Will this hurt Ron Paul's campaign

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Ok i know this is a touchy subject here on ATS, but we need to look at it more as the war on drugs. Now we need to be civilized in our responses. As i dont want to get this thread removed. It touches on all forms of substances and how the big pharma corps are suppressing the people into buying drugs from them.


Of course, the War on Drugs is a very effective tool of tyranny to be used against the American people. It empowers the DEA and the federal government to conduct surprise searches of any home or business for any reason whatsoever (even without a warrant), it keeps the prison industry overflowing with endless cheap human labor, and it grants the big drug companies a monopoly over all those recreational drugs that are now sold as pharmaceuticals. “Speed,” for example, is now sold as an ADHD treatment for children. Big Pharma is also going after THC chemicals in marijuana and hopes to sell them as prescription drugs. By keeping the War on Drugs in place, Big Pharma is assured a monopoly that even the drug lords haven’t been able to accomplish.


Here is the source:
www.infowars.com...

OK now like i said lets keep on topic and not talk about recreational use.
thanx everyone




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jaycen420
 
Well I, for one, am all for keeping Big Pharma in check! They make big money out of dosing people with their assortment of chemicals, and claim that they charge so much because it costs so much to develop and test these substances. Well, if that's the case, why do they also spend big bucks advertising prescription medicines to the general public? Shouldn't they be just informing doctors of their new drugs? It's not like I can run by the store and buy something over the counter! I'd have to ask my doctor for it... which is supposedly a 'red flag' that a person is 'drug shopping.' Besides that, anybody notice the large number of TV commercials about failed medicines that turned out killing/injuring the populace? So much for testing the safety, eh?

Go, Ron Paul... hold 'em accountable!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I hope it doesn't effect Ron Paul's campaign because he's right! The big pharm companies want to keep certain substances with medical benefits illegal so that they have the monopoly on the profits. My father recently finished chemo- he has bladder and prostate cancer. He paid over $100 a piece for pills to help with the nausea just so he could eat without everything coming back up. It would have been a lot cheaper if certain substances were not illegal to treat his nausea, but we all know that big pharm will fight to the death to prevent that from happening!

I do not use anything that is considered illegal, heck I don't even drink alcohol but once or twice a year. But it killed me that someone already going through so much had to dig deep in their own pocket (insurance wouldn't pay) for something that he needed to help with his treatment that if the natural form were not illegal he could have gotten by basically financially unscathed. Shame on you Big Pharm!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Somebody is smoking in the kitchen again.


Hey OP, I totally agree "Big Pharm" only cares about money.

Hopefully, The Free Thinkers will someday prevail.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jaycen420
 


If this thread is about the title, "WIll this hurt Ron Paul's campaign," then there doesn't need to be much talk of the elicit stuff that gets threads moved or closed.

In my opinion, this can only help Ron Paul. The bill does not actually "legalize" anything, it just removes the Federal Restrictions and leaves the decisions up to states and localites. Ron Paul is pushing to end the Department of Education for the same reason. The decision making needs to be on a local basis.

No, the only way this bill hurts his campaign, is if it is blown out of proportion, misread, misreported, and people believe all the 10 second sound bites and 10 word tickers instead of actually knowing what the bill is about and what Ron Paul is about.

On second thought, people only listen to 10 second soundbites and 10 word tickers, so we are doomed no matter how good the politician or the bill is.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
id think the pharma companies wouldnt want this, and im sure that they have alot of pull with the elitists. that would mean millions a year leaving their pockets. So i have a feeling Ron Paul is treading in dangerous waters with this bill



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by jaycen420
 




No, the only way this bill hurts his campaign, is if it is blown out of proportion, misread, misreported, and people believe all the 10 second sound bites and 10 word tickers instead of actually knowing what the bill is about and what Ron Paul is about.

On second thought, people only listen to 10 second soundbites and 10 word tickers, so we are doomed no matter how good the politician or the bill is.


That is exactly what will happen. I can already see the headlines... "Ron Paul wants all kids in America to get high," "Ron Paul says drug dealers should be let free"



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Ron Pauls stance on turning so much over to the States is gonna sink him so quick if he get's anywhere near getting the nomination. Legal in one state but illegal in another. Ron Paul will wash his hands of it and create a huge legal nightmare. Pushing Ron Paul for President is the same as voting for Obama.

So yes this will hurt his chances and will a multitude of other things. He is not a legitimate candidate as he's too far out there.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Ron Pauls stance on turning so much over to the States is gonna sink him so quick if he get's anywhere near getting the nomination. Legal in one state but illegal in another. Ron Paul will wash his hands of it and create a huge legal nightmare. Pushing Ron Paul for President is the same as voting for Obama.

So yes this will hurt his chances and will a multitude of other things. He is not a legitimate candidate as he's too far out there.


If he is so far out there, how has he managed to stay in congress so long? I would say you are far out there because you have no concern with what i right or wrong, you just toe the line. Guess where that line is... WAY THE HELL OUT THERE!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by jaycen420
 


On second thought, people only listen to 10 second soundbites and 10 word tickers, so we are doomed no matter how good the politician or the bill is.


Ya got that right! The media will spin it any which way they care, and the ignorant masses will follow right along in their lazy daze. Sheesh, how will any sensible thing ever happen when we have this same scenario playing out on every freakin topic the media gets hold of?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by tom goose

Originally posted by kro32
Ron Pauls stance on turning so much over to the States is gonna sink him so quick if he get's anywhere near getting the nomination. Legal in one state but illegal in another. Ron Paul will wash his hands of it and create a huge legal nightmare. Pushing Ron Paul for President is the same as voting for Obama.

So yes this will hurt his chances and will a multitude of other things. He is not a legitimate candidate as he's too far out there.


If he is so far out there, how has he managed to stay in congress so long? I would say you are far out there because you have no concern with what i right or wrong, you just toe the line. Guess where that line is... WAY THE HELL OUT THERE!!!


Well Congress is a bit different than the Presidency and if you would like for me to explain the differences to you I'd more than happy. I can also send you a list of some books on beginning American Politics that would further your knowledge on this.

Why you assume I have no concern about what is right or wrong is just an ignorant assumption about me that you couldn't possibly know and is frankly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

If you can't see the repercussions of turning over volatile issues to the states where your going to have different laws all over the country than I don't know what to tell you.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
RP is the only congressman who actually has a consistant conservative voting record which agrees with his spoken and written platforms..that why he has been around for this long..


Of course watchovia and wells fargo after being busted and convicted of laundering drug money
had to pay back a three percent fine
haha
and then there was that CIA plane that went down in mexico last year...
with several tons of coke on board bound for the US...
oh look whos bringing in the drugs..
aint worth it if they were legal...

I can see whay some around here might be against eliminating that in the future...
of course putting RP down spuriously would benefit that agenda...
american haters you can tell em every time.
they hate ron paul

edit on 23-6-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-6-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


reduction of states rights was the beginning of the end of the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
wonder why the founders named it that...

history lessons from Kro...
haha



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by kro32
 


reduction of states rights was the beginning of the end of the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
wonder why the founders named it that...

history lessons from Kro...
haha


Last time I checked the U.S.A. was still here. And there are plenty of states rights but alot of people like Ron Paul refuse to recognize that sometimes as the world changes so does America. If Ron Paul had been in office in the 1860's he would not have voted to abolish slavery as it's a state right.

That really the type of guy you want in the white house?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
It can't hurt his campaign.

Because he never had a chance in the first place.

Chalk another one up in the "kooky" section for Ron Paul Fantasy.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I would think it should help his campaign. He promotes individual liberty and people who are going to vote for him should be aware that if he is successful as president, we will likely be seeing more personal freedom for the people. And that means they will be allowed to marry who they choose, consume what they choose, make their own reproduction choices.

I fully support this kind of change in this country. If Ron Paul runs a successful campaign and shows that he would be successful in following through, I will probably vote for him.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
This will only hurt his campaign among those who don't understand him and wouldn't have voted for him anyway!
He is remarkably consistant in his belief in separation of powers and what powers are and are not given to the Federal Government by the Constitution. As far as people saying that he would not have voted to abolish slavery: couple of things.
The Emancipation Proclamation only ended slavery in those states in open rebellion to the Union. It wasn't really about freeing slaves. It was about trying to bring the rebelling states back in line. Slavery is terrible. I fully hope that ALL states would have come to that conclusion. But in terms of saying don't vote Ron Paul because he wouldn't abolish slavery. Well, that's a red herring, straw man, etc. etc.
He believes that the Federal Government has been granted a LIMITED amount of control over a LIMITED amount of things. He is willing to take the argument to its fullest most awful sounding edge. And he has, see his talk of heroin and prostitution in the first 2012 GOP debate. The reason he can do this is that the states would still have full power to outlaw any of those things. And he, and our constitution, believe that is where such powers lie.

Nobody has to agree with him. But, if we don't then we should likely lighten the Bill of Rights as number 10 does get in the way of winning a logical argument against the man. So, I understand that the world changes. Is liberty a quaint old fashioned ideal???

** I never meant to want Ron Paul. If voted into office he will do things I hate. But he will do them for the right reasons. And the system will be better off and back to its roots when he is done. He will abolish programs I believe are necessary. But the slate will be clean and we will better positioned to meet the future. If given the chance I will give him my vote**

So, long answer short: it only hurts him with people who don't understand our history, our rights, our constitution, and the issues. Unfortunately, that's a lot of people.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   




And this is his major flaw. He's a strict constitionalist and the Constitution was written with the ability to be adapted through the amendment process. Ron Paul believes that if it's not in the Constitution it isn't law. The huge mess he's going to create by letting States make their own laws on some important issues without a national standard is just plain wrong.

What if say Texas wanted to bring back slavery? You'd hope they'd make the right decision but past history shows that States are not always capable of doing that yet Ron Paul would let them. What if some state wanted to bring back Jim Crowe laws? Once again Ron Paul would allow it.

Homosexuals can get married in this state but not that one. Abortion is legal here but not there, this weapon is banned in California but not Nevada, if your an immigrant you can come through New Mexico but not Arizona.

If you don't see the problems with this way of thinking you are going to be in for a big surprise if he get's elected.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
What if say Texas wanted to bring back slavery? You'd hope they'd make the right decision but past history shows that States are not always capable of doing that yet Ron Paul would let them. What if some state wanted to bring back Jim Crowe laws? Once again Ron Paul would allow it.


States rights cannot violate the US Constitution. It's not like each state would be its own country. They would just have a lot more control over doing what their state wants to do. They still have to honor the Constitution.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Doesn't matter what Ron says. It will be spun against him. I for one back Ron, I've been following his career, and his voting record for some time. Individual liberty is now frowned upon in this establishment. That is why, he wont get the tv time as all the other " yes men " will. Though I would love to see him win the GOP nomination, its very unlikely that he will. TPTB wont allow someone with the core belief of less intervention, and the promotion of individualism.

Just look at the history, we have former POTUS's that are remembered for something. Whether it be the New Deal, or the NEW Society. Things of that nature, but look at the Former President Harding, didn't intervene, allowed the market to right itself, and wa-la, the 1920's saw some of the biggest increase's in wages, and economic stimulation.

And is Harding truly remembered? No...why you ask? Because less government intervention, and the promoting of individualism doesn't sell. And that is why Ron is stuck. He wont get the nomination. The slaves are to important to let out of TPTB control.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join