Ron Paul Has A Legit Shot.

[Parker]

Well the article written in his newsletter from the 1st person perspective of a congressman who voted against MLK's birthday was obviously written by him.

Once again you are wrong. Which time are you speaking of? The time he voted for it in 1979 or the time he voted against it in 1983. Do you know the reasons for the different vote?

I know you are probably in denial about that, but everyone in America except Ron Paul fanatics all can see that clearly. That makes his claims on TV about MLK being his hero seem like a big lie.

Why because you say so? No reason given, just because. You're just another person who thinks he knows better than the ones involved. If you want to know about the Dept of Education you ask teachers and parents of students. Get to the source or as close to the source as possible.

It's just telling people what they want to hear. It's Romney speak. Ron Paul's greatest asset is that he appears honest. If he loses that he's going to lose a lot of votes with it.

It is because you are uninformed. You probably thought Ron is an isolationist as well as walked off the CNN interview. Quit listening to the lame stream media, take the agenda driven blinders off and dig deeper for the truth.

It's beyond what is believable that someone else is writing articles impersonating Ron Paul in his own newsletter and he did not know about it.

Wrong yet again. It wasn't his newsletter. He had nothing to do with it. The fault lies with the writer and the editor. Those are the two closest to the articles. The publisher doesn't have the input the editor has.

It's not sensationalism. Ron Paul is caught in a lie.

That's another thing you're wrong on. You have no proof except just because you say so.

I know you're willing to ignore reality and take Ron Paul's word for it even though the evidence doesn't support that, but the rest of America is not.

You don't have any evidence. Not one iota. No proof he wrote them. People who have listened to Ron Paul for decades and not one person has accused him of writing them. They have said everything in those newsletters sounds completely different than what Ron Paul has said for the last 50 years. Not one reliable person. Yet you know better, right.

Obviously Ron Paul regrets that newsletter now that he's running for president.

He has said he takes a moral responsibility for not paying attention to something with his name on it even though it changed hands, he wasn't in Congress, and he had nothing to do with it.

But he should just say that rather than lying about it. No one outside his cult is believing it.

That's because you're an agenda driven, simple minded person who accepts things on face value as long as it fits your agenda. Even when what proof there is shows the complete opposite. You're the same type of person who believed the media driven garbage about the Dukes students raping that girl.
You are no different than the ones who judge pot smokers as criminals because someone said so.
Speaking of, here is something else you don't know.
Ron Paul is against the war on drugs. He brings up the point about how minorities, especially in the inner city are incarcerated at a much higher rate than non minorities even though the drug use is similar, percentage wise.

 

['ome Grown]

Quick question from an aussie here. Didn't want to make a whole new thread asking this, so will just throw it in here and hopefully get a quick response.

If Ron Paul becomes president of the USA, will he make it legal for medicinal marijurana nation wide? If so, then would that also alleviate the foreign pressure that the USA has on drug laws in other countries?

Because if it does...then I really hope he gets in. Even if he is a shit as george bush, at least you can vote him out after 4 years...by then the laws and infrastructure will have changed enough.

 

[mccumcumber]

He says that he'll leave it to the states to decide and that federally it won't be illegal.

 

[UncleBuck]

If Ron Paul becomes president of the USA, will he make it legal for medicinal marijurana nation wide?

no, that is not how our laws work.

congress has to pass such a law, the president can only sign it into law or veto it. the veto can be overcome by a 2/3 majority in congress however.

we all know congress will not pass any such law, stoners are too easy of a political target.

the path to cannabis re-legalization will be through voter initiatives. california recently had a chance to get the ball rolling, but they fucked the dog.

short answer: NO. ron paul will not make cannabis legal and has no power to make cannabis legal.

 

[sync0s]

Quick question from an aussie here. Didn't want to make a whole new thread asking this, so will just throw it in here and hopefully get a quick response.

If Ron Paul becomes president of the USA, will he make it legal for medicinal marijurana nation wide? If so, then would that also alleviate the foreign pressure that the USA has on drug laws in other countries?

Because if it does...then I really hope he gets in. Even if he is a shit as george bush, at least you can vote him out after 4 years...by then the laws and infrastructure will have changed enough.

George Bush and Ron Paul are total and complete opposites.

You have to realize. Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. Therefore meaning that he won't use his executive powers to write laws, thus making "legalizing" not a power that he would have/use. This is the reason he says he "won't enforce any federal laws overriding state laws" thereby respecting states rights. He would, as President, have the ability to push Congress into reforming drug law. Ron Paul doesn't believe in the use of executive orders except in situations expressly defined in the Constitution. Therefore, these things would be reserved for situations where US is being attacked, or repealing unconstitutional legislation such as the Patriot Act (Oath of Office).

People are so used to Presidents violating the U.S. Constitution now days that they fully expect a President have and use nearly dictatorial powers to create legislation.

As a Libertarian and a Ron Paul supporter take it from me you can't expect a whole different world under a Ron Paul Presidency. The largest reason I support Ron Paul isn't the small government (even with my political affiliation), rather the fact that I want someone in office who will respect the Constitution for what it is and says. I'm sick of politicians in office who treat the Constitution as if it is the document that has destroyed this nation. That's all I'm asking for right now as a voter.

 

[Dan Kone]

Once again you are wrong. Which time are you speaking of? The time he voted for it in 1979 or the time he voted against it in 1983. Do you know the reasons for the different vote?

No, I'm not wrong. The article was written from a 1st person perspective of a congressman who voted against it. And no, he did not vote for it in 1979. I've been through this already. The 1979 vote was to change the proposed day of the holiday. He voted in favor of changing the day, not in favor of the holiday.

Why because you say so? No reason given, just because.

Because it's really really obvious. It's OJ Simpson trial obvious.

You're just another person who thinks he knows better than the ones involved.

No, I'm someone who looked at the evidence and saw the obvious conclusion. You're refusing to believe it because you think the words of Ron Paul supersede reality.

It is because you are uninformed.

No. I've seen all the information and have chosen to to believe he is lying, as has most of America. It's not being uninformed to be skeptical about the words of a politician. It's uninformed not to be skeptical.

You probably thought Ron is an isolationist as well as walked off the CNN interview. Quit listening to the lame stream media, take the agenda driven blinders off and dig deeper for the truth.

Enough with that bullshit already. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are brainwashed. Get over it.

Wrong yet again. It wasn't his newsletter. He had nothing to do with it. The fault lies with the writer and the editor. Those are the two closest to the articles. The publisher doesn't have the input the editor has.

Ummm. He published it under his own name. Some of those articles are clearly written by him. To pretend it's not his newsletter is beyond what is believable. Why would someone pay to have a newsletter printed in their name and be completely unaware of the content? That makes no sense. It's like saying Bill Gates had nothing to do with developing windows.

But what ever. Keep acting like a cult member if you like. That's up to you.

 

[Sure Shot]

no, that is not how our laws work.

congress has to pass such a law, the president can only sign it into law or veto it. the veto can be overcome by a 2/3 majority in congress however.

we all know congress will not pass any such law, stoners are too easy of a political target.

the path to cannabis re-legalization will be through voter initiatives. california recently had a chance to get the ball rolling, but they fucked the dog.

short answer: NO. ron paul will not make cannabis legal and has no power to make cannabis legal.

He's been trying to do just that, with the power he holds now.

On February 13, 2007 Rep. Ron Paul introduced H.R. 1009, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007," with nine original co-sponsors. The bill was assigned to comittee, but never received a hearing or a floor vote.

​

On April 2, 2009 Rep. Ron Paul introduced H.R. 1866, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009," with ten original co-sponsors. This bill died in committee at the end of the 111th Congress in January 2011. It had 26 co-sponsors, including Rep. Ron Paul, the most ever!

​

On May 12, 2011 Rep. Ron Paul introduced H.R. 1831, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011," with twenty-two original co-sponsors

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2796207/postshttp://www.votehemp.com/federal.html

 

[UncleBuck]

Why would someone pay to have a newsletter printed in their name and be completely unaware of the content? That makes no sense.

that's the thing. the answer to this question is a denial and reversal of the question.

he did not pay to print the newsletter, he profited from it. this much is fact.

and he was not unaware of the content, he full knew what was being printed under his name, in the first person. one of his main people wrote it for him in the first person, and it pandered enough and was controversial enough that he let it go out in the hopes of making more money.

and he did make more money. just as sex sells, so does controversy.

the real death blow to his campaign comes from the handling of it. in 1995 he boasted of his newsletters, in 1996 he claimed he wrote them, in 2001 he said someone else wrote them but never said who or never even tried to find out who, in 2008 he said he did not write them but did not pin it on anyone else and claimed moral responsibility for them, now he is disavowing them entirely and saying he never read or wrote them.

that story is entirely too inconsistent for me to ever believe. i know he did not write the articles, but i believe he damn well read them or knew they were incendiary and let them be published anyway so that he could profit from them.

and i also know he has fucked up the handling of it in the worst way possible the whole time.

that is yet another reason why he will never be president: ron paul picks shitty advisers and is dumb enough to listen to the advice of shitty advisers.

go home, grandpa.

 

[UncleBuck]

Congressman Ron Paul introduced H.R. 1831, the “Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011,” on May 11. It is a simple bill at just two pages in length, and it would legalize the growing of industrial hemp in the United States.

Currently farmers can grow industrial hemp only if they have received a permit from the DEA – a prospect that the agency has made all but impossible for decades. Otherwise, it is illegal to grow.

Although Rep. Paul has introduced several bills like this one in the past, there are several reasons that this bill should be passed now. Hemp has an amazing number of uses. Its fiber can be used in carpeting, home furnishings, construction materials, auto parts, textiles, and paper. Its seeds can be used in food, industrial oils, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2796207/posts

you must have worked feverishly to figure out how to use the commands "ctrl+C" and "ctrl+V" in order to post something which in no way refutes what i said.

 

[j.GrEeN.<,{'^'},>]

Well that's not without reason, and I don't think it's manipulative at all. The article in question was written in Ron Paul's newsletter from the 1st person perspective of a congressman who voted against making MLK's birthday a holiday. It's very reasonable to assume he is the author of said article. What is wrong with that?



If Ron Paul supporters did not act like cultists, I would not have to do that. But when his supporters are willing to lie and smear in order to continue the denial of something true because they can not accept the idea that Ron Paul is a fallible human being, that screams cult behavior to me.



But that's not true. tryingtogrow89 has immediately picked up where Deprave left on and now is repeating the lie that Ron Paul voted for MLK's birthday even after that has been proven false. So no, not one person.



The idea that the only possible source of evidence and factual information is Ron Paul's mouth demonstrates cult like devotion. Seems like to Ron Paul supporters Ron Paul's words are the undisputed word of truth. If he says something, it becomes your reality. Paul supporters seem to not be interested in any facts that do not support or glorify Ron Paul. When those facts are brought up, the messenger gets attacked. You guys are putting a lot of blind faith in Ron Paul.

I find this all very disturbing.

Well the article written in his newsletter from the 1st person perspective of a congressman who voted against MLK's birthday was obviously written by him. I know you are probably in denial about that, but everyone in America except Ron Paul fanatics all can see that clearly. That makes his claims on TV about MLK being his hero seem like a big lie. It's just telling people what they want to hear. It's Romney speak. Ron Paul's greatest asset is that he appears honest. If he loses that he's going to lose a lot of votes with it.



It's beyond what is believable that someone else is writing articles impersonating Ron Paul in his own newsletter and he did not know about it. It's not sensationalism. Ron Paul is caught in a lie. I know you're willing to ignore reality and take Ron Paul's word for it even though the evidence doesn't support that, but the rest of America is not.

Obviously Ron Paul regrets that newsletter now that he's running for president. But he should just say that rather than lying about it. No one outside his cult is believing it.

I know, i know. Nothing is proof unless Ron Paul says it is.



You can't publish a racist newsletter for 20 years and not know about it. That is simply not believable.



Because Ron Paul is giving answers that are not very believable. They are re-asking the questions in order to get a more credible answer. Why is it ok to keep asking Romney questions he's already answered about health care, but Ron Paul is off limits?



Clearly no one believed his answer the first time. You might think it's the truth, but most people don't.



Not believing 100% of what comes out of a politicians mouth does not = being uniformed. You are uninformed for believing every thing he says. 100% of elected politicians lie. They have to or they'd never get elected. If you think otherwise, you're uninformed.



Yes he is. But that has nothing to do with his affairs. People have shown they are willing to support him despite that. He's dropping in the polls for other reasons. You missed my point entirely. I never once said that if you have an affair and admit it you're guaranteed to be elected president. I just said the American people are willing to forgive something like that as long as there is no cover up. Once there is a cover up, you're done in politics. Just ask John Edwards.



Ya know, you guys are acting like fucking lunatics. I'm merely explaining why this is an issue, and here you go again. If someone doesn't glorify Ron Paul all the time, then you've got to smear them. Is he Ron Paul or Kim Jong Il? Should we start referring to him as glorious leader?

Good luck with your cult, nutjob.

No, I'm not wrong. The article was written from a 1st person perspective of a congressman who voted against it. And no, he did not vote for it in 1979. I've been through this already. The 1979 vote was to change the proposed day of the holiday. He voted in favor of changing the day, not in favor of the holiday.



Because it's really really obvious. It's OJ Simpson trial obvious.



No, I'm someone who looked at the evidence and saw the obvious conclusion. You're refusing to believe it because you think the words of Ron Paul supersede reality.




No. I've seen all the information and have chosen to to believe he is lying, as has most of America. It's not being uninformed to be skeptical about the words of a politician. It's uninformed not to be skeptical.



Enough with that bullshit already. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are brainwashed. Get over it.



Ummm. He published it under his own name. Some of those articles are clearly written by him. To pretend it's not his newsletter is beyond what is believable. Why would someone pay to have a newsletter printed in their name and be completely unaware of the content? That makes no sense. It's like saying Bill Gates had nothing to do with developing windows.

But what ever. Keep acting like a cult member if you like. That's up to you.

ASSUMPTION, CONJECTURE, SLANDER, YOUR OPINION - HONESTY = Dan Kone x BULL sHiTtEr*2

ASS x CON + SL/YO - H = DKxbs*2 . . . . Dude, your equation is faulty!!

 

[sync0s]

If Ron Paul did write these newsletters, and he is a rascist: Then what?

 

[Dan Kone]

He's been trying to do just that, with the power he holds now.

On February 13, 2007 Rep. Ron Paul introduced H.R. 1009, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007," with nine original co-sponsors. The bill was assigned to comittee, but never received a hearing or a floor vote.

​

On April 2, 2009 Rep. Ron Paul introduced H.R. 1866, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009," with ten original co-sponsors. This bill died in committee at the end of the 111th Congress in January 2011. It had 26 co-sponsors, including Rep. Ron Paul, the most ever!

​

On May 12, 2011 Rep. Ron Paul introduced H.R. 1831, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011," with twenty-two original co-sponsors

http://www.votehemp.com/federal.html

It would still take an act of congress to legalize it. Unless Ron Paul gets 60 votes in the senate, he can't do it.

 

[Dan Kone]

reason why he will never be president: ron paul picks shitty advisers and is dumb enough to listen to the advice of shitty advisers.

go home, grandpa.

That's another valid point. If he picks people who sound like they are klan members to write a newsletter in his name, who's he going to put in the cabinet?

 

[Dan Kone]

ASSUMPTION, CONJECTURE, SLANDER, YOUR OPINION - HONESTY = Dan Kone x BULL sHiTtEr*2

ASS x CON + SL/YO - H = DKxbs*2 . . . . Dude, your equation is faulty!!

Yep. Attack the messenger. Typical.

 

[Dan Kone]

If Ron Paul did write these newsletters, and he is a rascist: Then what?

Then he's not fit to be president.

 

[UncleBuck]

If Ron Paul did write these newsletters, and he is a rascist: Then what?

Then he's not fit to be president.

i disagree with dan.

he is unfit to be president base don many things which we can discuss, but this is not a disqualifier. this is merely the most effective smear. the old standby.

i would love if we could move off this issue, and on to another one that is equally as damning.

 

[Parker]

i disagree with dan.

he is unfit to be president base don many things which we can discuss, but this is not a disqualifier. this is merely the most effective smear. the old standby.

i would love if we could move off this issue, and on to another one that is equally as damning.

First you said this isnt a disqualifier then you say to move on to another that is equally as damning. Is it or isn't it.
Which policy of his is damning? The one that would have saved all those lives by not going into Iraq? or his policy that would have prevented the economic collapse caused by the Housing bill?

 

[Parker]

no, that is not how our laws work.

congress has to pass such a law, the president can only sign it into law or veto it. the veto can be overcome by a 2/3 majority in congress however.

we all know congress will not pass any such law, stoners are too easy of a political target.

the path to cannabis re-legalization will be through voter initiatives. california recently had a chance to get the ball rolling, but they fucked the dog.

short answer: NO. ron paul will not make cannabis legal and has no power to make cannabis legal.

That is how it is supposed to work. The President has been making laws. Obama used executive orders to enact part of his jobs bill.

 

[deprave]

That's another valid point. If he picks people who sound like they are klan members to write a newsletter in his name, who's he going to put in the cabinet?

uh...his advisors are very smart actually..Bruce Fein the ingenious constitutional lawyer as an example. I don't think any of his advisors had something to do with a a newsletter while he wasn't even in politics, this was just a guess of mine..at least he wouldn't pick goldman sachs ceo's like obama

 

[deprave]

i disagree with dan.

he is unfit to be president base don many things which we can discuss, but this is not a disqualifier. this is merely the most effective smear. the old standby.

i would love if we could move off this issue, and on to another one that is equally as damning.

I agree this is stupid, so what else you got?