Total Posts:106|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Refuting 16kAdams false views

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.

"Paul = extreme foreign policy and it is bad"

Only going to war with a declaration is extreme? Using the military for defense rather than empire building is extreme? You know whats extreme, being a war monger, slaughtering thousands of people, at the price of bankrupting America. You dont understand anything. Take your Nazi military industrial complex support out of here.

"Paul = extreme racist news letters. ( why did people forget about those?)"

He didnt write those. The dialect doesn't even match his style of writing nor speech. Paul is the only anti-racist because he views people as individuals and doesn't put them in groups like his opponents do. He is also against the racist drug war. All the other candidates support racist laws of the drug war. Explain that.

.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 5:55:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.
+1
"Paul = extreme foreign policy and it is bad"

Only going to war with a declaration is extreme? Using the military for defense rather than empire building is extreme? You know whats extreme, being a war monger, slaughtering thousands of people, at the price of bankrupting America. You dont understand anything. Take your Nazi military industrial complex support out of here.
+1
"Paul = extreme racist news letters. ( why did people forget about those?)"

He didnt write those. The dialect doesn't even match his style of writing nor speech. Paul is the only anti-racist because he views people as individuals and doesn't put them in groups like his opponents do. He is also against the racist drug war. All the other candidates support racist laws of the drug war. Explain that.
I see. That's interesting. I tought he was for the drug war.

.
.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:04:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.


Smoking marijuana affects the people around the smoker. It's an extremely mentally addictive substance and a dangerous gateway drug. I've seen countless people move from pot to speed to the next best thing.

Also someone broke into my house and robbed me for his drug money so I'd like to keep this garbage out of the market.

"Paul = extreme foreign policy and it is bad"

Only going to war with a declaration is extreme? Using the military for defense rather than empire building is extreme? You know whats extreme, being a war monger, slaughtering thousands of people, at the price of bankrupting America. You dont understand anything. Take your Nazi military industrial complex support out of here.

Our military actions are for defense you tard. Where have we empire built in past 50 years? I would love to see the grand American empire you're hiding from me.. I must have missed something.

"Paul = extreme racist news letters. ( why did people forget about those?)"

He didnt write those. The dialect doesn't even match his style of writing nor speech. Paul is the only anti-racist because he views people as individuals and doesn't put them in groups like his opponents do. He is also against the racist drug war. All the other candidates support racist laws of the drug war. Explain that.


Paul said he would veto the civil rights act ... that's not a very good record.

Also the man wants to legalize heroine and if you think that people should have the right to do that then there's something wrong with you...

http://www.mediaite.com...


.
.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:06:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:04:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.



Smoking marijuana affects the people around the smoker. It's an extremely mentally addictive substance and a dangerous gateway drug. I've seen countless people move from pot to speed to the next best thing.

Also someone broke into my house and robbed me for his drug money so I'd like to keep this garbage out of the market.


"Paul = extreme foreign policy and it is bad"

Only going to war with a declaration is extreme? Using the military for defense rather than empire building is extreme? You know whats extreme, being a war monger, slaughtering thousands of people, at the price of bankrupting America. You dont understand anything. Take your Nazi military industrial complex support out of here.

Our military actions are for defense you tard. Where have we empire built in past 50 years? I would love to see the grand American empire you're hiding from me.. I must have missed something.

"Paul = extreme racist news letters. ( why did people forget about those?)"

He didnt write those. The dialect doesn't even match his style of writing nor speech. Paul is the only anti-racist because he views people as individuals and doesn't put them in groups like his opponents do. He is also against the racist drug war. All the other candidates support racist laws of the drug war. Explain that.


Paul said he would veto the civil rights act ... that's not a very good record.

Also the man wants to legalize heroine and if you think that people should have the right to do that then there's something wrong with you...

http://www.mediaite.com...



.
.

Well this is part right. Legalizing drugs will save thousands of lives and eliminate drug cartels. And we do not belong in other countries's business.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:09:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 5:55:11 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.
+1
"Paul = extreme foreign policy and it is bad"

Only going to war with a declaration is extreme? Using the military for defense rather than empire building is extreme? You know whats extreme, being a war monger, slaughtering thousands of people, at the price of bankrupting America. You dont understand anything. Take your Nazi military industrial complex support out of here.
+1
"Paul = extreme racist news letters. ( why did people forget about those?)"

He didnt write those. The dialect doesn't even match his style of writing nor speech. Paul is the only anti-racist because he views people as individuals and doesn't put them in groups like his opponents do. He is also against the racist drug war. All the other candidates support racist laws of the drug war. Explain that.
I see. That's interesting. I tought he was for the drug war.

.
.

It's okay to show your approval of a statement every once in a while, but when the vast majority of your retort consist of numbers representing your mood, one can't help but wonder if you even had anything legitimate to add in the first place.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:10:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Drug Policy: Extreme on drug policy? I wouldn't call it that. He is too lenient on drug policy. He wants to legalize drugs and give people the choice of whether to take them or not. He also wants to decrease criminal sentences for the possession of drugs. Batsh!t crazy.

Foreign Policy: Paul needs to sit down with a Jihadist radical alone in a room for five minutes and then tell us if he still feels the same way. It was NOT the US's fault that Iran attacked us. It was NOT the US's fault that there is a crazy breed of Jihadist muslims. The US should not simply wait on the sidelines while the integrity of its borders are threatened. Again, batsh!t crazy.

Newletters: Who cares?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:10:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:04:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.



Smoking marijuana affects the people around the smoker. It's an extremely mentally addictive substance and a dangerous gateway drug. I've seen countless people move from pot to speed to the next best thing.

Also someone broke into my house and robbed me for his drug money so I'd like to keep this garbage out of the market.

Could it be perhaps that Marijuana is a gateway because it's illegal and you're forced to associate with those dealing in illegal drugs?

"Paul = extreme foreign policy and it is bad"

Only going to war with a declaration is extreme? Using the military for defense rather than empire building is extreme? You know whats extreme, being a war monger, slaughtering thousands of people, at the price of bankrupting America. You dont understand anything. Take your Nazi military industrial complex support out of here.

Our military actions are for defense you tard. Where have we empire built in past 50 years? I would love to see the grand American empire you're hiding from me.. I must have missed something.

This is an overly simplistic view. The age of imperialism is over and has been over since the second world war, but I would say that when we invade a country, overthrow their government, and install a Pro-American one that's pretty close to imperialism. The U.S. has bases literally all over the world and uses its military power to bend other countries to its will--tell me that isn't an empire. Doesnt make it BAD, its just a statement of fact.

"Paul = extreme racist news letters. ( why did people forget about those?)"

He didnt write those. The dialect doesn't even match his style of writing nor speech. Paul is the only anti-racist because he views people as individuals and doesn't put them in groups like his opponents do. He is also against the racist drug war. All the other candidates support racist laws of the drug war. Explain that.


Paul said he would veto the civil rights act ... that's not a very good record.

Also the man wants to legalize heroine and if you think that people should have the right to do that then there's something wrong with you...

http://www.mediaite.com...



.
.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:11:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:09:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/24/2012 5:55:11 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.
+1
"Paul = extreme foreign policy and it is bad"

Only going to war with a declaration is extreme? Using the military for defense rather than empire building is extreme? You know whats extreme, being a war monger, slaughtering thousands of people, at the price of bankrupting America. You dont understand anything. Take your Nazi military industrial complex support out of here.
+1
"Paul = extreme racist news letters. ( why did people forget about those?)"

He didnt write those. The dialect doesn't even match his style of writing nor speech. Paul is the only anti-racist because he views people as individuals and doesn't put them in groups like his opponents do. He is also against the racist drug war. All the other candidates support racist laws of the drug war. Explain that.
I see. That's interesting. I tought he was for the drug war.

.
.

It's okay to show your approval of a statement every once in a while, but when the vast majority of your retort consist of numbers representing your mood, one can't help but wonder if you even had anything legitimate to add in the first place.

Why is it always liberals that bring out the "irrelevant" and "thread waster" arugments? This one counts for the same.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:18:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Smoking marijuana affects the people around the smoker.:

LOL, no it doesn't. The only way you could get a contact high from pot is being inside a small confined space (like a car with the windows up) while people are blazing away.

It's an extremely mentally addictive substance and a dangerous gateway drug.:

LOL, no it isn't. Even if it was, it's their choice. If you're scared of marijuana, don't smoke it or associate with people who do. Simple.

I've seen countless people move from pot to speed to the next best thing.:

And have you also seen countless people who eat pizza also move on to "harder" stuff?

Also someone broke into my house and robbed me for his drug money so I'd like to keep this garbage out of the market.:

So it's okay if someone breaks into your house money, but when they break into your house for "drug money" it all of a sudden makes it bad? How about, breaking into peoples houses PERIOD is bad, and the motives are almost entirely irrelevant?

Our military actions are for defense you tard.:

Name me the last DEFENSIVE manuever used by the United States military. I'll give you a hint: Pearl Harbor.

Where have we empire built in past 50 years? I would love to see the grand American empire you're hiding from me.. I must have missed something.:

He's referring to the 737 US military bases abroad versus the 0 foreign military installations inside the US.

Paul said he would veto the civil rights act ... that's not a very good record.:

That's not what he said. He said he would veto the Civil Rights Act had he been able to. And you need to read why he would do that.

Also the man wants to legalize heroine and if you think that people should have the right to do that then there's something wrong with you...:

Do you agree with the legalization of alcohol, nicotine, or the hundreds of opium Heroine) derivative pharmacueticals?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:21:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you agree with the legalization of alcohol, nicotine, or the hundreds of opium Heroine) derivative pharmacueticals?

No actually I don't, not for pleasurable use only.

And as for breaking into my house my point was it never would have happened if he hadn't been on drugs.

Drugs will only detriment society in the long run like a cancer.

As for the 737 military bases I say: USA USA USA!
cameronl35
Posts: 149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:21:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.

"Paul = extreme foreign policy and it is bad"

Only going to war with a declaration is extreme? Using the military for defense rather than empire building is extreme? You know whats extreme, being a war monger, slaughtering thousands of people, at the price of bankrupting America. You dont understand anything. Take your Nazi military industrial complex support out of here.

"Paul = extreme racist news letters. ( why did people forget about those?)"

He didnt write those. The dialect doesn't even match his style of writing nor speech. Paul is the only anti-racist because he views people as individuals and doesn't put them in groups like his opponents do. He is also against the racist drug war. All the other candidates support racist laws of the drug war. Explain that.


.
.

Excellently put. I didn't have the time to go through all of them but some of those are just ridiculous...calling him racist? Out of all the candidates?
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
-George Carlin (R.I.P.)

"MLK day is simply racism against whites."
-Lordknukle, only a nuance away from Stalin
MasterKage
Posts: 1,257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:25:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.

No, obviously marijuana has many negative health effects. Many of the people who smoke marijuana are uneducated on the serious negative health effects.
Honestly, the one reason for marijuana to EVER get legalized is for medicinal use, not recrational use.


"Paul = extreme foreign policy and it is bad"

Only going to war with a declaration is extreme? Using the military for defense rather than empire building is extreme? You know whats extreme, being a war monger, slaughtering thousands of people, at the price of bankrupting America. You dont understand anything. Take your Nazi military industrial complex support out of here.

I have to agree that using a nation's military for defense is not one bit extreme, but 16K is entitled to his opinions.


"Paul = extreme racist news letters. ( why did people forget about those?)"

He didnt write those. The dialect doesn't even match his style of writing nor speech. Paul is the only anti-racist because he views people as individuals and doesn't put them in groups like his opponents do. He is also against the racist drug war. All the other candidates support racist laws of the drug war. Explain that.

I agree that he probably didn't right it (most government officials don't right their own speeches), but it is still considered his speech.
This signature is full of timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:26:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No actually I don't, not for pleasurable use only.:

So you want to bring back Prohibition then?

And as for breaking into my house my point was it never would have happened if he hadn't been on drugs.:

LOL, and how would you know that? Just like guns don't make people commit crimes, drugs don't make people commit crimes.

Drugs will only detriment society in the long run like a cancer.:

Good. Then let natural selection take its course and the idiot junkies will all die.

As for the 737 military bases I say: USA USA USA!:

You ever served in the military, sport?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:27:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:18:18 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Smoking marijuana affects the people around the smoker.:

LOL, no it doesn't. The only way you could get a contact high from pot is being inside a small confined space (like a car with the windows up) while people are blazing away.

It's an extremely mentally addictive substance and a dangerous gateway drug.:

LOL, no it isn't. Even if it was, it's their choice. If you're scared of marijuana, don't smoke it or associate with people who do. Simple.

Uh,...no. Your apathy towards the plight of the bystandard is what makes your argument so one-track-minded. I personally don't care what people do to their bodies, but if their actions mean that I can't walk down the street without inhaling dangerous chemicals, if their actions mean I can't enter a store or building in peace, then I'll be damned if they get to do their crap in the open public air.

Your problem is that you care more about one's desire to do drugs than another's desire to breath clean air! Upon what scale of rights may we measure the two to lend an obvious answer? The scale of rights? Well I suppose that which is necessary for many to live trumps that which a few want.

No drugs in public. No.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:28:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:27:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/24/2012 6:18:18 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Smoking marijuana affects the people around the smoker.:

LOL, no it doesn't. The only way you could get a contact high from pot is being inside a small confined space (like a car with the windows up) while people are blazing away.

It's an extremely mentally addictive substance and a dangerous gateway drug.:

LOL, no it isn't. Even if it was, it's their choice. If you're scared of marijuana, don't smoke it or associate with people who do. Simple.

Uh,...no. Your apathy towards the plight of the bystandard is what makes your argument so one-track-minded. I personally don't care what people do to their bodies, but if their actions mean that I can't walk down the street without inhaling dangerous chemicals, if their actions mean I can't enter a store or building in peace, then I'll be damned if they get to do their crap in the open public air.

Your problem is that you care more about one's desire to do drugs than another's desire to breath clean air! Upon what scale of rights may we measure the two to lend an obvious answer? The scale of rights? Well I suppose that which is necessary for many to live trumps that which a few want.

No drugs in public. No.

Well if someone is dumb enough to use drugs, they should suffer the consequences.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:35:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Uh,...no. Your apathy towards the plight of the bystandard is what makes your argument so one-track-minded. I personally don't care what people do to their bodies, but if their actions mean that I can't walk down the street without inhaling dangerous chemicals, if their actions mean I can't enter a store or building in peace, then I'll be damned if they get to do their crap in the open public air.:

Give me a f*cking break... You're scared of the 3 parts per billion of smoke in the air, yet curiously say nothing about vehicel emissions which is ten thousand times more caustic. Just goes to show what your true motivations are. Please stop disengenuously using the "clean air" canard to continue to treat marijuana smokers the same as pedophiles.

Your problem is that you care more about one's desire to do drugs than another's desire to breath clean air!:

Your problem is utilizing pure bullsh*t lies and propaganda about "dirty air" to use it as justification. We're not talking about ten thousand vats of toxic waste being dumped in lakes and rivers, we're talking about occasionally walking by a puff of marijuana smoke once every 2 months. Spare me the theatrics.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:37:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

More people than not agree with marijuana legalization. Granted, he also wants to legalize harder drugs. But you have to understand, he doesn't want to get to the White House and immediately start pushing for federal legalization of heroin and cocaine.

Also, his drug policy is by and large common sense. People have a right to do stuff with their own body if it's not intruding on anyone else's rights. That's a basic natural right - you own your body so you should control what you put in it. This shouldn't be so hard to understand.

The Founding Fathers certainly understood that. Up until the early 1900s, there was NEVER any federal ban on drugs. At least with alcohol prohibition in 1919, the government had enough sense to know that the constitution didn't provide the authority for it, so an amendment had to be created. There's no such thing with the War on Drugs. Washington and Jefferson grew marijuana on their property. Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence on hemp, which is currently illegal to grow. Other Presidents that grew/smoked marijuana include - Andrew Jackson, James Madison, James Monroe, Franklin Pierce, Zachary Taylor. Modern Presidents who smoked it include Clinton, Bush, and Obama. (In the case of the two latter ones, they both did a lot of cocaine in college.)

My point is that the War on Drugs has not really succeeded when it comes to marijuana use. I'd bet at least half of college kids will use it at some point. So having it on the black market just means they'll be using worse quality, less healthy marijuana potentially laced with other drugs.

As William J Buckley, influential conservative author once said, "the cost of the drug war is many times more painful, in all its manifestations, than would be the licensing of drugs combined with intensive education of non-users and intensive education designed to warn those who experiment with drugs." He also said "More people die every year as a result of the war against drugs than die from what we call, generically, overdosing."

Not to mention the whole War On Drugs is bloody expensive. It also traps non-violent users in a very violent system, so non-violent offenders will often get screwed up for life. There's just so many arguments against drug prohibition, to have a serious problem with legalization doesn't make sense given the history of prohibition.

"Paul = extreme foreign policy and it is bad"


Calling something extreme doesn't make it bad. Here's Ron Paul's foreign policy in a nutshell - only go to war with a Declaration of war from Congress, because to do so otherwise is illegal. (Government following its own rules - how extreme!!!) Also, only go to war to defend our interests, and only in self-defense. Reagan himself said that the U.S. shouldn't go around starting fights.

Any conservative should understand how ridiculous it is not to even consider cuts in the military budget to help with the debt/budget. How is that in any way fiscally conservative? It's the opposite. We have tens of thousands of troops in Germany, Korea, Japan, etc. We have over 900 military bases in over 130 countries. And yet the neocons are howling that we can't cut one penny from that budget because all of those bases are sooo necessary. Bullsh!t. Plus, we just can't afford them, regardless of how well and nice it would be if our budget/debt/economy were under control and we could. These are arguments that conservatives make all the time for domestic spending, even programs they may agree with. We just don't have the money to be policing the world, and leaving troops in random countries like I mentioned above!

Ultimately, Paul wants to return the military budget to 2005 levels. Actually, it would be larger than the 2005 levels... Larger than President George W Bush's military budget one year into his second term. It would also leave us with a budget four times the size of China's.

This is all without mentioning a very important factor: blowback. The term was coined by the CIA itself. When we meddle overseas, overthrowing democratically elected governments and killing MILLIONS of innocent civilians, people are going to get pissed off. Almost all terrorist experts come to the conclusion that would-be terrorists have a hard time rallying people to kill/give up their lives for any cause other than American presence on their land. That is the one thing that everyone who lives there can relate to. So withdrawing troops would decrease the risk of terrorism.


"Paul = extreme racist news letters. ( why did people forget about those?)"


Hahahahahaha dude get real. That's his worst scandal and he didn't even write them for god's sake. Yeah, he made a mistake in not reading them more carefully. but you have to understand - that is literally the worst dirt anyone has on him. Let's compare him to other candidates:

Newt Gingrich - repeatedly cheated on wives, requested an open marriage, married for the 3rd time, was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac making over a million dollars, flip-flopped on individual health care mandates, cap and trade, and intervening in Libya, openly idolizes FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson. Also, I recently discovered that in 1995, he proposed the death penalty for those who would import significant amounts of drugs - marijuana included - ... despite having used marijuana himself in college.

Mitt Romney - nobody in modern politics has flip-flopped more and worse than he has. Everybody knows it. If he wasn't perceived as electable against Obama, he would have virtually no support. He's boring and inspires no one. He's obviously bought and paid for - lobbyists run his campaign and it's covered by big banks. In short, he's the epitome of a politician, and everyone knows it.

Rick Santorum - wow, talk about extreme. If you think Paul is unelectable for his "extreme" views, despite the fact that only he can defeat Obama in independents and steal Democratic votes, just look at Rick Santorum. Anti-gay, anti-Muslim, never saw a war he didn't enthusiastically support, wants to intervene in practically the entire middle-east, thinks inflation is good for the economy... He actually endorsed liberal Republican Arlen Spector, without whom Obamacare would not have been passed. Essentially, Rick Santorum played a key part in the passage of Obamacare, because his endorsement actually gave him a solid bump. Not to mention his awkward comments regarding blacks.

Now take Ron Paul - a consistent politician for 30 years which itself is almost an anomaly. He is honest and truthful and never panders even if it's politically convenient. Even if it will get him boos from an audience. Again, what other politician does this? He's lived a principled life, staying happily married to the same woman for almost 55 years. He wants to repeal drug prohibition despite never having used drugs, while both Gingrich and Santorum want to keep prohibition despite having smoked marijuana frequently in college.

Paul would own Obama in independents and would get a significant amount of disillusioned Democrats... No other candidate can do this. And polls confirm that he's very electable vs Obama. Gingrich and Santorum are completely unelectable, and Romney is just another Bob Dole/John McCain who Obama would easily portray as a flip-flopping hypocrite who's owned by lobbyists and Wall Street. All of that is true, so Obama doesn't even have to lie or stretch the truth.

I think that effectively covers all your points. Paul's opinions are usually just common sense and very straightforward, he's consistent and principled, he's honest, and he never votes against the Constitution. The exact opposite is true for every other candidate.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:38:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well if someone is dumb enough to use drugs, they should suffer the consequences.:

Thank you. Simple.

In case any of you junior DEA agents in here haven't noticed, your Drug War is NOT stopping anything. In fact, your draconian laws are creating the very drug cartels it proposes to stop. But please, keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
MasterKage
Posts: 1,257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:41:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:25:44 PM, MasterKage wrote:
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.

No, obviously marijuana has many negative health effects. Many of the people who smoke marijuana are uneducated on the serious negative health effects.
Honestly, the one reason for marijuana to EVER get legalized is for medicinal use, not recrational use.


"Paul = extreme foreign policy and it is bad"

Only going to war with a declaration is extreme? Using the military for defense rather than empire building is extreme? You know whats extreme, being a war monger, slaughtering thousands of people, at the price of bankrupting America. You dont understand anything. Take your Nazi military industrial complex support out of here.

I have to agree that using a nation's military for defense is not one bit extreme, but 16K is entitled to his opinions.


"Paul = extreme racist news letters. ( why did people forget about those?)"

He didnt write those. The dialect doesn't even match his style of writing nor speech. Paul is the only anti-racist because he views people as individuals and doesn't put them in groups like his opponents do. He is also against the racist drug war. All the other candidates support racist laws of the drug war. Explain that.

I agree that he probably didn't right it (most government officials don't right their own speeches), but it is still considered his speech.
This signature is full of timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:41:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:35:24 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Uh,...no. Your apathy towards the plight of the bystandard is what makes your argument so one-track-minded. I personally don't care what people do to their bodies, but if their actions mean that I can't walk down the street without inhaling dangerous chemicals, if their actions mean I can't enter a store or building in peace, then I'll be damned if they get to do their crap in the open public air.:

Give me a f*cking break... You're scared of the 3 parts per billion of smoke in the air, yet curiously say nothing about vehicel emissions which is ten thousand times more caustic. Just goes to show what your true motivations are. Please stop disengenuously using the "clean air" canard to continue to treat marijuana smokers the same as pedophiles.

Your problem is that you care more about one's desire to do drugs than another's desire to breath clean air!:

Your problem is utilizing pure bullsh*t lies and propaganda about "dirty air" to use it as justification. We're not talking about ten thousand vats of toxic waste being dumped in lakes and rivers, we're talking about occasionally walking by a puff of marijuana smoke once every 2 months. Spare me the theatrics.

One question...If I have such disingenuous motives like you assert, then really, what do I have to gain out of controlling other people. I told you I don't care what they do to themselves, so long as I'm not affected. And if people smoke that with the same numbers and consistency that people smoke tobacco, then your dishonest exaggeration of once every 2 months is just that.

You're not going to understand anyone else's point of view until you can learn to give a sh!t about the bystander. If you really believe that passive second hand poses no threat or significant health danger, then you're either extremely dishonest or ignorant.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:51:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:26:35 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

As for the 737 military bases I say: USA USA USA!:

You ever served in the military, sport?

What does that mean? Has serving in the military given you a certain insight. Can you please explain?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:52:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One question...If I have such disingenuous motives like you assert, then really, what do I have to gain out of controlling other people.:

A world you THINK will be better for it... but as evidenced by 150 years of research, the drug war stops nothing and actually makes it worse.

I told you I don't care what they do to themselves, so long as I'm not affected. And if people smoke that with the same numbers and consistency that people smoke tobacco, then your dishonest exaggeration of once every 2 months is just that.:

Do you live in a Rastafarian commune in the middle of Jamaica? Please tell me where the air is just filled with plumes upon plumes of pot smoke, yet I haven't heard you say a peep about vehicle emissions. So please tell me how I'm the one exaggerating, and you're being perfectly reasonable.

You're not going to understand anyone else's point of view until you can learn to give a sh!t about the bystander. If you really believe that passive second hand poses no threat or significant health danger, then you're either extremely dishonest or ignorant.:

All research about the dangers of secondhand smoke are for people who LIVE with smokers, and inhale their secondhand smoke on a daily basis for years and years. Are you really so naive that you honestly believe that occasionally walking by a smoker presents any kind of health risk?

My God, do you have a little Junior G-Man badge you wear to school and tattle on all the bad kids?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:58:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:04:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.



Smoking marijuana affects the people around the smoker.
So does avid gaming, consuming many calories, etc. Everything you do affects someone in certain ways. Doesn't mean it should be forbidden. Especially not by the government.

Remember, just because the government forbids something bad, doesn't mean it goes it in a good way.

It's an extremely mentally addictive substance and a dangerous gateway drug. I've seen countless people move from pot to speed to the next best thing.
Alcohol is far worse, and how many people move from alcohol to other drugs? The gateway theory is nonsensical. Nothing suggests that consuming a random plant will automatically make you want to take an unrelated powder. Nonsense.

Also someone broke into my house and robbed me for his drug money so I'd like to keep this garbage out of the market.
Video game addicts often do similar things to pay for their games. Not a good argument.

What's dangerous for me might not be dangerous for you. And vice versa.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 7:00:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:58:55 PM, Mirza wrote:
Remember, just because the government forbids something bad, doesn't mean it does it in a good way.
Corrected.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 7:01:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:51:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/24/2012 6:26:35 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

As for the 737 military bases I say: USA USA USA!:

You ever served in the military, sport?

What does that mean? Has serving in the military given you a certain insight. Can you please explain?:

I've got a problem with neo-con's who use the military as their political pawns without themselves having served a day in their life. I find it rather amusing that the candidate who's the most opposed to foreign occupation has 1. served in the military and 2. that he has the largest support by the troops, whereas the candidates who want to continue to expand a bloated military apparatus to achieve it's own ends have not served a day in their lives.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 7:07:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:58:55 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/24/2012 6:04:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.



Smoking marijuana affects the people around the smoker.
So does avid gaming, consuming many calories, etc. Everything you do affects someone in certain ways. Doesn't mean it should be forbidden. Especially not by the government.

Remember, just because the government forbids something bad, doesn't mean it goes it in a good way.

It's an extremely mentally addictive substance and a dangerous gateway drug. I've seen countless people move from pot to speed to the next best thing.
Alcohol is far worse, and how many people move from alcohol to other drugs? The gateway theory is nonsensical. Nothing suggests that consuming a random plant will automatically make you want to take an unrelated powder. Nonsense.

Also someone broke into my house and robbed me for his drug money so I'd like to keep this garbage out of the market.
Video game addicts often do similar things to pay for their games. Not a good argument.

What's dangerous for me might not be dangerous for you. And vice versa.:

Wonderfully and eloquently stated, Mirza, thank you.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 7:12:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:04:19 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.



Smoking marijuana affects the people around the smoker. It's an extremely mentally addictive substance and a dangerous gateway drug. I've seen countless people move from pot to speed to the next best thing.

Epic fail. So does smoking cigarettes and tobacco, far far more than marijuana. Should those substances be illegal because they can affect those around em? 0 people die per year from marijuana, as confirmed by government studies. Compared to tens of thousands from cigarettes and even FDA approved drugs.

It's not chemically addicting. Cigarettes, alcohol, and caffeine are all chemically addicting. Marijuana is not. It's only addicting in the sense that sex is addicting - it feels good, so yeah, people will be inclined to want to keep on doing it, just like anything that feels good. What a horrible argument for prohibition... Why not prohibit cigarettes and alcohol and caffeine and sex, which are all more addicting than marijuana and have way more addicts to prove it?

It's not a gateway drug. That is a myth. Refer to the following two articles which quote legit scientific studies. It's a lie, plain and simple: http://scienceblog.com... and http://healthland.time.com...

And even if it was a gateway drug, who cares? What's it to you? You don't have to smoke pot. Nobody's forcing you. Just because you might disagree with people doing it doesn't negate the fact that they have a right to control their body and what goes in and out of it. It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. As Thomas Jefferson said: "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." According to TJ, you support tyranny.

Not to mention the following benefits of marijuana legalization that you utterly ignored:
1) getting pot off the black market, which would guarantee better health standards and no pot laced with other more dangerous drugs
2) getting non-violent users out of a very violent system that traps them and screws them over for their entire lives
3) economic benefits that would result from the marijuana industry
4) reducing street violence

Also someone broke into my house and robbed me for his drug money so I'd like to keep this garbage out of the market.

"This garbage" will always be on the market. Prohibition doesn't work. The question is whether it will be on the black market, which creates pot laced with heavier drugs and awful street violence, or what would probably result, from a more regulated industry. Not that I favor regulation - at least not as a necessity for the substance to be legal - that's just what would certainly result if it were legalized. Breaking into houses will always be rightfully illegal, legalizing pot doesn't change that.


"Paul = extreme foreign policy and it is bad"

Only going to war with a declaration is extreme? Using the military for defense rather than empire building is extreme? You know whats extreme, being a war monger, slaughtering thousands of people, at the price of bankrupting America. You dont understand anything. Take your Nazi military industrial complex support out of here.

Our military actions are for defense you tard. Where have we empire built in past 50 years? I would love to see the grand American empire you're hiding from me.. I must have missed something.

Wow, you're so ignorant to our foreign policy it's actually scary. We have over 900 military bases in over 130 countries, including Korea, Germany, and Japan. Are those all for defense? Do you really believe we invaded Iraq because they posed a serious threat to us? What about Libya? Afghanistan? What, in result to 20 or so Saudis unaffiliated with any government flying planes into our buildings? The plans for those wars (not Libya) were in plan long before 9/11. See the Project for a New American Century, neocon central. Many of those involved would serve in the Bush administration. They openly said , years before 9/11, that a "pearl harbor like event" would be necessary to implement their plans for global hegemony. None of this is secret - you can look it up in 5 seconds. We haven't faced a serious threat from another country in decades, not since the Soviet Union fell.

"Paul = extreme racist news letters. ( why did people forget about those?)"

He didnt write those. The dialect doesn't even match his style of writing nor speech. Paul is the only anti-racist because he views people as individuals and doesn't put them in groups like his opponents do. He is also against the racist drug war. All the other candidates support racist laws of the drug war. Explain that.


Paul said he would veto the civil rights act ... that's not a very good record.

Wow, coming from a so-called conservative, you're defending the civil rights act! Guess what, the civil rights act said that businesses (private property) must serve certain people. For those of us who believe that you have the right to actually own your property - I know, it's pretty extreme - we don't like the government deciding who you must offer the services of your business too. I'd think a so-called conservative such as yourself would agree. Small government for what?

So you're either ignorant of the Civil Rights Act and what it did, or you're not really conservative, or both. Probably both. He opposes it on the grounds that it undermines private property, one of the staples of modern civilization upon which, many libertarians/conservatives belief, all else regarding political philosophy rests.

Also the man wants to legalize heroine and if you think that people should have the right to do that then there's something wrong with you...

http://www.mediaite.com...

Saying that supporting something means there's something wrong with you is not a good argument. Would you call every single Founding Father crazy for believing that it wasn't the role of the federal government to dictate what citizens can and cant put in their bodies? What about every single President from America's founding until 1890? Yes, heroin was totally legal for over 100 years after America was created. The first Congressional Act regarding heroin and other opiates was enacted in 1890.

People have a right to do what they want with their bodies, provided it doesn't harm others or intrude on their rights. This was just common sense for over 100 years of America's history in regards to drugs. It's just not the role of government to protect us from our own personal choices... The just government exists to safeguard our individual liberties. I'd say this is a much better argument than "if you support legalizing heroin you're crazy."

Remember, supporting someone's right to do something, doesn't equal supporting that thing. Ron Paul has never touched illegal drugs in his life. (Interestingly both Gingrich and Santorum have, yet they want to maintain prohibition.)
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 7:27:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 5:51:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
16kAdams in quotes:

"Paul = extereme on drug policy for many people"

Too goddamn bad. If people don't want to smoke marijuana, then don't smoke it, no one is forcing them to. Don't tell others what they can and can't put into their own bodies, especially if many illicit drugs are safer than most pharmaceuticals.

To some people that is extreme, it is not extreme for me but it is true he has been viewed extreme by other people.

"Paul = extreme foreign policy and it is bad"

Only going to war with a declaration is extreme? Using the military for defense rather than empire building is extreme? You know whats extreme, being a war monger, slaughtering thousands of people, at the price of bankrupting America. You dont understand anything. Take your Nazi military industrial complex support out of here.

Lol I am not a nazi. Personal attacks jez.
Also John Bolton has a ton of experience and said ron pauls foreign policy is worse then obamas http://winteryknight.wordpress.com...
"Paul = extreme racist news letters. ( why did people forget about those?)"

He didnt write those. The dialect doesn't even match his style of writing nor speech. Paul is the only anti-racist because he views people as individuals and doesn't put them in groups like his opponents do. He is also against the racist drug war. All the other candidates support racist laws of the drug war. Explain that.

Explain this:

1993 he is worried about the shrinking white majority.

May 2011 he told msnbc he would have voted against the civil rights act.
.http://loop21.com...

He is racist
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 7:38:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also John Bolton has a ton of experience and said ron pauls foreign policy is worse then obamas:

You mean this John Bolton?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

1993 he is worried about the shrinking white majority.

May 2011 he told msnbc he would have voted against the civil rights act.
.http://loop21.com...

He is racist:

LOL, can you explain how a libertarian can be a racist? As explained, his newsletters are often written by ghost writers. At the very most, the only thing you could hang the guy on is not being more active in who is writers were. Big deal. And do you know anything on why he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act, or are you just flying by the seat of your pants and making assumptions?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 7:41:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 7:38:02 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

LOL, can you explain how a libertarian can be a racist? As explained, his newsletters are often written by ghost writers. At the very most, the only thing you could hang the guy on is not being more active in who is writers were. Big deal. And do you know anything on why he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act, or are you just flying by the seat of your pants and making assumptions?

That's actually kind of a big deal though. I mean Ron Paul should at least read the articles of the ghost writers, and If he doesn't, he pays the consequences. I mean, it's an unfair system to give him credit for work that is not really his (ghostwriting) then fall back if the article was bad, stating a ghost writer wrote it, don't look at me.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...