The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

deprave

deprave

New Member
Ron Paul weekly audio update.

Title: Super Congress: Easy Prey for the Military-Industrial Complex
[video=youtube;18QjfdhJEM4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18QjfdhJEM4[/video]
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
Ron Paul Marijuana/Hemp/Medical Marijuana Video Compilation From 2003 to 2011

Ron Paul pushes for Marijuana Legilization 2011
[video=youtube;XpRuciwYZn0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpRuciwYZn0[/video]
[video=youtube;RkfQya3kTOI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkfQya3kTOI[/video]



Medical Marijuana Patient Confronts Ron Paul in 2007
[video=youtube;JHS_y94H1Dk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHS_y94H1Dk[/video]

2007 speech
[video=youtube;frWE3shyVz0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frWE3shyVz0[/video]

2006 - Ron Paul Introduces HR 1009 - American Hemp Farmers Act - To Legalize Hemp
[video=youtube;vDLiHJFPWsM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDLiHJFPWsM[/video]



Ron Paul on Medical Marijuana in 2003
[video=youtube;XpRuciwYZn0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpRuciwYZn0[/video]


Ron Paul 1998 - Speech on the floor opposing Drug War - Specifically marijuana
[video=youtube;26s6c9c3rls]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26s6c9c3rls&feature=channel_video_title[/video]


Ron Paul 1988 - Ron Paul talks about the drug war and the CIA involvement
[video=youtube;SBh_hzU-jdI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBh_hzU-jdI&playnext=1&list=PL03C6192AC71377B1[/video]


Consistency.....
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
How does Ron Paul feel about Super Pacs and the 2010 Supreme Court decision to allow corporations, unions and individuals the right to donate unlimited funds to outside groups to campaign for or against candidates.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
How does Ron Paul feel about Super Pacs and the 2010 Supreme Court decision to allow corporations, unions and individuals the right to donate unlimited funds to outside groups to campaign for or against candidates.
Click to expand...
Obviously Ron Paul would follow the constitution and allow super pacs.
If you won the lottery right now, would you perhaps campaign for or against a politician? Let us say you really believe Ron Paul fucks turtles and hates black people. Wouldn't you want to do your best to try and keep him from winning? So you decide, IM GOING TO HELP OUT! So you take a million of your 150 million dollar win. (75 after being raped by taxes) and you go oh yea, Im going to cause a stir. BUT WAIT. You can't, you are federally limited in how you are allowed to spend your money.

Ron Paul and you might not agree - but he would still want you to be allowed to represent yourself using your money. It is YOUR money after all. There is no reason why I should not be allowed to spend all the money I want supporting a candidate.

Whether it is a business or a person - why would they not be allowed to spend money in support or opposition of any law or politician? Not supporting a private individual or businesses right to spend their own money promoting their ideas is the same thing as being against free speech. The government should of never been allowed to limit it to begin with.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
Obviously Ron Paul would follow the constitution and allow super pacs.
If you won the lottery right now, would you perhaps campaign for or against a politician? Let us say you really believe Ron Paul fucks turtles and hates black people. Wouldn't you want to do your best to try and keep him from winning? So you decide, IM GOING TO HELP OUT! So you take a million of your 150 million dollar win. (75 after being raped by taxes) and you go oh yea, Im going to cause a stir. BUT WAIT. You can't, you are federally limited in how you are allowed to spend your money.

Ron Paul and you might not agree - but he would still want you to be allowed to represent yourself using your money. It is YOUR money after all. There is no reason why I should not be allowed to spend all the money I want supporting a candidate.

Whether it is a business or a person - why would they not be allowed to spend money in support or opposition of any law or politician? Not supporting a private individual or businesses right to spend their own money promoting their ideas is the same thing as being against free speech. The government should of never been allowed to limit it to begin with.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry where in the constitution does it say "Super Pacs"..I find it hard to believe the Founding fathers would agree that money should influence elections..
 
beardo

beardo

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
.I find it hard to believe the Founding fathers would agree that money should influence elections..
Click to expand...
Didn't they all use their wealth to help them get elected?

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers and their supporters were wealthy.
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
Obviously Ron Paul would follow the constitution and allow super pacs.
If you won the lottery right now, would you perhaps campaign for or against a politician? Let us say you really believe Ron Paul fucks turtles and hates black people. Wouldn't you want to do your best to try and keep him from winning? So you decide, IM GOING TO HELP OUT! So you take a million of your 150 million dollar win. (75 after being raped by taxes) and you go oh yea, Im going to cause a stir. BUT WAIT. You can't, you are federally limited in how you are allowed to spend your money.

Ron Paul and you might not agree - but he would still want you to be allowed to represent yourself using your money. It is YOUR money after all. There is no reason why I should not be allowed to spend all the money I want supporting a candidate.

Whether it is a business or a person - why would they not be allowed to spend money in support or opposition of any law or politician? Not supporting a private individual or businesses right to spend their own money promoting their ideas is the same thing as being against free speech. The government should of never been allowed to limit it to begin with.
Click to expand...
If he is following the Constitution by interpreting the ideals of the founding fathers he would be anti-corporation:

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
[/FONT]“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Click to expand...
I don't know what the founding fathers would think about the workers unions.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
I'm sorry where in the constitution does it say "Super Pacs"..I find it hard to believe the Founding fathers would agree that money should influence elections..
Click to expand...
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the Federal Reserve, income tax, foreign aid, ObamaCare, bailing out banksters, bailing out ANYBODY, competition stifling regulations, continually adding to the debt without a repayment plan, invading sovereign nations for no good reason, stationing troops in over 140 countries or taking from some to give to another?
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
sync0s said:
If he is following the Constitution by interpreting the ideals of the founding fathers he would be anti-corporation:




I don't know what the founding fathers would think about the workers unions.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with you snyc0s...I do feel they would have tolerated the unions as long as they are for the people, but as we know SOME unions have become greedy and act more like management..some not all...!!!
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the Federal Reserve, income tax, foreign aid, ObamaCare, bailing out banksters, bailing out ANYBODY, competition stifling regulations, continually adding to the debt without a repayment plan, invading sovereign nations for no good reason, stationing troops in over 140 countries or taking from some to give to another?
Click to expand...
He asked a specific question out of general curiosity. It's best to try to give the best appropriate answer rather than going off on a tangent and dancing around it.
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
I pretty much agree with you snyc0s...I do feel they would have tolerated the unions as long as they are for the people, but as we know SOME unions have become greedy and act more like management..some not all...!!!
Click to expand...
The only thing I know is the founding fathers saw unions as representatives of the citizens themselves. I don't think they imagined a union could get as big as they are today, however, those unions are often tied with the corporations. Eliminate corporations, I would imagine you might see the massive unions disappear as well.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
don't think he can provide one thats why I just ignored him...I was really curious as to why Ron Paul did not speak out on this one.. I don't think corporations should control elections...money should not control elections...you see how Romney just made an easy 1,000,000 bucks and this guy really didn't have to report who or where it came from...What if China create a company and donated 50,000,000 bucks to a candidate is that right..well it can be done now and we would never know
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
don't think he can provide one that why I just ignored him...I was really curious as to why Ron Paul did not speak out on this one.. I don't think corporations should control elections...money should not control elections...you see how Romney just made an easy 1,000,000 bucks and this guy really didn't have to report who or where it came from...What if China create a company and donated 50,000,000 bucks to a candidate is that right..well it can be done now and we would never know
Click to expand...
Right, and that is a major flaw of the American government. If we didn't have to deal with things like that our country today would be much different. Perhaps he has never spoken on it because it has never been asked. He talks a lot about certain issues like drugs because those are the ones he gets pounded with questions on.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
I'm sorry where in the constitution does it say "Super Pacs"..I find it hard to believe the Founding fathers would agree that money should influence elections..
Click to expand...
Basically, anything not specifically outlawed in the constitution is legal - or at least it isn't within the federal governments power to outlaw. Any power not specifically given to the federal government is given to the states and the people.

Would the founding fathers have decided that someone could not print ads in the newspapers of the day to promote themselves or a candidate? Would the founding fathers have decided that you could not spend your money in whatever way you chose?
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
Basically, anything not specifically outlawed in the constitution is legal - or at least it isn't within the federal governments power to outlaw. Any power not specifically given to the federal government is given to the states and the people.

Would the founding fathers have decided that someone could not print ads in the newspapers of the day to promote themselves or a candidate? Would the founding fathers have decided that you could not spend your money in whatever way you chose?
Click to expand...
founding fathers would have said hell no to this BS today, but you say what you must..hurts your guy more then mine..Romney vs Obama 2012
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
sync0s said:
If he is following the Constitution by interpreting the ideals of the founding fathers he would be anti-corporation:

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson[/FONT]

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”


I don't know what the founding fathers would think about the workers unions.
Click to expand...
Those quotes don't go against what Ron Paul stands for. The first one is a condemnation of the Federal Reserve. The second one was in reference to the monopolies that were contracted by the English crown. He wasn't referring to corporations as we know them.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
Those quotes don't go against what Ron Paul stands for. The first one is a condemnation of the Federal Reserve. The second one was in reference to the monopolies that were contracted by the English crown. He wasn't referring to corporations as we know them.
Click to expand...
ummm I think its more to the mind-frame of how the founding fathers thought...but hey if you think that Ron Paul think its ok to give unlimited amounts of money to an election without knowing who or what gave it then ok...One more reason for me not to like him..but to be honest I think it would go against his character from the picture you guys have made him out to be..but what do I know about Ron Paul
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
founding fathers would have said hell no to this BS today, but you say what you must..hurts your guy more then mine..Romney vs Obama 2012
Click to expand...
Neither of those two are a choice of mine. Both of them are fundamentally disgusting to me. My only hope for the election is that whoever wins is ineffectual instead of effectually destructive. They founding fathers would of revolted and had them both murdered, and for good cause. They would be thoroughly sickened by the election that only determines who gets to decide which scraps that are left of the freedoms they left us get destroyed next. Amusingly, the people in the USA would probably not vote for George Washington.(I' started to say first president, but he wasn't)

As far as you saying it hurts Romney more than Obama - are you serious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top