

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 just don't quite agree on the term corporate capitalism.

As for the rest - a safe position. Good points.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

i didn't realize you thought "legalize" meant complete deregulation and a federal mandate that all states completely deregulate...

fair enough

 

[Red Fang]

seems like a good thread for once! I admit, when I first clicked on the link to this, I thought it was going to be yet another right wing chest thumping thread from the peanut gallery kind of thing, you know:

"yeah dey took er jerbs!"

But there are some good points made so I will have to do more reading! Of course I just skimmed page one so hopefully things don't devolve from there.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I just don't quite agree on the term corporate capitalism.

As for the rest - a safe position. Good points.

We're familiar with GDP and how sustained, excessive economic growth exacerbates busts. That's why industrialized nations typically manage growth for long term sustainability.

Like industrialized nations, corporations once planned for the long term. That's no longer the case. Corporations no longer focus on the long term. They no longer accept dips in the long term strategies that netted sustainable, long term gains.

All this short term, high gain focus has created enough global uncertainty to feed larger gambles. Instead of taking it on the chin, corporations are finding new ways to disguise fraud as profit.

 

[Scrappy-doo]

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.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-11/ron-paul-on-earmarks/

 

[dagnabit]

the most intelligent human on the hill explains it well..^^^^

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Paul uses the back door of inserting funding into legislation rather than the front door of open lobbying. Doesn't sound very transparent.

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.

That's it. When they're asking you about your own procurements, emphasize something else.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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.

Seems to come down on both sides. Lets make that one purple.

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.

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.

 

[GP73LPC]

isn't there a Ron Paul thread ?

 

[dagnabit]

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".

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

 

[fabvariousk]

Treason by our own government is happening.
Did we learn nothing from the civil war?
I wish we had someone like honest abe who was willing to do what was necessary to maintain the USA.

 

[TB Gardens]

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'm not drawing a link between smart phones & the media.. Ppl are able to use their phones for other purposes than news/media. Ppl are crossing the street in front of traffic staring at their gizmo's because access of information is instantaneous... Never before has that been possible in the history of the human race - it's essentially an extension of our brains that we are getting used to interfacing with, so ya ppl are gunn a do dumb stuff. That doesn't mean it's happening bc the media is brainwashing people.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

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".

Good example. I think it assumes that federal government has a slush fund that pays the bills when we actually appropriate funding just like we do the states. States may not have a say but agencies do.

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

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.

IMO, the petty cash example emulates how Paul obtains his district's earmarks by hiding them in bigger bills. Then he conveniently votes against all others' earmark requests.

 

[Scrappy-doo]

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.

OK so I just went to youtube and watched the video straight out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoD5Yk1imBk

To me his position is very clear. He wants less spending. That is why he does not ask for appropriations. He does not want to request money.

But since money is already being spent, he earmarks for his district for what the people are asking for. His reasoning is that at least the money will go towards something good for the people and can be traced. To me this is admirable imagine this same attitude on a national level.

If you want to say that's being sneaky and going through the back door rather than openly lobbying for money, then we are just going to disagree. It is completely transparent. It's on record and anyone interested can go back and see exactly where it went. He doesn't ask for it because he'd rather it not be spent at all, but earmarks are better than the alternative.

On the previous comment about weed to heroin... I searched for the interview you mentioned and didn't yet find it but in the process found multiple interviews or debate footage where the exact opposite was true.

Paul says he's for ending prohibition on marijuana and the other person/interviewer immediately equates it to heroin. "So then you're for legalization of heroin too?" in an attempt to make him seem foolish. He handles it brilliantly in every case and gets applause. So
he's not trying to distract or confuse anyone.

He wants to end prohibition in the same manner as it ended for alcohol and let the states decide. If it's legal on the federal level it's gonna be legalized on state level.

The dude is 100% real from what I can see. I'm open to being wrong if there is some real evidence that he is just another fake selfish lying through his teeth politician. So far I have yet to see any.

 

[Bi0hazard]

Obviously part of the attacks on Medical Cannabis is due to a battle between the pharmaceutical company and grown cannabis. (Important) The reason they are so threatened by medical cannabis, not really synthesized cannabinoids is because companies are NOT allowed to Patent anything that grows naturally. They have to synthesize or genetically modify it in order to have intellectual property rights of a chemical/medicine to patent it. Since cannabis with many of the cannabinoids can be grown without relying on a pharma company for your supply - they realize you will be out of their profit audience during their monopoly period of medicine distribution through patenting meds. I think this is one of the main reasons the medical industry constantly hides the benefits of grown/smoked cannabis, while taking other propaganda like attacks at it. While at the same time promoting "big pharma" synthetics like Marinol as "ok to manufacture and sell".

There are places in the world where they have been doing studies on Cannabis and Cannabinoids since the 70's. A lot of advancements in it's treatments have been found this way, and they have even ran some of the synthetic cannabinoid agonists on people in Phase II and Phase III trials with success. For instance, HU-211, an isomer of THC that doesn't bind to the CB1 receptor (No Psycho-active effects) but keeps much of the other medical benefits of THC intact. Is used to prevent excess damage during brain trauma or injury, after discovering that cannabinoids are naturally increase to help protect the brain during injury. This system used synthetic agonists to create an even stronger protective effect, and was able to reduced the amount of oxidation damage by over 50% in humans, and is now on-hand and used by many hospital emergency rooms around the world.

The Pharmaceutical companies ARE interested in possibly developing CB1 and CB2 medicines. It will most likely still reach some degree of resistance given how Naive most of the medical industry is to cannabis, mostly due to the distortions, unfounded discrediting, and propaganda against cannabis that exists for a multitude of reasons not to mention the stigmas being compounded since refer madness days. However, there are many places that are interested in specially targeted CB2 receptors, since they have no HIGH or psycho-active effect - and there are many also working with selective CB1 agonists as well for further research as well as many treatments.

Although it is not being covered by the mainstream there are currently 5451 Cannabinoid related patents! and the number is rising constantly. The scientific implications and results backing their efficiency are starting to become well understood by those in the medical field who are willing to look, and not to mention the other cannabinoids are drastically less toxic than THC, which by itself has no Human LD-50 (death dose). Literally one would have to consume close to 72x their body weight in cannabis (10% thc) all within 10 minutes to even reach a bodily shut down. Which is obviously beyond far fetched in it's possibility - I can't even contemplate smoking 1lb in 10 minutes, let alone 10,000+ lbs in 10 minutes. That's 1,000 pounds a minute!!! Anyone pushing that amount might want to think about taking a break for 2 weeks to get their tolerance back up =P

Current Listing of Patents using Cannabinoids: 5451
http://www.patentstorm.us/search.html?q=cannabinoid&s.x=0&s.y=0