Ron Paul will run as an Independent(video)?

[Rotary]

nah nah, no way, not slippin that one by me, I checked it, it says:

This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books.
Last Action: Mar 13, 2002: Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendments to Senate amendment.

Other Titles: -- Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002
-- Immigration Extension bill
-- United States Border Security bill

Nothing on there about amnesty, says Border security, and LEGAL immigration extension and visa reform.

Ron Paul has supported the notorious Section 245(i) amnesty for illegal aliens on three occasions. In 1997, Ron Paul voted against killing Section 245(i) amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. In 2001, President George W. Bush supported an extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty. Ron Paul voted for a four-month extension of Section 245(i) amnesty for illegal aliens. Even after almost three thousand Americans were killed on September 11, 2001, Ron Paul continued his support for Section 245(i) amnesty for illegal aliens. In 2002, President George W. Bush supported the revival of Section 245(i) amnesty. In 2002, Ron Paul also supported its revival and voted for the revival of Section 245(i) amnesty in 2002.

Ron Paul has voted seven times (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005) against allowing the U.S. military to aid in border control functions. The United States is experiencing an invasion of illegal aliens along its southern border, yet Ron Paul believes the outstanding young men and women in this nation's military should not be allowed to aid the United States Border Patrol in securing this country's borders.

http://profiles.numbersusa.com/impro...d=TX&VIPID=787

[Rotary]

Why should anyone be able to tell anyone else what they can and can not do with their own body?

Fast food does alot of damage to society, more than drugs. Do you think its a good idea to make it illegal?

Right now it is illegal to drink and drive, and for good reason. Alcohol affects your judgment and when you get behind the wheel of a car with an altered perception you endanger more than just yourself. The same logic goes with drugs….it affects other people.

An estimated 100,000 babies are born each year addicted to xxxxxx. So don't tell me that drugs only affect the user! Tell that to the little babies born addicted to xxxx! Tell that to a woman who is raped by her boyfriend while he is high on xxxx! And in the case of legalization maybe the Ron Paul should tell that to the taxpayers who's insurance rates will skyrocket through the roof, and have more taxes to pay for drug rehab programs!

Will the legalization of drugs reduce the crime rate? Don't ignore the fact that many violent crimes are committed through the influence of drugs. A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (7/6/94) reports that cocaine use is linked to high rates of homicide in New York City and that "homicide victims may have provoked violence through irritability, paranoid thinking or verbal and physical aggression which are known to be pharmacological effects of cocaine." And that is just one example.

For you xxxx out there…I will accept a logical debate on the legalization of xxxxxx, I might even vote for it if it were allowed to be a States rights issue like it should be, but when it comes to ALL drugs being available and distributed by the government…it is simply detrimental to our interdependent society. The decriminalization of drugs would make dangerous, psychoactive, and addictive substances affordable, available, convenient, and marketable. It would increase the use of drugs. It would remove the social taboo attached to it, and it would send a message of tolerance, especially to the youth.


Post edited by kärnfysikern to remove specific drug names.

[alphaman]

H.R. 1885 was a extension of a mini amnesty bill that happened quite a few times. Ron Paul votes yes for Amnesty.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2001-127

If we're gonna talk about Ron Paul on immigration, let's examine the facts and not scew the picture by presenting one facet of the situation.

http://ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Ron Paul on Immigration

If economy were good, there'd be no immigration problem. (Dec 2007)
Amend Constitution to remove aliens' birthright citizenship. (Dec 2007)
Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior. (Dec 2007)
No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007)
Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007)
No amnesty, but border fence isn't so important. (Jun 2007)
We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more. (Jun 2007)
Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)

15 FULL QUOTES ON THE ISSUE

If economy were good, there'd be no immigration problem
Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." You've changed your view.
A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It's an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem. We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 23, 2007

Amend Constitution to remove aliens' birthright citizenship
Q: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be US citizens.
A: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's the contradiction there?

Q: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?

A: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. And there's confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Dec 23, 2007

Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior
Q: Do you think that there would be a practical value of making English our official language?
A: Well, it's practical because we can all understand each other. I sometimes think that those who attack bilingualism sometimes are jealous, & we feel inferior, because we're not capable. But we should have one language. But we, as federal officials, as a congressman or a president, we only have authority over the federal government. So I think all federal things should be in English. But when it comes to bilingualism in schools or the states, under our Constitution, it really is permissible. And the states can decide that. But under the conditions that we have today, I think it is good and proper to have one language, which would be English, for all legal matters at the national level. But this doesn't preclude bilingualism in private use or in education or in local government.

Source: 2007 Republican primary debate on Univision Dec 9, 2007

No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals
Q: Is it even practical to try to send 12 million illegal immigrants all home?
A: I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it's pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn't be rewarded. And that would be the case.

Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state
I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They bankrupt our hospitals. Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn't be rewarded. That means you don't give them citizenship. You can't solve this problem until you get rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn't be a threat to us.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

No amnesty, but border fence isn't so important
Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?
PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we've talked about amnesty, which I'm positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.

Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more
If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty. But we force our states and our local communities to pay for the health care and pay for the education. Why wouldn't they bring their families? And because of our economic conditions, we do need workers. But if we had a truly free market economy, the illegal immigrants would not be the scapegoat. We would probably need them and they would be acceptable.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president
Q: Should we change our Constitution to allow men like Mel Martinez, born in Cuba, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, to stand here some night as candidates for president?
PAUL: I'm a no, because I am a strong supporter of the original intent

GIULIANI: When he called me up to endorse him, he got me on the phone, he said, "Will you endorse me?", and I was too afraid to say no. I would say yes.

TANCREDO: Intimidating as he might be, I'm saying no.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border.
Within 18 months, achieves operational control over U.S. land and maritime borders, including:
systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology; and
physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry
Defines "operational control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, narcotics, and other contraband.
Proponents support voting YES because:

It is obvious there is no more defining issue in our Nation today than stopping illegal immigration. The most basic obligation of any government is to secure the Nation's borders. One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the Senate and the House is on the issue of building a secure fence. So rather than wait until comprehensive legislation is enacted, we should move forward on targeted legislation which is effective and meaningful. The legislation today provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing, and for the rest of the border provides a virtual fence, via integrated surveillance technology.

Opponents support voting NO because:

Just to build the fence is going to cost us at least $7 billion. Where is the money coming from to pay for it? How much is it going to cost to maintain this 700-mile fence? Who is going to do it? This bill contains no funding.

This bill also ignores real enforcement measures, like hiring more Border Patrol personnel, and instead builds a Berlin Wall on our southern border. So long as employers need workers in this country, and while our immigration systems impede rather than facilitate timely access of willing workers to those opportunities, undocumented immigration will never be controlled.

Walls, barriers, and military patrols will only force those immigrants to utilize ever more dangerous routes and increase the number of people who die in search of an opportunity to feed and clothe their families.

Reference: Secure Fence Act; Bill H R 6061 ; vote number 2006-446 on Sep 14, 2006

Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project.
Voting YES on this amendment supports the Minuteman Project, a group of volunteers who have taken on surveillance of the Mexican border for illegal immigrants. The amendment states that US funds will not be used to tell the Mexican government about the whereabouts of the Minuteman Project volunteers. Proponents of the Minuteman Project say that they are volunteer citizens doing what the federal government SHOULD be doing, but has failed to do. Opponents of the Minuteman Project say that they are vigilantes at best and anti-Mexican racists at worst. The amendment states:
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.
The amendment's sponsor said on its behalf:
What this amendment does is it clarifies Congress' position on a Border Patrol practice or a practice of the US Government that tips off illegal immigrants as to where citizen patrols may be located.
As a response to the lawlessness along the Mexican border, a group has sprung up called the Minutemen Project, and the Minutemen Project is definitely not politically correct in Washington DC. However, they filled a void which the government was unable to fill.
There are over 7,000 volunteers in the Minutemen organization, and their help has been productive and good.
What my amendment does is simply says that the U.S. Government cannot tip off the Mexican officials as to where these folks are located. Plain and simple, nothing fancy about it. I am sure the Border Patrol will say, oh, no, we are not doing that, and yet one of the Web pages of the Secretary of Mexico had the information very explicit, and we just do not believe that is a good practice.
Reference: Department of Homeland Security appropriations; Bill HR 5441 Amendment 968 ; vote number 2006-224 on Jun 6, 2006

Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.
Vote to pass the bill that would require hospitals to gather and report information on possible illegal aliens before hospitals can be reimbursed for treating them. The bill would also make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention, unless the employer meets particular conditions for exemption. The bill would specify that hospitals aren't required to provide care to undocumented aliens if they can be transported to their home country without a significant chance of worsening their condition.
Reference: Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments; Bill HR 3722 ; vote number 2004-182 on May 20, 2004

Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules.
Vote on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would extend by four months a law allowing some immigrants to remain in the country while pursuing legal residency.
Reference: Motion sponsoerd by Gekas, R-PA; Bill HR1885 ; vote number 2001-127 on May 21, 2001

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.
Vote to pass a bill to increase the number of temporary visas granted to highly skilled workers from 65,000 to 115,000 by the year 2000.
Reference: Bill introduced by Smith, R-TX.; Bill HR 3736 ; vote number 1998-460 on Sep 24, 1998

Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration.
Paul scores 100% by FAIR on immigration issues
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a national, non-profit, public interest membership organization of concerned citizens united by their belief in the need for immigration reform. Founded in 1979, FAIR believes that the U.S. can and must have an immigration policy that is non-discriminatory and designed to serve the environmental, economic, and social needs of our country.

FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest—more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year.

With more than 70,000 members nationwide, FAIR is a non-partisan group whose membership runs the gamut from liberal to conservative.

The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: FAIR website 03n-FAIR on Dec 31, 2003

Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance.
Paul scores 83% by USBC on immigration issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 USBC scores as follows:

0%-30%: open-border stance (approx. 197 members)
30%-70%: mixed record on open borders (approx. 70 members)
70%-100%: sealed-border stance (approx. 202 members)
About USBC (from their website, www.usbc.org):
U.S. Border Control, founded in 1988, is a non-profit, tax-exempt, citizen's lobby. USBC is dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation's borders and reforming our immigration policies. USBC [works with] Congressmen to stop amnesty; seal our borders against terrorism and illegal immigration; and, preserve our nation's language, culture and American way of life for future generations.

Our organization accepts no financial support from any branch of government. All our support comes from concerned citizens who appreciate the work we are doing to seal our borders against drugs, disease, illegal migration and terrorism and wish to preserve our nation's language, culture and heritage for the next generations.

[SMCengineer]

Maybe that syte forgot to add pro-drugs.

He's not pro-drugs, he's against the War on Drugs, which is very different than being 'pro-drugs.' Lest we forget where the ban on AAS came from and is consistently grouped into.

Hmm, so abolishing the IRS, which anyone can tell you, will NEVER happen.

Of course it would never happen, when we continue to elect candidates who would rather increase government spending than decrease it.

He says a lot of things he knows people 'want' to hear. His reasoning is, if we get out of all Mideast countries the terrorists will have no reason to come after us, which I think he is gravely mistaken in that aspect as well.

No his reasoning is, if we get attacked than go after the people who attacked us. For example, Afganistan who attacked on 911. Yet, all of our attention is focused in Iraq (I know there's troops in Afganistan, but no where near the caliber of Iraq) , who we had our sights on since 98.

Otherwyse, some of this ideals sound good to many, but he likes to make himself sound like the 'unique' candidate for those who feel fed up by emphasizing the Constitution, as if he is the only one who understands it.

He's may not be the only candidate who understands the constitution (I wouldn't doubt he is though), but he's certainly the only one who wants to follow it. Although, Mike Huckabee is starting to catch on. What's wrong with the constitution anyway?

Not to mention the fact he is a Libertarian whose only reason he switched to the Republican Party, was because he knew he could not win under the party he actually belongs in. And that to me, is not honest and shows no integrity.

That shows no honesty and integrity? No, what it shows is that he knew the only way to get any media attention was to run in a party who receives it. Not to mention that he didn't switch to the republican party he's been a republican in the 14th congressional district of Texas for 20 years. I'd be suprised if you knew what the actual platform for the republican party is. I mean the original platform (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind). The platform the republicans run on now is more like the original Federalist platform. Paul is easliy more conservative than any candidate on that stage. However, I do agree that many of his positions are Libertarian positions.

Even some of his supporters who were Independent ONLY registered as Pubs was to vote for him, so that to me, also speaks of some of his supporters' integrity. And what's ironic, 'honesty and integrity' is what some of his supporters say they like about him. That's how much they 'know' about integrity apparently.

So blind party loyalty is the definition of 'honesty and integrity.'

I could never in good conscience, support any man who would be supportive to drug legalization, without the concern of the damage that would cause others.

You do realize that war on drugs is like prohibition in the 1920's and early 30's. What came about from that? Organized crime and gangs. Did it do anything to stop the consumption of alcohol? No.

What we need to do is get rid of the culture that says, if it feels good-do it!

That sounds more like socialism/fascism to me. What about individual freedoms?

Sealing our borders would be a big help as well. Those things would go a long way toward solving the drug problem.

I agree, so lets nominate Mccain who'll grant amnesty and doing nothing about the actual border security problem.

[alphaman]

Rotary....

Ok you live in conservative-ville, so if immigration is important to you...

your other choices are:

huckabee, approved scholarships for illegals
romney, who employed illegals in his home
or..

mccain, who has a 18% rating, with an open border stance, mr amnesty, himself??

Please help me understand...

[alphaman]

Rotary....

"the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

- Ronald Regan


wasn't he a republican????

Just because one has Libertarian views doesn't mean they are a member of a Libertarian political party. Ron Paul as always been a Republican. Do a little research before you start posting 60 lines of vomit. You will get called out by someone who thinks before they type!

I could respond to more of your drivel, but I think I have made my point.

...

[alphaman]

I'll shoot you a PM on the grounds that you do not forward or share my response with anyone else. It's really no ones business. Since Logan wants to be a smart ass, he can miss my response.

If you think he is best choice for America, then I would like to see the information be made available to all. The more information we have, the better our chance will be of making a well-informed decision.

But if that's your only offer, I won't share it with anyone.

[Atomini]

I could never in good conscience, support any man who would be supportive to drug legalization, without the concern of the damage that would cause others.

What we need to do is get rid of the culture that says, if it feels good-do it! At the same time stop teaching our kids that the world revolves around them. Sealing our borders would be a big help as well. Those things would go a long way toward solving the drug problem.

Dude, anyone who thinks ending the drug war and de-criminalizing drugs is the wrong thing and will make the situation worse really truly doesn't know how horrible the drug war's damage has become. Keeping drugs criminalized and illegal causes MORE problems than it claims to seemingly solve. You think the government is trying to protect you? The government doesn't give a shit about you. The drug war is here to line the pockets of many different people, it's here to serve multiple selfish goals of the politicians and the rich, and to restrict your freedoms so that they can remind you that they can fvck with you any time they want - as long as you put up with it. And that means any time they want. Prohibition. Remember that? Yeah, it didn't work back then and it doesn't work now.

Few people are aware that before World War I, a 9-year-old girl could walk into a drug store and buy xxxxx.

That's right. xxxx. She didn't need a doctor's prescription or a note from her parents. She could buy it right off the shelf. Bayer and other large drug companies sold xxxx as a pain-reliever and sedative in measured doses – just the way aspirin is sold today. xxxxxx were readily available as well. No Drug Enforcement Agency, no undercover cops, no "Parents, the Anti-Drug" commercials. Just people going about their own business is whatever way they chose.

Seeing today's never-ending crisis of teenagers using drugs, you can imagine how bad it must have been when there were no laws to stop children (or adults) from using drugs. But, in fact, there was no drug crisis at all. A few people were addicted to xxxx or xxxx, just as a few people today are addicted to sleeping pills or Big Macs, but there was no national uproar about it. Such people, if they wanted to break their habits, could freely consult doctors without fear of being sent to prison.

There were no black-market drug dealers preying on school children. There were no gang wars over drug profits, because there were no drug gangs. After all, who would buy dangerous drugs from a gangster at outrageous prices when he could buy safe drugs made by a reputable drug company at modest prices?

Americans got a taste of what a Drug War might be like when they endorsed the 18th Amendment invoking alcohol Prohibition in 1919. The result was gang warfare, people dying from drinking bathtub gin, corruption in police departments, and non-violent citizens sent to prison for indulging in a vice that was strictly personal. Most Americans rejoiced when Prohibition was repealed in 1933. The chances of them supporting another such Constitutional amendment within the next 50 years were slim to none.

So the federal government didn't dare try amending the Constitution when politicians and bureaucrats decided to reinstate all the trappings of Prohibition in a new Drug War. This War That Will Never End was begun in stages – probably starting with the rarely-enforced Harrison Act of 1914. In my recollection, the Drug War as we know it today began during the 1960s, moved into second and third gears during the Nixon administration of 1969–1974, and shifted into overdrive during the Reagan administration of 1981–1989.

The Drug War has been easily the greatest cause of violent crime in American history: Gangs fighting over monopoly territories, children killed in drive-by shootings, families in the inner city living with the constant sound of gunfire outside their doors, police killing innocent people in misguided drug raids, crooked cops helping to spread poisonous drugs, non-violent citizens sent to prison to be terrorized by violent prisoners... none of which would exist in the absence of the federal drug laws.

There is nothing that could make our cities safer than repealing the drug laws! All of them.

Does the idea of xxxxxx being sold over the counter sound too ludicrous to be true? You can check it out for yourself. A marvelous website, maintained by the University of Buffalo's Addiction Research Unit, shows the actual labels and ads from patent medicines of the 19th and early-20th centuries. You can see the claims made, the ingredients used, and the acceptance of what so many Americans fear today.

That era of innocence didn't end because America was threatened by a drug crisis. It was ended in the traditional way... by politicians looking for new worlds to conquer, politicians who have no interest in examining dispassionately the chaos they cause, and who will never face a single personal consequence for the lives they have ruined.

As awkward as the drug topic may be, I have no problem giving my opinion on the laws surrounding not just steroids , but other drugs as well. Make no mistake about it, the so called "war on drugs" is a farce. It cost the taxpayers billions. It doesn't work. It never has. It never will. Don't believe it? All one has to do is take a look at the countries that have adopted a policy of less oppression toward drug users. Drug use is down! Violence and theft stemming from the need for drugs is non-existent. The money once used to incarcerate is now used for rehabilitation. Compare that to the condition as it now exists in the United States.

And just as an aside, there is horrific destruction of property in foreign lands (burning crops, bombing poppy fields) by the US government which may be more responsible for the dissent and disdain against our country than anything else. In those cases, the destruction is designed to stop the import of narcotics which possess a threat to society, although I don't know of anyone who would take a narcotic unless they wanted to. These lip service laws are just a convenient way of grouping everything into one melting pot of government issued morality.

And to finalize my statements, the 'drug problem' we have in North America is NOT a criminal issue. We have turned it into one! The drug problem is a social, medical, and personal issue. By using force and incarceration to solve the problem, you are using a tyrrannical and dictatorial approach to solving a social, medical, and personal issue. It's like using the wrong tool for something you're trying to fix! It's like trying to tighten a bolt to fix something (and you need a wrench to do so), but instead of using a wrench, you decide to use a chainsaw to tighten the bolt. It won't tighten the bolt, it will destroy what you're trying to fix and make the problem worse! And that is what we're doing over here by criminalizing and illegalizing drugs! We need to take the stance that the netherland countries take, and that is classifying the issue as a public health issue, NOT A CRIMINAL ISSUE!

EDIT: Just so you know, the drug policy of the Netherlands is based on 3 principles:

1. Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal matter
2. A distinction between hard drugs and soft drugs exists
3. High drug related public expenditure, the highest drug related public expenditure per capita of all countries in EU

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_po...he_Netherlands


Edited by Kärnfysikern to remove specific drug names

[BOOST]

Watch out for a Gore/Obama ticket

[HORSE~]

alphaman wow dude you need to spend more time in the lounge lot's of political threads that get lots of veiw's here lately....I would love to hear your veiw's on THEM....

MOTHERFUCKER wow those are some HELLIOUS rebutalls bro WELL DONE!!!!

[alphaman]

alphaman wow dude you need to spend more time in the lounge lot's of political threads that get lots of veiw's here lately....I would love to hear your veiw's on THEM....

MOTHERFUCKER wow those are some HELLIOUS rebutalls bro WELL DONE!!!!

Child's play.... rotary > < rotary

Thanks very much. I would, but myself and others (some who are still members, and some who aren't) did quite a bit of that at one time... and let's just say it got out of hand... lol I don't know if you were around then or not...

But I've recently started a board of my own that features controversial topics (EDIT: politics and religion and whatnot...not fitness related) where I can get crazy without pissing off other website owners. lol

[HORSE~]

Child's play.... rotary > < rotary

Thanks very much. I would, but myself and others (some who are still members, and some who aren't) did quite a bit of that at one time... and let's just say it got out of hand... lol I don't know if you were around then or not... Yes sir I do remeber and thankfuly this site has made some great change's for the better in this aspect....

But I've recently started a board of my own that features controversial topics (not fitness related) where I can get crazy without pissing off other website owners. lol

Shoot me a pm if you don’t mind with a link to your site.....


Dude I am glad your back and hope you stay....Please stick around as much as you can....If I see things getting to heated/out of hand I will post my concerns in the thread and shoot you a pm , As long as people are respectful of one another (aka not flamming) there should not be any issues but if there are PLEASE hit the report button located at the upper right hand corner of each post and it will be delt with promply....

[Logan13]

Rotary....

Ok you live in conservative-ville, so if immigration is important to you...

your other choices are:

huckabee, approved scholarships for illegals
romney, who employed illegals in his home
or..

mccain, who has a 18% rating, with an open border stance, mr amnesty, himself??

Please help me understand...

If you honestly think that Paul is a choice, you will be very disappointed come November. Not because of his stances but because he is UNELECTABLE. Vote your conscience, but do not do so blindly. Many of you are debating with too much emotion, reminds me of the far left. Many of your antics resemble theirs as well. Voting with emotion only is what the Obama camp does. No disrespect, as you who I do sincerely respect know who your are.

[Logan13]

Child's play.... rotary > < rotary


But I've recently started a board of my own that features controversial topics (EDIT: politics and religion and whatnot...not fitness related) where I can get crazy without pissing off other website owners. lol

Where was my invite?

[Logan13]

Afraid of a man who thinks we're separate species. RRRRRRRight!

I don't see alphaman being disrespectful while you on the other hand:

You're not being a smart ass. You're just being yourself.

what's your point?

[Kärnfysikern]

Rotary I edited some parts of your post. the rules doesnt allow discussions about specific drugs so we have to keep it to drug policy in general.

Right now it is illegal to drink and drive, and for good reason. Alcohol affects your judgment and when you get behind the wheel of a car with an altered perception you endanger more than just yourself. The same logic goes with drugs….it affects other people.

I agree that drinking and driving is illegal for a reason. But you take a logical leap when using that as a argument against drugs period. Why not also call for a ban on alcohol because some people drive drunk? Is every alcohol user a potential drunk driver?

An estimated 100,000 babies are born each year addicted to xxxx. So don't tell me that drugs only affect the user! Tell that to the little babies born addicted to xxxx! Tell that to a woman who is raped by her boyfriend while he is high on xxx! And in the case of legalization maybe the Ron Paul should tell that to the taxpayers who's insurance rates will skyrocket through the roof, and have more taxes to pay for drug rehab programs!

I can not force someone to be a good parent and we already have laws that deal with rape. Making all drugs illegal because a minority of drug users might comit rape is like saying all drug users are potential rapists. Kind of like saying all steroid users are prone to violent crimes, because there sure are violent crimes comited by steroid users.

What about all the mothers that smoke when pregnant? Should we have cigarettes illegal?

What about parents that raise kids on a fast food diet so they are obese when they start school? Should we make fast food illegal. Because this probably cost society plenty more than drugs do.

What about motorcycles? Plenty of traffic accidents are because of motorcycles. Statisticaly it is a dangerous hobby that potentialy hurt others, why not make them illegal?

I dont se how its ever justified to use the legal system in order to fix societies expenses. Where do you draw the line and why is that lined drawn with drugs and not fast food for instance? if you want to use laws to cut down costs then the fat people should be the first target.

Will the legalization of drugs reduce the crime rate? Don't ignore the fact that many violent crimes are committed through the influence of drugs. A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (7/6/94) reports that cocaine use is linked to high rates of homicide in New York City and that "homicide victims may have provoked violence through irritability, paranoid thinking or verbal and physical aggression which are known to be pharmacological effects of cocaine." And that is just one example.

The overwhelming majority of violent crimes(atleast in sweden) is done by people drunk. So why not ban alcohol?

Unfortunaly I dont have acess to JAMA so I cant look up the study myself. But one problem with studies on drugs and steroid comparing crime rate ect is that they usualy can not draw a conclusion since the people that get into drugs and steroids arent exactly a random sample of the population. They are usualy more unstable and prone to crime from the begining.

For you xxxx out there…I will accept a logical debate on the legalization of xxxx, I might even vote for it if it were allowed to be a States rights issue like it should be, but when it comes to ALL drugs being available and distributed by the government…it is simply detrimental to our interdependent society. The decriminalization of drugs would make dangerous, psychoactive, and addictive substances affordable, available, convenient, and marketable. It would increase the use of drugs. It would remove the social taboo attached to it, and it would send a message of tolerance, especially to the youth.

Interesting though is that in the netherlands legalization of some drugs has lead to alot less use of "heavier" drugs.

[Kärnfysikern]

This discussion is realy pushing board rule so I wont be suprised if a admin shuts it down. But hopefully it will be kept open if we keep it to drug policy in general and not specific drugs.

[alphaman]

logan and horse.. check ur pm


logan, i'l respond to Paul's electability tonight.

[convalescence69]

You guys laid the smack down!
Here is Dr. Paul's responses during the last debate http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/...e_1_30_08.html

[convalescence69]

If there are any people here from Maine, you guys vote today, and there is some speculation that he will do well up there. GET OUT AND VOTE!!! Go Ron Paul!

[soccer#3]

You guys laid the smack down!
Here is Dr. Paul's responses during the last debate http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/...e_1_30_08.html

look at romneys face everytime ron paul opens his mouth. i dunno if romney has a crush on him or just admires the shit out of him

[meathead320]

Right now it is illegal to drink and drive, and for good reason. Alcohol affects your judgment and when you get behind the wheel of a car with an altered perception you endanger more than just yourself. The same logic goes with drugs….it affects other people.

An estimated 100,000 babies are born each year addicted to xxxxxx. It IS illegal for a pregnant woman to use alcohol, AND by that same number estimate shows that, the WOD is NOT WORKING. I fall that money was being so well spent we would not have a 1/10th of a million xxxxxx addict babies born each year. I am not saying that drugs are good for people, only that it is NOT possible to control it. I never said they only affect the user either. So don't tell me that drugs only affect the user! Tell that to the little babies born addicted to xxxx! Tell that to a woman who is raped by her boyfriend while he is high on xxxx! And in the case of legalization maybe the Ron Paul should tell that to the taxpayers who's insurance rates will skyrocket through the roof, and have more taxes to pay for drug rehab programs! lets not either forget that the WOD increases the rate of new addiction, as the sellers of illegal drugs continue to get new people hooked, so they have clients to sell to.

Will the legalization of drugs reduce the crime rate? Don't ignore the fact that many violent crimes are committed through the influence of drugs. A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (7/6/94) reports that cocaine use is linked to high rates of homicide in New York City and that "homicide victims may have provoked violence through irritability, paranoid thinking or verbal and physical aggression which are known to be pharmacological effects of cocaine." And that is just one example.
When most of the cases of "xxxxxx linked crime" are looked at, you will find that the vast majority of violence is around the sale and trade of the drugs, rather than the pharmacology of them. Of the cases you find where it was the pharmacology, you need to compare those to alcoholics who have done similar things, and you find that drink affects violent behavior every bit as much as blxx

For you xxxx out there…I will accept a logical debate on the legalization of xxxxxx, I might even vote for it if it were allowed to be a States rights issue like it should be, but when it comes to ALL drugs being available and distributed by the government…it is simply detrimental to our interdependent society. The decriminalization of drugs would make dangerous, psychoactive, and addictive substances affordable, available, convenient, and marketable. It would increase the use of drugs. It would remove the social taboo attached to it, and it would send a message of tolerance, especially to the youth. I do not support mere "decriminalization" of drugs, as that is the worst of BOTH worlds, leaving the drugs in the hands of violent gangs and drug dealers. I support re-lagalization, which would not be detrimental at all, as it would cut down the rate of new addiction. Those drugs already illegal are more available now than ever, with an ever increasing number of new addicts, as dealers continue to hook new people. BTW you, who call youself "conservative" are using the same logic liberals use to justify "protecting people from themselves".


Post edited by kärnfysikern to remove specific drug names.

My arguments to those, added in bold.

[alphaman]

look at romneys face everytime ron paul opens his mouth. i dunno if romney has a crush on him or just admires the shit out of him

I just got the pleasure of watching those for the first time, as my satellite got blown off track by the storm the other night. Now I'm pissed...

I can't believe the disrespect that mccain and romney dislayed. Tell me ONE thing RP said that warranted their chilidish face-making! RP is the only one who says anything of any substance. If anyone should be making faces it should be RP when romney and mccaiin are talking!!! But no, of course he wouldn't do that because he has honor and integrity.

I wonder if their people tell them to make those faces because the general public is retarded and won't realize that they're pompous ass idiots! I mean, when it comes to the economy, what business does mccain have making faces?? He doesn't even know his ass from a hole in the ground as far as the economy is concerned!! Or really anything, for that matter... he only knows how to speak in soundbytes that his people probably hand him a script for.. and 70% of the time he barely even sputters those out!! We're talking about a guy who's running for President that thinks Putin is the President of Germany!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!