USA - Ron Paul - Freedom of Choice!

[Mmats]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANP0pla9Md8

He makes a very good arguement that government should not regulate what grown people ingest and take into their own body.

Shouldnt taxpayers care that their money is being wasted on locking up non-violent drug users? I want my money being used for keeping rapists and murderers in jail, not some burnout that couldnt hurt a fly. Why is Ron Paul the only presidential candidate with this stance?

[SuprSonik]

Originally Posted by Mmats

Why is Ron Paul the only presidential candidate with this stance?

Because no other (major) candidate is brave enough to take that stance. Ask most people what they think about legalizing drugs and prostitution, and see their reaction. It's not positive. Their thinking may not be rational or based on logic and facts, but it is how the vast majority of people in the United States (and most, if not all other countries) think about those subjects.

They don't hear him arguing for freedom of choice or civil liberties, they hear what they want to hear, what they've been told to hear, and that is basically "drugs are bad". Once (most) people hear what Ron Paul is saying, they basically come to the conclusion that he is advocating drug use and is probably a drug user himself. There's no thinking beyond that, as we've been programmed to immediately come to the conclusion that drugs are bad, and therefore this candidate must be bad as well.

No candidate who has a real chance of winning (unfortunately, Ron Paul does not) would go anywhere near that kind of stance, and if they did, they would no longer have a chance of winning.

Reputation Comments on this post:

totally agree

[Nature Boy]

I agree with a lot of Ron Paul's views but time and time again I've seen him over the last few weeks completely freeze when asked about issues that concern other Republicans, the ones whose votes he needs. When asked about the War in Iraq he suggests pulling troops out and gives no real explanation. I know he's a libertarian at heart but his opinion won't sit well with many. Insofar as the Republican candidates go, I put him in sixth. Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain and even Thompson (who thinks Russia is still the USSR) are streaks ahead of him. That's pretty weak considering all of the Republican candidates have obvious flaws in the eyes of the conservative voters. Giuliani's personal life and New York background, Romney because he's a Mormon, Huckabee because he's small town and still not very well known, McCain because he's soft on immigration and Thompson, well, because he's a plain idiot. That reflects very badly on Paul. He shouldn't affiliate himself with the Republicans anymore.

[Mmats]

His stance on the war in iraq is to pull out asap, what more explanation is needed? We are losing american lives over there because "it will be a mess if we pull out". Guess what, it wasnt that great before we went in. And by staying, the families of every iraqi civilian we accidentally kill is much more likely to turn into newly recruited terrorists. You see, for every terrorist we kill we create 2 new ones.

If they want democracy, they have to rise up and do it themselves, just like we did. The longer we stay, the longer we delay them from doing so.

[zera]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

I agree with a lot of Ron Paul's views but time and time again I've seen him over the last few weeks completely freeze when asked about issues that concern other Republicans, the ones whose votes he needs. When asked about the War in Iraq he suggests pulling troops out and gives no real explanation. I know he's a libertarian at heart but his opinion won't sit well with many. Insofar as the Republican candidates go, I put him in sixth. Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain and even Thompson (who thinks Russia is still the USSR) are streaks ahead of him. That's pretty weak considering all of the Republican candidates have obvious flaws in the eyes of the conservative voters. Giuliani's personal life and New York background, Romney because he's a Mormon, Huckabee because he's small town and still not very well known, McCain because he's soft on immigration and Thompson, well, because he's a plain idiot. That reflects very badly on Paul. He shouldn't affiliate himself with the Republicans anymore.

Intrade contracts on Ron Paul are trading at around 6% probability on inTrade, a political betting site. Normally betting markets have proven to be more accurate than any pundit predictions. He's ahead of Thompson, but behind the four major ones. Him and Huckabee were both trading at around 9% last week (both above McCain), but Huckabee is not up to 18% and he went down. Normally markets show some sense of mean reversion, so I would say his long-term prospects are closer to 8.5%.

It's not great, but if Huckabee incredible dumbness is exposed now that he's in the limelight (and trust me this guy is dumb with a capital duh) I think Paul can clean up with some of the anti-establishment conservatives that Huckabee's momentum is built on now.

[entheogensmurf]

Dennis Kucinich is for medial marijuana, legalization of some drugs and he's against the war with the plans of pulling out. --- and he's pro-choice and for stem cell research. He's not a coward and his fellow democrats fall under his shadow that is not based on stature but common sense, intelligence and morality. He doesn't cower behind the veil of the obviously nonexistant personal god either...

His illegal immigrant choices disgust me and his gun control views. I may be willing to swallow those in trade for the more important factors. There are some other negatives but overall he's a Pimmmmp.

[phatstrife]

Not that I'm necessarily opposed to differing points of view, but how any (not that you are or I am or we ever could be a) "drug user" could support most any republican presidential candidate, besides Ron Paul, is besides me. Not that any, except for Kucinich (my ideological favorite), democrats openly support the end of drug prohibition. I nevertheless find it much more likely that a "republican" would be unable to understand the need to understand other cultures and to ensure their continued and unoppressed existence. They are much more susceptible to prejudice and hate that the much more tolerant policies of the democrats.

As for Huckabee, I understand his populist economics views, but his social conservatism is simply too much to bear. I'm sorry but no matter how William Jennings Bryan (from whom it seems Huckabee acquired many of his political ideologies) may have change the face of American politics for the better, he was still the strongest supporter of prohibition and various anti-evolution acts.

As for the Democrats, Hillary will do nothing life altering or beneficial beyond the ordinary. I hope that Obama would have enough gusto to push past the various political forces that would conspire against him. He may be inspirational and as of yet relatively untainted by the Washington slime, but I have yet to be assured he will remain so, and remain so with dignity. Practically, I would hope for Edwards, as he seems to be the more sincerely concerned with the problems of true Americans, and has at least spent enough time in the political game to understand its basic underpinnings, and hopefully use it to his advantage.

Anyone who merely wishes that Ron Paul and his extreme Libertarian policies would win should please be more realistic. I too wish fraternal anarchism were the prevalent means of governing, but I nevertheless understand government is necessary to maintain civilization. I merely wish people understood that civilizations were completely capable of existing in harmony even with sever differences in cultures if the various cultures were willing to tolerate each other.

[aionsan]

Most people who are against drugs aren't even hardcore anti-drug freaks.

Most of them are part of the most disgusting ilk. The "i'll tell you what's good for you because you're too dumb to regulate yourself" type.

All they can do anyway is whine all the time and spew their inane prattle on tv about how drugs are gonna take over the world and make all our kids psychotic. Crap like that you know the deal already...

[BEEKSc1]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

I know he's a libertarian at heart but his opinion won't sit well with many..

That's like excusing ignorance, if Americans were fully informed, he would would be leading the poles, no doubts. Ron Paul is considered a constitionalist with guidance through the principle's that the founding father's laid out in the Constitution. We shouldn't get caught in terminology left right... it's part of the "democratic illusion" Paul is running on principle's, mainly freedom for individuals, not corporations. Paul opposes the New World Order, declined the Patriot Act, never voted to increase taxes; he has the most consistent voting record among candidates; honest, humble, Doctor of Medicine.
America's true hope, Ron Paul

People who usually consider themselves to lean toward the "left" are providing alot of the grassroots movements for ron paul
and plus when he's talking about the free market, he often reefers* to "legalization of competition"; he's against the so called war on drugs because he's among many, many others who know legalization of herb would jump-start the economy

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by BEEKSc1

That's like excusing ignorance, if Americans were fully informed, he would would be leading the poles, no doubts.

Ah yes but if ifs and buts were fruit and nuts we'd all be very happy.

America will never be fully informed, not like any country is, but you just have to look at the state of the nation. The world's lone superpower, heavily militaristic, bureaucratic, religious and patriotic in an uncertain political climate which has to deal with the perceived threat of terrorism, global temperature change, scientific revelation and an unstable economy that may very well be hanging on its last thread.

Whether cannabis would jump-start the economy is something that isn't known to people, not even those who are fairly well informed. It may damage the revolving-door prison system and all the governmental offices in place that denounce cannabis use. But few realists would consider these to be serious risks, however most headless chickens have the wool of "morality" pulled over their eyes. Others think it would lead to motoring disasters on a regular basis. I would imagine some politicians with vested interest in the tobacco and liquor industries fear the legalisation of cannabis as it could become a thorn in their profit margins. I strongly disagree with this. Ever have this conversation...

Person 1: "Hey buddy, want a beer?"

Person 2: "God no! I just smoked some weed!! Who could ever do such a thing?!"

Or alternatively...

Person 1: "Hey buddy, fancy a cheeky toke?"

Person 2: "Fuck no! I just had a beer. A nice, relaxing smoke is the LAST thing I'd ever want!"

Didn't think so.

[Broshious]

I dunno about Ron Paul anymore. I thought he was great, but I've found out some things that don't sit so well with me. He's said that he doesn't want to ban abortion at a federal level, but this sure sounds like it would do just that:

H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

He also apparently has a problem with gays:

From H.R.7955: A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life:

"Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style."

And lastly if he's a libertarian why would he sponser this:

H.J.RES.80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

[TheBlackPope]

Originally Posted by Mmats

You see, for every terrorist we kill we create 2 new ones. .

That is forshure a correct statistic. No bias at all.

[purplehaze]

Originally Posted by Broshious

[/I]And lastly if he's a libertarian why would he sponser this:

H.J.RES.80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

Swim thinks this is most likely to show american's that he cares about the country. This law will probably not go into effect because it is stupid. A flag is just a piece of material. Other than its symbolic meaning to usa, it still remains a piece of material.


Ron paul should be in office regardless of his downfalls just to show the public that drugs are not what the media puts them out to be.
He definitaly cannot be any worse than bush.

[BEEKSc1]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

I would imagine some politicians with vested interest in the tobacco and liquor industries fear the legalisation of cannabis as it could become a thorn in their profit margins. I strongly disagree with this.

I agree, yea the status quo is poor, but has it been rich since the domination by european men? I agree that a scientific dictatorship is being shaped up (as described by Huxley and others), but it's not set in stone. Social consciousness can start the spread exponentially, ie consciousness singularity.

About the tobacco companies, they are struggling primarily because the health insurance corporations are pushing this big anti-smoking junk. It's backward how it works, but once the tobacco co lobbyists add momentum to the legalization movement, and marijuana is legalized. that's it, it will be a huge step for the people.

And to debunk the gateway theory? if people had legal access to cannabis and most people who were interested in elevating or altering their awareness levels tried cannabis before another other drug: those people who first tried cannabis would have a tendency to possible try other drugs, but have *no/significantly minimized desire* to stick with a substance (on a habitual basis) other than the herb. That wouldn't hold true for about 5% of those who experimented with other drugs; but generally this would hold true. It pavlovian conditioning, a process of learning. Comparisons to first experience - it would seem common place that people compare subsequent drug experiences to the first one.

The two scenarios are humorious, it's unfortunate - that's how it is.
I wasn't aware of the things posted by Brosh; but, outlawing abortion won't happen. A canidate might talk about it, but that's because Ron Paul was prolly addressing some fundamentalists. Paul is a politician, he has to cover this ground.

[Mmats]

Originally Posted by Broshious

I dunno about Ron Paul anymore. I thought he was great, but I've found out some things that don't sit so well with me. He's said that he doesn't want to ban abortion at a federal level, but this sure sounds like it would do just that:

H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

He also apparently has a problem with gays:

From H.R.7955: A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life:

"Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style."

And lastly if he's a libertarian why would he sponser this:

H.J.RES.80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

Ill take these one at a time starting with the first.

Originally Posted by Broshious

H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception

The only thing this is designed to do, and Ron Paul has explicitly mentioned this bill, is REMOVE the jurisdiction of the federal government in deciding these abortion cases. Because currently, with Row vs Wade, the federal government has OVERRULED states decisions, making abortion legal in ALL states regardless of ther individual laws. Its very clear in the bill, which you can see here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-2597 . In the second to last line of the summary it says "Makes federal court decisions not binding precedent on the courts of any state or their subdivisions, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States or their subdivisions."

Ron Paul has said that this bill would be enacted in much shorter time than trying to repeal Row vs Wade.

On to the next one you mention.

Originally Posted by Broshious

H.R.7955: A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.

First of all, this bill isnt listed on any government website. I was only able to find mention of it on a blog and a forum, both of which were part of a list trying to discredit Ron Paul. Secondly, I dont really see a problem with this bill anyways, Ron Paul has said he is against federal funding of ANY organization that is based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.. So you wouldnt see him voting in favor of a bill that provides funding to an organization that promotes heterosexuality over homosexuality either. But i digress, if you can find this bill on any government website, please share the link.

The last thing you mention.

Originally Posted by Broshious

H.J.RES.80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

Again, I cant find any government website with an H.J.RES.80 matching the description you wrote. All I could find was this http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HJ00080:@@@L&summ2=m& . If there is indeed a resolution matching your description, please share a link. This is a pretty small issue anyways but I would agree with you that federal government has no jurisdiction over a privately owned flag, you should be able to wipe your ass with it if you liked. I doubt Ron Paul would vote for such a thing.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Nice follow-up work. Fact checking is something that is always sorely lacking on the internet, so its nice to see it.

[Mmats]

crap i just realized the admins dont want us linking to any .GOV sites. how the hell do i edit?

[zera]

I don't believe people with a rank below Silver Member can edit posts. Just PM a mod.

[Broshious]

Found a site debunking the flag burning thing. My bad.

"He then links to two bills which Paul introduced in Congress which would, in essence, amend the Constitution in order to allow prohibitions on flag burning. But Neiwert's claim here is, in one respect, completely misleading and, in another respect, outright false (in both cases, I assume the error is unintentional). Unlike Hillary Clinton -- the Democratic Party front-runner who, "along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal" -- Ron Paul was and is vehemently against any and all laws to criminalize flag burning, including the constitutional amendment he introduced. He introduced that amendment solely to make a point -- one he makes frequently -- that the legislation being offered to criminalize flag burning was plainly unconstitutional, and that the only legitimate way to ban flag burning was to amend the First Amendment.

Indeed, he only introduced those flag-burning amendments in order to dare his colleagues who wanted to pass a law banning flag burning to do it that way -- i.e., the constitutional way. When introducing his amendments, he delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech on the floor of the House explaining why he considered anti-flag-burning measures to be "very unnecessary and very dangerous." And he urged his colleagues to vote against them, including the ones he introduced"



Wow. The other one took awhile to figure out what the hell was going on. He DID in fact sponser that bill. He did however(I believe) in response to another bill with the same title:

H.R.6028 "A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life through education, tax assistance, and related measures."

Afraid the link won't work right. Search for bills in 1979-1980 for Ron Paul and "strengthening american family" to find it. hxxp://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d096query.html

He is clearly mocking said bill with his own:

Should come up with the first search

I do know that Ron Paul has stated explicitly that he merely wants to remove Roe v. Wade and not ban abortion, but I still can't see how declaring that life begins at conception, and not have that mean that states must condemn abortion as murder. I think I'm probably reading it wrong, but that's what I keep getting.

[Mmats]

Brosh just read the second to last line and it should be clear - "Makes federal court decisions not binding precedent on the courts of any state or their subdivisions, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States or their subdivisions."

The only reason the bill declares human life to begin at conception is because that would effectively repeal Row vs Wade. Without that declaration, it would be considered unconstitutional for states to handle abortion as they see fit. You would probably find that someone from his campaign could answer it better than me, you could always email them.

Reputation Comments on this post:

SILVER STATUS?

[cganon]

Originally Posted by phatstrife

democrats openly support the end of drug prohibition.

Do they, I never heard that before?

Which ones?

[Perception Addict]

Originally Posted by Mmats

The only thing this is designed to do, and Ron Paul has explicitly mentioned this bill, is REMOVE the jurisdiction of the federal government in deciding these abortion cases. Because currently, with Row vs Wade, the federal government has OVERRULED states decisions, making abortion legal in ALL states regardless of ther individual laws.

Well I want abortion to be legal in all states.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phatstrife
democrats openly support the end of drug prohibition.

Do they, I never heard that before?

Which ones?

Clinton and Edwards are both beginning to attack elements of the war on drugs, including mandatory minimums for drug offenders and decriminalizing certain types of drug crimes. I suspect that Obama agrees.

Also, I think the original poster may have been referring to democrats in general, and I can tell you that as a very strong liberal democrat, i support an end to the war on drugs completely, and believe that many democrats would agree with me.

[cganon]

Originally Posted by Perception Addict

I think the original poster may have been referring to democrats in general.

Do the Democrat's policies in America reflect the wants of their voters, either openly or in spirit?

The trouble with our democracies is that elections seem to be won on one or two much 'larger' issues and cartain wants of the masses will never be in a campaign policy. Thus, they may never be properly addressed.

People would be more interested in politics if many more issues would be addressed by way of a national voting system, meaning we can decide on an ongoing basis what we can and can't do as individuals with issues that don't win elections (seat belts, drugs, death penalty, food labelling, prostitution, citizens rights). In America this could be on a state by state basis meaing you can move to a state that best suits your ideals

Any laws that have a huge detrimental impact can be removed.

[Perception Addict]

I don't know that I totally or even mostly agree, but I also don't want this to turn into a political flaming war, so I think it's acceptable to accept our differences of opinion.

Admittedly, though, I am rather a radical, so just because the democratic policies tend to agree with my beliefs, it is not inconceivable that that may not be true of the beliefs of more moderate democrats.

[cganon]

Originally Posted by Perception Addict

but I also don't want this to turn into a political flaming war.

Sorry, my comments on whether the Democrats policies were in line with the voters was a genuine question - I was wondering if they got elected would we would see some change. I have no preference to Democrat or Republic I am from the UK.

Having said that, I'd rather have somebody else pulling Bush's strings than Cheney!

[Def]

It'll boil down to the lesser of two evils come elections. I'm completely down for Ron but the only thing I believe that will hold him down the most are his extreme ideas of eliminating the IRS/CIA/etc. Sure, we could rework them and draw less power from them, but to completely eliminate them isn't going to work.