Who Else Knows That Ron Paul will NEVER be President?

[NoDrama]

i will let london speak for himself, but i don't think he feels that way. and i think your analogy was a poor one.

and i disagree with the part in red especially strongly. you try to describe it as a zero sum game, if one group gains rights, another one loses rights. i completely disagree. the "rights" that you claim are lost caused harm to others, thus they were never really "rights" in the first place.

civil rights did not destroy private property rights, it simply narrowed them in a way that no sane and rational person should feel compelled to speak so strongly against.

I see, so my views on how my property should be used is violating your rights somehow. If i own a grocery store and I don't want to do business with you and refuse to sell you anything, what are you going to do?

 

[Brick Top]

Originally Posted by SisterMaryElephant
Over 70% support medical MJ too but that's not what's stopping it either...

We'll have to discuss legalization in another thread.

Ron Paul will legalize during his first term

Now that's a laugh! How will Ron Paul, if elected, legalize marijuana, medicinal or otherwise? If elected he would be elected president, not king. He cannot rule by decree. He, nor any other president, can make laws or rewrite laws or repeal laws.

Regardless of what some polls may claim about the percentage of Americans that want legalized medicinal marijuana, or total legalization, the American people do not write legislation and they do not vote in congress and there is no way in the world that congress will legalize either. They would be to horrified if down the road the negative predictions that some make over legalization would come true and they would look bad. If members of congress found themselves under intense pressure from enough citizens the most congress would do it hand the ball off, they would pass legislation making it each individual states call and let them go down on record as having legalized or not.

And the most that Ron Paul, or any president, could do on his own would be to tell the justice department to make marijuana a lower priority and not go after dispensaries and caregivers and individuals who are legal at state level. That is as far as his power and authority would allow him to go. After that all he could do is ask congress for whatever type of legislation in regards to marijuana that he wanted. Congress could ignore him or legislation could be written giving him what he asked for, but in a different form that he did not want and would not sign or a number of riders could be tacked on, things that under no circumstances would be sign the legislation because it would mean the riders would become law too. Then all he could do is send it back to congress and ask for revisions and or the removal of the riders or veto the legislation he asked for.

Many people believe that a president has far more sweeping broader ranging powers than they actually have.

Congressional Democrats are not in love with Ron Paul, and there isn't a real love affair between congressional Republicans and Ron Paul either, and there still won't be after the upcoming election. He would be facing a more or less hostile congress on everything he did. The only way, and I mean the ONLY WAY, Ron Paul could get legalized marijuana, either medicinal or completely, would be to make a deal with the Devil, to give congress something it wants very badly and that Ron Paul would be totally against. He would have to play, let's make a deal.

If he did that he would not look like the maverick Washington outsider who would do things his way. Instead he would look like just one more politician who told people what they wanted to hear so he could get elected and then once in office followed the status quo. He would look like one more liar who once elected forgot what he said he would do and joined in the old DC reindeer games.

Does any Ron Paul supporter actually believe he would make himself look like that just to get legalized medicinal marijuana, or totally legalized marijuana?

There's not a snowballs chance in Hell that he would do that. He would ask congress for what he wanted, he wouldn't get it and then he would say, I tried but congress wouldn't play ball so it's not going to happen ... end of story.

 

[budlover13]

Now that's a laugh! How will Ron Paul, if elected, legalize marijuana, medicinal or otherwise? If elected he would be elected president, not king. He cannot rule by decree. He, nor any other president, can make laws or rewrite laws or repeal laws.

Regardless of what some polls may claim about the percentage of Americans that want legalized medicinal marijuana, or total legalization, the American people do not write legislation and they do not vote in congress and there is no way in the world that congress will legalize either. They would be to horrified if down the road the negative predictions that some make over legalization would come true and they would look bad. If members of congress found themselves under intense pressure from enough citizens the most congress would do it hand the ball off, they would pass legislation making it each individual states call and let them go down on record as having legalized or not.

And the most that Ron Paul, or any president, could do on his own would be to tell the justice department to make marijuana a lower priority and not go after dispensaries and caregivers and individuals who are legal at state level. That is as far as his power and authority would allow him to go. After that all he could do is ask congress for whatever type of legislation in regards to marijuana that he wanted. Congress could ignore him or legislation could be written giving him what he asked for, but in a different form that he did not want and would not sign or a number of riders could be tacked on, things that under no circumstances would be sign the legislation because it would mean the riders would become law too. Then all he could do is send it back to congress and ask for revisions and or the removal of the riders or veto the legislation he asked for.

Many people believe that a president has far more sweeping broader ranging powers than they actually have.

Congressional Democrats are not in love with Ron Paul, and there isn't a real love affair between congressional Republicans and Ron Paul either, and there still won't be after the upcoming election. He would be facing a more or less hostile congress on everything he did. The only way, and I mean the ONLY WAY, Ron Paul could get legalized marijuana, either medicinal or completely, would be to make a deal with the Devil, to give congress something it wants very badly and that Ron Paul would be totally against. He would have to play, let's make a deal.

If he did that he would not look like the maverick Washington outsider who would do things his way. Instead he would look like just one more politician who told people what they wanted to hear so he could get elected and then once in office followed the status quo. He would look like one more liar who once elected forgot what he said he would do and joined in the old DC reindeer games.

Does any Ron Paul supporter actually believe he would make himself look like that just to get legalized medicinal marijuana, or totally legalized marijuana?

There's not a snowballs chance in Hell that he would do that. He would ask congress for what he wanted, he wouldn't get it and then he would say, I tried but congress wouldn't play ball so it's not going to happen ... end of story.

Maybe that's what NEEDS to happen. With his honesty rather than spin.

 

[UncleBuck]

I see, so my views on how my property should be used is violating your rights somehow. If i own a grocery store and I don't want to do business with you and refuse to sell you anything, what are you going to do?

nothing. civil rights are in effect. if you refuse to serve me due to any of the factors that civil rights precludes, i would probably know. i do my research and shop at places i know.

the only grocery store that ever refused to serve me was when they refused to sell me beer because i went in there so stoned that they thought i was drunk. can't sell alcohol to the drunk, so they refused me.

if, like many people were pre-1964, i was refused service due to the color of my skin at a hotel, lunch counter, construction supplies store, or anywhere else, i would petition the government for a redress of grievances. that is what happened. it worked.

you describe the issue inaccurately as well. you say...

• the fed having the power to control your business and private property​

  
  
  ​

...and that is not true. the fed does tell you everything you may or may not do, they tell you what you CAN NOT do. it is not a destruction of freedom, it is an abridgement. the first amendment is abridged as well. most rights are, and deservingly so.

in any case, it is hilarious watching intelligent people like yourself defend ron paul's stance on the issue. i LOL all the time.

 

[Parker]

nothing. civil rights are in effect. if you refuse to serve me due to any of the factors that civil rights precludes, i would probably know. i do my research and shop at places i know.

the only grocery store that ever refused to serve me was when they refused to sell me beer because i went in there so stoned that they thought i was drunk. can't sell alcohol to the drunk, so they refused me.

if, like many people were pre-1964, i was refused service due to the color of my skin at a hotel, lunch counter, construction supplies store, or anywhere else, i would petition the government for a redress of grievances. that is what happened. it worked.

you describe the issue inaccurately as well. you say...

• the fed having the power to control your business and private property​

  
  
  ​

...and that is not true. the fed does tell you everything you may or may not do, they tell you what you CAN NOT do. it is not a destruction of freedom, it is an abridgement. the first amendment is abridged as well. most rights are, and deservingly so.

in any case, it is hilarious watching intelligent people like yourself defend ron paul's stance on the issue. i LOL all the time.

That's because you are a control freak who thinks he knows how to run the lives of others better than they do. You don't care about rights unless its an issue you agree with.
You're the type of person who thinks minorities are animals and shouldn't marry whites so you support governments when they ban that type of marriage. You think because someone is Japanese they should be thrown in jail like we saw in W2. You think because someone is muslim they don't deserve the respect of property rights like we see now.

Freedom and Liberty are not piecemeal like you control freaks suggest. It is not an abridgement. People do not have gay rights, they do not have civil rights, they have property rights based on the FACT they were born human. Group think mentality suggesting someone deserves more rights than another based on appearance or group affiliation is anti freedom.
Privileges are granted by the property owner and not by some agenda driven control freak.

Same control freaks who shut down threads using the excuse "the op wants me too". The op on that thread is just another control freak too, same as you.

 

[Parker]

Now that's a laugh! How will Ron Paul, if elected, legalize marijuana, medicinal or otherwise? If elected he would be elected president, not king. He cannot rule by decree. He, nor any other president, can make laws or rewrite laws or repeal laws.

He can repeal other Presidents executive orders which have become laws or "rules and regulations".

Regardless of what some polls may claim about the percentage of Americans that want legalized medicinal marijuana, or total legalization, the American people do not write legislation and they do not vote in congress and there is no way in the world that congress will legalize either. They would be to horrified if down the road the negative predictions that some make over legalization would come true and they would look bad.

I don't think that's true. They listen to voters. Otherwise they loose their cushy job

If members of congress found themselves under intense pressure from enough citizens the most congress would do it hand the ball off, they would pass legislation making it each individual states call and let them go down on record as having legalized or not.

Agreed it's a states right issue that the Federal government has no business sticking their nose in.

And the most that Ron Paul, or any president, could do on his own would be to tell the justice department to make marijuana a lower priority and not go after dispensaries and caregivers and individuals who are legal at state level. That is as far as his power and authority would allow him to go. After that all he could do is ask congress for whatever type of legislation in regards to marijuana that he wanted. Congress could ignore him or legislation could be written giving him what he asked for, but in a different form that he did not want and would not sign or a number of riders could be tacked on, things that under no circumstances would be sign the legislation because it would mean the riders would become law too. Then all he could do is send it back to congress and ask for revisions and or the removal of the riders or veto the legislation he asked for.

agreed

Many people believe that a president has far more sweeping broader ranging powers than they actually have.

The President is the most powerful person in America. Congress appropriates the money, the President spends it or the President can choose not to spend it since he appoints the department heads.

Congressional Democrats are not in love with Ron Paul, and there isn't a real love affair between congressional Republicans and Ron Paul either, and there still won't be after the upcoming election. He would be facing a more or less hostile congress on everything he did. The only way, and I mean the ONLY WAY, Ron Paul could get legalized marijuana, either medicinal or completely, would be to make a deal with the Devil, to give congress something it wants very badly and that Ron Paul would be totally against. He would have to play, let's make a deal.

Agreed. He doesn't compromise. He has said compromise kept slavery alive which has probably been the single most disgraceful event in American politics

If he did that he would not look like the maverick Washington outsider who would do things his way. Instead he would look like just one more politician who told people what they wanted to hear so he could get elected and then once in office followed the status quo. He would look like one more liar who once elected forgot what he said he would do and joined in the old DC reindeer games.

Does any Ron Paul supporter actually believe he would make himself look like that just to get legalized medicinal marijuana, or totally legalized marijuana?

There's not a snowballs chance in Hell that he would do that. He would ask congress for what he wanted, he wouldn't get it and then he would say, I tried but congress wouldn't play ball so it's not going to happen ... end of story.

I agree with the gist of your post but think you've gone a bit overboard on what the president cannot do. Defunding all Federal funding and authority used for marijuana prohibition, like the DEA ,would go a long way to keeping families together and allowing freedom and liberty to prosper.

 

[HereToday]

I honestly propose that SisterMaryElephant be banned from the forums for trolling and spamming, not because its anti ron paul stuff because I could care less, but because of the following reasons:

1) Not a grower or regular here and probably doesn't even smoke
2) is only here to spam, harrass, and intimidate
3) uses hate speach in every post and name-calling
4) Uses entire posts that are just copy/paste (spamming)

8. They will report any of your anti-Paul content online, to the owner of said site. For example, if you have a Facebook page with anti-Paul content, they’ll report it as abusive to Facebook. Yet they’ll maintain following anti-Obama, anti-Boehner, anti-Bachmann, anti-Franks, anti-Pelosi, anti-Bush pages, because there is NOTHING hypocritical about that.

10. They’ll harass anyone/page/site/blog/community online that is minding its own business, all the while touting how Ron Paul says we need a foreign policy where our nation doesn’t intervene and we mind our own business.

27. After looking at said facts about Paul, they’ll try turning it on its head and say that the facts actually put Ron Paul in a positive light. This is actually similar to the tactic above where they mimic said content but use it to advocate for Paul. They’ll go so far as to say said facts make Paul look good, even when the facts clearly show Paul stands for a environment that would allow for states to have slaves again. If a page had a real photo of Ron Paul raping a baby, the Paulbot would say, “Well that puts Paul in a positive light. It just shows he wants to keep the child protective services busy.”

 

[HereToday]

And in regards to Ron Pauls rationalization for being against the civil rights act. That the federal goverment shouldn't interefere with private businesses "rights"

Landlords are businesses
Companys that hire are businesses
Car dealers selling cars are businesses
Banks making loans are businesses

Its not just the lunch counter and the back of the bus.
The Civil Rights Act also covers women as well.

 

[Carne Seca]

You're using logic and facts HereToday. That is not allowed.

 

[PetFlora]

If he doesn't, you can expect more of the same: big business running the politicians = more; lies, corruption, false wars, taxes, lower quality of life. If we don't vote that out, who will?

 

[NoDrama]

nothing. civil rights are in effect. if you refuse to serve me due to any of the factors that civil rights precludes, i would probably know. i do my research and shop at places i know.

the only grocery store that ever refused to serve me was when they refused to sell me beer because i went in there so stoned that they thought i was drunk. can't sell alcohol to the drunk, so they refused me.

if, like many people were pre-1964, i was refused service due to the color of my skin at a hotel, lunch counter, construction supplies store, or anywhere else, i would petition the government for a redress of grievances. that is what happened. it worked.

you describe the issue inaccurately as well. you say...

• the fed having the power to control your business and private property​

  
  
  ​

...and that is not true. the fed does tell you everything you may or may not do, they tell you what you CAN NOT do. it is not a destruction of freedom, it is an abridgement. the first amendment is abridged as well. most rights are, and deservingly so.

in any case, it is hilarious watching intelligent people like yourself defend ron paul's stance on the issue. i LOL all the time.

What if i tell you that I won't do business with you just because i don't want to? Guess what? you gonna have to shop somewhere else. Now what harm came to you?

 

[NoDrama]

You're using logic and facts HereToday. That is not allowed.

Heretoday has not listed a single fact, but it makes complete sense that you think he has.

 

[beardo]

Now that's a laugh! How will Ron Paul, if elected, legalize marijuana, medicinal or otherwise? If elected he would be elected president, not king. He cannot rule by decree. He, nor any other president, can make laws or rewrite laws or repeal laws.


Many people believe that a president has far more sweeping broader ranging powers than they actually have.

Ha Ha Ha- if only you could hear my cackling laughter
I only wish you were right....
Maybe you ought to inform our current king and previous king of the limits and rules...
Anyways you are probably right in that Ron Paul would go about things the legal way when it comes to persuing change so the path you outline may very well be the one he would take
On the other hand I believe an executive order legalizing or even bringing to light the fact it is not currently illegal federally would not be out of the question.

 

[Parker]

left alone with this freedom, certain establishments took actions which caused harm to others.

their freedom ends when it causes harm others. civil rights was the end to this harm.

they stopped publishing 'the green book for negro travelers' directly after.

There is no harm. Harm is through the use of force. So if I don't hire you for a job I'm somehow harming you? You do not have a right to a job.

 

[londonfog]

Really sad to see people agreeing with segregation ...The whole point of the Civil rights era was to stop discrimination ... I guess some will never understand unless it happens to them on an everyday bases... I'm glad that this country has made changes that makes everyone able to be treated fairly ( in most cases, but still has some ways to go) ... The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Now if you feel that it was wrong to do this then I guess that says a lot about your person. When the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Ron Paul was the only member who voted "no." So to him I also say NO .. and Nodrama you comparing the Civil Rights Act to child molestation was very weak, but when you are on the wrong side of the fence trying to defend your stance, you will always tend to come off that way...

 

[beardo]

Really sad to see people agreeing with segregation ...The whole point of the Civil rights era was to stop discrimination ... I guess some will never understand unless it happens to them on an everyday bases... I'm glad that this country has made changes that makes everyone able to be treated fairly ( in most cases, but still has some ways to go) ... The Civil Rights Act repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. Now if you feel that it was wrong to do this then I guess that says a lot about your person. When the House of Representatives took up a resolution "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Ron Paul was the only member who voted "no." So to him I also say NO .. and Nodrama you comparing the Civil Rights Act to child molestation was very weak, but when you are on the wrong side of the fence trying to defend your stance, you will always tend to come off that way...

Have you ever tried to apply for a scolarship from the united negro collage fund?
Let me tell you their some racist bastards

 

[Parker]

the statement was made that "he was an old man who lived thru the Civil rights period" actual quote ...I was just pointing out his age at the time of the signing of the Civil rights act ( in which he disagrees with) ...which was 35..yes he was 13 when Truman submitted his civil rights plan to Congress and he was 35 when they voted on the Civil Rights Act...so he did live thru it.... and his stance is he would have voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act...sorry can never support or vote for a man that would vote against me and deny me having the same rights as other..

You don't know what rights are and you cannot redefine what they are, so why comment? You do not have a right to anothers property. That is called theft. You do not have the right to enter someone house. That is called trespassing. You can be granted the privilege to do so by the property owner. Learn the difference between rights and privileges.

 

[UncleBuck]

What if i tell you that I won't do business with you just because i don't want to? Guess what? you gonna have to shop somewhere else. Now what harm came to you?

not a whole lot.

but are you trying to argue that segregation and denial of service did not cause harm to blacks in the days before civil rights?

that seems to be what you are doing. i'm not sure why you would try to showcase a lack of historical knowledge in such a way.

blacks were left with inferior selection or were forced to pay twice as much for the same product.

i don't get why an otherwise intelligent person would try to take this hill.

 

[UncleBuck]

There is no harm. Harm is through the use of force. So if I don't hire you for a job I'm somehow harming you? You do not have a right to a job.

are you seriously trying to argue that segregation and denial of service did not cause harm?

because it is not my opinion that it caused harm, it is historical fact.

that dog won't hunt.

 

[UncleBuck]

You don't know what rights are and you cannot redefine what they are, so why comment? You do not have a right to anothers property. That is called theft. You do not have the right to enter someone house. That is called trespassing. You can be granted the privilege to do so by the property owner. Learn the difference between rights and privileges.

since when are we talking about trespassing? stop being silly. this is ridiculous.

it is YOU who does not know what a right is. being able to hang a "no negroes served" sign at your restaurant is not a "right", as it causes harm to others. your right to do anything ends when it causes harm to others.

fucking theft and trespassing? weak, weak shit.