To the Ron Paul haters

[angry nomad]

Why do you hate Ron Paul so much?

And, also who are you voting for? Why?

It seems like the people that hate Ron Paul have a lot of negative things to say, pointing out problems, but never have any solutions. Also, for some reason, the people that hate Ron Paul are so antagonistic, and I have no idea why.

[killerweed420]

I would say it would be easy for liberals to hate him. He would undo all the big government they've worked for, for decades.

[Zcomp]

People get discouraged and disappointed. As a defense mechanism they hate instead of grieve.
I will still vote Ron Paul. even if it means a write-in. I believe in him and that is it.

[dragonrider]

I would say it would be easy for liberals to hate him. He would undo all the big government they've worked for, for decades.

Most of the people who vehemently oppose him on these boards are conservatives, not liberals.

I think Democrats just generally consider him to be a fringe character of the other party who doesn't seriously challenge them in any way. They basically say, "He's your problem, not ours! You deal with him."

Republicans come down hard on him for a few reasons.

He challenges them on how faithful they really are to the ideals they claim to uphold.
He is actually very critical of his own party in many ways, so it's not surprising there is a backlash.
He's not "on message," so he becomes a distraction and divisive figure for the GOP.
Some probably think he reflects poorly on their party. Looney-bird, nut-case, crazy-aunt-in-the-attic kind of thing.

[8182KSKUSH]

It really just comes down to my personal opinion. I am conservative, but I don't really care about the GOP as a whole if that makes any sense. I don't think that you are by default a republican if you are conservative, and I don't think Republicans are necessarily conservatives, obviously.

I have just used my own observations and concluded that he is one of those people that is full of shit. There has been alot of stuff already written by me and several others about this. I have posed some very relevant questions about him in multiple threads and still don't feel like they have been answered. They just get glazed over and usually people just repeat the same old boring Ron Paul rhetoric without acknowledging some glaring problems. I really wonder why so many people here support him so much? It doesn't make any sense to me, but maybe I am just a wacko. Just giving you an honest opinion.

[expandingeye]

It really just comes down to my personal opinion. I am conservative, but I don't really care about the GOP as a whole if that makes any sense. I don't think that you are by default a republican if you are conservative, and I don't think Republicans are necessarily conservatives, obviously.

I have just used my own observations and concluded that he is one of those people that is full of shit. There has been alot of stuff already written by me and several others about this. I have posed some very relevant questions about him in multiple threads and still don't feel like they have been answered. They just get glazed over and usually people just repeat the same old boring Ron Paul rhetoric without acknowledging some glaring problems. I really wonder why so many people here support him so much? It doesn't make any sense to me, but maybe I am just a wacko. Just giving you an honest opinion.

ill have to look at those posts. though im just curious who do you support then? Seems all the other candidates are even more full of shit than ron paul.

[8182KSKUSH]

I will vote for the GOP nominee, at this point looks to be McCain, unless god create a "miracle" for Huck. I wasn't exactly thrilled with any of the candidates to be honest with you.
It's always just a choice between applying the hand brake on the roller coaster headed to socialism or taking your hand off the brake.
I don't have any respect for Paul, he implies that he would "legalize HEMP" which is 1 of 3 species of marijuana, he chooses that word very very carefully when he does discuss anything related. I think that he is letting people believe as much as they want and if they think he will legalize cannabis sativa, or cannabis indica, then yeah he will take their vote. It is also dishonest, because I am pretty sure that HE KNOWS that if he were the president, there is really nothing he can do aside from clicking his heels and wishing that marijuana was legal. Explain how the president can rub his hands together and magically legalize a scheduel 1 narcotic. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. He doesn't care what you believe about him just so long as you send him some money and vote for him. I think he intentionally is decieving people (it's called lying by omission) whereas at least other politicians that have terrible ideas actually believe what they say. Does that make any sense?
Example, National Health Care, horrible idea, but Billary and Osama both actually believe that they are doing the right thing. They aren't out there stumping for it knowing all the time that for whatever reason they cannot deliver it.
For someone that is such a proponent of legalizing pot, there is not 1 word mentioning it on his website. Sure I can say "The war on drugs is bad, blah blah blah." Doesn't mean I am going to run for president. HOW EXACTLY, SPECIFICALLY WOULD HE LEGALIZE WEED JUST BECAUSE HE IS THE PRESIDENT? Even if Bush wanted to tomorrow, he couldn't. So how the fuck would Paul? Just because he says or implies that he would isn't good enough for me.
It's as empty as the rhetoric of "yes we can". Yes you can what? Make catchy rhymes? Chant in unisen?
All this coupled with the fact that prohibition is an issue that truly is near and dear to my heart, make me despise him. You can flip flop on issues, you can take opposing views, insult my intelligence by saying or implying that you will legalize weed if only you were fortunate enought to become president, then fuck off. He is distracting people that could otherwise use their own energy and efforts in a far better way to accomplish what they want. Just my opinion though I guess.:(

[8182KSKUSH]

P.S.
The solution for the particular issue we are discussing in regard to marijuana prohibition, is to first get it re-schedueled. Until that happens nothing will change. And I am pretty certain the president can't just say, "ok, scratch that off the list now we're all done thanks." Anyone that is advocating for legalization would have to address this first before anything else is done. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. So go back and find out how this magical man is going to do that. I can save you some time, because he can't. He also doesn't mention this. For someone that is so smart and serious about doing this, how does he miss this little step?:wtf:

[expandingeye]

he never said he will automatically make it legal, i dont know where your getting this bullshit info. HE STANDS FOR Freedom and other constitutional rights our bullshit leaders have been stepping on for years. and has said to medical marijuana paitients he supports the legalization/decrim , never promised to make it happen. support is better than bullshit excuses like everyone else.

watch this video. YouTube - Ron Paul - Seattle WA 1/31/08 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=R135XyH1qoI)
you seem to not research but just hear about stuff and assume. I really think you should research mccain more before supporting another bullshit president.

[8182KSKUSH]

he never said he will automatically make it legal, i dont know where your getting this bullshit info.

I didn't say I got this info, this is what is a "popular belief" about him. Just read this forums, they are filled with tons of examples of this misinformation about him. I actually have challenged people to show me when he has said he would legalize. So far, chirping crickets. But like you just said, I already know that he HAS NOT TAKEN THIS POSITION. Hence why there is nothing said on his campaign website.Check angry nomads sig for example. He allows false rhetoric to be spread about him for the sake of gathering "fringe group votes" that he has absolutely no intrest in representing. I do agree with some of his perspectives on the constitution and in regard to the federal governments responsibilities, but I can also find much more that I agree with from almost anyone that isn't a flaming liberal socialist. He is a full of shit. I don't like McCain that much, but I believe that Ron Paul is not in the presidential race. So why would anyone vote for him? In fact I am sure that I saw somewhere today that he was withdrawing to "focus" on his congressional seat. He's not a career politician though is he? He's different huh? Whatever. :wtf:

[8182KSKUSH]

you seem to not research but just hear about stuff and assume. I really think you should research mccain more before supporting another bullshit president.

You seem to be assuming alot about someone that you have had a 5 minute conversation with?
Are you saying this simply to dismiss what I have said simply because I am calling him into question? I hope not, this is usually a tactic of the left, when someone challenges you just discredit that person, then whatever they said isn't relevant and you don't have to engage what was said. C'mon now I know you didn't mean that.:D

[expandingeye]

You seem to be assuming alot about someone that you have had a 5 minute conversation with?
Are you saying this simply to dismiss what I have said simply because I am calling him into question? I hope not, this is usually a tactic of the left, when someone challenges you just discredit that person, then whatever they said isn't relevant and you don't have to engage what was said. C'mon now I know you didn't mean that.:D

screw your bullshit views with these lame categories you already have predefined in your head, left and right. they are all fucking bullshit and ill tell you why.

-Both sides once they take office are just going to continue the same horrific medical system not to mention treatment of soldiers coming back from iraq.
-They will support big pharmaceutical industry advertisements on every channel and for every american. (got anxiety take this, insomnia take this, depression, take this.) Its all the same bullshit.
-during which supporting alcohol and tobacco while encouraging(wasting billions every year) on the war on marijuana alone.
-They fucking govern the people instead of letting parents take blame for incidents.
-They all flip flop constantly on their stances whenever heat occurs.
-They never stand for what they truely believe in.
your exactly the type of person they encourage. you say you disagree but your voting simply because you claim ron paul doesnt have a chance.

about your his dropping race to focus on congressional seat he has stated:
"I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen."

EDIT: i forget, he does support the complete legalization of marijuana, i never meant to agree with you on the fact that he hasnt supported it. Just the fact that he hasnt promised if he becomes president, it will be legal.
heres one example vid:YouTube - IOWA CAUCUS 2008: Ron Paul attacks War on Drugs (http://youtube.com/watch?v=5m97UvsOKDU)

[8182KSKUSH]

LMFAO!! :S2: This is so fucking funny I will have to make a whole seperate post to respond!!! Nah, I will just tear it apart now!

Originally Posted by expandingeye
you seem to not research but just hear about stuff and assume. I really think you should research mccain more before supporting another bullshit president.

Well, this isn't my very very first time voting he he, and I have forgotten more about John McCain then you will ever learn since you first started trying to find out who he was 12 days ago. I don't think that it is safe to assume that I just recently even heard his name and learned everything I know about him from 12 days worth of breathing, which is obviously your working assumption about me, might be true for you I guess, I don't know why you would assume it to be true for anyone else?
That's what I didn't say to you the first time because I was trying to be nice.:S4::asskick:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
You seem to be assuming alot about someone that you have had a 5 minute conversation with?
Are you saying this simply to dismiss what I have said simply because I am calling him into question? I hope not, this is usually a tactic of the left, when someone challenges you just discredit that person, then whatever they said isn't relevant and you don't have to engage what was said. C'mon now I know you didn't mean that.



screw your bullshit views.
with these lame categories you already have predefined in your head, left and right. they are all fucking bullshit and ill tell you why.
That's a very intelligent response! I am sorry my views are so personally offensive to you for some reason?:wtf: Actually the forum was started by someone else that just asked a question really inviting someone that may have my views. It's really cool that now you don't want to hear anything that I say. Wow, bet you were text messaging your ass off on those phone polls huh?:S2:

Everything you said after this point was irrelevant, but it did make me realize that you have this tone that is very similar to the "Hate America, Bush is the Devil, 9/11 Conspiracy, EVVVIL CORPORATION ARE GOING TO KILL YOU, blah blah, you are boring, sorry. You aren't enlightening anyone, you aren't saying anything that hasn't been said. Maybe you should write in Rosie O since Paul has more important things to do all of the sudden!:S2::S2::S2:



-Both sides once they take office are just going to continue the same horrific medical system not to mention treatment of soldiers coming back from iraq.

Wow, that's a really strong point. So far I have been really lucky and not been accidentally killed by any doctors yet. And I can somehow magically still afford to have a family and house and car and whatever. Gosh it feels good to be rich I guess. Don't know how else to explain it?:asskick:



-They will support big pharmaceutical industry advertisements on every channel and for every american. (got anxiety take this, insomnia take this, depression, take this.) Its all the same bullshit.

Hey, thanks I didn't realize that the Federal Government subsidized commercials on tv for drug companies. I don't watch much tv though. And when I do it has little to nill influence on me at all, even those hypnotizing government sponsored pharmaceutical ads. I think what you just said says a lot about you.!:stupid::S:lol5::lol5::lol5::lol5:



-during which supporting alcohol and tobacco while encouraging(wasting billions every year) on the war on marijuana alone.

Yup, I am a little confused again. I was under the impression that we had a um....fr....fr....free....fr..free....free....free mar....mar...FREE MARKET!! FUCK WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Do you know something I don't? I thought people just bought alcohol and cigs and then the companies that AMERICANS WORK FOR AND INVERST IN made these products for the people that consume them. Are you telling me the government has been paying for their advertising. What the fuck do you mean sponsor?




-They fucking govern the people instead of letting parents take blame for incidents..

Can I get a translater please? Put down the pipe.:wtf: O no you are right now that I read that out loud,


-They fucking govern the people instead of letting parents take blame for incidents.. I am voting for Ron Paul baby!:yeahright: Great Point! Ron Paul will put a stop to this by golly jeepers!



-They all flip flop constantly on their stances whenever heat occurs.

Yeah baby! Another awesome reason to vote for Ron Paul!!! Because other people, and him all flip flop! But when Ron does it it's magical!:tin foil hat:



-They never stand for what they truely believe in.


Really, you gonna stand by that huh? Great, yeah you are probably right, they are all just out to get you! LOOK OUT THEY ARE BEHIND YOU RIGHT NOW!:apachecopter:



your exactly the type of person they encourage. you say you disagree but your voting simply because you claim ron paul doesnt have a chance.

Wow, I know I have said alot of things, but I don't believe I said I am not voting for Ron Paul because he can't win? Are you reading the same thread? Or are you just stuck and can't figure out which bull crap rhetoric line to regurgitate. You see you only use that one when someone actually says that they aren't going to vote for him because they don't think he can win. Wow. :stupid:




about your his dropping race to focus on congressional seat he has stated:
"I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen."

Yeah, he's got to go back home, raise some more money for local elections, make some promises to people that he will ask for earmarks and then vote against them. What a motherfucking stand up guy he is!:yeahright:

Oh and the best part!!!


EDIT: i forget, he does support the complete legalization of marijuana, i never meant to agree with you on the fact that he hasnt supported it. Just the fact that he hasnt promised if he becomes president, it will be legal. .

You my man are one convincing guy! Like I said looks like you can still write in Rosie!

[8182KSKUSH]

Please, all ?s in my last post are ritorical, please do not attmept to respond, I don't want to be liable for some kind of injury lawsuit when your head explodes!:S2::S3::S3::S3::S4::S4::S4:

[Zimzum]

Explain how the president can rub his hands together and magically legalize a scheduel 1 narcotic.
HOW EXACTLY, SPECIFICALLY WOULD HE LEGALIZE WEED JUST BECAUSE HE IS THE PRESIDENT? Even if Bush wanted to tomorrow, he couldn't. So how the fuck would Paul? Just because he says or implies that he would isn't good enough for me.



Ok, Ron has stated what he would do. First he said he would pardon every non violent drug offender. And since he would be head of the executive branch, the part of the federal government charged with enforcing laws, he can have the DEA/FDA/ATF etc. back off of states that have passed pro marijuana laws. Ron has not said he would "legalize" it, just allow states the ability to decide on this matter. Much like his abortion stance. Click the Ron Paul link in my signature.

[8182KSKUSH]

So this is based on him "asking the DEA to Back Off Pretty Please with Sugar On Top."
Then we all just stand back and it happens huh. Sounds easy alright! That's bull shit.
If you think that is just fine and peachy then ok. Vote for him.
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I know I took some liberty with his position, but that is what it amounts to. LMFAO No you're right, he would make a huge difference.:yeahright:

As was said previously in yet another post, his "plan" amounts to him being a magic genie and rubbing his hands together while snapping his fingers. It might as well be, same result. Except I bet he would be hot in pink underwear!:thumbsup:

[Zimzum]

So this is based on him "asking the DEA to Back Off Pretty Please with Sugar On Top."
Then we all just stand back and it happens huh. Sounds easy alright! That's bull shit.


The president can select, with the Senate's approval (or waiting for them to go on vacation like Bush does), a new head of an agency. Imagine if the DEA where run by Keith Stroup and John Walters (US Drug Czar) got his pink slip. The president can do more then you think he can. And its not "asking" the DEA to back off, its ORDERING them to back off. The DEA was created in the early 70's via an executive order and can be taken out just the same.

[8182KSKUSH]

Yeah good luck with that. I am sure that congress would just let that happen.:thumbsup: Keep reaching!

[Mississippi Steve]

Why do you hate Ron Paul so much?

And, also who are you voting for? Why?

It seems like the people that hate Ron Paul have a lot of negative things to say, pointing out problems, but never have any solutions. Also, for some reason, the people that hate Ron Paul are so antagonistic, and I have no idea why.

It's real simple... its got nothing to do with "hate", but it has everything to do with vast projects with half-vassed ideas. Sure he talks a good talk, and wants to do away with he IRS and the like, but then he never says *HOW* he's gonna do it. I can come up with all kinds of pie-in-the-sky stuff that I want to do too... but that doesn't mean that I have the ways and the means to actually *DO* it, or that I even have a plan of how I am gonna do it.

Lets pretend that I am from Missouri, instead of Mississippi... Don't just "tell" me what your gonna do, I want you to *SHOW* me how your gonna do it.

[pisshead]

The president can select, with the Senate's approval (or waiting for them to go on vacation like Bush does), a new head of an agency. Imagine if the DEA where run by Keith Stroup and John Walters (US Drug Czar) got his pink slip. The president can do more then you think he can. And its not "asking" the DEA to back off, its ORDERING them to back off. The DEA was created in the early 70's via an executive order and can be taken out just the same.

no answer is good enough for some people, which is why i don't bother... we've been under this emerging dictatorship for so long, for so many generations, that people can't even fathom a country run like the constitution says...

and they immediately write it off, and continue to support the status quo new world order globalist candidates...

[Zcomp]

Just to be clear, I don't care at all what he does about herb. The fact is that the "war on drugs" is about to be over period. I won't be relying on some pres to do that, I'll be relying on the American people and there contempt for current gov.
But as to why I support ron paul, He has voted tons of times on the same moral plane as me. I like his ideas about small gov. I like his ideas about getting rid of welfare. I could go on and on but I wont.
My point is that, Its painfully clear that only one canadate could just run without changing themselves up to suit every quarter. I won't get into a debate about mccain or any of those others mask wearing fools. I see through there masks, I look closely at every canadate.
The way I see it, 2012 is supposed to be some prophetized "end time" and this seems like a good intro to that. On one hand we have a "100 year war " on the other we have "hillerycare" or "Democare" how ever you want to look at it. Fact is we don't need one bomb to destroy this nation. Just make our money worth nothing and watch us destroy ourselves.

[Psycho4Bud]

Why do you hate Ron Paul so much?


No reason to "hate" Ron Paul but I don't agree with what he's selling. I don't agree with his stance on bringing all the troops home from across the world, his stance on abortion, and if anyone thinks that his plan to reconstruct government would ever pass by Congress and Senate is living in a dream. He has virtually no ties with either party and it would just end up in gridlock for the next 4 years.



And, also who are you voting for? Why?

At this point....probably McCain which once again will be a vote for the lesser of the two evils. One of the top things on my chart is the war against terrorism and I feel he's the best "person" for the job. But again, there are things about him that I don't care for either.


It seems like the people that hate Ron Paul have a lot of negative things to say, pointing out problems, but never have any solutions. Also, for some reason, the people that hate Ron Paul are so antagonistic, and I have no idea why.

Actually, I've given props to the people in here that have been supporting, and busting their butts off working on his campaign. Zimzum is a perfect example of that. If anything, Ron Paul has brought some people to look at politics that probably wouldn't have without his input. What does bother me though is when the ONLY item on peoples agenda is legalizing weed. I hope it happens also BUT there are more important issues to look at.

Have a good one!:s4:

[bongerstonerd00d]

Is Lyndon LaRouche running on Pauls ticket ?



b0nger:rasta:

[bongerstonerd00d]

http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/137311-insults-personal-attacks-polls.html

Y'all need to play nice. Afterall, we are all eintitled to our opinion.



b0nger:pimp:

[8182KSKUSH]

Hey just wanted to express how impressed I was with you, and even though he hasn't posted yet, angry nomad as well.

You both seem very well informed, and actually attempt to present an argument advocating your position. Are you sure you know what you are doing. Don't you want to have a good cry and call me names instead of exchanging ideas?;) I am just kidding you two of course, that is a reference to the typical under 18 Ron Paul supporters that are rushing to their lovers defense here! Keep it lively!

[psychorebel]

i personaly like ron paul hes racist and wants to legalize pot what else could you want i really want mccain and him to run together but that will never happen

[8182KSKUSH]

i personaly like ron paul hes racist and wants to legalize pot what else could you want i really want mccain and him to run together but that will never happen

Careful! There are some people that post here that will start shaking and having convulsions if you say anything negative about Ron Paul. They have 0 tolerance for it. And they will let you know that you are only allowed to post opinions that they don't agree with!:D

[jessem98]

go ron paul haha

[The Dude Of Life]

Probably because he is a racist and nazi sympathizer who only caters to the rich and pot smokers and eliminates the welfare system and public housing all the way.

[rebgirl420]

^ Wow...yeah he's a nazi and he's racist....

Everything you just said was completely and utterly wrong. Except for the part about the welfare system and thr public housing. And he's 100 percent right on those issues. Fuck welfare and public housing. THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T OWE YOU A DAMN THING. NO WELFARE. NO "free" HOUSING. I am way beyond sick and fucking tired of handing over 30-some percent of my pay check so some fucking asshole can continue on popping out children like a pez dispenser and not working. If you choose not to work you don't get a damn dime. NOTHING. NOWHERE in the constitution, federalist papers, nowhere does it say if you don't work others will pick up the slack.

This is why the government is ridiculous! Everyone wants a fucking hand out. Apparently no one has any work ethic anymore and damnit, they want their "free" housing and food and healthcare.

Get a fucking job people. It's like no one cares about the big picture. Were turning into one HUGE socialist nation b/c of welfare.

[8182KSKUSH]

^ Wow...yeah he's a nazi and he's racist....

I think he was just joking? Was he?


Fuck welfare and public housing. THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T OWE YOU A DAMN THING. NO WELFARE. NO "free" HOUSING. I am way beyond sick and fucking tired of handing over 30-some percent of my pay check so some fucking asshole can continue on popping out children like a pez dispenser and not working. If you choose not to work you don't get a damn dime. NOTHING. NOWHERE in the constitution, federalist papers, nowhere does it say if you don't work others will pick up the slack.....
Thank you, you can deflect some of the flamers off of my ass, they are gonna be all over you for that one!:D


This is why the government is ridiculous! Everyone wants a fucking hand out. Apparently no one has any work ethic anymore and damnit, they want their "free" housing and food and healthcare.
YUP.


Get a fucking job people. It's like no one cares about the big picture. Were turning into one HUGE socialist nation b/c of welfare.
Exactly!

I think he was joking about that though!
You are right on, those ARE some of the things that I agree with Paul about. But to a certain extent it is pie in the sky stuff. We have to accept that we already and will probably always have a certain element of the entitlement mentality that will exist here. It is nice though that there are a few out there that understand the bigger picture of what is going on.:postgood:
There isn't anything saying that over time we can't beat it back! I just don't agree that Paul is the man that is going to make any progress with these issues. I really think he is all talk, and at this point it doesn't matter at all. He is not running.
So the ? becomes, will you vote for McCain for the sake of not voting for Billary or Osama? The choice is pretty clear, Billary and or Osama either one will get us going on the fast track to socialism ten fold more than McCain. JMO:jointsmile:

[JayDank]

Probably because he is a racist and nazi sympathizer who only caters to the rich and pot smokers and eliminates the welfare system and public housing all the way.

Racist? Nazi sympathizer? I don't see where you support this information. Please show me what has caused you to believe that Ron Paul is a racist. Has he perhaps made a statement saying that he hates people of color? If so, enlighten me.

As far as a Nazi sympathizer, Dr. Paul is nothing of the sort. I assume you are referring to the situation in which he received a small campaign donation from a white supremacist. I'll let him explain his stance himself:

YouTube - Ron Paul remarks on allegations of being racist (http://youtube.com/watch?v=5pAbKMS-Vps)

Also, Ron Paul has openly stated that our drug laws target the black race and if elected he would pardon every non-violent drug offender in prison. Does that sound like the stance of a white supremacist to you?

To be quite honest, I can understand why a white supremacist would want Ron Paul to become president. Ron Paul upholds the constitution, look at his congressional voting record. This means he supports free speech. He is the ONLY candidate that I know of that has spoken of the importance of the constitution and free speech. Right now, the only tool that white supremacists and racists in general have is their right to free speech. So you tell me- If you were a white supremacist, and your ultimate goal was to spread your word about the masterdom of the white race, which candidate would you support?

I really feel that the media has put an unfair spin on the story. The donation from the white supremacist means one thing- that he supports Ron Paul. That does NOT mean that Ron Paul supports him. So would you rather have that $500 in the pocket of a white supremacist, who openly supports the oppression of all races but one, or in the pocket of a man who fully supports the constitution, a document that states "All men are created equal..." ? I'm sure if you looked through every single donation given to each candidate, there would be at LEAST one undesirable donation. Is this really what the campaign coverage has come to? Nitpicking through donations to find dirt on a candidate? Then I must say, Ron Paul should be proud that the media had to knock down his supporters to find dirt on him. That must be because he has a pristine voting record.

I find it really discouraging to see that people cannot even have an informed discussion without turning to name calling. It's just fucking immature. KUSH especially. You claim to "tear apart" peoples posts, but you haven't really presented facts.

"Hey, thanks I didn't realize that the Federal Government subsidized commercials on tv for drug companies. I don't watch much tv though. And when I do it has little to nill influence on me at all, even those hypnotizing government sponsored pharmaceutical ads. I think what you just said says a lot about you.!"

Ever hear of the FCC? I think I heard somewhere that they REGULATE TELEVISION AND PRINTED MEDIA. And as far as I've seen, they haven't done much regulation of the pharmaceutical industry. Or Alcohol and big Tobacco either. Interesting...

[BlueCat00]

I like Ron Paul. I think the other republicans treated him like shit during the debates. He should have run on an independent ticket and I think he would have done better.

Ron Paul's heart is in the right place. He just ran on the wrong ticket!

But I am voting Obama.

[8182KSKUSH]

Yeah golly gee, I really like Ron Paul, you know his strict views on LIMITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
But I like Osama Hussein too. You know the flaming socialist liberal that fundamentally believes in ever increasing government size and influence and interference in the lives of Americans, don't forget increasing taxes and redistributing wealth!

So you can see how I like both of them! That makes perfect sense! Awww, the "young and mmhmm..educated".

[texas grass]

At this point....probably McCain which once again will be a vote for the lesser of the two evils. One of the top things on my chart is the war against terrorism and I feel he's the best "person" for the job. But again, there are things about him that I don't care for either.

Have a good one!:s4:

thats 1 of the problems today, there is no such thing as lesser evil. theres evil and evil. i always heard my father talk about that and look at what happened with bush, he talked a good game and he was the lesser of evil but in reality he has destroyed abunch of stuff.

and terrorism is a false war like the war on drugs. if you support both evil,war on terrorism and war on drugs you are as evil as they are because they have destroyed more lives than they have saved

[sarah louise]

I have just used my own observations and concluded that he is one of those people that is full of shit.

That is one of the most insightful sentences I have ever read. :jointsmile:

[Psycho4Bud]

thats 1 of the problems today, there is no such thing as lesser evil. theres evil and evil. i always heard my father talk about that and look at what happened with bush, he talked a good game and he was the lesser of evil but in reality he has destroyed abunch of stuff.

and terrorism is a false war like the war on drugs. if you support both evil,war on terrorism and war on drugs you are as evil as they are because they have destroyed more lives than they have saved

Between my views and what was offered as far as candidates...it would have been the lesser no matter who won the parties nomination. I'm not saying that Bush is all that but I still believe that between him or Kerry, we ended up with the better.

War on terrorism.....:thumbsup:
War on drugs......:cursing:
Big difference between blowing down a joint as compared to blowing up a building or people.

Have a good one!:s4:

[benvortec]

8182KSKUSH - I hope that any true and knowledgeable Paul supporter will tell you that he won't be able to simply "rub his hands together" and then weed will be legal. What he promises is to limit the federal government and to restore the rights of the citizens in your own state. This is also how he feels about ABORTION which many people see as a major issue. He doesn't want to run your country he wants to let YOU run YOUR country, and that's what i like so much about him. At this point in our "democratic" nation we as individual citizens have lost our voice in big government and he plans to restore the power of authority to the states government in which case people within their own state can come together and choose what they want and don't want to be legal. And if you live in a state that (the majority) doesn't agree with your own personal opinions there will more than likely be a state that you can move to that honors those values.

Honestly though... i don't even see weed legalization or abortion as an urgent topic of discussion. I think what is most important at this point is the status of our economy which government spending and raising taxes won't fix. Personally i don't know how anybody could vote for anyone else just for the simple fact of our economy. When it comes down to it all of the other candidates are just talking jibberish if they're not addressing the real problem which is our economy. It all comes down to the all mighty dollar. Without restoring our economy health care and social security promises are simply a joke because our economy cannot withstand either program. Unless of course you want your income taxes raised %110 or you would like lots of government spending and inflation and our dollar to only be worth 1/2 a Peso! haha :rastasmoke:

Also when it comes down to it we cannot prosper as a country until we get out of a war that we never should have went into and we cannot financially continue the empire building and policing of the world. Eventually whether you believe in karma or not, this will come back to bite us in the ass... it's the blowback affect.
PEACE and i hope this informed some of the misinformed :hippy:

[THClord]

8182, presidents have the greatest power in congress out of everybody with the power of persuasion. And he also proposes the budget. He can cut DEA spending if they don't agree to recategorize MJ. He might have to fight with congress, but presidents have a lot more power than you think.

[gocryemokid]

There were way too many attacks in this thread than necessary. I honestly have no respect for someone that can't calmly express their opinion in a civilized manner and goes off on anyone due to their immediate assumptions based on who they choose to vote for.

[Rusty Trichome]

Excerpt from RP speach to the house:
Some Observations on Four Terms in Congress by Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul433.html)
"Serving here has been a wonderful experience, and the many friendships will be cherished. I am, however, the first to admit the limited impact I've had on the legislative process. By conventional wisdom, I am "ineffective," unable to trade votes, and champion anyone's special privilege â?? even my own district's. It places me in a lonely category here in Washington. If the political career is not the goal sought, possibly the measuring of "effectiveness" should be done by using a different standard."
So he is unable to champion the needs and wishes of his own constituency? Thank god he's unelectable as president.

Here is a few facts about this saint of a candidate:
Ron Paul on the Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm)

Obviously one can cherry-pick issues they think RP represents, but ya have to look at the whole picture. In my opinion, most of his views are just whacky.
Here's a few:
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Weak economy is source of resentment against immigrants. (Dec 2007)
Tamper-proof I.D. for immigrants is a bad idea. (Jan 2006)
Changed opinion to anti-death penalty due to many mistakes. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)

And there's bunches more.

[beachguy in thongs]

I just came back from a three-block drive to the bank, and, while sitting at a red-light, I see a Ron Paul sign.

Go Virginia Beach!

Obama was at the Pavilion, last night.

[SFGurrilla]

Most of the people who vehemently oppose him on these boards are conservatives, not liberals.

I think Democrats just generally consider him to be a fringe character of the other party who doesn't seriously challenge them in any way. They basically say, "He's your problem, not ours! You deal with him."

Republicans come down hard on him for a few reasons.

He challenges them on how faithful they really are to the ideals they claim to uphold.
He is actually very critical of his own party in many ways, so it's not surprising there is a backlash.
He's not "on message," so he becomes a distraction and divisive figure for the GOP.
Some probably think he reflects poorly on their party. Looney-bird, nut-case, crazy-aunt-in-the-attic kind of thing.


Ron Pauls got a lot of good ideas but after reading over his YES/NO votes on somethings. It just seems like he has a very radical self view on things. Some things he voted yes on fall into the same catagory as things he voted no on. I don't think he would be strong for the way our government is designed.
:rasta:

[SFGurrilla]

i personaly like ron paul hes racist and wants to legalize pot what else could you want i really want mccain and him to run together but that will never happen

LOL. Theres a couple that would slap America and wake it up.

[suhl]

i agree wtih some things he says, i think his wanting to go back to the gold standard, bring religion into politics, and eliminate certain government programs is ridiculous. i would have voted for kucinich had he not dropped out. basically everything paul stood for that i liked so did kucinich, and kucinich also stood against paul on all the issues i did. what i like about both of them is they appear to be incorruptible and say what they mean. that must be why neither will ever have a shot at wi nning.

if obama wins ill vote for him. if he doesnt, im not voting for president.

[8182KSKUSH]

8182KSKUSH - I hope that any true and knowledgeable Paul supporter will tell you that he won't be able to simply "rub his hands together" and then weed will be legal.
A very few have actually tried to explain what he "may" do, but the vast majority of Paul supporters can't. No offense to you, but one of the biggest problems with Ron Pauls campaign is that it is almost entirely made up of people that are just "fanatics" and if you ask them anything that deviates from the Paul talking points they are lost. You, Zimzum, Angry Nomad, and a few others clearly understand his political positions, but Paul is dependant on "uninformed fanatics" that make up his base. That is just my opinion of what Ron Paul is doing, not trying to bad mouth any supporters here. Please don't take offense, I am trying to make a point about "how" Ron Paul conducts himself not about members of this forum.


What he promises is to limit the federal government and to restore the rights of the citizens in your own state. This is also how he feels about ABORTION which many people see as a major issue. He doesn't want to run your country he wants to let YOU run YOUR country, and that's what i like so much about him. At this point in our "democratic" nation we as individual citizens have lost our voice in big government and he plans to restore the power of authority to the states government in which case people within their own state can come together and choose what they want and don't want to be legal. And if you live in a state that (the majority) doesn't agree with your own personal opinions there will more than likely be a state that you can move to that honors those values.

Could not agree with you and Paul more on these political positions, however when you choose who you vote for for president, 1 key factor is, CAN THEY GET IT DONE, as Rusty has pointed out, and even by Paul's own admission, he likely could not. Why vote for him if he can't actually DO the things he talks about? Those are really fundamental conservative values.


Honestly though... i don't even see weed legalization or abortion as an urgent topic of discussion.
You are in the minority of Paul supporters my friend! I bet if we started a poll here saying "why do you support Ron Paul" the and listed 4 choices and 1 of them was "he will legalize weed" you would see what I am talking about.


I think what is most important at this point is the status of our economy which government spending and raising taxes won't fix. Personally i don't know how anybody could vote for anyone else just for the simple fact of our economy. When it comes down to it all of the other candidates are just talking jibberish if they're not addressing the real problem which is our economy. It all comes down to the all mighty dollar. Without restoring our economy health care and social security promises are simply a joke because our economy cannot withstand either program. Unless of course you want your income taxes raised %110 or you would like lots of government spending and inflation and our dollar to only be worth 1/2 a Peso! haha :rastasmoke:

Also when it comes down to it we cannot prosper as a country until we get out of a war that we never should have went into and we cannot financially continue the empire building and policing of the world. Eventually whether you believe in karma or not, this will come back to bite us in the ass... it's the blowback affect.
PEACE and i hope this informed some of the misinformed :hippy:

And this would be where you lose me, sorry! This is the part of the Ron Paul dogma that I disagree with, not in total, but in premise. Things aren't as bad as he thinks, and they aren't as bad as what he is telling people to believe. This is where he joins the Hate America crowd. And his stance on the war is waay out there. Although I agree with him that we should not interfere with Isreal and allow them to handle some shit as I know they could and would have already. But I don't believe much else he has to offer on the topic.:thumbsup:

[8182KSKUSH]

8182, presidents have the greatest power in congress out of everybody with the power of persuasion. .

No that's not how it works.:jointsmile:

[beachguy in thongs]

I just found out that my pot-charge was dismissed seven years ago, after I spent weeks trying to figure out how to restore my voting rights.

Go Virginia Beach!

I don't know who I will vote for.

[keithm89]

Personally i respect Ron Paul a great deal. He is extremely truthfull in his campaign and provides genuine ideas, but personally I am very liberal, and think his ideas are wrong. That is why liberals hate him, because he is by far the most conservative candidate. Conservatives hate on him so much as a defense mechanism, because he shows them what being conservative is all about.
:icon506:




MIKE GRAVEL!!!

[benvortec]

A very few have actually tried to explain what he "may" do, but the vast majority of Paul supporters can't. No offense to you, but one of the biggest problems with Ron Pauls campaign is that it is almost entirely made up of people that are just "fanatics" and if you ask them anything that deviates from the Paul talking points they are lost. You, Zimzum, Angry Nomad, and a few others clearly understand his political positions, but Paul is dependant on "uninformed fanatics" that make up his base. That is just my opinion of what Ron Paul is doing, not trying to bad mouth any supporters here. Please don't take offense, I am trying to make a point about "how" Ron Paul conducts himself not about members of this forum.


Could not agree with you and Paul more on these political positions, however when you choose who you vote for for president, 1 key factor is, CAN THEY GET IT DONE, as Rusty has pointed out, and even by Paul's own admission, he likely could not. Why vote for him if he can't actually DO the things he talks about? Those are really fundamental conservative values.


You are in the minority of Paul supporters my friend! I bet if we started a poll here saying "why do you support Ron Paul" the and listed 4 choices and 1 of them was "he will legalize weed" you would see what I am talking about.

And this would be where you lose me, sorry! This is the part of the Ron Paul dogma that I disagree with, not in total, but in premise. Things aren't as bad as he thinks, and they aren't as bad as what he is telling people to believe. This is where he joins the Hate America crowd. And his stance on the war is waay out there. Although I agree with him that we should not interfere with Isreal and allow them to handle some shit as I know they could and would have already. But I don't believe much else he has to offer on the topic.:thumbsup:

Well i'm glad that i could help you see what some true Ron Paul supporters see and why we are so inspired. :s4: And to give you some actual information instead of just my opinion. However i still have to disagree with you on the economy. You should watch this video a couple times and really grasp whats going on. I think the economy is in a much worse shape then what most people perceive. I'm much more scared of the value of the dollar dropping or our economy crashing then a bunch of "terrorist threats" that all of the other candidates yak about. :smokin:
YouTube - Glenn Beck - The Real Story, Touching the Third Rail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE)

[8182KSKUSH]

Personally i respect Ron Paul a great deal. He is extremely truthfull

That's completely subjective. That's fine if you believe that, and that's what Ron Paul supporters also believe, but I don't. I find it laughable when Paul supporters suggest that he is the only "honest" candidate.


, but personally I am very liberal, and think his ideas are wrong

That makes sense to me. He is so extreme, it is a hoot when people that support liberal political policies also "think" that Ron Paul is a good candidate. He is the freaking anti-christ to liberals I would think? But I suspect that this is a high majority of a very special block of voters that is the most influencial in American Politcs, of course I am speakin of the conveted "Turd Vote".:D


, That is why liberals hate him, because he is by far the most conservative candidate. Conservatives hate on him so much as a defense mechanism, because he shows them what being conservative is all about.

Again yeah, I know why libs hate him, that should be obvious to anyone that knows anything about RuPaul.
But you are wrong about why conservatives hate him.
Let me help,
The Republican Party IS influenced greatly by the religious right. This is where the basis of the liberal attack comes from in regards to attacking christianity, or people that are religious.
RuPaul will never be accepted by this group for obvious reasons. That group, just like others are advocating "their" intrests. Since more people share "their" views they have what is known as a "majority" in terms of being organized and participating in the process. Case in point, the Shuckster is still in the race, and he believes in miracles! :DHe is in it and still has support solely from this group. That doesn't make him or any other Republicans "conservative" neccasarily. They obviously share more beliefs with conservatives, and many are also conservatives, but they are not default conservatives just because of their political party!
Ron Paul is an EXTREME conservative, really a fundamental constitutionalist. His views on abortion will never allow him to be a mainstream person in the republican party, I am a conservative, and I happen to agree with him that it should be left up to the states! However that isn't even an important issue to me, and I don't care if Roe vs. Wade remains or is overturned and returned to the states. Is it the right thing for the states to decide, yeah I think so, do I give a shit? No not really.:D I believe I have made the case for why I personally hate him, it has to do with his political tactics, and overall dishonesty with regard to soliciting votes from people he has no intention of advocating for. He sure does talk a lot of shit and swallow spit though! :jointsmile:And for most all of his supporters that's all they want, they just like to hear things. He's been around since the beginning of time, what is there to show for it?
Funny ass pictures on the internet?
Comic relief during the debates?
He is the WORLD KING CHAMPION of TEXT MESSAGING POLLS BY GOLLY!
I like the people that support him and understand his real philosophies, at least I know they won't be voting for ANY Democrats!! The really annoying people are the ones that just repeat and read but cannot comprehend and apply to real life, they just repeat catchy phrases and are also the people that will just "go vote for Obama?" WTF! How can you preach Ron Paul and then go vote for a socialist? I just wish that unlike angry nomad's siggie says,
"A vote for Ron Paul is a Vote for Legalization"
peopel would realize that
"A vote for Ron Paul IS a Vote that could contribute to ensuring the most extreme socialist do not take control of our government, and that voting for RuPaul is helping socialism gain a foothold! You might as well just right yourself in!"
:icon506:





MIKE GRAVEL!!!


You, counting me,from what I have read, are the 3rd person to mention him. I believe that he is honest, and would attempt everything within his power to decriminalize marijuana on the federal level. I also know that I will never ever vote for him because his other beliefs they make me puke! But, it's intresting that on a cannabis website with so many "young, educated, and informed" advocates for marijuana that are apparently ultra liberal, you would have heard more about him? I wonder how he doesn't just take all the "Turd Votes" away from Paul and Osama?:D

[benvortec]

I like the people that support him and understand his real philosophies, at least I know they won't be voting for ANY Democrats!!

:thumbsup: Hey did you watch that video that i posted?

[FlyGuyOU]

I think many people dislike him b/c they are scared of what will happen if big brother shrinks down. for example, shrinking/eliminating the dept of education. This would result in people paying for their school of choice, rather than it being taken from taxes. Some people will be stupid with their money and not allocate properly for school. This means some people will not be able to 'afford' school.
Some folks then attach a moral obligation to this policy. they conclude that by creating such an enviroment we are being mean/evil/uncompassonate...

I think that Ron Paul and his supporters wish to give you the freedom to fail if you so choose. 'Liberals' rather, would like the government to prevent you from failing

[llama shack]

I think many people dislike him b/c they are scared of what will happen if big brother shrinks down. for example, shrinking/eliminating the dept of education. This would result in people paying for their school of choice, rather than it being taken from taxes. Some people will be stupid with their money and not allocate properly for school. This means some people will not be able to 'afford' school.
Some folks then attach a moral obligation to this policy. they conclude that by creating such an enviroment we are being mean/evil/uncompassonate...

I think that Ron Paul and his supporters wish to give you the freedom to fail if you so choose. 'Liberals' rather, would like the government to prevent you from failing

Look at the primary results, and you can tell America isn't ready for personal responsibility.

[FlyGuyOU]

Look at the primary results, and you can tell America isn't ready for personal responsibility.

Ain't that the truth. Hopefully we can get a little more state responsibility and a little less Fed. It'd be a start.

I don't really care who its for, just let it be an educated decision
Vote! :stoned:

[8182KSKUSH]

:thumbsup: Hey did you watch that video that i posted?

Yeah, I enjoy Glenn, used to listen to him all the time back home.
I agree, and I think that what they have been talking about hasn't been hidden from anyone. Many people including myself, you, and Ron Paul, all are aware of the problem. But just like you, and me, Ron Paul is just talking about it. And if you really understand what they are saying, then I would ask why would you support the candidate that will without a doubt increase government spending more than any other? I am not poking fun, it's really an honest question. As for Paul, I don't think he is doing anything special and don't think that he would. Just the fact that he talks about it isn't enough for me to support him. Glenn Beck is talking about it, he ain't running for president, and I haven't heard alot of fanatical support for him to run for president.:jointsmile:

[dragonrider]

I don't hate Ron Paul, but I do disagree with him on several things:


Gold Standard --- I do not think it would work. There's not enough gold in the planet to serve as the currency for the volume of trade in the modern economy.

Federal Reserve --- This is linked to the gold standard issue. I think we need a central bank to regulate the economy.

Foreign Military Alliances --- I do not think we can withdraw from our foreign military commitments. Our alliances are a very important part of our security.

De-regulation --- I am in favor of regulation related to public safety, consumer protection, worker protection, and pollution control.

Environment --- I am in favor of strong environmental protections. I do not think environmental problems can be handled solely as private property issues.

These are the ones that come to mind right now, but I know I have other disagreements with Ron Paul. Libertarianism always sounds better in theory than it does in practice. When you get down to what Libertarian ideals mean when put into practice, they kind of suck.

[Markass]

I think many people dislike him b/c they are scared of what will happen if big brother shrinks down. for example, shrinking/eliminating the dept of education. This would result in people paying for their school of choice, rather than it being taken from taxes. Some people will be stupid with their money and not allocate properly for school. This means some people will not be able to 'afford' school.
Some folks then attach a moral obligation to this policy. they conclude that by creating such an enviroment we are being mean/evil/uncompassonate...

Like Charlie Daniels says in Long Haired Country Boy.."A rich man goes to college, and a poor man goes to work" I've been working every since I turned 16..No way could I afford to go to college..But I'm paying taxes for someone else to go..A lot of people don't have enough money to allocate extra to go to school..

[FlyGuyOU]

Like Charlie Daniels says in Long Haired Country Boy.."A rich man goes to college, and a poor man goes to work" I've been working every since I turned 16..No way could I afford to go to college..But I'm paying taxes for someone else to go..A lot of people don't have enough money to allocate extra to go to school..

Think of how much money you'd have if you only paid a fraction of the taxes you pay now. Cut income taxes, property taxes, the federal gas tax, taxes on your utilities, and phones, property taxes... plus there is all the behind the scenes stuff, government subsidies and tarriffs...
Tax freedom day: When we've made enough to pay our taxes - Mar. 28, 2007 (http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/27/pf/taxes/tax_freedom/index.htm)

That is a big chunk of change, and I personally believe that I can allocate those funds better than some government official. Furthermore I believe that YOU can better spend your money, regardless of your education level. but if you are going to blow it all on crack and speed tough shit.

[Xellos]

'Presidential Secrets'--Former CIA Operative Chip Tatum Speaks (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4217457994226676654)

Chip's tortured body was reported to have washed up on a beach in Panama in early 2007.

[Nailhead]

It seems like the people that hate Ron Paul have a lot of negative things to say, pointing out problems, but never have any solutions. Also, for some reason, the people that hate Ron Paul are so antagonistic, and I have no idea why.

Any idiot can criticize a candidate they don't like, but it takes intelligence to give valid reasons why they support an alternative. I personally don't give a crap who hates Ron Paul, I don't take presidential campaigns personally like many others do, but what annoys me is the persistent criticism with no alternative ideas for a better solution. People feel like they are smart when they talk about politics, so a lot of dumb people can only criticize. They find one thing wrong with a particular candidate and are like "oh my god, this candidate said such and such, I can't support him bla bla bla" They feel smart when they say something like that, for once in their life they feel part of the political process, but the reality is that they aren't presenting an alternative and really aren't that smart at all. Playing political armchair quarterback doesn't take a lot of brains or knowledge of politics in general.

Everybody wants the perfect president, another political Jesus to magically erase all of their personal problems away with one pen signature. So the masses of stupid are mislead away from truly honest candidates and are directed towards the same corrupt liars over and over. Nobody really wants a president in the middle, democrats want an extremist, and so do republicans, democrats want a socialized president to give them money, and republicans want a pro-war Christian president.

Until we get smarter voters in the booths, don't ever expect another great president.

[dragonrider]

Nobody really wants a president in the middle, democrats want an extremist, and so do republicans, democrats want a socialized president to give them money, and republicans want a pro-war Christian president.

I'm not sure if this part is true for the large majority of people. Most people I think are actually more in the middle and don't care for the extreme ideological positions staked out by the parties. But it is the "true believers" on both sides who are the most politically active in both parties. In order to win, candidates take posistions that appeal to the people who will do the hard work of campaigning --- raising the money, working the phones, going to the rallies, putting up the signs, going door to door, etc. The parties protect their bases by pandering to their most extreme elements just enough not to totally alienate the more moderate middle. They have both done such a good job of this wedge politics that they have both conrnered almost exactly half the population. It makes the country seem more divided than it really is. The truth is that most people are much closer to the middle than the two parties would make it seem, but you never get a candidate that falls very close to that middle ground. Moderate candidates tend not to make it through the primary process.

[ChiefWanaDubie]

Why do you hate Ron Paul so much?

And, also who are you voting for? Why?

It seems like the people that hate Ron Paul have a lot of negative things to say, pointing out problems, but never have any solutions. Also, for some reason, the people that hate Ron Paul are so antagonistic, and I have no idea why.freedom lovers hate freedom!!!Ron Paul represents common scense,equal rights,and liberty and freedom---which means no more special privilege!!!no more persecuted class/race---that were either all Americans none of us are!!! it means that people would be distinguished by there strengths,not by others weakness---that we would be accountable for our own actions,not the actions of others!!!that we would no longer be a divided nation!!!but one nation under all gods!!! indivisible by money,religion,or politics---a nation where free enterprise is legal---a nation where only criminals go to prison!!!but maybe that includes them, because denying the constitution is treason----DUBIE VS BLUNT 08--------CHIEF WANA DUBIE:rasta:

[8182KSKUSH]

818 man u need to chill, flower power :hippy:

If you are only going to post to tell me to chill, then don't bother posting, (the post is about why you hate Ron Paul, not whether or not you can tolerate someone else's opinion that they are completely entitled to.) you aren't really supposed to post comments directed personally at other members? If you don't like what I say, then don't read it! Or better yet, graduate from the lowest form of debate, "Flaming" and just present an original idea and engage in the conversation without making the conversation about me or how mean you think I am or whatever? Jesus Flames all around me!:D

[8182KSKUSH]

Any idiot can criticize a candidate they don't like, but it takes intelligence to give valid reasons why they support an alternative.

I agree with alot of what you are saying, but 1. Advocating for a particular person doesn't mean you are presenting any ideas.
2. I understand what you are saying about just criticizing candidates, but that WAS the intent of the thread remember the title? "TO THE RON PAUL HATERS, WHY DO YOU HATE HIM?" So the whole premise of this thread was for people to come here and state why the hate him?:wtf: So why would you complain about people doing that, that's the whole point of this thread, I think?:wtf:


I personally don't give a crap who hates Ron Paul, I don't take presidential campaigns personally like many others do, but what annoys me is the persistent criticism with no alternative ideas for a better solution. People feel like they are smart when they talk about politics, so a lot of dumb people can only criticize. They find one thing wrong with a particular candidate and are like "oh my god, this candidate said such and such, I can't support him bla bla bla" They feel smart when they say something like that, for once in their life they feel part of the political process, but the reality is that they aren't presenting an alternative and really aren't that smart at all. Playing political armchair quarterback doesn't take a lot of brains or knowledge of politics in general..

Again I kind of agree, but I see it as annoying when people are fanatically supporting someone just for the sake of supporting someone, when they really have no clue about that persons positions. The reason I hate Ron Paul is because I feel that the base of his support is made up of these people, and that he intentionally goes misleads people with intrests in cannabis just to get a vote that no other politician is trying to get. And again, unless you are personally running for president, repeating the dogma of any candidate doesn't make them your own original ideas, just means that you can repeat what you hear!:thumbsup:


Everybody wants the perfect president, another political Jesus to magically erase all of their personal problems away with one pen signature. So the masses of stupid are mislead away from truly honest candidates ..

That is exaclty how I feel about Ron Paul.!!!:thumbsup:


Until we get smarter voters in the booths, don't ever expect another great president.

I think it would be better even if we could just get half the eligible population to vote!:jointsmile:


I agree with alot of what you are saying, but 1. Advocating for a particular person doesn't mean you are presenting any ideas, and in some case depending on the candidate you might not even have any actual ideas to repeat! I.E. OSama
2. I understand what you are saying about just criticizing candidates, but that WAS the intent of the thread remember the title? "TO THE RON PAUL HATERS, WHY DO YOU HATE HIM?" So the whole premise of this thread was for people to come here and state why the hate him?:wtf: So why would you complain about people doing just that, that's the whole point of this thread, I think?:wtf:
So what the hell would you expect on a thread like this?:wtf:

[8182KSKUSH]

I'm not sure if this part is true for the large majority of people. Most people I think are actually more in the middle and don't care for the extreme ideological positions staked out by the parties. But it is the "true believers" on both sides who are the most politically active in both parties. In order to win, candidates take posistions that appeal to the people who will do the hard work of campaigning --- raising the money, working the phones, going to the rallies, putting up the signs, going door to door, etc. The parties protect their bases by pandering to their most extreme elements just enough not to totally alienate the more moderate middle. They have both done such a good job of this wedge politics that they have both conrnered almost exactly half the population. It makes the country seem more divided than it really is. The truth is that most people are much closer to the middle than the two parties would make it seem, but you never get a candidate that falls very close to that middle ground. Moderate candidates tend not to make it through the primary process.

I think that is the best post here!:thumbsup:

[8182KSKUSH]

Any idiot can criticize a candidate they don't like, but it takes intelligence to give valid reasons why they support an alternative. .

Has someone here not said who they would vote for and why? I mean of course someone that replied to the threads question of why they hate Ron Paul. I thought everyone that chimed in as to why had also stated who they do support and why? Am I missing something or are you speaking about people in general?

[Mississippi Steve]

Has someone here not said who they would vote for and why? I mean of course someone that replied to the threads question of why they hate Ron Paul. I thought everyone that chimed in as to why had also stated who they do support and why? Am I missing something or are you speaking about people in general?

I don't know that I will vote for *ANY* of them. IMHO, none of them are worth knockin in the head.The left wingers want to turn the US into a socialist country, and have the government pay for *EVERYBODY* within the borders, including all the illegals with no thought of where all the money is going to come from to finance this little venture. The right isn't much better, and *NONE* of them have said anything substantial about fixing a broken economy that is heading towards a depression the likes of which has not been seen since the 1930s.

At this point its who I would be voting *against*.
:(

[8182KSKUSH]

I don't know that I will vote for *ANY* of them. IMHO, none of them are worth knockin in the head.The left wingers want to turn the US into a socialist country, and have the government pay for *EVERYBODY* within the borders, including all the illegals with no thought of where all the money is going to come from to finance this little venture. The right isn't much better, and *NONE* of them have said anything substantial about fixing a broken economy that is heading towards a depression the likes of which has not been seen since the 1930s.

At this point its who I would be voting *against*.

:(

On point!!! Don't lie though, you will vote! ;) And I know you aren't voting for a socialist, as much as it hurts, just admit it, I did, it's not that bad! There are far worse people than John McCain!;)

[katyowns]

I personally dislike Ron Paul because of his views on abortion and a womans right to choose. I could never in good conscious vote for a candidate who was pro-life.

I was supporting Kucinich with a string of hope for his nomination, but seeing how the chips have fell, I've yet to decide.

[rebgirl420]

He's not really pro-life. He believes that it shouldn't be a federal decision. Instead each state should be able to make the laws regarding to abortion.

[katyowns]

He's not really pro-life. He believes that it shouldn't be a federal decision. Instead each state should be able to make the laws regarding to abortion.

He is personally pro-life, and his stated views on abortion have hit me the wrong way. I don't believe at all that it should be up to the states, it leaves the possibility of incredibly dangerous circumstances to happen when access to safe and legal abortions is restricted.

As I stated, this is how I personally feel.

[Breukelen advocaat]

He sounds VERY pro-life based on his belief that, "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the 'right' to extinguish individual life."

And this, referring to abortion:
"Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

The above quotations are from an essay he wrote:
Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty (http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html)

[HerbalConfusion]

I wish he was our pres but not a chance so i voted for the young guy. You say your yet to decide does that mean you didnt vote at all cause the mass nomination is over... If you didnt vote that makes me angry when people dont vote.

[Rusty Trichome]

He sounds VERY pro-life based on his belief that, "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the 'right' to extinguish individual life."

So do you think it's ok to make it a crime to rectify a criminal act like rape or incest? To put into practice, a law removing the health of the mother as a consideration? This takes away the rights of the woman, and is thus placing them in a subordinate position, with fewer rights than the unborn.

The Catholic church feels the same way about birth control. Should we consider banning that, too? To restrict the rights of those who chose to avoid pregnancy altogether? Birth Control and the Catholic Church (http://members.aol.com/revising/front.html)

In theory I oppose habitual abortion, especially when it is a result of socialy unprotected encounters, but I do support a womans need to have options. Does nobody remember the "back-alley" abortion clinics that killed so many women in the past? You make a law prohibiting doctors from preforming the operation, and more women (and fetus') will suffer.

[Breukelen advocaat]

So do you think it's ok to make it a crime to rectify a criminal act like rape or incest? To put into practice, a law removing the health of the mother as a consideration? This takes away the rights of the woman, and is thus placing them in a subordinate position, with fewer rights than the unborn.

The Catholic church feels the same way about birth control. Should we consider banning that, too? To restrict the rights of those who chose to avoid pregnancy altogether? Birth Control and the Catholic Church (http://members.aol.com/revising/front.html)

In theory I oppose habitual abortion, especially when it is a result of socialy unprotected encounters, but I do support a womans need to have options. Does nobody remember the "back-alley" abortion clinics that killed so many women in the past? You make a law prohibiting doctors from preforming the operation, and more women (and fetus') will suffer.

Where did I say that I was against abortion? I was just pointing out what Ron Paul has stated regarding his beliefs on the matter.

Most people here are too young to remember coat hangers and back-alley abortions.

If Paul gets his way, those that can afford to travel to states where it is still legal will have the advantage, while the poor will have to suffer the consequences of this law.

The next step probably will be to make it a federal crime again, but the anti-choice legislators won't admit to that at this point.

[HyeLife]

It's easy to point the finger at Ron Paul and call him a weirdo or unrealistic. It's a lot easier to sit at your PC (or Apple, I suppose) and fire off obscenities at those who disagree with you....

But I have another suggestion:

If Ron Paul isn't exactly what we need, shouldn't the question be what DO what we need? I mean, it's obvious he doesn't have a shred of a prayer of winning...right? So why beat a dead horse?

We all want cannabis legal, we all want to stop hiding from one of our most favored habits...but are we going to just assume everything else will be handled fine in the process? Remember, this isn't for drug czar, this is for the president. I believe it's important to be educated on the issues enough that a response to someone speaking negatively about your preferred candidate isn't just laden with crap. Try not getting so excited because some of you can finally vote.


I'm gonna go roll a blunt and watch CNN. It's funnier than Comedy Central. :420thought:

[Mississippi Steve]

It's easy to point the finger at Ron Paul and call him a weirdo or unrealistic. It's a lot easier to sit at your PC (or Apple, I suppose) and fire off obscenities at those who disagree with you....

But I have another suggestion:

If Ron Paul isn't exactly what we need, shouldn't the question be what DO what we need? I mean, it's obvious he doesn't have a shred of a prayer of winning...right? So why beat a dead horse?

We all want cannabis legal, we all want to stop hiding from one of our most favored habits...but are we going to just assume everything else will be handled fine in the process? Remember, this isn't for drug czar, this is for the president. I believe it's important to be educated on the issues enough that a response to someone speaking negatively about your preferred candidate isn't just laden with crap. Try not getting so excited because some of you can finally vote.


I'm gonna go roll a blunt and watch CNN. It's funnier than Comedy Central. :420thought:

Before we can worry about legalizing cannibis, there are too many other socio-economic problems that need to be delt with.... Somebody sent this to me onna E-mail this morning (providence??). Anyway, if *ANY* of the candidates were to lay it out like this, I would vote for them in a heart beat.

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?

â?? My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed.

Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short . The United Kingdom, Spain , Bulgaria , Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER ITâ??ll GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WONT GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France .

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.

Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, and Russia . Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bonne chance, mez amies.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.

Mexico is also on List 2 its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra thousand tank s and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put 'em? Yep, border security.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.

We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin."

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America It is time to elimin ate homelessness in America To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.

God bless America Thank you and good night. â??

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.

[mushaboom]

i believe that any way this election goes, our political system still is controlled by big business, lobbyists, and the good ol' boys who just keep getting older and putting other good ol' boys in positions of power. also, who can forget the "christians" that always seem to have huge impacts on elections. what i like about ron paul is that he actually stands out there and clearly states his views. For example, he wants to end the drug war ( which i bet is why a lot of people on this site soley like him). No other candidate left will ever say this. It's even a struggle for them to say they'll end the medical raids enforced by the DEA. If picking a president was solely a matter of whether or not i want cannabis legalized, hed be my pick. However, i think as americans we all have to take one for the team. There are bigger issues out there than gay marriage, prayer in school, and abortion. The fact of the matter is americans will smoke their cannabis, have abortions, and pray in school if they want to regardless of laws. All the democratic candidates are touting their speeches on "hey america, lets have universal free healthcare yaaaay." where is that money even going to come from. everyone wants to end the war and bring the troops right home. hillary's plan is to just drop everything and bring everyone home within 60 days i think. that tidbit of information is enough for me not to want her in office. whats going to happen after 60 days? "hey iraq, were leaving now. everything's cool right? take care, love USA" Thats going to go over real well. Also, think about when all the troops come home. There is already a problem with troops not being able to get the help they need. And they already get universal free healthcare. Is someone trying to tell me that if the US operates this on a larger scale things are going to get better. As americans it is our duty to think outside the box and outside partylines. Parties are all imaginary and the system is flawed. So many things wrong... And what is obama even going to do? Mr jihad hassan mahmoud barack hussein hamid obama? Oh, thats right. He's an advocate of change. Wow! Whoever gets in office is going to have all the same problems that we are facing now. How are they going to fix the economy when a majority of the problem is in american's hands and credit books?

all in all, our political system depresses me. doesn't anyone else stand for real issues and solutions?

[Rusty Trichome]

Where did I say that I was against abortion? I was just pointing out what Ron Paul has stated regarding his beliefs on the matter.
If Paul gets his way, those that can afford to travel to states where it is still legal will have the advantage, while the poor will have to suffer the consequences of this law.

The next step probably will be to make it a federal crime again, but the anti-choice legislators won't admit to that at this point.
I was asking if those were your positions, based on your highlighted quotes.
If it's an adult crossing those state lines for the previously mentioned reasons, I am in favor of allowing the procedure.
Were it a child without a parent being notified, or giving consent, it's a different story altogether.
Besides the health issues and risk of complications that the parents would be unaware of till it's too late, there's an issue of inappropriate relations...(pedophilia and incest)

(and it continues...) "It is most often an older male who preys on a young girl, impregnates her, and then takes her illegally across state lines to have an abortion without the knowledge and consent of the parents," said pro-life Rep. Jim Barcia (D-Mi.). "It can be dangerous for that child to receive an abortion. Only a parent knows that child's health history, including allergies to medication. A parent should be informed, and the older male should be prosecuted."
House Passes Child Custody Protection Act (http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL799/dougs2.htm)

[Rusty Trichome]

Before we can worry about legalizing cannibis, there are too many other socio-economic problems that need to be delt with.... Somebody sent this to me onna E-mail this morning (providence??). Anyway, if *ANY* of the candidates were to lay it out like this, I would vote for them in a heart beat.

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?

â?? My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed.........

........God bless America Thank you and good night. â??

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.
IF I WERE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT (http://denver.craigslist.org/rnr/565072606.html)

Yup...still a good speach, altho the political winds have somewhat shifted in some of the countries mentioned, like France and Germany.

[benvortec]

Yeah, I enjoy Glenn, used to listen to him all the time back home.
I agree, and I think that what they have been talking about hasn't been hidden from anyone. Many people including myself, you, and Ron Paul, all are aware of the problem. But just like you, and me, Ron Paul is just talking about it. And if you really understand what they are saying, then I would ask why would you support the candidate that will without a doubt increase government spending more than any other? I am not poking fun, it's really an honest question. As for Paul, I don't think he is doing anything special and don't think that he would. Just the fact that he talks about it isn't enough for me to support him. Glenn Beck is talking about it, he ain't running for president, and I haven't heard alot of fanatical support for him to run for president.:jointsmile:

Do you seriously know anything about his economic plan? That statement couldn't be further from the truth. Ron Paul 2008 â?º Issues (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/)
AS FAR AS THIS JOHN MCCAIN FELLA... HE'S THE WORST CANDIDATE... i can't stand that he's actually the republican front runner. He's not electable!
YouTube - John McCain... Electable? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E&eurl)

[beowulfgreen]

I don't have any respect for Paul, he implies that he would "legalize HEMP" which is 1 of 3 species of marijuana, he chooses that word very very carefully when he does discuss anything related. I think that he is letting people believe as much as they want and if they think he will legalize cannabis sativa, or cannabis indica, then yeah he will take their vote. (

just as a point of definition, According to the DEA and all other federal institutions charged with enforcing federal laws, they do not recognize any legal difference between sativa, indica, and hemp. which means, from a federal standpoint, they are all the same, with the same legal consequences regardless of which "sub"species one is referencing. All hemp products sold comercially in the united states are imported, and are only legal because they contain no psychoactive metabolites(thc, cbd, etc) after bleaching and processing.

minor point, they are not recognized as different species by any botanical institution, but are recognized as three distinct subspecies of the same species. the defining point in recognizing separate species is whether they can cross breed and normally and naturally expect fertile offspring(of both sexes) which can also produce fertile offspring(of both sexes).

[colour]

I think a lot of people get their take on Ron Paul form mass media. You want to talk about deception then just turn on the TV or tune in to a political talk show on the radio. By doing this, you are hearing and seeing want the media wants you to hear, ie:

I see a lot of this 'legalizing weed' stuff and its simply not true. When the media gets a hold of this they digest the truth and regurgitate the opposite. Paul has said he will remove the Federal governments role in criminalizing a plant. Then, leave it to the states. What that means is no more DEA raids on MM patients and dispensaries. Patients will have access to plants, seeds, bud and anything weed related as so the state allows it. If a state to remove all laws the punish the use, sale, possession, cultivation of herb then they have every right - This is the way it used to be!

As for hemp, Paul is the lead sponsor and architect of the 'Industrial Hemp Bill.' Who can criticize him for doing that? It may not easy for Congress to accept it but at least as president he will speak of the benefits instead of adding to the propaganda.

Im open to debate/comments on anything regarding Paul or the upcoming elections...hell, anything pertaining to life, really. All I ask is to keep it articulate and civil.

[Th3 sand m4n]

ZOMG 8182KSKUSH your so right!!! lets put some more smiley faces :jointsmile::thumbsup::);):hippy::cool::mad::wtf:: D:stoned:

zomg im ignorant and i prove it by using as many unintelligent insults as possible! If i disagree with your own personal choice/vote to Ron paul ill simply call you a fucking idiot and give bs reasons why :D o and then more smiley faces :thumbsup:

[beowulfgreen]

I don't hate Ron Paul, but I do disagree with him on several things:


Gold Standard --- I do not think it would work. There's not enough gold in the planet to serve as the currency for the volume of trade in the modern economy.

Federal Reserve --- This is linked to the gold standard issue. I think we need a central bank to regulate the economy.

Foreign Military Alliances --- I do not think we can withdraw from our foreign military commitments. Our alliances are a very important part of our security.

De-regulation --- I am in favor of regulation related to public safety, consumer protection, worker protection, and pollution control.

Environment --- I am in favor of strong environmental protections. I do not think environmental problems can be handled solely as private property issues.

These are the ones that come to mind right now, but I know I have other disagreements with Ron Paul. Libertarianism always sounds better in theory than it does in practice. When you get down to what Libertarian ideals mean when put into practice, they kind of suck.

Completely agree with you on deregulation and environment. however, the gold standard and dissolving the federal reserve issues, i feel different altogether.

By placing the US back on the gold standard, and dissolving the Fed. Reserve, would actually bring our currency back to being constitutional. Currently, our currency is not in line with the US constitution, as it clearly states, in article I, that no state shall make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts, furthermore the 10th amendment clearly stipulates that powers not given to the United States(federal governemt) by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

To sum it up, the US Contstution clearly states that any money made in the US must be backed by gold or silver, and with the 10th amendment stating that any power not given to the federal government is the domain of the states or the people, the federal government was never granted the power to create a federal reserve.

Although the constitution does allow the congress to borrow money on the credit of the US govmt, at no point does it state that US money may be BACKED by the credit of the US govmt. or anything other than gold or silver.

[dragonrider]

Completely agree with you on deregulation and environment. however, the gold standard and dissolving the federal reserve issues, i feel different altogether.

By placing the US back on the gold standard, and dissolving the Fed. Reserve, would actually bring our currency back to being constitutional. Currently, our currency is not in line with the US constitution, as it clearly states, in article I, that no state shall make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts, furthermore the 10th amendment clearly stipulates that powers not given to the United States(federal governemt) by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

To sum it up, the US Contstution clearly states that any money made in the US must be backed by gold or silver, and with the 10th amendment stating that any power not given to the federal government is the domain of the states or the people, the federal government was never granted the power to create a federal reserve.

Although the constitution does allow the congress to borrow money on the credit of the US govmt, at no point does it state that US money may be BACKED by the credit of the US govmt. or anything other than gold or silver.

I don't know anything about the Constitutional basis for the Fed or our currency, but I would have guessed that the Constitutionality had been argued and settled long ago. Maybe not. Anyway, that aside, I don't see how it wold be possible to back the US currency with any commodity (gold, silver or anything else) given the sheer SIZE of the US economy.

I'm not an economist, but as I understand it, the money supply must increase as wealth and trade increase. If you have a simple economy of say 10 poeple who trade apples and oranges to each other for a buck apiece, then maybe 10 or 20 bucks would be enough currency in circulation to accomplish all the trades necessary for the economy. But if the population went up to 100 people, and people also started selling apple pies for 10 bucks each, and orange concentrate for 3 bucks a can, then you would need more than the 10 or 20 bucks originaly in circulation. There actually is more wealth in circulation.

What would happen if we tried to convert to the gold standard right now? Gold trades at what? $800 an ounce? $1000? I don't know. But one thing I'm sure of is that there is alot more money in circulation than what would be able to be converted to gold, even if the government were to buy up every speck on the whole planet. If we were to say that every dollar in ciculation was going to be backed by gold, then take the number of dollars in circulation, divide by the amount of gold available in the whole planet, and get the new price of gold --- it would probably be millions of dollars per ounce. The size of the economy and the wealth that has been created is too much to be denominated in gold or any other single commodity any more.

[beowulfgreen]

also, according to the US constitution(article 1 section8), it states that congress has the authority(and responsibility) to coin money, and regulate its value. It also gives congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the indian tribes. furthmore, it grants congress the powers to provide punishment for counterfeitng, to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankrupties, and to impose duties and taxes which are uniform in all states.

When you take the collective powers to:

-produce money and regulate its value
-regulate commerce internationally and domestically
-oversee bankruptcy law
-punish counterfeiting
-impose taxes among all states
-and to borrow money on US govmt credit

you have granted to authority and responsibility of the congress to regulate our economy, it does not say congress may create a federal reserve and delegate the power to regulate the economy to the federal reserve(which is legally an independant corporation separate from the government, not another governmental department). And according to the 10th amendment, since the power to create a federal reserve and delegate economy regulating power to that federal reserve is not explicitly granted to congress, the issue was to have been left up to the states, or the people. I don't remember reading about any such public or state vote to create, or delegate powers to, a federal reserve.

In the end, it is not a national or federal reserve or bank's responsibility or authority to regulate our economy. The US constitution very clearly states it is the responsibility and authortiy of congress to regulate it.

[dragonrider]

also, according to the US constitution(article 1 section8), it states that congress has the authority(and responsibility) to coin money, and regulate its value. It also gives congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the indian tribes. furthmore, it grants congress the powers to provide punishment for counterfeitng, to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankrupties, and to impose duties and taxes which are uniform in all states.

When you take the collective powers to:

-produce money and regulate its value
-regulate commerce internationally and domestically
-oversee bankruptcy law
-punish counterfeiting
-impose taxes among all states
-and to borrow money on US govmt credit

you have granted to authority and responsibility of the congress to regulate our economy, it does not say congress may create a federal reserve and delegate the power to regulate the economy to the federal reserve(which is legally an independant corporation separate from the government, not another governmental department). And according to the 10th amendment, since the power to create a federal reserve and delegate economy regulating power to that federal reserve is not explicitly granted to congress, the issue was to have been left up to the states, or the people. I don't remember reading about any such public or state vote to create, or delegate powers to, a federal reserve.

In the end, it is not a national or federal reserve or bank's responsibility or authority to regulate our economy. The US constitution very clearly states it is the responsibility and authortiy of congress to regulate it.

Like I said, I don't know anything about the constitutional status of the Federal reserve. I'm not concerned about that. I just think that there is no way to convert to a commodity-backed currency given the amount of wealth in the modern economy. People have faith in the currency. They know it can be traded for things of value, including gold, if they want gold. As long as the currency is regulated in a way that prices remain relatively stable --- no runaway inflation, no deflation, then the faith remians, and the currency reallly does have value. There's no need to say "this currency is guaranteed to be tradeable for a set amount of gold." There already is a gold standard --- it's called "gold."

[katyowns]

I wish he was our pres but not a chance so i voted for the young guy. You say your yet to decide does that mean you didnt vote at all cause the mass nomination is over... If you didnt vote that makes me angry when people dont vote.

In MA registered independents can not vote in primaries, so I did not vote. Also, If someone is undecided about their choice, why should they vote in a primary? A vote that does not have full confidence behind it doesn't mean anything to me.

[beowulfgreen]

The US govmt already acquired most of the gold in our country by requiring(under penalty of imprisonment) that all US citizens turn all gold coin and bullion into the federal reserve, at very minimal compensation i might ad. but that's beside the point, the solution to change back to a gold standard, would be to lower the dollar amount in circulation causing deflation. sure there would be less money around, but due to deflation, the value of the individual dollar would go up and prices would go down. And since we as americans still count and price to the last red cent i don't think people would have a problem paying 25 cents for a double cheeseburger at mcdonalds instead of a dollar(granted that future 25 cents is equal in relative value to the current dollar) i mainly brought that up as a convenience factor for counting out a little change(we do it already anyway) You may be wondering how the value of the individual dollar would increase while prices decrease. we'll use a mathematical formula on a small scale for this. seeing as there is a finite amount of gold on the planet and an infinite amount of currency(any country can always print more money) for a gold standard you divide the amount of gold owned by the country's economy regulating institution(federal reserve, national bank, etc) by the total dollar amount in circulation. for this example, lets say the we only have 100 ounces of gold and 1000 dollars, each dollar is worth .10 ounce of gold. Now lets burn half the money(take it out of circulation) we still have 100ounces of gold, but only 500 dollars, the value of each dollar is now .50 ounce of gold. thus each dollar has now increased in its individual value. Now to answer why prices would drop, to do this we need to go all the down to the original manufacturer/purveyor of raw materials for any product in any industry. The original purveyor needs to sell their raw materials to the next person in the chain to refine/manufacture to the next stage of production. Since there are fewer dollars around(but with greater value on the gold standard) the next person in the chain(refiner/manufacturer) must purchase the raw materials for a lower dollar amount. the original purveyor must make a decision, sell for the lower dollar amount(keep in mind each dollar now has greater individual dollar) or not sell at all and go out of business. so he sells for the lower dollar amount. the third person up the chain needs to buy the refined/manufactured materials or product from the second person in the chain to either sell( if product is finished) or further refine or manufacture( if product is not at finished state). Again, with fewer dollars in circulation(but with greater individual value), the third person must purchase product at a lower dollar amount. And again, the person below them in the chain must either sell for the lower dollar amount or go out of business. they sell for the lower dollaramount. and so up the chain it goes until it reaches the consumer resulting in a lower price. You can apply this to ANY industry(energy, oil, agriculture,food service, etc).

Gold, even at it lowest price, is still quite valuable, and usually tends not to have dramatic value decreases. the price of Gold, being a finite resource, is primarily driven by the market. The market being made up of individuals (in this case usually rather wealthy individuals). The individuals are usually willing to pay a handsome price for gold. the market price (loosely the average price of all sales of that product at that time) will normally stay high, as the individuals purchasing gold generally will pay a high price for gold, as it is valued quite highly.

Now of course this wouldn't be an overnight deal, nothing with massive economies is(except sever depressions), I think we would see a much quicker improvement in our economy than sticking with the current fiat system.

[beowulfgreen]

Like I said, I don't know anything about the constitutional status of the Federal reserve. I'm not concerned about that. I just think that there is no way to convert to a commodity-backed currency given the amount of wealth in the modern economy. People have faith in the currency. They know it can be traded for things of value, including gold, if they want gold. As long as the currency is regulated in a way that prices remain relatively stable --- no runaway inflation, no deflation, then the faith remians, and the currency reallly does have value. There's no need to say "this currency is guaranteed to be tradeable for a set amount of gold." There already is a gold standard --- it's called "gold."

One may be able to purchase gold (usually for much more than it is actually worth in dollar value). but you can not simply trade your money in for gold anymore, before we had a fiat currency you could take your dollars to any federal bank(meaning one contracted by the federal government to handle minting of US currency, the same way the us gvmt has a contract with the federal reserve to print money) and exchange them for actual gold coin. it meant that the paper money you had in your pocket was really a representation of gold, and anyone, anywhere in the world will trade any product for gold. Thus, you would be able to use gold backed US currency to trade for any product as it would actually represent the gold that backed it(the person you traded your dollars to could in turn trade those dollars for gold). why not just use gold as currency you might ask? well its much harder, and much more conspicouos, lugging around a few hundred pounds of gold as opposed to a few ounces of cotton based paper.

many people feel commodity backed currency is too volatile, and think thats what led up to the great depression. the great depression was intentionally created by a few wealthy bankers(the same ones who also intentionally triggered another massive depression two decades before so they could consolidate their banking interests and set up the federal reserve), so that THEY could acquire the majority of gold in the US, by switching to a fiat currency, thus convincing the general populace that gold was of little worth and to turn all gold coin and bullion over to the federal reserve(and for those who werent convinced faced imprisonment if the did not turn their gold over) without realizing the value of gold was still just as valuable on the international market. "Why would they want to acquire all that gold?" you may ask. because they knew that gold will ALWAYS have great value on the international market, even when individual economies(no matter how large) fail.

[dragonrider]

I don't think it matters what you might do to deflate or otherwise change the value of the currency. It does not change the fact that there still isn't enough gold to equal the value of the economy and the cash in it. I think there are about 820 billion American dollars in circulation. If gold is about $820 an ounce (for convenience, but not that far off I think), then to back all the dollars at market rates the US Treasury woulld need a billion ounces, about 31,250 tons. I bet you we don't have that much. Maybe not all the major banks and reserves in the world have that much --- I don't really know. But I think that if the US were to try to acquire that much gold there would be some serious distortions of value in the price of gold, and it would become nearly impossible to acquire that much gold at any price.

[GoldenBoy812]

Instituting a gold based currency derived off its worth in dollars makes no sense.

In theory, 1 oz of gold is enough. A dollar would be worth a certain fraction of that oz, such as 1/10000000 of an oz = 1 us dollar.

Then the currency could free float vs other commodities.

[dragonrider]

Instituting a gold based currency derived off its worth in dollars makes no sense.

In theory, 1 oz of gold is enough. A dollar would be worth a certain fraction of that oz, such as 1/10000000 of an oz = 1 us dollar.

Then the currency could free float vs other commodities.

Yeah, you could. But from the point of view of people who want the "Gold Standard" (not me, other people!) what is the value of doing that? Right now a dollar is worth maybe approximately 1/1,000 an ounce, so guarranteeing it at 1/10,000,000 does what? Guarantees the currency will not drop to less than 1/10,000 its current value? It puts a floor on the value, but the floor is way, way down there. I don't think that does much to reassure the gold standard people against hyper-inflation --- the governemnt could still print 10,000 times as much currency as there is now and still be able to back it at that rate.

I don't think we need a gold standard, but those who are in favor of it think of it as a way to prevent inflation. I always understood that to mean that the dollar would be backed by gold at close to market rates, not some miniscule fraction of market rates.

[Nailhead]

I'm not sure if this part is true for the large majority of people. Most people I think are actually more in the middle and don't care for the extreme ideological positions staked out by the parties.

Just to clarify, I was talking about the voters, who I think in general represent an extreme in their party, or are just incredibly stupid and were lured into voting. The main problem with American politics is that American's in general don't care who is running the country, or what country we are bombing. As long as we can fill our gas tanks up before a trip to the river and get drunk as hell, we really don't care what else is going on in the world. Then, of course, we keep telling ourselves we are a peaceful and caring nation, and as long as we tell ourselves this lie over and over, we will continue to believe that load of crap.

[HerbalConfusion]

Just so you ron paul supporters know arguing on here/proving your point wont get him elected. We are not the people you need to convince (well maybe convince to help you).

I voted for Obama for the nomination. ron paul has 0 chance of beating MCcain and i want my vote to count.

[HerbalConfusion]

ZOMG 8182KSKUSH your so right!!! lets put some more smiley faces :jointsmile::thumbsup::);):hippy::cool::mad::wtf:: D:stoned:

zomg im ignorant and i prove it by using as many unintelligent insults as possible! If i disagree with your own personal choice/vote to Ron paul ill simply call you a fucking idiot and give bs reasons why :D o and then more smiley faces :thumbsup:

Its so true. When he is the blind one to think ron paul has a chance to win or he ever did. Maybe he couldve won a nomination if he ran independent but he is stubborn.