What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hash Zeppelin

Hash Zeppelin

Ski Bum Rodeo Clown
Premium user
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Ron Paul Gets Labeled Racist when he says this.

Ron Paul Gets Labeled Racist when he says this.

Morgan Freeman! "Black History Month Is Ridiculous.. Black History Is American History"
Click to expand...

Clip http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhbsFTQfx5486MTJPx

Morgan_Freeman_by_markdraws.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL64gY79QkA
another interesting video with freeman.
 
MadBuddhaAbuser

MadBuddhaAbuser

Kush, Sour Diesel, Puday boys
Veteran
Gotta admit, I don't think this concentrating on caucus states is the best strategy. Americans are generally dumb and vote for the front runner, and there is no time to be losing momentum with poor showings in some states.

however if it does pan out and splits the delegates it would be a brilliant strategy.

Lets see how this pans out.
 
MadBuddhaAbuser

MadBuddhaAbuser

Kush, Sour Diesel, Puday boys
Veteran
sac beh said:
This is an interesting idea actually. Especially when you consider that 1) sugar has some potential health risks with very few if any benefits, while cannabis has some potential health risks with very many benefits, and 2) cannabis is completely prohibited in most of the country, while sugar is completely unrestricted.

Now I know that not all cannabis advocates like legalization proposals that include taxing and regulating it like alcohol or tobacco. But I think a great many would prefer regulating cannabis over the current state of prohibition. So it makes you think, what in principle would be wrong with minor regulation of sugar, given the above points about its relative healthfulness (or lack thereof) compared to cannabis?

Also, I think the problem most people have with regulating food and consumables in this way is that they feel like the government is trying to make decisions for private individuals and trying to control how parents feed their children. But is that really the point of this type regulation? Parents are already very aware nowadays of the need to watch sugar intake and not allow complete unfettered access to sodas, candies and other food with high sugar content. What lags behind aren't parents and individuals but the high-sugar products available and companies who make them.

Aren't regulations like these more an attempt to fill the gap and support what most parents already know, but what food makers continue to ignore? In THEORY, in a free market, less demand for harmful high-sugar foods would create less availability of such products. But it doesn't always work like that in American capitalism and it often takes years for consumer sentiment about a pervasive consumable like sugar to actually affect changes in the food suppliers. This is in part the reason for the regulation of sale and production of alcohol and tobacco.

If this minor regulation of sugar worries you, are you also against the regulation of cannabis? Should both cannabis and sugar be allowed to produce by and distributed to whoever, whenever, with no restrictions at all, except those of the parent for example? Should cannabis, tobacco, and alcohol be freely available in schools? Should high-sugar products? Which is worse? Its interesting to think about.
Click to expand...

The government telling me what to eat is a FAR CRY from minor regulation. These are all small steps to the bigger picture, stop being complacent in having your rights stolen from you.

If the government really cared, they would be inspecting more than 2% of our food.

This is not some gentle remider to parents to not load their kids up on sugar, this is just another step to complete facism.

When will the "land of the free" actually be free?
 
DiscoBiscuit

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
MadBuddhaAbuser said:
The government telling me what to eat is a FAR CRY from minor regulation. These are all small steps to the bigger picture, stop being complacent in having your rights stolen from you.
Click to expand...

I can still gorge on fat and sugar all I want - if I wanted to eat that crap. The thing I don't get is the idea that this curbs my rights. At the least I'm reminded of what I've known for decades. At most, I feel less responsible (and less healthy) for eating crap and polluting my body.

If the government really cared, they would be inspecting more than 2% of our food.
Click to expand...
How much more in taxes are you willing to pay for more food inspections?

This is not some gentle remider to parents to not load their kids up on sugar, this is just another step to complete facism.
Click to expand...
:chin:

When will the "land of the free" actually be free?
Click to expand...
When public service messages stop warning about long-term health and well being? All administrations take on public-service issues. Statistics show in part why our health care is so expensive. A minority of folks in poor health run up costs due to poor eating practices.

Hell, Nancy Reagan went after dope and thus weed. Reminding us to eat healthier is IMO, far less invasive.
 
Hash Zeppelin

Hash Zeppelin

Ski Bum Rodeo Clown
Premium user
ICMag Donor
Veteran
^people should eat healthier, but the government should not care either way. instead maybe they could prosecute McDonalds for false advertising. they say that stuff is food in there commercials.
 
Hash Zeppelin

Hash Zeppelin

Ski Bum Rodeo Clown
Premium user
ICMag Donor
Veteran
bentom187

bentom187

Active member
Veteran
somone edited her (gloria borger's) wiki profile ,it no longer states that her husband works for powell tate,a defence contractor but says hes a public relations executive without mentioning the name, seems that they want to hide that little inconveiniant truth.

Her husband's firm includes overseeing a coalition to support congressional funding to parts of the U.S. Military
but theres more like her "Columnist and ABC commentator George Will's wife works for Rick Perry. Fox host Greta Van Susteren's husband advised Herman Cain. NPR's Michele Norris left as host of "All Things Considered" in October because her husband began working for President Barack Obama's re-election campaign and megan kelly she is married to the president and CEO of an internet security company based out of Israel.

with all this as a small example,its no wonder these reporters hate him,they all have somthing to lose if the state of things change.
 
ShroomDr

ShroomDr

CartoonHead
Veteran
Just to reiterate, Dr Paul is on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight, tonight at 9pm EST.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Friday, February 03

Nevada Republican Presidential Caucus PPP (D)
Romney 50, Gingrich 25, Paul 15, Santorum 8

General Election: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports
Obama 45, Romney 45

President Obama Job Approval Rasmussen Reports
Approve 46, Disapprove 52

Thursday, February 02

Nevada Republican Presidential Caucus Las Vegas Review-Journal
Romney 45, Gingrich 25, Paul 9, Santorum 11

Michigan Republican Presidential Primary Rasmussen Reports
Romney 38, Gingrich 23, Paul 14, Santorum 17

Arizona Republican Presidential Primary Rasmussen Reports
Romney 48, Gingrich 24, Santorum 13, Paul 6

Tuesday, January 31

Ohio Republican Presidential Primary PPP (D)
Gingrich 26, Romney 25, Santorum 22, Paul 11

Missouri Republican Presidential Caucus PPP (D)
Gingrich 30, Santorum 28, Romney 24, Paul 11
Click to expand...

Dr Paul is doing SHITTY.

I really thought he would do better than a solid 4th place.
 
ShroomDr

ShroomDr

CartoonHead
Veteran
I guess Santorms peeps really hate Newt for his infedility.

Santorm has ZERO chance, he needs Mitt AND Newt to put their foot in their mouth.

Santorm has has the closest thing to a 'populist message' from the GOP. He has been talking about the poor, he should have jumped Mittens ass for his 'not concerned about the poor' comment.

Santorm doesnt know HOW to win, im afraid Dr Paul lacks the same skill. Newt doesnt lack this skill, only the ability to get out of his own way.

Im pretty sure we will see Mitt outright yelling a someone within the next 8 months. He has looked seconds from blowing his stack multiple times.

As ive said earlier, Newt failed to capitalize on these opportunities. If this were the "Thrilla in Manilla", Mitt is obviously Foreman. Overanxious, and ready for it to be over, Newt needs to keep baiting him, draw him in, make him lose it, and then BOUNCE.

Dr Paul would have the best 'ammo' but he lacks the 'skill'. Newt can do it with hypocrisy, and none of the other debaters will/can call him on it.

Dr Pauls message is lost when he only talks his policy, he needs to highlight the failings of the other candidates polices. This is not the Docs style, and his is not one likely to win over people who care who The Situation' is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top