Ron Paul answers a question from a medical marijuana patient

[angry nomad]

YouTube - Rep. Ron Paul meets a medical marijuana patient--Nov. 9 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHS_y94H1Dk)

[DurbanStone]

I am a Canadian, but if I was an american, I would vote for this guy, I've seen nothing but great things from him.

[angry nomad]

Yeah buddy. If he does not get elected, my wife and I are going to consider moving to Canada.

[TOOL9]

Ron Paul is the MAN.

[DurbanStone]

This isn't going to sound right, but you'll enjoy it here in Canada. I have been to many countries, and Canada wins by a long shot, I'm very glad I have it to call home. Very very lucky indeed.

[Markass]

This isn't going to sound right, but you'll enjoy it here in Canada. I have been to many countries, and Canada wins by a long shot, I'm very glad I have it to call home. Very very lucky indeed.

And also when there's something wrong with you, you can go to the doctor without having to worry about getting sued if you can't afford health insurance :thumbsup:

[suhl]

Yeah buddy. If he does not get elected, my wife and I are going to consider moving to Canada.

well hes not getting elected, so id start considering brosef unless you are really that naive, but that is impossible

[romdog11]

i still hope he gets elected. even if it is a long shot its something to hope for

[KingsBlend420]

My roommate is a huge supporter of Ron Paul. I've kinda gotten interested in what he has to stand for myself. It's way too early to tell who I support though. Definitely not Clinton though.

[texas grass]

every day he makes more and more sense

[Nailhead]

This isn't going to sound right, but you'll enjoy it here in Canada. I have been to many countries, and Canada wins by a long shot, I'm very glad I have it to call home. Very very lucky indeed.
I'm thinking about taking a vacation trip to Vancouver next year, not sure if I could ever get myself to move though, I love So Cal and our weather too much, but I'd at least like to check it out

[JohnnyII]

And also when there's something wrong with you, you can go to the doctor without having to worry about getting sued if you can't afford health insurance :thumbsup:

Yes, and have to wait a long time for poor service. Universal health care would greatly lower the quality of health care in the US. Plus, I'd like to see where you could get the money for all the expensive treatment. Canada seems like a really cool place from what everyone has told me, but I dislike the vastly liberal policies. I want to be able to keep my own money and make my own decisions.

[MadSativa]

this guy is not going anywhere in office. Hes like all the others all talk, we all know everything hes saying and yet most dont care. Unless he organizes a federal police to police the police, its all talk. Hes another bush, full of promises he will never keep. Personaly I tierd of they talk the all sound like truth loud boxes. Every one just turns the loud box down if they cant turn it off........................Taalk, Talk, Talk, its all talk, At least most of use smoking is a gesture to them saying fuck you.

[JohnnyII]

this guy is not going anywhere in office. Hes like all the others all talk, we all know everything hes saying and yet most dont care. Unless he organizes a federal police to police the police, its all talk. Hes another bush, full of promises he will never keep. Personaly I tierd of they talk the all sound like truth loud boxes. Every one just turns the loud box down if they cant turn it off........................Taalk, Talk, Talk, its all talk, At least most of use smoking is a gesture to them saying fuck you.

Ron Paul has the most consistent record out of any US Rep.

[toxyg3n]

I am a Canadian, but if I was an american, I would vote for this guy, I've seen nothing but great things from him.

Hell yeah, dude.
I support him all the way.
Only problem is he's probably not going to make it, I hope he does though.

[toxyg3n]

this guy is not going anywhere in office. Hes like all the others all talk, we all know everything hes saying and yet most dont care. Unless he organizes a federal police to police the police, its all talk. Hes another bush, full of promises he will never keep. Personaly I tierd of they talk the all sound like truth loud boxes. Every one just turns the loud box down if they cant turn it off........................Taalk, Talk, Talk, its all talk, At least most of use smoking is a gesture to them saying fuck you.

I deny that he's another Bush.
Bush's cover up to be a complete douche bag was 9/11.. he was still a somewhat douche bag to begin with.
So you're saying that Ron Paul is going to do alright until something unexpected happens and he turns into another warmonger?

[Old Stoner]

I'm not a warmonger by any means, but I fully understand the threat from radical islamist terrorists. They want to kill us ALL. Simply because we do not believe like they do.

Ron Paul scares the shit out of me on his National Security stance. I believe we need to stay on the offense on the war on terror, and not "bring the boys home." (Incidentally, two of those "boys" are my sons) And end up fighting the terrorists on our soil. Just MHO.

I rather be alive, and smoking pot, as a "criminal", without legalization. It sure as hell beats the alternative.

Right now, I don't have a clue as to who I'll vote for. But one thing I know for sure. It will NOT be Ron Paul.

Boy, did I open myself up for flaming THIS time. Gotta stay off the political boards, LOL...

[the image reaper]

REALITY = Ron Paul won't even come close to winning a single County, in the National election ... (thank God) ... :smokin:

[Old Stoner]

That is true, Reaper. A vote for Paul would just be wasted. Vote for someone who will keep us from being killed by radical islamist terrorists. THAT is the main thing confronting us a s a people in this day and time.

Legalization will come eventually, however if we do not fight terrorism, we won't have the chance to enjoy it.

[Markass]

Yes, and have to wait a long time for poor service. Universal health care would greatly lower the quality of health care in the US. Plus, I'd like to see where you could get the money for all the expensive treatment. Canada seems like a really cool place from what everyone has told me, but I dislike the vastly liberal policies. I want to be able to keep my own money and make my own decisions.

Listen to what you're saying. If we get a president who will end the war AND give us socialized medicine I think the 80 million a day going into iraq could be used to send some smart middle to lower class individuals through medical school who cannot afford it.

It works in canada...maybe cause they aren't dumping money into iraq??

[Markass]

That is true, Reaper. A vote for Paul would just be wasted. Vote for someone who will keep us from being killed by radical islamist terrorists. THAT is the main thing confronting us a s a people in this day and time.

Legalization will come eventually, however if we do not fight terrorism, we won't have the chance to enjoy it.

I'm sorry, but are you implying that because we're in a war thousands upon thousands of miles away we're not ever going to be attacked by terrorists? Because they almost did at fort dix, and they almost did at jfk airport...but we stopped them...and oh yeah, did I mention it was on OUR soil? These poor fuckers don't have the resources to invade our country and fight us on our soil, because they haven't in thousands of years. They fucking hijacked motherfucking airplanes...after they learned to fly them in AMERICA..Then they used a flying bomb to destroy two towers.

Why? Because the ultimate tactic isn't attacking a country, it is making a country pour their money and resources and soldiers into a country, to waste them...all the while the country plumits, people despise the president, and economic desperity..

All for what? For tomorrow when three or four more little terrorists are born, and their parents begin to instill their values upon these children, just as they've done for thousands of years, practicing their religion freely.

It's okay to practice any religion you want, as long as it doesn't involve what they believe in, or anything to do with marijuana...?

what you're seeming to not grasp here is the fact that the same crazy bastards killing our troops over there are the same ones we're letting into our country every day, freely to get together with more of the same crazy motherfuckers in OUR country on OUR soil...

You cannot kill a religion and beliefs by killing people, it will always be written in whatever the fuck they have...caves or whatever. It'll be there, forever, and they will believe in it forever.

[Psycho4Bud]

Half of the posts in this was about terrorism and Iraq so I moved it to politics. This now has NOTHING to do about Medical Marijuana news.:mad:

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[phx123]

In short here's what Ron Pauls view on foreign policy is..
They don't attack us because of our freedoms or because we don't think like they do.. they attack us because we've been meddling around in the middle east for over 50 years. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years, we've set up bases in Saudi Arabia which they call Holy Land, we've been messing with them for a long time. The CIA calls this blowback, it's in the 9/11 commission report, michael scheuffer supports this position (head chief of CIA Bin Laden Unit).. and even bin laden gave scheuffer a shout out in his video (if you don't believe me on why we hate you, maybe you'll believe an America).

We can't go around the world doing what we want, trying to impose our will on others, without inciting hatred.. that is the main motivation for September 11th and terrorist attacks. What would we think if another country like China came over here and started doing this to us? We would try to fight. Why aren't terrorists attacking other free countries like France or something? C'mon... thinking they attack us because of our freedoms is extremely dangerous thinking and very ignorant. It is better if we just came home and protected.. they wouldn't have an incentive to attack us and we'd be a lot less likely to even be attacked.. and we can spend all that TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars here protecting ourselves, our borders and helping our people here at home instead of wasting it overseas trying to police the world and build an empire. It is the ONLY economically feasible policy and the only sane and feasible foreign policy. Think about it guys.. do some research. We're going broke, we have to borrow billions of dollars each day from China, Japan, etc just to fund the war.. Our national debt is 9 trillion+. The dollar is getting weaker and weaker and we're printing money out of thin air. This defective foreign policy is costing us lives, money and the sacrifice of civil liberties here at home. It doesn't make sense.

BTW, Ron Paul voted to go after the terrorists after 9/11.. but he was the first to say NO to Iraq. Like I said, he has the only sane foreign policy and anyone who believes otherwise is brainwashed by the media and hasn't done enough research to know the truth.

[JohnnyII]

In short here's what Ron Pauls view on foreign policy is..
They don't attack us because of our freedoms or because we don't think like they do.. they attack us because we've been meddling around in the middle east for over 50 years. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years, we've set up bases in Saudi Arabia which they call Holy Land, we've been messing with them for a long time. The CIA calls this blowback, it's in the 9/11 commission report, michael scheuffer supports this position (head chief of CIA Bin Laden Unit).. and even bin laden gave scheuffer a shout out in his video (if you don't believe me on why we hate you, maybe you'll believe an America).

We can't go around the world doing what we want, trying to impose our will on others, without inciting hatred.. that is the main motivation for September 11th and terrorist attacks. What would we think if another country like China came over here and started doing this to us? We would try to fight. Why aren't terrorists attacking other free countries like France or something? C'mon... thinking they attack us because of our freedoms is extremely dangerous thinking and very ignorant. It is better if we just came home and protected.. they wouldn't have an incentive to attack us and we'd be a lot less likely to even be attacked.. and we can spend all that TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars here protecting ourselves, our borders and helping our people here at home instead of wasting it overseas trying to police the world and build an empire. It is the ONLY economically feasible policy and the only sane and feasible foreign policy. Think about it guys.. do some research. We're going broke, we have to borrow billions of dollars each day from China, Japan, etc just to fund the war.. Our national debt is 9 trillion+. The dollar is getting weaker and weaker and we're printing money out of thin air. This defective foreign policy is costing us lives, money and the sacrifice of civil liberties here at home. It doesn't make sense.

BTW, Ron Paul voted to go after the terrorists after 9/11.. but he was the first to say NO to Iraq. Like I said, he has the only sane foreign policy and anyone who believes otherwise is brainwashed by the media and hasn't done enough research to know the truth.

Paul wins.

[angry nomad]

I liked Ron Paul's response to the patient.

[PharmaCan]

Hello - Time for a reality check here. There is no "War on Terror". If there were a war on terror, our borders would protected.

Maybe there should be a war on terror, but right now there is not.

PC :smokin:

[Old Stoner]

I'm sorry, but are you implying that because we're in a war thousands upon thousands of miles away we're not ever going to be attacked by terrorists?

No, not what I am saying at all. They have tried, and so far in six years, THEY HAVE FAILED. Thousands have been arrested, stopped cold. Could be a LOT WORSE.


Why? Because the ultimate tactic isn't attacking a country, it is making a country pour their money and resources and soldiers into a country, to waste them...all the while the country plumits, people despise the president, and economic desperity..


Yep, Americans have gone soft. We cannot compare to the having the resolve of our forefathers. We had to go through YEARS of war just towhere we are today. However, if a World War started NOW, Americans wouldn't be able to handle it. WHY? Because we have gotten used to sitting on the couch and getting stoned. Or raising the kids. Or whatever. We have all become pussies (sorry for the French, but it's true).

Even up against someone who, if they met you in a dark alley, would KILL YOU for NO REASON AT ALL, well, sorry, they do have a reason. It's just because they disagree with our way of life.

These folks ain't kidding. They want YOU dead. Believe it or not. You must KNOW who you are dealing with - terrorists know THEY must.


All for what? For tomorrow when three or four more little terrorists are born, and their parents begin to instill their values upon these children, just as they've done for thousands of years, practicing their religion freely.


I guess if that happens, then my grandchildren will be fighting them. Just as my sons are now. Just as millions of other young men and women have done since day one. They keep "you" FREE. You needn't tell my family about war. We KNOW what is at stake.

May I ask your age, Markass? Just wondering if that has something to do with it.


what you're seeming to not grasp here is the fact that the same crazy bastards killing our troops over there are the same ones we're letting into our country every day, freely to get together with more of the same crazy motherfuckers in OUR country on OUR soil....

ROFLMAO, I am grasping that fact ENTIRELY. Home defense sucks, but it is getting better. I believe illegals should be deported immediately. My ancestors had to come through legally, but many others slide right through. How do YOU propose to stop illegal immigration?


You cannot kill a religion and beliefs by killing people, it will always be written in whatever the fuck they have...caves or whatever. It'll be there, forever, and they will believe in it forever.


What YOU are failing to grasp is that it is NOT the religion with whom we are at war. We are at war with RADICALS WITHIN THAT RELIGION. Those radicals, whose use of God is to kill. Man, sounds like a great, peaceful section of the Muslim religion.

I am all for staying on the offense, which, apparently, some people cannot grasp that concept. Most never served a day in the military. So they have limited knowledge of that aspect, and of what we are up against.

Terrorism is the most pressing issue that faces America NOW. Ron Paul propses to pull ALL troops back inside the U.S. Let's "talk" to them. Ok, Ron, let's see if Osama will set you up with an appointment to visit with him. I sure he won't mind...

[JohnnyII]

Osama still isn't wanted by the FBI because there is no hard evidence linking him with 9/11.

FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" (http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html)

[Breukelen advocaat]

He's got a 25 million dollar bounty placed on his head by the FBI, for things he did prior to 9/11. FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive - Usama Bin Laden (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm)

As far as "evidence": He was not there - but he freely admits to being responsible for it, in films and other media sources.

[JohnnyII]

He's got a 25 million dollar bounty placed on his head by the FBI, for things he did prior to 9/11. FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive - Usama Bin Laden (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm)

As far as "evidence": He was not there - but he freely admits to being responsible for it, in films and other media sources.

Actually, was he Osama?

Expert Goes On Record: Bin Laden 9/11 Confession Is Bogus (http://www.infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_tape.htm)

Not trying to defend Osama, but I don't believe he was behind 9/11. In other interviews other than the tape that "he" confessed on (look at that link) he has claimed innocence and proclaims that attacking women and children is against Islamic Jihad law.

[Old Stoner]

Close a damn 'nuff for me, Breukelen. Bin Laden has STATED in one of his infamous tapes that he was behind 9/11. I'll have to search to find the damned thing...

I hope the find him and bar-b-que his ass.

Anywho, this post has migrated from what Ron Paul said about Cannabis to the war and then to bin Laden.

That is why I hate political boards... Everyone has an opinion, and we ALL know what opinions are like...

Ron Paul is, IMHO, a direct threat to national security. Period. READ his website. Other than liberating us potsmokers (which HE couldn't do if he WERE the president - remember those group of folks called CONGRESS?), I don't see but a few things that I actually agree on with him, although I am more of a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian.

Nope, Ron just won't fly with me. Nor Hillary, nor Osama Obama, nor Edwards (damned Jimmy Carter look/talk alike). Those four scare me. Bad.

STILL have not made up my mind. Researching the Libertarian candidate now.

[Old Stoner]

In other interviews other than the tape that "he" confessed on (look at that link) he has claimed innocence and proclaims that attacking women and children is against Islamic Jihad law.


Bullshit. Then WHY do they regularly kill innocent women and children daily in Iraq, and elsewhere?

They (terrorists) will say anything when cornered. Yep, tha's what I'd do, believe a terrorist, who is KNOWN for the blatant disregard of women and children.

Hell, even the radical Islam they promote treat women like turds. Geez, some people never cease to amaze me...

[the image reaper]

Ron Paul was a guest on talk-radio 2 days ago ... he is as brainless and irresponsible, as anyone I have ever seen run for office ... anybody that would vote for that clown needs professional help ... end of rant :wtf:

[JohnnyII]

Bullshit. Then WHY do they regularly kill innocent women and children daily in Iraq, and elsewhere?

They (terrorists) will say anything when cornered. Yep, tha's what I'd do, believe a terrorist, who is KNOWN for the blatant disregard of women and children.

Hell, even the radical Islam they promote treat women like turds. Geez, some people never cease to amaze me...

Now "he" is "they"? Everyone is unique in their views, including militia-men (most non-biased term I could find).

Ron Paul is right on with his message. If the CIA would have never overthrown the Iranian government and enacted the Shah then we would probably have no problems with the Middle East, except for the US government's constant backing of everything Israel does. That term is called "blowback."

If someone raided my country and fucked shit up I know what I'd be doing...

[Psycho4Bud]

Now "he" is "they"? Everyone is unique in their views, including militia-men (most non-biased term I could find).

Ron Paul is right on with his message. If the CIA would have never overthrown the Iranian government and enacted the Shah then we would probably have no problems with the Middle East, except for the US government's constant backing of everything Israel does. That term is called "blowback."

All of this is because of Iran? The majority of the middle east has no time for Iran since they are the Shi-ite stronghold in the region.

As far as the Israel thing......which country has been twisting Israels arm now for years to sit down and negotiate with the Palistinians? Everytime there is a bit of success though you have assclowns like Hamas stating that they will not negotiate with the Jews and then start launching rockets from the areas given back to them.

Ron Paul, like his partner Alex Jones, has NO TIME for Israel and if the truth was know I think it goes farther than that.



If someone raided my country and fucked shit up I know what I'd be doing...

I know too.......you'd be on a web site stating on how it was all our own fault. After all, didn't the shit hit the fan AFTER 9-11?

Have a good one!:s4:

[BathingApes]

"I know too.......you'd be on a web site stating on how it was all our own fault."

Don't put words in his mouth. He didn't say that. The point is we don't have to pretend that we are attacked by terrorists for our freedom. Do you think we're completely innocent? Or 9/11 was just cause we're free? Us being in the middle east, makes them hate us, period. And you'd be a fool to claim otherwise.

(Dont twist this the other way and act like Im saying we deserve it - WE don't. However the government's actions have been terrible, and soon (election), WE will have the power to change the situation.

[Psycho4Bud]

Don't put words in his mouth. He didn't say that. The point is we don't have to pretend that we are attacked by terrorists for our freedom. Do you think we're completely innocent?

We were attacked on 9-11 which is why we have troops there....what else is there to think?

As for the freedom thing.......I replied to that in the other thread. NOT about that at all.


(Dont twist this the other way and act like Im saying we deserve it - WE don't. However the government's actions have been terrible, and soon (election), WE will have the power to change the situation.

I didn't state that.......Ron Paul did in the debates. So now we are back to where this thread started.....the joys of Ron Paul.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Fencewalker]

We were attacked on 9-11 which is why we have troops there....what else is there to think?
Yeah, makes perfect sense to me...15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens [http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm], Al-Queda was not welcome in Iraq under Saddam [http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0913-14.htm], so let's invade....Iraq!

I didn't state that.......Ron Paul did in the debates.
No he didn't. Ever. He made the connection between our foreign policy and blowback (which by the way the CIA and the 9-11 commission agree with him about), but he has never said "we deserved it".

Please, show me where he said it.

[WeedTillDeath]

You know Thomas Jefferson said something very interesting, he told us to beware when the government takes your liberties/freedoms for security. This is exactly what our country has done for probably 100 years. The thing that blows me away is that Americans are satisfied with the government taking away their freedoms, we are too apathetic as a people. And Americans are too scared. Terrorists don't hate us because we're American, they hate us because our government has interfered in their countries. Another thing the founding fathers were adamant about is to trade with all countries but allign with none. If America is important to you you will vote Ron Paul, plain and simple. And if you don't know enough about him, read up. Everything he says is complete truth-and the proof is in the pudding, Paul has raised more money than ever imagined because his message is American.

[Psycho4Bud]

Yeah, makes perfect sense to me...15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens [http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm], Al-Queda was not welcome in Iraq under Saddam [http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0913-14.htm], so let's invade....Iraq!

CAIRO - The regime of Saddam Hussain rejected repeated requests from Jordan to hand over Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who now heads Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Jordanian king said in an interview published on Thursday.

King Abdullah II told the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat that Jordan exerted â??big effortsâ?� with Saddamâ??s government to extradite al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian sentenced to death at home for terrorist activities.

â??But our demands that the former regime hand him over were in vain,â?� Abdullah said.

â??We had information that he entered Iraq from a neighboring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information we had, but they didnâ??t respond,â?� the king said.
Khaleej Times Online - Saddam refused to hand Zarqawi to Jordan: King Abdullah (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2005/May/middleeast_May570.xml&section=middleeast)

There was a connection not to mention the various other reasons mentioned earlier for invasion. As for the Saudi's.....Osama is too, what's the point? The Saudi government sure doesn't want the assclowns there.


No he didn't. Ever. He made the connection between our foreign policy and blowback (which by the way the CIA and the 9-11 commission agree with him about), but he has never said "we deserved it".

Please, show me where he said it.

Paul, who is more of a libertarian than a Republican, was trying to offer some perspective on the pitfalls of an interventionist policy by the American government in the affairs of the Middle East and other countries.

"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," he said.
Martin: Paul's 9/11 explanation deserves to be debated - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html)

"You Say Potato - I Say Potahtoe".......fact is he said MORE than enough! If that's not stating that we deserved a kick, it makes me wonder just how specific it has to be.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Psycho4Bud]

Everything he says is complete truth-and the proof is in the pudding, Paul has raised more money than ever imagined because his message is American.

LMAO!!! EVERYTHING THAT THIS POLITICIAN SAYS IS THE COMPLETE TRUTH!! Unreal..........

Have a good one!:s4:

[Old Stoner]

Psycho, roflmao on your avatar...

Reminds me of me with a Santa hat on, he, he, he...

Ron Paul ran Libertarian, I think, back in '88. You are right in saying he is a Libertarian.

NO politician is throwing everything he has in his pockets on the table. No telling what they are hiding in their drawers.... Liars, one and nearly all. I'd have to think HARD to find a totally truthful politician. They teach you how to lie in politician school. ;)

Reap, you are 100 percent dead on. Paul is about a logical and coherant as my wife's cat. He's an idiot, plain and simple.

Yep, legalize herb, and then pull all our troops back inside the country, and watch the missles/planes/ieds/bombs fly into the United States - The first idea is great (leagalization), but would we all be too stoned to care that New York City just got nuked? Or maybe YOUR town?

Geez, note to self : STAY OFF POLITICAL BOARDS. I just left one because certain people cannot see that these radical islamist terrorists want to kill us ALL, just because they do not agree with our way of life.

Good grief, Charlie Brown, good grief... :wtf:

[the image reaper]

Old Stoner, I try to stay out of the political discussions, because it's obvious there's only about 5-6 right-thinking people in here, anyway (those would be the 5-6 people that agree with me, the rest are just wrong :D) ... regardless, I replied to suggest you do what I do, when reflecting on the present state of the world ... I just sit in the yard, enjoy the fresh air, and beautiful sunshine ... and, clean my guns :jointsmile:

[Old Stoner]

ROFLMAO, Reap, amen to that. They can have my guns when they pry my...and you know the REST of the story!

Oh, and I just read your sig. I LOVE the " Youth and Skill are no match for Age and Treachery "

Ain't THAT the truth.

I tell my kids whatever they do, I've ALREADY DONE. They cannot fool me. And so far, they haven't, LOL...

[BathingApes]

Geez, note to self : STAY OFF POLITICAL BOARDS. I just left one because certain people cannot see that these radical islamist terrorists want to kill us ALL, just because they do not agree with our way of life.


You choose to think like that and you drag us ALL into a world war.

[BathingApes]

radical islamist terrorists want to kill us ALL

And how many radical islamist terrorists do you know? Radical islamist terrorist doesnt = a normal muslim. Don't ever forget that.

They are a very very very minor percentage of Muslim people. Just like some of the KKK are Christian, and SOME of them want to kill all black/jewish/muslim people etc. Of course the situation is slightly different, but the premise is the same.

And whatever, I'm done with stating my view about this. Fact is no matter what we do (on the left) an invasion of Iran is still going to happen. In about 50 years time (if I even live that long) you'll all see what such a big mistake it was.

Edit: Sorry meant to edit previous post, didn't mean to make two.

[Breukelen advocaat]

Stoning, legalized rape, beheadings, religious police patrolling the streets, and other horrors, do not belong in a civilized society. We should have NO respect, in any regard, for Islam. I don't care how many "peaceful" ones subscribe to it - it's barbaric.
YouTube - Islam in Europe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI5WoXpmPiM&feature=user),

[JohnnyII]

Whatever side you're on, one side will end up feeling very foolish 50 years from now. I hope it's the people in the Ron Paul camp (including myself), as I don't want to see the "others" being wrong, us being attacked the whole Islamic world after we go to war in both Iraq, Iran, maybe even Syria, etc. If the pro-war side is wrong, the consequences will be far more drastic and damaging than if the Ron Paul side ends up being wrong.

And to all those who are anti-Paul, why do you think America can just do whatever the hell it wants? America is no better than anyone or any other country. Countries in and of themselves just serve to separate people anyway, sadly. Since the US gvt was fucking around in the Middle East since the 1950s I think it was to be expected that attacks would come as a result. It's not like America can just go bomb and overthrow governments whenever it wants. When it gets attacked politicians have this attitude of America being invincible. What the bombers did on 9/11 was nothing compared to what our government has done to the Islamic countries. We create so many atrocities, and we can expect many more the way things are going.

The one thing Islamic militants need to recognize if they plan to attack America: go after our politicians, not the common American man. It's their fault, not the common man's fault. Hate the government, love the people.

[GrinS]

OLD STONER:

You seriously have to be kidding me? Your just like my far right wing father, I bet you listen/watch Fox news channel and love agreeing with the O'Riley Factor and Hannity and Combs but find yourself always hating Combs?

And the reason I know this is because that station (Fox News Channel)ever since the Iraq War started, it has been saying that, "they are attacking us and 9/11 happened because they just hate us and did it for no reason because they are Islam and crazy and terrorists blah blah rawr rawr."

And thats total B.S. because what really happened we have been medaling in the Middle East for over 50 years like what PHX123 said, everything he said was right on the money and what exactly Ron Paul means.

THE REASON they attacked US on our soil is cause we were in there country doing whatever we wanted cause we were the "big U.S of A and it doesn't matter what you say or do" and the BUSH administration stated, that the IRAQ war had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and there no connections between both of them.

So the reason he wants to get out the Iraq war and quit dumping money and peoples live into it, bring them hope, guard our country from within.
*FACT* Ron Paul voted for the wall to be put up along the Mexican/USA border.
*FACT* over 24,000 and another 12,000 US Military border patrolmen were sent to Iraq, leaving that much less people to guard our borders.

Another thing that irritates me is you throw around insults like it doesn't hold any type of dis-respect or dignity toward you or your target. Just cause hes a politician doesn't mean you should be calling him, "Ron Paul...logical and coherant(spelled wrong) as my wife's cat. He's an idiot, plain and simple." And when no claims or facts are given besides words like "silly" "idiot" just make you sound like a trash talking loony.

I understand why people wouldn't vote for Ron Paul and I don't mind when people state that, but please don't trash talk my hopeful future president for no reason besides to do so.

And don't always trust the news channels they are always being twisted/fibbed/ exaggerate about the news and always about reasons behind actions.

THE REAPER:

"Ron Paul was a guest on talk-radio 2 days ago ... he is as brainless and irresponsible, as anyone I have ever seen run for office ... anybody that would vote for that clown needs professional help ..."

Please with this MOST insightful information, please do tell me more about this talk radio and what he talked about that was so "brainless and irresponsible", and what i find "brainless" is posting quick comments on a political board calling other parties that you don't agree with members "clowns" just cause their view is different from your own. I really want some info on what gave you the conclusion that made you hate Ron Paul's views so much. Since this IS a forum and the reason IS to have sensible conversations.


--------

Side note:

Brief Overview of Congressman Paulâ??s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

IF WE HAVE TO VOTE FOR OUR FREEDOM, THEN WE HAVE ALREADY LOST IT, AND WE ARE VOTING FOR OUR FREEDOM IN 2008.

[Psycho4Bud]

Please with this MOST insightful information, please do tell me more about this talk radio and what he talked about that was so "brainless and irresponsible", and what i find "brainless" is posting quick comments on a political board calling other parties that you don't agree with members "clowns" just cause their view is different from your own. I really want some info on what gave you the conclusion that made you hate Ron Paul's views so much. Since this IS a forum and the reason IS to have sensible conversations.

I'm with you in a way.......I really don't care for the term "clown" when referring to people like Ron Paul; assclown is actually a better term. Now lets see if I can follow the same "insightful" format that you laid out here:

Unlike most of the pre-teen pimple poppers up to the mid-twenty age, people such as myself, image reaper, old stoner have been on this planet long enough to know what is "realistic" in regards to change. I see that your 20....that would have made you about 3 during the first Gulf War........LOL, I was older than that for the Vietnam war. We don't need FOX, CNN, MSNBC to do our thinking....we have something called experience behind us.

Now, your offended because people called your imaginary president more/less an assclown with no reasons why. Lets spell a few of them out:

1) Anti-abortion.......voting record proves it
2) Backed by the 9-11 conspiracy nuts. Check out most every web site regarding that and you'll find an addy for Ron Paul.
3) He calls the wars as being against the Constitution. Fact is, when congress votes for approving the use of force that is in itself enough for the President to send the troops.
4) Portrayed as being pro-legalization when there has been NO bill by Ron Paul to suggest that. In fact, he tried to separate hemp farming from the laws regarding marijuana. That would still leave us growers and users in harms way.
5) Says he's against spending but still is responsible for over $400 in earmarks. Seems he's pretty tight with the Shrimp Fishing industry. Big business in the congressmans wallet.
6) His idea about switching back to the Gold Standard. Anyone that has any experience in currency/currency trading knows that if this were done, you'd see our dollar crash along with many other countries currency.

I know how easy it is to be swayed when your young but just be carefull of the brand of kool-aid that ya drink....some may look good but are actually toxic.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I'm with you in a way.......I really don't care for the term "clown" when referring to people like Ron Paul; assclown is actually a better term. Now lets see if I can follow the same "insightful" format that you laid out here:

Unlike most of the pre-teen pimple poppers up to the mid-twenty age, people such as myself, image reaper, old stoner have been on this planet long enough to know what is "realistic" in regards to change. I see that your 20....that would have made you about 3 during the first Gulf War........LOL, I was older than that for the Vietnam war. We don't need FOX, CNN, MSNBC to do our thinking....we have something called experience behind us.

Being older doesn't give your opinions legitimacy by default P4B. Not to say you don't tout some very good ones, but people of "more experience" stand on just about every point. In fact doesn't Ron Paul himself technically has more life experience than you? :p

Stalin, Hitler, Ghandi, Buddha, Pope Benedict, they all have more life experience than me. I wonder which one I should look to for guidance?




1) Anti-abortion.......voting record proves it

I'd have to see these votes you speak of, but I get the feeling you're relating to votes against government funding for abortion at the federal level; which would be more a constitutional issue than an abortion issue.


2) Backed by the 9-11 conspiracy nuts. Check out most every web site regarding that and you'll find an addy for Ron Paul.

And the "God hates fags" church people may have voted for George Bush, that doesn't mean George Bush believes "god hates fags".
Peacenick hippies are undoubtedly more prone to voting Democrat, that doesn't make Democrats peacenick hippies.
Stoners would be inclined to vote for Ron Paul, it doesn't make Ron Paul a stoner. You see what I'm getting at here? It's backward logic, saying those who vote for the candidate represent the candidates views in every respect.


3) He calls the wars as being against the Constitution. Fact is, when congress votes for approving the use of force that is in itself enough for the President to send the troops.

His anti-constiutional claims regarding the war are to do with a foreign policy of non-interventionalism, not the actual process by which war was declared.


4) Portrayed as being pro-legalization when there has been NO bill by Ron Paul to suggest that. In fact, he tried to separate hemp farming from the laws regarding marijuana. That would still leave us growers and users in harms way.

Hemp and marijuana, while biologically related, are two very different matters. We're talking about medicine/recreational drugs versus indsutrial products for sails, clothing, ropes and the such. It makes a lot more sense to fix these government policy's toward hemp/cannabis one step at a time. The first step, obviously, is legalizing hemp.
If Paul was lying and not actually for legalizing marijuana, why would he bother saying it when it's political suicide?




5) Says he's against spending but still is responsible for over $400 in earmarks. Seems he's pretty tight with the Shrimp Fishing industry. Big business in the congressmans wallet.

erm.... do you mean $400 or $400 million/billion? Personally I suppose tax incentives and investment in keeping industry/economy strong. Anyway, I'd have to see what spending specifically you believe is hypocritical. Ron Paul is against the big over-spending that is bankrupting the nation, he's not against all spending in any form. As he said in the last debate, "cutting income tax would result in a 1/3 loss in government revenue. As is, that would take us back to 2000 levels of spending. Are you saying this government can't get back to 2000 spending levels?"



6) His idea about switching back to the Gold Standard. Anyone that has any experience in currency/currency trading knows that if this were done, you'd see our dollar crash along with many other countries currency.

I'm not experienced in economy enough to make a judgement on this. However I think I agree with you here. I disagree with most Ron Paul supporters claims that America has a dollar "backed by nothing". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the dollar is backed by gross national material output. Production/consumption, output/input as a basis for financial output.

[Psycho4Bud]

Being older doesn't give your opinions legitimacy by default P4B. Not to say you don't tout some very good ones, but people of "more experience" stand on just about every point. In fact doesn't Ron Paul himself technically has more life experience than you? :p

Just making a point my wizard friend. I guess all of us old folks just get our information from Fox over our good morning coffee. Pretty humorous to say the least.



I'd have to see these votes you speak of, but I get the feeling you're relating to votes against government funding for abortion at the federal level; which would be more a constitutional issue than an abortion issue. .

It was discussed in here before. The bill before congress would state that life begins at conception and that states would then have the right to create laws based off from that. More/less...what sort of prison time is in store for those that do this under the wire.



And the "God hates fags" church people may have voted for George Bush, that doesn't mean George Bush believes "god hates fags".
Peacenick hippies are undoubtedly more prone to voting Democrat, that doesn't make Democrats peacenick hippies.
Stoners would be inclined to vote for Ron Paul, it doesn't make Ron Paul a stoner. You see what I'm getting at here? It's backward logic, saying those who vote for the candidate represent the candidates views in every respect..

Has he tried to distance himself from what main stream America would classify as the "conspiracy sector"? Since that's a good part of his backing I can see why he doesn't. BUT the little remarks about on how we provoked the wars is just enough to keep them on board but not so much as to be classified as a fruit loop.



His anti-constiutional claims regarding the war are to do with a foreign policy of non-interventionalism, not the actual process by which war was declared..

And were is that in the Constitution? In those days we were taking over the Indian Nation and running Mexico out of the Southwest.



Hemp and marijuana, while biologically related, are two very different matters. We're talking about medicine/recreational drugs versus indsutrial products for sails, clothing, ropes and the such. It makes a lot more sense to fix these government policy's toward hemp/cannabis one step at a time. The first step, obviously, is legalizing hemp.
If Paul was lying and not actually for legalizing marijuana, why would he bother saying it when it's political suicide?.

Once again...where is the bill in Congress? Many congressmen try to put through bills that they know have no chance in passing.....like his anti-abortion bills.



erm.... do you mean $400 or $400 million/billion? Personally I suppose tax incentives and investment in keeping industry/economy strong. Anyway, I'd have to see what spending specifically you believe is hypocritical. Ron Paul is against the big over-spending that is bankrupting the nation, he's not against all spending in any form. As he said in the last debate, "cutting income tax would result in a 1/3 loss in government revenue. As is, that would take us back to 2000 levels of spending. Are you saying this government can't get back to 2000 spending levels?".

Yeah, it was suppose to be million.......nice catch!:thumbsup:

How can anyone state that they're against over-spending but yet have pet projects in the tune of over $400 million, some that are directly for a market (the Shrimp Industy) that is in his area? If that's the case, then representatives from areas that are heavy into oil, coal, auto, etc...have the same halo over their heads in regards to spending? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?



I'm not experienced in economy enough to make a judgement on this. However I think I agree with you here. I disagree with most Ron Paul supporters claims that America has a dollar "backed by nothing". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the dollar is backed by gross national material output. Production/consumption, output/input as a basis for financial output.

Exacty...and at the present we have a GDP over $13 trillion.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Just making a point my wizard friend. I guess all of us old folks just get our information from Fox over our good morning coffee. Pretty humorous to say the least.

Hmm? I'm not saying that at all! I may disagree with you on a lot of opinions, but I know an intelligent opponent when I see one and I know you're not getting your opinions from anywhere but your own reasoning.




It was discussed in here before. The bill before congress would state that life begins at conception and that states would then have the right to create laws based off from that. More/less...what sort of prison time is in store for those that do this under the wire.

Ouch! So does it state then, literally, that any abortion is commiting murder? I couldn't be more against that.




Has he tried to distance himself from what main stream America would classify as the "conspiracy sector"? Since that's a good part of his backing I can see why he doesn't. BUT the little remarks about on how we provoked the wars is just enough to keep them on board but not so much as to be classified as a fruit loop.

Your right, he hasn't, but then why bother when you've got a few thousand extra votes? Sad as it may be, every politician has to whore themselves a little.


And were is that in the Constitution? In those days we were taking over the Indian Nation and running Mexico out of the Southwest.

Legally, the Indians didn't have a nation since there were hundreds of non-unified tribes. They had their territory, but nobody had claim over the entire America's. Not to say the colonialist bullshit is justified, they were terrible to the natives! But I'm not aware of anywhere in the constitution justifying these actions.
Where does it say? Honestly I'm not sure, but I was under the impression that it has a "no-nation building" clause or some sort. I could be wrong, wish I had time to read the constitution in its entirety.




Once again...where is the bill in Congress? Many congressmen try to put through bills that they know have no chance in passing.....like his anti-abortion bills.

Don't know, maybe he doesn't see the point knowing it won't be passed, maybe he didn't want to lose his possition as congressman. Being president and leader of the republican party really is the only way one could have the power to push that through.




Yeah, it was suppose to be million.......nice catch!:thumbsup:

How can anyone state that they're against over-spending but yet have pet projects in the tune of over $400 million, some that are directly for a market (the Shrimp Industy) that is in his area? If that's the case, then representatives from areas that are heavy into oil, coal, auto, etc...have the same halo over their heads in regards to spending? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Do you have a link to some info on this shrimp-industry project? I want to take a look before passing judgement.

[Psycho4Bud]

Hmm? I'm not saying that at all! I may disagree with you on a lot of opinions, but I know an intelligent opponent when I see one and I know you're not getting your opinions from anywhere but your own reasoning.

It was implied by the poster that I recently responded to. Nothing on you sir wizard.:thumbsup:



Ouch! So does it state then, literally, that any abortion is commiting murder? I couldn't be more against that.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007'.


SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
GovTrack: H.R. 2597: Text of Legislation



Legally, the Indians didn't have a nation since there were hundreds of non-unified tribes. They had their territory, but nobody had claim over the entire America's. Not to say the colonialist bullshit is justified, they were terrible to the natives! But I'm not aware of anywhere in the constitution justifying these actions.
Where does it say? Honestly I'm not sure, but I was under the impression that it has a "no-nation building" clause or some sort. I could be wrong, wish I had time to read the constitution in its entirety.

There is no clause like that....remember "manifest destinty"?




Don't know, maybe he doesn't see the point knowing it won't be passed, maybe he didn't want to lose his possition as congressman. Being president and leader of the republican party really is the only way one could have the power to push that through.

He knows that MANY of his bills are dead in the water but still submits them..........



Do you have a link to some info on this shrimp-industry project? I want to take a look before passing judgement.

LOL...Check out number 1 on the list......I thought he was against big brother creating a data base..........

1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a â??Childrenâ??s Identification and Location Database.â?�

2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.

3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.

7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.

8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paulâ??s district?)
Classically Liberal: Ron Paul's personal pork projects. (http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html)

The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public â?? and I have to presume it's not by accident."
FOXNews.com - Ron Paul's $400 Million Earmarks - Brit Hume | Special Report (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html)

There ya go..........

Have a good one!:s4:

[420izzle]

assclown eh....hmmmm...psycho4hate...
get off the 'ye ol wise one' soap box. age doesn't equal wisdom.
in response to your spelling it out for us...spilling your wisdom onto us...
1.) Ron Paul is personally pro-life. yes. but he is anti-federal government telling you what you can do with your body. so he says, repeal roe vs. wade...the feds should stay out of it. let the states decide.
2.) backed by all sorts. this is the straw-man attack of you gate-keepers. you don't have any substantiative (http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_fox_news_uncovers_skeletons_in_closet.htm ) attacks so you attack his supporters. this approach will fail. shall we review the supporters of Giuliani, Romney, Hillary, Edwards, Obama and muster up the conspiracy theorists, brothel owners. You'll find the worst of the worst in these military industrial complex and hedgefunders and on and on...
3.) Yes. So you're saying WAR is good. Our governments have our best interest at heart. Not very compelling or interesting argument dude. Sell the war man....sell it. I'm sure our founding fathers would disagree with you.
4.) Not true. He wants the war on drugs ended and says it is a miserable mistake. Read up here (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=23).
5.) That is the most shocking skeleton in the closet you could muster up? You must enjoy Faux news. Here is a credible resource for all good Americans to reference this.
6.) Paul has explicitly stated "I wouldn't exactly go back to the gold standard," pointing out that a "there were shortcomings with the gold standard of the nineteenth century because...it was a fixed price..." (YouTube - Ron Paul in New Hampshire (http://youtube.com/watch?v=RKQmYfY3R7c)) So, Paul, like his critics, also doesn't think going back to the gold standard would be a good idea. That is, he does not agree that government should fix the ratio of gold to paper - which is what going "back to" or "returning to" the gold standard would comprise.
What Paul actually wishes to do, as he has said many times, is simply to make gold and silver legal tender as called for in the Constitution, as well as to remove the taxes on these metals. He has called this "going forward to a new gold standard" to make it clear that this is not the same thing as going "back to the gold standard." The reason he wants gold and silver to be made legal tender is because he likes the idea of competing currencies and opposes monopoly money. He wants us in the marketplace to be able to decide what money we use, rather than government imposing its choice on us. And, he is confident that if allowed the choice, it is natural that the market will choose money backed by "hard assets" such as gold and silver. As it stands now, fiat currency issued by the Federal Reserve has the special privilege of being "legal tender." This, and the tax penalty on buying and selling gold, enforces a near monopoly on money in the U.S. to the effect that nearly all transactions are conducted with fiat Federal Reserve notes. If gold and silver were given legal tender status, and the taxes on them removed, currencies backed by these metals, as well as the metals themselves, would have a much greater chance at successfully competing with fiat Federal Reserve notes. The Federal Reserve might be an issuer of gold-backed paper (prior to the creation of the Fed, currency was commissioned to be printed by other banks), but that it is not even necessary. As Paul points out, these could be issued by the private sector. In fact, they already are being issued, but as pointed out above, it is difficult for them to get a foothold due to special legal privilege for fiat currency. Examples of privately-issued gold-backed money in limited use today include E-gold (e-gold... Internet payments, 100% backed by gold (http://www.e-gold.com)) and the Liberty Dollar. Paul has said that he does not want to abolish the Federal Reserve overnight because it would cause massive economic disruption. Presumably, the Fed would be abolished only after the the masses converted to sound money. If that occurs, then the Fed would have already become irrelevant anyway, so doing away with it would be a non-event.

I know how easy it is to stay stuck in your old ways, but wake up people! Don't let the gatekeepers tell you what to think.
Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)
Ron Paul Library (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org)

[GrinS]

^^ exactly

Its better to fix the problem then prolong the non-working treatment.

[Psycho4Bud]

assclown eh....hmmmm...psycho4hate...
get off the 'ye ol wise one' soap box. age doesn't equal wisdom.
in response to your spelling it out for us...spilling your wisdom onto us...
1.) Ron Paul is personally pro-life. yes. but he is anti-federal government telling you what you can do with your body. so he says, repeal roe vs. wade...the feds should stay out of it. let the states decide.
2.) backed by all sorts. this is the straw-man attack of you gate-keepers. you don't have any substantiative (http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_fox_news_uncovers_skeletons_in_closet.htm ) attacks so you attack his supporters. this approach will fail. shall we review the supporters of Giuliani, Romney, Hillary, Edwards, Obama and muster up the conspiracy theorists, brothel owners. You'll find the worst of the worst in these military industrial complex and hedgefunders and on and on...
3.) Yes. So you're saying WAR is good. Our governments have our best interest at heart. Not very compelling or interesting argument dude. Sell the war man....sell it. I'm sure our founding fathers would disagree with you.
4.) Not true. He wants the war on drugs ended and says it is a miserable mistake. Read up here (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=23).
5.) That is the most shocking skeleton in the closet you could muster up? You must enjoy Faux news. Here is a credible resource for all good Americans to reference this.
6.) Paul has explicitly stated "I wouldn't exactly go back to the gold standard," pointing out that a "there were shortcomings with the gold standard of the nineteenth century because...it was a fixed price..." (YouTube - Ron Paul in New Hampshire (http://youtube.com/watch?v=RKQmYfY3R7c)) So, Paul, like his critics, also doesn't think going back to the gold standard would be a good idea. That is, he does not agree that government should fix the ratio of gold to paper - which is what going "back to" or "returning to" the gold standard would comprise.
What Paul actually wishes to do, as he has said many times, is simply to make gold and silver legal tender as called for in the Constitution, as well as to remove the taxes on these metals. He has called this "going forward to a new gold standard" to make it clear that this is not the same thing as going "back to the gold standard." The reason he wants gold and silver to be made legal tender is because he likes the idea of competing currencies and opposes monopoly money. He wants us in the marketplace to be able to decide what money we use, rather than government imposing its choice on us. And, he is confident that if allowed the choice, it is natural that the market will choose money backed by "hard assets" such as gold and silver. As it stands now, fiat currency issued by the Federal Reserve has the special privilege of being "legal tender." This, and the tax penalty on buying and selling gold, enforces a near monopoly on money in the U.S. to the effect that nearly all transactions are conducted with fiat Federal Reserve notes. If gold and silver were given legal tender status, and the taxes on them removed, currencies backed by these metals, as well as the metals themselves, would have a much greater chance at successfully competing with fiat Federal Reserve notes. The Federal Reserve might be an issuer of gold-backed paper (prior to the creation of the Fed, currency was commissioned to be printed by other banks), but that it is not even necessary. As Paul points out, these could be issued by the private sector. In fact, they already are being issued, but as pointed out above, it is difficult for them to get a foothold due to special legal privilege for fiat currency. Examples of privately-issued gold-backed money in limited use today include E-gold (e-gold... Internet payments, 100% backed by gold (http://www.e-gold.com)) and the Liberty Dollar. Paul has said that he does not want to abolish the Federal Reserve overnight because it would cause massive economic disruption. Presumably, the Fed would be abolished only after the the masses converted to sound money. If that occurs, then the Fed would have already become irrelevant anyway, so doing away with it would be a non-event.

I know how easy it is to stay stuck in your old ways, but wake up people! Don't let the gatekeepers tell you what to think.
Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)
Ron Paul Library (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org)

Just for future ref., wouldn't be doing a slam on user names in this or any forum. Not permitted and with your post count you should be aware of that.

Next:
1) Show me where, by link, that he's stated that the fed would have NO say in abortions. His bill is pretty self-explanitory. LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION/The Fed........states would have NO say!
2) Are you saying that main stream America doesn't find the "conspiracy sector" a bit on far side? The left wing doesn't even want to associate themselves with them and they are both anti-war.
3) LOL...which founding fathers....PLEASE list a few that would feel that way. Are these some of the same that were in Tripoli?
4) So where is the bill?
5) Dirty is dirty.......there ARE congressmen and senators that don't practice this.
6) First off; Liberty Dollar is closed down for violating currency laws. Next; As per the CONSTITUTION, Congress has sole responsibility on what our currency is and who makes it.

Have a good one!:s4:

[yokinazu]

i spent a while now reading this post and would like to say something

peacenick hippies do not vote democratic. we also do not vote republican. i , being a peacenick hippie, have supported the natural law party from the begining. we are usally the ones who vote 3rd party.

also ,no ,age does not mean wisdom. but i do know that my political veiws are much differant now than they were when i was 20. intelligence is the ability to retain information, wisdom is the ability to learn from and not repeat your and other peoples mistakes.

[420izzle]

1.) Here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html) Ron Paul writes, in his own words, that the federal government should stay out of the abortion issue. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXw4lNysT-U&feature=related) is a youtube video of him stating it.
2.) It isn't about left or right. Of course mainstream thinks of 'conspiracy theorists' as fringe elements, but mainstream is changing my friend. And the paradigm of 'conspiracy' is changing also. I was 'mainstream liberal minded' until I woke up. I'm saying that you and others attack us RP supporters as being terrorists (Beck and Horowitz), conspiracy theorists, shrimp lovers, and it isn't working. Americans are smarter than that.
3.) Well, for starters, in his 'The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty', James Madison says: "The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the
power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies . . .
the power of creating offices. . . .
The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it,
is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the
sake of its being conducted." I know Jefferson went to the middle east too, but c'mon.
4.) Ron Paul has filed a bill (Ron Paul has filed a bill that would legalize ... for industrial use as well as allow possession of marijuana for personal use) that would legalize ... for industrial use as well as allow possession of marijuana for personal use...check it out...HR1009.
5.) In the good Dr's. words..."Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds â?? their tax dollars â?? than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better."
6.) The dollar is crashing. Ask yourself why they raided Liberty Dollar creators. They don't want any competing currency. The Amero is on it's way. Then you'll go, oh...
And who told you congress has anything to do with our currency? The Federal Reserve, you know that private cabal of bankers that run our economy and is neither federal nor a reserve, they run our currency and the inflation of it.

And apologies for the 'slam', but I can't stand enemies of the republic spewing lies and I feel the need to stand up.

[Psycho4Bud]

1.) Here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html) Ron Paul writes, in his own words, that the federal government should stay out of the abortion issue. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXw4lNysT-U&feature=related) is a youtube video of him stating it.
2.) It isn't about left or right. Of course mainstream thinks of 'conspiracy theorists' as fringe elements, but mainstream is changing my friend. And the paradigm of 'conspiracy' is changing also. I was 'mainstream liberal minded' until I woke up. I'm saying that you and others attack us RP supporters as being terrorists (Beck and Horowitz), conspiracy theorists, shrimp lovers, and it isn't working. Americans are smarter than that.
3.) Well, for starters, in his 'The Most Dreaded Enemy of Liberty', James Madison says: "The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the
power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies . . .
the power of creating offices. . . .
The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it,
is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the
sake of its being conducted." I know Jefferson went to the middle east too, but c'mon.
4.) Ron Paul has filed a bill (Ron Paul has filed a bill that would legalize ... for industrial use as well as allow possession of marijuana for personal use) that would legalize ... for industrial use as well as allow possession of marijuana for personal use...check it out...HR1009.
5.) In the good Dr's. words..."Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds â?? their tax dollars â?? than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better."
6.) The dollar is crashing. Ask yourself why they raided Liberty Dollar creators. They don't want any competing currency. The Amero is on it's way. Then you'll go, oh...
And who told you congress has anything to do with our currency? The Federal Reserve, you know that private cabal of bankers that run our economy and is neither federal nor a reserve, they run our currency and the inflation of it.

And apologies for the 'slam', but I can't stand enemies of the republic spewing lies and I feel the need to stand up.

1) I posted a thread on the issue where you can see him spell it out.....he even talked of some type of penalty for the day after pill.
2) Call it what you will.....fact is that the dems even stay clear of this sector and they are both on the anti-war agenda. Why would that be?
3) Just goes to show.....even our "founding fathers" were screwing around over there. Kind of hard to state with a straight face on what our founding fathers would do today with the advancements of technology.
4) To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007'.


SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP FROM DEFINITION OF MARIHUANA.

Paragraph (16) of section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) is amended--

(1) by striking `(16)' at the beginning and inserting `(16)(A)'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(B) The term `marihuana' does not include industrial hemp. As used in the preceding sentence, the term `industrial hemp' means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.'.


SEC. 3. INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY STATES.

Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(i) Industrial Hemp Determination To Be Made by States- In any criminal action, civil action, or administrative proceeding, a State regulating the growing and processing of industrial hemp under State law shall have exclusive authority to determine whether any such plant meets the concentration limitation set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (16) of section 102 and such determination shall be conclusive and binding.'.
GovTrack: H.R. 1009: Text of Legislation (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1009)

I must be missing the spot about the personal use issue.
5) Putting it across like it's ghost money is bullshit. Your either wasting the taxpayers dollars on pet projects or your not.
6) Federal Government
The federal government is the national government, whose powers are limited by the Constitution to defense, foreign affairs, printing money, controlling trade and relations between the states, and protecting human rights.
United States Dollar and US currency information including currency exchange rates (http://www.gocurrency.com/countries/united_states.htm)

Do a bit of a check on exchange rates to other countries and tell me how the dollar is crashing.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Psycho4Bud]

420izzle ...ya want to try that one more time?

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[420izzle]

dollar facing imminent collapse (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53311)
the coming currency shock (http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts11162004.html)
the dollar is down 50% in 6 years, conservatively speaking, but hey, our exports are going like bonkers and tourism is picking up since our dollar is dead.
and again, the federal reserve prints the money at will resulting in shortfall and inflation. Ron wants to abolish this madness (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002b.htm).

And back to the reason for this post, nobody else will do for pot patients and hemp farmers what Ron Paul proposes. He wants the government off our back. Show me a candidate that better represents us.

[420izzle]

Well, I'm going to go vape one down. Peace...and Thanks for censuring my post psycho4bud. I needed that.

[Psycho4Bud]

dollar facing imminent collapse (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53311)
the coming currency shock (http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts11162004.html)
the dollar is down 50% in 6 years, conservatively speaking, but hey, our exports are going like bonkers and tourism is picking up since our dollar is dead.
and again, the federal reserve prints the money at will resulting in shortfall and inflation. Ron wants to abolish this madness (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002b.htm).

I've been following currency trading for about the same amount of time and I can tell ya honestly that this is false! I think yahoo has a historical currency chart........look it up for yourself agains currencys in the middle east, Canada, Europe, etc.........



And back to the reason for this post, nobody else will do for pot patients and hemp farmers what Ron Paul proposes. He wants the government off our back. Show me a candidate that better represents us.

This is one issue of many and not really one to base this election on. Many states have made med. marijuana legal and as more do, the fed will be forced to make the change. Nice to see he co-sponsored one bill on med. marijuana though.

Have a good one!:s4:

[GanjaMan7]

For all of you who are saying that Ron Paul's security stances are crap, read what he actually stands for before bashing him. He is a non interventionist, just like the forefathers were. He wants to end U.S world policing, like we are doing in Iraq right now. He does not want to allow terrorists to come into this country and easily bomb us, but he does want to end American Imperialism. Foreign intervention drains so much money from the U.S... the Iraq War's cost is already almost one trillion dollars. There is no doubt in my mind that Ron Paul is the most sane and most able of all the candidates.

[Markass]

Yep, war costs money, just like anything else these days. Show me a freebie in this day and time... So you are saying that money doesn't matter, that your grandchildren aren't worth a nickel? A penny? Sure, they may have to end up paying back the money, but would you rather them pay with their pocketbook, or pay with their lives. Your choice.



So how would it make you feel if despite the billions of dollars we're giving to iraq; that our country is attacked in the future by either a suicide bomber or another airline attack? Just because of our occupation in the middle east means this can't happen?? That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard...well, one of the top idiotic things..

We're letting these people into our country because we're the land of the free...the people who don't like us...why? I don't know..doesn't make me feel rightly comfortable sitting at the airport watching my luggage being put on the airplane by someone who looks like they should have a turban on their head...

[Psycho4Bud]

I had to clean out a few posts in here........lets DEBATE without the personal attacks.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[mfqr]

Reality check: we're not fighting terrorists in Iraq, because the people we're fighting are people who are trying to get us out of the country. Why are they terrorists? Just because we're killing their troops in mass, and they kill a couple of ours? Would you be a terrorist if America got invaded, and you decided to do anything and everything you could to bring the enemy down, even if it meant suicide bombing their troops? They're soldiers of Iraq, and I think people who think we're killing terrorists over there have been listening to way too much propaganda.

Do any of you remember what terrorists actually do? They terrorize for political reasons. With how the Bush administration and our government as a whole reacted after 9/11... I personally believe that if there is a huge threat, we definitely played it just as they wanted us to. They changed the way our government works to an extent. So considering they are terrorists, they definitely changed politics here in America, because of how the Bush administration and our government as a whole reacted. This means they accomplished their mission. No, I'm not saying a government should do nothing... but it seems like our country sure has changed a lot since 9/11. It's definitely not the same here anymore. Not only that, but our government has played right into the fear-mongering. They're scaring us for the terrorists, it seems. Is that the job of our government after a huge terrorist attack, to scare us even more? I thought that was the job of the terrorists? Aren't they the ones who are supposed to be scaring us? Instead, our government is doing their job for them, and tries to scare us.

[randomname4888]

Ron paul for president

[Old Stoner]

I had to clean out a few posts in here........lets DEBATE without the personal attacks.


Guess that answers where my posts went, eh P4B?

Daddy always said stay off the political boards. As I will from now on.

Again, and this isn't directed at ANYONe - like Grim Reaper said - anyone who votes for Ron Paul needs professional help - the guys an idiot. Plain and simple.

See you guys on the POT boards.