To the Ron Paul haters

[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

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
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?

[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::wtf::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 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.