Vote for Ron Paul-----Great idea

The Ruiner said:
So stoners will always have an excuse for ignorance and lack of initiative...way to prove the sterotypes. And we wonder why we never get taken seriously....
Click to expand...
lol! Is that what I said?:-P

I would say that having a short attention span and a bit of short term memory loss are pretty much common side effects of the consumption of cannabis. Perhaps it doesn't affect everyone in this manner but I know it sure does affect me in this way. See! We're doing it again! lol! :eyesmoke:

Ron Paul for president 2012!!!!!!!!:D
 
The Ruiner said:
Diversion, diversion, diversion... Substance lacking...Semantic bickering.

Do you live in America?
Click to expand...

there once was a man named the ruiner,
whose avatar featured a crooner.
he would toke and bake,
and in his wake,
left debate foes looking like juniors.

not my best one, and i'm not sure who that is in your avatar or if he is a crooner. but hey, you try rhyming with 'theruiner'!
 
UncleBuck said:
there once was a man named the ruiner,
whose avatar featured a crooner.
he would toke and bake,
and in his wake,
left debate foes looking like juniors.

not my best one, and i'm not sure who that is in your avatar or if he is a crooner. but hey, you try rhyming with 'theruiner'!
Click to expand...

It's Albert Camus... thanks for the shout...
 
NoDrama said:
I think I can see where you are coming from on this; Its no fun letting another man fist your wife.
Click to expand...

Can he not morally disagree with something as long as he doesnt implement or call for legislation against said freedom? I dont know his record on this as far as voting. Eliminating the federal reserve is all I need to hear for him to get my vote.
 
Charlie Ventura said:
I love Ron Paul and his son Rand. They speak the message of liberty. With that said, I'm not going to fool myself into believing that Ron Paul has a chance in Hell of gaining the presidency. Here's why: He is not the choice of the establishment. The establishment's choice will be Obama on the Dem side. If Obama is unelectable because the economy is still tanking, then Hillary will be the establishment's choice on the Dem side. On the Republican side, Romney will be the establishment's choice. All other Republican candidates will be ridiculed, marginalized and attacked by the establishment. We will be watching Saul Alinski's "Rules for Radicals" unfolding again, just as it did against Sarah Palin during the last election ... and ever since. Any candidate that is not "main stream" will face the onslaught of the Main Stream Media. They will be the butt of every joke on late-night TV. So, we will be left with the choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, all spouting the establishment mantra, ala Obama/McCain in the last election when neither candidate is a devotee of liberty, nor an advocate of upholding the Constitution.

Let's face it, the average American has been totally dumbed down and doesn't have a clue other than what they see on the evening news, Saturday Night Live or Bill Mahar ... all establishment outlets. Just take a look at what they have done to Sarah Palin and Ron Paul in the past and currently doing to Michelle Bachmann and other strict constitutionalist like them.
Click to expand...

Exactly right!
 
And end the IRS !!!

deprave said:
Your probably right but Ron Paul would likely try to take all of our troops home and stop the imperialism as he has stated and voted many times for years and years.

The reason I am voting for Ron Paul if he runs is to:

1) END THE FED

2) PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR FREEDOMS AND LIBERTIES (which all other candidates have attacked or not defended at one time or another and they continue to do so)

3) END THE WARS

4) Marijuana
Click to expand...
 
@The Ruiner

I wanted to debate a little bit for a moment on Libya, and Ron Paul's slamming of the operation. Just to be clear, what are your views on the subject? Do you believe Obama has every right to make those choices to go into another war, for humanitarian reasons?
 
Boonierat said:
@The Ruiner

I wanted to debate a little bit for a moment on Libya, and Ron Paul's slamming of the operation. Just to be clear, what are your views on the subject? Do you believe Obama has every right to make those choices to go into another war, for humanitarian reasons?
Click to expand...

I can tell you for certain that if he didnt have the approval of both the power block here in the states and the world at large, it wouldnt have happened. Frankly speaking, it's not just "Obama"...its the world, our allies.

My take on the situation is that the western world has taken a collective stance against Sino-imperalization of Africa (look at Angola...I will start a thread on that soon...it's gonna be good). Qadhafi has been at odds with the west for a long time. Like I said, this isn't about just two men with a beef, it's been over a decade of escalation, mostly from Qadhafi being an arrogant ass getting too big for his britches. Libya is a shit-hole controlled by what is effectively an illegitimate leader. The don't report their unemployment rates (which is estimated to be at least 30%), while Qadhafi and his regime have been raking in BILLIONS with no initiative to invest in the well-being of their own country. We tried diplomacy with Qadhafi, and he consistently slapped us in the face by trying to let the Chinese in through the back door. With a regime change in Libya and heightened expectations of its new leadership, I believe this will be for the benefit of all involved.
 
The Ruiner said:
Oh I am sorry you decided to drag the Constitution into this after your statement was thoroughly dispensed with. And, that's a nice fail-safe plan: fall back on a document forged nearly 200 hundred years before the establishment of the organization in question...thats quite the non-sequiter of political debate. Thanks for your immaculate attention to detail.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter when the UN was created, nothing supercedes the US Constitution unless there is an amendment made. It clearly states in the Constitution that war will be decided by congress, not anyone else. If the UN is to have any authority over the USA then a Constitutional Amendment must be made, otherwise the UN is powerless.
 
NoDrama said:
It doesn't matter when the UN was created, nothing supercedes the US Constitution unless there is an amendment made. It clearly states in the Constitution that war will be decided by congress, not anyone else. If the UN is to have any authority over the USA then a Constitutional Amendment must be made, otherwise the UN is powerless.
Click to expand...

Still clinging to the illusion? Sorry dude, but you and I both know that our leaders chose when and where to abide by it...that's nothing new under the sun. Because you dont understand the motives for such a campaign (which I am trying to write a new post about why using another country as an example), doesn't mean it is lost on our country, or our leaders.

And everything you are saying here is completely idealogical. The UN didnt demand that the US go to war, there was no expression of UN authority over the US. It's just a matter of what serves the greater good, whether or not your or I agree with it. Remember, you benefit from the campaign as well...
 
Sure, Libya sucks ass, but does that give him the right to invade without congressional approval? Not to mention that SF and other operatives were on the ground before the rebels even started picking up steam. Granted, this is nothing new. Pretty sop to have SF units in that far ahead of any main attacks. My point is, we invaded Afghanistan because of terrorists, Iraq because of supposed WMDs, and now Libya as a humanitarian effort? At what point is there a line drawn that says, do not cross with military forces?

This was addressed by Ron Paul in his latest speech that was linked. I'm thinking I agree more with him, and I don't believe it is "isolationist" either. It seems to me that, with us being this broke, we might want to start consolidating our forces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top