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!
What is happening to the USA??? Give us your input.
- Thread starter Useful Idiot
- Start date
- Status
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
[YOUTUBEIF]RkfQya3kTOI[/YOUTUBEIF]
weak sauce DB...
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.
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.
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.
fair enough
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.
"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.
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.
S
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
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
S
Scrappy-doo
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.
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
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
- Status
