The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
londonfog
Well-Known Member
yeah start talking stupid....I will as well....No I don't think drug users don't belong in jail unless they steal,kill, or hurt someone else...I also don't believe in being an enabler...I also believe that if you put dangerous drugs with no real medical benefits out to the public, it can and will get to our kids...tell you what take Ron's dick out your mouth and realize that maybe he should have not said that about heroin..again what is your plan after the Republicans reject him again...????Mitt Romney ????
DelSlow
Well-Known Member
If it was legal, you could test it for strength and purity etc. Take it out of the black market. That argument can be applied to all drugs.
Same with prostitutes, check em for STDs and whatnot. Why can pornstars make a living off of fucking, while hookers can't? Oh yeah, because we get to watch
Same with prostitutes, check em for STDs and whatnot. Why can pornstars make a living off of fucking, while hookers can't? Oh yeah, because we get to watch
deprave
New Member
in my best Chris Matthews voice: then you think heroin should be legal? is that what your saying?
deprave
New Member
so london you like people, you like freedom, you don't think drug users should go to jail, so does that mean you want to make heroin legal? (I just put those words in your mouth just as chris matthews and the debate commentator did to Ron Paul)
So now whats your defense....."Hell no!" "drugs are bad"....or do you actually answer the question...like Ron Paul did....Like any person would...your saying he should of dodged the question?
So now whats your defense....."Hell no!" "drugs are bad"....or do you actually answer the question...like Ron Paul did....Like any person would...your saying he should of dodged the question?
londonfog
Well-Known Member
if you are a SMALL time dealer I would give you another chance ( two strikes and you do your time )..If you are a user I would try to get you some treatment ( no time but treatment )...If you are a trafficker I would lock your ass up....as a politician I damn sure wouldn't say make heroin legal...I know this is hard to understand because Ron Paul did not say it, but if you get his dick out your ass you just might see why making heroin legal would be a bad move for our society...I'm not big on man-made drugs that have no medical benefits and could very well kill your ass...
txpete77
Well-Known Member
You might want to read the 10th amendment (and probably the entire constitution) before you start bashing him for his position.
There is nothing in the Constitution that grants power to the federal govenment to regulate medicinal or recreational substances, thereby leaving this role to each and every individual state to decide, or to the people.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
I suggest you read the preamble of the Constitution that sets the spirit, fundamental purposes and guiding principles for the Constitution itself..
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
You can't promote the "general welfare" of the people if you start to promoting the legal sell of man-made drugs that have no medical benefits, but in fact can kill your ass and fuck up your life...hey everybody lets do some crack and heroin they say it can cure your problems..NOT
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
You can't promote the "general welfare" of the people if you start to promoting the legal sell of man-made drugs that have no medical benefits, but in fact can kill your ass and fuck up your life...hey everybody lets do some crack and heroin they say it can cure your problems..NOT
londonfog
Well-Known Member
txpete77
Well-Known Member
The preamble contains no enforcable clause. Otherwise it would have been detailed in one of the first three articles, or the later amendments.
That argument is weak at best...
That argument is weak at best...
That still doesn't give it free license to pass laws restricting products... Besides, Ron Paul is running for President, Article II contains the relevant powers to that office.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
lol you asked where in constitution does it show FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to regulate..when I show you ...you say some weak shit like he running for POTUS so that don't count
...wtf...he made his statement about how heroin should be legal as a Congress member...you do realize what branch actually makes the laws...POTUS only has veto power...face it ron was wrong by making that statement ...bad judgement
...wtf...he made his statement about how heroin should be legal as a Congress member...you do realize what branch actually makes the laws...POTUS only has veto power...face it ron was wrong by making that statement ...bad judgement
txpete77
Well-Known Member
Also... when you say "How the fuck will heroin make our country better", you understand there are millions of Americans that are saying "How the fuck will marijuana make our country better"
How the fuck does prostitution make our country better? It has never been illegal under federal law, yet the states have been handling this for centuries.
In 1919, there were millions of Americans asking "How the fuck will alcohol make our country better" In 1933 the question was more like "What the fuck were we thinking?"
Then in 1937, when the ink of the 21st Amendment was barely dry, the people were asking "How the fuck will marihuana make our country better", and passed the Marihuana Tax Act... without an amendment to the Constitution. What was the constitutional justification of this? We'll get back to that one...
Ask yourself this... If a processed product (alcohol) had required a constitutional amendment to regulate, and a plant did not, how can you justify the regulation of another processed product (heroin) without an amendment? Your position demonstrates a failure to apply logic to this situation.
Back to the justification of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937... The justification was that they needed none. The act was later ruled unconstitutional, but on the grounds that it required incrimination to be compliant with the law (5A violation). The real answer is that progressives see no need for Constitutional justification to implement their plans. They ignore it, attack it, and discount it every chance they can until they think they can use it to make a gain in power (by generally by quoting the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clause).
The progressives are constantly contradicting themselves in terms concepts, they throw reason to the side, and have no solid principles... How are you any different in this?
How the fuck does prostitution make our country better? It has never been illegal under federal law, yet the states have been handling this for centuries.
In 1919, there were millions of Americans asking "How the fuck will alcohol make our country better" In 1933 the question was more like "What the fuck were we thinking?"
Then in 1937, when the ink of the 21st Amendment was barely dry, the people were asking "How the fuck will marihuana make our country better", and passed the Marihuana Tax Act... without an amendment to the Constitution. What was the constitutional justification of this? We'll get back to that one...
Ask yourself this... If a processed product (alcohol) had required a constitutional amendment to regulate, and a plant did not, how can you justify the regulation of another processed product (heroin) without an amendment? Your position demonstrates a failure to apply logic to this situation.
Back to the justification of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937... The justification was that they needed none. The act was later ruled unconstitutional, but on the grounds that it required incrimination to be compliant with the law (5A violation). The real answer is that progressives see no need for Constitutional justification to implement their plans. They ignore it, attack it, and discount it every chance they can until they think they can use it to make a gain in power (by generally by quoting the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clause).
The progressives are constantly contradicting themselves in terms concepts, they throw reason to the side, and have no solid principles... How are you any different in this?
hazyintentions
Well-Known Member
Okay I see your side BUT his "views" are soley based on what was written in the Constitution, he didn't pull the argument out of his ass. Just wanted to point that out.
Also,
Wha wha what? States Rights is BS?? Power to the Federal Government we should all be zombies!
I'm only kidding, I read the context but it's not a valid argument when someone does something like taking an excerpt like that and exploiting it huh?
It can inherently get annoying.
beardo
Well-Known Member
.....meth was legal untill a few years ago...10 15 years ago you could buy it at the gas station....also ritilin is a type of meth-Do your research.
hazyintentions
Well-Known Member
Finally a temporary peace...
[video=youtube;VLu7XMqHTjs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLu7XMqHTjs&feature=player_embedded[/video]
Who's with letting the debt ceiling stay and the possibility of a default?
It's part of the natural cycle of a free market so why attach all this fear to it? I'm tired of hearing people saying "Ohh if we don't raise it SS checks won't go out, la da da da da". Wouldn't that mean the administration would pick and choose not to pay SS checks? I'm tired of this bureaucracy scaring old people as if they are dumb, the were the people who saw america during it's prime, I think if any one they KNOW what's wrong, maybe that's why the fat feds are trying to scare them? Who knows?
[video=youtube;VLu7XMqHTjs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLu7XMqHTjs&feature=player_embedded[/video]
Who's with letting the debt ceiling stay and the possibility of a default?
It's part of the natural cycle of a free market so why attach all this fear to it? I'm tired of hearing people saying "Ohh if we don't raise it SS checks won't go out, la da da da da". Wouldn't that mean the administration would pick and choose not to pay SS checks? I'm tired of this bureaucracy scaring old people as if they are dumb, the were the people who saw america during it's prime, I think if any one they KNOW what's wrong, maybe that's why the fat feds are trying to scare them? Who knows?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no way.
your naivete pales in comparison to the out and out ignorance, bigotry, and racism expressed by your fellow comrade cultists.
i mean, slaves were better off as slaves? LOL!
you can't make this stuff up.