Ron Paul and Jessie Ventura?

[vdzele]

Ron Paul is an idealogical purist. At first glance, he has some awesome sounding ideas. Legalize pot? Great! Then you find out he wants to legalize EVERYTHING else too. Not so great.

This is why he wants to legalize them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CyuBuT_7I4

Because those who run the Fed also run the narcotics. Illegal drugs are profits for them and more important - controls the population by enslaving them with addiction. Its a tax.

It also destroys families so population does not grow. This is very very important agenda.

Legal narcotics would be 100 times cheaper and their power over people will diminish.

[Turnip]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM


I've always liked this one on the fed.

[jmervyn]

So speaking of Israel and Hypocritical.
[B]Helen Thomas Was Crucified for Saying of Israelis What Newt Says About the Palestinians

Yep, weren't we just talking about someone holding multiple contradictory opinions?

If any of you like Ann Coulter, here's another column of hers on the Newtster...

Soon, Gingrich was writing a foreword to a Toffler book -- the same one on the Republicans' reading list –- and spending Christmas with the pro-choice, anti-school prayer, Christian Coalition-hating Tofflers. Yes, there's nothing like having an old-fashioned Christmas with a doddering couple who hate prayer and Christians, love abortion and are afraid of their microwave.

It takes radical views to instigate some sort of change. Without those extreme views, we get ridiculous things like 1000+ page healthcare laws that get half-assed passed. What good is that?

This claim is worth a double-take. Don't you mean, "With those extreme views"?

[chriscowart]

This claim is worth a double-take. Don't you mean, "With those extreme views"?

Hmm, not entirely, but I guess I didn't fully substantiate my claim. Example: Obama didn't write the healthcare legislation, but he has the power to veto it. If he doesn't veto such a turd bills like that, then I would say his view is passive, not extreme.

Besides, I was talking about a presidential candidate, not congress. They'll always filibuster the sh** out of important legislation and draft up garbage to protect special interest. That's another problem complicating serious change altogether.

[SaroDarksbane]

Walter Block responding to Jewish opposition of Ron Paul

If any of you like Ann Coulter

From jmervyn's new book "How to Gag a Person in One Easy Step".

[Turnip]

For those that say paul wants to end all these social programs need to understand that those will be left to the state, if you vote and your state does not want them then you can keep your taxes and either spend them on a different service or save the money. In other words those programs are still available if you want them, they are just done a lot more efficiently and are controlled by the people. You know there are states that already have universal healthcare? They can be used as a benchmark and different states can do different things based on their beliefs on policy.

Even with all these programs cut you are still driving into debt, though it is a start. Definitely not something any other candidate seems to want to even begin doing, as if you guys can just ride it out forever.
Hes really just being honest by telling you his policies despite the anger it brings up in people, and he is the only one doing the logical thing by cutting spending.

[BobCox2]

BTW Turnip

Do it like this (quote me)


and

[Turnip]

Haha will do, thanks.

[jmervyn]

Example: Obama didn't write the healthcare legislation, but he has the power to veto it. If he doesn't veto such a turd bills like that, then I would say his view is passive, not extreme.

I disagree. Obama might not have put pen to paper himself, but he was definitely Obamacare's instigator. Baucus was the supposed author, and he didn't even read it!

From jmervyn's new book "How to Gag a Person in One Easy Step".

Aw, Ann's fun if you don't take her too seriously. Besides, you just cited Lew Rockwell!

and

Got to say, repulsive as that one is, it's perfect.

[BobCox2]

How come I get most upset over the kind things that only seem to upset Ron Paul out of all the candidates?
Ron Paul furious over indefinite detention act


With the approval from the Oval Office the only thing keeping a terrifying law that will allow for the indefinite detention and torture of Americans from passing, presidential hopeful Ron Paul has finally unleashed on the legislation.
Although President Barack Obama had originally insisted that he would veto the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin revealed recently that the bill in its current wording was drafted after the current administration asked for changes.
Already making its way through the House and Senate, the Act in its current wording will allow for Americans suspected of any “belligerent” act to be detained in Guantanamo Bay-style military prisons indefinitely for any alleged crimes without trial. With it now being revealed that the president put forth suggestions to draft the latest version of the legislation, Levin told the press Monday night, "I just can't imagine that the president would veto this bill.”
"I very strongly believe this should satisfy the administration and hope it will,” added Levin.
Outside of the independent media, opposition to NDAA has remained almost nonexistent, with the mainstream neglecting to discuss the colossal implications the bill would have if it is signed into law. Speaking to radio host Alex Jones on Tuesday, however, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul finally became one of the first main figures to attack the act.
“This is a giant step – this should be the biggest news going right now – literally legalizing martial law,” said Paul. The congressman from Texas also appeared flabbergasted that the bill managed to escape discussion in any of the recent GOP debates, despite its provisions being detrimental to the US Constitution and the freedom of every man, woman and child in America.
“This is big,” continued Paul, adding “This step where they can literally arrest American citizens and put them away without trial….is arrogant and bold and dangerous.”
The bill could be on the desk of Barack Obama as early as Wednesday of this week.
Congressman Paul has been continuously critical of the Obama administration as of late, and although his fellow candidates for the GOP nomination have been equally as opt to attack the president, Paul has largely been the only one to tackle the sacrifice of civil liberties that Obama and the Republican Party frontrunners seem unconcerned with.
“Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security,” Paul said during a presidential debate earlier this election season. “I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.”
Paul has also condemned the Patriot Act for crushing the freedoms of Americans, while top-tier candidate and former-House Speaker Newt Gingrich has insisted on finding a “balancing act between our individual liberties and security.”

http://rt.com/usa/news/defense-ron-p...ion-745/print/