Ron Paul Is The Biggest Threat To Take Back The White House

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

MORE RON PAUL TALK.

 

According to the poll, taken before the announcement of Osama bin Laden’s death, President Barack Obama has an edge over all the top GOP candidates in hypothetical match-ups.

 

Who does best against Obama? Paul. The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown. Huckabee trails by eight points, with Romney down 11 points to Obama.

 

The poll indicates the president leading Gingrich by 17 points, Palin by 19, and Trump by 22 points.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/cnn-shock-poll-ron-paul-has-best-chance-vs-obama/

 

And yes... I do realize that predictions such as these, this early don't hold much weight. But I definitely like that Ron is getting more attention.

[Vin+ 3,121]

 

What a meh bunch of candidates.

[RazorStar 4,025]

VIN, I JUST HEARD BLAINE GABBERT IS RUNNING FOR PREZ!

 

WHOA!!!!!

[Vin+ 3,121]

VIN, I JUST HEARD BLAINE GABBERT IS RUNNING FOR PREZ!

 

WHOA!!!!!

He's got my vote.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I'd like it if Paul won, but I don't think he really has a shot. Also, while his intentions may be good, i dont think congress would be willing to pass what he wants.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Ron Paul will never be allowed to be taken seriously. Even with all the love and support Ron Paul gets he's still regarded as a nut because that's what the media tells us.

[Maverick 791]

Ron Paul will never be allowed to be taken seriously. Even with all the love and support Ron Paul gets he's still regarded as a nut because that's what the media tells us.

 

This.

 

Like F4E said though, at least he is getting more attention for this election than he did in 2008.

[Krawnka 282]

Yep, and he'll never be able to change the "views" of mainstream media, until he gets into someone's pocket.

[Silentway 20]

I love Ron Paul, but he's certainly far from a threat. Probably the biggest threat of all independent and/or libertarian styled politicians, but still not going to be taken seriously by the country. Here's what voting for Ron Paul DOES do though. For one our votes don't even really count since the electoral college is just going to elect who they want to any way and there's not even any way for us to know who actually wins any of these popular votes. BUT politicians STILL want support or else they won't get bought out by companies and won't get electoral support. So what happens when you support idealistic candidates? Mainstream politicians have to adapt their policies so they can remain relevant and it can actually do some good. All social movements in the past 100 years such as women's rights, the end of segregation, etc.. were all originally only supported by radical politicians that got an unusual amount of support and the mainstream politicians eventually began adhering to their principals so they could continue and get mainstream support. I vote for Ralph Nader every year though instead of Ron Paul because if you're an independent candidate the more votes you receive the more the government will pay for your campaigning and your public programs and stuff, which is way more impactful than our phoney elections.

[Guest Durant4MVP]

 

MATTHEWS: You would have voted against that law. You wouldn’t have voted for the ’64 civil rights bill.

 

PAUL: Yes, but not in — I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.

 

MATTHEWS: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the ’64 civil rights bill.

 

PAUL: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.

 

MATTHEWS: Right. The guy who owns a bar says, no blacks allowed, you say that’s fine. … This was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. You say that should be legal?

 

PAUL: That’s — that’s ancient history. That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with. [...]

 

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this. We have had a long history of government involvement with Medicare, Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. And I think you are saying we would have been better off without all that?

 

PAUL: I think we would be better off if we had freedom, and not government control of our lives, our personal lives, and our — and policing the world.

 

He goes on to pretty much equate the Civil Rights Act to totalitarianism. That's presidential material right there, folks.

[Silentway 20]

I feel him on that, forcing Civil Rights has done next to nothing for the public opinion. People that didn't want blacks in still made it obvious, and housing segregation was still forced through Great White Flight. But what Civil Rights did was open a bunch of government-control laws, when the free market would've taken care of this by itself. Lets say McDonalds doesn't allow blacks in their restaurant, and Burger King needs to make a buck. They allow blacks, McDonalds does the same to keep up and the same conclusion is arrived at regularly. But instead the government adopted the Civil Rights Act while yes having a noble cause also entailed a lot of government regulation garbage. It's like the Patriot Act, too much garbage along with it. He's not saying he's against the principles of Civil Rights, but all the extra b.s.

 

The only people that try to say Ron Paul is racist are people that are either stupid, or have an ulterior motive such as getting their bullshit president elected.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

 

 

He goes on to pretty much equate the Civil Rights Act to totalitarianism. That's presidential material right there, folks.

 

Let me stop you before you start believe something that is untrue. He believes that us, the United States is run by totalitarians. And... if you know what that means, it's pretty hard to argue against it. The two party system is a farce to keep all of the little sheep occupied. The Presidency is a farce. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc, etc have no real power. Do you think that Obama sits in his office, writes up all the legislation that gets presented for passing? He probably doesn't even read it... Someone puts it on his desk, he signs it, and moves on.

 

The Presidency is no more than a puppet position, equal to that of the Queen/King of England. They do nothing. The only difference is, that everyone accepts the King/Queen as nothing more than a figure head. People in our country still worship the President for things he doesn't do, and we all act like it actually matters. But it doesn't, in the end game.

 

There is absolutely a group of people, above the President (again, not just Obama, this goes back a ways) make all of the decisions for our country. What legislation to pass and which not... They also run the government programs and departments (The FED, the FDA, the CIA). They run ALL of it. Effectively telling you what you can and can't eat. What you can and can't watch on television. What you can and can't do in your own home and in the "real world". They control it all.

 

Which is EXACTLY what a totalitarian government is. Is it a truth that I like to accept? ABSOLUTELY NOT. It's disgusting, revolting, and absurd that everyone is so... okay with being spoon fed their lives by the federal government and this group of people who make all of these decisions behind closed doors. It literally wrenches my gut.

 

The answer to 1984 is 1776.

 

PS(lolwut) - Ron Paul is also ALL for civil rights and individual liberties. So, don't act like the douche media guy who takes something Paul says out of context and then twist it in a way to come off negatively.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I feel him on that, forcing Civil Rights has done next to nothing for the public opinion. People that didn't want blacks in still made it obvious, and housing segregation was still forced through Great White Flight. But what Civil Rights did was open a bunch of government-control laws, when the free market would've taken care of this by itself. Lets say McDonalds doesn't allow blacks in their restaurant, and Burger King needs to make a buck. They allow blacks, McDonalds does the same to keep up and the same conclusion is arrived at regularly. But instead the government adopted the Civil Rights Act while yes having a noble cause also entailed a lot of government regulation garbage. It's like the Patriot Act, too much garbage along with it. He's not saying he's against the principles of Civil Rights, but all the extra b.s.

 

The only people that try to say Ron Paul is racist are people that are either stupid, or have an ulterior motive such as getting their bullshit president elected.

 

Sorry for the double post. But I can't tell you how awesome it is that somebody here (on TGP) actually knows and understands that concept. People just watch some douche bag on TV calling Ron Paul a racist (or implying, rather) and they go spread it like wildfire.

 

+1, good sir.

[Guest Durant4MVP]

I feel him on that, forcing Civil Rights has done next to nothing for the public opinion. People that didn't want blacks in still made it obvious, and housing segregation was still forced through Great White Flight. But what Civil Rights did was open a bunch of government-control laws, when the free market would've taken care of this by itself. Lets say McDonalds doesn't allow blacks in their restaurant, and Burger King needs to make a buck. They allow blacks, McDonalds does the same to keep up and the same conclusion is arrived at regularly. But instead the government adopted the Civil Rights Act while yes having a noble cause also entailed a lot of government regulation garbage. It's like the Patriot Act, too much garbage along with it. He's not saying he's against the principles of Civil Rights, but all the extra b.s.

 

The only people that try to say Ron Paul is racist are people that are either stupid, or have an ulterior motive such as getting their bullshit president elected.

 

Bend it how you want but enforcing segregation through the guise of "property rights" is absurdity.

 

 

The Presidency is no more than a puppet position, equal to that of the Queen/King of England. They do nothing. The only difference is, that everyone accepts the King/Queen as nothing more than a figure head. People in our country still worship the President for things he doesn't do, and we all act like it actually matters. But it doesn't, in the end game.

 

You're completely off-base here.

 

Let me stop you before you start believe something that is untrue. He believes that us, the United States is run by totalitarians. And... if you know what that means, it's pretty hard to argue against it. The two party system is a farce to keep all of the little sheep occupied. The Presidency is a farce. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc, etc have no real power. Do you think that Obama sits in his office, writes up all the legislation that gets presented for passing? He probably doesn't even read it... Someone puts it on his desk, he signs it, and moves on.

 

There is absolutely a group of people, above the President (again, not just Obama, this goes back a ways) make all of the decisions for our country. What legislation to pass and which not... They also run the government programs and departments (The FED, the FDA, the CIA). They run ALL of it. Effectively telling you what you can and can't eat. What you can and can't watch on television. What you can and can't do in your own home and in the "real world". They control it all.

 

I was on board with your first paragraph but this is just...I don't even know what to say to be honest. This is some Illuminati shit.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Durant4MVP

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Bend it how you want but enforcing segregation through the guise of "property rights" is absurdity.

 

 

 

 

You're completely off-base here.

 

 

 

I was on board with your first paragraph but this is just...I don't even know what to say to be honest. This is some Illuminati shit.

 

If you believe the first paragraph, where I said the President is a puppet. Why is it so hard to believe that there is a group of people above him running the country? If it isn't the President, who is it? The American People? Ha.

 

And Silentway isn't bending ANYTHING. THAT is what Ron Paul is saying. That weasel on television is the one doing the bending. People aren't stupid. We are fully capable of being able to fix our own problems. We do not need the federal government, instituting laws telling us who we can and can not accept. The system itself, along the way, will fix itself.

 

It's just like prohibition. The government tells us we can't drink. Does that fix our issues with alcohol? No. In actuality, it makes it WORSE. More people break the law, because they want to be edgy and dangerous. Same thing with marijuana... It's illegal, but is that stopping anyone from getting or not using weed? Absolutely not.

 

The American People do not need the federal government regulating everything in our lives. Let us live for ourselves... Let's us use logic, and reasoning to determine right or wrong. Americans ARE capable of such things, even though you wouldn't know it from how our government treats us.

[RazorStar 4,025]

"Why is it so hard to believe that there is a group of people above him running the country?"

 

Oh hai, I didn't see you DOWN THERE.

 

MWAHAHAHAHAHA! *raises taxes on the middle class*

[Guest Durant4MVP]

If you believe the first paragraph, where I said the President is a puppet.

 

 

I was talking about the first paragraph in what I quoted about the totalitarian whatever.

 

Why is it so hard to believe that there is a group of people above him running the country? If it isn't the President, who is it? The American People? Ha.

 

Because it reeks of conspiracy theory.

 

And Silentway isn't bending ANYTHING. THAT is what Ron Paul is saying. That weasel on television is the one doing the bending. People aren't stupid. We are fully capable of being able to fix our own problems. We do not need the federal government, instituting laws telling us who we can and can not accept. The system itself, along the way, will fix itself.

 

It's just like prohibition. The government tells us we can't drink. Does that fix our issues with alcohol? No. In actuality, it makes it WORSE. More people break the law, because they want to be edgy and dangerous. Same thing with marijuana... It's illegal, but is that stopping anyone from getting or not using weed? Absolutely not.

 

The American People do not need the federal government regulating everything in our lives. Let us live for ourselves... Let's us use logic, and reasoning to determine right or wrong. Americans ARE capable of such things, even though you wouldn't know it from how our government treats us.

 

Prohibition/marijuana and civil rights are apples and oranges. I'm not saying the government is the answer to all of our problems but insisting it's somehow in the wrong for desegregating society is stupid. You can rationalize it however you want. "Separate but equal" in the name of property rights is horseshit.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Durant4MVP

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I was talking about the first paragraph in what I quoted about the totalitarian whatever.

 

 

 

Because it reeks of conspiracy theory.

 

 

 

Prohibition/marijuana and civil rights are apples and oranges. I'm not saying the government is the answer to all of our problems but insisting it's somehow in the wrong for desegregating society is stupid. You can rationalize it however you want. "Separate but equal" in the name of property rights is horseshit.

 

Conspiracy has too much negative vibe too it, thanks to people like you. Stop thinking along those lines, and look for the god damn truth.

 

There is no rationalizing to be had. Simply put... the federal government involves itself in our every day lives, and or individual liberties and justices far too often.

 

And like Silent said earlier... Segregation would have ended without government intervention. And people talk about all of the great progress we have made, as far as accepting other races. What if the government instituted sanctions actually slowed down our progress towards equality?

 

And I am seeing a common proponent to your posts/responses. You deny everything you read here... Without giving any real meat to your posts. You just say... "Nah, that's stupid" and end it. Tell us WHY it's stupid. Back up what you are saying. Don't just google stupid youtube videos and blog posts and inherit their ideas as your own. That shit gets you into trouble.

[Guest Durant4MVP]

 

And like Silent said earlier... Segregation would have ended without government intervention. And people talk about all of the great progress we have made, as far as accepting other races. What if the government instituted sanctions actually slowed down our progress towards equality?

 

Well let's see...We freed the slaves in 1865 but they couldn't actually vote for another 100 years. We pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and in just over 40 years have made major improvements in race relations. Yeah those damned government institutions really slowed down racial equality progress.

 

I'm not being any more vague than you are. You go on and on with the same "federal government is impeding on our liberties" stuff but haven't provided any real examples yet besides prohibition and marijuana.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Durant4MVP

[Shotgun 442]

Let me stop you before you start believe something that is untrue. He believes that us, the United States is run by totalitarians. And... if you know what that means, it's pretty hard to argue against it. The two party system is a farce to keep all of the little sheep occupied. The Presidency is a farce. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc, etc have no real power. Do you think that Obama sits in his office, writes up all the legislation that gets presented for passing? He probably doesn't even read it... Someone puts it on his desk, he signs it, and moves on.

 

The Presidency is no more than a puppet position, equal to that of the Queen/King of England. They do nothing. The only difference is, that everyone accepts the King/Queen as nothing more than a figure head. People in our country still worship the President for things he doesn't do, and we all act like it actually matters. But it doesn't, in the end game.

 

There is absolutely a group of people, above the President (again, not just Obama, this goes back a ways) make all of the decisions for our country. What legislation to pass and which not... They also run the government programs and departments (The FED, the FDA, the CIA). They run ALL of it. Effectively telling you what you can and can't eat. What you can and can't watch on television. What you can and can't do in your own home and in the "real world". They control it all.

 

Which is EXACTLY what a totalitarian government is. Is it a truth that I like to accept? ABSOLUTELY NOT. It's disgusting, revolting, and absurd that everyone is so... okay with being spoon fed their lives by the federal government and this group of people who make all of these decisions behind closed doors. It literally wrenches my gut.

 

The answer to 1984 is 1776.

 

PS(lolwut) - Ron Paul is also ALL for civil rights and individual liberties. So, don't act like the douche media guy who takes something Paul says out of context and then twist it in a way to come off negatively.

 

 

I'm sorry but this is a total pile of horse shit. To say the Presidency is a farce and no different than the Queen of England is very ignorant and just makes you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. It's known as a powerful position for a reason, and some would say it's probably too powerful.

 

Of course the President doesn't write legislation by his own hand, that's not what the executive branch is even for, but he can "suggest" things to the ones that do. I put "suggest" in quotes because while the President and his cabinet of experts are technically supposed to suggest bills as the constitution states, the executive branch is known to actually write some of them and pressure Congress into passing it. This is evident all the way back to Andrew Jackson and it was quite evident when Bush was President. I mean seriously, Congress is supposed to declare war but when was the last time they actually made the decision? The executive branch and the President basically forces them to, or in some cases like Vietnam or Bush's wars they just label it something else and go ahead to doing it anyway.

 

The President doesn't just sign things without knowing what they're about, either. If that was so there wouldn't be so many vetoes by the Presidents, vetoes I might add that are uncommon to be overridden by a 2/3 vote. He typically doesn't read the large bills himself, for that would be impossible with all the crap they have to do, but that's why they have a team of experts that do it for him and then advise him, for it would be impossible for one man to be an expert in so many aspects of running a country.

 

And if you actually believe the President is just a puppet what makes you think Ron Paul will be able to do anything about it?

 

The American People do not need the federal government regulating everything in our lives. Let us live for ourselves... Let's us use logic, and reasoning to determine right or wrong. Americans ARE capable of such things, even though you wouldn't know it from how our government treats us.

 

I think you have way to much faith in humanity. Us being able to make our own decisions sounds like a great idea in a perfect world, but that just isn't the case. The fact is people are fucking retarded idiots that can't make proper decisions for themselves and the only people that don't realize this are the ones that aren't around those types of people much like most Libertarians (If you haven't noticed most of them are upper class white people). Not to mention all the corrupt dickwads around the world that will take advantage of idiots (hi2u tobacco companies).

 

Things are regulated and made illegal mostly because they're bad for us. The FDA bans bad things because people will use them if they don't, and to be honest they don't ban enough if you ask me. We have so many poisons in our food and water it's rediculous.

 

As far as drugs go, people like Ron (libertarians) think we'll use our logic and not do newly legal drugs because he has faith in humanity, and he knows he and the people he's around won't do them. What he doesn't realize however is he and the people he's around are just a microscopic blip on a planet full of people with different thought processes and dumbassation. I can logically decide alcohol is bad for me and I rightly don't do it because I've had examples around me like an abusive dad and uncles to show me how to not be a complete fucktard. But guess what? Logic doesn't keep the hundreds of millions around the world from doing it. The fact that people still do Heroin and Crack and other stupid crap isn't just because it's illegal and trendy. Sure some people might try it because it's the "cool thing to do", but most drug addicts do it as a form of self-prescribing for depression. There's a reason why most drug addicts come from a poor background. Of course, there's also a shit ton of people out there that won't because it's illegal and they realize illegal = bad for you (at least the ones who had good parents which isn't the case for most drug addicts), not to mention the possible time you'll spend in ass-pound prison. Without a label like that eventually people will just try it to try and the next thing they know they're hooked.

 

Do people even realize why something like prohibition didn't work? It's not because people wanted to do what the fuck they wanted it's because they were already addicted to alcohol when the law was made. Which is why making addicting drugs like Heroin legal is a dumbass idea because there's no way of reversing it when you go "oh shit more people are doing this than we thought would and societies getting fucked up we need to ban this!" Well guess what, people who started smoking crack after it was legal just to try it out of curiosity aren't just going to stop because you say so when they're addicted like crazy.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Shotgun

[RazorStar 4,025]

The more idiots using drugs the better. We can just kill off the hardcore druggies and reduce the strain on earth due to over population. Everyone wins. Dumbasses get their drugs, we get rid of the dumbasses.

 

... what do you mean killing people is wrong? Fine...

 

Making these drugs legal also means that they need to be regulated, and that means there's more nothing jobs for people with no education to do, and it means that all the wasted money being poured out of the system is going back to the government which can be overthrown by the people if so needed.

 

I'm gonna put some heroin on layaway right now.

[Guest Durant4MVP]

The more idiots using drugs the better. We can just kill off the hardcore druggies and reduce the strain on earth due to over population. Everyone wins. Dumbasses get their drugs, we get rid of the dumbasses.

 

 

Yay for skyrocketing crime from druggies trying to get their fix.

[RazorStar 4,025]

There's quite a few fun ways to deal with addicts.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I'm sorry but this is a total pile of horse shit. To say the Presidency is a farce and no different than the Queen of England is very ignorant and just makes you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. It's known as a powerful position for a reason, and some would say it's probably too powerful.

 

Of course the President doesn't write legislation by his own hand, that's not what the executive branch is even for, but he can "suggest" things to the ones that do. I put "suggest" in quotes because while the President and his cabinet of experts are technically supposed to suggest bills as the constitution states, the executive branch is known to actually write some of them and pressure Congress into passing it. This is evident all the way back to Andrew Jackson and it was quite evident when Bush was President. I mean seriously, Congress is supposed to declare war but when was the last time they actually made the decision? The executive branch and the President basically forces them to, or in some cases like Vietnam or Bush's wars they just label it something else and go ahead to doing it anyway.

 

The President doesn't just sign things without knowing what they're about, either. If that was so there wouldn't be so many vetoes by the Presidents, vetoes I might add that are uncommon to be overridden by a 2/3 vote. He typically doesn't read the large bills himself, for that would be impossible with all the crap they have to do, but that's why they have a team of experts that do it for him and then advise him, for it would be impossible for one man to be an expert in so many aspects of running a country.

Of course he doesn't write them with his own hand... Haha. Regardless, how much work does he actually do in saying... This needs to be included, and this... and this needs to be excluded. Let's be honest with each other. Probably none or extremely little.

 

The lobbyists and interest groups take a strangle hold of Congress. There aren't many honest men in DC... Although, you probably knew that already. Oh yes... and it's so impossible to read a 1,000 page proposition... It's way too much to ask for our politicians (not just the PotUS) to know what's in a piece of legislation.

 

And are you really trying to tell me... If Obama (or any president) is told something is in a bill... And he doesn't want it there... but his lobbyist buddies do... That Obama is getting his way? No... So how much weight does that title of his carry? He isn't paying the bills, so in my opinion, not a whole damn.

 

And his advisers tell him what to do? Hmm. So what exactly Obama (again, or any other president) doing? Who is paying the advisers? How do they know what to do? How can we say for sure somebody isn't whispering in their hear? Are we really expected to believe that they are all honest, trustworthy individuals, and "advise" Obama simply on what's best for the people of the United States? Not so much...

 

You can't honestly tell me that process is legit.... That's idealistic, not realistic.

 

And if you actually believe the President is just a puppet what makes you think Ron Paul will be able to do anything about it?

That's the major dilemma. For starters. He will never win the Presidency. Not because he's radical, like Phail wants you to believe... Or maybe that was just he liberal, anti-liberty blogs he is reading. But like I said earlier... Paul is too honest, too open to win election. He doesn't bull shit and he doesn't play the game.

 

That and the fact that he is a threat to the establishment and the process that they have nailed down over the last X years. He would theoretically destroy everything they have been building... They wouldn't allow that to happen.

 

Now... let's pretend Paul does get elected. They aren't going to actually let him change jack. IN all honesty, he would probably end up dead. Either "natural causes", which would be an easy sell because of his age... Or he would randomly develop cancer like say... Jack Ruby.

 

I think you have way to much faith in humanity. Us being able to make our own decisions sounds like a great idea in a perfect world, but that just isn't the case. The fact is people are fucking retarded idiots that can't make proper decisions for themselves and the only people that don't realize this are the ones that aren't around those types of people much like most Libertarians (If you haven't noticed most of them are upper class white people). Not to mention all the corrupt dickwads around the world that will take advantage of idiots (hi2u tobacco companies).

Whaaaat. Dude, do you understand what you are posting? The ability to make our decisions sounds good in a... perfect world? No... that should be a given. That's human nature. The ability to make choices, to determine what's right... what's wrong. Those are liberties given to us through birth. Don't make it sound awesome that the government is telling us how to think, eat, and shit.

 

And people are only "fucking retarded idiots" because sheep are the easiest to mold. You realize that our country wasn't always filled with those kind of people, right?

 

And the tobacco industry is already taking advantage of idiots (no offense Blue, wherever you are , I know lots of smokers). They sell them death in a box.... and guess what. It's REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. lol... It's crazy, I know.

 

Things are regulated and made illegal mostly because they're bad for us. The FDA bans bad things because people will use them if they don't, and to be honest they don't ban enough if you ask me. We have so many poisons in our food and water it's rediculous.

See... that's the problem. You tell me above that there are corrupt people out there wanting to take advantage of people... But when you refer to the FDA, you don't want to assume that there are corrupt people running that sham of a department.

 

There are drugs, food, and water that have been proven to be a hazard to humanity... but when the results come back, they turn a shoulder and pass that shit anyway. Why? Because it makes them money.

 

A couple of example.

 

Flouride in water. Do you know who started water flouridation? Hitler gave flouridated to the Jews in the confinement camps. THAT is where it began. But now it's pumped into our drinking water because our government says it's awesome? No... that's all part of keeping us stupid. And they are doing a good job of it.

 

Splenda. Splenda is one of the absolute worst things passed by the FDA in a while. It never passed testing, hell.. I don't even know if it had testing. You can go look it up if you are more interested... But it caused cancer in rat subjects, and body parts began to shut down. It was disturbing. But it passed inspection and FLEW through the process. Why? My guess is for the money. It's insanely popular, and the health nuts love pouring it all over their food as they preach to fat people how they should eat. REAL shady. Again, go check it out if you ar einterested.

 

And... I don't even know where to begin with the drugs. I mean... Are any drugs that legit? I guess there are bound to be some out there, but that whole process is shady as hell. Doctors are known to prescribe drugs to their patients without any other reason than the fact that they have "sponsors" in the drug industry who is trying to push a particular new drug or whatever the flavor of the month is. Again, you can look this up in your own time if interested.... But prepared to vomit, because the list of junk they pass is sickening.

 

As far as drugs go, people like Ron (libertarians) think we'll use our logic and not do newly legal drugs because he has faith in humanity, and he knows he and the people he's around won't do them. What he doesn't realize however is he and the people he's around are just a microscopic blip on a planet full of people with different thought processes and dumbassation. I can logically decide alcohol is bad for me and I rightly don't do it because I've had examples around me like an abusive dad and uncles to show me how to not be a complete fucktard. But guess what? Logic doesn't keep the hundreds of millions around the world from doing it. The fact that people still do Heroin and Crack and other stupid crap isn't just because it's illegal and trendy. Sure some people might try it because it's the "cool thing to do", but most drug addicts do it as a form of self-prescribing for depression. There's a reason why most drug addicts come from a poor background. Of course, there's also a shit ton of people out there that won't because it's illegal and they realize illegal = bad for you (at least the ones who had good parents which isn't the case for most drug addicts), not to mention the possible time you'll spend in ass-pound prison. Without a label like that eventually people will just try it to try and the next thing they know they're hooked.

Okay... again, you preach about corruption. Yet... The Federal government makes marijuana, and cocaine, etc etc illegal and it's just because they want to keep us safe.

 

Oh man... The thought just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

*pops your bubble*

 

The government doesn't give a rats ass about your health, or mine. They don't care if you snort coke and kill 10 people, or if are found in an alley shooting up heroin... or if you are found in your tub ODing on meds. They don't give a shit.

 

They keep drugs illegal because they make billions off the "drug war" every year. The government imports tons, and tons of illegal drugs and par. every day. They then sell it to the mexicans, and other drug lords. Those guys sell it out to other smaller dealers... Who get ratted out to the cops... The cops come in, bust some dude up... Makes it look like they are serving the good of humanity... But in reality. They confiscate these drugs, and then put them back in circulation. It's a vicious, vicious cycle. THAT is why drugs, especially the hardcore ones, will never be legalized. They make so much damn money off of it, that even a tax on marijuana couldn't even make up the losses.

 

And you say it was ME who has too much faith in humanity? Eh.. lol

 

Do people even realize why something like prohibition didn't work? It's not because people wanted to do what the fuck they wanted it's because they were already addicted to alcohol when the law was made. Which is why making addicting drugs like Heroin legal is a dumbass idea because there's no way of reversing it when you go "oh shit more people are doing this than we thought would and societies getting fucked up we need to ban this!" Well guess what, people who started smoking crack after it was legal just to try it out of curiosity aren't just going to stop because you say so when they're addicted like crazy.

 

I don't really understand this last paragraph. Prohibition didn't fail simply because people were addicted. People just enjoyed drinking... You didn't have to be addicted to alcohol to enjoy heading down to the local bar.

 

And you also have to take into consideration the time in which it happened. It was a time of revolting... People across the country (before prohibition began) were getting more fiesty in life. They were beginning to not be so conservative anymore. It was the age of Jazz and the flappers. People were more rebelious, they wanted to be different.. to live on the edge.

 

So when the government decides to ban something nearly everyone, at a time or two, enjoyed... People began to do what they were already doing in that era. They rebelled. Speakeasies sprouted every few blocks... People began bootlegging, and then you had the mafia and other mobster kinda activities increasing 10 fold.

 

Crime as a whole SKY ROCKETED. It was asinine to try and ban it in the first place. It was NEVER going to work, and that is dismissing the fact that there weren't enough cops to enforce the stupid law.

[blotsfan 2,112]

So, how do you know that Ron Paul isn't just a puppet set up by the government just to give people like you someone in the system that you trust?