The official Ron Paul thread

[RayOfLight]

Ron Paul on the issues .

Ron Paul on the Issues

 

[Mitakuye Oyasin]

Everyone should put a lot of pressure their representatives to support this bill and vote yes on it, call them, email them, write them, get others to do the same. The last time a bill like this was up for a vote it failed to pass by the smallest number ever, a small handful of people. This bill might actually have a chance of getting passed if lots of people pull together on it and pressure their representatives to support and vote yes for this bill.

 

[Purges]

If only the UK could make these steps...

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I though Obama was going to be a progressive leader, and he has turned out to be to the right of center.

All politicians are when compared to the majority of the public; they are owned by corporate interests and act as such. This is why even though a majority of voters (over 60%) supported a public option in the recent healthcare debates, it was scuttled.

The bipartisan bill would end federal prohibition and allow states to act as they see fit with regards to cannabis prohibition. (A brief side note...while the bill is being labelled "bipartisan" Ron Paul is the lone Republican supporter, afaik). Additionally, where was Ron Paul in 2008 when Frank introduced legislation to decriminalize up to 100 grams on the national level? Do not let this one issue become a catch-all reason to support a man who makes empty promises and appears to follow his "convictions" only when someone else paves the way or makes a goal look attainable.

Members of Congress will bring forth a bill Thursday that supporters say is the first ever introduced to end federal law's blanket prohibition of marijuana.

The legislation -- authored by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas -- would limit the federal government's role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or interstate smuggling, letting people legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states that allow it without fear of federal prosecution.

The bill's original co-sponsors include Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich.; Steve Cohen, D-Tenn.; Jared Polis, D-Colo.; and Barbara Lee, D-Oakland.

"The human cost of the failed drug war has been enormous -- egregious racial disparities, shattered families, poverty, public health crises, prohibition-related violence, and the erosion of civil liberties. And of course the cost in dollars and cents has been staggering as well -- over a trillion dollars spent to incarcerate tens of millions of young people," Lee said Wednesday. "I co-sponsored this bipartisan legislation because I believe it is time to turn the page from this failed drug war."

Lee has backed earlier marijuana reform efforts, including Frank's bill in 2008 which would've eliminated federal criminal penalties for adults possessing up to 100 grams.

But Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Morgan Fox said that earlier bill would not have lifted all aspects of federal prohibition, while the current bill removes all federal involvement in marijuana law aside from controlling marijuana crossing the U.S. border or between states with different marijuana laws. "Each state would be free to make its own marijuana policy and would be solely responsible for enforcing it," he said.

This is the first bill to repeal the set of laws criminalizing not only possession and use but also sales, Drug Policy Alliance national affairs director Bill Piper explained.

"For instance, alcohol use was legal during alcohol Prohibition. What caused all the violence, corruption, injuries "... was the prohibition on sales and distribution," Piper said. "That would be the key difference. I guess it depends on whether you're using the word prohibition as 'illegal' versus describing the broader institution that is similar to alcohol Prohibition."

Drug reform advocates have been making much of the fact that last week was the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a war on drugs.

Former President Jimmy Carter authored an op-ed piece in the New York Times last week calling for the reform of marijuana laws. And the Global Commission on Drug Policy -- including figures such as former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan; former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz; and former presidents of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Switzerland -- released a report June 2 calling for drug reforms including legal regulation of marijuana.

In November, 53.5 percent of California voters rejected a ballot measure that would have legalized recreational marijuana use; other states may be voting on similar measures soon, and at least five state legislatures have considered legalization legislation in the past year. Medical use of marijuana is now legal in 16 states, including California plus the District of Columbia.

 

[elru]

I just called all the reps in my state to ask them to support it. Most of the people who answered the phone knew the bill I was talking about even though I couldn't give them a bill number. The tone of the calls makes me hopeful that I might possibly see some names from the reps in my state on the co-sponsors list if they get some more calls from constituents. *fingers crossed*

 

[dreamer042]

I remember last time a cannabis legalization bill was in the house.

I wrote a nice letter to my elected official telling him that as my representative I wanted him to vote in favor of this bill.

I got a nice letter back a few weeks later (not even a form letter, he must have taken the time to dictate it to his secretary himself.)

His reply read along the lines of "I have already voted no on this bill, marijuana is dangerous narcotic and blargity blarg political nonsense etc... etc..."

I thought these people actually worked for the public they represent, up till this point.

What an eye opener...

 

[a1pha]

Barney Frank and Ron Paul will Introduce Legislation on Thursday to Fully Legalize Marijuana

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will introduce "bi-partisan legislation tomorrow ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states

reason.com

Please research Ron paul, Vote for reason, sanity and freedom .

Ray, you already started a thread on Paul a week or so ago and couldn't defend a single radical point of his. Not to mention I think you said you live outside the US. And now another one and again you fail to explain how he will accomplish such lofty goals. Honestly, I take some offense to you grandstanding here.

 

[joedirt]

Choosing one side or another is the worst decision you could possibly make.

No absolutes.

Up until about 10 years ago I would agree with this. But the republicans and the tea klan have really stepped off the deep end. I cant trust any of them today. I hate being one sided, but unless something changes dramatically im voting straight democrat again....though id probably vote for a republican like ron paul if he had a chance.

 

[joedirt]

Barney Frank and Ron Paul will Introduce Legislation on Thursday to Fully Legalize Marijuana

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will introduce "bi-partisan legislation tomorrow ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states

reason.com

Please research Ron paul, Vote for reason, sanity and freedom .

Ray, you already started a thread on Paul a week or so ago and couldn't defend a single radical point of his. Not to mention I think you said you live outside the US. And now another one and again you fail to explain how he will accomplish such lofty goals. Honestly, I take some offense to you grandstanding here.

If your find his posts offensive then why read them. He has the right to an opinion. It is after all a public forum.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

If your find his posts offensive then why read them. He has the right to an opinion. It is after all a public forum.

There have been a startling number of replies in this vein over the past week or two. People read threads and if they have an issue with something written, they voice that issue. The response of why don't you ignore it or shut up is not an appropriate response. This is a public forum and a community. People have the right to read whatever they want, comment on whatever they want and feel however they want.

These types of replies hint at censorship - self censorship, yes - but censorship nonetheless. If someone reads something that they take offense to, they have every right to voice that, just as if someone reads something they disagree with. There's no difference in these situations and no harm in presenting your opinion, whether in agreement, disagreement, acceptance, or offense.

No one said Ray didn't have the right to his opinion. All that was stated was that his statements along the lines of "support Ron Paul because of _____" have some rather glaring flaws/holes. As such, it offended someone that, after such holes had been exposed, he chose to continue acting as though Paul offers something in the political realm. Why exactly should this dissent be silenced? Why should Ray be allowed to express himself but a1pha be discouraged from responding? As stated in your post, this is an open forum and everyone has the right to their opinions.

 

[joedirt]

If your find his posts offensive then why read them. He has the right to an opinion. It is after all a public forum.

There have been a startling number of replies in this vein over the past week or two. People read threads and if they have an issue with something written, they voice that issue. The response of why don't you ignore it or shut up is not an appropriate response. This is a public forum and a community. People have the right to read whatever they want, comment on whatever they want and feel however they want.

These types of replies hint at censorship - self censorship, yes - but censorship nonetheless. If someone reads something that they take offense to, they have every right to voice that, just as if someone reads something they disagree with. There's no difference in these situations and no harm in presenting your opinion, whether in agreement, disagreement, acceptance, or offense.

No one said Ray didn't have the right to his opinion. All that was stated was that his statements along the lines of "support Ron Paul because of _____" have some rather glaring flaws/holes. As such, it offended someone that, after such holes had been exposed, he chose to continue acting as though Paul offers something in the political realm. Why exactly should this dissent be silenced? Why should Ray be allowed to express himself but a1pha be discouraged from responding? As stated in your post, this is an open forum and everyone has the right to their opinions.

Whatever. HIS POST WAS HINTING AT CENSORSHIP. I was backing a right to free speach. How could you pssibly have gotten anything other than that from my post? Seriously how?

He said he was offended by Ray which is basically challenging his right to post his thoughts. I spoke up for Rays side. period. And I defend that stance. He was just heckeling him and nothing more...can you not see that?

And to your point...it is a public forum and I exercised my right to respond.

I'm almost done with this site complety because of this holier than though mentality. It stinks. I haven't seen a single productive conversation at this site in months now. To prove my point look at this thread? How many posts are on topic?

 

[a1pha]

Whatever. HIS POST WAS HINTING AT CENSORSHIP. I was backing a right to free speach. How could you pssibly have gotten anything other than that from my post? Seriously how?

How could you have possibly taken any form of censorship from my post? I asked nothing of the sort. I don't really care who Ray (or anyone else) is in support of. To be honest, I actually like some of what Paul says.

What I don't like is people coming to a public forum in support of a candidate, with no solid reason or justification to support this candidate. "Vote for Ron Paul because he's a really cool guy and and this YouTube video says so" is not an appropriate political stance. A number of members asked for further clarification on the issues in his previous thread and he gave nothing. Zip. Nadda. In addition, he said he's not even from the US! SnozzleBerry made some highly intelligent informed posts and was given NOTHING in return. This is not proper political discussion, if that was what Ray intended (which is implied by merely posting your political stance on a public forum). All I'm asking is to back up your claims (or calls to vote for a candidate) with something other than YouTube videos.

He said he was offended by Ray which is basically challenging his right to post his thoughts. I spoke up for Rays side. period. And I defend that stance. He was just heckeling him and nothing more...can you not see that?

How did I challenge anyone's rights? I was offended because after what I explained above, he made another thread on the same topic without ever finishing the first one. Finish what you start before moving on. Also, which side of Ray are you sticking up for? I'm still not clear on his position aside from Ron Paul is cool.

I'm almost done with this site complety because of this holier than though mentality. It stinks. I haven't seen a single productive conversation at this site in months now. To prove my point look at this thread? How many posts are on topic?

I don't see how asking for constructive logical debate is 'holier than thou' - I think it's the sign of intelligent people wanting to engage in discourse. Some people don't like this or can't handle it. To them I say YouTube is just a hop, skip, and jump away!

BTW Barney Frank ROCKS! Wish he'd run...

 

[a1pha]

To prove my point look at this thread? How many posts are on topic?

Please research Ron paul, Vote for reason, sanity and freedom .

Just a note - We are on topic as this thread is about "researching, Ron Paul, voting for reason, sanity, and freedom" per the OP.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

HIS POST WAS HINTING AT CENSORSHIP. I was backing a right to free speach. How could you pssibly have gotten anything other than that from my post? Seriously how?

How? Taking offense does not imply censorship. For example, I would be offended if the KKK hosted a march/rally through where I live. However, they are entitled to free speech and as such, I would not begrudge them of their right by interfering directly in their march. If there was a protest site or something set up, I would exercise my right to speech in such an area to show that I oppose their speech, but respect their right to present it.

I would not tell them to shut up or go away (the equivalent of telling someone to not read/respond to a thread). I would voice my opinion (such as responding to a thread post I disagree with). If you truly support free speech, you support it for those members of society to whom you are completely and diametrically opposed, otherwise, simply put, you do not support free speech.

When I read your post, I see that you infer that someone taking offense is equivalent to them wanting another person to silence their views (an incorrect assumption, imo). You then state that such individuals should not read the thread if they don't like it (a bit of a catch-22, as, how can you know whether or not you like the thread unless you read it?) but, assuming it were possible, this is self-censorship. To have to impose reading-restrictions on yourself in order to avoid posting responses that contradict or challenge another member is censorship, plain and simple. This is why I see your post hinting at censorship and not free speech.

He said he was offended by Ray which is basically challenging his right to post his thoughts.

I don't think so...at least I personally do not agree with this assessment. Being offended and not wanting someone to post their thoughts are mutually exclusive, as far as I can discern. My KKK example would suggest as such, but I'd be happy to discuss this if you think it needs elaboration

I spoke up for Rays side. period. And I defend that stance.

I have to agree with a1pha...I'm confused as to what you're defending exactly.

He was just heckeling him and nothing more...can you not see that?

On this I must firmly disagree; if he was just heckling Ray, then my post should be seen as heckling as well, as it covered some of the same stuff (and arguably in a vaguer manner). I think we are just engaging in debate/discussion...just because we differ in opinion does not make it heckling. I think everyone here has generally been decently respectful.

And to your point...it is a public forum and I exercised my right to respond.

I know, that's exactly what it said. I laud you for doing as much, as this is the only way in which debates/discussions can take place through the medium of online-forums.

I'm almost done with this site complety because of this holier than though mentality. It stinks. I haven't seen a single productive conversation at this site in months now. To prove my point look at this thread? How many posts are on topic?

Who is being holier than thou? Can you show posts/quotes that express such an attitude? I think there have been many productive conversations. The political threads have been good, if not contentious...the perpetual motion was intriguing, the Russian Olive is downright groundbreaking, the Stephen Hawking was interesting if not tedious at times...I think there have been many productive conversations, but you are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. I think, until the exchange of these last 5-6 posts, this thread has been on-topic.

I'd be happy to resume the topic at hand...to reiterate...it's great Ron Paul decided to join up with Barney Frank (one of the coolest political figures of our time, imo) to make this bill appear as a bipartisan effort (even though he's the only republican currently supporting it). I caution people from giving this action too much significance as it does not make any of Paul's presidential promises any more feasible than the last time we broached this topic.

 

[joedirt]

Barney Frank and Ron Paul will Introduce Legislation on Thursday to Fully Legalize Marijuana

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will introduce "bi-partisan legislation tomorrow ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states

reason.com

Please research Ron paul, Vote for reason, sanity and freedom .

Ray, you already started a thread on Paul a week or so ago and couldn't defend a single radical point of his. Not to mention I think you said you live outside the US. And now another one and again you fail to explain how he will accomplish such lofty goals. Honestly, I take some offense to you grandstanding here.

If your find his posts offensive then why read them. He has the right to an opinion. It is after all a public forum.

I post this and i get a face full of ass from you two clowns. I have two words: grow up.

The world doesn't revolve around you.

BTW the topic is marijuana legalization..as per the topic title.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

???

A face full of ass? Was I disrespectful? Did I mock or insult you? Why do you tell me to grow up? What in my post implied egocentrism to you?

That's not very respectful and dodges the rather logical points I feel I laid out in my reply to you. It also fails to adhere to your statements about being on/off topic, something I tried to steer this thread back in the direction of at the end of my last post.

The topic is an end to federal cannabis prohibition vis a vis the bill put forth by Barney Frank and Ron Paul and the OP included numerous statements about why you should support Paul, making that a legit point for on-topic discussion in this thread.

 

[a1pha]

Barney Frank and Ron Paul will Introduce Legislation on Thursday to Fully Legalize Marijuana

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will introduce "bi-partisan legislation tomorrow ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states

reason.com

Please research Ron paul, Vote for reason, sanity and freedom .

Ray, you already started a thread on Paul a week or so ago and couldn't defend a single radical point of his. Not to mention I think you said you live outside the US. And now another one and again you fail to explain how he will accomplish such lofty goals. Honestly, I take some offense to you grandstanding here.

If your find his posts offensive then why read them. He has the right to an opinion. It is after all a public forum.

I post this and i get a face full of ass from you two clowns. I have two words: grow up.

The world doesn't revolve around you.

BTW the topic is marijuana legalization..as per the topic title.

Thanks for being constructive, joedirt. :roll:

 

[universecannon]

Barney Frank and Ron Paul will Introduce Legislation on Thursday to Fully Legalize Marijuana

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will introduce "bi-partisan legislation tomorrow ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states

reason.com

Please research Ron paul, Vote for reason, sanity and freedom .

Ray, you already started a thread on Paul a week or so ago and couldn't defend a single radical point of his. Not to mention I think you said you live outside the US. And now another one and again you fail to explain how he will accomplish such lofty goals. Honestly, I take some offense to you grandstanding here.

If your find his posts offensive then why read them. He has the right to an opinion. It is after all a public forum.

I post this and i get a face full of ass from you two clowns. I have two words: grow up.

The world doesn't revolve around you.

BTW the topic is marijuana legalization..as per the topic title.

You doing ok joe? I feel like something else behind the scenes if fueling these charged but vague posts..so, whats up?

If i'm wrong..then sorry for assuming..
Either way.. chill out man! All is well :d

..no point in getting so serious and emotionally upset in cyberspace







politics

 

[elru]

Please be nice to one another.

 

[benzyme]

that animal is a beast. you may think it's a cutesy pet/companion, but it's still a beast.