Erpsssarwtc

[ThatGuy113]

HE JUSTIFIES THE SYSTEM SCREWING PEOPLE BECAUSE HE STICKS TO HIS CONSITUTIONAL GUNS for better or for worse.

He may not support segragation but if you apply his states rights arguments he would see no issue with what Governor Wallace was doing.

He allows the states to make up their minds on all sorts of social issues that shouldn't even be dealt with in politics according to him.
What are natural rights? That is what is garenteed to us but like I said thats in the eye of the beholder.

The question isnt wether or not Ron Paul personally supports segragation ,legalization, abortion or whatever.

The issue is he wants to set up a system that allows states to make their own decision on things that could be considered rights that are available amongst the majority of people in the United States. His system is what makes him guilty by association.

His proposed government system set us up for bad things. Its not necessarily going to be him. ITS THE 50 POWER VACUUMS your releasing on the country. That is where the issues will start to stem from. It wouldn't be against Ron Paul's framework to outlaw what people do in a bedroom, what kind of official relationship they could have, banning of some health treatments, freedom of speech and gathering issues (pretty sure if this was available during the massive wall street protest things would have gotten bad in the red states for the demonstrators) and so on at a state level.

He is essential endorsing states to outlaw rights that are assumed as of today because they disagree with the fact that a certain issue is widely accepted.

Often finding that disagreement is based in religious beliefs and doctrine forcing laws to be passed that are directly from the church itself dictating the actions of not just themselves but also the people outside of their religious circle who dont share those values.
Full Circle.




Simplest way I can put it -
Its not about trusting him, its about trusting every single politician out there.







I was thinking about this after the post itself but in the past few pages Ron has cited federal judicial activism in ill regard. Whats the difference between federal judicial activism and a new breed of activism called state activism. Not only state activism but the possibility of several states if not a majority testing their powers in unprecedented ways with state level activism. What better way to truly test how much divide this country can hold before collapsing.

 

[missnu]

Why do you think that Ron Paul Supporters don't support a women's right to choose? I am a Ron Paul supporter and I do...being a "Ron Paul Supporter" doesn't mean you nessecarily agree with everything he says or believes morally...you could be a gay pro-choice female black jew muslim socialist and still support Dr Paul because his philosophy supports you. I would say that most Ron Paul supporters are likely to be "pro-choice" or at least half because of his stance on social issues.

Regardless, Ron Paul doesn't believe in policing/legistaling morality, and he doesn't believe you can police abortion, he just simply doesn't think it should beFUNDED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNEMENT either FOR/AGAINST....This is rooted in the libertarian non-agression principle because it is the STATE commiting act of violence toward people. You just don't seem to understand that. Dr Paul Prescribes morning after and birth control pills, hes an OB, he doesn't believe in a consitutional amendment regarding abortion, and finally his "Pro-life" voting record in the eyes of evangelicals is incredibly poor (under 50%)...some democrats are rated better...

Ok and all that is fine, but beyond the abortion issue, with the amendments women can be legally forced to die to save babies that statistically won't make it...I have an issue with this...I don't care what else someone might be for or against... but since I am a woman the government having the ability to kill me for any reason at any time is kind of a hot button for me...

 

[MellowFarmer]

If you're talking about abortion, all I want to know is, what about the life being aborted? Does the baby have no rights because it is incapable of the intellect and mechanics of thought and communication?

YES except it is not a baby it is a group of cells with the potential to be a baby.

Great thread Uncle Buck!

 

[MellowFarmer]

Ok and all that is fine, but beyond the abortion issue, with the amendments women can be legally forced to die to save babies that statistically won't make it...I have an issue with this...I don't care what else someone might be for or against... but since I am a woman the government having the ability to kill me for any reason at any time is kind of a hot button for me...

It should be a hot button for anyone who has a woman he cares about in his life. Why isn't it?

 

[Mr Neutron]

YES except it is not a baby it is a group of cells with the potential to be a baby.

If that is the case, then why is it when a pregnant woman and her "group of cells" is killed by a drunk driver, the drunk driver is charged with causing 2 deaths? AND how can a "group of cells" survive being born prematurely?

 

[UncleBuck]

So just to put it simply, he believes that the state itself should be able to violate rights of minority groups that disagree with the people running the state because the states are given that right. When does states rights get to trump personal liberty and equal protection?
View attachment 2159601
(George Wallace for all the kiddies that dont know)

astute point.

i am convinced old mcronald has a robe on underneath his two-sizes-too-large suit. he opposes civil rights. he does not consider the gross violation of civil liberties that took place in the south to be unconstitutional, merely a "bad thing".

from the ames iowa debate:

PAUL: No, the way I would understand the Constitution, the federal government can't go in and prohibit the states from doing bad things.

​

that's how the old turtle fucker justifies his opposition to the federal government intervening in the affairs of southern states back during the civil rights era. it's not that segregation, jim crow laws, discrimination and the like are unconstitutional, it's just that they are merely bad things, and the states have leeway to do bad things.

PAUL: ...you don't send in a federal police force because they're doing it and throw them in a court. So they do have that leeway under our Constitution.

​

apparently, old mcronald has never heard of the 14th amendment, only the 10th.

big dumb festering pile of ronald.

 

[ThatGuy113]

from the ames iowa debate:

PAUL: No, the way I would understand the Constitution, the federal government can't go in and prohibit the states from doing bad things.




PAUL: ...you don't send in a federal police force because they're doing it and throw them in a court. So they do have that leeway under our Constitution.

​

*like*
View attachment 2159893

 

[Mr Neutron]

astute point.

i am convinced old mcronald has a robe on underneath his two-sizes-too-large suit. he opposes civil rights. he does not consider the gross violation of civil liberties that took place in the south to be unconstitutional, merely a "bad thing".

from the ames iowa debate:

PAUL: No, the way I would understand the Constitution, the federal government can't go in and prohibit the states from doing bad things.

​

that's how the old turtle fucker justifies his opposition to the federal government intervening in the affairs of southern states back during the civil rights era. it's not that segregation, jim crow laws, discrimination and the like are unconstitutional, it's just that they are merely bad things, and the states have leeway to do bad things.

PAUL: ...you don't send in a federal police force because they're doing it and throw them in a court. So they do have that leeway under our Constitution.

​

apparently, old mcronald has never heard of the 14th amendment, only the 10th.

big dumb festering pile of ronald.

The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with personal property rights. It is to ensure equal treatment in the eyes of the law, not each individual.
You should be aware of this difference, you display it all the time. To carry out your demented logic to it's end, then it would be illegal for you to insult those who disagree with you on this or any forum.

 

[UncleBuck]

*like*
View attachment 2159893

i like your like.

Thanks for adding reputation to this user. May you be lucky enough to receive the same Reputation back in turn.

 

[UncleBuck]

The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with personal property rights. It is to ensure equal treatment in the eyes of the law, not each individual.

you're a fucking idiot. you quote the 14th without understanding the context to which it was being applied.

i see you've taken to mocking yourself with your signature. prattle on, baby einstein.

 

[ThatGuy113]

you quote the 14th without understanding the context to which it was being applied.

Feels bad.

[video=youtube;RUkIpH2gp_4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUkIpH2gp_4[/video]




Kid: Hey, who left all this garbage on the steps of Congress?
Amendment: I'm not garbage.

(starts singing)

I'm an amendment-to-be, yes an amendment-to-be,
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me.

There's a lot of flag-burners,
Who have got too much freedom,
I want to make it legal
For policemen to beat'em.

'Cause there's limits to our liberties,
At least I hope and pray that there are,
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.

(spoken)
Kid: But why can't we just make a law against flag-burning?
Amendment: Because that law would be unconstitutional.
But if we changed the Constitution...
Kid: Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!
Amendment: Now you're catching on!
Kid: What if people say you're not good enough to be in the
Constitution?

(sings)

Amendment: Then I'll crush all opposition to me,
And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay.
If he fights back, I'll say that he's gay.

(spoken)
Congressman: Good news, Amendment! They ratified ya!
You're in the US Constitution!
Amendment: Oh yeah!



​

 

[Mr Neutron]

you're a fucking idiot. you quote the 14th without understanding the context to which it was being applied.

i see you've taken to mocking yourself with your signature. prattle on, baby einstein.

LOL, ignorance causes people to lash out with name calling and insults... keep up the good work.
Context... rotflmfao

 

[ThatGuy113]

HE JUSTIFIES THE SYSTEM SCREWING PEOPLE BECAUSE HE STICKS TO HIS CONSITUTIONAL GUNS for better or for worse.

He may not support segragation but if you apply his states rights arguments he would see no issue with what Governor Wallace was doing.

He allows the states to make up their minds on all sorts of social issues that shouldn't even be dealt with in politics according to him.
What are natural rights? That is what is garenteed to us but like I said thats in the eye of the beholder.

The question isnt wether or not Ron Paul personally supports segragation ,legalization, abortion or whatever.

The issue is he wants to set up a system that allows states to make their own decision on things that could be considered rights that are available amongst the majority of people in the United States. His system is what makes him guilty by association.

His proposed government system set us up for bad things. Its not necessarily going to be him. ITS THE 50 POWER VACUUMS your releasing on the country. That is where the issues will start to stem from. It wouldn't be against Ron Paul's framework to outlaw what people do in a bedroom, what kind of official relationship they could have, banning of some health treatments, freedom of speech and gathering issues (pretty sure if this was available during the massive wall street protest things would have gotten bad in the red states for the demonstrators) and so on at a state level.

He is essential endorsing states to outlaw rights that are assumed as of today because they disagree with the fact that a certain issue is widely accepted.

Often finding that disagreement is based in religious beliefs and doctrine forcing laws to be passed that are directly from the church itself dictating the actions of not just themselves but also the people outside of their religious circle who dont share those values.
Full Circle.




Simplest way I can put it -
Its not about trusting him, its about trusting every single politician out there.







I was thinking about this after the post itself but in the past few pages Ron has cited federal judicial activism in ill regard. Whats the difference between federal judicial activism and a new breed of activism called state activism. Not only state activism but the possibility of several states if not a majority testing their powers in unprecedented ways with state level activism. What better way to truly test how much divide this country can hold before collapsing.

So are we letting this go uncontested?

 

[Mr Neutron]

So are we letting this go uncontested?

The silence is deafening.

 

[deprave]

HE JUSTIFIES THE SYSTEM SCREWING PEOPLE BECAUSE HE STICKS TO HIS CONSITUTIONAL GUNS for better or for worse



He may not support segragation but if you apply his states rights arguments he would see no issue with what Governor Wallace was doing.



He allows the states to make up their minds on all sorts of social issues that shouldn't even be dealt with in politics according to him.
What are natural rights? That is what is garenteed to us but like I said thats in the eye of the beholder.

The question isnt wether or not Ron Paul personally supports segragation ,legalization, abortion or whatever.

The issue is he wants to set up a system that allows states to make their own decision on things that could be considered rights that are available amongst the majority of people in the United States. His system is what makes him guilty by association.

His proposed government system set us up for bad things. Its not necessarily going to be him. ITS THE 50 POWER VACUUMS your releasing on the country. That is where the issues will start to stem from. It wouldn't be against Ron Paul's framework to outlaw what people do in a bedroom, what kind of official relationship they could have, banning of some health treatments, freedom of speech and gathering issues (pretty sure if this was available during the massive wall street protest things would have gotten bad in the red states for the demonstrators) and so on at a state level.

He is essential endorsing states to outlaw rights that are assumed as of today because they disagree with the fact that a certain issue is widely accepted.

Often finding that disagreement is based in religious beliefs and doctrine forcing laws to be passed that are directly from the church itself dictating the actions of not just themselves but also the people outside of their religious circle who dont share those values.
Full Circle.




Simplest way I can put it -
Its not about trusting him, its about trusting every single politician out there.







I was thinking about this after the post itself but in the past few pages Ron has cited federal judicial activism in ill regard. Whats the difference between federal judicial activism and a new breed of activism called state activism. Not only state activism but the possibility of several states if not a majority testing their powers in unprecedented ways with state level activism. What better way to truly test how much divide this country can hold before collapsing.

• So are we letting this go uncontested?​

  
  
  ​

You seriously think this is somehow a legitimate argument which warrants a response? Guilt by association? What association? (and regardless you do understand guilt by association is not a legitimate argument in this scenario and rarely is) its not the federal governments job, as a liberatarian or anarchist would believe none of this is even the states job...You simply don't understand Political Philosophies in the school of anarchy, libertarian, or individualism. You have a total disconnect on this. I understand your concerns with the bullshit games the GOP is playing on people locally but this has absolutely nothing to do with neither the president, the federal government, nor Ron Paul.

Your issue with him as you bolded...wants the states to make their own decision...and you seriously bolded the "make their own decision"....lol I really don't know how to reply to this I don't feel you made any valid points.

The state is a closer representative of the people then the federal and that should be plain as day to you. I don't understand what your arguing, I thought this was just some kind of rage rant. If this is seriously something your struggling to understand fully then please describe in detail and in a polite manner your understanding of it because this is just not a constructive conversation.

 

[deprave]

You see this is what the argument against Dr Paul always boils down to, Apocalyptic Doomsday Scenarios and Speculation...Don't you have a strong disdain for conspiracies and conspiracy theorist? Your a conspiracy theorist when it comes to Ron Paul..Hypocritical much?

 

[ThatGuy113]

The state is a closer representative of the people then the federal and that should be plain as day to you.

Ok champ. You are over simplifying. Im basically saying the system he wants to impose on the whole country can take away rights that have already been granted to citizens of that state and the rest of the country.

He believes the states can make decisions on theology to represent the masses.



Did you not read where I said Ron Paul would allow states to make decisions that are on subjects that EVEN PAUL thinks government should be out of (even though that list is truly short).

YOU don't get it. The fact is that you are giving unchecked power to the states because Paul doesn't believe the FEDS have the right to stop anything that the state is doing.

Paul was pissed about judicial activism, too bad people will never get to see what Paul wants but if he did get it in, 100% of the states will be testing their boundaries and overstep them several times with no check from Paul's do nothing feds (Sounds like when Jefferson got to be president, he was to scared to do anything so he shrunk his powers and stayed in hiding).


Have fun in your world of chaos and extinction of any sort of partisanship.

Its not a conspiracy, you say you dont trust the government but you want to give more unbalanced power to the states who usually make laws that discriminate based off of minority in power at the tops, religious views and NOT what is truly best or representing the actual and entire community.



And thats why Texas still has a law banning sodomy in ANYONE'S bedroom. Sounds like they are imposing religious doctrine into it.

Paul has no problem with that because OH HEY THE STATES CAN DECIDE

Thankfully he will never be elected and we wont have the states testing their boundaries of what their "POWER" is.


Instead of one govenrment entity to blame when shit goes wrong (the feds) your going to have 50 different states, sets of laws and regulations. Try keeping all that together.


Your still not denying the fact that in his framework, segregation is a fitting law according to his version of States rights. It doenst matter what his opinion is about the social subjects, cause the opinion we will have to deal with state legislatures that have a long history of legislating unfair discriminatory laws. (More then the feds by several fold) i.e. there is too much risk of abusing the 10th that outweighs any amount of good that can come out of a states rights powerhouse.

If your in a Red State, good luck and good night.



p.s.

Maybe he should of helped those white supremacists try to annex that island, maybe we wouldnt have to deal with this.


Its not him, its his framework that send us down the toilet. ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION FO LIFE.








Still waiting on a response to my 17th amendment counter plan.


Just to clarify. If Paul wins, you assume the state legislatures will step up and not be the partisan hacks they really are?
Where do you think a majority of the people in the Federal legislative house and senate came from? THE DIFFERENT STATE SENATES AND HOUSES. So why not cut out the middle man and then restrict enforcement on what the feds can do to stop violations on the state level.

NOW I get it he really does want to expand government reach but not on the federal level where it can be struck down easier. How efficient of him and fucked for the citizens.


The whole issue now is no one votes so therefor our reps only rep the base that voted them in, if no one votes now, no ones going to vote then.

So how is changing it from feds to state going to change anything besides giving the states the job the feds have but with more power and jurisdiction to go unchecked.

 

[deprave]

Ok champ. You are over simplifying. Im basically saying the system he wants to impose on the whole country can take away rights that have already been granted to citizens of that state and the rest of the country For example what? The system he "wants to impose" is the system already in place really.

He believes the states can make decisions on theology to represent the masses. No he believes simply the states have more authority then the federal government. I am not "over simplifying it", your over complicating it.


Did you not read where I said Ron Paul would allow states to make decisions that are on subjects that EVEN PAUL thinks government should be out of (even though that list is truly short). Its a very long list actually, I wouldn't say its long enough because I am much more libertarian then Dr Paul but the list is much longer then you give it credit for.


YOU don't get it. The fact is that you are giving unchecked power to the states because Paul doesn't believe the FEDS have the right to stop anything that the state is doing. Yep I get it. I don't agree that this is a bad thing.



Have fun in your world of chaos and extinction of any sort of partisanship I am quite found of reality tyvm

Its not a conspiracy,What part about Ron Paul being elected president and causing a domino effect of racism, rampant "partisanship", corruption, theocracy, and a destruction of civil liberties and the united states as we know it is not a conspiracy theory exactly?

you say you dont trust the government but you want to give more unbalanced power to the state No I don't want to give more power to the states, No I don't want to give more power to the feds. Ron Paul on the other hand....Wants to give less power to the feds.....

who usually make laws that discriminate based off of minority. You mean like laws related to drug crimes and the drug war? ding ding ding ding

religious views and NOT what is truly best or representing the actual and entire community.Your right but these still happen regardless of the president and the feds pretty much do not intervene. This has nothing to do with the president.


And thats why Texas still has a law banning sodomy in ANYONE'S bedroom. Sounds like they are imposing religious doctrine into it.

Paul has no problem with that because OH HEY THE STATES CAN DECIDEh Yes he does have a problem with it.

Thankfully he will never be elected and we wont have the states testing their boundaries of what their "POWER" is. There will be no APOCLYPSE HALLLLAYUUUYAHHH!


Instead of one govenrment entity to blame when shit goes wrong (the feds) your going to have 50 different states, sets of laws and regulations. Try keeping all that together. Did the last few hundred years just not happen in your world?


Your still not denying the fact that in his framework, segregation is a fitting law according to his version of States rights. It doenst matter what his opinion is about the social subject cause the opinion we will have to deal with state legislatures that have a long history of in acting unfair discriminatory laws Assuming the president if solely responsible for keeping segragation from re-occuring you'd be entirely correct, assuming your racism revival domino effect time warp would occur all on the heels of electing a new president then you also MIGHT have a point. We obviously have a fundamental disagreement here, I disagree that any government serves or protects anyone, Ron Paul thinks that a small government governs best which is much closer to my view, I support any reduction of the state.

If your in a Red State, good luck and good night.
We are all in red states


p.s.

Maybe he should of helped those white supremacists try to annex that island, maybe we wouldnt have to deal with this Maybe if there wasn't attitudes like this that stereyotype people into categories like yours there wouldn't be white supremacists.


Its not him, its his framework that send us down the toilet. ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION FO LIFE.o Is that why we are the most proposporous nation one earth? Now this is another area where I somewhat "disagree" with Dr Paul. The problem with his brand of libertarians is with so much freedom the small government grows into the very monstrous government this ideology opposes like we have now and eventually a tyrannical super power. This is the fundamental flaw with libertarians, I will take it over the other ideologies any day however.


View attachment 2162735





Still waiting on a response to my 17th amendment counter plan.Didn't read it, lost it.


Just to clarify. If Paul wins, you assume the state legislatures will step up and not be the partisan hacks they really are I really don't think that would be related so its not really a relevant question.
Where do you think a majority of the people in the Federal legislative house came from? THE DIFFERENT STATE SENATES AND HOUSES. So why not cut out the middle man and then restrict enforcement on what the feds can do to stop violations on the state level. Sounds great in theory, untill you realize that all governments are hotbeds for evil mother fuckers that don't give a shit about me or you.

The whole issue now is no one votes so therefor our reps only rep the base that voted them in, if no one votes now, no ones going to vote th Im not quite sure that's the "whole" issue.

So how is changing it from feds to state going to change anything besides giving the states more power to go unchecked.I could write an essay for you about this but I am out of time. I will just leave you with this....DEA GO AWAY DEA GO AWAY

This is the minimum characters required for a post, my response is in red

 

[ThatGuy113]

This is the minimum characters required for a post, my response is in red

You need to review this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Mainly here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Revision_and_replacement

Short story is a lack of cooperation.


It hasnt been going on for the past few hundred years. It stopped shortly after the revolution then was replaced. So im not missing hundreds of years in my history you are. Since then the feds have always held power over the states.

btw im not saying racist legislature is going to pop up. Im talking about things like gay marriage, freedom of speech and so on just like we talked about in the last few pages. On top of the mismatches in interstate relationships on business's etc....


Go back to the past couple of pages that you seem to be ignoring now.

• "the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." - Ron
  Paul​

  
  
  
  
  
  
  ​

"These supporters ignore a key point: If Paul were president, he wouldn't be any better for legalizing marijuana than President Obama -- or worse than Romney or Santorum. And as recently as Monday's debate in South Carolina, Paul had this to say about ending the Drug War: "I don't think we can do a whole lot about it."

Marijuana was criminalized by the feds in 1970, when the Controlled Substances Act was passed by Congress (under pressure from Richard M. Nixon's administration). Only Congress can repeal an act of Congress, just as only Congress can amend the Constitution, raise taxes, and wage war (legally). "

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/01/ron_paul_marijuana.php

Just another reason he would be unproductive^






If you really dont see the potential for abuse I have no idea what to tell you.




Take a moment and think about Pauls framework and then these two words.....

TEA PARTY

Imagine your one of the unlucky ones that gets the Michelle Bachman types to take over your state's legislature and they had Ron Paul's system.

Hide the children.


​

 

[deprave]

You need to review this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Mainly here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Revision_and_replacement

Short story is a lack of cooperation I choose to ignore your reference to AOC which looks like I actually deleted that reference because I wasn't addressing that but the statement leading into it "Instead of one government entity to blame your going to have 50 sets of laws and regulations - thus why I asked where have you been for the last few hundred years, because this statement is incorrect, We currently have 51 sets of laws and regulations..(and governments to blame)..Id like to break that down to 0....Ron Paul would like to make it 50.5 as someone who works for the federal government....0.5 if he could change everything...


btw im not saying racist legislature is going to pop up. Im talking about things like gay marriage, freedom of speech and so on just like we talked about in the last few pages. On top of the mismatches in interstate relationships on business's etc...So how can the president change these things?


Go back to the past couple of pages that you seem to be ignoring now. Go back the past couple pages that I seem to be ignoring? I addressed this and explained it to you....Go back and read the first time I put this into context for you or perhaps the second or third time. Dr Paul is saying this is not the federal governments role constitutionally, even though he disagrees with the laws its not legal, Ron Paul thinks the state of Texas should decide that "sodomy laws are ridiculous" not the federal government...put it into context, read the whole fucking thing.

• "the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." - Ron
  Paul​

  
  
  
  
  
  
  ​

"These supporters ignore a key point: If Paul were president, he wouldn't be any better for legalizing marijuana than President Obama -- or worse than Romney or Santorum. And as recently as Monday's debate in South Carolina, Paul had this to say about ending the Drug War: "I don't think we can do a whole lot about it."
Again! Put into context, he was VERY CLEARLY referring to "drug abusers"..typical Paul smear here, here is the actual quote:http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/17/transcript-fox-news-channel-wall-street-journal-debate-in-south-carolina/
I don’t think we can do a whole lot about it. I think there’s discrimination in the system, but you have to address the drug war. You know, the drug war is — is very violent on our borders.

Marijuana was criminalized by the feds in 1970, when the Controlled Substances Act was passed by Congress (under pressure from Richard M. Nixon's administration). Only Congress can repeal an act of Congress, just as only Congress can amend the Constitution, raise taxes, and wage war (legally). You just pulling these off an anti-ron paul website or something? How about you read the next damn paragraph, the very next fucking sentence: The federally subsidized war on marijuana can end if the CSA remains, as long as marijuana is dropped from Schedule I, the list of the most dangerous drugs, to Schedule II (which includes cocaine) or lower. Through the CSA, the general public can directly petition the Attorney General to do this.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/01/ron_paul_marijuana.php

Just another reason he would be unproductive^
Dude stop wasting my fucking time






If you really dont see the potential for abuse I have no idea what to tell you. I see it as the opposite, less government=less abuse, I completely understand your train of thought however. So if you have nothing more to say then quit repeating yourself because you sound like a broken record.




Take a moment and think about Pauls framework and then these two words.....

TEA PARTY

Imagine your one of the unlucky ones that gets the Michelle Bachman types to take over your state's legislature and they had Ron Paul's system.

Hide the children.


View attachment 2162791​

• This is the minimum characters required for a post, my response is in red
  
  
  
  ​

  
  
  ​