Kenickie
Bluelight Crew
Ron Paul with never be anything more than a footnote in my grandkids text books when covering the demise of the Republican party.
Kind of stupid, this 'joke'.
Kind of stupid, this 'joke'.
-
DPMC Moderators: tryptakid
Ron Paul jokes: "I don't want to use heroin" so I need drug laws
- Thread starter Unbreakable
- Start date
- Status
Whoa, I thought I was in drugs in the media but i guess im actually in CEP instead. Crazy!
....
why this thread is still in here is beyond me, it aint nothin but a political conversation about why ron paul is a lunatic or teh second coming of Jesus.
....
why this thread is still in here is beyond me, it aint nothin but a political conversation about why ron paul is a lunatic or teh second coming of Jesus.
severely etarded
Bluelight Crew
^The point was about legalization of drugs...
You missed it...
It's pure ignorance that people have started anti-Ron Paul rants in here...
Save it for CE&P kenickie. He had a point, don't derail the thread like your other half always does...
You missed it...
It's pure ignorance that people have started anti-Ron Paul rants in here...
kenickie said:
Save it for CE&P kenickie. He had a point, don't derail the thread like your other half always does...
Last edited:
Apostacious
Bluelighter
To those that think that states should be the sole law and provider of the land: the South lost. Also, I will repeat myself, mostly because the Ron Paulites in here have been ignoring it (either by pigeonholing it as a "rant," or flippantly refusing to address it): without a strong central federal government in today's world, the people of the U.S. lose their voice and their power. Also, if states alone provide for social services, there will be less people receiving them, since some states have a greater demand for social services than others, and those states are reliant upon money transfers from the federal government.
Yeah, Ron Paul has a pretty interesting voting record (he is anti-abortion, anti-universal healthcare, anti-FDA (he actually voted against a bill that would improve the food recall process), anti-art (if people like him were in charge in France in the mid to late 19th cen, there would be no Salon in Paris, and no Impressionism, and no Cubism, etc, etc), anti-workplace safety (he votes against any regulations in the business industry that are motivated to increase safety in the workplace), anti-unemployment compensation, claims to be pro-legalization, but refuses to fund needle exchange programs (though he IS against the war on drugs, which is one of the very few things I like him for), anti-antidiscriminatory laws in business and academia, anti-federal funding of education (yeah... if Ron Paul got what he wanted, I wouldn't be able to afford college, fuck him), and I could keep going on and on and on, so I'll just stop here. Ron Paul as POTUS will benefit only one demographic: the rich. source on RP's voting record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296
So, keep on calling skeptical people dumb, ignorant, moronic, etc simply because they aren't sold on Ron Paul's voting record. It does not help your argument at all.
Yeah, Ron Paul has a pretty interesting voting record (he is anti-abortion, anti-universal healthcare, anti-FDA (he actually voted against a bill that would improve the food recall process), anti-art (if people like him were in charge in France in the mid to late 19th cen, there would be no Salon in Paris, and no Impressionism, and no Cubism, etc, etc), anti-workplace safety (he votes against any regulations in the business industry that are motivated to increase safety in the workplace), anti-unemployment compensation, claims to be pro-legalization, but refuses to fund needle exchange programs (though he IS against the war on drugs, which is one of the very few things I like him for), anti-antidiscriminatory laws in business and academia, anti-federal funding of education (yeah... if Ron Paul got what he wanted, I wouldn't be able to afford college, fuck him), and I could keep going on and on and on, so I'll just stop here. Ron Paul as POTUS will benefit only one demographic: the rich. source on RP's voting record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296
So, keep on calling skeptical people dumb, ignorant, moronic, etc simply because they aren't sold on Ron Paul's voting record. It does not help your argument at all.
Last edited:
severely etarded
Bluelight Crew
Yea the south lost... Because they were keeping slaves, and slavery is a practice completely opposite to freedom, the principles America was found on.
And once again, you're derailing the thread with idiocy... The thread was about a particular congressman who is being open on the failed policies of the 'drug war', not a "Ron Paul sucks" vs "Ron Paul is God" thread lol
NSFW:
Lady Codone
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,134
FWIW, I think Paul would be assassinated or otherwise silenced if he were to
1.) be elected and
2.) attempt to put his ideas into motion.
Most of the "ideals" he represents would never become law even if he were president. America is too far gone; there are too many politicians, lobbyists and corporate assholes willing to do anything in their power (or beyond their power) to uphold the current system. The last "real" president we had...and his brother...didn't even live to see 50. Can you imagine someone like Paul coming in and attempting to do away with the Federal Reserve? Or the FBI? Or the Drug War?
If I had to choose based on whose ideals and beliefs matched my own (isn't that the point?), I'd say Ron Paul for Prez, with Jesse Ventura as VP
Flame away.
1.) be elected and
2.) attempt to put his ideas into motion.
Most of the "ideals" he represents would never become law even if he were president. America is too far gone; there are too many politicians, lobbyists and corporate assholes willing to do anything in their power (or beyond their power) to uphold the current system. The last "real" president we had...and his brother...didn't even live to see 50. Can you imagine someone like Paul coming in and attempting to do away with the Federal Reserve? Or the FBI? Or the Drug War?
If I had to choose based on whose ideals and beliefs matched my own (isn't that the point?), I'd say Ron Paul for Prez, with Jesse Ventura as VP
Flame away.
Apostacious
Bluelighter
Yea the south lost... Because they were keeping slaves, and slavery is a practice completely opposite to freedom, the principles America was found on.
And once again, you're derailing the thread with idiocy... The thread was about a particular congressman who is being open on the failed policies of the 'drug war', not a "Ron Paul sucks" vs "Ron Paul is God" thread lol
NSFW:
First, you have no authority to dictate the progression of a thread (lol, you of all people). Second, wow... you are horrible at presenting any counterpoints to any of the issues I bring up, huh? But, that's cool. I know how you deal with stuff you don't agree with: call it "idiocy" and ignore it, then do a facepalm, because you don't want to/can't read it. Right on man... all you're doing is making yourself look like a blow-hard. Works for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. He made a good point, consider it, forget about your opinion on whether or not he would make a good president. Like others have said, thats not the god damn topic at hand.
I think its great that politicians can/are saying things like this, I don't care who they are.
severely etarded
Bluelight Crew
lol, @ "you of all people"
who do you think you are?
I didn't counter the thread in order not to derail it anymore. You want me to counter it, start a PM with me and I will gladly counter all points until you don't know what to say anymore.
What's up with all the Ron Paul haters from CE&P... He's the only congressman who has the courage to make a good point about why prohibition is ridiculously ineffective.
What's up with not countering Ron Paul's point in the OP of this thread, instead of derailing and then flaming. I'm not the one who "look like a blow-hard moron" now
LMFAO GTFO
Last edited:
Apostacious
Bluelighter
lol, @ "you of all people"
who do you think you are?
I didn't counter the thread in order not to derail it anymore. You want me to counter it, start a PM with me and I will gladly counter all points until you don't know what to say anymore.
What's up with all the Ron Paul haters from CE&P... He's the only congressman who has the courage to make a good point about why prohibition is ridiculously ineffective.
What's up with not countering Ron Paul's point in the OP of this thread, instead of derailing and then flaming. I'm not the one who "look like a blow-hard moron" now
May want to rethink your comeback a little bit harder; troll-fail.
Hey, I provided my reasons for not voting for him, and it was after the scope of the thread changed. Also, what better way to show your love for Ron Paul than to debate with the haters? We wouldn't want a big circle jerk around RP now would we? Also, Ron Paul is hardly the only congressman to claim to be against drug prohibition... think Kucinich and Nader.
Also, whatever you say about my post is meaningless until you address the issues I brought up. Additionally, I already addressed the first post by saying I agree with his ideas on drug prohibition. Anyway, next time do more than just TL;DR my post if you're going to even bother addressing it, k?
severely etarded
Bluelight Crew
You like to live in the 90's... Kudos! It's 2011 now.
Says you?
Call the waaambulance.
You can't compare a war on slavery to a war on freedoms. Sorry. That just contradicts the purpose in and of itself.
Do you have any proof of these bogus claims? Any evidence? Anything to back your BS?
Do you have anything to prove to me that states need to pay into the multi trillion dollar "wars on terror" or "war on drugs" in order to get social services? Do you realize how much states would SAVE and then be able to use it on better things, like, uhhh, social services?
Do you have any proof that the states would magically lose their voice because of a less centralized federal government? If anything, each state would have a LARGER/LOUDER voice representative to their contribution to the federal government, which is fair, isn't it?
I don't think states have much voice anyway if they can't even legalize GROWING A FUCKING PLANT. Seriously dude. You need help.
OK you just posted proof a conservative really votes against spending. You just posted proof he votes like he says 8(
Last edited by a moderator:
Mora Fiend
Bluelight Crew
Quoted for Lawlz.
Apostacious
Bluelighter
severely retarded- So you concede? Okay. You've never proven to argue very well in a debate before. So, I guess I should feel stupid for assuming that you could have held your own today. Oh well. Peace.
Apostacious
Bluelighter
Okay... since new content was added after my post...
Actually, the American Civil War started as a war over states' rights to enact the laws that they wanted to. Slavery wasn't the largest issue until the war was well underway.
Sure thing.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/04/ron-paul-end-medicare-social-security-and-medicaid/
What... did you think I was making this up?
Actually, you pay no state income tax whatsoever, since you live in Texas, so you can't really say anything. I think you are referring to federal income taxes when you are speaking of the funding of the "War on Terror." The war on drugs I would be more than happy to see ended. I do not think that having Ron Paul as president is worth it.
I think you do not understand what I was trying to communicate, so I will try to be more clear. I said nothing of states losing their voice, I was speaking of citizens losing their voice, because their votes and opinions would not be able to find as powerful as a forum than what exists at the federal level. It is the federal government that can protect unions from disintegrating in the face of litigation from states and multi-national corporations that only want to see their downfall. It is the federal government that has the power to regulate the financial sector of the economy, to force firms to adopt strict safety protocol, and to provide the unemployed a chance to survive when there isn't enough charity to go around. Ron Paul's voting record (read it) proves the above.
This was quite non sequitor.
I posted the reasons why I would never vote for him. You can vote for him all you want, to each his own.
Awww, you can be so cute when you have no clue what you're talking about.
Actually, the American Civil War started as a war over states' rights to enact the laws that they wanted to. Slavery wasn't the largest issue until the war was well underway.
Sure thing.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/04/ron-paul-end-medicare-social-security-and-medicaid/
What... did you think I was making this up?
Actually, you pay no state income tax whatsoever, since you live in Texas, so you can't really say anything. I think you are referring to federal income taxes when you are speaking of the funding of the "War on Terror." The war on drugs I would be more than happy to see ended. I do not think that having Ron Paul as president is worth it.
I think you do not understand what I was trying to communicate, so I will try to be more clear. I said nothing of states losing their voice, I was speaking of citizens losing their voice, because their votes and opinions would not be able to find as powerful as a forum than what exists at the federal level. It is the federal government that can protect unions from disintegrating in the face of litigation from states and multi-national corporations that only want to see their downfall. It is the federal government that has the power to regulate the financial sector of the economy, to force firms to adopt strict safety protocol, and to provide the unemployed a chance to survive when there isn't enough charity to go around. Ron Paul's voting record (read it) proves the above.
This was quite non sequitor.
I posted the reasons why I would never vote for him. You can vote for him all you want, to each his own.
lmao dude...
Another:
Get your head out of your arse
Awww, you can be so cute when you have no clue what you're talking about.
Apostacious
Bluelighter
Oh wow... no wonder you are one infarction away from being banned... anyway, I'll be out doing other things in the meantime.
Mora Fiend
Bluelight Crew
/Gets inbetween Severely Etarded and Apostacious in hopes of getting this thread back on topic
severely etarded
Bluelight Crew
So what right of the states were the governments fighting over? The right to legalize slavery was the main one... You can't compare the right to legally own slaves to the right to legally grow marijuana.
No, but things would be drastically different if there wasn't trillion dollar wars going on... You have to realize that...
Good for your opinion.
Citizens don't have much voice as it is. Why do you think nobody votes these days? lol...
I think that kind of stuff is more suited for CE&P. This is just a story about a congressman telling it like it is. Nothing more.. But thanks for derailing the thread.
I agree; you can.
lol...
Last edited:
severely etarded
Bluelight Crew
sorry. That's what all the facepalms are for. This guy is frustrating, I try to get the thread back on topic, then he insists with the personal attacks and more derailment.
but that's trollbait I guess..
psychomimetic
Bluelighter
Slavery was the main cause of the civil war from the get go. Here's the first fewsentences of the declaration of causes of secession of Georgia (http://americancivilwar.com/documents/ has all the declarations of causes of secession, and all of them are about slavery)-
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
One of the big problems they are referring to here is that when southern slaveholders traveled to northern states they couldn't bring their slaves because northern states didn't recognize that their slaves were property.
There is no comparison between the drug war and the civil war that makes sense except for extremely general ones, like some states having a disagreement with the federal government. The issues are unrelated though.
Apostacious
Bluelighter
It was more specifically over whether new additions to the Union (Kansas for example among other "Western" states) could adopt slavery. The Union's agenda didn't involve outlawing slavery in southern states until after the Emancipation Proclamation. The reason the south ceded from the Union wasn't necessarily because of slavery, it was because they felt threatened by the elimination of the expansion of slavery with the expansion of the Union, considering it to go against state's rights. Abraham Lincoln said he'd be more than willing to allow slavery to exist within southern states indefinitely, if southern states simply didn't cede.
Therefore, the comparison between rhetoric coming from RP regarding states rights is well within line with the rhetoric that come from slave states in the mid 19th century. Nowhere do I say that legalization of drugs = legalization of slavery. That is a fallacious argument you are presenting.
... Am I denying that? No. There is NO EXCUSE to ever strip anyone of access to healthcare, emergency funds, and food. I don't care if someone goes to jail for 5 years for a joint. That person made a choice, and is aware of the consequences. Eliminating that penalty shouldn't come at the cost of the dismantlement of welfare, social security, medicaid and medicare.
Citizens DO have a platform for their voice these days, and that is why BHO won the '08 election. It is just unfortunate that he only has a very limited amount of presidential capital, and has to pander to those that go against the platform he campaigned on. So, that should send a clear message to everyone that we can't just elect a president and hope that shit gets better, but we have to be engaged at the local and state levels as well, broadcasting what we think the government should be doing.
Also, nobody votes because most people are relatively comfortable with their lives, and see no reason to change anything. I for one am not one of those people. I hope that there are more viable Independent candidates this election season.
Okay, this is why I have no patience at all for you. Did you even bother to read the entire thread before you started spamming memes and calling all who do not drink from the teat of RP's mouthpiece idiots? I will try to make it easy for you, because I understand you have some comprehension problems.
Phrozen asked, "I don't know much about him[Ron Paul]... Anyone care to explain why he's so terrible?" And I responded in turn.
Here's proof, because I'm sure you're going to ask for it! (even though you just need to begin reading the thread from the first page)
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showpost.php?p=9625282&postcount=8
Oh wow... I haven't seen that since 5th grade. Dude... did you seriously just write that? I mean... really?!
A little bit of self-consciousness goes a long way, you know? I feel bad for you...
Last edited:
- Status