Ron Paul Will Win The Republican Nomination & The Presidency

reply to post by robyn


Nice! Ron Paul not only knocks it out of the park with his policies, but also literally knocks it out of the park in baseball.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Nice post! I agree that the negativity certainly doesny help. I do think it will be an uphill battle for Dr. Paul, but he definitely has a much better shot than he did in 08. The media bias doesn't help him, but many forget, its the PEOPLE that decide. What the MSM is saying about Paul followers is true, they are dedicated to him, and will be getting out to vote. In my home state (NC), only 1 in 30 registered Republicans vote in the primaries. If all Paul supporters get out and vote (which I'm banking on), he should grab a good amount of delegates, especially if the establishment trifecta of Perry, Bachmann, and Romney stay in it long enough to split the establishment vote. The one thing the media has wrong too, is the diversity of his supporters. While he does generally attract younger voters, I don't think they are even the majority. I have been to one of his speeches, and out of the 1000+ people, about 40% were over 40 (and this was at NC State). I was at a Ron Paul meetup last night (we are canvassing SC with 1500 RP signs in September) with about 50 other supporters, and 70%+ of the crowd was over 40. People are waking up, and hopefully will wake up in time to elect Dr. Ron Paul as the POTUS!

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer

The whole drug thing is just what we need, NOT, a bunch of pot heads running around. Cheech & Chong do America. We have enough problems now with everyone laying around.

This is a joke, and I can't believe people like you still exist...

No joke. The idea of decriminalizing drugs and people zoning out more and more would be just a short step to a world depicted in the movie Equilibrium (2002).

Equilibrium is set in the futuristic, and dystopian city-state of Libria. The film explains how, in the early years of the 21st century, a devastating Third World War breaks out, the impact of which brings civilizations across the planet to their knees. After the war ends, world leaders fear that the human race cannot possibly survive a Fourth World War, and so set about building a new society which is free of conflict. Believing that human emotion is responsible for man's inhumanity to man, the new leaders ban all materials deemed likely to stimulate strong emotions, including art, music, and literature. These materials are rated "EC-10" for "emotional content" (a reference to the MPAA film rating system), and are typically destroyed by immediate incineration. Furthermore, all citizens of Libria are required to take regular injections, called "intervals," of a liquid drug called Prozium, collected at the distribution centers known as "Equilibrium". Libria is governed by the Tetragrammaton Council, which is led by a reclusive figurehead known as "Father". Father never interacts with anyone outside the ruling council, but his image is omnipresent throughout the city in a strong cult of personality. The Tetragrammaton Council strives to create identical lives for all Librians and uses its police state apparatus to enforce unity and conformity. At the pinnacle of Librian law enforcement are the Grammaton Clerics, who are trained in the deadly martial art of Gun Kata, an art which teaches users to predict the actions of opponents during firearm combat. The Clerics exist for the purpose of locating and destroying EC-10 materials and for pursuing, apprehending, and, if necessary, terminating "sense-offenders"people guilty of feeling emotions.

Source

When I first saw that movie, I though back to college and all the idiots smoking, partying and not studying. That movie world would suit them and many others just fine although partying might be too EC-10.

reply to post by Bramble Iceshimmer

No joke. The idea of decriminalizing drugs and people zoning out more and more would be just a short step to a world depicted in the movie Equilibrium (2002).

More ignorance on your part. You assume that once heroin, crack, meth, and any other illegal drug is made illegal, people are going to flock to the stores to score some black tar heroin or some crack rocks.

Tell me, if all drugs were decriminalized, would you run to the nearest store and buy some heroin? Would anybody in your family run to the store and buy some heroin? Can you name even a few people you know who would go out and buy some crystal meth or another drug like that?

The Drug War is an unwinnable, hypocritical joke. It's OK to use these drugs even though they kill half a million people each year, but it's not OK to use these drugs and you will go to jail if you possess them even though they kill only 3% of the Americans that tobacco and alcohol kill annually.

Ron Paul says it best:

When I first saw that movie, I though back to college and all the idiots smoking, partying and not studying. That movie world would suit them and many others just fine although partying might be too EC-10.

Did you think about all of the intelligent people smoking and studying?

reply to post by robyn




Not sure how I disproved my own point Robyn, since my only point was smoking pot doesn't make everyone lay around ??

Originally posted by dron020
I don't care if it is negative I will not vote for a Libiterian He may not be corrupt but his views are way to extreme

His views align with the founding fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson. Do you find the ideals of the founding fathers of this country to be "to(o) extreme"?

Originally posted by Strictsum
reply to post by robyn

 

Not sure how I disproved my own point Robyn, since my only point was smoking pot doesn't make everyone lay around ??

I didn't go back and see your previous post, but consider alcohol rather than pot. Do all people who enjoy alcohol abuse it and lose their families and jobs because of it? No. The same is true of pot. Sure, you have pot heads who do nothing but sit around playing video games getting high all day long, but you also have the recreational user who blazes a bowl after work to relax and decompress, and that's the extent of it.

Unfortunately, the "face" of marijuana use in the media is the criminally-predisposed slacker kid who gets baked 24/7. The other face gets ignored - the face that is the white-collar professional who uses on occasion and doesn't let it control their life.

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
No joke. The idea of decriminalizing drugs and people zoning out more and more would be just a short step to a world depicted in the movie Equilibrium (2002).

So, you base your opinions about real life, on movies? And you think people on drugs are zoned out? I'm guessing you have no experience with any drugs, at all. You're now in the minority, most people are tired of worrying about what other people are doing with their own bodies and are worried about their own problems. If somebody zones out, and is lazy, then they will not have money to buy food or drugs, and will be bumming. Because, another thing Ron Paul wants to do, is reform the welfare state. Under Ron Paul, people who can work, will have to if they want to get paid. He does not agree with drug use either, he just doesn't think it's the federal government's place to regulate what people willingly put in their own bodies. Under the system now, a drug user can get drugs in jail, so in all reality, if you work you're paying for drug users' rent, food, medical care, etc. while they sit in prison and get high without having to ever earn a living.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


I agree 150%, I know people of varied backgrounds and professions who use marijuana and most for different reasons.

I believe Robyn confused my post with someone elses because I replied and didn't use the ats system to quote them. It looked like I said something then completely disagreed with myself, lol. I've fixed it now.

That was from about an hour ago, maybe 2hrs ago

OMG it's after midnight!!!!!!!!

i gotta go sleep

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Nice, he nailed that interview. I like how he handled the question about him being ignored by media, because if he was like "Hell yeah I'm being ignored!", then people who watch a lot of MSM would pick out like one or two interviews that he's done recently and be like "See! He was being interviewed, what is that crazy guy talking about" or something like that.

I also kind of felt like when Blitzer asked him about if he thinks Perry was right in saying that it's "treasonous" or not, he was kind of setting him up to pick a side and either way that could be shown on MSM in a negative light in an attempt to take away some of his supporters. Or maybe I'm just paranoid...

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Wow, do all of his devotees enjoy being talked to in a tone and pace like a kindergarden teacher? That was an insult to my intelligence to have some politician on a major cable network sound like Mr Rogers in an attempt to reach his audience.
He should have used a sock puppet and play doh to illustrate some of his points.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
That was an insult to my intelligence to have some politician on a major cable network sound like Mr Rogers in an attempt to reach his audience.

The guy is on the road like crazy right now

In any case i'm pretty sure you not voting for Ron Paul is what is an insult to your intelligence

Hey Look at me, i'm Tinfoil and I want the govt. to keep screwing me over

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Really? That's all you got now? And I can see why he needs to talk like a kindergarten teacher, because of stupid Americans who have been so mind screwed by the Establishment, that they need that kind of clarity and calm speaking to pull them down from their media induced states of panic, and anger towards anybody that doesn't agree with them 100% politically.

I agree with a ton of what Ron Paul says.

The only issue I have is with his black & white view of foreign policy.

I'm prior military and I wholeheartedly agree that we need to shut most of our overseas bases down. But we can't go full isolationist: we're not Sweden.

if I had to put a number to it, in 85% in agreement with him.

reply to post by tangonine


That's just another smear tactic by the media. He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist. There's a big difference.

Non-intervention

Paul's stance on foreign policy is one of consistent non-intervention,[10][11] opposing wars of aggression and entangling alliances with other nations.[12]

Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe, among others.[13] He also proposes that the U.S. stop sending massive, unaccountable foreign aid.[14] The National Journal labeled Paul's overall foreign policies in 2006 as more conservative than 20% of the House and more liberal than 77% of the House (28% and 72%, respectively, in 2005).[15][16][17] For 2008, his ratings were 57% more conservative and 42% more liberal (48% and 52%, respectively, in 2007).[18]

In an October 11, 2007 interview with The Washington Post, Paul said, "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."[19]
en.wikipedia.org...

Often, when a Libertarian expresses the sentiment that we should not be meddling in foreign affairs, they are automatically labed as an "isolationist". But such a label is miguided and ignorant of what isolationism actually is, and the term itself is often used as a buzz word to denounce anyone that dares to oppose a war or foreign intervention. The libertarian is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist.

Non-interventionism means peace, free trade, civil diplomacy and cultural exchange - without entangling alliances and enemies with other nations. The old Jeffersonian phrase is "Peace and trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none". This is a vital principle that was present at the founding of America. A non-interventionist strongly believes that the only justification for war is self-defense. They are therefore strongly opposed to militarism and empire/nation-building.

Isolationism, on the other hand, means wide-spread trade barriers, huge walls on the borders, no diplomacy and no cultural exchange. Many isolationists believe in having no foreign immigration at all. Wheras the non-interventionist would openly trade, the isolationist would put up tariffs and completely block trade with countries they do not like. Isolationists are protectionist. Whereas the non-interventionist would allow people to freely immigrate, most isolationists are quite hostile to the entire concept of immigration. The isolationist is hostile to a global free market, while the non-interventionist wants to protect the global economy.
www.ronpaulforum.com...

With all our troops here, at home, they can defend this nation much more effectively. Not to mention they can use their pay to stimulate OUR economy, not the economies of Germany, Japan, S Korea, etc.

reply to post by tangonine


Here's a pretty clear breakdown of his ideas in regards to national defense...

A PRO-AMERICA FOREIGN POLICY

As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.

In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.

Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.

Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.

Congress has been rendered virtually irrelevant in foreign policy decisions and regularly cedes authority to an executive branch that refuses to be held accountable for its actions.

Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.

That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:

* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.

* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

As President, Ron Paul’s national defense policy will ensure that the greatest nation in human history is strong, secure, and respected.
www.ronpaul2012.com...

I already knew all that But I'm sure other posters here will benefit from reading his policies.

I already told you: I'm 85% in his camp.

reply to post by tangonine


Cool.

Was mostly just addressing the isolationist comment you had made, but it does help other readers who may not be aware of his policies militarily. He's not an isolationist, and would definitely not take an attack on the chin, we just need to focus on our country right now. We need our troops home, for so many reasons.

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by tangonine

 

Cool.

Was mostly just addressing the isolationist comment you had made, but it does help other readers who may not be aware of his policies militarily. He's not an isolationist, and would definitely not take an attack on the chin, we just need to focus on our country right now. We need our troops home, for so many reasons.

I agree. Bring them all home. Now.

There isn't a single national interest being achieved by letting our men and women be killed for nothing. There is no objective, there is no threat to our nation that can be solved by 100 thousand military personnel in asscrackistan.