1988 Video of Ron Paul debunking the war on drugs

There's a lot (and I mean A LOT) of yelling on this show that Ron Paul appeared on, but it's well worth watching all the way through (if you can stomach the pro-Big Brother goons he's arguing against):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k&NR=1 (Part I)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGGDVm4mmTo&NR=1 (Part II)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waesMWjaqnU (Part III)

Ron Paul is the only legitimate presidential candidate left now that Kucinich is out. He does not want to take away more of our personal liberties (he will actually restore them), he will send U.S. troops home from the 100+ countries that they're currently stationed in around the globe, and he will cut the oppressive departments and policies that have ruined this country both financially and socially.

He is the only candidate who has not accepted money from lobbyists, he has never voted to raise taxes, has never voted for an unbalenced budget, has opposed the illegal war in Iraq even before its inception, and has based his entire political career on both the Constitution and the understanding that individuals are much more capable of making personal decisions than a Central Government.

His website is http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ - I highly recommend visiting it and considering voting for him next Tuesday if deadlines haven't yet come and gone. The media has essentially boycotted him because he opposes the elite, top tier of individuals that runs it: they profit from illegal wars, destructive business cycles (e.g. the mortgage meltdown), and the absence of the middle class; Ron Paul's policies are the only that do not promote those three monsters that have been raping the U.S.

 

Ron Paul has apparently mellowed out quite a bit over the past 20 years, but this is still funny. In this short clip he answers the divisive question of "Why can't the Government just ban drugs and make everything better?" and manages to humiliate a total douche bag:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

 

..and one final point: the talkshow host in the videos above died of lung cancer from chain smoking in 2001. In fact, he smokes several cigarettes throughout the show (surprised that was still allowed in the 80's...). Just something to think about with regards to the Government's ability to accurately assess the danger of any given drug.

 

Have you done your research on global warming? Do you really think that its man made....considering volcanoes are the main producer of co2...

Plus who cares if somebody is voting for a candidate who wont win...does that mean he should vote for hiliary now? I mean come on what happened to voting for who you want because you want to. Also if the govt steps down off of corporations then it can open the market and create economic growth...well at least thats what im learning in my economics and business classes in college.

 

haha, are you crazy? we all know that waterfalls are the leading contributer to global warming.

 

yeah, although I hate to say it, watch an Inconvenient Truth. Try to ignore Al Gore's shameless self promotion and listen to the facts. They're pretty revealing.

But the other candidates are all shit, and I'd rather be fried off the face of the Earth in 20 years, than live in a police state.

 

Ron Paul is still running? Kid at school told me different, although he lies hella lot.

 

already seen it.

by the way skip, I was just making a comment about something we breifly went over....Im glad you think getting and mba is bascially a waste of time.

 

really, and you still don't believe humanity is causing Global Warming?

 

No, because there is absolutely no proof that humans are causing it. That's the biggest piece of junk science ever sold, and people are buying it. The people promoting this have a globalist agenda, and it has nothing to do with saving the environment. As a matter of fact, the majority of goons promoting this nonsense live lifestyles that would produce many times over the so-called "carbon footprint" of the average person. You people talk about watching Gore's "Inconvenient Truth", but this is coming from a man who has a 20-room mansion in Tennessee, which had 221,000 kilowatt-hours of energy usage in 2006. Guess what the national average is? 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

Do you really think a global carbon tax is going to solve the problem of global warming, when China is the biggest polluters and are subject to no such laws and regulations? It's a complete and utter joke, the bullshit people believe.

 

I don't know about, or support any Carbon Tax. I think Al Gore is a self-promoting dirtbag, (and apparent hypocrite). And I don't believe that society can or will do anything to stop really help the environment. The environment is fucked in an materialistic individualist society (Tragedy of the Commons) and no taxes or regulations can do anything about it.

I do believe in Global Warming, but it doesn't matter to me. I really don't fear death, and would be perfectly satisfied to die during the collapse of society. I don't want to get in a Global Warming argument, because it is just an analysis of lots of data, so either you believe it or not.

 

Well, it's not that I don't believe in global warming. It's just that I don't believe that emissions (greenhouse gases) from human activity are causing it. The earth and the sun both go through cycles, and as the temperature gets warmer on earth, we see the same thing happening on Mars and some of the other planets, too. This has been going on all throughout earth's long history, and cooling periods always follow the warming periods. Back in the mid-70s the hype was over global cooling. Now it's the exact opposite.

 

Also, notice in those videos Paul mentions over all the yelling about the CIA and Daddy Bush shipping in the drugs. That's something you're not going to hear from any of the other candidates. If only he would bring this up now.

 

The polar ice caps of Mars are also melting, and the rate has a startling correlation to that of Earth's when the distance from the Sun is taken into account. Al Gore is not a Scientist and, as stated earlier, he is a notorious hypocrite/borderline fascist, strictly in the sense of the tenets of that ideology/political schemata.


I've studied under leading authorities on this subject and I honestly don't even feel very qualified to be reiterating whatever progress toward unbiased insight that they have made. Nevertheless, as a resident of Earth it seems to me that the blind emphasis (with coercive results) placed on the gradual warming of this planet is a joke because a) it has not yet been proven, and b) even if it were true, this would be addressing a mere symptom of a problem; the notion that we can simply quantify the apparent source of it and then redistribute it is absurd. If you had cancer or a similar malady, would anyone here opt to spread the pain (the symptom) throughout the body and then hope that more cell divisions do not occur? It makes no sense.


The argument that Ron Paul makes is that the most viable solution is to allow the states and their communities to deal with unacceptable levels of pollution through property rights laws (which are conveniently ignored these days) as one size fits all attempts at solutions simply do not work in large countries (witness the No Child Left Behind Act, the Department of Energy, Universal Health Care, the War on Drugs, Communism, ect.).


Moreover, the current system makes it almost impossible to hold government-subsidized sectors of the market -all of which pollute to cut costs - accountable for their actions. In fact, we're currently paying tax dollars for forests to be logged, top soil to be depleted, cars to remain inefficient, and the blow back of things like mercury poisoning. Why? Because quite a few Government-elected officials are paid off by the perpetrators - which is still legal for some reason - to look the other way; it thus follows that a government-dictated solution is inherently flawed, which explains why they still have not done made much progress at all in solving the problem. Why do you think California has been repeatedly denied its Constitutional rights to set its own standards of emissions?


The notion that it isn't worth it vote for someone like Ron Paul is absolutely pathetic. Polls are inherently dubious (http://youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4) and the handful of media power-houses in the U.S. also happen to be appendages of the most powerful corporations in the world (there's a reason why GE is heavily invested in media). You'd be foolish to assume that these entities are not deeply dependent on the government to satisfy their needs (ever hear of lobbyism?) regardless of how detrimental they are to the populace as a whole. And yet we take what they have to say about who seems to think what, which candidate gets asked which question, and which topics get covered on the news very seriously. Simply put, the major media outlets would lose a lot of money if someone like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich was elected into office, and so they essentially ignore them for the sake of profits.

Not true. Have you ever tried to start your own business that wasn't utterly dependent on a larger business tied with the Central Government? A family friend tried to, but the U.S. government wouldn't let him: after a year and a half of fumbling around with paperwork (none of which was even legal) he finally moved his operation to China and had his operation up in running in a matter of weeks; this happens all the time in the U.S.


There's a reason that businesses prefer to operate elsewhere and then simply ship their products over here, and it has more to do with the Federal Reserve (which is also illegal) than anything else. Why would anyone want to produce a product in a country whose currency is technically worth ~3 cents when we demand that they pay the workers inflation (and then some) in addition to health care/pension benefits (which are also now very expensive because the government stepped in illegally)?


People need to stop assuming that the best policy is to have a Central Government figure out everything for you. Their interest is not in the people; if it were, the Middle Class of the U.S. wouldn't be vanishing, and the current mainstream candidates wouldn't have to resort to throwing out bits and scraps of prosperity that rightfully belongs to us, but has been taken away (along with our freedoms) in an attempt to solidify a top-down government that presents itself as friendly and compassionate: it's like stealing someone's bike without telling them, painting it a different color, and then charging them to borrow that bike so that they can get to work and earn a living.


As for hype behind this man simply being that he only caters to some "fringe" groups, it's the reasoning behind legalization - as opposed to mere act of doing so for appeasement - that makes this man so appealing as a candidate. A central power telling us how to take care of ourselves is not freedom and does not work; we need not look any further than what the "War on Drugs" has done to arrive at ample evidence of this point.


Romney, McCane, Clinton, Obama, and Huckabee will take even more of our rights away, and the reason is simple: they run on the notion that they know what's best for everyone, and so they're going to enforce it; they deny the existence of a system that limits powers, and so they run around the globe doing whatever they want - all the while blinding us with impossible tax cuts and class-solidifying programs - which is all at the expense of those who work hard to make ends meet. The first (and probably only) attempt a Universal Healthcare in the U.S. will emphasize this point in a flash.

 

I don't understand how anyone can disagree with this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R135XyH1qoI

 

well said infinitesky. I am interested in all of those that are so against him who exactly they are for. lol because it seems like they never want to say otherwise they'll get all argued against. Im voting ron paul.