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

[stonedstoner]

"4. Gay rights will be enhanced by letting the states decide.
5. All minorities will be better off with each other and not in jail due to some unjust drug war." -itisme






what about gays born into the south? think letting states decide helps them? why can't we have a federal law that protects the rights of gays? why can't we have a federal law that says they can marry? how does that hurt anyone else?

how are minorities better off? a lot of states (like southern states) will enact just as unjust drug laws that will effect minorities negatively.


and what is wrong with federal mandates that promote freedoms? like the freedom for gays to marry (which should be a federal mandate, i think no state should be able to ban it). i think that there are certain rights that need to be protected by the federal gov't. i think smoking ganja recreationally should be one of those protected rights. no state should be allowed to ban ganja.

and if we give all the power to the states and don't allow any federal mandates to protect freedoms, then who's to guarentee that counties within those states wouldn't bitch about statewide mandates? should a state that decides to legalize cannabis allow the counties within that state to ban cannabis in their respective counties? i don't think that would be cool.

 

[itisme]

I wanted to say sorry for any offending anybody with my COMMIE comments, that includes Discobiscuit. I still say if he wants to actually participate he needs to give us his candidate and their ideas along with his and not just try to only dismantle our suggestions while he offers none and hides behind no candidate. That is the only way to have a fair discussion and it not seem like he has a hidden agenda.

Gays in the South? Good question.
Right now the states can't chose. The Federal Government has already said NO. That hurts gays that want equal rights in death, insurance, loans and such. Gays can't marry and be recognized under the system we have now. They could if the state decided so under Ron Paul. Some states allow gay marriage now but is not recognized on a federal level and Gays rights are diminished. I live in the South and love my gay friends that I have. I say let em marry if they want to.

The Constitution protects our freedoms. The Federal Gov't is systematically taking them away. Examples; The Patriot Act, Federal Drug Laws, Income Taxes, Quotas, Banning Gay Marriage. I wanted to make a simple and diverse example grouping but they do it through many avenues.

I didn't right down to regurgitate that exact numbers but the drug war is very influential in keeping minorities down. They make up less than 20% of drug users but around 60% of those put in jails. Police forces are much more abundant in "the hood" than "the burbs" and that helps skew the numbers. Another issue is economic status lending itself to hurt the typically poorer minorities once again by the poor getting far worse outcomes in court on a much higher frequency than whites. One of the best thing for any family is to be whole and the drug war rips families apart.

 

[stonedstoner]

I wanted to say sorry for any offending anybody with my COMMIE comments, that includes Discobiscuit. I still say if he wants to actually participate he needs to give us his candidate and their ideas along with his and not just try to only dismantle our suggestions while he offers none and hides behind no candidate. That is the only way to have a fair discussion and it not seem like he has a hidden agenda.

Gays in the South? Good question.
Right now the states can't chose. The Federal Government has already said NO. That hurts gays that want equal rights in death, insurance, loans and such. Gays can't marry and be recognized under the system we have now. They could if the state decided so under Ron Paul. Some states allow gay marriage now but is not recognized on a federal level and Gays rights are diminished. I live in the South and love my gay friends that I have. I say let em marry if they want to.

The Constitution protects our freedoms. The Federal Gov't is systematically taking them away. Examples; The Patriot Act, Federal Drug Laws, Income Taxes, Quotas, Banning Gay Marriage. I wanted to make a simple and diverse example grouping but they do it through many avenues.

I didn't right down to regurgitate that exact numbers but the drug war is very influential in keeping minorities down. They make up less than 20% of drug users but around 60% of those put in jails. Police forces are much more abundant in "the hood" than "the burbs" and that helps skew the numbers. Another issue is economic status lending itself to hurt the typically poorer minorities once again by the poor getting far worse outcomes in court on a much higher frequency than whites. One of the best thing for any family is to be whole and the drug war rips families apart.

i am in no way supporting the current federal policies, i'm just saying that ron paul's solution to give all the power to states won't help much and could actually make things worse for a lot of people in some states.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... So you don't see the issue there. A partial audit finds 16 trillion dollars dispensed all over the world that was undisclosed is a big deal? You can honestly say that you think Ron Paul's investments in Gold and Silver are his motives? HONESTLY....You can say you believe that? I find that difficult to believe.

Sure undisclosed loans are a big deal. We should have enough transparency to minimize these circumstances. But the contraction we experienced was so bad, the wrong move (i.e., no move) could render worse fallout than loaning the money. I'm not versed in global economics enough to qualify the opinion but that's what the players are saying.

We can manage circumstances without resorting to polar solutions. In this case, Ron eschews management and wants an unfettered market. IMO, that could be a worst case scenario in a particularly vulnerable time.

I don't short anybody for financially positioning themselves. But the cumulative aspects of a (heavily pinned metals portfolio) + (running for president) + (based on a gold standard) appears to veer toward what you might refer to as an agenda.

I do understand and acknowledge that Ron Paul changing the monetary policy is a really big deal. He is not crazy though. He knows that at first thing he has to do is end the printing of the money!

I can certainly agree with capping spending to revenues. However, the Tea Party took the polar approach to debt ceiling negotiations. Even though they acquiesced at the 11th hour, the economic world held it's collective nose while our credit rating suffered - costing us more in interest and loan conditions.

That was non-pragmatic ideology working for us. Something I feel we'll see more of with Ron as prez.

Ideology is a great tool, even better with pragmatic management and recognition of it's effects. But ideology that eschews pragmatism is similar to pre depression era policy where the market didn't take steps to mitigate contraction.

... Step two is to get a complete Gov't Audit of the FED for the fist time ever. The World Com and Enron scams were done through making false entries into audits that made companies appear much more valuable then they were is what part of what caused the current economic crises. Now just think about the fact that all the Central Banks that form the FED have never been AUDITED AT ALL. A partial audit exposed 16 trillion in currency that was secretly doled out to banks in foreign land, here in the US, and big corporations.....At the very least we have to get a complete Audit and stop the corruption going on with the FED. That alone would go a long way to saving our currency.

I personally have no problem with transparency. The part you didn't mention is that banks operate on trust and signs of distress brings out the vultures. Obviously this can't continue at exorbitant amounts so I'm in agreement.

Now a little on why have had to print currency......Short and sweet-
1. Unjust undeclared wars. Billions every month if not every day.
2. Drug war. On this site I should have to say much.
3. FED backdoor thieves .....See my list of ROMNEY CONTRIBUTORS.
4. Gay rights will be enhanced by letting the states decide.
5. All minorities will be better off with each other and not in jail due to some unjust drug war.
6. I want the troops home and they mostly want Ron Paul. I think they want to live here.
7. Stopping all the wars could save Social Security, Medicare/caid

Things that concern me
1. Monetary policy. What will be the end result there? I don't know for sure. I truly believe that we have to turn off the presses and audit the FED to even have a real clue for a solution. I think Ron Paul would make solid sound choices that benefit the USA not US and INTERNATIONAL BANK and CORPS.

2. I worry about increased crime if he cuts food stamps.

We have many aspects in common, me. You might ought to check your temperature. Just kidding.

Now who do you want to get elected and why?

I haven't yet decided on the who and I've also addressed the why. I appreciate your taking the time to exemplify and I've done as much or more in expressing the "why" part. I gather cumulative reading is time consuming but so is repetition.

I called you a commie because you still refuse to answer any on any of the issues and offer no solutions or candidates.

Ron has a few good ideas but the fact he's a bookend solution for everything makes him the last choice on my list. Being an idealist to the point of dissing pragmatism is not my idea of leadership.

Aside from arguing all your personal baloney I've broadened the context of several aspects beyond the stump. There's also things I'm no longer mentioning because you get too bent.

You are only in here to discredit Ron P. suggestions while you offer none of you own.

I don't think a broader focus is an attempt to discredit. Every candidate gets their bung pried open and how they squeal is often seen as indicative of character.

I've gone more than out of my way to suggest (some) needed fixes. You simply don't have a scalable, cumulative summary for convenience.

If you need further reasons just read the manifesto I posted and look at the ones I said applied to you and why? The only real input I saw that implicates your direction leads me to see you want the Gov't to have control. You have offered nothing else post after post.........So if you read the commie manifesto you fit the bill PERFECTLY.

I get it. Another waste of time.

You keep implying Ron P is racist! Slanderous
You imply Ron P only has the desires to enhance his portfolio is slanderous.

Every since you had a shit fit I dropped the newsletters. And racist is your word. I call Ron's emotional stimulant fear and loathing.

I still aint seen you post and CANDIDATE OR AN IDEA..... You say you have but where are they? QUOTE ME A FEW LIKE YOU DO ALL MY STATMENTS

Fine, go back to your tantrum.

A CANDIDATE OR IDEAS FOR FIX......not random made up opinion

A read-through would have rendered your post unanswered. Thanks for demonstrating you can wheel out the baloney as fast as you put it away. Will keep me from wasting any more time with your posts.

 

[ShroomDr]

Just because Disco doesnt have a perfect candidate, doesnt mean another candidate is a better choice.

Personally i think Dr Paul is 85% correct, and at least 5% bat shit crazy.

The 'commie' moniker could not be used and thrown around less accurately. Your water bill, your electrical bill, hell even your cable tv bill are all under a 'communist/socialist/price controlled' thumb.

If water works could charge you $3 a gallon, they would, capitalism is about making money.

As far as 'Govt Healthcare' goes, tell a senior they will lose there Medicare coverage, and they would go bat shit crazy (incidentally, they are the highest % voting demographic, go figure).

The best option Democrat$ put forth that would have passed was 'forced govt health issuance'. All this actually does is pad the pockets of the middlemen (that charged me $8 for a 200mg Ibuprofen). Insurance companies, and 'distributors' that hoard chemo drugs, making them artificially scarce and send their prices soaring.

It only passes because the medical and insurance lobbies grea$ed both parties, 'obamacare' solidified their hold, millions of new consumer$.

But make no mistake about it, people love govt heathcare.

The problem is out of control prices, i can get (500) 200mg Ibuprofen tablets at a drug store for $8 ($0.016/per tablet). The volume that the hospital uses would allow them to get them much cheaper.

Personally, im all for price control on necessities like water, electricity, and your own health, but no candidate really offers that.


++++


As for the subject of the thread, no other GOP'er will offer anything to the legalization movement, Obama certainly doesnt appear likely to do anything in his (lame duck) second term. Furthermore, Joe Biden is EXTREMELY anti drug, his chances of running after two vp terms is a lot more likely than Cheney. Hildog is not much better.

I dont know much about him, im not from PA, but i think im an Ed Rendell fan! He will probably be too old to run in 2016.

The Dems dont have many promising stars im aware of.

 

[itisme]

DrScroom: Just because Disco doesnt have a perfect candidate, doesnt mean another candidate is a better choice.

Him not having a choice as a candidate makes it impossible for his guy to be better than mine though. So to have a fair discussion I have asked for his best candidate to date. I am sure he can figure out how to articulate that since he types so eloquently when he responds without one. See what can I attack of his but his bias and rhetoric? That is truly all I see being offered up.

See

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... As for the subject of the thread, no other GOP'er will offer anything to the legalization movement, Obama certainly doesnt appear likely to do anything in his (lame duck) second term. Furthermore, Joe Biden is EXTREMELY anti drug, his chances of running after two vp terms is a lot more likely than Cheney. Hildog is not much better.

I dont know much about him, im not from PA, but i think im an Ed Rendell fan! He will probably be too old to run in 2016.

The Dems dont have many promising stars im aware of.

Not sure Joe Biden will run for president in 2016. He ran in the '88 democratic primary and a speech writer plagiarized his big splash. It's not as bad the shit Edwards jumped in but it was big shit when it happened. He had to fold but I don't think he was penalized by ethics committee or fined, etc.

If Hillary was in the mix I'd consider voting for her but any decision would be closer to the election. I agree with ShroomDr that she wouldn't help the weed cause. Calderon asked Hil about weed legalization outside the UN assembly and she postured. (I guess they know the press mic is never out of range.) Anyhoos Hil says, "But there's so much money in it" or something to that effect.

I like Gov. Rendell, watch him almost every day. For a while there I thought he was on colloidal silver, poor fella was blue. He thinned a bit and I thought he was ready to croak. Now he's got his color and weight back and IMO, always one of the best minds on Morning Joe. I'd vote for Ed but I get the feeling you couldn't pay him enough to get back into the mess. One term and he'd be on the floor like Max Von Sydow in The Exorcist.

I do think Ed's an advocate of reform. I just wish he was 20 years younger.

 

[itisme]

So we on 2016 already. HHMMMM

Lets keep it to the title and on subject guys, Remember Discobiscuit.

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

 

[ShroomDr]

The worst thing that Obama has done is put the Bush Era spending 'on the books' and continue many of his polices.

Govt healthcare is generally good for the people and potentially bad for the govt if they cant eliminate the middle men. "obamacare" did not eliminate the middlemen, it only ingrained them into law.

When you go to the hospital, you want healthcare, not insurance forms. As long as you are in stable condition, they ask you this info before they ask what is wrong. It is a farce for an alleged enlightened first world country.

Our 'Cause' is MJ, and i dont think Obamacare is gonna pay for MMJ even for a wasting away chemo patient. Munchies is a cure!

 

[SacredBreh]

Discobiscuit again!!!!! you are exhausting!!!!

Discobiscuit again!!!!! you are exhausting!!!!

The only response you gave to my last post titled to you which was asking you questions. As you have done to others, time after time, in this thread.... you side stepped or redirected pretty much all of them.

It was asked, "who are you leaning towards" and "if the election were held today, who would you vote for"-- you answered by saying you were not voting today.

Now you have a lot of knowledge and obviously understand language so you are purposely avoiding the answers to direct questions. Like I said before it is easy to site back and complain or criticize. "Keeping your secrets behind the keyboard" allows you to use as argument the best attributes of any candidate or even non-candidate concepts without defending the negatives.

Peace

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The worst thing that Obama has done is put the Bush Era spending 'on the books' and continue many of his polices.

Govt healthcare is generally good for the people and potentially bad for the govt if they cant eliminate the middle men. "obamacare" did not eliminate the middlemen, it only ingrained them into law.

When you go to the hospital, you want healthcare, not insurance forms. As long as you are in stable condition, they ask you this info before they ask what is wrong. It is a farce for an alleged enlightened first world country.

Our 'Cause' is MJ, and i dont think Obamacare is gonna pay for MMJ even for a wasting away chemo patient. Munchies is a cure!

I'd hate to pollute with liberal bias but feel objective views consist of all aspects, not just the most apparent. Part D was already law and I'm not sure how much W contributed to heath care beyond that, at least anything that went toward the debt.

Health care reform was initially expected to stem the growth of +1/6 GDP, i.e. cost less. Opposition to reform watered down cost controls and savings were limited to adding 45+ million to the insurance system, mitigating the costs of emergency room care. There's also administration cost cuts but gub administration already runs at ~4% compared to the industry's ~12%.

IMO, O fucked up when he settled with pharma before realizing he wouldn't get single payer, then he wouldn't get the public option and almost failed to get 45+ million the ability to buy insurance. In fact he had to cling to the Heritage Foundation model of mandates in order to get (the watered down numbers) to jibe, along with the appearance of bipartisanship. I know that's a funny word now but this was early 2009.

That said, Hil lost the reform battle in the 90s by taking on both insurance and pharma.

O's been a real fuck head on the weed issue. I can't imagine anybody not taking the opportunity to legalize weed for Hospice patients, if nothing else. That's every state. Put em on the crap weed list if patients can't get it on their own.

IMO, the fact these people are at death's bed would pacify the moral objectors. Further study would be conducted and at least these people might feel better should they decide to medicate.

 

[itisme]

It was asked, "who are you leaning towards" and "if the election were held today, who would you vote for"-- you answered by saying you were not voting today.

Now you have a lot of knowledge and obviously understand language so you are purposely avoiding the answers to direct questions. Like I said before it is easy to site back and complain or criticize. "Keeping your secrets behind the keyboard" allows you to use as argument the best attributes of any candidate or even none candidate concepts without defending the negatives.

Peace

Discobiscuit, A baloney artist or so he thinks SacredBreh So transparent!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Yep, I haven't decided who I'm voting for and I know I'm not voting for the mother of all knee jerk reactions.

You two are pathetic. I haven't told you who I'm voting for because I haven't decided. Suggesting that I dodge your other stuff is complete crap. I've know the stump since Ronnie went nationwide in the 1980s.

I don't humor your free market ethics any more than I'd expect you to consider regulated capitalism. I know that weed reform is important to everybody but I'm not about to vote for 'most likely to contract.'

I've made no posts attempting to advise others how to vote. But I have pointed some considerable disparities that thwart Ronnie every time he runs for prez. And if you think one person's opinion is screwing up your chances, you're not paying attention.

Pound me all you like, I'll keep pounding the things that limit Ronnie to a basement office instead of the oval office. Or you can grow up and accept reality and I won't reiterate the things you find uncomfortable.

and if both of you get banned for posting private messages, I say good riddance

 

[ShroomDr]

itisme do you think that the GOP would side with Paul if the election went to the House of Representatives?

 

[itisme]

itisme do you think that the GOP would side with Paul if the election went to the House of Representatives?

Don't know. I do know I live in a Republican Southern state and my dad hates Obama and would vote for Ron Paul over him. However, He would vote for Obama if Newt were to get the spot.

Discobiscuit.
One of the most striking aspects you have developed is a distinct rhetoric of repression in the blame games and in depiction of concerted political violence as self-interested criminal activity to delegitimized Ron Paul, organizers, supporters, their motives, and their claims. You Point to traditions of rural banditry. Your covertly overt repressive rhetoric hinders our nation security in this way, the rhetoric of repression draws on an establishment of central social control.

Examples that you and media have used: 20 yr old newsletters, DB personal Gold Silver Ron Paul Gold Scandal, The War on Christmas (hehe) sorry I had to laugh at that one....

So who you like best? as I expect more Dogma...........

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I bet I could google that and find it verbatim

 

[itisme]

I bet I could google that and find it verbatim

Hardly verbatim but my owe my how fitting! It's merely a short history lesson

Try it...You want a link? http://fhs.dukejournals.org/content/34/4/611.abstract?related-urls=yes&legid=ddfhs;34/4/611

Here is what I googled (fight communist rhetoric online)

I just don't do it for a living and hide facts You see I don't do this as a profession like you and your 12,000 posts but I know when somebody is copy and pasting shit like you do. You don't speak the way you type (copy & paste) in here. I do.....Because I am speaking my mind not rhetoric but I can surely enhance my arguments in the same prefab fashion you and your agenda crew do.

Evidence below

Discobiscuit.
One of the most striking aspects you have developed is a distinct rhetoric of repression in the blame games and in depiction of concerted political violence as self-interested criminal activity to delegitimized Ron Paul, organizers, supporters, their motives, and their claims. You Point to traditions of rural banditry. Your covertly overt repressive rhetoric hinders our nation security in this way, the rhetoric of repression draws on an establishment of central social control.

EXPOSED you are, Yoda says

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

hey, way to reword a not original thought

 

[BrnCow]

If I can't get Ron Paul.. or Gary Johnson, I want Alfred E. Newman for pres....

 

[itisme]

original thought

Where is yours? You can't even pick a candidate!

My original thought was to google (how to fight communist rhetoric online) and Viola.
Full results http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-....,cf.osb&fp=2f0b188327e19041&biw=1280&bih=929

Article below: Link- http://fhs.dukejournals.org/content/34/4/611.abstract?related-urls=yes&legid=ddfhs;34/4/611

One of the most striking aspects of the Vietnamese political disorders that erupted in Tonkin and Annam in 1930–31 was how the French colonial authorities represented them. The colonial authorities developed a distinct rhetoric of repression in the blame games that followed the outbreak of the Yen Bay mutiny in February 1930 and in the more protracted unrest associated with the Nghe-Tinh Soviets in Annam. The depiction of concerted political violence as self-interested criminal activity delegitimized its organizers, their motives, and their claims. Pointing to traditions of rural banditry and local particularism, Governor-General Pierre Pasquier’s administration insisted to sometimes skeptical officials and parliamentarians in France that the extreme repression meted out by the colonial security forces was effective, appropriate, and popularly understood. In this way Yen Bay’s rhetoric of repression drew on an established language of colonial social control to justify a strategy of extreme state violence.

...at the time I googled it, it was only the 2nd from the top.... I could not believe how relevant it was to what I had been saying. I was shocked

It isn't my fault that the first link I found applied directly to what you have been doing for 43 pages.....How could I had known that would happen? How could I find a connection like that and apply it so easily to what I have been saying about you and your intentions in this thread and most likely forum........How is that my fault?

DISCOBISCUIT all you have is......

a distinct rhetoric of repression in the blame games and in depiction of concerted political violence as self-interested criminal activity to delegitimized Ron Paul, organizers, supporters, their motives, and their claims. You Point to traditions of rural banditry. Your covertly overt repressive rhetoric hinders our nation security in this way, the rhetoric of repression draws on an establishment of central social control.

I bet I could google that and find it verbatim

That was hardly verbatim but my owe my how fitting! It's merely a short history lesson. "Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

If court were out of session I would be getting celebratory drunk off my ass Consider yourself EXPOSED! Now go to bed.