Does ron paul do anything conventionally?
-
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"?
- Thread starter SacredBreh
- Start date
- Status
Plant Early
Member
Statement from Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance
Vice President Joe Biden, on a two-day visit to Mexico and Central America, said that while the legalization debate is worth discussing, there is no possibility that the Obama Administration will change its policy. Biden’s statements come amid rapidly escalating demands by Latin American presidents that legalization be included among the options for reducing prohibition-related violence, crime and mayhem.
Mr. Biden meets today with Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina and other Central American leaders. The Guatemalan president has said that the legalization debate will be on their agenda.
Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance issued the following statement:
Vice President Biden’s comment that “there is no possibility that the Obama-Biden administration will change its policy on legalization” should come as no surprise. That comment is consistent with longstanding U.S. policy, and it’s hard to imagine the administration wanting this debate to open up in an election year.
But, that said, Biden’s comments on the issue are noteworthy in three respects:
First, the Vice President did acknowledge that "it is totally legitimate for this to be raised” and “it’s worth discussing.” That’s more than he has previously conceded on the issue. It’s consistent with President Obama’s comment on January 27, 2011 – that legalization is “an entirely legitimate topic for debate.” And it sends a message to the drug czar and other federal officials who to date have rejected any such discussion out of hand that it’s now OK to at least talk about it, and perhaps engage the growing debate.
Second, what’s most striking about Biden’s comments on the subject is the flimsiness of his arguments. To focus, as he reportedly did, on the need, with legalization, to create “a costly bureaucracy to regulate the drugs and new addicts” while downplaying the fact that any such bureaucracy would cost a small fraction of what it currently costs instead to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate millions of people for drug law violations, seems absurd. “The debate,” he said, “always occurs, understandably, in the context of serious violence that occurs with the society, particularly in societies that don't have the institutional framework and the structure to deal with organized, illicit operations." But it’s worth pointing out that the debate over legalization has been most vigorous with respect to marijuana, and in countries like The Netherlands, which don’t jibe with the context Biden says is central. The shallowness of the Vice President’s comments reflects the fact that this administration, like its predecessors, has not yet bothered to even think seriously about alternatives to current policies.
And third, Biden’s public comments rejecting legalization, combined with whatever private pressures are applied by him and other U.S. officials to shut down the burgeoning debate, will almost certainly not end the discussion. Not when the Global Commission on Drug Policy, whose members include George Shultz, Paul Volcker, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Ernesto Zedillo, Cesar Gaviria, Javier Solana and others of comparable distinction, has made an impressive case both for reforming drug control policies and “breaking the taboo” on public debate. Not when Presidents Felipe Calderon, Juan Manuel Santos, Otto Perez Molina, Laura Chinchilla and others have each joined their call in various ways. Not when prominent business and other civic leaders increasingly are doing so as well. And not so long as the punitive, prohibitionist policies promoted by the U.S. government continue to wreak such great havoc in so many parts of the world.
Colombia’s President Santos, who was the first president to speak publicly, beginning in late 2011, in support of legalization, reportedly had been looking for other presidents to join him in stepping out. He’s now found just the sort of ally he needs in Guatemala’s new president, Otto Perez Molina. It’s long been said that a “Nixon goes to China” scenario is the best option for really opening up the debate about alternatives to failed prohibitionist policies. Otto Perez Molina is a political conservative and a former general who played a pivotal role two decades ago in securing the military’s agreement to the peace agreement that ended the country’s long civil war. He’s just started his four year term, and is moving forward strategically to ensure that this crucial debate is not foreclosed. This issue will be on the agenda at the annual Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April, and in national, regional and international gatherings thereafter.
Whoever is in the White House for the next four years is going to need to step up their game in this debate. Because now it’s not going away.
.
Tony Newman 646-335-5384 or Ethan Nadelmann 646-335-2240
http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2012...drug-prohibition-response-growing-calls-latin
just what i been saying since comin here...the South Americans want out of this fight, they see the results of prohibition in red. they are always losing in this war...need we suffer the same fate?
Change!!! We Demand Change!
...and not the pathetic bait and switch obfuscation of the current administration.
Vice President Joe Biden, on a two-day visit to Mexico and Central America, said that while the legalization debate is worth discussing, there is no possibility that the Obama Administration will change its policy. Biden’s statements come amid rapidly escalating demands by Latin American presidents that legalization be included among the options for reducing prohibition-related violence, crime and mayhem.
Mr. Biden meets today with Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina and other Central American leaders. The Guatemalan president has said that the legalization debate will be on their agenda.
Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance issued the following statement:
Vice President Biden’s comment that “there is no possibility that the Obama-Biden administration will change its policy on legalization” should come as no surprise. That comment is consistent with longstanding U.S. policy, and it’s hard to imagine the administration wanting this debate to open up in an election year.
But, that said, Biden’s comments on the issue are noteworthy in three respects:
First, the Vice President did acknowledge that "it is totally legitimate for this to be raised” and “it’s worth discussing.” That’s more than he has previously conceded on the issue. It’s consistent with President Obama’s comment on January 27, 2011 – that legalization is “an entirely legitimate topic for debate.” And it sends a message to the drug czar and other federal officials who to date have rejected any such discussion out of hand that it’s now OK to at least talk about it, and perhaps engage the growing debate.
Second, what’s most striking about Biden’s comments on the subject is the flimsiness of his arguments. To focus, as he reportedly did, on the need, with legalization, to create “a costly bureaucracy to regulate the drugs and new addicts” while downplaying the fact that any such bureaucracy would cost a small fraction of what it currently costs instead to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate millions of people for drug law violations, seems absurd. “The debate,” he said, “always occurs, understandably, in the context of serious violence that occurs with the society, particularly in societies that don't have the institutional framework and the structure to deal with organized, illicit operations." But it’s worth pointing out that the debate over legalization has been most vigorous with respect to marijuana, and in countries like The Netherlands, which don’t jibe with the context Biden says is central. The shallowness of the Vice President’s comments reflects the fact that this administration, like its predecessors, has not yet bothered to even think seriously about alternatives to current policies.
And third, Biden’s public comments rejecting legalization, combined with whatever private pressures are applied by him and other U.S. officials to shut down the burgeoning debate, will almost certainly not end the discussion. Not when the Global Commission on Drug Policy, whose members include George Shultz, Paul Volcker, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Ernesto Zedillo, Cesar Gaviria, Javier Solana and others of comparable distinction, has made an impressive case both for reforming drug control policies and “breaking the taboo” on public debate. Not when Presidents Felipe Calderon, Juan Manuel Santos, Otto Perez Molina, Laura Chinchilla and others have each joined their call in various ways. Not when prominent business and other civic leaders increasingly are doing so as well. And not so long as the punitive, prohibitionist policies promoted by the U.S. government continue to wreak such great havoc in so many parts of the world.
Colombia’s President Santos, who was the first president to speak publicly, beginning in late 2011, in support of legalization, reportedly had been looking for other presidents to join him in stepping out. He’s now found just the sort of ally he needs in Guatemala’s new president, Otto Perez Molina. It’s long been said that a “Nixon goes to China” scenario is the best option for really opening up the debate about alternatives to failed prohibitionist policies. Otto Perez Molina is a political conservative and a former general who played a pivotal role two decades ago in securing the military’s agreement to the peace agreement that ended the country’s long civil war. He’s just started his four year term, and is moving forward strategically to ensure that this crucial debate is not foreclosed. This issue will be on the agenda at the annual Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April, and in national, regional and international gatherings thereafter.
Whoever is in the White House for the next four years is going to need to step up their game in this debate. Because now it’s not going away.
.
Tony Newman 646-335-5384 or Ethan Nadelmann 646-335-2240
http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2012...drug-prohibition-response-growing-calls-latin
just what i been saying since comin here...the South Americans want out of this fight, they see the results of prohibition in red. they are always losing in this war...need we suffer the same fate?
Change!!! We Demand Change!
...and not the pathetic bait and switch obfuscation of the current administration.
Last edited:
Sacred, please, where I live, everyone has to do military service fir three years and afterwards in reserve duty for 2-4 weeks a year fir the next 20 years. and yes, we in fact do more than the u.s to counter terrorism. our existence depends on it.
SacredBreh
Member
Read the link..... to understand the post
Read the link..... to understand the post
No shit Sherlock! Not to you Itisme.... am saying that about the two turds Newt and Santorum. Flip flopping like damn trout on the floor of a boat. 16 lives ago it was worth killing tens of thousands but not now?!? If this were not real, you could not sell this script for a dime! A producer would throw it on the floor and say, "no one will ever believe this crap."
It is not funny any more..... it has moved into the realm of obsurd and pathetic at this point!
I think I will stick with the real Ron Paul not those 2 "want to bes".
Dr. Paul is wrong about everything yet so far all three other GOP candidates have tried to snuggle under the shade of his tree. (I like to think of it as one our Special Trees of course.)
Excellent link!
Read the link..... to understand the post
No shit Sherlock! Not to you Itisme.... am saying that about the two turds Newt and Santorum. Flip flopping like damn trout on the floor of a boat. 16 lives ago it was worth killing tens of thousands but not now?!? If this were not real, you could not sell this script for a dime! A producer would throw it on the floor and say, "no one will ever believe this crap."
It is not funny any more..... it has moved into the realm of obsurd and pathetic at this point!
I think I will stick with the real Ron Paul not those 2 "want to bes".
Dr. Paul is wrong about everything yet so far all three other GOP candidates have tried to snuggle under the shade of his tree. (I like to think of it as one our Special Trees of course.)
Excellent link!
SacredBreh
Member
You may be the exception......
You may be the exception......
My post was not directed at you at all and do not mean any disrespect. Mine is a growing annoyance with the crowds of Americans and internationals who are giving the war cry. You happened to be talking about what I am irritated at........
Watching GOP debates and seeing the crowd cheering, I would just love to bring a recruiter with me and put the damn contract in their hands. Sign up or sign your son up and lets get it on! Pale ass sheep would run and hug their children and thank god for them! It is easily forgotten sitting at home and watching the TV that this shit is real and not some special effects...... Shock and Awe!!!! With each blast men, women, and CHILDREN were killed! Saddam Hussein was an murder and a bad ruler but put on a scale of the worst in the world....... he would not make the top 100!
I am sick of the "global" community as stated before and will not repeat.
Just for a second bombadil.360 what would you think if we used our might against your country? Told you how to run it? Mutually assured destruction is a very select club and you are probably not in it. What if we starved you and your family. Threatened or actually invaded, dragged your family members in the street. Carried some off to secret prisons and used advanced aaahhhh interrogation techniques on them. Bombed your country back into the stone age. Would you consider taking action? Would you call some of your relatives to come help you? What if we named you "Terrorist" and your relatives "Insurgents"? Would your feelings and ideals change?
Being a trained man, I know your answer to these questions.
If we are saying things are out of control don't you think mmmaaaaabbbbeee there is a problem? You see I would never want to do that to your country or you and I do not want to do that to other countries. Peace to you my brother.... I just want you to see that if it is accepted as ok to do these things to these people then it may be ok to do it to you and I some day.
You see our foundation is built on a check and balance system of which the Constitution is a big part. It helps assure that the awesome power we have built over the years is not used against Americans but also not misused against others as well. That is why Congress was vested with the power to declare war, not a single person. The checks and balances are broken right now.
I love this:
You may be the exception......
My post was not directed at you at all and do not mean any disrespect. Mine is a growing annoyance with the crowds of Americans and internationals who are giving the war cry. You happened to be talking about what I am irritated at........
Watching GOP debates and seeing the crowd cheering, I would just love to bring a recruiter with me and put the damn contract in their hands. Sign up or sign your son up and lets get it on! Pale ass sheep would run and hug their children and thank god for them! It is easily forgotten sitting at home and watching the TV that this shit is real and not some special effects...... Shock and Awe!!!! With each blast men, women, and CHILDREN were killed! Saddam Hussein was an murder and a bad ruler but put on a scale of the worst in the world....... he would not make the top 100!
I am sick of the "global" community as stated before and will not repeat.
Just for a second bombadil.360 what would you think if we used our might against your country? Told you how to run it? Mutually assured destruction is a very select club and you are probably not in it. What if we starved you and your family. Threatened or actually invaded, dragged your family members in the street. Carried some off to secret prisons and used advanced aaahhhh interrogation techniques on them. Bombed your country back into the stone age. Would you consider taking action? Would you call some of your relatives to come help you? What if we named you "Terrorist" and your relatives "Insurgents"? Would your feelings and ideals change?
Being a trained man, I know your answer to these questions.
If we are saying things are out of control don't you think mmmaaaaabbbbeee there is a problem? You see I would never want to do that to your country or you and I do not want to do that to other countries. Peace to you my brother.... I just want you to see that if it is accepted as ok to do these things to these people then it may be ok to do it to you and I some day.
You see our foundation is built on a check and balance system of which the Constitution is a big part. It helps assure that the awesome power we have built over the years is not used against Americans but also not misused against others as well. That is why Congress was vested with the power to declare war, not a single person. The checks and balances are broken right now.
I love this:
“They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. And then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
Peace
Why is there still terror?
If you do so much and we do so much shouldnt terror be a thing of the past....
Oh wait we do much more to foster terrorism than fight it.
Sounds like you guys do even more.
Shalom
Rick Santorum: "Vote for Ron Paul"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE-s_8PvT5Y&feature=uploademail
303views......900 PLUS LIKES!!
What is limited Gov't about Santorm? Vote Ron Paul, that's what you should do.
That better make some COMMERCIALS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE-s_8PvT5Y&feature=uploademail
303views......900 PLUS LIKES!!
What is limited Gov't about Santorm? Vote Ron Paul, that's what you should do.
That better make some COMMERCIALS!
Last edited:
Very well put....I love your, "snuggle under the shade of his tree" I'll have to reuse that one. I was pointing out that NObama was pitching the same lines of crap too.....Acting like the R are the only WARMONGERS.
I don't know if you have researched that element that I have been belittled for, but at least check into it and see what you think. If you want some specific literature contact me. There is plenty out there.
Great interview here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lrbeUK0lI0&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg&index=7&feature=plcp
Last edited:
haha i love that one;
look how close they put their country to our military bases?
roflmao, that is pretty much exactly what the warmongers want us to believe.
look how close they put their country to our military bases?
roflmao, that is pretty much exactly what the warmongers want us to believe.
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!!
toketronix
Member
now imagine if iran had all those bases in mexico and canada ...wait!! you don't have to imagine; google ' cuban missile crisis '
RP,did a interview this morning.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000078291
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000078291
Sacred, in my opinion, there's a lot of things we would need to discuss to tackle the questions you ask; even if asked in a rhetorical way, answering them would help us clear things up.
to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, I have three nationalities, and today two of them are completely contradictory. I have felt in my own flesh the two sides of this issue between free world and plain crazy world. Honestly, this whole issue of "neo-liberal imperialist countries" wanting to impose their views on everyone else, is plain non-sense, it is just a huge propaganda machine created by mad-men, and used to manipulate resentful people.
if I had a nickle for every time I have heard this story about the U.S exploiting and controlling the world and the need for the 'people' to fight it off, I'd have quite a few pennies. these same mad-men have gone as far as inventing what they call 'documentation' that proves the so-called evil plans of the 'empire'. a great example are the 'protocols of the elders of zion', which let me assure you, plenty posters in this thread take as fact and use such to breed hate and resentment.
how many such "documents" made up by the Venezuelan government have they used to paint the U.S as an evil war-machine who is about to conquer the whole country and exterminate everyone. and so they ban books, radio and tv stations, take political prisioners, and now have attempted to assasinate the presidential candidate of the opposition, amongst other very "nice revolutionary" things.
look at it this way: which countries do the same thing? prohibit free information, control or simply ban the internet; and only one-way of thinking is allowed, and if you get out of the strictly set parameters, you become the enemy.
Iran is a country like that.
the U.S is not. some would argue the U.S is turning into the same, but it is a still a very long way to see that happen, if it happens, which I sincerly doubt it will.
there are arab-soap operas, where they have Jewish people kidnapping arab children in order to sacrifice them and use their blood for evil rituals. these things become cemented as fact in the minds of many, since they simply have no other source of information and are cheered into hating and resentment, the archetype of culture of hate.
by comparison, if you show the same in a U.S tv show, most people will laugh at the ridiculously bombastic theme. which tells a lot on the basic differences between the U.S, and lets say, Iran.
in Israel, the ultra-orthodox are the laughing stock of society, the shameful minority group still caught up in cave-man thinking. even the orthodox can't stand them, and now they have even been labelled as terrorists, since they have attacked soldiers and do all kinds of crazy hateful shit. but they are controlled and the reach of their stupidness is limited, because people do not want their children to grow up in a world dominated by blind extremism.
which is what will inevitably happen if we just cross our arms and say: "well, we should not try to police over anyone".
sadly, in this world, we need to have 'check and balances', just like you described. but rather than basing them on a 'constitution', we should base it on the goodness of our hearts and souls, which is exactly what many cultured and intelligent arabs do, and they do not become trapped by the circle of hate; but even so, they still are in danger if they express their views to counter this idiotness, since they are out-numbered.
like Crazy Composer said in another thread, we're on a war, but it is against ignorance. I'd add that if you choose to not do something about it, you're just not taking responsability to leave the world in a better shape than you found it.
do you think tomorrow should be shaped after Iran, Syria or Lebanon? or after Bhutan?
cross your arms and do nothing about it, and see what comes of it.
peace
to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, I have three nationalities, and today two of them are completely contradictory. I have felt in my own flesh the two sides of this issue between free world and plain crazy world. Honestly, this whole issue of "neo-liberal imperialist countries" wanting to impose their views on everyone else, is plain non-sense, it is just a huge propaganda machine created by mad-men, and used to manipulate resentful people.
if I had a nickle for every time I have heard this story about the U.S exploiting and controlling the world and the need for the 'people' to fight it off, I'd have quite a few pennies. these same mad-men have gone as far as inventing what they call 'documentation' that proves the so-called evil plans of the 'empire'. a great example are the 'protocols of the elders of zion', which let me assure you, plenty posters in this thread take as fact and use such to breed hate and resentment.
how many such "documents" made up by the Venezuelan government have they used to paint the U.S as an evil war-machine who is about to conquer the whole country and exterminate everyone. and so they ban books, radio and tv stations, take political prisioners, and now have attempted to assasinate the presidential candidate of the opposition, amongst other very "nice revolutionary" things.
look at it this way: which countries do the same thing? prohibit free information, control or simply ban the internet; and only one-way of thinking is allowed, and if you get out of the strictly set parameters, you become the enemy.
Iran is a country like that.
the U.S is not. some would argue the U.S is turning into the same, but it is a still a very long way to see that happen, if it happens, which I sincerly doubt it will.
there are arab-soap operas, where they have Jewish people kidnapping arab children in order to sacrifice them and use their blood for evil rituals. these things become cemented as fact in the minds of many, since they simply have no other source of information and are cheered into hating and resentment, the archetype of culture of hate.
by comparison, if you show the same in a U.S tv show, most people will laugh at the ridiculously bombastic theme. which tells a lot on the basic differences between the U.S, and lets say, Iran.
in Israel, the ultra-orthodox are the laughing stock of society, the shameful minority group still caught up in cave-man thinking. even the orthodox can't stand them, and now they have even been labelled as terrorists, since they have attacked soldiers and do all kinds of crazy hateful shit. but they are controlled and the reach of their stupidness is limited, because people do not want their children to grow up in a world dominated by blind extremism.
which is what will inevitably happen if we just cross our arms and say: "well, we should not try to police over anyone".
sadly, in this world, we need to have 'check and balances', just like you described. but rather than basing them on a 'constitution', we should base it on the goodness of our hearts and souls, which is exactly what many cultured and intelligent arabs do, and they do not become trapped by the circle of hate; but even so, they still are in danger if they express their views to counter this idiotness, since they are out-numbered.
like Crazy Composer said in another thread, we're on a war, but it is against ignorance. I'd add that if you choose to not do something about it, you're just not taking responsability to leave the world in a better shape than you found it.
do you think tomorrow should be shaped after Iran, Syria or Lebanon? or after Bhutan?
cross your arms and do nothing about it, and see what comes of it.
peace
You guys are living in an alternate universe. It's one thing to anticipate but you're actually convincing yourselves, based on shit from people who don't know shit.
Read the papers. The only people beating drums are the Israelis. UK just released a public statement that while military options are on the table, they agree with the president that sanctions should be given a chance to work.
Hey sanction-boy, how exactly are we starving Iranians? Did we implement a food embargo? Let's keep the conversation on things we know. What you think, based on your physiological gut-pang isn't necessarily reality.
Disco, Israel is not beating war drums. first, Netanyahu said war could be an option, everyone advice him against it, so he said, ok, no war. then, everyone adviced him to really consider war on light of new info, then he said, ok, maybe. and now no one knows anything about it. no one here wants war, that much is for sure. but if iran gets crazy, there's not much else there to do.
Nobody has said, "no war". Israel has publicly contemplated bombing within "several months". That said, I don't convince myself, based on rhetoric alone.
____________________________________________
Does anybody forget we spent close to $200 billion convincing the world we needed to take out Saddam?
The world ain't all about plucking daisies and blowing bubbles. But we're a long way away from pretending this is Iraq 2.0.
As far as the Romney, Santorum and Gingrich rhetoric - that was in South Carolina and Texas, for crying out loud.
There's no guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow. That said you can bet your sweet bippie that future republican presidential primaries will harp whatever war scenario exists (to South Carolinians and Texans.) It's called pandering.
____________________________________________
Does anybody forget we spent close to $200 billion convincing the world we needed to take out Saddam?
The world ain't all about plucking daisies and blowing bubbles. But we're a long way away from pretending this is Iraq 2.0.
As far as the Romney, Santorum and Gingrich rhetoric - that was in South Carolina and Texas, for crying out loud.
There's no guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow. That said you can bet your sweet bippie that future republican presidential primaries will harp whatever war scenario exists (to South Carolinians and Texans.) It's called pandering.
- Status
