Can someone school me on why Ron Paul would be bad for the country?

[sm625]

People are just too stupid to even understand what this country needs. They just havent the slightest clue how basic civics works. They are like little children. Children with the power to push a button and end millions of lives in another country just to enrich a few soulless cretins. It is a sad shame what this country has turned into.

Take your ritalin. Drink your frickin corn syrup. Inject your mercury. Eat your monsanto chem-fest franken-corn. And shut up, bend over, and take it. Take all 18 inches of tyranny. And LOVE it. That is all the average american knows how to do know. That, and argue in favor of the entrenched upper class, without having the two brain cells needed to tell that what they are saying and thinking is a bunch of horse crap.

We need a Ron PAul, because we need to sTOP this out of control corrupt, bought off congress. Only the power of a mighty veto pen can stop them now. All other concerns are secondary. If we dont stop them, we lose the constitution and thus the country, through a slippery slope series of bad legislation, ala patriot act, NDAA, etc etc. This has happened many times throughout history, and each time a coup is successful it is always on the back of a cowardlike and indifferent populations. It is sad to see it happen here.

Just look at the idiocy on display here. Our government is passing bills like the NDAA that are blatantly unconstitutional. And all the major candidates support it wholeheartedly. They are all CFR/trilaterals/ bilderbergers. And two posts above mine you have some nonsense about newesletters written 20 years ago that are not even anywhere near as offensive as the raping of our civil liberties happening right now. Wow.The braindeath of america has never been more apparent. We need a new word to define that level of stupid.

 

[First]

Take your ritalin. Drink your frickin corn syrup. Inject your mercury. Eat your monsanto chem-fest franken-corn. And shut up, bend over, and take it. Take all 18 inches of tyranny. And LOVE it.

Rofl. You Paulbots are pure entertainment, truly wonderful.

Just look at the idiocy on display here. Our government is passing bills like the NDAA that are blatantly unconstitutional. And all the major candidates support it wholeheartedly. They are all CFR/trilaterals/ bilderbergers. And two posts above mine you have some nonsense about newesletters written 20 years ago that are not even anywhere near as offensive as the raping of our civil liberties happening right now. Wow.The braindeath of america has never been more apparent. We need a new word to define that level of stupid.

If his newsletters never existed he would still be a horrible, horrible candidate for his opposition to the 14th Amendment alone. He's as anti-Constitution as they come and that isn't an exaggeration. He's the only candidate that would have the U.S. go back to pre-Civil War interpretations of the Constitution.

 

[woolfe9999]

Make no mistake, RP isn't concerned with legalizing pot so much as he just wants the federal government out of the issue. If all 50 states wanted to keep it illegal, he would be fine with that.

Yes, and I'm not a supporter of RP at all, but to be fair, he is running for federal, not state, office, and de-criminalizing pot at the federal level would be a major step in the right direction. The federal government couldn't interfere if a state wanted to legalize it for medicinal purposes, which is happening right now in California, or even to de-criminalize it for all purposes.

I don't actually mind all that much if some states want to continue to criminalize until they figure out what a waste it is to do so. The pot issue is very much like gay rights in the sense that this is another area where the arc of public opinion has been heading in a more permissive direction and is showing no signs of abating. I'm not huge on the state's rights thing, but social issues like drug use do work better on a state and local level because it is a question of varying values.

 

[dank69]

Yes, and I'm not a supporter of RP at all, but to be fair, he is running for federal, not state, office, and de-criminalizing pot at the federal level would be a major step in the right direction. The federal government couldn't interfere if a state wanted to legalize it for medicinal purposes, which is happening right now in California, or even to de-criminalize it for all purposes.

I don't actually mind all that much if some states want to continue to criminalize until they figure out what a waste it is to do so. The pot issue is very much like gay rights in the sense that this is another area where the arc of public opinion has been heading in a more permissive direction and is showing no signs of abating. I'm not huge on the state's rights thing, but social issues like drug use do work better on a state and local level because it is a question of varying values.

Of course this is all true. I was merely referring to his motivations.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, and I'm not a supporter of RP at all, but to be fair, he is running for federal, not state, office, and de-criminalizing pot at the federal level would be a major step in the right direction. The federal government couldn't interfere if a state wanted to legalize it for medicinal purposes, which is happening right now in California, or even to de-criminalize it for all purposes.

I don't actually mind all that much if some states want to continue to criminalize until they figure out what a waste it is to do so. The pot issue is very much like gay rights in the sense that this is another area where the arc of public opinion has been heading in a more permissive direction and is showing no signs of abating. I'm not huge on the state's rights thing, but social issues like drug use do work better on a state and local level because it is a question of varying values.

I dunno, I'm pretty pro-states rights and while I have no problem with Paul's pot stance, I don't think it's really comparable to gay rights. I can see some justification in pot criminalization; even though personally I'd legalize it. I have known a couple people who got seriously smoked up and wrecked cars (into another car head-on and into the rear of a big bright red Coca-Cola semi.) And I've known some people arrested for burglary who were by their own admission raising money to buy pot. On the other hand, I've never known anyone who got gayed up and crashed a car, or burgled homes to buy dick. (Of course, as an anti-social right winger in Tennessee the number of gay people I've known is vanishingly small, so I'm probably not a good sample. LOL)

That tongue-in-cheek response aside, seems to me that the right to marry whom you choose is somewhat more intrinsic to freedom and the pursuit of happiness than is the right to get stoned on the substance of your choice. If government told me I could only smoke pot (rather than drink) I'd be only very slightly irritated, since I don't smoke pot and rarely drink. But if government told me I could only marry another dude I'd be one seriously pissed and very loud activist. But maybe that's just me.

 

[allenk09]

All I can say is, I look forward to heading down this shit hole of a path for the next 4 years until some other asshat comes forward and leads us down another shit hole for 4-8 more years. It's never ending.

Democracy and liberty ends with thunderous applause.

 

[dank69]

All I can say is, I look forward to heading down this shit hole of a path for the next 4 years until some other asshat comes forward and leads us down another shit hole for 4-8 more years. It's never ending.

Democracy and liberty ends with thunderous applause.

Cheer up, bro. The world looked pretty bleak in 1991, but the dems were able to turn that around. Just don't let the GOP back into power like we did in 2000 and we might be okay.

 

[amish]

All I can say is, I look forward to heading down this shit hole of a path for the next 4 years until some other asshat comes forward and leads us down another shit hole for 4-8 more years. It's never ending.

agreed. my plan was to bust ass and retire as soon as possible. then i realized that i'm just going to get penalized one way or another through taxes or other laws.

there seems to be a mentality to fuck things up just to have your name attached to something.

 

[momeNt]

Oh i got one.

Ron paul would be baaaaaad for the country.

 

[bfdd]

One thing I don't understand is this how can the "progressives" be so adamantly for homosexuality being accepted, but then completely against people eating junk food? Why is it ok to control one aspect of my life pertaining to my health and not another? I'm not saying homosexuality is unhealthy, I just mean sexual activity definitely pertains to my health and statistically you are more likely to get an STD as a homosexual man than a heterosexual man. So why is it ok to regulate one and not the other? Both are personal choices. It's because they're illogical idiots who have no idea how to control their emotions. Just playing devils advocate here, I am actually obviously a supporter of the Government never being able to tell me what to do ever in any situation.

 

[dank69]

One thing I don't understand is this how can the "progressives" be so adamantly for homosexuality being accepted, but then completely against people eating junk food? Why is it ok to control one aspect of my life pertaining to my health and not another? I'm not saying homosexuality is unhealthy, I just mean sexual activity definitely pertains to my health and statistically you are more likely to get an STD as a homosexual man than a heterosexual man. So why is it ok to regulate one and not the other? Both are personal choices. It's because they're illogical idiots who have no idea how to control their emotions. Just playing devils advocate here, I am actually obviously a supporter of the Government never being able to tell me what to do ever in any situation.

I'm not aware of progressives attempting to regulate junk food for adults. Maybe for kids in public schools, but not for adults. You're not in public school still, right?

 

[bfdd]

I'm not aware of progressives attempting to regulate junk food for adults. Maybe for kids in public schools, but not for adults. You're not in public school still, right?

You're kidding right? What do you call the Happy Meal ban then or huge sweep of anti-junk food ads sponsored with US tax dollars?

 

[dank69]

You're kidding right? What do you call the Happy Meal ban then or huge sweep of anti-junk food ads sponsored with US tax dollars?

Happy Meal Ban? Do you mean the ban on including toys in happy meals? I am not saying I agree with that legislation but the motivation behind it is to lessen the incentive for kids to demand happy meals, not to stop you or any other adult from chowing down on them. See, you have to stop being so reactionary. You say Happy Meal Ban! to try to frame it as if progressives are trying to control what you can eat, but that isn't the case.

As for anti junk food ads, again, what is the motivation? Certainly not to prevent you from eating all the twinkies you can find. It is to educate people. It's unfortunate that there are enough ignorant people in this world that government officials would think they have to let them know junk food is bad for them. But the motivation is to educate people and hopefully with that education they will make better choices and lower their burden to society when it comes to avoidable healthcare.

 

[allenk09]

Cheer up, bro. The world looked pretty bleak in 1991, but the dems were able to turn that around. Just don't let the GOP back into power like we did in 2000 and we might be okay.

Yeah, can't wait until Republicans get in

Only difference between a Democrat and a Republican is that a Democrat will hang you from a lower branch on the tree.

 

[woolfe9999]

I dunno, I'm pretty pro-states rights and while I have no problem with Paul's pot stance, I don't think it's really comparable to gay rights. I can see some justification in pot criminalization; even though personally I'd legalize it. I have known a couple people who got seriously smoked up and wrecked cars (into another car head-on and into the rear of a big bright red Coca-Cola semi.) And I've known some people arrested for burglary who were by their own admission raising money to buy pot. On the other hand, I've never known anyone who got gayed up and crashed a car, or burgled homes to buy dick. (Of course, as an anti-social right winger in Tennessee the number of gay people I've known is vanishingly small, so I'm probably not a good sample. LOL)

That tongue-in-cheek response aside, seems to me that the right to marry whom you choose is somewhat more intrinsic to freedom and the pursuit of happiness than is the right to get stoned on the substance of your choice. If government told me I could only smoke pot (rather than drink) I'd be only very slightly irritated, since I don't smoke pot and rarely drink. But if government told me I could only marry another dude I'd be one seriously pissed and very loud activist. But maybe that's just me.

I was only equating the two in one particular sense: that public opinion has been gradually moving toward a more permissive stance, basically starting in the early 90's, and polling shows the trend continues almost year over year. My point was that if pot is de-criminalized at the federal level, one by one the states will de-criminalize it as well. But the fed's continued criminalization of it makes it rather impractical. Once that barrier is lifted, the arc of public opinion will carry the states to finish the process, one by one. Anyway, the equation I as drawing had only to do with public opinion on each issue.