Ron Paul

[ChaosEffect]

is supportive of legalizing marijuana therefore gets my vote.

[reprise85]

cool story bro

[ChaosEffect]

Thanks my dude.

[ChaosEffect]

Damn I wish I could give you more postive rep. But hey so I don't look like a flaming idiot. The city of miami beach had a meeting about decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana last month.

[reprise85]

Oh, how'd that go? I live in Coral Springs now so getting closer to the dark side (Miami).

[ChaosEffect]

Yes I hate miami with a passion( I live in south broward) It didn't go anywhere like I excepted. But it is progress that they even talked about something like this. If you'd like to help legalize in Florida go here. http://pufmm.org/ I swear its not lemonparty. I love the ganja to much play games like that.

[reprise85]

That's true, it's definitely progress. I'll check it out.

[ChaosEffect]

I got 4 people including myself to sign the papers not much but still better than what the average weed smoker is doing to help.

[ChaosEffect]

Eulogy doesn't like weed.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by ChaosEffect

Eulogy doesn't like weed.

unless ron paul can unilaterally repeal all state laws against marijuana (hint: he can't... and if he could, he wouldn't) then your rationale is senseless.

stop making stupid threads.

and ron paul sucks.

[Debaser]

is extremely pro-life, a goldbug nut, a federal reserve conspiracy theorist, wants to repeal child labor laws, repeal anti-trust laws, repeal the 14th amendment, and disagrees with the civil rights act therefore he will never get my vote.

He's not racist per se, but he is against any laws designed to counteract racism; or rather, strongly believes in everybody's god given right to be racist.

He's an embarrassment to actual libertarians I respect:
A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Debaser

is extremely pro-life, a goldbug nut, a federal reserve conspiracy theorist, wants to repeal child labor laws, repeal anti-trust laws, repeal the 14th amendment, and disagrees with the civil rights act therefore he will never get my vote.

He's not racist per se, but he is against any laws designed to counteract racism; or rather, strongly believes in everybody's god given right to be racist.

He's an embarrassment to actual libertarians I respect:
A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed

He'd also abolish FEMA, the FDA, the EPA, and pull out of the UN. Among other things.

but you know

whatever

[ChaosEffect]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

He'd also abolish FEMA, the FDA, the EPA, and pull out of the UN. Among other things.

but you know

whatever

hmm some of those things I wasn't aware of but pulling out of the U.N wouldn't be a bad idea since its a big pieace of crap anyway. Why should they "police the world"? It's the U.S the UN calls on to do the work for them most of the time anyway.

Besides any president elect will want to some crazy crap anyways and this is his baggage.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by ChaosEffect

hmm some of those things I wasn't aware of but pulling out of the U.N wouldn't be a bad idea since its a big pieace of crap anyway. Why should they "police the world"? It's the U.S the UN calls on to do the work for them most of the time anyway.

Besides any president elect will want to some crazy crap anyways and this is his baggage.

setting aside the UN thing (but.. ugh)

his backward ass ideology is his baggage? are you serious?

also you didn't respond to the factual impossibility of his being able to legalize marijuana.

are you 12? people like you drive me fucking insane.

[ChaosEffect]

Actually he said that he'd be willing to let the states choose for themselves to legalize/decriminalize and stop federal raids on medical marijuana patients and med shops that are in compliance with that particular state's law.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

setting aside the UN thing (but.. ugh)

his backward ass ideology is his baggage? are you serious?

also you didn't respond to the factual impossibility of his being able to legalize marijuana.

are you 12? people like you drive me fucking insane.

i had a friend of mine tell me that if ron paul was president everything would be wonderful and i was like whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

also he was "held back in school because of football"

i was honestly surprised he clung to that lie this long

[Mooney]

Originally Posted by Debaser

He's not racist per se

i would dispute this.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09...-sound-racist/

[Order 66]

right when i walked into work today my supervisor gave me a ron paul bumper sticker and told me to put it on my car. i was like 'uh....'

[lala]

who cares about ron paul?

[Order 66]

not the msm, amirite

[reprise85]

I agree with Eulogy, I'm all for pot legalization but I'd never support Ron Paul. TVtropes can explain it better than I:

Well-Intentioned Extremist and Principles Zealot

Also, as shitty as the UN is, we can't really pull out of it. It's pretty much impossible and if we tried we'd start major conflict.

[Tchocky]

While I think some of his ideas are worth supporting (he's spot-on about all the money being spent on the wars in the Middle-East), the vast majority if his political beliefs fall in the unfeasible to batshit insane range. Not voting for him, now or ever.

[The Omega Concern]

originally posted by lala:

who cares about ron paul?

GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul wins California straw poll



***** won with 44.9% of the votes, Texas Gov. Rick Perry came in second with 29.3% of the votes, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in third with 8.8% of the votes."






http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-17/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

[The Omega Concern]

originally posted by Debaser:

is extremely pro-life, a goldbug nut, a federal reserve conspiracy theorist, wants to repeal child labor laws, repeal anti-trust laws, repeal the 14th amendment, and disagrees with the civil rights act therefore he will never get my vote.

Sounds like regurgitated msm pap...


Extremely pro-life: Do you realize he's a doctor who's delivered thousands of babies? This is a non-issue for me personally on whether I would vote for a candidate, but nice to know you would hold it against him.

A goldbug nut: And??????? Your point is? Most goldbugs have been called nuts since the price was $300 an ounce. It's now $1800, but non-thinking retards such as yourself would never listen to such nuts and as such, the dollar has lost 50% of its value over that time while Gold has risen 500%. That is nuts when you think about it, but remember gold-bugs have been right about the economy while those who call Golbugs "nuts" have been wrong.


Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theorist: Well, here's the biggest indicator that goldbugs could look to to understand why Gold was destined to rise in value while the dollar would lose its purchasing power. But what conspiracy theory are you railing about against Ron Paul regarding the Fed? They exist. They print money backed by air and that's a big reason why the economy sucks right now.


Repeal Anti-Trust Laws: This is an esoteric argument that's been building for decades. If you care to engage, here's a good start: http://mises.org/Books/antitrust.pdf Many lawsuits brought on by the government have been attacks on entrepreneurial success and efficiency.



repeal the 14th amendment: Two-words, Anchor Babies. It's not just that illegal immigrants come over the border to have their children, its that they get a welfare check for each child they bear. There's a bunch of illegal mexican women here in California with 3 and 4 kids getting up to 4 grand a month in welfare for years on end. I see the movement to repeal the 14th amendment as a desire to stop that fraud.


Disagrees with the Civil Rights Act: He disagrees with it on the issue of the Fed infringing on property rights. This could be libertarianism as feudalism as some suggest and I might agree. He'd be better off dropping the rhetoric from this altogether but as a pol he's being consistent in his beliefs.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Sounds like regurgitated msm pap...


Extremely pro-life: Do you realize he's a doctor who's delivered thousands of babies? This is a non-issue for me personally on whether I would vote for a candidate, but nice to know you would hold it against him.

Yes, I know he's a doctor. So what? No shortage of pro-choice doctors in this world. As a congressman, Ron Paul has submitted bills to declare that life begins at conception. He has previously declared that abortion is "the greatest moral issue of our time".

So Ron Paul's greatest issue is a non-issue to you, natch. I do not have a desire to put someone like this in the position to appoint judges.

It's nice to know you don't really think through things to figure out why someone who's pro choice would hold it against him.

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

A goldbug nut: And??????? Your point is? Most goldbugs have been called nuts since the price was $300 an ounce. It's now $1800, but non-thinking retards such as yourself would never listen to such nuts and as such, the dollar has lost 50% of its value over that time while Gold has risen 500%. That is nuts when you think about it, but remember gold-bugs have been right about the economy while those who call Golbugs "nuts" have been wrong.

If you know anything about economics, a weak dollar is not a bad thing. In many situations it's quite advantageous to lower the value of your currency (it promotes exports, it's how a country "grows" out of debt, it's historically the only way to do so). If having a weak currency is so bad, then why does China manage their entire economy in order to artificially depress the reminbi? (hint, check out the prices at walmart). You have confused the conventional definition of the word "weak" as "bad" with the economic definition of "weak currency" as simply meaning "low".

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theorist: Well, here's the biggest indicator that goldbugs could look to to understand why Gold was destined to rise in value while the dollar would lose its purchasing power. But what conspiracy theory are you railing about against Ron Paul regarding the Fed? They exist. They print money backed by air and that's a big reason why the economy sucks right now.

i dunno where to start here. go read a book or something. every. single. important. economy. in. the. entire. world. uses. fiat. money. There are plenty of really important reasons why. Maybe it's time to sit back and ponder why the entire world and every single economics professor and economist thinks its a good thing but only Ron Paul and esoteric webpages disagree.

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Repeal Anti-Trust Laws: This is an esoteric argument that's been building for decades. If you care to engage, here's a good start: http://mises.org/Books/antitrust.pdf Many lawsuits brought on by the government have been attacks on entrepreneurial success and efficiency.

"Hey I don't know anything about this, unable to explain my position in any meaningful way, so I'l just cop out with a link to a website that agrees with what I think my opinion is even though I haven't read it or understand it."[/quote]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

repeal the 14th amendment: Two-words, Anchor Babies. It's not just that illegal immigrants come over the border to have their children, its that they get a welfare check for each child they bear. There's a bunch of illegal mexican women here in California with 3 and 4 kids getting up to 4 grand a month in welfare for years on end. I see the movement to repeal the 14th amendment as a desire to stop that fraud.

Isn't it amazing how Ron Paul cares so much for the freedom and liberty of unborn babies -- unless the parents are brown. then fuck 'em. they don't deserve the same god given rights that us americans have. god given rights stop at the border, apparently.

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Disagrees with the Civil Rights Act: He disagrees with it on the issue of the Fed infringing on property rights. This could be libertarianism as feudalism as some suggest and I might agree. He'd be better off dropping the rhetoric from this altogether but as a pol he's being consistent in his beliefs.

No, that's a myth. His beliefs may be consistently applied, but his philosophical libertarian principles are a mess. Take it from a more rational libertarian, Wil Wilkinson:

As a rule, libertarians have an unhealthy tendency to apply their principles without due regard to America's history of state-enforced slavery, apartheid, and sexism, or to the many ways in which the legacy of these insidious practices persists to this day. Paul represents this tendency at his worst. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Paul has argued, led to "a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society."

It’s hard to interpret Paul’s position on this matter in a kind light. During the last campaign season, James Kirchick revealed in the pages of this publication that in the late 1980s and early 1990s Paul had published newsletters under his name containing rank bigotry against African Americans and gays. Paul claimed he did not write the columns in question or even know about them. Whether you believe that or not, the newsletter scandal highlighted Paul's longstanding ties with figures, such as Lew Rockwell, with a history of catering to racist and nativist sentiments for political gain.

But let’s give Paul the benefit of the doubt, and assume his opposition to anti-discrimination legislation is a principled stand untainted by prejudice. Even then, it’s not so clear his stance is underwritten by his stated principles. Paul's third principle of a free society says that "Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments." I follow Ron Paul enthusiasts in endorsing this principle wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, it's hard to say exactly what "justly acquired property" amounts to in a country built in no small part by slave labor on land stolen from indigenous people. How much of Thomas Jefferson's property was justly acquired?

These issues get complicated fast. Most of us think there's a sort of statute of limitation on the sins of our fathers, and for good reason. But it’s absolutely undeniable that the distribution of property and power in America partly reflects hundreds of years of constant and systemic violation of precisely those rights Paul claims to prize. Anti-discrimination legislation indeed puts some limits on rights to property and free association. But in light of America's cruel history of official social, legal, and economic inequality, it's hard to see these limits as "arbitrary," even if we want to pretend, for the sake of social peace, that the distribution of property reflects a history of mostly just acquisition.

Again, it appears that Paul is least tolerant of ambiguity and complexity when it muddies the case for protecting privilege. To deny that structural discrimination, with or without the backing of the state, can limit an individual's liberty more injuriously than a sales tax requires the triumph of dogmatism over commonsense. But Paul’s career is a case study of such bullheadedness. Not only does he deny that anti-discrimination statutes have anything to do with promoting liberty, he insists, again and again, that anti-discrimination policies have only heightened resentments between man and woman, black and white, and do nothing whatsoever to improve social amity. He would have us believe that the enormous gains over the past several decades in racial and gender equality, the dramatic rise of mixed-race marriages, and the happy detente in the gender wars have all occurred despite recent attempts to rectify centuries of legal oppression through law.



I know you didn't read that. It's the internet, you disagree with it, so why bother.

Now scurry back to your fringe websites and google search for someone else's opinion you don't fully understand and regurgitate it here as a rebuttal and embarrass yourself again.

[Debaser]

lolz @ omega

[The Omega Concern]

nice retort. Next time just say uncle.

[Debaser]

There's no point. I've completely dismantled you previously in other threads already.

You do not operate in reality.

Anybody with any knowledge of the subjects will find your stunningly, ignorant statements damning enough alone.

[The Omega Concern]

originally posted by Debaser:

There's no point. I've completely dismantled you previously in other threads already.

You do not operate in reality.

Anybody with any knowledge of the subjects will find your stunningly, ignorant statements damning enough alone.

That's the biggest chickenshit answer you could give. You haven't dismantled anything but you may want to start on your inability to recognize ad-hominem personal attacks does not an argument make.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

That's the biggest chickenshit answer you could give. You haven't dismantled anything but you may want to start on your inability to recognize ad-hominem personal attacks does not an argument make.

dude you don't even have a consistent ethos

i know that you think that means you're ahead of the curve but it ends up when you make absolutely idiotic contradictory statments that pretty much go against what you said already. remember that act that was repealed in the 90s that you complain about all the time, dude? THAT'S REGULATION.

ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST IT