Marijuana.com

fat_enchilada

Look at it this way - while Ron might have one bad proposal that will cost a lot of money, the democrats and neocons will bring in MANY bad proposals, that will get passed if they don't have to worry about presidential vetoes.

 

Trocisp

That's a broad sweeping statement, it's too bad it's not backed up by logic.

Ron Paul doesn't have "a" proposal I don't agree with, he has many. He wont be getting my vote.

Honestly, call me crazy, but I like Hillary Clinton.

__________________
"No references to the need to fight terror can be an argument for restricting human rights." - Vladimir Putin
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." - Oscar Wilde
"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who overcomes his enemies." - Aristotle

fat_enchilada

Followed up by a quip with no substance. Joy.

One word: Earmarks
Two more words: "Fairness" doctrine
Three more words: Increased FCC regulation

I can say that too. But most either 1) won't get through congress, or 2) can be done at the state level.

You do know that she actually agrees with Ron Paul on the fence issue, right?

Plainsman1963

Ron Paul on immigration reform.

__________________


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

Trocisp

Care to explain the reasoning behind those three statements? Are they in relation to Ron Pauls stances (be them positive or negative) or Hillary Clintons (be them positive or negative)?
In response to;
1)Which ones wont get through congress? And it's not only laws and propositions of his that I disagree with, but his foreign policy as well.

2)What can be done at the state level? Stunning specificity there.

The difference being, her fence isn't purely a physical wall. She is for a smart-fence along most of it (in other words, rather than a full 2100 mile fence, fence in key areas, with Infrared cameras and motion detectors along the rest).

 

fat_enchilada

dude, drop the defensive quips and let's just talk about the issues.

1) The democrats and neocons are notorious for excessive and sometimes downright wasteful, for example the 400 million dollar "bridge to nowhere".

Ron Paul would veto any regulations that restrict freedom of speech in a heartbeat. On the other hand, our possible first husband is pushing the "fairness doctrine" and has outright stated that his intent is to shut down faux (oops, I mean FOX) news with it.

Anything that doesn't have the support of congress. He might want to push through certain things, but he'll be in the executive, not the legislative branch.

Dude, you don't need specificity there.
It's like saying "do it at a national level".
Anything that you want to push through on a national level - whether it be universal healthcare, or whatnot - you can do on a state level first.

Think about that one man.

*shrugs*

Trocisp

Dude, what quips?

If you take what I say as "quips," I assure you it's not intentional. It's how I talk. Look past them (like the rest of the world does) and address the meat of my posts.

That "Bridge to nowhere" would connect an International Airport to the mainland, and help develop land on the island of Gravina and help the Alaskan economy quite a bit. I'm not saying the bridge should be built, but I am saying that you should understand what you're critisizing.

And you know this because you're close personal friends with the man? Or because you read it on the internet?

I'm sorry - that was a quip. I take it back.

Really, though - everyone seems to be professing an intimate knowledge of what this man would and wouldn't do. You don't know, you know his track record and what he says... but if history has taught us anything, it's that history can't be trusted.

I, personally, support the Fairness doctrine, in theory. In reality, it has too much potential for abuse. Although I do believe that fox news, as well as some others should be more responsible about what they put on the air... there's no reason to legislate it.
Also, you can't count what Bill Clinton has done against Hillary, in case something radical has happened in the last few minutes that I'm unaware of - they're two different people. With two different heads, in two different times (Arguable, similar, but not the same).

Anything that what doesn't have the support of congress? Oh, you mean he'll veto a bill unless it's bipartisan? That's just silly.

There are plenty of bills that have been passed in the past that didn't have bipartisan support and were still good bills, which were turned into good laws, because the president had the foresight and intelligence to see that people don't always work together, and sometimes compromise just isn't the best option.

What are you talking about? No president has ever been in the legislative branch.

Yeah, you kinda do. Saying "Do it at a state level." doesn't mean anything, because it has nothing to refer to. It's what grammar teachers like to call "Wrong."

Do WHAT at a national level?
Okay, now I understand what you're talking about. You're saying that individual states should pass these laws independently of the Federal Government. Too bad that's not how this country works. In theory, yes - but in reality many state governments don't have the money to pass these bills without levying huge amounts of extra taxes. Where the federal government can simply divert money that's being used elsewhere.

Think about this... had I not thought about it, I wouldn't have already come to the logical conclusion (for me) that I don't support Ron Paul. I don't believe he would be a good president, period. You're not going to convince me otherwise. I'm well enough versed in his politics that I'm not going to vote for him. I have never discouraged other people from voting for him, only asked that before they do, they know more about his policies than just "he wants to legalize marijuana, lets vote for him, kek."



*farts*

Oh, my bad, was that inappropriate? Sorry - I had burritos for dinner.

fat_enchilada

I'm not saying that you're arrogant or act like know one but yourself knows anything, but you should stop assuming that you're the only one who knows anything.

Um, because when it comes to freedom of speech, Ron Paul's track record is clear. And you don't go to crazy events like Porcfest if you aren't an absolute first ammendment nut (and I do mean "nut")

Wait a second, are you saying that how a candidate has voted doesn't matter?

I understand that. But when Bill is on the campaign trail for hillary and flat out says that the fairness doctrine needs to get passed in order to take on fox news...

No, I'm saying that he'll veto virtually any bill forcing congress to push through bills which have the popular support of the majority of the people, instead of 49% of the people being screwed over by 51% of the people.

That's my point.
Ron Paul doesn't control congress.
He won't be able to cut back govt as much as people think he would.

The money comes from the same source

I think you're making too many assumptions about those interested in him

Trocisp

I'm not assuming I'm the only one who knows anything. But for my sake, your sake, and for the others reading this thread it's easier to put a backstory in for the debate. Once again, take a step back and stop taking this so personally. If you don't like your ideas being subject to scrutiny, don't post them on a public forum.

lol, you mean the Free State Project? That's nothing new. People have been doing Political Migrations for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years.

I think it's a good idea though. I kinda like it. I might be moving out to the D.C. area in the near future, and in a few years (depending on how things go), I might give it a shot.

No, I'm saying what he says can't be trusted. And his track record isn't a 100% set-in-stone thing. Just like any of the candidates, you can't profess for sure that he'll vote in a particular way. But Ron Paul does seem to be a reliable guy, I don't agree with all of his positions, but I have loads of respect for the man, If for no other reasons that (so far) he hasn't let his opinions be corrupted by anything.

Link? Proof? Video? Article?

I'm finding myself more and more supporting Edwards. He's a bit of a hillbilly, but I like him.
Uh, 51% is a majority. Should those 51% be screwed over by the 49%? Did you know that support of Medical Marijuana is only like 55% last I checked? Should those of us that support it be screwed by those 45% who don't?

I never said he did.

Presidential mandates carry huge amounts influence. And if the president can't work together with congress the US government comes to a halt. (For instance, when congress wouldn't work with Clinton for the budget)



No it doesn't.... The federal government has income from Tariffs that individual states don't (and can't) have. The individual states don't have the power to legislate import-taxes.


Not really - I've been to Digg one too many times recently.


I'll state again. I'm not asking people not to vote for me - I'm asking them to understand who they're voting for. If you've read and understand Ron Paul's ideas and support them... Good. Vote for him. But, if you're only voting for him because Bob down the road said "Ron Paul is good for the country!" I think you should rethink. That's all. I do not want to discourage people from voting their choices. That wouldn't be democratic.

Inhale

Yes it would, everyone can say what they please even if it alters anothers choice. What is peer pressure?