Ron Pauls view on Drugs

[JahRed24]

You guys gotta check out this site and read Ron Paul views on Drugs and shit! Good read:

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

[Twizz]

I thought he was pretty far back in the standings?

[polecat]

god, does that make a difference? Pick a candidate you would like in office, not one the media tells you will win.

[MiNdTrIp]

man, how I wish I was 18......

[Twizz]

god, does that make a difference? Pick a candidate you would like in office, not one the media tells you will win.Well what I'm saying is, it doesn't really make a difference what he's planning to do, he's too far back in the standings to get elected and have all of our dreams come true anyways.

[MiNdTrIp]

Well what I'm saying is, it doesn't really make a difference what he's planning to do, he's too far back in the standings to get elected and have all of our dreams come true anyways.yeah, but i believe theres two other canidates who want to decrimanalize and legalize marijuana. But it really seems like obama, huckaby, or cliton will win..... :(

[burnabowl]

I'm an independent, but I live in a state with an open primary, so I'm voting for ron paul. there are some others who are fabulous people and would be good presidents. But Paul specifies exactly which areas of the gov't are outdated and instead of tweaking them he suggests eliminating them and starting from scratch, similar to Obama, who is a close second choice

[archduke]

Ron Paul has the best drug policy of any candidate, but his other plans for our country are completely inviable.

Vote for Ron Paul if you want our poor people to starve, our health-care system to go to shit, terrorists to invade our country, etc...


Some of his policies are cool but abolishing the income tax is just going too far.

[zenloki]

Vote for Ron Paul if you want our poor people to starve, our health-care system to go to shit, terrorists to invade our country, etc...
Some of his policies are cool but abolishing the income tax is just going too far.where do you get this nonsense? getting rid of the income tax would only take us back to the same spending level as 1996. do you have any idea where your tax money goes? i'm sure you don't or you wouldn't be writing these ridiculous things. your tax money goes directly to the federal reserve, a private corporation run by the international banks, to pay off the interest on the national debt. do you really want a federal governement that takes care of its people from the cradle to the grave? that puts way too much power in their hands and leaves little self-determination.

[elover]

I thought he was pretty far back in the standings?Sadly, he is. I think way far back actually.

[polecat]

what site are you going to? He's is second at the moment in Nevada.

[sheerwackiness]

Why on earth would you vote for a Republican just because you think he'll let you get high? I'm afraid that either brain cells are in short supply on these boards or some folks have highly questionable priorities.

The libertarian style platform has for years captivated and confused voters who don't seem to realize that all of America isn't like Montana where you can freely roam around with guns and do whatever you want with your land, be it irresponsible land management, cooking up some meth, or creating your own militia.

Libertarians (or Libertarian Republicans) pander to the pothead crowd by describing some sort of utopian America that hasn't existed for many years and will never exist in the future.

[veroness]

even if your canidates of choice doesnt seem like they will win, you still should vote cause it expresses your own opinion of who you want to led our country. who knows even if the prez you what is behind, the more people vote for them, the higher change they will win. come on, support who want in office.

[acga5]

mccain :)

[burnabowl]

Why on earth would you vote for a Republican just because you think he'll let you get high? I'm afraid that either brain cells are in short supply on these boards or some folks have highly questionable priorities.

The libertarian style platform has for years captivated and confused voters who don't seem to realize that all of America isn't like Montana where you can freely roam around with guns and do whatever you want with your land, be it irresponsible land management, cooking up some meth, or creating your own militia.

Libertarians (or Libertarian Republicans) pander to the pothead crowd by describing some sort of utopian America that hasn't existed for many years and will never exist in the future.
To vote for a candidate solely upon the assumption that he'll let you get high is indeed absurd, but not because it's not a good idea, but because legislation about weed, etc. is meaningless to the average stoner anyway. I've smoked weed for twelve out of my twenty five years on the planet and have never been perturbed by the law. The activist effort about mj is not that we can finally get high legally, it's that we want others to realize how beneficial it would be to all society if it were commercially exploited, for non-psychedelic reasons.

I can understand skepticism about the feasibility of Paul's ideas, but the idealistic vision of America is precluded only because of closed-mindedness and allegiance to the status quo, and the natural human tendency to be more comfortable with what is familiar. The hippies of the 60's started a fundamentalist notion about a utopia, and it was only abated because they deceived themselves into the thought that their philosophy only led to excess. What led to the resignation was the coincidental yet exceptional deaths of morrison, joplin, etc. and the whole manson thing. The hippies let the magnitude of rare and excessive situations dictate the parameters of their movement. So they gave up the public effort and kept the drugs, but the philosophy was maintained by a few, and I believe is making a comeback presently.:)

[sheerwackiness]

To vote for a candidate solely upon the assumption that he'll let you get high is indeed absurd, but not because it's not a good idea, but because legislation about weed, etc. is meaningless to the average stoner anyway. I've smoked weed for twelve out of my twenty five years on the planet and have never been perturbed by the law. The activist effort about mj is not that we can finally get high legally, it's that we want others to realize how beneficial it would be to all society if it were commercially exploited, for non-psychedelic reasons.

I can understand skepticism about the feasibility of Paul's ideas, but the idealistic vision of America is precluded only because of closed-mindedness and allegiance to the status quo, and the natural human tendency to be more comfortable with what is familiar. The hippies of the 60's started a fundamentalist notion about a utopia, and it was only abated because they deceived themselves into the thought that their philosophy only led to excess. What led to the resignation was the coincidental yet exceptional deaths of morrison, joplin, etc. and the whole manson thing. The hippies let the magnitude of rare and excessive situations dictate the parameters of their movement. So they gave up the public effort and kept the drugs, but the philosophy was maintained by a few, and I believe is making a comeback presently.http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gifWhat America needs is a new band, like the Grateful Dead.

Your optimism is refreshing and I encourage you to keep it up. I'm still frustrated by the failure of the anti-war movement to stop the march to war in Iraq and perhaps a bit cynnical. While I agree that the spirit of the hippie movement is still alive in America, I think in many ways it has splintered into so many sub groups and counter cultures that they really no longer bear any resemblance to each other, either superficially or ideologically, and the sum of these groups certainly are not a cohesive, cooperative, activist minded force that can blow the political winds one way or another.

To illustrate my point, I've aways considered the rave culture to be my generation's new hippie movement (Jerry Garcia died when I was 16, forcing thousands of heads to either get real jobs, start touring with Phish, or buy turntables.) Raves had it all, peace, love, hugs, drugs, and music. What happened though was that rather than having this fresh demographic primed for political change percolate to the mainstream, a parallel culture emerged that really didn't crave acceptance from the mainstream. If most people wanted to have their 9-5 job and didn't really care about Peace, Love, Unity, or Respect, ravers didn't care because they had their own little world in dirty warehouses and remote farmlands. Hell, you could even have a 9-5 at financial institution and go raving on the weekend.

As the rave movement evolved, its participants found that they had less and less in common with each other. Jungle heads, with their coke and ketamine, had their own rooms and made jokes about trance heads with their pills, acid, glowsticks and candy bracelets, and the movement continued to mutate and expand into self sustaining sub-movements that were generally apolotical and had no real sense of heirarchy or reason to be politically active.

That's my vision of the future of the hippie movement in America, parallel subcultures that don't cooperate to make political change. I don't suppose that's necessarily a bad thing. Maybe if there was a new band that could draw crowds like the Grateful Dead did, we'd see some change, but we'd likely have to have a draft instated for an unpopular war like the hippies had to have any real movement emerge.

Oh, and to get back on topic, Ron Paul is a Republican and therefore bad guy. I'm all about the polarization.

[Jimmy420]

obama all the way

[burnabowl]

yeah the rave scene was a virtual sibling to disco. it existed when disco did, and lived while disco died. But the attitude of disco-goers and ravers was similar; the values of the sixties faded, but the desire and ability to do drugs and bask in fraternal comfort prevailed, and continued to till the present. But since the 70's the idea of rec. drug use was intertwined with radical stigma. It's easier to explain erratic behavior when you can simplify and boil it down to an ingested psychoactive substance. But just like any other social group, there are bad apples. The bad apples in counter culture are the ones seen by mainstream society, so it's easier to maintain that drugs are just plain bad, but the common folk don't hear about all the good things about drugs, since the good in drugs is brought out by responsible users, and responsible users are also good at keeping private.

So basically you had the boomer hippies naturally going on the DL with their drugs, and the ones who messed up continued to be seen by all, making headlines even. The discreet drug users, according to their new nature, didn't explicitly unite, and still don't. So I guess if we as responsible drug users went against our common sense and were very public with our vices, ppl would start to see drugs as they are, neither good nor bad; they are tools that can be used and abused.

Also, the emergence of the internet and its inevitable growth, might engender the right medium through which counter-culturites can more cohesively connect, especially with sites such as this one.

[Willy_Wonka_27]

Vote for Ron Paul if you want our poor people to starve, our health-care system to go to shit, terrorists to invade our country, etc...


will do!

[zenloki]

will do!you just had to get smart.

[Willy_Wonka_27]

you just had to get smart.yep

[polecat]

Vote for Ron Paul if you want our poor people to starve, our health-care system to go to shit, terrorists to invade our country, etc....Do people still seriously think that we're going to get "invaded" by terrorists? Like they have an invasion force lurking off the coast, waiting for a more isolationist foreign policy, and when it comes it will be like D-Day with landing craft and all.

PS) Ron Paul sorta wants to take away the terrorist's reasons to attack us. Like giving shitloads of money/weapons to Isreal.

[polymer]

lmao @ the idea of terrorists invading our country. That's some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard (i've heard it before), and I've heard a lot of dumb shit by supposed "patriotic americans", like how the troops fighting over there to protect our freedom, equally silly shit.

I think the US would get enslaved by martians first.

[JahRed24]

yeah Ron Paul all the way

[G0dm4ch1n3]

What does it matter anyway? The good God fearing Christians of America run the country, didn't you know? They always get their way.

[zenloki]

lmao @ the idea of terrorists invading our country. That's some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard (i've heard it before), and I've heard a lot of dumb shit by supposed "patriotic americans", like how the troops fighting over there to protect our freedom, equally silly shit.

I think the US would get enslaved by martians first.imagine terrorists attacking the most heavily armed populous on the planet.
a lot of people have been brainwashed to think that we need protection from terrorists but what's going on is a nation that has decided it wants economic dominion over every other nation, due mainly to corporate interests. the Federal government now works for the corporations and in a many ways, including taxes and inflation, we're working for them too. what is needed is for the gov't fullfill it's original mandate of protecting the people not pandering to corporate interests.

VOTE RON PAUL!!!

[sheerwackiness]

imagine terrorists attacking the most heavily armed populous on the planet.
a lot of people have been brainwashed to think that we need protection from terrorists but what's going on is a nation that has decided it wants economic dominion over every other nation, due mainly to corporate interests. the Federal government now works for the corporations and in a many ways, including taxes and inflation, we're working for them too. what is needed is for the gov't fullfill it's original mandate of protecting the people not pandering to corporate interests.

VOTE RON PAUL!!!
Actually, if you read about where Ron Paul stands on a lot of other issues (besides the drugs) in the OP's link, he seems to pander to the Energy and Firearms industries quite a bit. He's all for expanding drilling in wildlife refuges and laughs at the Kyoto protocol.

The NRA seems to fully endorse him. Also, he would like to 'defund' Planned Parenthood. How the hell is that protecting Americans? Ron Paul is an extreme right wing prick with no real understanding of how devastating his policies would be in urban areas in America. The fact that he has enchanted so many people on these boards is sad.

He talks about how we should stop giving money to Israel (sounds great!) but then goes on to say that we should stop giving money to the Palestinians too and that Israel should not be required to give up any land for peace. Republican scum.

If anyone really supports his platform, go ahead, waste your vote. Then, when he loses, move the fuck away from the sensible Americans and go start a fucking militia up in the hills somewhere and drill for oil and cyanide leach-mine to your heart's content, destroying the land and not paying taxes. Eventually the feds will show up and set you straight though. I look forward to reading about your demise in the papers. Republican trash.

[polymer]

imagine terrorists attacking the most heavily armed populous on the planet.
a lot of people have been brainwashed to think that we need protection from terrorists but what's going on is a nation that has decided it wants economic dominion over every other nation, due mainly to corporate interests. the Federal government now works for the corporations and in a many ways, including taxes and inflation, we're working for them too. what is needed is for the gov't fullfill it's original mandate of protecting the people not pandering to corporate interests.

VOTE RON PAUL!!!that is precisely what it is... US isn't a democracy, it's a Corporate Republic, in the truest sense of the term. Peoples' voices don't account for much in the grand scheme, it's all an illusion. Heads of corporate boards need to stand trial fro global treason, but we know it won't happen. Banks run the show, fueled by corporate funding...ever since businesses (initially,the railroad industry ) gained the right to individual legal representation.

terrorists? lol they're "freedom fighters". hell, in the US, if you try to fight for your rights the way real patriots did, you're a terrorist. it's become a catch-all term for anyone who opposes the status-quo.

[polymer]

Actually, if you read about where Ron Paul stands on a lot of other issues (besides the drugs) in the OP's link, he seems to pander to the Energy and Firearms industries quite a bit. He's all for expanding drilling in wildlife refuges and laughs at the Kyoto protocol.

The NRA seems to fully endorse him. Also, he would like to 'defund' Planned Parenthood. How the hell is that protecting Americans? Ron Paul is an extreme right wing prick with no real understanding of how devastating his policies would be in urban areas in America. The fact that he has enchanted so many people on these boards is sad.

He talks about how we should stop giving money to Israel (sounds great!) but then goes on to say that we should stop giving money to the Palestinians too and that Israel should not be required to give up any land for peace. Republican scum.

If anyone really supports his platform, go ahead, waste your vote. Then, when he loses, move the fuck away from the sensible Americans and go start a fucking militia up in the hills somewhere and drill for oil and cyanide leach-mine to your heart's content, destroying the land and not paying taxes. Eventually the feds will show up and set you straight though. I look forward to reading about your demise in the papers. Republican trash.well, that's the problem with the bipartisan system. you may have candidates with some good ideas...but the lobbyist groups who funded their campaigns will inevitably be waiting with their hands out once their candidate is in office. candidates may make promises to the people, but ultimately, they have to answer to the businesses that got them the position of power.
it's the sad truth that few want to accept. Ideally, Independents would change the way the governmental process works, but like I said, this is a corporate republic. real democracy was a pipe dream that died with the dawn of the american industrial revolution.

[Joey_Darkshire]

Income tax is unconstitutional as well as the IRS. And with poor people starving, I feel there shouldn't be handouts, you work for yourself and try to survive, as with the natural laws of life. Ron Paul is a Republican libertarian which equals a man believing in freedom and independence.. But, He is a politician and they are always crooked, but maybe with his standing he could be.. less crooked?

[burnabowl]

well, that's the problem with the bipartisan system. you may have candidates with some good ideas...but the lobbyist groups who funded their campaigns will inevitably be waiting with their hands out once their candidate is in office. candidates may make promises to the people, but ultimately, they have to answer to the businesses that got them the position of power.
it's the sad truth that few want to accept. Ideally, Independents would change the way the governmental process works, but like I said, this is a corporate republic. real democracy was a pipe dream that died with the dawn of the american industrial revolution.Guys like Paul and Obama say they don't accept lobbyist contributions, which seems to be validated by receipts. I hope they're telling the truth, cause Bush Jr. accepted huge sums of money that were broken up into small donations from guys like Ken Lay of Enron. So at least in theory, Paul or Obama wouldn't have to answer to prominent financial benefactors, just the american people, to whom campaign promises were made. what I just typed was basically a non-statementhttp://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/newsmilies/patriot.gif

[polymer]

I somehow find that very hard to believe. even my old fav, Ralph Nader, accepted business contributions. You can't really win the presidency on the peoples' votes alone, those days are long gone.

I like some of Paul's ideas. I like some of Obama's ideas. It looks like Paul won't get the presidency, and if obama does, let's see how many of his promises he keeps...because it will be painfully obvious if he starts fulfilling agendas that aren't in the peoples' best interest.

[sheerwackiness]

well, that's the problem with the bipartisan system. you may have candidates with some good ideas...but the lobbyist groups who funded their campaigns will inevitably be waiting with their hands out once their candidate is in office. candidates may make promises to the people, but ultimately, they have to answer to the businesses that got them the position of power.
it's the sad truth that few want to accept. Ideally, Independents would change the way the governmental process works, but like I said, this is a corporate republic. real democracy was a pipe dream that died with the dawn of the american industrial revolution.Precisely. That's exactly why if the government stops regulating land use and punishing corporations that pollute, these corporations will destroy what's left of our environment.

There are countless examples of the environmental devastation that American mining companies have caused overseas when they've been unrestrained by 'oppressive' environmental policies like those that exist in America. These corporations rape the land, steal the resources without allowing the local populations to benefit, and then bring the money back to America and leave the mess for the locals to clean up.

What motivation will mining companies have to take care of the environment in America if they're not forced to do so by the US government? Under a Ron Paul administration, you'd likely find the answer out pretty quickly, and I bet even the most hard core right wing socially apathetic* extremists on here (namely the folks supporting Ron Paul for president) will not like the results.

*by socially apathetic, I mean that as a citizen, you should feel morally obligated to do what you can to help out those who are less fortunate than you. Many government programs adress this moral obligation. These same programs would suffer under a Libertarian Republican president.

[zenloki]

double post deleted

[zenloki]

Being libertarian does not mean that you're socially apathetic, far from it. What it means is that the government won't be taking care of the people the way it does now. A hundred years ago we didn't have all these programs and people weren't any worse of than they are today. A libertarian can just as easily donate money to whatever charitable organization as anyone else.
The air, water and land are resouces that all of us hold in trust for future generations and Ron Paul has said that these resources can not be squandered by corporations as is happening today. A lot of people think that if Ron Paul is elected that corporations will take over and you couldn't be more wrong. He's for individual rights and not corporate rights. It's not going to happen overnight that's for sure and it's going to require a concerted effort from the citizens. I see that as the weak point as there don't seem to be enough people willing to fight. Way too many just want to say that it can't happen. If this was the prevalent attitude of the people on this continent 233 years ago we'd still be under British rule.

[sheerwackiness]

Being libertarian does not mean that you're socially apathetic, far from it. What it means is that the government won't be taking care of the people the way it does now. A hundred years ago we didn't have all these programs and people weren't any worse of than they are today. A libertarian can just as easily donate money to whatever charitable organization as anyone else.
The air, water and land are resouces that all of us hold in trust for future generations and Ron Paul has said that these resources can not be squandered by corporations as is happening today. A lot of people think that if Ron Paul is elected that corporations will take over and you couldn't be more wrong. He's for individual rights and not corporate rights. It's not going to happen overnight that's for sure and it's going to require a concerted effort from the citizens. I see that as the weak point as there don't seem to be enough people willing to fight. Way too many just want to say that it can't happen. If this was the prevalent attitude of the people on this continent 233 years ago we'd still be under British rule.I absolutely agree with you that apathy is a huge problem facing America today and is what is preventing the type of reform that will benefit us and future generations (I think that was your point towards the end of your post). That's what makes me wonder, if the government does not take care of the needy people, who will? Can you really count on a handful of people who say that 'the government shouldn't be taking care of people like they do now,' to actually donate to charities to help these people out?

America can afford socialized health care, but the rich are too greedy to take care of their needy compatriots.

Ron Paul supports expanded drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge and more off shore drilling. He's not considering the environment or future generations. We are not living 100 years ago, and nostalgia for that period in American history is really pointless. America has evolved and the only people who stand to benefit from Libertarian policies are corporations, militiamen, and rich land owners.

Do you really not care about the urban poor? What the hell are they supposed to do? Black Americans in inner cities are still dealing with the crises that stemmed from slavery and segregation. These people are Americans and they are entitled to a government that will help solve the problems of crime, addiction, and substandard, unaffordable, or nonexistant health care in their neighborhoods.

Individual states already have a lot of autonomy to legislate what suits their specific needs. I just don't get why so many people are leaning so far to the Right these days. I think Bush and the Neocons really managed to pull the mainstream from the center to the right, and we're seeing this now in this emerging demographic of fired up Ron Paul supporters who think that there's something in it for them. Trust me, there's nothing in it for you.

[polymer]

it's nice to be idealistic, but it's more practical to be realistic...like I said, I like some of Ron Paul's ideas, but a "libertarian Republican" raises red flags in the back of my mind. it's sort of an oxymoron. The Republican party is the Grand Ol' Party, championed by businesses and rich people investing in businesses. It's The State's party. I wouldn't assume that Ron Paul isn't going to fulfill corporate agendas (hell, corporations have heavy influence on both parties)

I'm for revolution, and I agree, it's not going to come right away...but I also honestly don't think it's going to come from either party. If I had to pick between the lesser of two evils, I'd pick the candidate from "the people's party", even though it's more of a corporate party nowadays. I'm really an Independent, and I'd vote Green, if they had a shot.

[polecat]

yeah, Republicans and Democrats are really the same party with minor differences. I mean look how far our "Democratic" congress has gotten us with personal liberties and the War in Iraq.

[polymer]

you know what, now that I think about it, Ron Paul is probably more practical than Obama; but because he's in the Republican party, he has to answer to some swarthy characters.
in retrospect, Bush made a lot of bad decisions he probably didn't want to make, but he wasn't alone in those decisions. (the guy has a ranch home with a recycling irrigation system and solar panels, for crying out loud) but, it's his own fault for getting neck-deep in the oil business. If Bush would've kept to his original promises, making them his top priorities, he probably would've been whacked.

likewise..if Ron Paul tried to initiate revolution against the corporate best interests, I think he would more-than-likely be assassinated.

ssoo...hmm..."do I want the puppet on the left, or do I want the puppet on the right?"

[sheerwackiness]

you know what, now that I think about it, Ron Paul is probably more practical than Obama; but because he's in the Republican party, he has to answer to some swarthy characters.
in retrospect, Bush made a lot of bad decisions he probably didn't want to make, but he wasn't alone in those decisions. (the guy has a ranch home with a recycling irrigation system and solar panels, for crying out loud) but, it's his own fault for getting neck-deep in the oil business. If Bush would've kept to his original promises, making them his top priorities, he probably would've been whacked.

likewise..if Ron Paul tried to initiate revolution against the corporate best interests, I think he would more-than-likely be assassinated.

ssoo...hmm..."do I want the puppet on the left, or do I want the puppet on the right?"You are all making really good points. While I'd support the Democratic candidates as the slightly lesser of the two evils, I still don't think it would do much good. What's important is that folks like yourselves are really thinking about the issues and willing to engage in a constructive dialogue about it. Keep it up, thank you for thinking and taking the time to discuss these important issues!

Perhaps I shouldn't even bother to find a way to write in my vote from overseas because I honestly don't really like or support any of the candidates. It's looking like either Clinton or Obama will get it, mostly because they're Democrats and have no real competition except between themselves. They're both too moderate to entice my interest though. Any suggestions?

[zenloki]

sheer that wasn't nostalgia you read. if our nation can take care of itself 100 years ago, before federal income taxes and loads of entitlement programs then we can do it now. back then people relied on charities, churches and everyday folks for a little help when they needed it.
i'm not looking out just for myself in trying to get Ron Paul into office either but if we don't do something to reduce the size of our federal government and get off the gov't tit we're going to have even bigger problems down the road. if you want socialized everything, gov't is going to be involved and it's an incredibly inefficient way to do things in the first place. second it's a great way to give the gov't access to whatever they want to know about you. the more you concentrate power in the hands of a central gov't, the easier it is for your rights to be taken away and that's exactly what we have today. there's only one party anymore and it's the money party. it doesn't work for us. it works for the corporations. entitlement programs for them far outweigh what the citizens receive and it has got to stop. entitlements are not just going to suddenly disappear. it's going to take years but it can be done. as a nation i think we'd be better off getting off this. put responsibility back in the hands of the people and this doesn't mean there won't be NGO charities out there to help people out. hell there's tons of them now providing a variety of services.
Ron Paul is the only candidate speaking out against these excesses that are hurting us all. he's not a perfect candidate but i'd much rather have someone in that office that is willing to tell me what i need to know than someone willing to say whatever is needed to get elected.
polymer in the beginning the repubs were for minimal gov't and so little influence over our lives. this is a libertarian and conservative agenda but they sure don't follow that now as we all know.
for the record i don't want drilling in the tundra or on the continental shelves. both of those are disasters waiting to happen but that's a battle for another day.

[sheerwackiness]

sheer that wasn't nostalgia you read. if our nation can take care of itself 100 years ago, before federal income taxes and loads of entitlement programs then we can do it now. back then people relied on charities, churches and everyday folks for a little help when they needed it.
i'm not looking out just for myself in trying to get Ron Paul into office either but if we don't do something to reduce the size of our federal government and get off the gov't tit we're going to have even bigger problems down the road. if you want socialized everything, gov't is going to be involved and it's an incredibly inefficient way to do things in the first place. second it's a great way to give the gov't access to whatever they want to know about you. the more you concentrate power in the hands of a central gov't, the easier it is for your rights to be taken away and that's exactly what we have today. there's only one party anymore and it's the money party. it doesn't work for us. it works for the corporations. entitlement programs for them far outweigh what the citizens receive and it has got to stop. entitlements are not just going to suddenly disappear. it's going to take years but it can be done. as a nation i think we'd be better off getting off this. put responsibility back in the hands of the people and this doesn't mean there won't be NGO charities out there to help people out. hell there's tons of them now providing a variety of services.
Ron Paul is the only candidate speaking out against these excesses that are hurting us all. he's not a perfect candidate but i'd much rather have someone in that office that is willing to tell me what i need to know than someone willing to say whatever is needed to get elected.
polymer in the beginning the repubs were for minimal gov't and so little influence over our lives. this is a libertarian and conservative agenda but they sure don't follow that now as we all know.
for the record i don't want drilling in the tundra or on the continental shelves. both of those are disasters waiting to happen but that's a battle for another day.
'if our nation can take care of itself 100 years ago, before federal income taxes and loads of entitlement programs then we can do it now.' Can you describe how this proces would proceed, starting with those most at risk?

Once drilling is approved and land is destroyed, who is going to fund the cleanups? Corporations will not, and they'll have no legal obligation to do so. Enter the Superfund, which would be presumably defunded by a Ron Paul administration. I appreciate your responses and insight as well as others here. Thanks, SW

[polymer]

polymer in the beginning the repubs were for minimal gov't and so little influence over our lives. this is a libertarian and conservative agenda but they sure don't follow that now as we all know.
those were the democratic republicans, which are now the democrats.

drilling ANYWHERE new is inexcusable. hydrocarbon combustion engines are early 20th Century technology...we're beyond the industrial age.

the japanese have hydrogen-fuel technology now. the brazilians have been using E85 since 1975. there's no excuse for "the greatest country on earth" to be behind the times. conservativism is tippy-toe politics, maladaptive, and downright degenerative.
p.s. this plundering of the earth needs to stop very soon.

SW, I wish I had an answer for you.. both are moderate, and I don't see cataclismic change with either.as you can tell, I'm about as fed-up as you are. we need a candidate that will seriously motivate our country to be really environmentally conscious, rather than gluttonous and apathetic. I've felt this way since 1994, and have been let down by every president, especially Bush.
rather than focusing our manufacturing resources/funds on military industries as we traditionally have, we should be focusing it on clean energy, biotechnology research, and waste management.

[polecat]

Sorry, but it's too late to end the drilling in Alaska. Peak Oil will make sure of that. The oil prices will rise and eventually the price of that oil will override the desire to save the wilderness. And even with new technologies there will always be a market for gasoline. Because gasoline powered cars aren't going to make the regular cars disappear. And people are still going to want to drive the classics, just like they do now. Oil will become a high priced luxury item.

And I'm still going to vote for Ron Paul. Yeah, his environmental policies are sorta shaky, but hear me out. Ron Paul isn't technically a libertarian. He may believe in libertarian ideas, but he won't restore true laizze-faire(sp) economics, because the American voters wouldn't go for it, and his Congress wouldn't go for it. He would also have to work through Congress (which doesn't seem to be libertarian).

But electing an outsider is still a good idea. By voting for Paul, I'm really just showing my disgust at a two party system which allows the debt to go so high (9 trillion w/ interest?), and allows us to get into these stupid wars. The system has gotten bad, and I want to cast my vote for the one candidate who really is an outsider in the political arena.

edit - I am just speculating about the oil = luxury thing, but it seems like a sound theory. I should invest in oil ;)

[polymer]

you should invest in an oil lamp, that's how outdated the technology is.

vote for a republican candidate, if you enjoy being maladaptive and content with our current energy situation, or you're an investor in a major corporation (corporations are the only ones who get real tax-cuts). vote independent (there are several different independent political parties) if you actually think.
and even if you're going to stick with the bipartisan system, remember this: the lesser of two evils (democrats) are always going to be more progressive than the republicans, always have been.

progressive >>> conservative

and when off the record, I seriously doubt Ron Paul gives a crap about you, or any other commoner.

[polecat]

i know what you mean, but I have yet to see ANY progress from our Democratic Congress. I mean they granted diplomatic immunity to the fucking telecommunications company for giving out private information to the government. Come on, these days I really don't see a difference, they're all working towards the same ends.

[polymer]

i know what you mean, but I have yet to see ANY progress from our Democratic Congress. I mean they granted diplomatic immunity to the fucking telecommunications company for giving out private information to the government. Come on, these days I really don't see a difference, they're all working towards the same ends.pretty much. like I said, corporate republic.

Capitalism is no longer just an economic system in america, it's a way of life and the means of governing it. it's the only religion that matters in the US. "In god we trust".