Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[sac beh]

You tell me why would somebody in CO would not vote RON PAUL!
Why would they vote somebody that don't want Medical MJ? Tell me that?
Tell me what statement don't apply to CO from above.
The reason I state CO is because outside of CA they have the biggest industry to lose, Right?

Sounds like you don't understand Colorado. You think just because its an MMJ state all of the establishment republicans will switch their loyalties because some independent thinks its a states rights issue? They don't care about MMJ or states right. Add to that the fact that there aren't a lot of Alex Jones independents in CO, so you lose a portion of the Paul base there.

And in the general election you'll see that the large Democrat/left-leaning groups won't help Paul much either, because he offers nothing to them on one of the most important issues (the environment).

I know you're excited about Ron Paul, but you have to understand that he's not the blanket answer for MJ voters. There are some serious questions about his commitment to carry the issue through the WH. Potential Paul supporters in CO care about the environment, civil rights, and immigration just as much as MJ, so voting Paul would be risky.

 

[dagnabit]

I know you're excited about Ron Paul, but you have to understand that he's not the blanket answer for MJ voters. There are some serious questions about his commitment to carry the issue through the WH.

who's serious questions?

Dr. Paul does not flip flop like all the others.

say what you will about his policies but pandering is not something you can honestly accuse him of.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Ron Paul reimbursed twice for airline tickets: report

WASHINGTON | Mon Feb 6, 2012 4:06pm EST

(Reuters) - Republican White House candidate and champion for smaller government Ron Paul appears to have been reimbursed twice for travel between his congressional district and Washington with both taxpayer and campaign funds, the Roll Call newspaper said on Monday.

The libertarian congressman from Texas has staked his presidential campaign on a vow to slash government spending, but allegations that he may have received thousands of dollars in excess payments could taint his image and hurt his campaign for the Republican Party's nomination to face President Barack Obama in November.

Paul's office was not immediately available to comment.

The congressman has yet to win a nominating contest and is considered to have little chance to capture the Republican nomination.

Paul appeared to be reimbursed twice for eight flights between 1999 and 2004, according to copies of credit card statements obtained by Roll Call, campaign records filed with the Federal Election Commission and a quarterly expenditure disclosure. A Roll Call journalist who reported the story said Paul was paid an extra $4,422 from reimbursements for the eight flights which totaled $8,845.

Candidates must submit records of how they spend campaign donations to the elections commission and itemize any expenses above $500. Members of Congress have to file receipts for their expenses to the House of Representatives.

The documents showed that pro-Paul organizations like the Liberty Political Action Committee, the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education and the Liberty Committee sent checks to American Express paying for flights while Paul received payment from his congressional office for the same expenses, Roll Call said.

The commission could not comment on whether there were any investigations into Paul but said it had not received any complaints in reaction to the Roll Call story concerning Paul's use of campaign funds, an FEC official said.

In one instance in 2003, Paul bought a round-trip Continental Airlines flight between Washington and Houston worth $651.50 and appears to have been reimbursed by the Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul and also his congressional office, Roll Call said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-usa-campaign-paul-idUSTRE8151W320120206

Best case scenario, Paul's congressional staff and political action committees don't coordinate very well.

Worst case, Paul supporters ignoring it as if it never happened.



The guy's a human so I don't expect him to be perfect. I also don't expect an honest yet failed attempt at the presidency to end in charges of voter fraud, ignorant voters, media conspiracy, yada yada.

Each and every Ron Paul supporter has at least one candidate they wont vote for because of ideological differences. If one says others are ignorant for not supporting Paul, they're ignorant for not supporting... whoever.

See how well that works? It doesn't. It's just an excuse.

 

[greenmatter]

if the entire election hinges on MMJ, then all the people who are backing RP because he is gonna make it legal nation wide with a wave of his wand must have been paying really close attention to how much he has accomplished in his home state as far as MMJ goes ..... right?

more election promises that won't be kept from one more politician who won't be able to deliver ........... same pattern i started noticing about 6 presidents ago ... one guy aint fixin' this clusterfuck, no matter what his supporters choose to believe

i don't believe any of this bullshit anymore ....... each and every candidate is flawed, and it is easy to see it.

 

[41hope]

If your'e anti war, Gay, or smoke weed Ron Paul is the only choice!

 

[sac beh]

who's serious questions?

Dr. Paul does not flip flop like all the others.

say what you will about his policies but pandering is not something you can honestly accuse him of.

Mine, for one. I'm not saying pandering, but I'm saying I haven't seen enough concrete statement of intention from him to make it a single issue vote (MJ). Maybe you can help me out.

For example, on his campaign website (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/), I don't see any mention of the drug war or marijuana reform being an important issue for his campaign. But it does outline specific terrible ideas on other issues, like immigration and energy.

Now I know I can find hundreds of links to videos and quotes of Ron Paul saying very good things about the drug war (its dumb) and marijuana legalization (states rights). But the question is why should I believe those are issues he has any intention or ability to act on in his first four years. Won't he be busy with the other more important issues that are outlined on his campaign site, like a laissez faire environment and anti-liberal immigration policies? If you have any links to more specific plans for MJ reform that he wants to implement as president, I'd like to see.

But the concern is, is MJ reform even on his radar for major issues to be tackled in his first term as president? I don't see any evidence of it (yet). In congress he's supported multiple bills for MJ reform, which received nowhere close to enough support. Now he's going to get into the WH and twist the arms of everyone in Congress, the DEA, the FDA, local PD's, and the whole establishment that will be whispering threats of doom in his ear, and reform MJ from the top down? Like I said, that's a risky vote.

 

[pinecone]

Perhaps this point has been made in this thread already. I apologize if it has.

I personally believe that Obama is for gay marriage, against the wars, and has no particular issue with states allowing for regulated MMJ (there are interstate issues though!). I think of him as a libertarian on issues personal choices where there is no substantial public concern (defined his way), but also as someone who wants to regulate in instances where he thinks there is a substantial public concern.

The problem for him, and indeed nearly all politicians who want to ascent to the Presidency, if not statewide office, is that they can't say he is for gay marriage and regulated MMJ. This is especially true for Obama as a black, democrat, former toker - the man has to won PA and OH in 2008 and needs to do it again.

Because Obama won't need to seek re-election, assuming he wins a second term, he is going to be in a much better position to act according to his convictions. Outside of MMJ that may be scary for many of you, but I honestly think an Obama re-election brings the best chance for some sort of resolution on federal-state MMJ issues.

Paul says whatever he believes. This has won him the support of a fraction of the GOP electorate while alienating many. Paul has no chance at winning, and at this point he isn't having any impact on the debate. Sorry to say that he is losing relevance, and I don't care what your political persuasion is - the other GOP candidates cannot be trusted with respect to MMJ. Fuck, I would argue that if you are a single issue voter you ought to be voting for BO in November, assuming he is running against MR, NG, or RS.

Pine

 

[dagnabit]

Mine, for one. I'm not saying pandering, but I'm saying I haven't seen enough concrete statement of intention from him to make it a single issue vote (MJ). Maybe you can help me out.

For example, on his campaign website (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/), I don't see any mention of the drug war or marijuana reform being an important issue for his campaign. But it does outline specific terrible ideas on other issues, like immigration and energy.

Now I know I can find hundreds of links to videos and quotes of Ron Paul saying very good things about the drug war (its dumb) and marijuana legalization (states rights). But the question is why should I believe those are issues he has any intention or ability to act on in his first four years. Won't he be busy with the other more important issues that are outlined on his campaign site, like a laissez faire environment and anti-liberal immigration policies? If you have any links to more specific plans for MJ reform that he wants to implement as president, I'd like to see.

But the concern is, is MJ reform even on his radar for major issues to be tackled in his first term as president? I don't see any evidence of it (yet). In congress he's supported multiple bills for MJ reform, which received nowhere close to enough support. Now he's going to get into the WH and twist the arms of everyone in Congress, the DEA, the FDA, local PD's, and the whole establishment that will be whispering threats of doom in his ear, and reform MJ from the top down? Like I said, that's a risky vote.

fuck campaign promises or video quotes... action speaks louder than words
the doctor introduced this bill last year during a campaign.
this is action not empty rhetoric.

HR 2306 IH


112th CONGRESS


1st Session


H. R. 2306


To limit the application of Federal laws to the distribution and consumption of marihuana, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


June 23, 2011


Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. POLIS, and Mr. COHEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


A BILL


To limit the application of Federal laws to the distribution and consumption of marihuana, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


This Act may be cited as the ‘Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011’.


SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT TO MARIHUANA.


Part A of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:


‘SEC. 103. APPLICATION OF THIS ACT TO MARIHUANA.


‘(a) Prohibition on Certain Shipping or Transportation- This Act shall not apply to marihuana, except that it shall be unlawful only to ship or transport, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, marihuana, from one State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, when such marihuana is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, Territory, or District of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof.


‘(b) Penalty- Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.’.


SEC. 3. DEREGULATION OF MARIHUANA.


(a) Removed From Schedule of Controlled Substances- Schedule I(c) of section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended--


(1) by striking ‘marihuana’; and


(2) by striking ‘tetrahydrocannabinols’.


(b) Removal of Prohibition on Import and Export- Section 1010 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960) is amended--


(1) by striking subparagraph (G) of subsection (b)(1);


(2) by striking subparagraph (G) of subsection (b)(2); and


(3) by striking paragraph (4) of subsection (b).


SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.


(a) Section 102(44) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(44)) is amended by striking ‘marihuana’.


(b) Part D of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended as follows:


(1) In section 401--


(A) by striking subsection (b)(1)(A)(vii);


(B) by striking subsection (b)(1)(B)(vii);


(C) by striking subsection (b)(1)(D); and


(D) by striking subsection (b)(4).


(2) In section 402(c)(2)(B), by striking ‘marihuana’.


(3) In section 403(d)(1), by striking ‘marihuana’.


(4) In section 418(a), by striking the last sentence.


(5) In section 419(a), by striking the last sentence.


(6) In section 422(d), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘marijuana’.


(7) In section 422(d)(5), by striking ‘, such as a marihuana cigarette,’.


SEC. 5. CONSTRUCTION.


No provision of this Act shall be construed to affect Federal drug testing policies, and each Federal agency shall conduct a review of its drug testing policies not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act to ensure that the language of any such policy is in accordance with this section.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

if the entire election hinges on MMJ, then all the people who are backing RP because he is gonna make it legal nation wide with a wave of his wand must have been paying really close attention to how much he has accomplished in his home state as far as MMJ goes ..... right?

Not to mention he wouldn't make weed legal nationally. He'd leave it up to the states.

more election promises that won't be kept from one more politician who won't be able to deliver ........... same pattern i started noticing about 6 presidents ago ... one guy aint fixin' this clusterfuck, no matter what his supporters choose to believe

Voters are partly responsible for the fiscal mess we're in. We demand what we've paid into (even if it means modified benefit). Then one side tries to end programs that 3 out of every 4 of us want. We say no.

So they try to break it and we keep voting them into office.

i don't believe any of this bullshit anymore ....... each and every candidate is flawed, and it is easy to see it.

Humans are flawed - it's our nature. But even if we don't recognize all our respective flaws, we're pretty good at seeing others'. That's why we implement systems to mitigate transgressions (and even honest mistakes.)

These systems are being bought and dismantled. We'll endure enough shit to do something about it, I'm just not sure how long it'll take.

 

[vta]

Not to mention he wouldn't make weed legal nationally. He'd leave it up to the states.

c'mon meow. I know you know better than that! Please name me another member of congress besides Paul & Frank that introduce MJ legislation for our side???? Forget it, that is besides the point anyways. It's the whole WOD he wants to end...and I guess that would pretty much take care of it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Don't forget the whole "states rights" thing. If that extrapolates to a jurisdiction saying no to weed, (like many say no to alcohol) IMHO, president Paul wouldn't intervene.

 

[Avenger]

Don't forget the whole "states rights" thing. If that extrapolates to a jurisdiction saying no to weed, (like many say no to alcohol) IMHO, president Paul wouldn't intervene.

Do you think the govenment should intervene in this situation?

 

[itisme]

I know you're excited about Ron Paul, but you have to understand that he's not the blanket answer for MJ voters.

I pointed out many reasons other than Medical MJ. I don't think you have to be an Alex Jones Independent either but I do like the description. I know I trust Alex Jones more than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity who are on the Bain Capital payroll for Romney!

I see absolutely nobody else even considering letting the states make there own choices, just more POLICE STATE down the throat.....I guess CO don't like medical MJ, my bad.

What I don't get is how so many Americans seem to ignore the our Military troops requests.

but i don't remember reading anything about them having used force on him at any time prior to when they killed him. i'm pretty sure tazing a mentally challenged 12 year old would have made the papers too, and maybe saved his life .......... got a source on that

I heard on the news that they had taised him before but I did not read it anywhere. I would hope they would report things like this but come on bro, do you really trust the media at all? I sure don't.

I didn't think you were attacking me but you asked about as vague of a question as you could so I answered with only a few pieces of info I thought CO would find important. Maybe CO don't want Medical MJ. Maybe you should be arrested for anal sex and masturbation. Maybe the Gov't should be printing trillions of dollars and bailing out the rich bankers. MAYBE BUT I DON'T THINK SO. Come on CO get on board the FREEDOM TRAIN!

You think just because its an MMJ state all of the establishment republicans will switch their loyalties because some independent thinks its a states rights issue? They don't care about MMJ or states right.

SAC BEH: If they don't care about state rights what are they voting for? What is most important? The economy can't get better if we print trillions and don't even have a budget. RP will cut the deficit. Cut income taxes and bring home the troops. Which of those things are people in CO against? You don't say anything about what is important to CO you just tell me that nothing I posted is anything they care about!

RP has said he would pardon all of the non violent criminals once he is in office. According to Gary Johnson that would be about 2.1 MILLION people he would free from jail I say that is a good step. He isn't GJ on MJ but he goes even further and wants the FEDERAL DRUG WAR ENDED COMPLETELY! That leaves only the states to make the rules and CO would be in great shape then as far as MED MJ goes.

I am not sure what you don't like about making our borders more secure and it easier for legal immigration but I am willing to talk about that if you want to. I hope you don't believe in the Global warming hoax, the entire solar system is heating up.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Do you think the govenment should intervene in this situation?

Hell yeah, I think they should regulate weed like wine. If I can make my own wine, I could grow my own weed. I'm not sure how this would affect my community but I'd expect any adverse effects would face scrutiny from the non-weed crowd.

It's not just lawmakers. Hell, practically half the country doesn't sell alcohol when you get down to local levels. Lots of folks are still living with their heads up their ass. Unfortunately, some of these folks are the noisy, cranky rednecks who continue to vote ass hats into office.

Instead of looking at lawmakers like alien goons, imagine them as the cumulative product of every time you walk into the voter booth.

 

[Avenger]

Instead of looking at lawmakers like alien goons, imagine them as the cumulative product of every time you walk into the voter booth.

I see. You want government to mandate your beliefs on everyone else.

 

[itisme]

I can Guarantee you this much, no way the Republican Party has a sniff of office if they ignore Ron Paul's principles and supporters!

Unless they outright steal it Which is possible.

Ron Paul will destroy the future of the Republican party if he is forced to run third party. 50% of all new R voters and a shit load of Independents will be gone forever, so if they think they can force feed us the other chumps it will only help Obama.

I've never met an EX RON PAUL SUPPORTER!

I see. You want government to mandate your beliefs on everyone else.

Avenger is sharp. He spotted the one that favors the tyrant quick....Trust your Gov't. LOL

"When the Government fears the people that is Liberty, when the people fear the Government that is tyranny." I forget Thomas Jefferson I think.

 

[antheis]

i believe he would repeal the federal prohibition of marijuana.
therefore states that have already legalized it for medical use, or regulate it like wine/alcohol would stop being hassled by the DEA.

 

[itisme]

i believe he would repeal the federal prohibition of marijuana.
therefore states that have already legalized it for medical use, or regulate it like wine/alcohol would stop being hassled by the DEA.

I think it is more like he would repeal all the federal drug laws but your correct....Those states like CA and CO would be sitting pretty!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I see. You want government to mandate your beliefs on everyone else.

Mind letting me in on what you're talking about? And stop diddlin' yer doodle. j/k

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I can Guarantee you this much, no way the Republican Party has a sniff of office if they ignore Ron Paul's principles and supporters!

Unless they outright steal it

Which is possible.

Ron Paul will destroy the future of the Republican party if he is forced to run third party. 50% of all new R voters and a shit load of Independents will be gone forever, so if they think they can force feed us the other chumps it will only help Obama.

I've never met an EX RON PAUL SUPPORTER!



Avenger is sharp. He spotted the one that favors the tyrant quick....Trust your Gov't. LOL

"When the Government fears the people that is Liberty, when the people fear the Government that is tyranny." I forget Thomas Jefferson I think.

I watched Rand Paul say his dad won't go independent. IMHO, he's telling the truth. The libertarian party has never enjoyed a majority in modern politics. Persuading Republicans to embrace more Libertarian principles might be the more direct approach.